Religions and supernatural beliefs are the enemy of world peace, as shown by 5000 years of war.

I don't know where these atheists develop their hatred towards believers in God. But, the hatred has caused hundreds of millions of people over history to die at the hands of those who hate God and their believers. Who killed and starved the 30 to 50 million Ukrainians by Stalin? Who starved and killed the 60 to 80 million by Mao. Who started the killing of Jews by Hitler? Not the religious. It was the hatred of the religious. Hate is the true killer and this atheist who started this thread is the perfect person to kill another hundred million believers of their God.

 

ALL 'cultures' derive from and can be reduced to religion.

 

Not Communist Russia or Communist China... And, they killed 100 million people. Seems like all great cultures then can be reduced to blood sucking, innocent killing Atheists. Look at the U.S., 60 million innocent unborn babies have been butchered in the name of atheistism and we are now reduced as a country to anarchy in the streets and threats of more violence based on who wins the presidency through democracy. Way to go Atheists! Destroy the God inspired Constitution and watch cities burn and soon tens of millions die through internal warfare, disease and starvation.

 

This is all misplaced blame, this whole thread.

Wars are about the distribution of power and the control of resources, 'money'.
Its about keeping it in the family, as the saying goes.
No different than the royalty inbreeding, so they dont have to share the wealth and power.
Religion has little to anything to do with it.
War is invariably about avarice, greed, and power, by those who have the capability of serving that bitter dish.

 

Do you really think atheists have no religion? No beliefs? No worldview? No faith? No dogma?....marxism? They have plenty, more than most from what I have seen.

Power greed etc is all a religion, with appropriately attached 'isms'.

 

Yeah, we get the whole "let's water down the definition of 'god' and 'religion' until the words are meaningless" thing. You've rehashed it for years. We get it. It's still desperate sophistry. Always will be.

 

There was enormous religious support for antisemitism in Germany, going back at least as far as Martin Luther. The vast majority of Nazis were religious. The hatred of Jews was for their race, not their religion, as the Nazis made clear, and the Nazis EQUATED INTERNATIONAL JEWRY WITH ATHEISTIC MARXISM. Please do your homework. And please try being intellectually honest. Hint: when you accuse a fellow forumite of advocating mass murder, when they absolutely have not, you don't have an honest argument.

 

This isnt about your atheist denialism or antideityism or your constant attempts to define it so narrowly that you can claim you have no religion. false, you have rehashed it and lost every time. The only argument you have have is nah nah neener neener, none of us buy into blatant denialist atheology designed to pretend atheists have no religion, hell surprisingly even the supreme court was bright enough todeduce point out you do not need a deity to be classified as a religion

 

Death is not a law of physics or anything else.

Did you follow the link in my last post?

 

with good reason, germany saved their asses only to be **** all over and roobed of the lands and properties by the very people they saved.

more pointless drivel
The vast majority of germans, chez, austrians et al were religious.

false, its natural to hate someone or group that expresses hatred for you, why you blaming the nazis, instead of nonJ-Ws et al that the J-Ws ffucked over?

If what you said had any facsimile of truth what so ever there is no way hitler would have had over 150,000 Jews fighting for him in his army several of which were high ranking officers!

Jews fighting J-Ws, just like it is today.

DUH! no **** marx was a J-W, what did you expect they would equate it to catholocism?

Yes please do any homework at all.

got any?

 

True, but religion is generally the easiest way to justify it. Perhaps if you didn't have a whole set of beliefs utterly dependent on delusion and the lack of critical thinking just laying about....

 

ah huh...... and if you are not aware its the J-Ws that declared a 'holy war' against germany, false as it was, not the other way around and germany did nothing to the Jews until their declaration of war against germany, in which case it was all legal, contrary to J-W worshipers who have the childish idea that J-Ws have a right to declare war and starve germans without some sort of retaliation.

I have found no lack in critical thinking with regard to truly educated 'believers', I have seen far more atheists who brag about their critical thinking skills become total embarrassments to themselves and atheology.

Neither can prove their position to the other, the whole argument is a prima facia impasse.

 

They may have called it mainfest destiny, but the land speculators, not baby jesus, that drove the extermination of native americans

 

The law of physics explain that every star will in the end die. The universe can only become colder. If stars aren't immortal, what do you think of simple human being ?

All (at least) almost kind of claim that pretend that in X years, we will have this technology are scams, fraud.
You can't estimate how many time you will need to solve a problem without knowing the solution. Many people in the 60's thought that the colonization of space and mars could be achievable by now, yet travel to the moon is something that we barely do.
Fight against HIV is also an extremely good example. We didn't manage to find a cure or a vaccine to this sickness after decades of research. How many time did I red that we could have a vaccine "in a few years".

Let's suggest that we manage to solve the problem of dying of old age, let's ignore the problem of cost, all the societal consequences, you won't be immortal. You could still die of sickness, accident, murder and many other causes.

