# Atheism to Defeat Religion By 2038



## Four (Jun 7, 2012)

Article Here

TL;DR 
as counties get more economically prosperous, they become more secular, if we look at the trend and assume it continues, atheism will be more popular than religion by 2038-2045



> The view that religious belief will give way to atheism is known as the secularization thesis. The specific version that I favor (1) is known as the existential security hypothesis. The basic idea is that as people become more affluent, they are less worried about lacking for basic necessities, or dying early from violence or disease. In other words they are secure in their own existence. They do not feel the need to appeal to supernatural entities to calm their fears and insecurities.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2012)

I hope I live to see the day.  Just imagine......


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 7, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I hope I live to see the day.  Just imagine......



You'll have to imagine 'cuz it's not gonna happen.  I agree with this line from the article:



> That does not prevent some serious scholars, like political scientist Eric Kaufmann, from making the opposite case that religious fundamentalists will outbreed the rest of us.



This is already happening in Europe where procreation-happy immigrant Muslims are outbreeding the locals.  In this country, religious people tend to have more kids than non-religious.

Demography is destiny.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 7, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I hope I live to see the day.  Just imagine......



I think John Lennon wrote a song about this......


----------



## blood on the ground (Jun 7, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> You'll have to imagine 'cuz it's not gonna happen.  I agree with this line from the article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 your right!


----------



## Four (Jun 7, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> You'll have to imagine 'cuz it's not gonna happen.  I agree with this line from the article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



that's why he made the point about mormons, which were like the arabs of america when it came to spreading religion through child-rearing, are now not breeding as much due to the economic prosperity. 

So you could argue that the arabs are breeding faster than secular countries, but so long as the economic grown outpaces the breeding, they will still slow down and become secular.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 7, 2012)

Four said:


> that's why he made the point about mormons, which were like the arabs of america when it came to spreading religion through child-rearing, are now not breeding as much ...



"Not breeding as much" is relative.  It's like the old joke:  if we're out walking in the woods and a bear starts chasing us, I don't have to outrun the bear.  I just have to outrun you.  When it comes to breeding, religious folk outrun the non-religious.




Four said:


> ... so long as the economic grown outpaces the breeding, they will still slow down and become secular.



We shall see.  I'm not betting on it, though.


----------



## Four (Jun 7, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> We shall see.  I'm not betting on it, though.



yea its just silly, fun speculation.


----------



## Asath (Jun 7, 2012)

Does education get any leverage in all of this, or are we only going to base the future on just who can have the most babies, as though religious sentiment is genetic?

So far as I know there isn’t a genetic sequence that marks someone as Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Agnostic or Atheist – that distinction is entirely a personal decision, and is the result of upbringing and the information at one’s disposal.  At one point in history believers in a flat-earth theory numbered nearly everyone, but their children still did what children do – they looked around and said, ‘Really?  C’mon.  You’re kidding, right?’

In the modern world we can readily witness the paranoia of the few remaining dictatorial and theocratic governments, as they try unsuccessfully to suppress the true information that would lead their people away from blind obedience.  Seems like it doesn’t matter who can out-produce whom in the baby-making sweepstakes – they’ll have to keep them hobbled, blinded, sequestered, and brain-washed to keep them from viewing the real facts here in the information age.  And don’t forget the most important fact – it is a teenager’s JOB to reject the values of their parents.

My own son, educated in one of the highest-rated public schools in the nation has never read a single word of Shakespeare, but can type about 150 words per-minute without even looking and can build a computer from scratch overnight.  What chance does anyone seriously think a single ancient and poorly written Book has of enduring in an environment like that?  And this isn’t isolated – most of his peers think, and most surveys of this new generation of young adults reveal, that they consider Churches to be little more than pretty cool looking buildings, and couldn’t be bothered to care what goes on inside them.  It just isn’t relevant or interesting to them.

Notice as well the focus that is now being placed on so-called ‘bullying’ among the young – they are being trained to reject the idiotic pressure tactics of their peers and the demands for conformity.  What is religious indoctrination if not that?

So far as I’m concerned religions of all kinds have already lost, by stubbornly refusing to progress, and the youth today have zero patience with the cob-webbed nonsense of ‘wise elders’ who can’t even run three separate computer screens simultaneously or figure out how their IPhone works.  Forget about the breeding part – its all about the thinking part.

If I were to hazard a guess about the genetics part, I’d opine that evolution has continued to refine our intellectual crap-detection mechanisms, and our children are much better at it than we were.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 9, 2012)

Asath said:


> Does education get any leverage in all of this, or are we only going to base the future on just who can have the most babies, as though religious sentiment is genetic?
> 
> So far as I know there isn’t a genetic sequence that marks someone as Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Agnostic or Atheist – that distinction is entirely a personal decision, and is the result of upbringing and the information at one’s disposal.  At one point in history believers in a flat-earth theory numbered nearly everyone, but their children still did what children do – they looked around and said, ‘Really?  C’mon.  You’re kidding, right?’
> 
> ...



Ever seen the movie Idiocracy?

"Maybe you should put water on the crops?"

"What, like out the toilet?"


----------



## ross the deer slayer (Jun 9, 2012)

So if people make more money and can feed kids..they wont have kids? And while in an economic disaster people can have more kids......??? Maybe i'm not understanding this right..  and terrorists don't just stop terrorizing..do they? With their radical beliefs does anyone think they could ever become atheists?? 
Help me out here please.. because i'm a little confused with the reasoning for that atheism spread theory thing


----------



## Asath (Jun 9, 2012)

If I had to boil it all down to a single sentence, to clarify the thought to those who won’t bother to read it anyway, I would put the theory like this – ‘The God of (insert denomination here) has NEVER answered a SINGLE prayer, and has been given thousands of years of chances to do so, leaving us with no real reason to think anything other than that we’ve been duped.’


----------



## Nastytater (Jun 10, 2012)

Asath said:


> If I had to boil it all down to a single sentence, to clarify the thought to those who won’t bother to read it anyway, I would put the theory like this – ‘The God of (insert denomination here) has NEVER answered a SINGLE prayer, and has been given thousands of years of chances to do so, leaving us with no real reason to think anything other than that we’ve been duped.’



God doesn't answer prayers just because you ask them though,he answers them if he see's a need in them. And as far as NOT 1 single prayer answered,I can think of several prayers answered and those were just mine alone.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 10, 2012)

Nastytater said:


> I can think of several prayers answered and those were just mine alone.



Me too....I have seen God work.It's an awesome sight!!!


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 10, 2012)

Asath said:


> My own son, educated in one of the highest-rated public schools in the nation has never read a single word of Shakespeare, but can type about 150 words per-minute without even looking and can build a computer from scratch overnight.  What chance does anyone seriously think a single ancient and poorly written Book has of enduring in an environment like that?  And this isn’t isolated – most of his peers think, and most surveys of this new generation of young adults reveal, that they consider Churches to be little more than pretty cool looking buildings, and couldn’t be bothered to care what goes on inside them.  It just isn’t relevant or interesting to them.


Sad!!!


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 11, 2012)

Asath said:


> ‘The God of (insert denomination here) has NEVER answered a SINGLE prayer, and has been given thousands of years of chances to do so, leaving us with no real reason to think anything other than that we’ve been duped.’



I would have liked to seen you tell this to the Jewish slaves as they were leaving Egypt!!!


----------



## Asath (Jun 11, 2012)

The Shakespeare part is sad, truly.  Seems like the schools now teach political correctness mostly, which leaves them little time for actual education.  But all is not lost – BECAUSE they forget that it is a teenager’s job to reject the imposition of thoughts upon them – more of the youth than they realize are laughing behind their hands in school, and the teachers fail to realize that nearly all of these kids have the entire internet (properly used, the world’s largest library) at their disposal.  You couldn’t snow most of them if you tried, and you can’t limit their education, because their curiosity is instantly fulfilled,  without the ‘guidance’ of ‘wise elders’.

And this extends from the political snow-job to the religious one – they are walking away from nonsense in droves.  This part is not sad – this is very encouraging.  Even in closed enclaves of ‘enforced’ religious nonsense, such as the Amish, the kids are running, not walking, for the exits.  And the better news is that the social media they are using is world-wide, and is used so well that it can’t be policed – even the games they play have message forums and live person-to-person interaction behind the scenes – so the ubiquitous and enduring phenomenon of youth automatically saying, ‘Really? You MUST be kidding!’ is spreading across all cultures and all religions, and even the most oppressed are being reinforced by their peers.  As a result, for every Christian who walks away, so does one Islamic, one Jew, one Hindu, and one of each of every stripe.  We may well see religious AND nationalistic nonsense fall into the scrap-heap of history in only one or two generations at this pace.

Nonsense has only ever been able to endure when the ‘leaders’ controlled access to information – they can’t realistically do that anymore.  Anywhere.  Even China is building a new ‘Wall’ – a total physical fence complete with machine-gun towers – along their entire border with their ‘ally’ – North Korea.  Seems that even the folks in one of the most controlled and repressed countries in the world are getting to the actual truth, and are walking out in numbers so large that it is overwhelming China!  Imagine fleeing to China in search of freedom!  Wow.    

I call this sort of thing Good News.

Ancient strictures, and the endless desire of the ‘leaders’ to force people to think as they do don’t stand a chance.  The real truth is sitting right there, for anyone and everyone to view and make up their own minds. 

(And if you ‘Believe’ that it was GOD who enabled the ‘Jewish slaves’ to leave Egypt, then you are among those the youth are laughing at, not to mention the rest of us . . . )


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 11, 2012)

Some day soon the act of someone suggesting to another person that they are going to He11 will be repugnant and they will be shunned from decent society.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 11, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Some day soon the act of someone suggesting to another person that they are going to He11 will be repugnant and they will be shunned from decent society.



Man, I thought we were there already. All I ever hear is how everybody is going to heaven.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 11, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> I would have liked to seen you tell this to the Jewish slaves as they were leaving Egypt!!!



Jewish slaves.........
Don't you find it even a little bit odd that the "slaves" lived among the Egyptians and other nationalities? Why did the "slaves" have to put the blood on the door to differentiate them from the people living around them? Hardly slaves and hardly an exodus as described in the Bible.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Jewish slaves.........
> Don't you find it even a little bit odd that the "slaves" lived among the Egyptians and other nationalities? Why did the "slaves" have to put the blood on the door to differentiate them from the people living around them? Hardly slaves and hardly an exodus as described in the Bible.



Funny that you use the word exodus........Because thats the Book of the Bible that describes Jewish bondage in Egypt.
Exodus 3:6-8
Exodus 13:3
Exodus 3:10
and also in the New Testament Acts 7:30-39
If life for the Jews was so great in Egypt why did they want to leave??????????????????????fine:


----------



## Four (Jun 12, 2012)

historically speaking, the whole pyramid building jewish slaves, and the exodus is all nonsense.

that's ok though, because we don't take the OT seriously, eh?


