Music7 mins ago
Why Be Interested In Other Religions?
184 Answers
Regardless of where you live, you have no doubt seen for yourself how religion affects the lives of millions of people.
Answers
Hypognosis; To say that someone who believes the sum total of religion is a belief in "sky fairies" is lacking in the IQ department, is not the same as saying that all atheists are stupid. This is something I have never said (and naomi, not even of Dawkins). What I have said in my classifying of various positions, is to distinguish between different types; those...
16:13 Wed 30th Mar 2016
@Khandro
Thanks for the insulting language. Your kind, religious nature becomes more diaphenous by the day.
I did not write about "weather related trees". The dendrochronology of a *specific* 1000+ year old tree has shown that the Medieval Warm period (look it up) also affected east asia (Most of the data is Eurocentric so this is a valuable data point from a remote part of the world. Ancient trees are very scarce, as you can imagine).
When I find the news article I got this factoid from, I'll post a link.
In the meantime, I did get the whole setup harris backwards. According to this book
https:/
the warm period *increased* rainfall in that part of the world, enriched the grazing potential of the steppe and increased populations of both nomads and settled peoples, eventually leading to clashes. Cities produced metal goods that nomads needed but couldn't make for themselves, so they would raid and just steal it.
Secular, I agree. Amoral, I agree. But this is a longgggg way from atheists killing people of faith [i] _for_ being people of faith [i] which is what theists often seem to be implying when they rail against atheism.
Stalin probably dismantled the church because they were a competing power structure. Faithful folk would tend to obey their pope or bishop ahead of any politbureau order and anything which countermanded the man at the top undermines his authority and risks encouraging les autres, do gas to be stopped.
His views on matters of faith we can only guess at. What if he was happy to have people continue to hang icons and worship in the privacy of their own homes?
You contend that there was violent oppression and mass deaths, inspired by secularism's desire to extinguish faith. Where are Stalin's pronouncements against faith and/or what he thought it could do to damage communism?
Thanks for the insulting language. Your kind, religious nature becomes more diaphenous by the day.
I did not write about "weather related trees". The dendrochronology of a *specific* 1000+ year old tree has shown that the Medieval Warm period (look it up) also affected east asia (Most of the data is Eurocentric so this is a valuable data point from a remote part of the world. Ancient trees are very scarce, as you can imagine).
When I find the news article I got this factoid from, I'll post a link.
In the meantime, I did get the whole setup harris backwards. According to this book
https:/
the warm period *increased* rainfall in that part of the world, enriched the grazing potential of the steppe and increased populations of both nomads and settled peoples, eventually leading to clashes. Cities produced metal goods that nomads needed but couldn't make for themselves, so they would raid and just steal it.
Secular, I agree. Amoral, I agree. But this is a longgggg way from atheists killing people of faith [i] _for_ being people of faith [i] which is what theists often seem to be implying when they rail against atheism.
Stalin probably dismantled the church because they were a competing power structure. Faithful folk would tend to obey their pope or bishop ahead of any politbureau order and anything which countermanded the man at the top undermines his authority and risks encouraging les autres, do gas to be stopped.
His views on matters of faith we can only guess at. What if he was happy to have people continue to hang icons and worship in the privacy of their own homes?
You contend that there was violent oppression and mass deaths, inspired by secularism's desire to extinguish faith. Where are Stalin's pronouncements against faith and/or what he thought it could do to damage communism?
This isn't the article I originally read but has the benefit of brevity.
http://
http://
Hypo. //You contend that there was violent oppression and mass deaths, inspired by secularism's desire to extinguish faith.//
I have never said any such thing, my response was to
waterboatman's
"[religion is] the biggest cause of blood letting in history."
07:08 Fri 25th
The Mongol destruction of the civilized word had nothing to do with religion (or probably climate) check out what Genghis Khan did to the one city of Peking alone, and multiply that over the biggest fiefdom the world has ever seen.
Neither, (on a personal level) had religion anything to do my my grandfather, along with thousands of others, being severely wounded and many dying alongside him in Flanders WW1, or my father serving in North Africa WW2 or a German friend's father being killed in the siege of Stalingrad. Then there was Hiroshima and Nagasaki and .... need I go on?
I have never said any such thing, my response was to
waterboatman's
"[religion is] the biggest cause of blood letting in history."
07:08 Fri 25th
The Mongol destruction of the civilized word had nothing to do with religion (or probably climate) check out what Genghis Khan did to the one city of Peking alone, and multiply that over the biggest fiefdom the world has ever seen.
