Written by [user id=30512] on 14.04.2008 at 16:31

If everyone was completely openminded we all would think the same. Wouldn't that get boring? I agree with you completely in this.

Open mindedness doesn't mean believing the same thing, it means hearing, learning, understanding, and tolerating other people's viewpoints in a social context. I am open to all religious ideas. I do not believe any of the ones that I have come into contact with. But I do not shun them, or act as if they are wrong or do not exist. Having an open mind only means, to me, the understanding and tolerance of another's world view. There are many open minded people who believe very differently from one another. If anything, I'd say the gap between the two beliefs is farther than between two fundamentalists.

"Religion causes war"-this is not a theory.It's a fact.

Just take a look at history... :

Written by Clintagräm on 14.04.2008 at 19:09

Written by [user id=30512] on 14.04.2008 at 16:31

If everyone was completely openminded we all would think the same. Wouldn't that get boring? I agree with you completely in this.

Open mindedness doesn't mean believing the same thing, it means hearing, learning, understanding, and tolerating other people's viewpoints in a social context. I am open to all religious ideas. I do not believe any of the ones that I have come into contact with. But I do not shun them, or act as if they are wrong or do not exist. Having an open mind only means, to me, the understanding and tolerance of another's world view. There are many open minded people who believe very differently from one another. If anything, I'd say the gap between the two beliefs is farther than between two fundamentalists.

A open mind IMO is a mind that is open. So, every idea that is in it can freely come and go and change without boundaries. So, if everyone had a open mind everyone would freely exchange of ideas which would on some point make everyone thinks that same. Talking about religion, when exchanging all religion at last we would have a "be nice to everyone" religion.

Written by [user id=30512] on 16.04.2008 at 16:16

A open mind IMO is a mind that is open. So, every idea that is in it can freely come and go and change without boundaries. So, if everyone had a open mind everyone would freely exchange of ideas which would on some point make everyone thinks that same. Talking about religion, when exchanging all religion at last we would have a "be nice to everyone" religion.

Your way of reasoning doesn't make any sense. Just a group of people may have open minds, it in now way means they'll all eventually think the same. Regardless, not everyone has an open mind (...) so we're just rambling on theoretically anyways.

People that are openminded are using:
1. common sense: they believe the mass and the mass believes them
2. at least no brains, because if else they would indeed have all the opinion shared in one brain.
And no, noone really is openminded. Would you judge anyone for not being openminded? Neither are you, and neither am I. It makes no sense being proud for your openmindness.

Written by [user id=30512] on 16.04.2008 at 19:17

People that are openminded are using:
1. common sense: they believe the mass and the mass believes them
2. at least no brains, because if else they would indeed have all the opinion shared in one brain.
And no, noone really is openminded. Would you judge anyone for not being openminded? Neither are you, and neither am I. It makes no sense being proud for your openmindness.

Again, I guess we have two different definitions of what being open minded means. I see it as a virtue, and I guess you see it as something else.

1.Karl Marx got the point when he said that religion is opium for people.
2.'Religion causes war' is not a theory it is fact!
3.Sometimes religion is just a tool of mass-manipulation(look on fanatics),and as such it causes war.

Religiouns=Borders=Racism=fascism= ........

i looked at a lot of religious threads and i saw that here in MT we war against each other cause of religiouns(a lot of us)

"but i saw someone who didnt believe in religiouns they were from iran usa canada israel ............ but they didn war with each other."

so i think its so clear that what is Religiouns

PS: i wonder that how someone can worship metal music and be religious, cause 99% of metal music is against religiouns
(some of them Anti-Christ,Pagan,Pantheist,Satanist ..... and a lot of them say somthin which is not allowed at religiouns)

Written by [user id=31891] on 13.05.2008 at 15:29

Religiouns=Borders=Racism=fascism= ........

i looked at a lot of religious threads and i saw that here in MT we war against each other cause of religiouns(a lot of us)

"but i saw someone who didnt believe in religiouns they were from iran usa canada israel ............ but they didn war with each other."

so i think its so clear that what is Religiouns

PS: i wonder that how someone can worship metal music and be religious, cause 99% of metal music is against religiouns
(some of them Anti-Christ,Pagan,Pantheist,Satanist ..... and a lot of them say somthin which is not allowed at religiouns)

Noone can be religious and worship metalmusic. One can be religious and listen to metal. At least there is one percent of great christian metal. And fascism at least is antireligious, it only has some lines to evolution, which is antireligious also. It would be fait to say that antireligiousness or atheism causes war also. The worst two wars ever fought, the second world war and the cold war are both antireligious, and so will be the third world war, when it comes, and it will come.