So yes may be you could live for 1000 years, but it's likely you would have for 1000 years the fear of death.

 

Possibly. Many say that most people would welcome death after 500-1000years ( I say bs)

Yes, I didn't say we would become invulnerable.

I've tried writing stories about what a lifetime of several thousand or even a million years might be like. It's very difficult. The entirety of recorded history is only 5000 years, think of what a lifetime 200x that would be like. And a million years is still only an eyeblink when we think that the Universe itself might endure for another 100 trillion years

(or maybe not)

 

I remain skeptical about even the possibility of that. Life is extremely fragile. A cardiac arrest, an aneurysm, cancer show how difficult it's for the body to keep their fonction stable. Beyond gravity, there is maybe also other limits to the size of organisms, and the duration of their life.

Something that intrigate me the most about extreme duration of life is : how would you deal with your memory ? Memories is a limited ressource. We constantly forget many things, because to remember things it require energy, place. Nature, the greatest thrifty found a solution : forgetting. It might poison our life on a regular manner, yet it's necessary to keep the brain functionnal.
What would happen if you reached 200 YO ? Would you forget your mother and father ? Your children ? Your husband or wife ? Your work and friends ? To have witnessed old people with dementia, often childhood was what stayed the most. Old people that have memories trouble tended to remember about their parents when they forgot about their children. Would we become perpetual amnesiac ?
If there was so many long lived people, would we live in a world of perpetual stagnation ?

 

I read a story like that several years ago. The idea was that very long-lived people had to have their memories "wiped" periodically or they would remember "asymmetrically" and this would get worse over time. Or maybe we could just supplement our brains with nano "hard drives". Hell. maybe we could just all get hooked into the Cloud

 

What's happening here is that Koko is failing to make clear that he's talking about religion in a completely different sense than anyone else in the thread, including the OP (whose definition is the one the thread's argument pertains to), Cougarbear, modernpaladin and most likely whoever put "religion" in the subforum title. The version he talks about has very little to do with the religions referred to anywhere else in this thread, including the very posts he quotes. He has also fundamentally misunderstood how to go about being clear about it (as evidenced by the fact that he consistently fails to make himself understood).

 

BULLSHIT, not my problem, anyone who cannot make the distinction between deity based belief systems and natural belief systems without being taken to school is posting beyond their personal knowledge base. Like it or not everyone not in a coma has a religion, and even they have a religion but are unable to express it, or as the constitution would put it 'exercise' their religion.

Religions and supernatural beliefs
More BULLSHIT
as you can see the title covers and distinguishes and includes 'both' religions and supernatural beliefs, the set and the subset, you are the one misrepresenting the OP by pretending it only applies to a deity (supernatural) and that when I said 'statist' religion that is not clear what religion I am talking about.

You pretend that both natural and supernatural beliefs are not subsets of 'religion'.

I made that very clear in argument.
There is NOTHING unclear about 'statist religion'

Oh contrare, you have made it very clear in several threads on several subjects where you pretend to feign lack of clarity simply to 'create' and proffer your strawman arguments that are nothing more than pointless out of context rabbit-hole positions then use it as an excuse to blame others for your failure to promote your personal agenda.

The posts you quoted are perfectly clear to everyone but you.

 

Further more the distinction between beliefs, ethics, theology, philosophy and religion, the former are all academic chit chat, the later is the former 'practiced'.

No practice or exercise, then its 'not' a religion, its ethics, philosophy, beliefs, theology, but not religion.

Statist religions, as we now have in the US violate your right to your own religion by passing law with disregard to our 'Reserved Rights' as memorialized in the agreements stipulated to by the gov in the BoR section of our constitution and forcing you to obey their religion with fines or in stalins case murder you for being a heretic to the states religion, despite the fact there is no legal injury or damages concerned. Not rocket science.

 

Quick question, when you say religions, do you refer to beliefs in supernatural god/Gods, or religions as in the sense like "Football is a religion for these people"?

 

or instead of an incompatible and most likely intended to be a purely (though not necessarily) metaphorical sense like swensson is peddling, try religion in the compatible sense that a religion need not be supernatural to be a legitimate religion, as the supreme court noted. Atheist secular humanism is a religion. No deity required.

 

"Statist religions, as we now have in the US violate your right to your own religion by passing law with disregard to our 'Reserved Rights' as memorialized in the agreements stipulated to by the gov in the BoR section of our constitution and forcing you to obey their religion with fines or in stalins case murder you for being a heretic to the states religion, despite the fact there is no legal injury or damages concerned. Not rocket science."

Like what? Thou shalt not commit murder? Steal? Those are a disregard for your reserved rights?

 

Possibly, but it is well worth the effort to try.

Regards
DL

 

Absolutely.

Did the Christian nation of the U.S. not negotiate M.A.D.?

Regards
DL