MosJan Posted October 18, 2001 Report Share Posted October 18, 2001 ??? The Most Aggressive Religion Is ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted October 18, 2001 Report Share Posted October 18, 2001 MosJan, i doubt it is a religion that is aggressive, it is the people who practise it. nevertheless, i believe that animistic religions which do not proseltyse are by dint of this very fact less aggressive than religions claiming to have a universal message. a reading of the holy books and early histories of the three monotheistic religions shows that they all were very aggressive at the various stages of their history. there are quite a few passages in the old testament that would land most prophets concerned into the u.n. tribunal for human rights, the spread of christianity in northern europe, egypt and especially in the americas was largely by the sword, and islam spread also largely by force. even the relatively peaceful religion of buddhism had spread by the sword immediately after the death of the buddha, but was then rendered more peaceful. there are two things that make religions with a universal message aggressive: 1) the missionary zeal, the notion that it is your duty to convert me into christianity to save my soul even if it takes some force (don't take it personally, this is just an example), and 2) the notion that the unbeliever is a potential enemy. i have not seen any monotheistic religion that has a coherent policy toward nonbelievers. regrads, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggernaut Posted October 18, 2001 Report Share Posted October 18, 2001 Dont knoe about the most agrressive, but the most dangerous is definitelly the lack of religion ie. athiesm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThornyRose Posted October 18, 2001 Report Share Posted October 18, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Juggernaut:Dont knoe about the most agrressive, but the most dangerous is definitelly the lack of religion ie. athiesmI disagree. You will not see atheists trying to convert others to atheism; nor will they see believers as a potential threat, except for the fundamentalist variety... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 thorny, what did the soviet union do? regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 quote:Originally posted by aurguplu:thorny,what did the soviet union do?regards,Ali,I use to reside in Armenia in the days of Soviet Union and I am not sure if they forced other nations to convert to atheism. I know in Armenia people were free to go to church as they wished.Azat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThornyRose Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 quote:Originally posted by aurguplu:thorny,what did the soviet union do?regards,Ali, you can't blame the original atheists for the idiocy of the communists, can ya? Besides, atheism does not preach violence or 72 virgins (or 72 male virgins - you get them in this world) in a book, so what is your point?And, Azat, to the best of my knowledge, the U.S.S.R. was very oppressive in Estonia and the region... I don't know about Armenia; but, if as you say, then perhaps because the U.S.S.R. had good control over it while its authority was being questioned (and somewhat wavering - faced with all sorts of opposition and resistance) up north - and perhaps the ties with religion come from "showing who's da boss" along with trying to extinguish the kindling nationalism harboured by the church(es)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThornyRose Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 Derrrrrrr, not "ties with religion" - I meant to say something like, "ties with controlling religion"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggernaut Posted October 20, 2001 Report Share Posted October 20, 2001 quoteI use to reside in Armenia in the days of Soviet Union and I am not sure if they forced other nations to convert to atheism. I know in Armenia people were free to go to church as they wished. This was only the case before mid-1970s and mostly in Russia, the Ukraine and BieloRussia quoteyou can't blame the original atheists for the idiocy of the communists, can ya? Besides, atheism does not preach violence or 72 virgins No, it preaches something far worse, the non-existance of God, and therefore the abolition of all morals. quotethe U.S.S.R. was very oppressive in Estonia and the region Yes, oppressing the separatist nationalist movement not religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThornyRose Posted October 20, 2001 Report Share Posted October 20, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Juggernaut:quote:-----------------------------------you can't blame the original atheists for the idiocy of the communists, can ya? Besides, atheism does not preach violence or 72 virgins-----------------------------------No, it preaches something far worse, the non-existance of God, and therefore the abolition of all morals.Atheists are not all moral-less. In fact, they by and large have more morals than so-called moral Christians who call people names while making references to their religion, ethnicity, nationality, etc. (You don't have to look too far to see an example.) That's on the micro-scale. The larger picture reminds you that no atheist will kill you if you say God exists, whereas making wars out of religious excuses is a, well, believers' thing (and only now are people apologizing for such - iş işten geçmiş! [too late!]). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggernaut Posted October 20, 2001 Report Share Posted October 20, 2001 I'm sorry, but your assumptions are plain wrong. And I dont understand Turkish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted October 22, 2001 Report Share Posted October 22, 2001 thorny, 1. i had told you that i am no advocate of islam, and that i distance myself from it partly for the same reasons that you do. 2. the believers of any religion have a lot of blood in their hands, true, but so do the atheists. 