Ignore at your peril!

[den Buut]

Something went wrong there.

[boloa]

That's what I meant when I said Atheism is dangerous too, they say they know but they don't, just like believers.

You never heard of Atheist terrorists or insurgents  ........or do we

While Stalin, Mao, and company were certainly among the most of insideous of historical figures, those who claim they killed because of their atheism failed to show any connection between their atheism and the massacres. The historical truth is that they killed to eliminate political opposition. Moreover, they forbade religion so they could, in essence, establish themselves as God-like leaders, as many Chinese who suffered Mao's tyranny will tell you. Kim Jung Il continues this strategy in North Korea.

Regardless of how evil these men were/are, they did not kill in the name of atheism. They were merely atheists who killed. This is a huge logical difference-- not that religious people are generally persuaded by logic. For example, in the Bible, which Christians say is the perfect word of a perfect God, God says "Thou shalt not kill" in the same section in which he says that people who work on the sabbath should be killed. Would a perfect God contradict himself like that? Jesus also commanded his followers to slaughter anyone who does not accept him as the son of God. (Luke 19:27--"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.")

Just look at the loving history of Christianity. What better way to represent a loving God than with Inquisitions and burnings at the stake?

History is replete with examples of religious people using violence to force their beliefs on others. Humanists don't strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocent people in public places in the name of their skepticism, nor do they crash planes into buildings, nor start wars against people in other countries because the people there don't share their nonbelief.

Scientists, who overwhelmingly tend not to be religious, are responsible for nearly all of human progress. That's because they utilize reason rather than the silly superstitions on which most people rely. It’s religion, not science, that threatens people with violence, torture, death, and even eternal damnation if you don’t agree with its ideas. Physicists never bullied people into believing Einstein’s Relativity Theory, and did you ever hear of Catholics falling victim to a Galilean inquisition? When was the last time a war was fought over some scientific dispute? When you think about it, wars are much more likely to be fought over stupid religious differences, not over who's the most logical.

Definitions of "superstition" from www.dictionary.com:
su·per·sti·tion
1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

Religion will no longer cause such harm only when it's widely scorned and ridiculed as the abject superstition that it is. The Bible, Quran, and other fairy-tales do not prove the existence of God any more than Japanese monster movies prove the existence of Godzilla.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071015202431AA5HlAM

[den Buut]

I'll try to explane, the danger is in the fact that they are bonding, now you see several  Atheists ans Atheist groups bonding together, it will be a matter of time before deversion rises and then we have the same problem again. The danger is in the bonding, bonding means leaders and control.

[redrover]

One doesn't need to attach an "ism" to their character profile to be perceived as evil or pure. Seemingly, a political invention.

[John the Traveller]

The only object of Terrorism is to terrorise!

Rational discussion of spirituality is to be applauded.

Cheers,
John

[redrover]

The only object of Terrorism is to terrorise!

...as there isn't a true defining standard as to what "terrorism" might be. Except for the easily acceptable socially engineered variety.

[John the Traveller]

The people that trained me to perforate things at long distance taught me that the definition I gave was the only one that was correct!.......My subsequent experiences supported their position!
Cest la Guerre
John
I don't intend to comment further.

[redrover]

The people that trained me to perforate things at long distance taught me that the definition I gave was the only one that was correct!.......My subsequent experiences supported their position!
Cest la Guerre
John
I don't intend to comment further.

Perhaps your "trainers" are amongst the circle of controllers that make it their business to manipulate and socially engineer without regard.

[Paddyram]

The people that trained me to perforate things at long distance taught me that the definition I gave was the only one that was correct!.......My subsequent experiences supported their position!
Cest la Guerre
John
I don't intend to comment further.

Just to let you know there is another thread on the forum going on about Gun Culture is the US' that might interest you.
BTW, I assume from your comments and your avatar photo that you are retired from some armed forces somewhere, but do you still shoot/own a gun now ?

[den Buut]

You read my mind Paddyram.

[redrover]

Militarism indoctrination and psyche. 

[fox]

If you don't know history your doomed to repeat it.
ooooppsssssss. wrong thread. 

[redrover]

If you don't know history your doomed to repeat it.
ooooppsssssss. wrong thread. 

Most are terribly ignorant and misguided as to "real" history knowledge. Memories are manipulated, because ethics and morality have nothing whatsoever to do with the promotion of real history. Power, control, and suppression. Knowledgeable or not - things will always cycle around, as we dream along.

[maraudingscot]

just a quick note and I am not wishing to join into the debates of fundamentalism. I worked in the Middle East for 5 years, besides Arabs, Africans, Philipinos. Americans, Canadians, British and many Europeans, All have good and bad, though Americanism is a strange one!

All I wish to comment on is an excerpt someone listed from the Bible. Now I am tending towards totemism and Animism. But just a thought

\Someone quote :- (Luke 19:27--"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.") ---- now this made me think what if the meaning of the word "slay" has changed in recent times compared to when the bible was supposed to be written. i.e. if the word GAY is mention most if not, all of you would instantly just at the meaning of someone whom likes a person of the same sex and not happy?

gay   

adjective, -er, -est,  noun, adverb
–adjective
1. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music.
2. bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments.
3. given to or abounding in social or other pleasures: a gay social season.
4. licentious; dissipated; wanton: The baron is a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies.
5. homosexual.
6. of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues: a gay organization.

so where we have a different meaning emerging that maybe 100 years ago would have be classed as something else!

[Paddyram]

so where we have a different meaning emerging that maybe 100 years ago would have be classed as something else!

And then add to that the fact that the Bible was in aramaic translated to latin and then into English.  Some of the subtleness of the true meaning of the words must have been lost.