frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Are Judaism, Christianity and Islam Mythical and Immoral Cult/Religions?

Debate Information

The scriptures of the so-called Abrahamic religions ...Judaism, Christianity and Islam (with Hinduism as a kissing cousin), are violent, sexist, misogynistic, discriminatory and judgemental. The religious books are weapons that have been used to perpetrate mass genocide.

The mythical scriptures of Judaism and Christianity document Hashem and God as engaging in mass genocide, atrocities and crimes against humanity. Including collective punishment resulting in the deaths of innocent people, including innocent children and babies outside the womb and inside the womb (abortion).

They are mythical fabrications that are stolen legacy from ancient Africa-Kemet/Anu ( Egypt/Ethiopia) mythical religious stories and characters...as well as bssic astronomy. The relgious books are full I f historical errors, biological errors, scientific errors, contradictions and omissions of information that should be included.

They are mythical and immoral cult cult/religions. 

Oh yeah...and Judaism, Christianity and Islam are slavery cult/religions. The scriptures of Judaism and Christianity read like an operational manual with guidelines and instructions for the enslavement of humans, including children and babies. 
PlaffelvohfenTreeManxlJ_dolphin_473SwolliwALakNANduhhjust_sayin



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • ALakNANduhhALakNANduhh 17 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: How is hinduism violent, sexist and what not?

    Its quite rich to call a religion violent when it teaches "Non-violence is your biggest Dharma/Duty and you shall only use violence to protect your Dharma/Duty"
  • ALakNANduhhALakNANduhh 17 Pts   -  
    @Tiseti how is hinduism all of the above mentioned things?
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    I think it's a mixed bag. There's a lot of both good and bad in scripture, and to a certain extent I think the individual takes what they want from it. I've met some fanatics who you wouldn't want within a hundred miles of you, but I've met other religious folk who are genuinely some of the nicest people on Earth.
  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 606 Pts   -  
    While I don't like most religions for their forcefulness in being inserted everywhere (*cough cough* turning Saturnalia into Christmas *cough cough*), there are a lot of good morals within the scriptures of religions. Treat someone as you would treat yourself, respect thy neighbor, etc. I also wouldn't consider major sects of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as cults, as cults are more about a megalomaniac leader rather than a very large religion.
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 439 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: The Downsides To Abrahamic Religions

    1. Discrimination: Abrahamic religions can lead to discrimination, intolerance, and exclusion of people who don't share the same beliefs.

    2. Restrictive Practices: Religions from the Abrahamic tradition often impose strict rules and regulations on their followers, which can lead to a lack of personal freedom and autonomy.

    3. Oppression of Women: Women are often seen as second-class citizens in many Abrahamic religions, and they can face discrimination, limited rights, and unequal treatment.

    4. Fanaticism: The Abrahamic religions have been associated with extreme dogmatism and fanaticism, which can lead to violence, hatred, and intolerance.

    5. Conflict: Abrahamic religions have been the source of many conflicts throughout history, and they continue to be a major source of tension in the world today.
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -   edited January 10
    Argument Topic: Religion has been incredibly beneficial to mankind

    @Tiseti
    To assert that religions are bad you would have to ignore and minimize the good they do.  While you can find adherents of any religion that are hypocrites and bad examples, one should not judge religion itself by them.  When you hear Beethoven played by a high school band and someone makes mistakes playing his works, you don't conclude "Beethoven is bad because those playing his music are bad musicians".  In the same way it is silly to condemn say Jesus because of mistakes his followers make.

    If we are going to see if religion is bad, it seems only fair to compare it to something else and see how it stands up.  No one lives up to some ideal in someone's head.  Religion compared to say, government shows us just how beneficial religion is and how corrupt government is.  Let's look at some examples.  For decades there have been hundreds of news stories about child sexual assault among catholic priests.  Studies show that about 4 percent of priests since the 1950's have been accused of child sexual assault (though since the 90's the percentage is 2 percent).  That's horrible.  However, public school teachers have a much higher rate of child sexual assault, with the DOE estimating it at 5-8 percent.  In fact, the lead researcher for the Department of Education's report to congress in the 2000s said that  “the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests,”  Worse for public schools, while the percentage of accounts of priests engaged in child sexual misconduct has plummeted since the 90's, the numbers of public school educators has sharply risen over the last decade with about 15,000 incidents reported to the DOE last year.  This is even more startling if you understand that states are notorious for not reporting these incidents, with cities like Chicago even losing some federal funding when they were caught hiding the information.