3. i think it is no use to try to reconcile believer thought and atheist thought. the difference is just too fundamental. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThornyRose Posted October 22, 2001 Report Share Posted October 22, 2001 Ali, the difference between an atheist and a believer is that the former has most probably broken from the bonds that made him one of the latter group.The difference between the bloody hands of an atheist and those of a believer is that the atheist most probably doesn’t do it out of religion, whereas a believer might as well. By “bloody hands on this or that,” I mean governments and their leaders, of course. Consider: I don’t start crying, “Bloody dog-gone Muslims!” when the Taliban stirs some crap here and there, nor have I characterized the Inquisition as a typically Christian thing. They are the Taliban and the Spanish monarchy, respectively.However, there ARE incidences that do truly take on a religious bearing (even if, at the very foundations, there might be political or economic reasons). The Crusades were such. These wars WERE perpetrated by Christians in the name of Christianity. What makes them different from the Taliban who do things in the name of Islam is that there is consensus about the former (though we also don’t hear too many Muslims or their bodies condemning Sept. 11). One’s acceptance and admittance is not enough – they have to be recognized by others to a certain degree, too.Lenin, Stalin, etc., were commies – and also atheists. But their atheism is as irrelevant as Hitler’s being a vegetarian was.Sure, any person can be capable of horrendous crimes – but some do it in the name of institutions. Not so with atheists and ATHEISM. So, Juggernaut, thanks for sharing your, again, considerably deep thoughts. And just remember that your saying my “assumptions” are incorrect doesn’t make them so, especially since you’ve failed to put forth an argument and failed to explain why, just resorting to the retort of a boy at puberty (“Did NOT!!”).I can’t think of anyone (unless the candidate for such is a complete sicko) slitting throats and shouting at the same time, “In the name of atheism!!!” Atheism – there just isn’t anything there except for the name, and perhaps except for an element of contempt for others as others have for them.This said, it is the institutions that have to be held under scrutiny. Some people just shy away from questioning them. And why is that? Are they afraid of finding out that the battle cries might actually be justified by the same doctrine they hadn’t known well enough and which DID actually condone violence and that kind of stuff?I think there CAN be a most aggressive religion – just judge it by what it preaches. Sure, followers might also turn a peaceful religion into one that is despicable – but then, playing is half of winning the game: if the potential is there, you have to fear it. THAT was my point.Additionally, I also don’t see how one person’s standing up in the midst of a mob that is full of people foaming in the mouth and condemning them for being so hyped up can make any difference. Among all such people, there is only one smart guy? Get outta here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggernaut Posted October 22, 2001 Report Share Posted October 22, 2001 quoteHowever, there ARE incidences that do truly take on a religious bearing (even if, at the very foundations, there might be political or economic reasons). The Crusades were such. These wars WERE perpetrated by Christians in the name of Christianity. The Crusades are not justified by the Bible, and only took a religious bearing because the Pope of the time made it so. But the numerous jihads launched by Muslims are justified by the Koran. As for athiesm, I have many arguments with people like yourself, and it does not lead anywhere, so I'm not going to start one, but you can keep throwing insults at me...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThornyRose Posted October 23, 2001 Report Share Posted October 23, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Juggernaut:The Crusades are not justified by the Bible, and only took a religious bearing because the Pope of the time made it so. But the numerous jihads launched by Muslims are justified by the Koran.Why did Jesus say he came not with peace but with a sword? I suppose that and several verses, wherever they are and whatever they are, are the beginning of the confusion. quoteAs for athiesm, I have many arguments with people like yourself, and it does not lead anywhere, so I'm not going to start one, but you can keep throwing insults at me......And you can just skitter along... Spare me your arguments, too, if you can call them that. "No, you are wrong." - "No, your opinion is uncalled for." - "No, it is not like that." - "I'm sorry, but your assumptions are plain wrong. I won't even bother to state why. They just are." - "Why doesn't the Vatican end its diplomatic relations with Turkey? After all, it was a Turk that tried to kill the Pope."