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 12, 2012)

Four said:


> historically speaking, the whole pyramid building jewish slaves, and the exodus is all nonsense.
> 
> that's ok though, because we don't take the OT seriously, eh?



I don't think the OT specifies that Jewish slaves built the pyramids, just that the Jews were slaves.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Funny that you use the word exodus........Because thats the Book of the Bible that describes Jewish bondage in Egypt.
> Exodus 3:6-8
> Exodus 13:3
> Exodus 3:10
> ...



Funny? The book of exodus is the only place that describes what you are trying to pass off as fact. Historically it is found no where else as described in the Bible.
Today I will give you the gift of knowledge. You will learn something, but be careful as it might get contagious.

From this site:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4191
"I've heard some Christians say the Bible is a literal historical document, thus Jewish slaves built the pyramids (the Bible actually doesn't mention pyramids at all, this came from Herodotus. See below. - BD); and I've heard some non-religious historians say there's no evidence that there were ever Jews in ancient Egypt. Both can't be true. To find the truth, we need to take a critical look at the archaeological and historical evidence for the history of Jews in Egypt. In order to do this responsibly, we first have to put aside any ideological motivations that would taint our efforts. We're not going to say such research is sacrilegious because it seeks to disprove the Bible or the Torah; we're not going to say such research is a moral imperative because religious accounts are deceptive; and we're not going to pretend that such research is racially motivated against either Jews or Egyptians. We simply want to know what really happened, because true history is vital.

One of the first things you find out is that it's important to get our definitions right. Terms like Jew and Hebrew are thrown around a lot in these histories, and they're not the same thing. A Jew is someone who practices the Jewish religion. A Hebrew is someone who speaks the Hebrew language. An Israelite is a citizen of Israel. A Semite is a member of an ethnic group characterized by any of the Semitic languages including Arabic, Hebrew, Assyrian, and many smaller groups throughout Africa and the Middle East. You can be some or all of these things. An Israelite need not be a Jew, and a Jew need not be a Hebrew. Confusion over the use of these terms complicates research. Hebrews could be well integrated into a non-Jewish society, but modern reporting might refer to them as Jews, which can be significantly misleading.

Now, there are more than just a single question we're trying to answer here. Were the Jews slaves in ancient Egypt? Were the pyramids built by these slaves? Did the Exodus happen as is commonly believed?

The biggest and most obvious evidence — the pyramids themselves — are an easy starting point. Their age is well established. The bulk of the Giza Necropolis, consisting of such famous landmarks as the Great Pyramid of Cheops and the Sphinx, are among Egypt's oldest large pyramids and were completed around 2540 BCE. Most of Egypt's large pyramids were built over a 900 year period from about 2650 BCE to about 1750 BCE.

We also know quite a lot about the labor force that built the pyramids. The best estimates are that 10,000 men spent 30 years building the Great Pyramid. They lived in good housing at the foot of the pyramid, and when they died, they received honored burials in stone tombs near the pyramid in thanks for their contribution. This information is relatively new, as the first of these worker tombs was only discovered in 1990. They ate well and received the best medical care. And, also unlike slaves, they were well paid. The pyramid builders were recruited from poor communities and worked shifts of three months (including farmers who worked during the months when the Nile flooded their farms), distributing the pharaoh's wealth out to where it was needed most. Each day, 21 cattle and 23 sheep were slaughtered to feed the workers, enough for each man to eat meat at least weekly. Virtually every fact about the workers that archaeology has shown us rules out the use of slave labor on the pyramids.

It wasn't until almost 2,000 years after the Great Pyramid received its capstone that the earliest known record shows evidence of Jews in Egypt, and they were neither Hebrews nor Israelites. They were a garrison of soldiers from the Persian Empire, stationed on Elephantine, an island in the Nile, beginning in about 650 BCE. They fought alongside the Pharaoh's soldiers in the Nubian campaign, and later became the principal trade portal between Egypt and Nubia. Their history is known from the Elephantine Papyri discovered in 1903, which are in Aramaic, not Hebrew; and their religious beliefs appear to have been a mixture of Judaism and pagan polytheism. Archival records recovered include proof that they observed Shabbat and Passover, and also records of interfaith marriages. In perhaps the strangest reversal from pop pseudohistory, the papyri include evidence that at least some of the Jewish settlers at Elephantine owned Egyptian slaves.

Other documentation also identifies the Elephantine garrison as the earliest immigration of Jews into Egypt. The Letter of Aristeas, written in Greece in the second century BCE, records that Jews had been sent into Egypt to assist Pharaoh Psammetichus I in his campaign against the Nubians. Psammetichus I ruled Egypt from 664 to 610 BCE, which perfectly matches the archaeological dating of the Elephantine garrison in 650.

If Jews were not in Egypt at the time of the pyramids, what about Israelites or Hebrews? Israel itself did not exist until approximately 1100 BCE when various Semitic tribes joined in Canaan to form a single independent kingdom, at least 600 years after the completion of the last of Egypt's large pyramids. Thus it is not possible for any Israelites to have been in Egypt at the time, either slave or free; as there was not yet any such thing as an Israelite. It was about this same time in history that the earliest evidence of the Hebrew language appeared: The Gezer Calendar, inscribed in limestone, and discovered in 1908. And so the history of Israel is very closely tied to that of Hebrews, and for the past 3,000 years, they've been essentially one culture.

But if neither Jews nor Israelites nor Hebrews were in Egypt until so many centuries after the pyramids were built, how could such a gross historical error become so deeply ingrained in popular knowledge? The story of Jewish slaves building the pyramids originated with Herodotus of Greece in about 450 BCE. He's often called the "Father of History" as he was among the first historians to take the business seriously and thoroughly document his work. Herodotus reported in his Book II of The Histories that the pyramids were built in 30 years by 100,000 Jewish slaves [In point of fact, Herodotus only says 100,000 workers. He does not mention either Jews or slaves. So even this popular belief seems to be in error, and the origin of the idea of Jews building the pyramids remains a mystery - BD]. Unfortunately, in his time, the line between historical fact and historical fiction was a blurry one. The value of the study of history was not so much to preserve history, as it was to furnish material for great tales; and a result, Herodotus was also called the "Father of Lies" and other Greek historians of the period also grouped under the term "liars". Many of Herodotus' writings are considered to be fanciful by modern scholars. Coincidentally, the text of the Book of Exodus was finalized at just about exactly the same time as Herodotus wrote The Histories. Obviously, the same information about what had been going on in Egypt 2,000 years before was available to both authors.


Which brings us to the final question: Was there a mass Exodus of Jewish slaves out of Egypt? There is no record of any such thing ever happening, and the simple reason is that there is no time in which it could have happened. No Egyptian record contains a single reference to anything in Exodus; and by the time there were enough Jews living in Egypt to constitute an Exodus, the time of the pyramids was long over. And Pharaoh Ramesses can be let off the hook as well: With apologies to Yul Brynner, no documentary or archaeological evidence links any of the Pharaohs bearing this name with plagues or Jewish slaves or edicts to kill babies. Indeed, the earliest, Ramesses I, wasn't even born until more than a thousand years after the Great Pyramid was completed. His grandson, the great Ramesses II, lived even later.

Some historians have attempted to rationalize the Exodus by drawing parallels to certain cities and trade centers that grew and shrank over the centuries for various reasons. Perhaps one of these economic shifts inspired the story of Exodus. Well, perhaps it did, but the nature of such a migration is, quite obviously, fundamentally different than that depicted in Exodus.

The pseudohistory of ancient Egypt is disrespectful to both Jews and Egyptians. It depicts the Jews as helpless slaves whose only contribution was sweat and broken backs, when in fact the earliest Jewish immigrants were respected allies to the Pharaoh and provided Egypt with a valuable service of both trade and defense. The pseudohistory also takes away from the Egyptians their due credit for construction of humanity's greatest architectural achievement, and portrays them as evil, bloodthirsty slavemasters. Pretty much every culture in the world at that period in history included slavery and conflict, and the Egyptians probably weren't any better or worse than most peoples.

Understanding history is essential to understanding ourselves. Although a story like Exodus is profoundly important to so many people throughout the world, the history it describes is false; and the faithful are best advised to seek value in it other than as a mere list of events. Doing so opens the door to a better comprehension of who we are as humans, and it's that shared history that will always unite us — no matter our race, color, or culture. It's just one little more service provided by good science"


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 12, 2012)

Asath said:


> Does education get any leverage in all of this, or are we only going to base the future on just who can have the most babies, as though religious sentiment is genetic?
> .....
> 
> If I were to hazard a guess about the genetics part, I’d opine that evolution has continued to refine our intellectual crap-detection mechanisms, and our children are much better at it than we were.



Indoctrination is a powerful thing.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 12, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Funny? The book of exodus is the only place that describes what you are trying to pass off as fact. Historically it is found no where else as described in the Bible.
> Today I will give you the gift of knowledge. You will learn something, but be careful as it might get contagious.
> 
> From this site:
> ...



Skeptoid.com huh? That sounds reliable.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 12, 2012)

I had a converstation today with a Dr. who recounted that a convent (nuns) took in a family one Christmas. The family had no means to heat their house. There was a father and a mother, several small children and a baby. They stayed at the  smallconvent ( only four nuns) until their home was renovated. Now was the convent less a convent for the family taken in?

Is religion less religious for the families, the communities, the cities, the nations it has taken in?

If families, communities, cities, nations have good morals it is not because it is natural. It is because they all started and were nurtured by the memory of being put up at a convent,  and others religious ( especially christian) organizations which practiced peace and justice--- one Christmas.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 13, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Skeptoid.com huh? That sounds reliable.



Exactly....I tend not to put too much stock in something found over the internet....Some believe everything they read on the WWW,I dont though!!!


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 13, 2012)

Looks like Skeptoid, in it's zeal to find an end to Christianity, and by publishing this flawed op-ed has by proxy admitted two things. A) They have validated Christianity by acknowledging some degree of chronological authority, and B) have displayed their ignorance by not understanding the scripture and leaving out the single most important scripture that completely discredits their entire theory behind this article.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 13, 2012)

yes the Jews and Egyptians were great allies bullethead,guess you never heard of the Merneptah Stele....Huh????!


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Skeptoid.com huh? That sounds reliable.



Ted, you know as well as I do that all you have to do is research the subject matter. Take 5 minutes on the 'net and you will find multiple sources that back each other up.
The site name surely sounds weird but the author has done his homework. It says a lot when skeptiod.com is more reliable than the Bible.

I know it is easy to pick on the sites name, but what do you know about the content of the article? Is picking on the name of the site all you've got?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Exactly....I tend not to put too much stock in something found over the internet....Some believe everything they read on the WWW,I dont though!!!



You tend not to much stock in anything that goes against what you think yet do not know. Research it your local library and get back to us..........