Written by [user id=30512] on 14.05.2008 at 10:47

Written by [user id=31891] on 13.05.2008 at 15:29

Religiouns=Borders=Racism=fascism= ........

i looked at a lot of religious threads and i saw that here in MT we war against each other cause of religiouns(a lot of us)

"but i saw someone who didnt believe in religiouns they were from iran usa canada israel ............ but they didn war with each other."

so i think its so clear that what is Religiouns

PS: i wonder that how someone can worship metal music and be religious, cause 99% of metal music is against religiouns
(some of them Anti-Christ,Pagan,Pantheist,Satanist ..... and a lot of them say somthin which is not allowed at religiouns)

Noone can be religious and worship metalmusic. One can be religious and listen to metal. At least there is one percent of great christian metal. And fascism at least is antireligious, it only has some lines to evolution, which is antireligious also. It would be fait to say that antireligiousness or atheism causes war also. The worst two wars ever fought, the second world war and the cold war are both antireligious, and so will be the third world war, when it comes, and it will come.

yes u r true, about: "And fascism at least is antireligious" - but look at israel, they say they r religious yeah?
look at hizbollah,they say they r religious yeah? look at middle ages(i mean when churches rule the europe- i dont know what u call those centuries) theyve said they were religious. look at hitlers army and their symbols,one of them r about their nation but they had somthin like cross medals yeah? theyve killed jews yeah? so why u think that ww2 wasnt religious ? yes i know it wasnt only religious. look at afghanistan(Taleban) a fascist kind of islam. i can see fascism in all religiouns, i dont care about quran-bible-testament ....(i know that they didnt say to kill to war to ....) but the important thing is that religiouns couldnt bring peace, but they brought a lof wars. muslems with jews at early islam then muslems and chritians at europe then christians and jews ww2-then jews with muslem in israel !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wars of skandinavia and christians..........................

the funny thing is that for example in islam there r 2 important fields,and both of them dont respect the other!! the chaos of iraq is cause this,did u know?-and i know that orthodox's,Catholic's and protestant's have,had and will have the same problem in christianity.in one religioun they cant take each other! so how can u think that religiouns r for peace?

but in the end im agree with u that religious thoughts is anti-war-fascism in words.

Written by akatana on 14.05.2008 at 11:17

Written by [user id=30512] on 14.05.2008 at 10:47

Written by [user id=31891] on 13.05.2008 at 15:29

Religiouns=Borders=Racism=fascism= ........

i looked at a lot of religious threads and i saw that here in MT we war against each other cause of religiouns(a lot of us)

"but i saw someone who didnt believe in religiouns they were from iran usa canada israel ............ but they didn war with each other."

so i think its so clear that what is Religiouns

PS: i wonder that how someone can worship metal music and be religious, cause 99% of metal music is against religiouns
(some of them Anti-Christ,Pagan,Pantheist,Satanist ..... and a lot of them say somthin which is not allowed at religiouns)

Noone can be religious and worship metalmusic. One can be religious and listen to metal. At least there is one percent of great christian metal. And fascism at least is antireligious, it only has some lines to evolution, which is antireligious also. It would be fait to say that antireligiousness or atheism causes war also. The worst two wars ever fought, the second world war and the cold war are both antireligious, and so will be the third world war, when it comes, and it will come.

How is fascism antireligious? How is evolution antireligious?

The inquisition killed more people than stalin. Also, hitler and the whole german nazi idea was deeply rooted in christian and pagan beliefs. And you have to remember that Stalin did not kill so many people in the name of atheism, he killed so many people because he was a power-hungry tyrant.

Fascism has always been against religion. It puts the state on the first place while religion puts the individual on the first place.
"The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism)
The state follows the way that is (in their eyes) the best for the majority of people and will make this majority stronger, while the minority has to die out.
Exactly the same it is with evolution. The rights of the majority are on the first place, so that the majority remains survives. Living in groups without conflicts is the best for the race, and trying to overrule other races is the way to survive. But religious people cause trouble, religious people cause wars also, and so it would not be in the interest of the majority that there is religion. In this, evolution is antireligious.

And about Hitler and Stalin. Stalin was ruling in the name of the scientific atheistic communist sovjet union. Maybe he was a tyrant, but in this he did not stand on his own. He was a tyrant because he had the opportunity to become so. And fascism has its roots in the darwinistic evolution theory, as Hitler used this theory in his mein kampf. The ideas of Hitler came not out of any christian belief/ideology/writing, and not even out of the pagan beliefs, though some rituals and signs where taken from that, it was based upon a ideology alike the communist ideology, that the world can be made according to our standards, and based upon a ideology of the survival of the fittest. Both are not in christianity, nor in paganism.

The Inquisition killed many people. But there are a view things that make it different as you see it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
First, most of the trials where set out by secular courts. The Spanish Inquisition was set out by the king and queen of Spain, not by the catholic church. The Spanish Inquisition turned more into some kind of secret service against internal threats to the state anyway.
The Portuguese Inquisition was also formed by a king, the king of Portugal. It was more to destroy the Jewish community (which was a threat in their eyes) than to keep the catholic message strong. But at last, there aren't so many people killed by the inquisition, and clearly not as much as stalins people killed.
In the year 2000, Pope John Paul II called for an "Inquisition Symposium", and opened the Vatican to 30 external historians. What they found discounted many exaggerated facts previously believed. It was learned that more women accused of witchcraft died in the Protestant countries than under the Inquisition. For example, the Inquisition burned 59 women in Spain, 36 in Italy and 4 in Portugal, while in Europe civil justice put to trial close to 100,000 women; 50,000 of them were burned, 25,000 in Germany, during the 16th century by the followers of Martin Luther.
I am a protestant, so, these things are bad, and I can't defend it. But it is clearly a fact that there are much more killed by Stalin and his folks than by the Inquisition and the protestant movement together. I do not know where you find your sources, please show them to me, maybe I'll believe.