    So when it comes to what is arguably the biggest stain on the Catholic church, and by the way I'm not Catholic, they may have problems, but compared to government schools they are doing much better.

    To identify all the good that religions do would be an overwhelming list.  But just to illustrate the good they do here is a partial list:  Churches and religious organizations do the following: run hospitals, operate free health care clinics, feed the homeless, provide food pantries, provide skill and job training, provide childcare and after school care, provide marriage counseling, provide counseling, provide rent assistance, operate addiction overcoming programs like AA and NA, run orphanages, provide Christmas presents for needy kids, provide backpacks and school supplies for needy children, provide wells for tribes in Africa, provide medical missions to 2nd and 3rd world countries, provide transitional housing for those coming out of prison, provide jobs for those coming out of prisons. 

    If you compare what religious people give and the time they volunteer compared to atheists, guess what you find?  From Philanthropy Today

    • People who are religiously affiliated are more likely to make a charitable donation of any kind, whether to a religious congregation or to another type of charitable organization. Sixty-two percent of religious households give to charity of any kind, compared with 46 percent of households with no religious affiliation...
    • Religiously affiliated households give as much or more to other types of charities as non-religiously affiliated households do.
    Philanthropy Today does an annual study of the topic and guess who wins every year - yep, people of faith are more charitable.  But you can find numerous other studies that will tell you the same thing: Like this one, Or this one

    Religious people are more generous than non-believers when it comes to giving to charity, according to research complied by the BBC. This research found that people who profess a religious belief are significantly more likely to give to charity than non-believers. Sikhs and Jews emerged as the most likely to share their worldly goods with a good cause, just ahead of Christians, Hindus and Muslims. These results came from a poll of over 3,000 people of those with or without faith.
    The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.

    And people of faith volunteer more, not just for religious things, but non-religious things also - see study Are Religious People Really More Helpful?  Public and Private Religiosity and Volunteering Participation

    So in conclusion, if you compare people of faith to some perfectionist idea, they can look bad.  But if you compare them to the government or to atheists, well then they look really good.

  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 439 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Request For Elaboration

    @just_sayin
    You seem to feel the benefits of Abrahamic religions far outweigh the downsides I listed.  Could you elaborate on that?  For example, how does giving charity outweigh oppressing women?  How does providing child care outweigh oppressive governments like Iran and Afghanistan?
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -   edited January 11
    @JulesKorngold
    While governments may make demands about religious observance in Muslim countries, or in atheistic countries like North Korea and to an extent in Cuba, Abrahamic religions are voluntary.  Men or women participate in them by their own volition.  That doesn't seem to qualify as subjugation of women except to the extreme who are blinded by their personal hate.  Further, I would contend that the understanding of the role of women in Christianity is somewhat skewed by a lack of considering all the evidence.  The first witness of Jesus' resurrection was a woman.  Women are identified as apostles (Romans 16:7), and prophets (Luke 15:9)..  Churches met in women's homes.  Jesus heals women, preaches to them, speaks to women which was out of the cultural norm, and forgives their sins.  Have you considered this?
  • John_SeamusJohn_Seamus 7 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Not all Abrahamic religions are the same.

    It's inaccurate to say that they all have the same ideals. Christianity and Judaism are much different than Islam. Christianity and Judaism teaches unity and respect for others. Islam teaches hatred and intolerance of anyone of a different mindset. Christianity (specifically Catholicism) are not misogynistic. Catholics have a deep respect for Mary and mothers in general. Using religion to justify heinous acts doesn't mean the religions themselves are violent. 
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin
    While governments may make demands about religious observance in Muslim countries, or in atheistic countries like North Korea and to an extent in Cuba, Abrahamic religions are voluntary.

    I find it interesting that you are only criticizing Muslims and atheists. How about that time George W Bush claimed God told him to invade Iraq, and a million people died?

    Dee
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -   edited January 11
    @Nomenclature
    Actually, I seem to be making more of a statement about how governments are often far less tolerant than religious traditions.  

    It seems unjust to make declarations about religions because of the actions of some of its adherents.  Would you think it fair if your school were judged by the actions of a few?  Would you think it fair if I judged you based off the coherency of something Joe Biden or Kamala Harris said?  
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin
    It seems unjust to make declarations about religions because of the actions of some of its adherents.

