How wonderful...

Don't blame me. Blame the people who were warned that if the topic continued to degenerate into name calling, the topic would be closed. They were warned, and they did not stop, therefore, the topic was closed. Simple as that.

This forum has always been a bastion of civility and respect, indeed, it's been one of the most well-behaved forums on the boards, but in recent months, certain individuals have caused problems. I have spoken to some of these individuals.

As a moderator who has always given you guys a lot of leniency and trust, I want this forum to continue to be well behaved and a place of civil discussion. Besides, I have only done this one other time, and that was to close a topic that was shill-like in nature.

I also don't appreciate you saying things like
"can't you or your brother moderate properly?" I think I've done a good job. If you want me out, talk to Nick.

If you want to discuss this further, PM me or e-mail me. If you want to continue the discussion that I closed, feel free to start a new thread. But be aware that I expect the same civil discussion that we are having here.

Just a comment on the thread in question--claiming Stalin was a worse monster than Hitler smacks of a fairly nasty sort of revisionism. Stalin's political reign, terrible and ruthless though it unquestionably was, was--unlike Hitler's--not directly based on a policy of extermination of "undesirables". Many of those who suffered under Stalin's regime were condemned to forced labor--unquestionably a brutal and, for many, fatal penalty, but still not a fate quite in the same league as those suffered en masse in Hitler's death camps.

I still say religion does more harm than good.

And I don't like puppies either.

Neener neener neener.

I think Rath did good Kronos. he probably kept me, Dev, and some others from making a holes outta each other.

But I can see where you are coming from.

Oh well. I thought for the most part the thread was on track, save for a few posts.

Maybe the reaction was a little knee jerk, but the fact of the matter is, that I posted in the thread saying "keep it civil, fellas" and it did not, therefore, I closed it.

You need to read more about Stalin. His kill total of "citizens" was alot higher than Hitler's. I'd still go with Hitler for worst dictator, but the fact that it's really fricking close is scary.

Then again, you think I'm fucked in the skull. I've moved beyone what you think of me. Civility happens to be something I prize, and I believe I made this very clear when I took over mod duties when I said:

"Behave and don't degenerate into name calling."

You have a problem with the job I'm doing, Devin, but it seems to be that you have a problem with ME, which I accept. And you may say you don't have a problem with me, and instead think I'm "fucked in the skull," but a statement like that just proves you have a problem with me.

But this isn't a Rath-Devin show down. You have a problem with me, or the job I'm doing, talk to Nick. As it is, I'm here for the long haul, like you, so you better fuckin' grow up.

Now....

Kronos, I realize that this is a skill, and I'm willing to learn, but the fact of the matter is that prior to certain individuals who will remain nameless appearing in this forum with some regularity, I haven't had to deal with any problems of this nature.

If you want to offer tips (and I'd be glad to hear them, indeed, I'd like to hear them) please PM me at your earliest convienence. Thanks.

Brendan

It's too bad the thread got closed, because I just had everyone in the crushing grip of reason.

I wasn't really involved in the previous thread, but I looked through it, & thought is was a good debate. So what if some people resort to name calling. Their feelings about each other are not going to change because the thread was closed. People who join in such passionate topics such as the evils of religion/ state know how things are going to end up. Not to mention that name calling isn't random, & the people involved are used to the type of banter that occurs in this & the political thread.

Civility is overrated.

If you don't like the simple rules of common courtesy and yes, decency I have asked you to follow, don't post in this forum.. Frankly, this forum would be better off without your bigoted comments and thinly veiled trolling.

True. The internet allows you to be the biggest jackass possible without the ever present possibility that someone will punch you in the face for calling them a racist or a halfwit.

Collecting damages for being punched in the face is for the weak and cowardly.

Devin, that reminds me. Tell your attorney that my latest payment is in the mail.

No, I'm saying that if you called someone a racist and a halfwit to their face and they punched you, and THEN you sued, that would be cowardly.

Don't talk the talk if you can't walk the walk.