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Looks like Skeptoid, in it's zeal to find an end to Christianity, and by publishing this flawed op-ed has by proxy admitted two things. A) They have validated Christianity by acknowledging some degree of chronological authority, and B) have displayed their ignorance by not understanding the scripture and leaving out the single most important scripture that completely discredits their entire theory behind this article.



Details Miguel, give us some details. Give us the examples that back up your A&B.

Scripture does not discredit anything..........


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> yes the Jews and Egyptians were great allies bullethead,guess you never heard of the Merneptah Stele....Huh????!



http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Doc6/Merneptah.htm

Do your homework, read up on your subject in depth, and then make your informed case with examples and sources to back it up.

What are YOU trying to say about the Merneptah Stela?? What are you saying it "proves"? I know another darn pesky WWW is going to sink your limited argument but please continue.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Doc6/Merneptah.htm
> 
> Do your homework, read up on your subject in depth, and then make your informed case with examples and sources to back it up.
> 
> What are YOU trying to say about the Merneptah Stela?? What are you saying it "proves"? I know another darn pesky WWW is going to sink your limited argument but please continue.


Your so very predictable..........When i see yours and others post in here one thing comes to mind.........Carpal Tunnel!!!!!


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Your so very predictable..........When i see yours and others post in here one thing comes to mind.........Carpal Tunnel!!!!!



All bark no bite.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 13, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Your so very predictable..........When i see yours and others post in here one thing comes to mind......... Tunnel Vision!!!!!



Fixed it for you.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Fixed it for you.



Hello Pot


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 13, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Fixed it for you.



LOL........Yall have fun,I gotta go to work.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 14, 2012)

All these attacks on bullet and not one man enough to step up and refute the content of the argument.  One can only hope, for the sake of mankind, that this kind of mentality is at some point in our future, looked back and laughed upon. 

The actions of the so called believers on this board fuel my conviction to help the defeat of religion, and make sure the like mentality is something to be viewed with contempt.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 14, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> All these attacks on bullet and not one man enough to step up and refute the content of the argument.  One can only hope, for the sake of mankind, that this kind of mentality is at some point in our future, looked back and laughed upon.


You're right Bishop, maybe Miguel and Fish hawk should have made round about comments about Bullets intelligence, that seems to be the mentality your fond of. 



> The actions of the so called believers on this board fuel my conviction to help the defeat of religion, and make sure the like mentality is something to be viewed with contempt.



Rage against the machine


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 14, 2012)

If the shoe fits.....


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 14, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> If the shoe fits.....



, you're a class act Bishop.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 14, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> , you're a class act Bishop.



I atleast do not claim moral superiority becuase of what I believe.  Nor do I claim exclusivity to truth that I am unable to demonstrate.  I will tell you what I know, what I believe, and make the distinction between the two. What I know will be verifieable, and what I believe will be drawn from what can be known. 

 I also do not insult lightly, it earned by those it is directed upon.


----------



## dawg2 (Jun 14, 2012)

Four said:


> Atheism to Defeat Religion By 2038



If the title said this it woudl be more plausible: Islam to Defeat Christiainity By 2038


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 14, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> All these attacks on bullet and not one man enough to step up and refute the content of the argument.  One can only hope, for the sake of mankind, that this kind of mentality is at some point in our future, looked back and laughed upon.
> 
> The actions of the so called believers on this board fuel my conviction to help the defeat of religion, and make sure the like mentality is something to be viewed with contempt.



I dont think bullethead needs you to fight any of his battles,he is quite capable of fighting them all on his own!!!Also ,what is a "so called" believer anyways????Your either in or out, right?If I fuel your fire,then mission accomplished,but Christianity will never be defeated,so plug away all you want,i aint skeered and i dont think any of my brothers and sisters in Christ are either!!!the reason I don't answer his question about Jewish slaves is simple.The bible says the Jews were slaves in Egypt.I believe the bible so case closed as far as I'm concerned,but bullethead doesnt believe the Bible so it's much more complex for him!!!I'll take the bible over a blogger any day!!!


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 14, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> The actions of the so called believers





TheBishop said:


> If the shoe fits.....





TheBishop said:


> I also do not insult lightly,


----------



## bullethead (Jun 15, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> I dont think bullethead needs you to fight any of his battles,he is quite capable of fighting them all on his own!!!Also ,what is a "so called" believer anyways????Your either in or out, right?If I fuel your fire,then mission accomplished,but Christianity will never be defeated,so plug away all you want,i aint skeered and i dont think any of my brothers and sisters in Christ are either!!!the reason I don't answer his question about Jewish slaves is simple.The bible says the Jews were slaves in Egypt.I believe the bible so case closed as far as I'm concerned,but bullethead doesnt believe the Bible so it's much more complex for him!!!I'll take the bible over a blogger any day!!!



Bible vs Blogger:
Blogger does homework and uses facts to make case, Blogger wins

Bible vs Actual History:
0-2 Bible goes down again.

But thanks for the compliment....I think.


----------



## Asath (Jun 17, 2012)

"If I fuel your fire,then mission accomplished,but Christianity will never be defeated,so plug away all you want,i aint skeered and i dont think any of my brothers and sisters in Christ are either!!!"

Brothers and sisters in Christ?  Does anybody read this stuff before they push the 'Post' button, or is it enough to put up whatever nonsense dribbles down their chins?  

First off, Christianity has already defeated itself -- all we're doing is pointing that out to you.  Sorry for being the messenger of the Bad News.  

Without going into an exhaustive history of your own religion, which you ought to know and do not, deliberately, and knowing that Christianity betrayed its true motivations centuries beforehand, let us take the single example of the Protestant Reformation.

Remember that one?  I thought not.  That was the part, in your history of your religious BELIEF where folks seemed to decide that the BELIEF, as rendered in their Bible, wasn't really to their own taste, so everybody and their neighbor went ahead and wrote their own version, formed a 'Christian Denomination' around that re-writing, and declared anyone who thought differently to be a heretic.

Y'all lost any chance at credibility right there.

You either have a BELIEF or you do not.  You don't get to have your own VERSION of that Belief.  Once you try that, and build four entirely different 'Christian' churches on four different corners of the same intersection, you look like confused fools.  Nobody else did that to you -- you did it to yourselves.  We're merely observing.

If you want to try and tell anyone at all that your version is the right one, after that . . . well . . . good luck.  You shot yourselves in the foot, and accidentally revealed that not a single one of you knows anything at all to be true, and are all merely playing on fears and ancient superstition for the sole purpose of the purely human politics of control.

Christianity will never be defeated?  How very warlike.  Not a single dream of totalitarian conquest is revealed in a statement like that.

Truth is, as I said, Christianity is already defeated, and we didn't even have to help . . .  You did it yourselves.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 17, 2012)

I've put the Bible into my reading rotation.  I thought I'd take a look it again since I haven't read it since college.  I imagine a person in the future coming across one in a time capsule and looking at it like they would a stone tool.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 17, 2012)

Asath said:


> Truth is, as I said, Christianity is already defeated, and we didn't even have to help . . .  You did it yourselves.


LOL!!!!Thats the funniest thing I've read so far today......Prove it!!!


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> LOL!!!!Thats the funniest thing I've read so far today......Prove it!!!



Since when do believers deal in proof?


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 17, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I imagine a person in the future coming across one in a time capsule and looking at it like they would a stone tool.



Funny you mention stone tools as I have found a few.When i see or find a stone tool i look at it with amazement......Then I think about the person that made that implement and how important it was to them.......The thing about stone tools is:although it's antiquated it could still serve it's intended purpose,even today.I could use stone tools to dress a deer and get the job done just as good and also just as fast,even today with all our so called technology.I think Nic has dressed a few deer using nothing more than stone implements!!!


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 17, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Since when do believers deal in proof?



Sorry you think Christians are nothing more than mindless robots!!!but it's just not true!!!


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Sorry you think Christians are nothing more than mindless robots!!!but it's just not true!!!



Nope. I never said that at all. I am just curious as to why most people (of any and all religious affiliation) go through life as fairly savvy individuals in regards to researching and requiring proof in every other aspect of their lives, yet throw it all out the window where religion is concerned.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2012)

You ask for proof from ASATH and would dismiss it when shown anyway, yet you'll take the words of men in a book and not question them.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 17, 2012)

bullethead said:


> You ask for proof from ASATH and would dismiss it when shown anyway, yet you'll take the words of men in a book and not question them.



Well I guess thats where having faith steps in.....I know you dont understand it,but my faith is real for me!!!You have to believe to be able to see!!!


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Well I guess thats where having faith steps in.....I know you dont understand it,but my faith is real for me!!!You have to believe to be able to see!!!



I had it,understood it, and slowly realized what it was not.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 17, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I had it,understood it, and slowly realized what it was not.


Sorry,didnt know......So what your saying is that you were once a believer but something happened to turn that around or you once had faith and lost it?or both.I dont know much about you bullethead and dont know your story,sorry if im bringing something up thats been posted before.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Sorry,didnt know......So what your saying is that you were once a believer but something happened to turn that around or you once had faith and lost it?or bothI dont know much about you bullethead and dont know your story,sorry if im bringing something up thats been posted before.



Yep. I worshiped without question. I started to want to question but felt guilty for even thinking along those lines. I talked to pastors and priests(one a very close friend that is so brutally honest about religion that it is scary) and anyone I could in order to make sense out of the questions I had. Nothing I have heard in 22 years now has been convincing enough to keep me a faithful follower. I have heard and had some excellent conversation on here and outside of the 'net and I appreciate the time people have taken to share their thoughts and explanations. It has all boiled down to that there is no universal right or wrong. It is solely an individuals inner personal beliefs that matter to that individual. There are no two humans on the planet that feel exactly the same about anything, especially religion. And long story short, I have found that IF there is a creator, mankind has polluted the concept so badly that any attempt to organize religion has been a disorganized mess. IF there is a creator I have been asking the wrong people for answers because there is not a single one of them that actually knows anything about it. Myself included. So I am content listening to others tell me how it is and then I try to question them in order to see if I am missing something and I could be convinced otherwise. So far when pressed to the nitty gritty details the answers always come to faith because no one has any real answers. I have a hard time having faith in anything that is so random, vague and non-existent. I have not found a single instance that cannot be associated with it being the works of another invisible mystical made up creature. I do have faith though but it is in the tangible real world. I am fine with not living forever and possibly that is why I can be honest about asking the hard questions now and not hoping for ancient writings of ancient times (of which there are thousands) to guide my life. I am fully convinced none of them are necessarily wrong( as it calms the masses) but I am positive none of them are right either.