    Would you say the same thing about Nazism?

    The problem you see, is that the damage some of these adherents of yours have done when they have wielded religion as a weapon, has been borderline apocalyptic. Yes, it would be unfair to say that religion has never done any good in the world, but when religion has been used for the wrong reasons, millions have died. 

    Would you think it fair if your school were judged 

    I'll just ignore that petty comment.

     Would you think it fair if I judged you based off the coherency of something Joe Biden or Kamala Harris said?  

    Why on Earth would you judge me on the basis of something Joe Biden or Kamala Harris said? Is this part of your American political illiteracy where you've been dumbed down into thinking everybody is either red or blue?

  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -  
    @John_Seamus


    Christianity and Judaism teaches unity and respect for others.

    Sure , so how is your god demonstrating such by laying down the laws for buying and selling people as property?

     Islam teaches hatred and intolerance of anyone of a different mindset.

    So does Christianity 

     Christianity (specifically Catholicism) are not misogynistic.

    Of course they are women are seen as second class citizens by your god and Jesus , the Catholic traditionally treated women as no better than cattle 


    Catholics have a deep respect for Mary and mothers in general. 

    Stop talking absolute bunk women for getting pregnant outside wedlock were read from the altar in times past 


    Using religion to justify heinous acts doesn't mean the religions themselves are violent. 

    It actually does the Catholic Church has stood behind child rapists and defended them and they continue to do by moving them around the world you as a Catholic openly support such a filthy vile organisation shame on you 
  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin


    While governments may make demands about religious observance in Muslim countries, or in atheistic countries like North Korea and to an extent in Cuba, Abrahamic religions are voluntary.  

    But your country is making demands about women's rights to bodily autonomy keeping the  US in perfect alignment with Sharia law 


    Men or women participate in them by their own volition.

    No they actually don't story after story can be told how American parents f-ck there children out for non belief also parents shun their own for not believing as them (mostly) 


      That doesn't seem to qualify as subjugation of women except to the extreme who are blinded by their personal hate

    You need to read a Bible women were of less value than cattle 

    .  Further, I would contend that the understanding of the role of women in Christianity is somewhat skewed by a lack of considering all the evidence.  The first witness of Jesus' resurrection was a woman.  Women are identified as apostles (Romans 16:7), and prophets (Luke 15:9)..  Churches met in women's homes.  Jesus heals women, preaches to them, speaks to women which was out of the cultural norm, and forgives their sins.  Have you considered this?

    Have you considered reading a bile?  The term bile  is intentional ........

    Women are filthy according to the bile and your god .........

    “And everything on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean. Everything also on which she sits shall be unclean.” — Leviticus 15:20


    Women are inferior to men according to your bile and your god 

    “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” — Timothy 2:12


    Women for are to be stoned to death for being raped  according to your bile and your god 

    "If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, you shall stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife.”“[If the woman is not engaged], the man who lay with her shall give 50 shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife.” — Deuteronomy 22:23–27


    Women who are not virgins are to be stoned to death according to your bile and god

    But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die.” — Deuteronomy 22:20–21


    Women are to be treated as second class citizens according to your bile and god 

    “Wives submit yourselves unto your husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.” — Ephesians 5:22–

    Have you considered this?

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1507 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin
    It seems unjust to make declarations about religions because of the actions of some of its adherents. 

    It is not unjust at all. Have you ever heard of guilt by association?

    For example, how about if I declared that I am a member of the KKK. Then I say to you...."But it is unfair to declare me as being racist...because I'm not. I like walking through the streets wearing a white gown and mask and the only reason I joined is for the brotherly friendliness and have a few beers with them....but oh no, don't call me a racist".

    If you declare that you belong to a particular group, anyone is entitled to declare you as being an adherent of what the group stands for.

    For example, if you declare yourself to be a Christian, I have every right to label you as being prejudiced, bigoted, hateful, vilifier of minority groups, fear mongering, inciter of guilt, anti-social and profoundly deluded. And that is only on the grounds of guilt by association, let alone the fact that these are the actions of most of its adherents. 

    If you don't like being stigmatized and labelled then the solution is simple...leave the group, disown them.

  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -   edited January 11
    Argument Topic: Compared to atheists religious people are much more of a benefit to society

    @Nomenclature
    You asked about Nazis again?  My recommendation is that you don't join.  Fascism was a force for evil in the 20th century, where Fascist regimes killed 28 million people between 1900 to 2000.  However Marxism/Socialist regimes were by far the most deadly.  Reason's Communism Killed 94 Million People in the 20th Century  says.

