[Nuclear1]

Hitler: christian, encouraged his generals to go to church - killed jews Hitler capitalized on Christian persecution of Jews during European history. As Goob said, he was an occultist, not a Christian. Considering he also killed most people because they were predominantly non-Aryan, crippled, or otherwise undesirable in his terms, it was much more ethnic cleansing than any sort of religious genocide. Christian, economically-depressed Germany just happened to be a good vessel for fascist policies.[/b]
Stalin/Mao: he never said it was the only cause- these guys killed for power Yes, and did this have anything to do with religion? Communism rejects religion, and these guys were communists. No religion played here.[/b]
Khan: I don't remember him killing off the entire population of the areas had conquered.. that would have been counter productive
American Indians: victims of arrogant christians who thought the world belonged to them
Sudan: Christians vs Muslims Ceded.[/b]
Rwanda: arbitrarily created ethnic group A vs arbitrarily created ethnic group B True, but where does religion play in here? Again, ethnic war; different tribes with different cultures, not differing religions. Add to Europe's terrible job at drawing boundaries to keep warring ethnic groups apart, and there's a recipe for disaster.[/b]
Congo: not familiar enough to comment Ditto.[/b]
Roman Empire: anyone not roman, including not of their religion, target for conquering - but they didn't kill off everyone they conquered, just the combatants they had to I doubt the 500,000 Hebrews that were killed when Hadrian surpressed the Judean revolts in the 1st Century were all combatants. Third Punic War works here as well; burning down a city and slaughtering the entire population would count as mass murder, I believe.[/b]

[Kazan]

nuclear1 ... your point is moot, and SUPPORTS kalfireth's statement - he said religion "LINKED" to genocide

not "religion sole cause of"

[vyper]

Sorry kaz but they're dead on with this. Hitler himself was not Christian, at least not in a devout or fanatical sense.

HOWEVER

Consider what is today referred to as the "Führer cult" - Hitler made himself into a god like figure, and presented the superiority of the Aryan race as an essentially religious belief. For all intent and purposes, Nazism was a type of religion (occultism, as has been pointed out). It just didn't have a supernatural being - although the difference between a man who can do no wrong, and a being of infinite power is really very thing in terms of the human interpretation of them.

[Kazan]

Sorry kaz but they're dead on with this.

even if they are*, it's IRRELEVANT to the actual argument - it's just arguementation in support of a straw man


* which i don't think they are, to simply call him an occultist is to ignore the fact that he was an occultist that encorporated a significant amount of christian doctrine and encouraged his generals and soliders to be christian

[edit] posting when tired = bad

[Aardwolf]

I just wanted to stick this in somewhere:

If God is all-powerful, why have am I an aetheist? And if God doesn't have the power to convert non-believers like me, why should I worship him? And why did God make almost every bit of science done by anybody who hasn't specifically set out to prove the existence of God contradict his very existence?

Edit: this probably would have gone better somewhere in the middle of the discussion that has already occurred.

[Mars]

Just to make things clearer BTW: I don't believe in God, I'm just saying you shouldn't give people **** for believing in God, you can argue, sure, I just don't know why I should care if Somone believes in God, or believes that your foreskin is an important part of your penis, cause frankly I really don't care either way.

[Kamikaze]

Just to make things clearer BTW: I don't believe in God, I'm just saying you shouldn't give people **** for believing in God, you can argue, sure, I just don't know why I should care if Somone believes in God

If religion was just about believing God, nobody would complain.

or believes that your foreskin is an important part of your penis, cause frankly I really don't care either way.

Cheap shot. I'm with Kazan on this one. Chopping off a part of a baby's penis 'cause they can't dissent? Sickening.

[Goober5000]

If God is all-powerful, why have am I an aetheist?

Perhaps because God granted you the ability to choose?

And if God doesn't have the power to convert non-believers like me, why should I worship him?

It wouldn't make sense to forcibly convert all non-believers.  What's the point in being God to a race of robots?

And you should worship him because he is worthy of worship.  Same reason you admire aldo's models; they're worthy of admiration.

And why did God make almost every bit of science done by anybody who hasn't specifically set out to prove the existence of God contradict his very existence?

I'm guessing you don't have much of a scientific background then.  Nothing contradicts the existence of God.  A particular event may have more than one explanation, one of which might be God, but that says nothing about which explanation is correct.

And it is logically impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God from within the confines of our universe, as God exists outside the universe.

[Fury]

And it is logically impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God from within the confines of our universe, as God exists outside the universe.

Ah, blind faith. It's something I have never understood. It is like believing and having faith in an invisible bridge and when you try to cross that bridge, you just fall into your death on your first step.