When can we find out? Huh? when?when?when?

I have this combo that I've been wanting to try. Think you could take an uppercut and right hook?
I only ask cause if I'm gonna be sued I wanna make sure I get my moneys worth.

I go out to dinner and here's the babysitter AND the kids flinging their poopies around my place.

No flinging of anything except some good natured ribbing. Really.

Nothin' but a lot of talk and a badge.

For what it's worth, I'll punch anyone.

For what it's worth, I was just ribbing and trying to lighten up the situation with my "punch" comments.

Man, you try to incite religious wars around here and it devolves into petty bickering. My side wins!

Ah, my new sig!

"You wanna talk some jive?"

"I'll talk some jive like you never done see!"

And as I said in the closed thread:

<strong>Anyway, I agree that people kill in the name of religion. People kill in the name of God. It is foolish to believe that most, if not all, of those killings were actually sanctioned by the majority of that religion's followers or by their god.

The fact that crazy people use God's name to lend credability to their acts in no way makes religion a blight on humanity. That would be true only if the majority of ALL religions acts caused ultimately more harm than good. Pretty tall order to prove that one. So prove precisely that Dev, burden of proof is on you I believe. Prove that the majority of all religions do more harm than good for humanity or cede the day.
</strong>

And then I wonder how many have been killed because of their religion by people with no religious motive other then to kills those of that religion.

Communist government in China has hardly been sympathetic to Christians.

Because Karl Marx set his life to be against God. Don't have the exact quote but his main motive for all his ideaology was to go against God.

Well, most of the time this would require the killers to be religious, as well. There's the possibility that the killers could be anti-religious atheists, but, given the preponderence of religion in world history, percentage-wise, the edge has to go to religious groups.

It's not that often that a government or other group of VARYING religious influences would decide to go after a specific religious group (like a nation where Muslims, Buddhists and Christians decide to go after Jews). Religious solidarity within a given religion can breed religious intolerance toward other groups.

True. But, percentage-wise, I don't think there've been enough nations with atheist governments to make any sort of assumptions about this.

That's why the argument that "the state" has caused more death than "religion." In times past, the two were so closely intertwined that it's quite hard to say which was the primary cause.

I think it's a chicken and the egg argument. Did religion corrupt the thinking of the offending government or did the offending government use religion as a tool for justifying its murder. I don't think the two are very easily separated.

As to whether governments in which religion is kept out entirely are more or less destructive? I don't think there have been enough examples to judge one way or the other.

This is semantics, but it's hard to believe that Marx actually wanted to "go against" something he didn't believe existed. The mistake some religious folks seem to make is that atheists hate God. There's quite a difference in hating something and believing it doesn't exist. Marx may have hated 'RELIGION,' but I doubt he felt strongly about 'God.'

"My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism."
-Marx

Never said Atheists hate Christians or religious folk.

And never said there were more religious people killed by the state then the other way around either.

Funny thing is the incredible amount of Christians dying each day in Muslim countries or Communist countries. But this doesn't come up too much.

As for Karl Marx's quote...

My object in life is to dethrone God and
destroy capitalism.

Ah thanks Katanga..I just found that.

And I have no problem finding a correlation between that quote(and Marx's subsuqent actions) and the fact that he would be covered in boils from time to time in his life.

Don't think God keeps a watch on these things? Don't think he does not punish the ones who bring evil thinking into man? Better think twice.

This sounds like a bad tagline for a movie staring God as a crime-fighter.

Yeah, it looks like it would be on a movie poster or something.

Nope, you didn't. You said, "And then I wonder how many have been killed because of their religion by people with no religious motive other then to kills those of that religion."

I assumed you were putting this up as a sort of opposition to the idea that religious groups can breed violence. I'm saying that it's a "tomato/to-mah-to" argument, unless the killing is done by an entirely atheist state or by an unlikely joint-religious state that has it out for a particular religion - both streteches.