    The 94 million that perished in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe easily (and tragically) trump the 28 million that died under fascist regimes during the same period.
    During the century measured, more people died as a result of communism than from homicide (58 million) and genocide (30 million) put together. The combined death tolls of WWI (37 million) and WWII (66 million) exceed communism's total by only 9 million.
    It gets worse when you look at the lower right of the chart—The Natural World—which includes animals (7 million), natural disasters (24 million), and famine (101 million). Curiously, all of the world's worst famines during the 20th century were in communist countries: China (twice!), the Soviet Union, and North Korea.

    So, statistically, socialist and atheistic countries are by far the greater danger.  Atheistic countries in the 20th century alone killed more people than a 1000 years of religious wars combined.  So religious people aren't so bad when you compare them to governments and atheists.

    Earlier, you took offense to the comment about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.  For some odd reason, you thought I was talking about your political leanings. Did you consider that maybe I was just assuming you were from the United States of America?

    You also falsely accused me of lumping in Muslims with Atheists.  And as the previous posts I've made point out, Muslims are much more charitable with their time and money than Atheists.  Again, when you compare people of faith to non-believers it is obvious that they are much more charitable.

    Further, scientific literature identifies numerous health, mental, family, and societal benefits of religious participation.  Here is a brief summary from Forbes:

    First, studies have shown that religious attendance once or more per week leads to an extra seven years of life expectancy. Other studies have shown other health benefits such as a stronger immune system and lower blood pressure. Further, religious involvement has been linked to less depression and less alcohol and drug use.

    Religious participation by kids has been shown to result in less juvenile delinquency, less drug use including less smoking, better school attendance, and a higher probability of graduating from high school. Graduating from high school has a large positive economic impact, so that is a big benefit to the economy. Less juvenile delinquency also provides big savings through the avoided costs of incarceration and rehabilitation.

    Similarly, adults who regularly attend religious services also commit fewer crimes. Again, this comes with huge savings as both crime and prisons are very expensive. They also end up on welfare and unemployed less often. More cost savings for those entitlement programs.

    People who are regular religious attendees give more money to charity than other people, which does much good in their communities.
    How much does all this add up to, in terms of economic gains? According to Rodney Stark, a professor of sociology, the American economy benefits to the tune of $2.6 trillion per year thanks to being a quite religious country. That is about one-sixth of our total economic output.
  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -   edited January 11
    @just_sayin

    I only had to pick one statement to expose your ignorance  from your long list of nonsensical points .....So, statistically, socialist and atheistic countries are by far the greater danger.  Atheistic countries in the 20th century alone killed more people than a 1000 years of religious wars combined.  So religious people aren't so bad when you compare them to governments and atheists.



    There are no 'atheistic' countries you clot , name one leader of a country who has said ' we do this in the name of Atheism'?

    Atheism is a response to one question alone and that is "is there a god", you American religious nuts always come up with the same clap trap as in anyone who doesn't believe in a god is a hard line Stalinist , a nation of m-rons

    We had your own id-tic George Bush talk about 'holy crusades against terrorists '.

    America claims to be a 'Christian ' nation yet under the butcher Reagan waged war after war , his goal was winning the Cold War as America continued with its   obsession with Communisim.....same ole song and dance as usual

      
  • John_SeamusJohn_Seamus 7 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: reply

    @Dee

    No. Slavery is a very old thing that has been in humanity since the beginning. The Bible mentions this because it was so ingrained into their culture. Catholicism has always been very anti-slavery. 

    "So does Christianity" No, it doesn't. It teaches to hate the sin and love the sinner. The whole New Testament is about unity under God. 

    And woman being seen as less is not a product of these religions. That has been a big thing for almost every ancient civilation. Again, many of the most important people in these religions are women. 


  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -  
    @John_Seamus



    No. Slavery is a very old thing that has been in humanity since the beginning. 

    Yes. I know 

    The Bible mentions this because it was so ingrained into their culture.

    The bile teaches you may buy and sell people as property , you may beat and mistreat them all as approved by your god 

     Catholicism has always been very anti-slavery. 