[Ace]

Sudan: Christians vs Muslims

Granted.  Strike that from the list of examples then.  As for your other defenses:

Hitler: christian, encouraged his generals to go to church - killed jews

Hitler wasn't Christian.  He recognized the value of the church as a leadership institution, but he tried to turn it into a Nazi propaganda machine.  He himself was an occultist.  Besides, he tried to rewrite the Bible.

Anyway, he was doing an ethnic cleansing, not a religious cleansing.  Maintaining the purity of the German race was a political philosophy, not a religious one.

American Indians: victims of arrogant christians who thought the world belonged to them

Economics.  The Indians owned land that the settlers wanted.  End of story.

So, you see, none of the genocides in this list (Sudan excepted) were in any way due to religion.  And these were some pretty big ones, and I just rattled them off the top of my head.

Hitler was Austrian Catholic by upbringing, which may have contributed to his anti-semeticism. Don't get started on any "Catholics aren't Christian" comments please.

The occult that they were involved in was also primarily tied to Judaeo-Christian tradition as well.

Yes, the whites wanted the land. A cultural concept tied directly to being an agricultural society with an agricultural desert religion. ...and besides that be it the religious terrorism and subsequent exile of the Puritans (let's be honest, that's what it was) to the ideas of manifest destiny in this new virgin land religious ideology was a major factor.

Ah, blind faith. It's something I have never understood. It is like believing and having faith in an invisible bridge and when you try to cross that bridge, you just fall into your death on your first step.

Even Indiana Jones puts dirt on his bridges of faith before steppin' on 'em

[Aardwolf]

Even Indiana Jones puts dirt on his bridges of faith before steppin' on 'em

Ah, yes. I remember that scene.

If God is all-powerful, why have am I an aetheist?

Perhaps because God granted you the ability to choose?

That's the religious explanation. It's better than the "it is not our place to question God's motives" one. The problem with religion's explanation of religion is that it makes revision virtually impossible. What religion (particularly Christianity, but probably also some others) has done is that it's closed every other option by stating that "God did it," and that either by saying in the Bible how it happened or by saying that "God works in mysterious ways," and some other BS explanations.

And if God doesn't have the power to convert non-believers like me, why should I worship him?

It wouldn't make sense to forcibly convert all non-believers.  What's the point in being God to a race of robots?

Then why does he send non-believers to Hell? Or do you not believe non-believers go to Hell? If I am not mistaken, all people who do not lead a Christian life are, according to the Bible (or some other, more recent religious work (i.e. Dante's Inferno, which has worked its way into religion so well that some uneducated people do not know that the things originally stated in it are not a part of the Bible)), doomed to suffer in the pits of Hell?

And you should worship him because he is worthy of worship.  Same reason you admire aldo's models; they're worthy of admiration.

Seems to me that God, if he is all powerful, has permitted some pretty evil things. Like the Holocaust. Even if he gave people free will, could he not have turned Hitler into a pillar of salt, or rained fire on him from the heavens, like God seemed to have a knack for in the Old Testament days?

And why did God make almost every bit of science done by anybody who hasn't specifically set out to prove the existence of God contradict his very existence?

I'm guessing you don't have much of a scientific background then.  Nothing contradicts the existence of God.  A particular event may have more than one explanation, one of which might be God, but that says nothing about which explanation is correct.

And it is logically impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God from within the confines of our universe, as God exists outside the universe.

Actually, I do have a scientific background. My father is a molecular physicist, and I get excellent grades in science (and the related subject of math).

Maybe you can't prove or disprove God, but there are things proven by science that directly contradict the word of God. For example, the Big Bang theory: states that the universe was created approx. 15 billion years ago. Dinosaur skeletons: carbon date to 65 million years ago. Both of these occurred before the time that the Bible states the universe (or at least the earth, for the second example) was created. Evolution: goes against the creation theory as well, yet it has been observed (at least with bacteria and other such small organisms with short life-cycles).

Also, you said God exists outside the universe. Where in the Bible, or any previous holy books, does it say that? I'm pretty sure it says God created the earth, not, "the idea of God was the inspiration for the creation of the earth." If God is outside the universe, then he has no impact on our lives. If he can never prove his existence, or have any influence on the universe (except possibly as a creator, the force that started the Big Bang (even this has been brought under question now by people like Stephen Hawking)), there is no way that he should have any influence over us. Heck, anything outside of our light-cone shouldn't affect us.

If God exists, we certainly must have pissed him off a heck of a lot for him to cover up the signs of his existence so much.

[aldo_14]

Wasn't there a thing in the New Scientist a couple of months back that tried to work out the most probable number of dieties in the universe, and ended up with the answer 'zero'?  I'd be interested in reading that.

[Aardwolf]

I think that article was actually a spoof. It said something to that effect on a feedback page on the New Scientist website, although I was unable to find the actual article. I did, however, find this:

Descartes: 1. I exist 2. I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections. 3. As an imperfect being I would be unable to create such a concept. 4. The concept must have come from God. 5. To be a perfect being God must exist. 6. God exists.