----------------------------------- http://www.medyakronik.com/guncel/06090102.htm This article mentions how a certain newspaper by the name of "Star" here has added that Sülhaddin Ürük, the one in charge of [the Turkish] Hizbullah's financial resources, is actually of Armenian origin - only converted (the fact still hasn't been proved). The article states, "But what is Star's objective in spreading this 'news'? Does it have any implications? What is their point?" etc.The same goes for Mehmet Ali Ağca, although most people look upon it as certain that the assassination was backed by MİT or something. Whether Ağca is from Turkey or Papua New Guinea makes no difference.Same above for atheists. Same for Muslims after Sept. 11 - many people like yourself attacked their mosques and their persons.Don't be surprised if you are insulted so long as you can't tell the difference between individuals and governing (or other generalized) bodies.As for the Pope and his making the Crusades holy - only now do we hear that the Crusades were wrong - and the greater part of the Christian world supported them then, did they not? Where were the true Christians then? Were there none then but there are only now? Bibles were too few to read?You cannot make generalized statements, ever, about atheists, either. Neither can I, although there are some basics that make atheists what they are. Can you make generalized statements about vegetarians, especially about what kind of people they are, too? "I can't have arguments with them because they don't even eat meat." Phah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted October 23, 2001 Report Share Posted October 23, 2001 Jug, Ali - It is my view that Communism is a religion - it seems to me to meet all criteria (with the divine being some sort of unreachable communist perfection - a communist heaven on earth - etc. Thorny's point is well taken (but I must amend it) - it is immaterial that these people CALLED THEMSELVES atheists...they in fact ere not - IMO. I don't see atheism and zealotry as being compatable. And Jug - I was always of the impression that most of the justification/ferver over the crusades was to retake the Holy land from the heathen Muslim infildels...are you implying it was mearly an economic land grab (and that religion was only used an an excuse to cover up the greed and corruption)? Same with the Spanish when the conquered all of those native American peoples and forced Christianity on them etc...I guess i will have to examine the motivations of anyone who claims to act in God's name much more closely from now on - much like friend Osmanly (Islam-only) - a Fundi-Muslim Turk - who claims there are very few "true" Muslims in the world (that all those who claim to be just don't live up to the very strict requirements - etc). Sometimes i think thus aabout Christians - very few who are truly Christian - and i don't buy that as long as you say you accept Christ into your heart - but keep acting like the same old ******* - that you are a Christian - somehow i think it takes a bit mopre then that. I don't think it is possible to be a Christian and drive a Mercedes for instance - but who am I to say - I just some whacked out Daoist - eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arturian Posted October 25, 2001 Report Share Posted October 25, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Azat:Ali,I use to reside in Armenia in the days of Soviet Union and I am not sure if they forced other nations to convert to atheism. I know in Armenia people were free to go to church as they wished.AzatBecause they knew it could be dangerous...They didn't do pretty much against Armenia, but the education, and all this communist - comsomol way of thinking was atheistic.However, they had very strong influence in Kazakhstan. These guys changed totaly. Nowadays it is difficult to see a good muslim in Kazakhstan... they forced them to change alphabet, to forget their religion etc.In russia, they were arresting bishops, blowing churches, destroying icons etc...But there are many good points about USSR, it was a very moral society, where erotic, open, violent films were banned... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khodja Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 Any comment about the USSR being a MORAL society makes me laugh. I guess at least our beautiful single young ladies were not living as prostitutes in Moslem lands to be bedded for the equivalent of a few drams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggernaut Posted October 27, 2001 Report Share Posted October 27, 2001 quoteare you implying it was mearly an economic land grab No, what I am implying is that the Crusades and the Reconquista were not justified by the teachings of Christianity, and because the vast majority of the Europeans taking part were illitarate, what their religious leaders said (ie. Pope) the soldiers naturally thought to be the teachings of Christ. Therefore it was done in the name of Christianity, but in fact was not justified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExtraHye Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 quote:Originally posted by aurguplu: thorny, what did the soviet union do? regards, Ali, I use to reside in Armenia in the days of Soviet Union and I am not sure if they forced other nations to convert to atheism. I know in Armenia people were free to go to church as they wished. Azat style_images/master/snapback.png I would have to disagree with you on this one Azat. My mom always told me how people were looked down at for going to church. Will talk about it later when I get home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kakachik77 Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 I clearly don't regard Atheism as a religion and the point of this thread was to discuss religion. I mean there is no "sacred book" in Atheism, any kind of preachings or institutions. Please also note that communism does not necessarily mean atheism, there are atheists in France or USA but they don't belong to the communist party. I hope this made sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 There is no point of reviving a dead thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExtraHye Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 There is no point of reviving a dead thread. style_images/master/snapback.png Why? I've never seen this thread before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 My apologies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExtraHye Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 My apologies. style_images/master/snapback.png No problemo We'll let it slide by this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.