    Has it indeed I doubt very much those enslaved by 'Christian' plantation owners would agree with your assesment 


    No, it doesn't. It teaches to hate the sin and love the sinner. The whole New Testament is about unity under God. 

    Utter nonsense tell that to victims of rape by Catholic priests 

    And woman being seen as less is not a product of these religions. 

    They certainly were seen this way would you like some verses ?

    That has been a big thing for almost every ancient civilation. 

    Slavery as approved by god yes I know 

    Again, many of the most important people in these religions are women. 

    Well your god thinks women less than men 
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin
    You asked about Nazis again? 
    Stop deflecting and answer the question. Would you say the same thing about Nazism? Yes or no? What do you think the actual point is in writing an essay which doesn't answer my questions?
    Fascism was a force for evil in the 20th century, where Fascist regimes killed 28 million people between 1900 to 2000.  However Marxism/Socialist regimes were by far the most deadly.
    You are most definitely wrong. In capitalist countries, 9 million people starve to death every year, and a further 3 million die from lack of clean drinking water and/or poor sanitation. Add to that the vast numbers of people killed in colonial wars and conflicts fought over natural resources and it becomes evident very quickly that capitalism is the most deadly regime ever conceived by mankind. The core issue is that you are incapable of thinking for yourself and unfortunately not intelligent enough to figure out that you live at the centre of capitalism, hence the information you are receiving is not trustworthy.
    Earlier, you took offense to the comment about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. 
    No, I didn't take offence. I pointed out that it was a ridiculously irrational question, since I have no affiliation with either Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. You made an assumption that I am an American Democrat, because that is what your small brain has been programmed to think every time someone points out that what you are saying is wrong. 
    You also falsely accused me of lumping in Muslims with Atheists
    Again, no. I quoted you lumping in Muslims with atheists. I have no idea how you can call this false, since it was a direct quote. 
    Again, when you compare people of faith to non-believers it is obvious that they are much more charitable
    Oh God, it's so clearly evident that you have a low IQ. I know exactly what you're going to do next because I have heard this false claim made dozens of times by others who have been brainwashed by the exact same hogwash. I mean, before you even get there, what you're about to say has absolutely no relevance. I haven't claimed that religious people don't donate to charity. Your argument hasn't got any relevance to anything I actually said, and what I did actually say you refused to answer. What a truly pathetic individual.
    People who are regular religious attendees give more money to charity than other people
    Bingo. A perfect example of how the wingnut religious right twists and manipulates data to its own benefit. What the data actually shows is that religious attendees donate more money to religious causes, and when these religious causes are discounted from the data, "other people" donate more to charity. See:-

    When you excluded donations given to churches and religious groups, the map changed dramatically, giving an edge to the least religious states in the country.

    https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2013/11/28/are-religious-people-really-more-generous-than-atheists-a-new-study-puts-that-myth-to-rest/

    The other data in your link has been distorted to paint a false picture also. For example:-
    First, studies have shown that religious attendance once or more per week leads to an extra seven years of life expectancy.
    In actual fact, the data shows clearly that secular populations live considerably longer than religious ones:-

    Secular populations definitely live much longer than residents of highly religious countries

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201302/do-religious-people-really-live-longer

    So, @just_sayin, in closing, nothing you have written back in reply has addressed anything I said, and those things you have written are all wrong.









  • John_SeamusJohn_Seamus 7 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    I assume you are talking about the passage in the Bible that says something like "slaves being obedient to their masters." That doesn't actually push slavery. Slavery was the norm for the time and the writers in the Bible were talking about it. The Bible also says, "You shall not steal." Slavery is stealing someone's life. 

    "Has it indeed I doubt very much those enslaved by 'Christian' plantation owners would agree with your assessment" I said Catholicism, not Christianity in general. The Vatican has been against slavery. Also, Fredrick Douglas who was a slave in his life was still Christain. So obviously, the bad things done by people who call themselves Christian doesn't mean the whole thing is bad or invalid. Same thing with the child rapist priests. Those are disgusting people that should be excommunicated at once. People are flawed. They will destroy the message of Christ in some way. 