Basically, it seemed like you were trying to turn the argument around, and I think it's actually quite the same thing, as it USUALLY takes one religious group to hate and kill another.

<strong> No, that was Kronos, actually. I figured it fit in, though.

I don't know the specifics on these. Is it because they're Christians or is there some other rationale behind it?

No...I can honestly say that Communist governments, as well as Islamic, find Christianity a threat. They do other religions too but they bring their full brunt onto Christianity and mainly due to the fact that though Islam is the fastest growing religion inthe world it is only due to birth. Thousands come to Christianity each day within these countries and that drives them hate to no end. In fact the governments see it more as a plague needing to be quarantined. One thousands come to accept a religion that runs contray to the hateful and oppressive beliefs of that country the governments (known for torture and ritual governmental killings) seek to destroy these people.

I'd have to think this is a fairly recent phenomenon, though. Historically-speaking, I'd I'd still have to think religious-on-religious violence trumps anything you can attribute to atheist-on-religious violence, number-wise.

Not because an atheist regime is not fully capable of it, but because there haven't been all that many atheist regimes.

Regardless, we're left with a very obvious conclusion: religion and the state can both be misused to create great harm to mankind.

Duh.

Dave,

The problem is that you are a thinker who tries to put aside their personal bias. Most people let their "bi'ass'es" do their thinking for them. wink

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2510637.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2510637.stm</a>

The new messiah is Delude!

I think I probably bit off more than I could chew in responding to Kronos' and Delude's ideas simultaneously.

Basically, Delude was turning the thread around to be about how certain types of religious people have been oppressed, rather than the original idea that religion can oppress. My argument there is that, yes, certain types of religious people are oppressed, but this is done mostly by OTHER religious people (with some exceptions).

Kronos is saying that the state is responsible for more deaths than religion. I'd argue that, up until recently, most states were organized around religion or were, at least, highly influenced by religion. Thus, I think it's nearly impossible to blame those deaths STRICTLY on the state or STRICTLY on religion.

Yes, there is the example of Stalin, but I'd say, generally speaking, the number of deaths caused by religious states(whether done in the name of the state or religion) far outnumber those done by non-religious states, strictly in terms of numbers. And, when religion is closely aligned with the state, I think you can't dismiss the murders as strictly "state-sponsored" and discount the affect of the religion.

Well then.....

Thats freaky.

And we would all be doomed if I were the Messiah. I am just too flawed. wink

What about tribalistic conflicts? Communist regimes? Naked aggression?

I think it's safe to say that though the Greeks and Romans had their own religions and religious infiltration of their governemnts that they did not fight wars on behalf of their Gods. Was the Civil War religiously motivated? How about the Cambodian massacres? Have China and Japan been clashing all these years over the Moon Goddess and who really is her one true worshipper?

Religious Ethnic Cleansing (i.e. one group of followers killing others specifically in the name of God/Gods) are relatively rare in human history (compared to the totality of world death/murder/war). No argument that it has happened, but I think we can safely seperate many of the world's "state sponsored deaths" from the effects of religion or the religious.

Shouldn't religion be above the secular world when it comes to murdering your fellow man?

First off, I'm not talking ethnic cleansing here. Delude was, but I'm more interested in the effect religion has on conflicts, in general.

Well, of course those things are all there (and communist regines, as I said, is a fairly new phenomenon). Tribalistic conflicts, I'd be willing to bet, OFTEN involve religion to a very high degree.

Any time one side or another says "God is on our side," I think the lines are blurred as to how involved religion truly is in any given conflict.

So, I'm not saying religion is necessarily responsible for the conflicts, but I am saying that it's involved enough where it would be impossible to put the blame clearly on the state or the religion, thus it's folly to say something like "the state has caused more death and destruction than religion". Except in a few cases, they have been tied together.

Even in something like the American Civil War, I'd say religion played a part, as the morality of slave-holding was a factor. And where did the relative morality come from? Given that we were largely a Christian nation, it would come from slightly varying interpretations of the bible, I'd guess.