Written by [user id=31891] on 14.05.2008 at 11:45

Written by [user id=30512] on 14.05.2008 at 10:47

Written by [user id=31891] on 13.05.2008 at 15:29

Religiouns=Borders=Racism=fascism= ........

i looked at a lot of religious threads and i saw that here in MT we war against each other cause of religiouns(a lot of us)

"but i saw someone who didnt believe in religiouns they were from iran usa canada israel ............ but they didn war with each other."

so i think its so clear that what is Religiouns

PS: i wonder that how someone can worship metal music and be religious, cause 99% of metal music is against religiouns
(some of them Anti-Christ,Pagan,Pantheist,Satanist ..... and a lot of them say somthin which is not allowed at religiouns)

Noone can be religious and worship metalmusic. One can be religious and listen to metal. At least there is one percent of great christian metal. And fascism at least is antireligious, it only has some lines to evolution, which is antireligious also. It would be fait to say that antireligiousness or atheism causes war also. The worst two wars ever fought, the second world war and the cold war are both antireligious, and so will be the third world war, when it comes, and it will come.

yes u r true, about: "And fascism at least is antireligious" - but look at israel, they say they r religious yeah?
look at hizbollah,they say they r religious yeah? look at middle ages(i mean when churches rule the europe- i dont know what u call those centuries) theyve said they were religious. look at hitlers army and their symbols,one of them r about their nation but they had somthin like cross medals yeah? theyve killed jews yeah? so why u think that ww2 wasnt religious ? yes i know it wasnt only religious. look at afghanistan(Taleban) a fascist kind of islam. i can see fascism in all religiouns, i dont care about quran-bible-testament ....(i know that they didnt say to kill to war to ....) but the important thing is that religiouns couldnt bring peace, but they brought a lof wars. muslems with jews at early islam then muslems and chritians at europe then christians and jews ww2-then jews with muslem in israel !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wars of skandinavia and christians..........................

the funny thing is that for example in islam there r 2 important fields,and both of them dont respect the other!! the chaos of iraq is cause this,did u know?-and i know that orthodox's,Catholic's and protestant's have,had and will have the same problem in christianity.in one religioun they cant take each other! so how can u think that religiouns r for peace?

but in the end im agree with u that religious thoughts is anti-war-fascism in words.

Just two things, Israel is not a religious country, it is just as secular as the western coutries are.
The second, nazi Germany had cross medals that have nothing to with the christian cross, all the german crosses are of all sides the same size, while the christian cross has a long and a short side.

Well, I don't think that religion is for peace always, it is about something really important to people, so they will defend it. But the worst wars are not the religious wars.

Written by [user id=30512] on 15.05.2008 at 10:08

Written by [user id=31891] on 14.05.2008 at 11:45

Written by [user id=30512] on 14.05.2008 at 10:47

Written by [user id=31891] on 13.05.2008 at 15:29

Religiouns=Borders=Racism=fascism= ........

i looked at a lot of religious threads and i saw that here in MT we war against each other cause of religiouns(a lot of us)

"but i saw someone who didnt believe in religiouns they were from iran usa canada israel ............ but they didn war with each other."

so i think its so clear that what is Religiouns

PS: i wonder that how someone can worship metal music and be religious, cause 99% of metal music is against religiouns
(some of them Anti-Christ,Pagan,Pantheist,Satanist ..... and a lot of them say somthin which is not allowed at religiouns)

Noone can be religious and worship metalmusic. One can be religious and listen to metal. At least there is one percent of great christian metal. And fascism at least is antireligious, it only has some lines to evolution, which is antireligious also. It would be fait to say that antireligiousness or atheism causes war also. The worst two wars ever fought, the second world war and the cold war are both antireligious, and so will be the third world war, when it comes, and it will come.

yes u r true, about: "And fascism at least is antireligious" - but look at israel, they say they r religious yeah?
look at hizbollah,they say they r religious yeah? look at middle ages(i mean when churches rule the europe- i dont know what u call those centuries) theyve said they were religious. look at hitlers army and their symbols,one of them r about their nation but they had somthin like cross medals yeah? theyve killed jews yeah? so why u think that ww2 wasnt religious ? yes i know it wasnt only religious. look at afghanistan(Taleban) a fascist kind of islam. i can see fascism in all religiouns, i dont care about quran-bible-testament ....(i know that they didnt say to kill to war to ....) but the important thing is that religiouns couldnt bring peace, but they brought a lof wars. muslems with jews at early islam then muslems and chritians at europe then christians and jews ww2-then jews with muslem in israel !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wars of skandinavia and christians..........................

the funny thing is that for example in islam there r 2 important fields,and both of them dont respect the other!! the chaos of iraq is cause this,did u know?-and i know that orthodox's,Catholic's and protestant's have,had and will have the same problem in christianity.in one religioun they cant take each other! so how can u think that religiouns r for peace?

but in the end im agree with u that religious thoughts is anti-war-fascism in words.