    Christianity literally says, "Love Thy Neighbor."
  • dallased25dallased25 379 Pts   -   edited January 11
    @John_Seamus
    Actually he's mostly referring to the OT and the detailed rules on slavery in Exodus, Leviticus and Dueteronomy. The bible has two sets of rules, one for indentured servants which was reserved only for male Jews, that were to be released after 6 years of service to pay off a debt and then rules for everyone else. The rules for everyone else as laid out in Exodus 21 starting at verse 7, covers everything from injuries, how you can beat them so long as you don't maim them, there's no punishment for the owner. Leviticus 25:44-46 covers who you may buy slaves from and how they are your property for life and can be passed on to your children to be viewed as chattel and are referred to as the owner's "money", or property. Slavery was indeed finally undone after thousands of years under christianity, by christians who decided that it was no longer moral. But let's not pretend as well that the bible does not support slavery, it absolutely does and the new testament and Jesus's words does not repudiate slavery, but supports it as well. The bible never changed, people's views on morality did. 
  • John_SeamusJohn_Seamus 7 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: reply

    @dallased25

    Okay, I agree to a certain extent. You are right. People's morality has changed. The Bible certainly has parts that reference slavery as you commented. But again, one of the most basic commandments is "You shall not steal." People will twist parts of the Bible to justify their actions. It wasn't Christianity that invented slavery. The Jews and early Christians were not so different in that regard to many other pagan and secular cultures of the ancient times. At least the Catholics were able to recognize how bad slavery was and how much it violated people's rights. It took protestants much longer. Heck, today people haven't learned. Slavery is still practiced by Islamic cultures and other cultures in Asia. 
  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -  
    @John_Seamus


    I assume you are talking about the passage in the Bible that says something like "slaves being obedient to their masters."

    No I'm not , I'm talking about the part where your god lays down the laws for owning people as property 

     That doesn't actually push slavery. 

    You need to read a Bible 

    Slavery was the norm for the time and the writers in the Bible were talking about it. 

    So what? You think your god would condemn people for buying , selling , beating and mistreating people but he doesn't he lays down the laws for such 


    The Bible also says, "You shall not steal." Slavery is stealing someone's life. 

    Well your god says it's fine 

    I said Catholicism, not Christianity in general. 

    So there were no Catholic slave owners ?

    The Vatican has been against slavery. Also, Fredrick Douglas who was a slave in his life was still Christain. So obviously, the bad things done by people who call themselves Christian doesn't mean the whole thing is bad or invalid. 

    But your god approves of slavery 

    Same thing with the child rapist priests. Those are disgusting people that should be excommunicated at once. 

    But they are not , they are moved to a different parish with the vaticans approval 

    People are flawed. They will destroy the message of Christ in some way. 

    But the message is clear you may own people as property according to your god

    Christianity literally says, "Love Thy Neighbor."

    It also says slavery is fine 
    Nomenclature
  • dallased25dallased25 379 Pts   -  
    @dallased25

    Okay, I agree to a certain extent. You are right. People's morality has changed. The Bible certainly has parts that reference slavery as you commented. But again, one of the most basic commandments is "You shall not steal." People will twist parts of the Bible to justify their actions. It wasn't Christianity that invented slavery. The Jews and early Christians were not so different in that regard to many other pagan and secular cultures of the ancient times. At least the Catholics were able to recognize how bad slavery was and how much it violated people's rights. It took protestants much longer. Heck, today people haven't learned. Slavery is still practiced by Islamic cultures and other cultures in Asia. 

    @John_Seamus
    To be clear John, the bible does say that Christians could not kidnap or steal people to put them into slavery, that is true...but it doesn't say that you must make sure your slaves were not stolen, kidnapped etc...when you purchase them "from the nations around you". So that's where the loophole was is that if a christian is purchasing a slave, they aren't "stealing" them, they are purchasing them which is allowed by scripture. Even in the 1800's, the vast majority of slaves were purchased from African tribes who rounded up their own people to sell to Europeans and of course early Americans. But you are correct that many, many christians are guilty of cherry picking the bible at every point in history to justify their immoral actions. But in this case, the bible supported slavery and never repudiated it in scripture. It was only secular thought that brought christianity out of those dark ages and to look at all people as equal, in order to ignore those scriptures that are in the OT and NT. I'm very glad that they did, but it brings up a major problem. Regardless of whether other cultures back then practiced it or not, this book, the bible, is supposedly the ultimate moral authority as written by god. So if god supported slavery back then and never revised his word, then either it is still moral and we are ignoring gods morality and deeming immoral...or the book is not written by god and represents mans views of morality of the time period, which is why there is so much in the bible that we today deem as "immoral". I think the later makes much more sense. 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4891 Pts   -  
    Morality is subjective, and anything can be moral or immoral depending on the values one has. A better question is whether morals promoted by those books or not, in essence whether following them leads one to make moral choices facilitating long-term happiness and success or not.