I continue on though.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 17, 2012)

Thanks for taking the time to share that bullethead and i do understand your point of view about faith.It's something thats hard to grasp and hang on to...I will admit that my faith has been tested time and time again,but I always go back to God's word.In times of trials and hardships I sometimes put God on the back burner and become so consumed with the problem that it's hard to see him,but ultimately in the end when I do this I become empty......One thing i will share about faith  happened just last Sunday.I have been my own boss for over 20 years,well about seven months ago a friend that owns his own business approached me about working for him,i thought great i can work for someone else and not have the stress that goes along with having to run and maintain my own business,well last Sunday he calls and tells me he cant afford to work me anymore,i never seen that coming,I was really devastated and didnt know where to turn so i turned to God.I knew he had a better plan for me so i just stepped out on faith and trusted him.Monday i made a phone call and BAM,I had another job,just like that.I didnt go one day without work....Thats how i can maintain my faith,by seeing how God works in my own life.Im sure posting this here I will be mocked and laughed at but thats alright because thats just a smidgin of how God is working and continues to work in my life......Each and every persons relationship with God is a personal one.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Thanks for taking the time to share that bullethead and i do understand your point of view about faith.It's something thats hard to grasp and hang on to...I will admit that my faith has been tested time and time again,but I always go back to God's word.In times of trials and hardships I sometimes put God on the back burner and become so consumed with the problem that it's hard to see him,but ultimately in the end when I do this I become empty......One thing i will share about faith  happened just last Sunday.I have been my own boss for over 20 years,well about seven months ago a friend that owns his own business approached me about working for him,i thought great i can work for someone else and not have the stress that goes along with having to run and maintain my own business,well last Sunday he calls and tells me he cant afford to work me anymore,i never seen that coming,I was really devastated and didnt know where to turn so i turned to God.I knew he had a better plan for me so i just stepped out on faith and trusted him.Monday i made a phone call and BAM,I had another job,just like that.I didnt go one day without work....Thats how i can maintain my faith,by seeing how God works in my own life.Im sure posting this here I will be mocked and laughed at but thats alright because thats just a smidgin of how God is working and continues to work in my life......Each and every persons relationship with God is a personal one.



Understood and I understand why you think like that. I used to think like that too. I also took a really hard look at all the times things did not work out and I passed them off as God's Will. After I started to move away from religion I found the same situations arise. I found that some work out and some do not, basically at the exact same ratio as when I was religious. Who do I thank now?
I found that the oak tree in my yard has granted as many good happenings as when I prayed and or left it in the hands of God.
Do you feel that God intervened to your personal situation and ignored or said "no" to an equally faithful believer that truly needed his help in a time of crisis(like rape, robbery, health issue or job...etc)??


----------



## ross the deer slayer (Jun 17, 2012)

Wow believers and non-believers respectfully working out differences. Awesome! Thanks guys. Bullethead, i'm pretty sure The Bible tells us that we will question our Faith, and that satan cannot tempt us beyond what we can bear, and that God will always provide a way out of temptation..


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> Wow believers and non-believers respectfully working out differences. Awesome! Thanks guys. Bullethead, i'm pretty sure The Bible tells us that we will question our Faith, and that satan cannot tempt us beyond what we can bear, and that God will always provide a way out of temptation..



Ross, no disrespect, but all the handbooks of the religions of the world say pretty much the same thing.


----------



## Asath (Jun 19, 2012)

“LOL!!!!Thats the funniest thing I've read so far today......Prove it!!!”

Okay.

It goes like this:  Catholic, Baptist, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, Presbyterian, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Pentecostalist, Anabaptist, Friend, Adventist, Latter Day Saint, Unitarian, Universalist, Congregationalist, Swedenborgianist, Trinitarian, Charismatic, Southcottie, Adventist, Millerite, African Initiated, Apostolic, Messianic Judaist, Pietist . . .   Need I go on?  I can.  For several paragraphs.

One God.  One Jesus.  One Word of the One God.  So we’re told . . . By EACH of DOZENS of sects who have all written their own versions . . . 

Now that right there is GENUINELY funny . . . 

Seems pretty self-evident that this Christianity that we hear so much about exists solely in the minds of each of the various adherents within each of the various sects, several of which have waged (are waging) literal wars against each other to determine, by bloodshed, who has the ‘right’ version of the peaceful, benevolent, and forgiving Christ figure of their imaginations.  We couldn’t write this sort of actual self-worship and simultaneous self-negation as a fiction story if we tried – the truth of it is so absurd that if not for the genuine tragedy you folks have authored as a result we’d be laughing ourselves sick.

Religions aren’t just dying off because they are outdated, outmoded, antiquated squeaks of ancient dogma in the face of modern progress, but also because they insist on killing each other off in the name of the SAME GOD that they all purport to BELIEVE.  Bit of an internal contradiction there, logically.  THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE! You all thunder, then join swords . . . Your Belief, obviously, is in yourselves.  

In factionalizing, and engaging in factional warfare, you all reveal just that, but with an added benefit to the outside observer that you, yourselves, all seem blind to --  If the Word of this God is THAT ambiguous, to have spawned such nonsense, then clearly it cannot be anything of the sort.  The whole mess can only be explained by one thing –

Human words and human politics and human self-interest.   

Defeated by themselves in trying to defeat each other . . .  How very touchingly appropriate.

Don’t feel singled out – ALL religions have defeated themselves for just this reason – they’ve made themselves so ridiculous that no outside observer can possibly take them seriously anymore.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 20, 2012)

Asath said:


> “LOL!!!!Thats the funniest thing I've read so far today......Prove it!!!”
> 
> Okay.
> 
> ...



You used Adventist twice.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 20, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You used Adventist twice.



Well that negates the entire otherwise spot on post.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 20, 2012)

Asath said:


> ALL religions have defeated themselves for just this reason – they’ve made themselves so ridiculous that no outside observer can possibly take them seriously anymore.



Seeing just how much time you devote to it, I find this statement interesting. Either you do not consider yourself an outside observer, or you are being dishonest.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 20, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Well that negates the entire otherwise spot on post.



It was the only thing in the post that was worth a response.

I don't want to get into all his other rediculous, and unfounded claims.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 20, 2012)

Asath said:


> Defeated by themselves in trying to defeat each other . . .  How very touchingly appropriate.
> 
> Don’t feel singled out – ALL religions have defeated themselves for just this reason – they’ve made themselves so ridiculous that no outside observer can possibly take them seriously anymore.



What was the national religion of the USSR when it fell?


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 20, 2012)

Asath said:


> “LOL!!!!Thats the funniest thing I've read so far today......Prove it!!!”
> 
> Okay.
> 
> ...


Your typed words dont prove something true......Still waiting


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 20, 2012)

Lets see:
Christianity is ranked the largest religion in the world today. According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, in 2010 there were 2.18 billion Christians around the world.
U.S.-247 million in 2010 (79.5% of the Population) 
Brazil - 175,770,000 (90.2% of the Population)
Mexico - 107,780,000 (95% of the Population) 
Dont appear to me that Christianity is a dead duck,so your claims Mr. Asath are totally ridiculous,to put it nicely.


----------



## Four (Jun 20, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Lets see:
> Christianity is ranked the largest religion in the world today. According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, in 2010 there were 2.18 billion Christians around the world.
> U.S.-247 million in 2010 (79.5% of the Population)
> Brazil - 175,770,000 (90.2% of the Population)
> ...



for a group of people that seem so quickly to call people who identify as a "christian" fakes, or not "real" Christians, figures like this should be meaningless, eh?


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 20, 2012)

Four said:


> for a group of people that seem so quickly to call people who identify as a "christian" fakes, or not "real" Christians, figures like this should be meaningless, eh?



Find for me once "Sir"  where I have said anyone was a fake christian or not real or genuine......God judges peoples hearts ,not me!!!!Still waiting


----------



## Four (Jun 20, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Find for me once "Sir"  where I have said anyone was a fake christian or not real or genuine......God judges peoples hearts ,not me!!!!Still waiting



I don't get the sir :chuckle: thing? Are you somehow making fun of me?

Also, I was speaking more generally to the christian population of this forum. If you're personal definition of a christian is anyone that identifies as a christian, than it was not pointed at you.

However, if you think there are more attributes needed than self-identification, it was.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 20, 2012)

So if 79.5 % of the U.S. population claims to be Christian that leaves only around 20% of the population as non-christian.So what percent of those 20% are athiest?Hum?I'm guessing around 1.5 % which is about{.07%} of the U.S. population.....Those type numbers are not very staggering,now are they?


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 20, 2012)

Four said:


> I don't get the sir :chuckle: thing? Are you somehow making fun of me?



Naw...i wouldnt do that.It's just a stab at one particular member that loves to call everyone "Sir".And when he does it to me I dont take it that way,but according to you maybe I shouldHe really likes emoticons also,thats why i like to use em'.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 20, 2012)

Four said:


> for a group of people that seem so quickly to call people who identify as a "christian" fakes, or not "real" Christians, figures like this should be meaningless, eh?



Those figures would be difficult to justify with Scripture as well.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 20, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> So if 79.5 % of the U.S. population claims to be Christian that leaves only around 20% of the population as non-christian.So what percent of those 20% are athiest?Hum?I'm guessing around 1.5 % which is about{.07%} of the U.S. population.....Those type numbers are not very staggering,now are they?



I don't think God cares about the difference between nonbelievers and athiest. You are either with him or against him.


----------



## Asath (Jun 21, 2012)

I don't remember ever saying that out of approximately 6.7 billion people on the planet, there were approximately 2.18 billion smart ones.

A quick look around, and a moment of doing the math, wouldn't reveal that a bit over 32% of the world population has even sent or received a phone call in their lifetime, let alone asking that 2.18 billion figure to match the world-wide literacy rate.

So what is your point?  That there are alot of dumb people?  We already know that part . . .


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 22, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> What was the national religion of the USSR when it fell?



Still waiting on an answer to this one.



Asath said:


> I don't remember ever saying that out of approximately 6.7 billion people on the planet, there were approximately 2.18 billion smart ones.
> 
> A quick look around, and a moment of doing the math, wouldn't reveal that a bit over 32% of the world population has even sent or received a phone call in their lifetime, let alone asking that 2.18 billion figure to match the world-wide literacy rate.
> 
> So what is your point?  That there are alot of dumb people?  We already know that part . . .



And I sure would like to see a link to your source of this information.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 22, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Funny you mention stone tools as I have found a few.When i see or find a stone tool i look at it with amazement......Then I think about the person that made that implement and how important it was to them.......The thing about stone tools is:although it's antiquated it could still serve it's intended purpose,even today.I could use stone tools to dress a deer and get the job done just as good and also just as fast,even today with all our so called technology.I think Nic has dressed a few deer using nothing more than stone implements!!!



I think you make my point quite well.  Thank you.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 22, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I think you make my point quite well.  Thank you.


 I understand your point. 

Let me present one.

As Atheist endeavor to defeat religion and to delight in the very possibility of it, they either knowingly or unknowingly, predict or hope for, what has already been foretold. This places you in the most difficult position of affirming Scripture.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> I understand your point.
> 
> Let me present one.
> 
> As Atheist endeavor to defeat religion and to delight in the very possibility of it, they either knowingly or unknowingly, predict or hope for, what has already been foretold. This places you in the most difficult position of affirming Scripture.