Just two things, Israel is not a religious country, it is just as secular as the western coutries are.
The second, nazi Germany had cross medals that have nothing to with the christian cross, all the german crosses are of all sides the same size, while the christian cross has a long and a short side.

Well, I don't think that religion is for peace always, it is about something really important to people, so they will defend it. But the worst wars are not the religious wars.

ur words r full of prejudice. Israel isnt Religous ROFL (theyve based on Testament! they think palestin is their territory cause of their book!) and about cross ! cross is cross dont learn me the symbols ! i know them

PS:i dont remember pagan wars!

@Black God: The Israelis believe that it is their country because they have lived there always. They do not base that on belief, the most religious jews do not want to live in Israel because they believe that it is God who has to establish the nation. It are the secular jews that founded Israel, Ben Gurion was not a religious jew. But, he was a jew and Israel was the land where he wanted to live because it was the land of his parents, it was the land where they felt they belonged there.

@Taka: There is a link between evolution and fasiscm. It is not so that fascism is completely based on evolution, but it is based on a wretched form of evolution, just as it is also based on a wretched form of religion and christianity. As Hitler and the his would have read the books about evolution and understood it well and believed it well, this would have never happened. Just the same with the bible and the books about it. But now they picked and chose what fit them well, and for this there ware possibilities in both science as religion. You may (and must) hate him for it, but so it is.

About the inquisition, all people where killed because they where feared. It is just like with fascism, they feared the jews so they decided to kill them all. With the inquisitions and alike, they feared those who where different and thought them to be withches, while the real witches where not caught, they knew how to survive. It has fundamentally more to do with fear than with religion. But, with the religion they could easily make a save group, if you went to church and lived your live well there was only a small risk to be burned as witch.

Written by [user id=30512] on 15.05.2008 at 10:01

while religion puts the individual on the first place.

Priceless... :
Then again, it all depends on wiewpoints regarding "what's good for you" and all that, I guess...

@Taka: I was not talking about natural selection when I spoke about evolution. The idea of evolution also is much older than Darwin, while Darwin kind of invented the natural selection and dna random mutations thing. So, when I speak in this case about evolution being taken and used in fascistic ideas I do not mean darwinism or what so ever, no, just about the idea of evolution. One of that ideas indeed is that when the weakest are killed and the srongest survive the entire race becomes stronger. And that there are black and chinese and white people and that all have a common ancestor does not mean that all are the same. According to evolution we and the cow would have a common ancestor. Are we the same as a cow? No, if evolution is the way it is it could be possible that one race would be better than the other. It would probably not be the german race, but, it could. Just like when I would have a sister, we would have a common ancestor, our parents, but I'm sure we wouldn't be the same. With other colored people the common ancestor is even much further away.
In fact, it isn't really a misinterpretation, the interpretation is completely valid, if you don't count in your own conscience. It is just wrong. And this is the case, there must have been something wrong with Htilers conscience, there is no other way that I can imagine that anyone, who wicked he would be even, could do such thing. But he did. And without a conscience he picked and chose everything he like to from both science and religion, I must admit that it is possible to use religion to justify such things if there is made no use of the understanding. And on this way mixing science and religion on the worst way, keeping out that which is most important for both. Conscience and understanding.
He, but sorry, I shouldn't have compared evolution and fascism, they might have a link, but almost everything with humans involved can be linked to fascism on some way, I think it isn't really fair to do so.

In the time of the inquisition there was the possiblitity of crotical thinking. But, for that it was necesary that you would be very smart, you needed to get on a high level of education, because it was the "dumb" people that saw a witch in everything. More educated people had the chance to criticize. Most educated people where of the church. It was the fault of the church to not give the people a good education, so that the people remained dumb, but it has not really something to do with religion. Do you really think that those with a high educational level really feared any witch? They didn't.

@Buggy: I meant with that that the individual is the one to choose. No state can and must force the individual to believe or think some thing, or to reject it. A state may never force anyone to love whom they hate or hate whom they love, in my opinion, and that I think is the practice with fascism.

@Aei Ontos about israel's everything is really clear they r not secular-and about ww2 i should remind u that vatican supported FASCIST. u cant change history can u ?

Remember Marin Luther and remember how catholics called him cause he said the truth!(about buying teritory in heaven!!)
i have said a lot of things in my ex words but u answer some part of them why?
i ask u why how can u say that big wars werent religious? i numbered a lot of them scrool up,i didnt mention just israel and ww2 what u can say about the others?

To make a point to the original post, Religion does not "cause war", Man causes war. Any deviation from this statement is ill informed. Religion sure enough has been the philosophy behind many a war but it PALES in comparison to wars started for non religious reasons. Lets see, inthe last century there were 7 million murdered by Hitler, 20 to 30 million by Stalin and Lenin, millions by Moe in China, a few million by Po, Pot, etc etc all marxist anti religionist leaders.