    A fundamental problem with any system of morals derived from monotheistic premises is that its ultimate goal is to serve not the individual, but the higher power. This contradicts pursuit of individual happiness that is (in my view, at least) is the standard by which a moral system is to be judged. Even in the most benevolent interpretation of any monotheistic religion, where the deity is concerned only with people's happiness and nothing else, the moral rules are still derived based on what the deity wants and not the individual.

    Compare a father telling his son, "You must become a doctor, as I know that that will make you happy", with the son telling his father, "I want to become a doctor, as I think that that will make me happy". The prescription is the same, yet how different their sources are! Here following your parents' advice is analogous to practicing monotheism-derived morals, while following one's own mind is analogous to practicingbself-interest-derived morals.

    In my view, even if some sort of a deity provably existed, it would still be wrong to derive one's morals from its commandments. No matter how knowledgeable (and possibly omniscient) the deity is, letting it decide your future is very dystopic. Imagine if the world was run by a super-AI tasked with maximizing everyone's happiness, for which purpose the AI would take under direct control every element if every human's life and force every human to behave in a way that maximizes their happiness. The horror you experience imagining a world like this is the same horror as I experience imagining the life of someone "serving their lord".

    Monotheism is, ultimately, a form of mental totalitarianism. No matter how benevolent a particular interpretation of religion is, the overarching shadow of the ultimate tyrant from the whims of which one's morals are derived spoils the experience enough to make it unbearable for anyone who was not conditioned from a very young age to suppress their critical thinking when it comes to the topic of religion.
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -   edited January 11
    Argument Topic: People of faith are the worst, well, except for those in government and atheists

    @Dee

    I am right about the numbers killed by socialist Atheistic countries.  If you count just Russia and China's killing of their own people in the 20th century you will have more dead than were killed in the last 1,000 years of religious wars.  See- 100 Years of Communism - and 100 Million Dead  Godless socialist governments have the worst record for killing people. 

    You referenced an atheist website as evidence that people of faith aren't more generous????  The vast majority of real evidence shows that people of faith give more in their time and money.  

    From the Washington Times
    Not surprisingly, religiously affiliated households are much more likely than nonreligious households to donate to religious institutions defined in the report as congregations, denominations, missionary societies and religious media.

    But religious people also contribute to other types of charity at similar or higher rates than their secular counterparts.

    The report says there is a “staggering difference between the charitable giving practices of the religiously affiliated and those with no religious affiliation.” While 62 percent of religious households give to charity, only 46 percent of nonreligious households do. 

    On average, religiously affiliated households donate $1,590 to charity annually, while households with no religious affiliation contribute $695.


    Frtom PennLive:

    Our recently released 2017 Compact Edition of The Almanac of American Philanthropy shows that religiously organized good causes are by far our favorite path into giving--accounting directly for a third of all charitable gifts.
    But religious people also give heavily to causes organized by secular charities. Indeed, religious Americans are much more likely to donate to secular purposes than secular people are, and their average gifts are substantially larger (after all other demographic differences have been held constant).

    Per capita giving to any charitable cause is four times higher among Americans who attend religious services 27-52 times per year than it is among Americans who never attend services. The donations of active worshippers go into helping the poor, health care, education, aiding the needy overseas, the arts and spiritual inspiration, and many other causes.

    And the study of the studies on giving found:(How Does Religion Affect Giving to Outgroups and Secular Organizations? A Systematic Literature Review)

    Our systematic literature review, covering 77 studies, reveals that religion—measured as group affiliation, values, beliefs, and the importance of faith to the believer, as well as religious service attendance and private prayer—most often positively relates with giving to outgroup and secular organizations. Our finding is contrary to some studies that strictly argue that religion has no effect on prosociality because of social desirability effects, as most of the studies on the topic use self-reported religiosity and giving scales (Galen 2012). In contrast to this argument, we found dominantly positive effects even among experimental studies.


    Wow, even if you just look at secular causes, people of faith are more generous!  

    So to summarize a) Catholic priests are much less likely to sexually assault a child than a public school teachers, 2) people of faith are happier and healthier, 3) people of faith are more charitable with their money and time than atheists, 4) socialist Atheistic countries kill a lot more people.