Gem EVERY leader, cult, gang, or religion foretells of the effort to defeat them so that it seems as if another prophesy comes true. It is like saying SOMEONE will win the NBA Championship, or someone is going to question the Gov't. Any leader worth his salt better know they are doomed sooner later so they have to make statements that somehow link them to their followers so that when they are gone their followers are still marveling in the leaders fortune telling. Scripture says lots of things....other religions scripture says it too. Writing down that the sun will rise tomorrow is not predicting prophesy. Neither is predicting that someone will question any religion.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 22, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Gem EVERY leader, cult, gang, or religion foretells of the effort to defeat them so that it seems as if another prophesy comes true. It is like saying SOMEONE will win the NBA Championship, or someone is going to question the Gov't. Any leader worth his salt better know they are doomed sooner later so they have to make statements that somehow link them to their followers so that when they are gone their followers are still marveling in the leaders fortune telling. Scripture says lots of things....other religions scripture says it too. Writing down that the sun will rise tomorrow is not predicting prophesy. Neither is predicting that someone will question any religion.


You've got to admit that those old goat herders are sure making it difficult on you.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> You've got to admit that those old goat herders are sure making it difficult on you.



Not one bit actually.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 22, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> I understand your point.
> 
> Let me present one.
> 
> As Atheist endeavor to defeat religion and to delight in the very possibility of it, they either knowingly or unknowingly, predict or hope for, what has already been foretold. This places you in the most difficult position of affirming Scripture.



Could you explain what part of the foretold prophecy they are a part of?


----------



## Asath (Jun 23, 2012)

“And I sure would like to see a link to your source of this information.”

And I’m sure that I’m not responsible for the gaps in other’s educations – the information you doubt so readily is also readily available, if you wish to seek it out rather that try to bog others down and derail intelligent discussion into a siding designed as a rhetorical cul-de-sac.

Do a bit of your own homework before coming down here and wasting bandwidth – the worldwide illiteracy rate, over age 15, estimated and averaged across various reasonably disinterested sources is 26%.  Extrapolate that to the under 15 population at about the same expected percentage and that rate rises slightly above 30%.  Recognize that literacy alone is not education or intelligence – merely the ability to read, and perhaps learn if one wishes to do so and is able to access information – which access is hugely limited by most governments in the interest, oddly enough, of theocracy.  God wants them to stay dumb, their governments tell them, or in the case of places like China, where the government IS GOD, well . . . what is different? The population is still kept dumb, partly by the sheep-like following instinct, and mostly by the desire of the Leaders to keep things that way.  Smart people threaten established control paradigms, and that has always been universally discouraged.

Then look up telephone access.  About 15% of the world population has access to over 75% of the established telephone access lines, and the number of telephones in existence is estimated (by the CIA, among other sources) at about 1 billion.  The 48 least developed nations have an estimated collective access to less than 1.5 million telephone lines, while containing far more than 35% of the world population.  So my statement was actually very conservative.  By most statistical analysis far less that 50% of the people on the planet have ever made or received a telephone call.

So, if you wish to assert that the world is positively FILLED with enlightened, literate, connected, intelligent, educated, thoughtful folks who make deliberate and fully informed decisions, and THAT is why there seem to be 2.18 billion Christians, then go right ahead and back that assertion up.

The real evidence says that nearly a third of those Christians can’t even read.

But don’t worry – neither can nearly a third of everyone else.  Except for the Atheists.  Do a bit of homework on that outcome, so far as literacy, access to information, and resulting education level equates to religious affiliation.  

It won’t take long, and you might learn something, if only accidentally.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 25, 2012)

Asath said:


> “And I sure would like to see a link to your source of this information.”
> 
> And I’m sure that I’m not responsible for the gaps in other’s educations – the information you doubt so readily is also readily available, if you wish to seek it out rather that try to bog others down and derail intelligent discussion into a siding designed as a rhetorical cul-de-sac.
> 
> ...



Sometimes listening is a lot better than speaking....God never said you had to read to be a Christian.All you have to do is give your heart and life to him.I'd much rather be dumb and saved than smart and unsaved....Anyways my info trumps yours.Atheist dont seem so smart to me to begin with.Just maybe the dumb illiterate christian that cant read turns out to be smarter than you in the end!!! Sweet and


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Sometimes listening is a lot better than speaking....God never said you had to read to be a Christian.All you have to do is give your heart and life to him.I'd much rather be dumb and saved than smart and unsaved....Anyways my info trumps yours.Atheist dont seem so smart to me to begin with.Just maybe the dumb illiterate christian that cant read turns out to be smarter than you in the end!!! Sweet and



I was beginning to think you had a little more class after our last conversation.


----------



## Asath (Jun 25, 2012)

"God never said you had to read to be a Christian."

Thank Goodness.  Whew!  For a moment there I thought you had to have read your Holy Book BEFORE believing every Word to be True.

Sorry, but God never said anything.  That is a problem, what with there having to be a God in order for such a thing to have ever spoken.

"All you have to do is give your heart and life to him."

To who?  A 'him' would have to be a thing that would have to be a who. But nobody has any evidence whatosever of any such 'him,' or thing, or who.  So 'all you have to do' is give your life over to something.  But that something isn't anything.  But it MIGHT be, in an overwhelmingly large number of imaginations.  And that is enough for the dummies, it seems, and has always been. "All you have to do' is totally abandon all of your critical, logical, instinctive, and intellectual faculties, and EVERYTHING you dream about becomes true.  Who knew it could be so easy to actually live in Disney World?

"I'd much rather be dumb and saved than smart and unsaved . . . "

Saved?  From what?  Death?  Well . . . um . . . no.  The consequences of your own actions?  Well . . . um . . . no.  Natural disasters?   Well . . . um . . . no.  Diseases?  Well . . . um . . . no.  War?  Asteroids?  Crime? Poverty? Starvation? Injustice? Loneliness? Mental Illness?  Drowning? Flesh-Eating Insects? Sunburn? Democrats? Bad Movies?  

What?  WHAT are you SAVED from?  And exactly how?

"Anyways my info trumps yours."

Right.  Got it. But what info is that?  And WHERE exactly did you get this info, especially if you can't read (or don't, which is the same thing)?  Are you saying that a Utopian Vision that came to you, or to someone else, in a Dream, counts as information?  Are you sure you want to devote an entire life to something like that?  If so, good luck, but leave the rest of us out of it.

"Just maybe the dumb illiterate christian that cant read turns out to be smarter than you in the end!!!"

They put exclamation points on the keyboard!  cool!  Who knew that three of them trump a single question mark.  You True Believers teach me something new every single day . . . If you are smarter, 'in the end,' then please drop by after that end comes and explain it.  Thus far you folks are doing a pretty poor job of demonstrating how 'smart' you are, and SHOWING your position to be true.  If you really want anyone to know and Believe that your own imaginary friend in the sky is genuinely there, that ought to be easy for both you -- who assert a personal relationship with this friend -- and for this friend itself -- who you assert to be all-powerful and which need not be subject to your own excuses as to why it has NEVER appeared. One would think, reasonably, that if you want us to see it your way, between the two of you (You, and the imaginary friend you speak with regularly), y'all could cook up a way to do SOMETHING other than to smugly assert the impossible and beg for only money and obedience simply because YOU say so, what with the imaginary friend you are representing being so silent and all.

But you can't.  And NEVER HAVE.  Pardon us for thinking that is something of a problem in the credibility department.  For those of us who CAN read, and do, we notice that history is positively crammed full of assertions of invisible, imaginary friends who demanded money and obedience, from Zeus and Athena to Odin and Thor, and back again.  If you want YOURS to be different, the standard has already been set -- and by YOU, who do not believe in any of those old Gods -- YOUR God had better actually do something that THOSE Gods failed to do.  It hasn't.  

We cast off the old ones for failing to deliver.  We cast off yours, now, for the same reason YOU have cast off theirs.


----------



## JABBO (Jun 26, 2012)

Asath said:


> "God never said you had to read to be a Christian."
> 
> Thank Goodness.  Whew!  For a moment there I thought you had to have read your Holy Book BEFORE believing every Word to be True.
> 
> ...


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I was beginning to think you had a little more class after our last conversation.


You want to see class or lack of,then read this entire post below.


Asath said:


> “And I sure would like to see a link to your source of this information.”
> 
> And I’m sure that I’m not responsible for the gaps in other’s educations – the information you doubt so readily is also readily available, if you wish to seek it out rather that try to bog others down and derail intelligent discussion into a siding designed as a rhetorical cul-de-sac.
> 
> ...


Still waiting!!!


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 26, 2012)

Asath said:


> "God never said you had to read to be a Christian."
> 
> Thank Goodness.  Whew!  For a moment there I thought you had to have read your Holy Book BEFORE believing every Word to be True.
> 
> ...



Sorry Mr. Sir 80% trumps 1.5 % anyday,everyday and all day,sorry that makes you MAD.Still waiting on your proof that Christianity is a dying religion!!!


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> You want to see class or lack of,then read this entire post below.
> 
> Still waiting!!!



Are you saying it shows a lack of class to post statistics?


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 26, 2012)

Asath said:


> "God never said you had to read to be a Christian."
> 
> Thank Goodness.  Whew!  For a moment there I thought you had to have read your Holy Book BEFORE believing every Word to be True.This statement proves that you have no idea about what your talking about,thanks.
> 
> ...


Show me the class bullethead???


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Are you saying it shows a lack of class to post statistics?



Someone has posted and linked a url to valid statistics on here? Dang, and I thought my question had gone unanswered. Well at least one of them, the other I don't expect to see answered, as it would discredit the argument attempting to be presented.

If you posted statistics you are referencing the two page diatribes stating such as fact, then you would be wrong. Only links to valid url's where such information is presented begin the process of discussion of validity, not just because someone that is long winded says so.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Are you saying it shows a lack of class to post statistics?



You can twist  words but it dont change them!!!You can post stats if you want but it's the words in between that shows the so called lack of class!!!


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Show me the class bullethead???



Don't start it then point fingers and complain when someone returns the favor.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> You can twist  words but it dont change them!!!You can post stats if you want but it's the words in between that shows the so called lack of class!!!



People argue that the majority religion in the world is the Christian religion. Asath showed that if you want to brag about sheer numbers as your proof that something is "right" there are other things that go with those numbers, illiteracy being one of them.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Don't start it then point fingers and complain when someone returns the favor.


That right there is funny.I'm not the one complaining or pointing fingers,you are!!!


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> That right there is funny.I'm not the one complaining or pointing fingers,you are!!!



Comprehension, Im sure, is included in Asath's statistics also.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Comprehension, Im sure, is included in Asath's statistics also.