Written by Anthem on 18.05.2008 at 07:08

To make a point to the original post, Religion does not "cause war", Man causes war. Any deviation from this statement is ill informed. Religion sure enough has been the philosophy behind many a war but it PALES in comparison to wars started for non religious reasons. Lets see, inthe last century there were 7 million murdered by Hitler, 20 to 30 million by Stalin and Lenin, millions by Moe in China, a few million by Po, Pot, etc etc all marxist anti religionist leaders.

To be correct, Hitler was not anti-religion, but your point still stands. There seems to be a trend on this thread where misinformed atheists like to find any excuse they can to vilify religion. There is no doubt that religion plays a partial role in some cases, but for the most part religion either (1) serves as an after-the-fact excuse for wars that occur for other, more pressing reasons or (2) codifies the behaviour of societies that are already warlike.

Any reasonable study of political science will quickly demonstrate that religion has nothing to do with causing war and is merely utilized as a convenient accessory - yet another means of separating us from them. There are many, many ways of alienating two groups of human beings. Societal divides can spring up over political, economic, cultural, racial, or historically-motivated differences. Examples abound:

1) Political - The Cold War
2) Economic - The Gulf Wars
3) Cultural - The Rwandan Genocide
4) Racial - Nazi Germany
5) Historical - China's claim to Tibet

Religion was not a substantial or causative factor in any of these conflicts. Even in those situations where religion did play a role, some other factor would have ultimately triggered the conflict had religion been eradicated. Blaming religion for causing war is as shortsighted and foolish as putting a baseball bat on trial for murder, instead of the thug who wielded it. Eliminate the bat and he would have used a crowbar.

war is a complicated affair, and blaming just one factor invites error. Yes, religion is not the only factor for starting a war (and keeping it going for that matter) , but it IS nonetheless a factor. I dont think anyone could say it had nothing to do with the thirty years war for example. More recently in the Cold War, russia's communist atheism was one of the primary attributes of it that americans decried, even going so far as to insert a reference to god in our pledge of allegiance to differentiate ourselves from them.

Written by Hrothdane on 18.05.2008 at 20:37

war is a complicated affair, and blaming just one factor invites error. Yes, religion is not the only factor for starting a war (and keeping it going for that matter) , but it IS nonetheless a factor.

Yes, it can be a factor. But what about greed, starvation, racism, imperialism, historical precedent, bad leadership, and a host of other political and economic factors? Why single out religion unless the aim is to attack it in the interests of promoting atheism? This thread is not so much a debate about war as it is a devious attempt to slander religious belief.

Written by Hrothdane on 18.05.2008 at 20:37

I dont think anyone could say it had nothing to do with the thirty years war for example. More recently in the Cold War, russia's communist atheism was one of the primary attributes of it that americans decried, even going so far as to insert a reference to god in our pledge of allegiance to differentiate ourselves from them.

The religious differences were only emphasized after the political divide had occurred. The Cold War was about capitalism vs. communism. Neither ideological system has any direct link to a religion (unless you count atheism as a religion). The God reference in the pledge of allegiance was brought in after the fact to reinforce an existing conflict. Although you may rightfully argue that religion is an accessory to war, it is rarely the cause of it.

Remember, this thread is not asking how religion influences preexisting conflicts. It is asking if religion is the cause of those conflicts. Trace any conflict back to its inception, and I am certain that in most cases religion was not the root cause.

Written by [user id=31891] on 17.05.2008 at 14:53

@Aei Ontos about israel's everything is really clear they r not secular-and about ww2 i should remind u that vatican supported FASCIST. u cant change history can u ?

Remember Marin Luther and remember how catholics called him cause he said the truth!(about buying teritory in heaven!!)
i have said a lot of things in my ex words but u answer some part of them why?
i ask u why how can u say that big wars werent religious? i numbered a lot of them scrool up,i didnt mention just israel and ww2 what u can say about the others?

I don't know what is clear about it that Israel is not a secular nation? That there are living judaïstic Jews? They are living in Holland and America and Iran and Syria also. But Israel was founded by secular Jews, and most of the Jewish people are secular. If Israel is not secular it would be muslim, as the majority of the religious Israelian people is muslim.
I know that the christian church did not do all good in the second world war. But the vatican did never directly work together with the nazis, while the arabs, egyptians and palestines worked together with the nazis to destroy the Jewish community. The nazis did it in their lands, the arabs, egypts and palestines did it in their lands and palestinia. The christian church did nothing worst than people in the mideast in this, my friend.

So, I did not say that wars are not religious, but my point was that the worst wars have not been religious. Both worldwars, the cold war, both where not religious, again. You say that I have nothing to learn from you and that I am full of prejudices, but you don't seem to be very much informed, but rather brainwashed. Of course, I know that Hezbolah is religious, I know that many awfull things are done in the name of religion. I am not blind. But, even without religion, I do not think that there would happen less awfull things. I think that there would be just as much wars, just as much hatred, just as much crimes. I think religion, how awfull the things that are done sometimes are, still is less worse than normal egoïsm.