Neither, (on a personal level) had religion anything to do my my grandfather, along with thousands of others, being severely wounded and many dying alongside him in Flanders WW1, or my father serving in North Africa WW2 or a German friend's father being killed in the siege of Stalingrad. Then there was Hiroshima and Nagasaki and .... need I go on?
Regardless of your arguments, no one has any idea. It is only by looking into the Bible that we can see which is the true religion. There are thousands of religions in the world, but there can only be one True religion accepted by God. When you look at the roots of these religions, they all stem from one, the original one but man, when he finds something he does not like or agree with, goes off on his own and forms another faction. Very much like a tree with its many branches, they all stem from the original.
You can argue and disagree as much as you like, but the Bible prophesied all the events happening in the world today and very soon, will come the end.
For those genuinely seeking truth the Bible gives all the guidelines, all you have to do is check them against the so called Christian religions.
You can argue and disagree as much as you like, but the Bible prophesied all the events happening in the world today and very soon, will come the end.
For those genuinely seeking truth the Bible gives all the guidelines, all you have to do is check them against the so called Christian religions.
@Khandro
Your response to waterboatman was
---------
Khandro
waterboatman; [Religion is] // the biggest cause of blood letting in history.//
Completely untrue as has been demonstrated time and time again on various threads. Look to history; the Mongol hordes, the USSR, WWII, Pol Pot, Maoist China, and more, all secular, and responsible for countless millions of human deaths and suffering.
Go figure!
11:51 Fri 25th Mar 2016
-------------
You said "completely untrue" and I was responding to that (and your exchange with Jom). I assumed your links were just apologist stuff, from the religious side, so I set out to argue that 2000 years of low-level blood-letting was *numerically* equivalent to the Holocaust (or more).
I will grant that small-scale losses, spread over many centuries are/were always recouped by fresh births and women and children were more often spared. The Holocaust, Stalin, Pol Pot were more significant because entire families were wiped out. Numbers may have recovered but genetic diversity was irretrievably lost.
Like I said, there is nothing to be gained, attempting to draw equivalences or work out which was worst. The secular regimes were BAD. Religion-based regimes were BAD.
Basically, I think no-one has the moral high ground. We do what we can, to get along with one anothet but we know it cannot last. Someone always shows up, on the take and tensions break into violence and tit-for-tat.
We are still as tribal as when we came down from the trees.
Your response to waterboatman was
---------
Khandro
waterboatman; [Religion is] // the biggest cause of blood letting in history.//
Completely untrue as has been demonstrated time and time again on various threads. Look to history; the Mongol hordes, the USSR, WWII, Pol Pot, Maoist China, and more, all secular, and responsible for countless millions of human deaths and suffering.
Go figure!
11:51 Fri 25th Mar 2016
-------------
You said "completely untrue" and I was responding to that (and your exchange with Jom). I assumed your links were just apologist stuff, from the religious side, so I set out to argue that 2000 years of low-level blood-letting was *numerically* equivalent to the Holocaust (or more).
I will grant that small-scale losses, spread over many centuries are/were always recouped by fresh births and women and children were more often spared. The Holocaust, Stalin, Pol Pot were more significant because entire families were wiped out. Numbers may have recovered but genetic diversity was irretrievably lost.
Like I said, there is nothing to be gained, attempting to draw equivalences or work out which was worst. The secular regimes were BAD. Religion-based regimes were BAD.
Basically, I think no-one has the moral high ground. We do what we can, to get along with one anothet but we know it cannot last. Someone always shows up, on the take and tensions break into violence and tit-for-tat.
We are still as tribal as when we came down from the trees.
You know the way I see it Science and archaeology are not essentials, but they may serve a purpose in bringing infidels and atheists to their senses and cause them to examine the Bible more seriously.
And it is not the ability to write what is scientifically sound that counts, nor is it the power to pen what is historically true that is essential, but it is the producing of that which is prophetically accurate that is vital in establishing it as inspired by God. He is the sole source of prophetic power. —2 Pet. 1:16-18.
And it is not the ability to write what is scientifically sound that counts, nor is it the power to pen what is historically true that is essential, but it is the producing of that which is prophetically accurate that is vital in establishing it as inspired by God. He is the sole source of prophetic power. —2 Pet. 1:16-18.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles38 mins ago
Don't Eat Celery In The Sun, Folks!
Body & Soul70 mins ago