Now you?Surprising!!!
All that put aside...Where's the proof that i ask for.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2012)

Study Finds Religion May Be Heading for Extinction in Parts of World
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/23/losing-religion-study-finds-religion-extinct-parts-world/


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2012)

by Craig A James
Is Christianity Dying?
The other day I wrote about the shortage of young priests in Ireland, which started me thinking (again) about the more general question: Why is Christianity slowly dying? It's clearly on the wane, especially in Europe but even in America things look grim. Just google for "decline of Christianity" and you'll even find major Christian writers lamenting this trend.

There are many hypotheses, most of which include news reports of pedophile priests, "militant" atheists, or a vague "decline in morals" of some sort. And I'm sure these are all contributing to some degree.

But I have my own theory, which I can sum up in one word: Education.

Education is the enemy of religion, plain and simple. Hundreds of years ago, it was easy to keep people "in the fold," because many couldn't read, and priests could pretty much tell them anything plausible and they'd believe it. The Bible's many inconsistencies and immoralities were easy to cover up.

Then came literacy, and with it a lot of questions. My fellow blogger Sarah Trachtenberg writes wonderful stories of people's journey from religion to atheism, and a large number of them tell of how, when they really read the Bible, it raised more questions than it answered, and when they tried to ask for help, were rebuffed, told to pray for guidance, or that "God works in mysterious ways." Julia Sweeney's Letting Go of God is a wonderful example of this.

So literacy itself proved a problem, but that was just the beginning. I believe the real decline of Christianity (and all organized religion) started in the 1950's when science became a priority in our schools. World War II had shown the world's leaders that scientists were critical to the war, on every front. Submarines, nuclear bombs, jet engines, cryptography, radio, and so many more scientific contributions were crucial to defeating the Nazi and Japanese war machines. That was followed by Sputnik and the "space race." American children started learning about science in record numbers.

And the simple fact is that, in spite of what the Pope and Francis Collins claim, Christianity is incompatible with science. You can believe one, or you can believe the other, but very few people (Collins being a notable exception) who truly understand science can believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, performed miracles, and was resurrected. It just makes no sense.

Furthermore, the most fundamental rules of science teach us that amazing claims require amazing proofs, and the Christian religion is full of amazing claims that have no proof whatsoever. When someone is given a solid education in science, they almost inevitably begin to question what they learned in church.

To me, the decline of Christianity is no mystery at all. As long as we, as a society, continue our quest for knowledge, and continue to educate our children, to fill their heads with the latest wonders of science and mathematics, religion will continue to fade. I doubt it will ever disappear, but I predict that within my lifetime, America will become at least 50% non-Christian.

Is Christianity Dying? New evidence hints that Christianity is quickly losing its grip on America and may become a minority religion within a single generation. If you found this blog provacative, we've collected the very best ninety nine of these essays into a book: Is Christianity Dying? Ninety-Nine Reflections in Religion, Science and Morality – just $0.99 on Kindle! Also check out my Amazon bestseller, The Religion Virus. "Ingenious! Educational and entertaining, packed


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Study Finds Religion May Be Heading for Extinction in Parts of World
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/23/losing-religion-study-finds-religion-extinct-parts-world/



And if an Atheist accepts 1st amendment rights for religious protection under the constitution does that make Atheism a religion? The courts certainly think so, and by admission and acceptance of the ruling, so does the plaintiff.

Ergo, a religion cannot abolish, or overtake religion. 

http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> And if an Atheist accepts 1st amendment rights for religious protection under the constitution does that make Atheism a religion? The courts certainly think so, and by admission and acceptance of the ruling, so does the plaintiff.
> 
> Ergo, a religion cannot abolish, or overtake religion.
> 
> http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/



If someone does not believe in a God they are labeled an Atheist. It might be too broad of a word. Somebody is always looking for an angle to beat the system. If he(and the courts) want to make Atheism a religion then what is everyone else supposed to do?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If someone does not believe in a God they are labeled an Atheist. It might be too broad of a word. Somebody is always looking for an angle to beat the system. If he(and the courts) want to make Atheism a religion then what is everyone else supposed to do?



Please do not confuse the term theism with religion. 

The act of not believing in a God or Deity is fine for your beliefs, whether you be an agnostic or atheist. The act of aggressively and religiously  attacking, working against, striving to abolish all of those that do believe, is a religion. It is a trend that has come to the forefront of Atheism over the last couple of decades, and is direct violation of the pendulum theorem. Ignoring nature and physics is a bad idea, regardless of what you do or do not believe.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Please do not confuse the term theism with religion.


Noted



Miguel Cervantes said:


> The act of not believing in a God or Deity is fine for your beliefs, whether you be an agnostic or atheist.


Agreed


Miguel Cervantes said:


> The act of aggressively and religiously  attacking, working against, striving to abolish all of those that do believe, is a religion.


Also Agreed. That might be the most accurate and honest statement I have ever heard a believer make on here. And that is EXACTLY what believers of one religion do to believers of another religion. They try to do all those things you mention in order to strengthen their own. IF Atheism is a religion then it fits right in. 


Miguel Cervantes said:


> It is a trend that has come to the forefront of Atheism over the last couple of decades, and is direct violation of the pendulum theorem.


Your gonna have to explain that one a little better for me.


Miguel Cervantes said:


> Ignoring nature and physics is a bad idea, regardless of what you do or do not believe.


Agreed x3


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Also Agreed. And that is EXACTLY what *SOME* believers of one religion do to believers of another religion. They try to do all those things you mention in order to strengthen their own. IF Atheism is a religion then it fits right in.



Fixed it for you. To stereotype all, is to say all atheist have a bent for abolishing any religion. 

As the old judge once said, "It just ain't so".


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Fixed it for you. To stereotype all, is to say all atheist have a bent for abolishing any religion.
> 
> As the old judge once said, "It just ain't so".



No need to fix anything for me. I worded it exactly as I wanted it worded and in fact I added some to it.
I don't mess with your posts, don't mess with mine.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Fixed it for you. To stereotype all, is to say all atheist have a bent for abolishing any religion.
> 
> As the old judge once said, "It just ain't so".



As a whole, each religion is doing everything possible to make theirs the one and only. History backs that up ten fold.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2012)

Off to work. Will chat tonight.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> No need to fix anything for me. I worded it exactly as I wanted it worded and in fact I added some to it.
> I don't mess with your posts, don't mess with mine.


That's a shame.



bullethead said:


> As a whole, each religion is doing everything possible to make theirs the one and only. History backs that up ten fold.



In this, you are either absolutely mislead in what you have been taught or are simply wrong in your belief. History proves nothing of the sort and I challenge you to lend credibility to your statement.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> That's a shame.
> 
> 
> 
> In this, you are either absolutely mislead in what you have been taught or are simply wrong in your belief. History proves nothing of the sort and I challenge you to lend credibility to your statement.



I am totally off base. There are no examples within the Major religions in the past 5000 years that show how any had a believe or be killed rule. My bad.

food for thought:
Some critics of religion such as Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer argue that all monotheistic religions are inherently violent. For example, Nelson-Pallmeyer writes that "Judaism, Christianity and Islam will continue to contribute to the destruction of the world until and unless each challenges violence in "sacred texts" and until each affirms nonviolent power of God".[32]

Hector Avalos argues that, because religions claim divine favor for themselves, over and against other groups, this sense of righteousness leads to violence because conflicting claims to superiority, based on unverifiable appeals to God, cannot be adjudicated objectively.[33]

Similarly, Eric Hickey writes, "(t)he history of religious violence in the West is as long as the historical record of its three major religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, with their involved mutual antagonisms and struggles to adapt and survive the secular forces that threaten their continued existence."[34]

Regina Schwartz argues that all monotheistic religions, including Christianity, are inherently violent because of an exclusivism that inevitably fosters violence against those that are considered outsiders.[35] Lawrence Wechsler asserts that Schwartz isn't just arguing that Abrahamic religions have a violent legacy, but that the legacy is actually genocidal in nature.[36]

Bruce Feiler writes that "Jews and Christians who smugly console themselves that Islam is the only violent religion are willfully ignoring their past. Nowhere is the struggle between faith and violence described more vividly, and with more stomach-turning details of ruthlessness, than in the Hebrew Bible"


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I am totally off base. There are no examples within the Major religions in the past 5000 years that show how any had a believe or be killed rule. My bad.



I didn't say that. When you can start taking peoples word at face value and stop interjecting your emotions and own meanings then this discussion might make some fruitful gains.

Until then, enjoy your clearly decided agenda.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> That's a shame.
> In this, you are either absolutely mislead in what you have been taught or are simply wrong in your belief. History proves nothing of the sort and I challenge you to lend credibility to your statement.



Crusades, Inquisition, Witch Hunts? What were they about?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Crusades, Inquisition, Witch Hunts? What were they about?



Your statement several posts ago was that they (religions) all do it to each other. How many religions do you suppose their are  in the world and how many do you believe have been involved in such competitive practices?

If you wish to do what most atheist and agnostics do and make this a "end of Christianity" discussion, contrary to the thread title and article, then we can, for what you are trying to prove does cover the Christian religion. However, we are discussing ALL religion, which encompasses all faiths and belief systems.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Your statement several posts ago was that they (religions) all do it to each other. How many religions do you suppose their are  in the world and how many do you believe have been involved in such competitive practices?
> 
> If you wish to do what most atheist and agnostics do and make this a "end of Christianity" discussion, contrary to the thread title and article, then we can, for what you are trying to prove does cover the Christian religion. However, we are discussing ALL religion, which encompasses all faiths and belief systems.



I'm not picking on one in particular, just giving examples of some of the better known religions.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I'm not picking on one in particular, just giving examples of some of the better known religions.



So Buddhism and Hinduism aren't better known?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So Buddhism and Hinduism aren't better known?



Yes they are but they don't have the death tolls like the others.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2012)

I'm working on a list, be patient.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 26, 2012)

Before you go too far with your list, let me point out a few flaws in the authors overly ambitious "theory" of how things will go;



> Countries with the best standard of living are turning atheist. That shift offers a glimpse into the world's future.



Standards of living are on the decline due to the monetary crisis in most every country on this globe.



> The basic idea is that as people become more affluent, they are less worried about lacking for basic necessities, or dying early from violence or disease. In other words they are secure in their own existence. They do not feel the need to appeal to supernatural entities to calm their fears and insecurities.



Great idea, and partially true for a percentage of a population, but not for those of any religion that are faithful. Besides, as afore mentioned, we are in a global economic decline. Once powerful nations are being tossed into civil wars. Otherwise bastions of stability are now faced with riots by their own people as their governments are going bankrupt and struggling to maintain sovereignty.

So I'm not really sure what "world" this author is talking about, because this one is in a heap of trouble, and by using his own "thesis" humanity is going away from stability and security for the common man about as fast as can be possible. 