Written by akatana on 16.05.2008 at 20:10

Written by [user id=30512] on 16.05.2008 at 18:36

...

...about hitler on thing is sure, if he would have used both evolution and religion in the right way he would not have done those things.

Written by [user id=30512] on 16.05.2008 at 18:36

...

Of course we are different but what I was trying to point out is that individual human races are not different in most of our genetic material therefore you cannot say that white people are superior to black people or whatever. For evolution the main thing is the best adaptation. In individuals you can say that one has more intelligence or more strength but as races we are basically not superior to other races. You could say that a race is superior in terms of evolution if it is better adapted to their enviroment. For example if you go to africa you will be less adapted to the climate than the people there but that too has little to do with the point I was trying to make.

What hitler did was not derived from evolution but from the idea that the arian race is superior(for whatever reason only he knows) and therefore it can enslave or kill the other races. I still fail to see how what he did is related to evolution, please explain.

A cow can be better than humans actually in terms of evolution if it is better adapted. If a virus came that would kill all humans because they would not adapt to it and the cows would survive then the cow is better

Written by [user id=30512] on 16.05.2008 at 18:36

...In fact, it isn't really a misinterpretation, the interpretation is completely valid, if you don't count in your own conscience....
He, but sorry, I shouldn't have compared evolution and fascism, they might have a link, but almost everything with humans involved can be linked to fascism on some way, I think it isn't really fair to do so.

I agree, misinterpretation of everything is a problem. In science you have to ignore the evidence to misinterpret it but in religion it is quite easy.

cheers

As I just stated, I think that Hitler could interpret evolution on the right way, as a development of the animal and human races, and still do what he did. Evolution can cause war, just as religion. On a awfull way you could even say that Hitler was only looking for improvement of the human race. If he would have succeeded he would have proofed without doubt that the arian race was superior. Now we know without doubt that it's not .
By the way, if there would be a virus that would kill all human because they would not be adapted to it, they would not be superior. They would die out also. When a virus adapts, as you say, to the human defensesystem it is no more than regeneration, the virus leaks genes. But, with a final victory over the other races there would be the perfect base to let the strongest survive and give the best genes through. It would be a enormous evolutionairy experiment. That would be the way to proof or disaprove it. Misinterpration is a problem, but who knows what a misinterpretation is? Would you say it?

Written by [user id=22888] on 19.05.2008 at 10:10

Written by Hrothdane on 18.05.2008 at 20:37

war is a complicated affair, and blaming just one factor invites error. Yes, religion is not the only factor for starting a war (and keeping it going for that matter) , but it IS nonetheless a factor.

Yes, it can be a factor. But what about greed, starvation, racism, imperialism, historical precedent, bad leadership, and a host of other political and economic factors? Why single out religion unless the aim is to attack it in the interests of promoting atheism? This thread is not so much a debate about war as it is a devious attempt to slander religious belief.

Written by Hrothdane on 18.05.2008 at 20:37

I dont think anyone could say it had nothing to do with the thirty years war for example. More recently in the Cold War, russia's communist atheism was one of the primary attributes of it that americans decried, even going so far as to insert a reference to god in our pledge of allegiance to differentiate ourselves from them.

The religious differences were only emphasized after the political divide had occurred. The Cold War was about capitalism vs. communism. Neither ideological system has any direct link to a religion (unless you count atheism as a religion). The God reference in the pledge of allegiance was brought in after the fact to reinforce an existing conflict. Although you may rightfully argue that religion is an accessory to war, it is rarely the cause of it.

Remember, this thread is not asking how religion influences preexisting conflicts. It is asking if religion is the cause of those conflicts. Trace any conflict back to its inception, and I am certain that in most cases religion was not the root cause.

I wasn't saying that we should single religion out as a cause of war. No matter what the OP's intentions were in creating this thread, my intention was merely to say that it is at least a small contributing factor and leave it at that. I don't want to slander anyone; I don't like it when people do it to me in regards to my atheism, so I don't do it to theists (unless I'm having a VERY bad day...)

Written by Hrothdane on 20.05.2008 at 01:30

Written by [user id=22888] on 19.05.2008 at 10:10

Written by Hrothdane on 18.05.2008 at 20:37

war is a complicated affair, and blaming just one factor invites error. Yes, religion is not the only factor for starting a war (and keeping it going for that matter) , but it IS nonetheless a factor.

Yes, it can be a factor. But what about greed, starvation, racism, imperialism, historical precedent, bad leadership, and a host of other political and economic factors? Why single out religion unless the aim is to attack it in the interests of promoting atheism? This thread is not so much a debate about war as it is a devious attempt to slander religious belief.

Written by Hrothdane on 18.05.2008 at 20:37

I dont think anyone could say it had nothing to do with the thirty years war for example. More recently in the Cold War, russia's communist atheism was one of the primary attributes of it that americans decried, even going so far as to insert a reference to god in our pledge of allegiance to differentiate ourselves from them.