OR

ThaTGuY: 1. I exist. 2. I eat stinky cheese. 3. As an imperfect being I would be unable to create stinky cheese. 4. The concept must have come from God. 5. To have a perfect head of stinky cheese God must exist. 6. God is stinky cheese.

I am not going to pretend that this proves anything. Do not try to prove anything with it.

Edit: Do not read this post. Read the one two posts above it. Do not respond to this post. Respond to the one two posts above it.

[IPAndrews]

The thing is, that christians (should) believe that you should do to your neighbour as you'd like to be done to yourself,

Islam is the same. They blow their neighbours up.

[Kazan]

And why did God make almost every bit of science done by anybody who hasn't specifically set out to prove the existence of God contradict his very existence?

I'm guessing you don't have much of a scientific background then.  Nothing contradicts the existence of God.

argumentum ad ignorantium.

nothing supports the existance of god either, and in that is what is required to make believing in something rational - evidence for it.  the simply lack of evidence against it could simply mean that it's beyond the realm of possibility

  A particular event may have more than one explanation, one of which might be God, but that says nothing about which explanation is correct.

occam's razor

And it is logically impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God from within the confines of our universe, as God exists outside the universe.

weee! let's play logic games!   

this I call the theological sidesteps "you cannot prove god exists because silly technicality X"

anything that interacts with our universe is in our universe, detectable in our universe.  Anything that doesn't interact with out universe doesn't really exist as far as our frame of referene is concerned.

If I were to assert "dragons exist! they just exist outside of our universe" that assertion would be on the same logical standing as yours: none what so ever.

[Mathwiz6]

Using "you can't disprove god" = useless.

1. It's a logical fallacy.
2. It's really defensive. You can't make much headway with "you can't prove it doesn't exist, so it exists!"

What they mean by "evidence contadicts god" is "evidence contradicts the christian god, and a bunch of other gods"
As well, they only mean if you use the commonly accepted method of looking at things.

The FSM roxx0rz j00!

 

Dunno, i'll pitch other stuff in later.

P.S. If i'm going to hell, but I don't believe in hell, doesn't that arbitrarily make me a believer, when it's too late? Doesn't that not seem like a very nice god?

P.P.S. And why is it that the current generation of priests semi-apologizes for their ancestors....

P.P.P.S. And did ya know the romans tortured non christian citizens, until they repented?

P.P.P.P.S. And what's with all the interpetation!?

P.P.P.P.P.S. Hey... doesn't conservation of energy prohibit spontaneous creation?

[Herra Tohtori]

P.P.P.P.P.S. Hey... doesn't conservation of energy prohibit spontaneous creation?

Check the perpetual motion discussion...

Anyway, spontaneous birth of the universe doesn't actually break neither conservation principle of energy or 2nd rule of thermodynamics. They are only applicable as seemingly true in this universe, and they are heavily tied in the flow of time.

The conservation of energy tells that at any given time, the amount of energy in a closed system is constant.

The second rule of thermodynamics tells us that in a closed system, differences in energy levels always either stay the same OR decrease. For example, if you put hot water and cold water in a tub, it doesn't take long until all the water in the tub is the same temperature. This is what is meant by energy differences decreasing. It's often called enthropy. The 2nd rule tells that in closed system, enthropy cannot be decreased - it can only increase or stay constant.

However, as you see, both of these fundamental truths are bound to time. Second law actually defines the direction of time. The water in the tub won't gather into hot and cold parts in itself.

And when there is no time, both conservation of energy and the direction of time become meaningless concepts, and they don't tell us what is impossible and what is not. But be assured that static universe is even more far-fetched than universe born in spontaneous "creation", if you want to call it that way. I don't personally think there was any conscious being directing the birth of this universe, but I can't exclude that possibility completely - I just think it's highly unlikely and in the end, saying that God created universe just transfers the "impossible" concept of spontaneous birth one step further, as we can ask "where did God come from?"

Ahh, whatever.

[Mathwiz6]

That was one of my arguments (wheretf did god come from)
(madness)
K. But couldn't god be improbability?

I can hear it now "I worship the heart of gold"

Or "I worship the infinate improbability drive"
(/madness(or is it?))

[Kazan]

plus the 2nd law of thermodynamics is only statistically correct and only applies to closed systems (well.. the universe may be a closed system if you take it in it's entirely)

no... a 2nd law of thermodynamics argument against "x being possible" is generally inconclusive/wrong and irrelevant


Mathwiz6: if you worship a mathematical concept, why worship anything at all?


Christians: you show me why you disbelieve in every god but yours, and I'll show you how easy it is to simply go one more.

[Mathwiz6]

Note the madness tags.
(madness)
Anyway, I worship pi! Didn't you read Carl Sagan's Contact
(/madness)