Perhaps he has been smoking the good stuff and is dreaming of a Logan's Run Utopian type society that he saw on the Syfi channel or something, because the conditions necessary for his pipe dream to come true certainly aren't in existence today, nor will they be for the conceived future.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Before you go too far with your list, let me point out a few flaws in the authors overly ambitious "theory" of how things will go;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Which author are you talking about?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2012)

James A. Haught: Holy Horrors (1990)
A pig caused hundreds of Indians to kill one another in 1980. The animal walked through a Muslim holy ground at Moradabad, near New Delhi. Muslims, who think pigs are an embodiment of Satan, blamed Hindus for the defilement. They went on a murder rampage, stabbing and clubbing Hindus, who retaliated in kind. The pig riot spread to a dozen cities and left more than 200 dead.
This swinish episode tells a universal tale. It typifies religious behavior that has been recurring for centuries. 
Ronald Reagan often called religion the world's mightiest force for good, "the bedrock of moral order." George Bush said it gives people "the character they need to get through life." This view is held by millions. But the truism isn't true. The record of human experience shows that where religion is strong, it causes cruelty. Intense beliefs produce intense hostility. Only when faith loses its force can a society hope to become humane.
The history of religion is a horror story. If anyone doubts it, just review this chronicle of religion's gore during the last 1,000 years or so:
-- The First Crusade was launched in 1095 with the battle cry "Deus Vult" (God wills it), a mandate to destroy infidels in the Holy Land. Gathering crusaders in Germany first fell upon "the infidel among us," Jews in the Rhine valley, thousands of whom were dragged from their homes or hiding places and hacked to death or burned alive. Then the religious legions plundered their way 2,000 miles to Jerusalem, where they killed virtually every inhabitant, "purifying" the symbolic city. Cleric Raymond of Aguilers wrote: "In the temple of Solomon, one rode in blood up to the knees and even to the horses' bridles, by the just and marvelous judgment of God."
-- Human sacrifice blossomed in the Mayan theocracy of Central America between the 11th and 16th centuries. To appease a feathered-serpent god, maidens were drowned in sacred wells and other victims either had their hearts cut out, were shot with arrows, or were beheaded. Elsewhere, sacrifice was sporadic. In Peru, pre-Inca tribes killed children in temples called "houses of the moon." In Tibet, Bon shamans performed ritual killings. In Borneo builders of pile houses drove the first pile through the body of a maiden to pacify the earth goddess. In India, Dravidian people offered lives to village goddesses, and followers of Kali sacrificed a male child every Friday evening.
-- In the Third Crusade, after Richard the Lion-Hearted captured Acre in 1191, he ordered 3,000 captives -- many of them women and children -- taken outside the city and slaughtered. Some were disemboweled in a search for swallowed gems. Bishops intoned blessings. Infidel lives were of no consequence. As Saint Bernard of Clairvaux declared in launching the Second Crusade: "The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified."
-- The Assassins were a sect of Ismaili Shi'ite Muslims whose faith required the stealthy murder of religious opponents. From the 11th to 13th centuries, they killed numerous leaders in modern-day Iran, Iraq and Syria. They finally were wiped out by conquering Mongols -- but their vile name survives.
-- Throughout Europe, beginning in the 1100s, tales spread that Jews were abducting Christian children, sacrificing them, and using their blood in rituals. Hundreds of massacres stemmed from this "blood libel." Some of the supposed sacrifice victims -- Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, the holy child of LaGuardia, Simon of Trent -- were beatified or commemorated with shrines that became sites of pilgrimages and miracles.
-- In 1209, Pope Innocent III launched an armed crusade against Albigenses Christians in southern France. When the besieged city of Beziers fell, soldiers reportedly asked their papal adviser how to distinguish the faithful from the infidel among the captives. He commanded: "Kill them all. God will know his own." Nearly 20,000 were slaughtered -- many first blinded, mutilated, dragged behind horses, or used for target practice.
-- The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 proclaimed the doctrine of transubstantiation: that the host wafer miraculously turns into the body of Jesus during the mass. Soon rumors spread that Jews were stealing the sacred wafers and stabbing or driving nails through them to crucify Jesus again. Reports said that the pierced host bled, cried out, or emitted spirits. On this charge, Jews were burned at the stake in 1243 in Belitz, Germany -- the first of many killings that continued into the 1800s. To avenge the tortured host, the German knight Rindfliesch led a brigade in 1298 that exterminated 146 defenseless Jewish communities in six months.
-- In the 1200s the Incas built their empire in Peru, a society dominated by priests reading daily magical signs and offering sacrifices to appease many gods. At major ceremonies up to 200 children were burned as offerings. Special "chosen women" -- comely virgins without blemish -- were strangled.
-- Also during the 1200s, the hunt for Albigensian heretics led to establishment of the Inquisition, which spread over Europe. Pope Innocent IV authorized torture. Under interrogation by Dominican priests, screaming victims were stretched, burned, pierced and broken on fiendish pain machines to make them confess to disbelief and to identify fellow transgressors. Inquisitor Robert le Bourge sent 183 people to the stake in a single week.
-- In Spain, where many Jews and Moors had converted to escape persecution, inquisitors sought those harboring their old faith. At least 2,000 Spanish backsliders were burned. Executions in other countries included the burning of scientists such as mathematician-philosopher Giordano Bruno, who espoused Copernicus's theory that the planets orbit the sun.
-- When the Black Death swept Europe in 1348-1349, rumors alleged that it was caused by Jews poisoning wells. Hysterical mobs slaughtered thousands of Jews in several countries. In Speyer, Germany, the burned bodies were piled into giant wine casks and sent floating down the Rhine. In northern Germany Jews were walled up alive in their homes to suffocate or starve. The Flagellants, an army of penitents who whipped themselves bloody, stormed the Jewish quarter of Frankfurt in a gruesome massacre. The prince of Thuringia announced that he had burned his Jews for the honor of God.
-- The Aztecs began their elaborate theocracy in the 1300s and brought human sacrifice to a golden era. About 20,000 people were killed yearly to appease gods -- especially the sun god, who needed daily "nourishment" of blood. Hearts of sacrifice victims were cut out, and some bodies were eaten ceremoniously. Other victims were drowned, beheaded, burned or dropped from heights. In a rite to the rain god, shrieking children were killed at several sites so that their tears might induce rain. In a rite to the maize goddess, a virgin danced for 24 hours, then was killed and skinned; her skin was worn by a priest in further dancing. One account says that at King Ahuitzotl's coronation, 80,000 prisoners were butchered to please the gods.
-- In the 1400s, the Inquisition shifted its focus to witchcraft. Priests tortured untold thousands of women into confessing that they were witches who flew through the sky and engaged in sex with the devil -- then they were burned or hanged for their confessions. Witch hysteria raged for three centuries in a dozen nations. Estimates of the number executed vary from 100,000 to 2 million. Whole villages were exterminated. In the first half of the 17th century, about 5,000 "witches" were put to death in the French province of Alsace, and 900 were burned in the Bavarian city of Bamberg. The witch craze was religious madness at its worst.
-- The "Protestant Inquisition" is a term applied to the severities of John Calvin in Geneva and Queen Elizabeth I in England during the 1500s. Calvin's followers burned 58 "heretics," including theologian Michael Servetus, who doubted the Trinity. Elizabeth I outlawed Catholicism and executed about 200 Catholics.
-- Protestant Huguenots grew into an aggressive minority in France in the 15OOs -- until repeated Catholic reprisals smashed them. On Saint Bartholomew's Day in 1572, Catherine de Medicis secretly authorized Catholic dukes to send their soldiers into Huguenot neighborhoods and slaughter families. This massacre touched off a six-week bloodbath in which Catholics murdered about 10,000 Huguenots. Other persecutions continued for two centuries, until the French Revolution. One group of Huguenots escaped to Florida; in 1565 a Spanish brigade discovered their colony, denounced their heresy, and killed them all.
-- Members of lndia's Thuggee sect strangled people as sacrifices to appease the bloodthirsty goddess Kali, a practice beginning in the 1500s. The number of victims has been estimated to be as high as 2 million. Thugs were claiming about 20,000 lives a year in the 1800s until British rulers stamped them out. At a trial in 1840, one Thug was accused of killing 931 people. Today, some Hindu priests still sacrifice goats to Kali.
-- The Anabaptists, communal "rebaptizers," were slaughtered by both Catholic and Protestant authorities. In Munster, Germany, Anabaptists took control of the city, drove out the clergymen, and proclaimed a New Zion. The bishop of Munster began an armed siege. While the townspeople starved, the Anabaptist leader proclaimed himself king and executed dissenters. When Munster finally fell, the chief Anabaptists were tortured to death with red-hot pincers and their bodies hung in iron cages from a church steeple.
-- Oliver Cromwell was deemed a moderate because he massacred only Catholics and Anglicans, not other Protestants. This Puritan general commanded Bible-carrying soldiers, whom he roused to religious fervor. After decimating an Anglican army, Cromwell said, "God made them as stubble to our swords." He demanded the beheading of the defeated King Charles I, and made himself the holy dictator of England during the 1650s. When his army crushed the hated Irish Catholics, he ordered the execution of the surrendered defenders of Drogheda and their priests, calling it "a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches."
-- Ukrainian Bogdan Chmielnicki was a Cossack Cromwell. He wore the banner of Eastern Orthodoxy in a holy war against Jews and Polish Catholics. More than 100,000 were killed in this 17th-century bloodbath, and the Ukraine was split away from Poland to become part of the Orthodox Russian empire.
-- The Thirty Years' War produced the largest religious death toll of all time. It began in 1618 when Protestant leaders threw two Catholic emissaries out of a Prague window into a dung heap. War flared between Catholic and Protestant princedoms, drawing in supportive religious armies from Germany, Spain, England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France and Italy. Sweden's Protestant soldiers sang Martin Luther's "Ein 'Feste Burg" in battle. Three decades of combat turned central Europe into a wasteland of misery. One estimate states that Germany's population dropped from 18 million to 4 million. In the end nothing was settled, and too few people remained to rebuild cities, plant fields, or conduct education.
-- When Puritans settled in Massachusetts in the 1600s, they created a religious police state where doctrinal deviation could lead to flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears, or boring through the tongue with a hot iron. Preaching Quaker beliefs was a capital offense. Four stubborn Quakers defied this law and were hanged. In the 1690s fear of witches seized the colony. Twenty alleged witches were killed and 150 others imprisoned.
-- In 1723 the bishop of Gdansk, Poland, demanded that all Jews be expelled from the city. The town council declined, but the bishop's exhortations roused a mob that invaded the ghetto and beat the residents to death.
-- Islamic jihads (holy wars), mandated by the Koran, killed millions over 12 centuries. In early years, Muslim armies spread the faith rapidly: east to India and west to Morocco. Then splintering sects branded other Muslims as infidels and declared jihads against them. The Kharijis battled Sunni rulers. The Azariqis decreed death to all "sinners" and their families. In 1804 a Sudanese holy man, Usman dan Fodio, waged a bloody jihad that broke the religious sway of the Sultan of Gobir. In the 1850s another Sudanese mystic, 'Umar al-Hajj, led a barbaric jihad to convert pagan African tribes with massacres, beheadings and a mass execution of 300 hostages. In the 1880s a third Sudanese holy man, Muhammad Ahmed, commanded a jihad that destroyed a 10,000-man Egyptian army and wiped out defenders of Khartoum led by British general Charles "Chinese" Gordon.
-- In 1801 Orthodox priests in Bucharest, Romania, revived the story that Jews sacrificed Christians and drank their blood. Enraged parishioners stormed the ghetto and cut the throats of 128 Jews.
-- When the Baha'i faith began in Persia in 1844, the Islamic regime sought to exterminate it. The Baha'i founder was imprisoned and executed in 1850. Two years later, the religious government massacred 20,000 Baha'is. Streets of Tehran were soaked with blood. The new Baha'i leader, Baha'ullah, was tortured and exiled in foreign Muslim prisons for the rest of his life.
-- In 1857 both Muslim and Hindu taboos triggered the Sepoy Mutiny in India. British rulers had given their native soldiers new paper cartridges that had to be bitten open. The cartridges were greased with animal tallow. This enraged Muslims, to whom pigs are unclean, and Hindus, to whom cows are sacred. Troops of both faiths went into a crazed mutiny, killing Europeans wantonly. At Kanpur, hundreds of European women and children were massacred after being promised safe passage.
-- Late in the 19th century, with rebellion stirring in Russia, the czars attempted to divert public attention by helping anti-Semitic groups rouse Orthodox Christian hatred for Jews. Three waves of pogroms ensued -- in the 1880s, from 1903 to 1906, and during the Russian Revolution. Each wave was increasingly murderous. During the final period, 530 communities were attacked and 60,000 Jews were killed.
-- In the early 1900s, Muslim Turks waged genocide against Christian Armenians, and Christian Greeks and Balkans warred against the Islamic Ottoman Empire.
-- When India finally won independence from Britain in 1947, the "great soul" of Mahatma Gandhi wasn't able to prevent Hindus and Muslims from turning on one another in a killing frenzy that took perhaps 1 million lives. Even Gandhi was killed by a Hindu who thought him too pro-Muslim.
-- In the 1950s and 1960s, combat between Christians, animists and Muslims in Sudan killed more than 500,000.
-- In Jonestown, Guyana, in 1978, followers of the Rev. Jim Jones killed a visiting congressman and three newsmen, then administered cyanide to themselves and their children in a 900-person suicide that shocked the world.
-- Islamic religious law decrees that thieves shall have their hands or feet chopped off, and unmarried lovers shall be killed. In the Sudan in 1983 and 1984, 66 thieves were axed in public. A moderate Muslim leader, Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, was hanged for heresy in 1985 because he opposed these amputations. In Saudi Arabia a teen-age princess and her lover were executed in public in 1977. In Pakistan in 1987, a 25-year-old carpenter's daughter was sentenced to be stoned to death for engaging in unmarried sex. In the United Arab Emirates in 1984, a cook and a maid were sentenced to stoning for adultery -- but, as a show of mercy, the execution was postponed until after the maid's baby was born.
-- In 1983 in Darkley, Northern Ireland, Catholic terrorists with automatic weapons burst into a Protestant church on a Sunday morning and opened fire, killing three worshipers and wounding seven. It was just one of hundreds of Catholic-Protestant ambushes that have taken 2,600 lives in Ulster since age-old religious hostility turned violent again in 1969.
-- Hindu-Muslim bloodshed erupts randomly throughout India. More than 3,000 were killed in Assam province in 1983. In May 1984 Muslims hung dirty sandals on a Hindu leader's portrait as a religious insult. This act triggered a week of arson riots that left 216 dead, 756 wounded, 13,000 homeless, and 4,100 in jail.
-- Religious tribalism -- segregation of sects into hostile camps -- has ravaged Lebanon continuously since 1975. News reports of the civil war tell of "Maronite Christian snipers," "Sunni Muslim suicide bombers," "Druze machine gunners," "Shi'ite Muslim mortar fire," and "Alawite Muslim shootings." Today 130,000 people are dead and a once-lovely nation is laid waste.
-- In Nigeria in 1982, religious fanatic followers of Mallam Marwa killed and mutilated several hundred people as heretics and infidels. They drank the blood of some of the victims. When the militia arrived to quell the violence, the cultists sprinkled themselves with blessed powder that they thought would make them impervious to police bullets. It didn't.
-- Today's Shi'ite theocracy in Iran -- "the government of God on earth" -- decreed that Baha'i believers who won't convert shall be killed. About 200 stubborn Baha'is were executed in the early 1980s, including women and teenagers. Up to 40,000 Baha'is fled the country. Sex taboos in Iran are so severe that: (1) any woman who shows a lock of hair is jailed; (2) Western magazines being shipped into the country first go to censors who laboriously black out all women's photos except for faces; (3) women aren't allowed to ski with men, but have a separate slope where they may ski in shrouds.
-- The lovely island nation of Sri Lanka has been turned h3llish by ambushes and massacres between Buddhist Sinhalese and Hindu Tamils.
-- In 1983 a revered Muslim leader, Mufti Sheikh Sa'ad e-Din el'Alami of Jerusalem, issued a fatwa (an order of divine deliverance) promising an eternal place in paradise to any Muslim assassin who would kill President Hafiz al-Assad of Syria.
-- Sikhs want to create a separate theocracy, Khalistan (Land of the Pure), in the Punjab region of India. Many heed the late extremist preacher Jarnail Bhindranwale, who taught his followers that they have a "religious duty to send opponents to  h3ll." Throughout the 1980s they sporadically murdered Hindus to accomplish this goal. In 1984, after Sikh guards riddled prime minister Indira Gandhi with 50 bullets, Hindus went on a rampage that killed 5,000 Sikhs in three days. Mobs dragged Sikhs from homes, stores, buses and trains, chopping and pounding them to death. Some were burned alive; boys were castrated.
-- In 1984 Shi'ite fanatics who killed and tortured Americans on a hijacked Kuwaiti airliner at Tehran Airport said they did it "for the pleasure of God."
Obviously, people who think religion is a force for good are looking only at Dr. Jekyll and ignoring Mr. Hyde. They don't see the superstitious savagery pervading both history and current events.
During the past three centuries, religion gradually lost its power over life in Europe and America, and church horrors ended in the West. But the poison lingered. The Nazi Holocaust was rooted in centuries of religious hate. Historian Dagobert Runes said the long era of church persecution killed three and a half million Jews -- and Hitler's Final Solution was a secular continuation. Meanwhile, faith remains potent in the Third World, where it still produces familiar results.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Which author are you talking about?