The religious differences were only emphasized after the political divide had occurred. The Cold War was about capitalism vs. communism. Neither ideological system has any direct link to a religion (unless you count atheism as a religion). The God reference in the pledge of allegiance was brought in after the fact to reinforce an existing conflict. Although you may rightfully argue that religion is an accessory to war, it is rarely the cause of it.

Remember, this thread is not asking how religion influences preexisting conflicts. It is asking if religion is the cause of those conflicts. Trace any conflict back to its inception, and I am certain that in most cases religion was not the root cause.

I wasn't saying that we should single religion out as a cause of war. No matter what the OP's intentions were in creating this thread, my intention was merely to say that it is at least a small contributing factor and leave it at that. I don't want to slander anyone; I don't like it when people do it to me in regards to my atheism, so I don't do it to theists (unless I'm having a VERY bad day...)

I believe that we are in agreement here; my response was intended to expand upon a few points that became clear in my mind after I read your post. Most of the arguments on this thread seem to be of the "it's obvious that religion causes war, down with religion" variety. (What supposedly makes it so obvious is not at all clear to me.) A better, more balanced thread would have started with the heading "What Causes War?" and then allowed the discussion to develop accordingly.

I should start a thread titled "Theory: Beer Causes Brain Damage." Of course, I would begin by saying that "it's obvious that beer causes brain damage, beer should be banned," then wait and see what ensues.

Written by [user id=30512] on 19.05.2008 at 10:20

Written by [user id=31891] on 17.05.2008 at 14:53

@Aei Ontos about israel's everything is really clear they r not secular-and about ww2 i should remind u that vatican supported FASCIST. u cant change history can u ?

Remember Marin Luther and remember how catholics called him cause he said the truth!(about buying teritory in heaven!!)
i have said a lot of things in my ex words but u answer some part of them why?
i ask u why how can u say that big wars werent religious? i numbered a lot of them scrool up,i didnt mention just israel and ww2 what u can say about the others?

I don't know what is clear about it that Israel is not a secular nation? That there are living judaïstic Jews? They are living in Holland and America and Iran and Syria also. But Israel was founded by secular Jews, and most of the Jewish people are secular. If Israel is not secular it would be muslim, as the majority of the religious Israelian people is muslim.
I know that the christian church did not do all good in the second world war. But the vatican did never directly work together with the nazis, while the arabs, egyptians and palestines worked together with the nazis to destroy the Jewish community. The nazis did it in their lands, the arabs, egypts and palestines did it in their lands and palestinia. The christian church did nothing worst than people in the mideast in this, my friend.

So, I did not say that wars are not religious, but my point was that the worst wars have not been religious. Both worldwars, the cold war, both where not religious, again. You say that I have nothing to learn from you and that I am full of prejudices, but you don't seem to be very much informed, but rather brainwashed. Of course, I know that Hezbolah is religious, I know that many awfull things are done in the name of religion. I am not blind. But, even without religion, I do not think that there would happen less awfull things. I think that there would be just as much wars, just as much hatred, just as much crimes. I think religion, how awfull the things that are done sometimes are, still is less worse than normal egoïsm.

there is somthin that i cant undrestand in ur words. u said that arabs did somthin with hitler,the ponit is that arabs r really religious ppl as Persians and as .... . we are talkin about religiouns,not christianity,not jewism ok? islam is religioun too but when i look at ur words,i feel that u think islam is not a religioun! yes it is . all of middle east even turks(my generation) r muslems.

and u talked about vatikan , we dont need to blame Vatikan cause they didnt send monks or somthin to the army!!? (i mean its enough that Vatikan recomended fascists,they didnt have to do anythin more than that did they?!)
but thats ok u r religious i respect u, but i cant be blind.
take a look at this link and read the religion section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

in the end i have a question that who brainwashed me that religions r fuckin ?! G.W. Busch? or my country?! (i remembered that these new wars in middle east is created by an original christian G.W. BUSCH u have to add these wars to ur religious war collection)
u have to be on a religious country then u will find how filthy is religions, and the other way is the history, Middle Ages.

its so easy to be religious than to think and find ur own way of life.(i wrote this sentence,cause u have to think about BRANWASHED word)

Written by [user id=31891] on 20.05.2008 at 17:02

i remembered that these new wars in middle east is created by an original christian G.W. BUSCH

A couple of quick points, questions and concerns here.

First, do you possibly think you could learn to spell most of your words correctly? The Presidents last name is "Bush".

Second, the wars in the Middle east have been raging long before President Bush was even born. This latest conflict is just another tally on what really seems to be a war going back to the earliest civilizations. Also, just to clarify, the President of the United States of American cannot, I repeat, cannot, declare war on another nation, only the Congress of the United States can do that. Wasn't sure if you were aware of that fact of not, so I thought I'd just clear it up.

Third, and this is a question I take vary seriously, could you please explain to me how President Bush is a Christian? Also, in conjunction with the previous question, what do you mean by the term "original"?

I sincerely apologize for that post everyone. It was not written by me, but by a friend of mine. He wanted to see what this site was that I spend so much time on, so I let him explore. He asked if he could reply to someone on here, and I gave him permission to do so. That decision was not in the best interest of all, and I accept full responsibility for his actions. Again, I am very sorry it was ever post.