Did you not read the linked article in the OP of this thread?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 26, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Did you not read the linked article in the OP of this thread?



Yes I did, almost 20 days ago, and I was thrown off track when you brought it up during the conversation we today.


----------



## Asath (Jun 27, 2012)

“And if an Atheist accepts 1st amendment rights for religious protection under the constitution does that make Atheism a religion?”

The First Amendment, in case you haven’t read it lately, states, “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.”

So what this says, quite plainly, is that this is NOT a Christian nation.  Y’all are free to practice whatever version of idol-worship you see fit, and we’ll let you, but you may not legislate your own thoughts into the law for anyone else.  “ . . . No law respecting an establishment of religion, . . . “ means just that – not having a religion is called objectivity, and objectivity is not in and of itself a religion.  Nice try to warp the facts though.  The part about “ . . . or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . “ is not, in the context of the balance of the document, a pure protection of religion – the free exercise of your idol-worship is subject to a set of conditions, and unlike in medieval times we held out the option of not allowing anyone to hide from the law by taking refuge in their church – we’ll enter your temple and drag you out without losing a moment of sleep.  Your ‘religious protection’ is conditional on your religion also obeying the lawful authority of the non-religious laws of the land, rather than only those laws contained in your own imaginative and fictitious Book.  

I guess that makes Objectivity (which you prefer to call Atheism) somewhat less than a religion, and actually an anti-religion, designed to keep the more zealous among you from trying to force everyone to see things your way.  Odd, huh?  They had your number even then.      

“The act of aggressively and religiously attacking, working against, striving to abolish all of those that do believe, is a religion.”

Again, nice rhetoric, but is this anything more than paranoia?  Who, exactly, is, “ . . . striving to abolish all of those that do believe . . . ?”  Got any credible thoughts?  Granted, the various believers are striving actively to wipe EACH OTHER out, and are taking down thousands of innocents with them.  But this looks from the outside like little more than gang warfare, and if you’d limit it to each other, and leave the rest of us out of it we might actually encourage it.  The fewer of you there are the better.  But all the Objective Non-Believers (Atheists) are doing is sitting by the sidelines and pointing out to you how very silly you look.  We’re not killing anyone.  If our criticism gets under your skin and provokes a paranoia and fuels a persecution complex, as though WE are the ones striving for total control, then perhaps you have something worthy of feeling guilty about.  Not our problem.     

“History proves nothing of the sort and I challenge you to lend credibility to your statement. “

I do not remember that the statement included ‘violence,’ though in the end that is often the result, especially where the three ‘dominant’ religions are concerned. You haven’t demonstrated that even the minority, ‘peaceful’ religions do not also try everything within their power to spread, in an attempt to become dominant.  History, and current truth demonstrates that to be the case.  Attempting to find an exception is little more than weaseling and denial of the overwhelming truth of the behaviors of religions, which have paralleled those of governments, kings, emperors and pharaohs – ideology is immune to truth, and represents nothing more than a thirst for power and control – largely a quest for wealth, as the impressively expensive, gold and gem encrusted entrapments of religions invariably display.  Try it out – stand inside your cathedral, surrounded by millions of dollars worth of trappings, and explain aloud your humility, and dedication to the poverty and common-man appeal of your pulpit-teaching.  See anything wrong with this contrast?

Don’t be blind, and please don’t come into THIS forum and be silly – religion, by definition, is governing.  Telling you that is not creating a new religion, as you accuse – it is merely telling you.  Nobody needs to ‘abolish’ belief – it has done that all by itself, every single time throughout all of history, simply by running out of credibility and the means to control the ‘believers’ from the bully-pulpit.  In other words – they learned better than the elders taught, and walked.  Thinking it won’t happen to your own congregation is foolish.

(BTW – bullethead – post #125 – WOW!  Excellent homework!)


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 20, 2012)

Asath said:


> (BTW – bullethead – post #125 – WOW!  Excellent homework!)



Yes and a complete waste of time. Don't even bother next time bullet. They just want you to waste your energy.


----------



## TheBishop (Jul 21, 2012)

Yeagh I'll be the first to say it.  None of those in bullets post were real christians.


----------