Now back to the thread. Yeah...I pretty much despise Bush.

Written by Dane Train on 21.05.2008 at 14:15

I sincerely apologize for that post everyone. It was not written by me, but by a friend of mine. He wanted to see what this site was that I spend so much time on, so I let him explore. He asked if he could reply to someone on here, and I gave him permission to do so. That decision was not in the best interest of all, and I accept full responsibility for his actions. Again, I am very sorry it was ever post.

Now back to the thread. Yeah...I pretty much despise Bush.

NP i deleted my post,so u can erase it if its not urs too. and i ask taka to delete the post too.

Written by [user id=31891] on 20.05.2008 at 17:02

Written by [user id=30512] on 19.05.2008 at 10:20

Written by [user id=31891] on 17.05.2008 at 14:53

@Aei Ontos about israel's everything is really clear they r not secular-and about ww2 i should remind u that vatican supported FASCIST. u cant change history can u ?

Remember Marin Luther and remember how catholics called him cause he said the truth!(about buying teritory in heaven!!)
i have said a lot of things in my ex words but u answer some part of them why?
i ask u why how can u say that big wars werent religious? i numbered a lot of them scrool up,i didnt mention just israel and ww2 what u can say about the others?

I don't know what is clear about it that Israel is not a secular nation? That there are living judaïstic Jews? They are living in Holland and America and Iran and Syria also. But Israel was founded by secular Jews, and most of the Jewish people are secular. If Israel is not secular it would be muslim, as the majority of the religious Israelian people is muslim.
I know that the christian church did not do all good in the second world war. But the vatican did never directly work together with the nazis, while the arabs, egyptians and palestines worked together with the nazis to destroy the Jewish community. The nazis did it in their lands, the arabs, egypts and palestines did it in their lands and palestinia. The christian church did nothing worst than people in the mideast in this, my friend.

So, I did not say that wars are not religious, but my point was that the worst wars have not been religious. Both worldwars, the cold war, both where not religious, again. You say that I have nothing to learn from you and that I am full of prejudices, but you don't seem to be very much informed, but rather brainwashed. Of course, I know that Hezbolah is religious, I know that many awfull things are done in the name of religion. I am not blind. But, even without religion, I do not think that there would happen less awfull things. I think that there would be just as much wars, just as much hatred, just as much crimes. I think religion, how awfull the things that are done sometimes are, still is less worse than normal egoïsm.

there is somthin that i cant undrestand in ur words. u said that arabs did somthin with hitler,the ponit is that arabs r really religious ppl as Persians and as .... . we are talkin about religiouns,not christianity,not jewism ok? islam is religioun too but when i look at ur words,i feel that u think islam is not a religioun! yes it is . all of middle east even turks(my generation) r muslems.

and u talked about vatikan , we dont need to blame Vatikan cause they didnt send monks or somthin to the army!!? (i mean its enough that Vatikan recomended fascists,they didnt have to do anythin more than that did they?!)
but thats ok u r religious i respect u, but i cant be blind.
take a look at this link and read the religion section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

in the end i have a question that who brainwashed me that religions r fuckin ?! G.W. Busch? or my country?! (i remembered that these new wars in middle east is created by an original christian G.W. BUSCH u have to add these wars to ur religious war collection)
u have to be on a religious country then u will find how filthy is religions, and the other way is the history, Middle Ages.

its so easy to be religious than to think and find ur own way of life.(i wrote this sentence,cause u have to think about BRANWASHED word)

I know a lot of not religious people, they are from turkey, but not muslim, and they still have a problem with jews. I agree that they might be largely influenced by their religious friends and family, but still, antisemitism is not just a problem of religious people. I had a friend from afghanistan, a muslim, and she had no problem with jews at all. And in WW2 it where both religious and atheistic people that worked together to destruct the jewish community. Religious people can cause wars, and especially when there are charismatic leaders they can easily cause wars and get lots of people that follow them to war. I see this problem.
About the vatican. I think you really have to blame the vatican with what they did or not did. There have been priests that saved jews, and even the pope seemed to have tried to save some jews, he might have feared to make the situation for jews only worse and thats why he should have hold back in his actions. But still, blame the vatican for what they did. Blame those who are responsible, always.

Well, I think it is already made clear by Dane, but the wars in Irak and Afghanistan don't have anything to do with religion. I has to do with power and money.
About the brainwashed thing, I used that word in a reaction on the post before, afther you found that I did not answer on all the questions you asked. So, I tried to answer it, but it is just so that I saw that the histrory teaching where you live must be pretty much different than where I live. But, a pert of the problem can also be in my county. It is pretty arrogant of me to think that our historyteaching is better than yours. I am sorry for that, I shouldn't have used that word.

I see that it is for you not a easy thing to be not muslim where you live, but so it is sometimes difficult for me to be christian where I live. That isn't really a problem. You have become an atheist because of what you have seen in your country, and what you see makes it on;y stronger. So it is with my faith. All that hings I see in my land makes that I would wish it was more like in your country in some ways (not all).