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 12
    @just_sayin
    I am right about the numbers killed by socialist Atheistic countries. 

    No, you're not. By the very same logic you use to pretend socialist atheistic countries kill people, religious capitalist countries kill far more people. Hence, either you're wrong or you're a hypocrite.

     If you count just Russia and China's killing of their own people in the 20th century you will have more dead than were killed in the last 1,000 years of religious wars. 

    Don't talk such utter trash. For starters, nobody knows exactly how many died in Russia. Estimates vary from 9 million up to 60 million, so you're pulling figures out of your sphincter. Well over 30 million died during the Spanish conquests of the Aztec and Inca empires alone. Another 4 million died during the French religious wars. Up to 12 million died in the Thirty Years War in central Europe. Another 3 to 7 million in the Crusades. 20 million in the Taiping Rebellion. 3 million in the Sudanese War and 6 million in the Madhi revolt.

    Stop parroting Fox News soundbites and educate yourself. Most of those who died under Stalin did so from famine, not state-sanctioned executions. Furthermore, and most importantly, Stalin was an opportunist dictator who killed all his political rivals and seized power by force. He betrayed everything which was ever written by Marx and every single socialist and/or communist alive today will tell you that. He was a fascist and an opportunist, not a communist. 

    And whatever you want to say about Mao, the fact of the matter is that the average lifespan of Chinese citizens increased under his rulership. He transformed China from a peasant state in perpetual civil war and laid the groundwork for it becoming a future world superpower. 

    Finally, what you have not revealed is that the author of your graph is not a neutral, credible source. He is a practising Roman Catholic!!!

    Brooks is married to Ester Munt-Brooks, a native of Barcelona. They have three adult children and one daughter-in-law. They live in Needham, Massachusetts. He is a practicing Roman Catholic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Brooks#Personal

    Brooks works for a right wing Conservative think tank.

    When your initial source was criticised as being misleading, instead of holding your hands up, you went searching for another source, this time from two decades ago!!!

    It's easy to manipulate and cherry-pick data to get the result you want. For example:-

    Every year, Forbes magazine lists the fifty most generous charitable givers in the United States (and therefore, the world). The first three on the list are all self-declared atheists.

    The fact of the matter is that you have a patent and irrational raging bias, and this can be evidenced in the manner you are trying to arbitrarily connect completely random variables like religion and lifespan and religion and altruism, using flimsy "studies" with small sample sizes. Of course, these are all cherry-picked, and you gracefully sidestep all of the studies which produce opposing results, such as:-

    https://www.elitereaders.com/atheists-more-generous-than-christians-ohio-university-research/

    https://www.livescience.com/20005-atheists-motivated-compassion.html

    https://news.berkeley.edu/2012/04/30/religionandgenerosity/

    Selection bias proves nothing other than the fact that you are biased, pal.

    Dee
  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -   edited January 12
    @just_sayin


    I am right about the numbers killed by socialist Atheistic countries. 

    You tagged me in a post you meant for Nom, however I will add my own comments.

    The point you're totally missing is not one Socialist  leader has said 'this we do in the name of Atheism '.

    This is why you chickened out of addressing my response to your nonsense 


     If you count just Russia and China's killing of their own people in the 20th century you will have more dead than were killed in the last 1,000 years of religious wars.  See- 100 Years of Communism - and 100 Million Dead  Godless socialist governments have the worst record for killing people. 

    Nom has already corrected you on this. Let me add not one Socialist  leader has said 'this we do in the name of Atheism '.

    One of the biggest genocidal maniacs of all is your god 20 million (low estimate ) is his kill count , but that's ok because he lost his temper right?

    You referenced an atheist website as evidence that people of faith aren't more generous????  The vast majority of real evidence shows that people of faith give more in their time and money.  


    Again Nom has corrected you on this. Let's test you an American 'Christian ' to see what a hypocrite you are .....are you in favour of a decent minimun wage, that is a wage that covers the necessities of life?

    Free healthcare for the poor? Free education  for the poor? Affordable housing for the poor? Would Jesus carry a gun and be in favour of his sheeple carrying guns?

    You're not in anyway nor are your fellow Americans 'Christian's , to honestly believe a nation of rampant capitalist gun nuts who detest those less well are 'Christian's ' is a joke 



    Wow, even if you just look at secular causes, people of faith are more generous!  

    So why do American Christian's fight tooth and nail to deprive the poor the necessities of life? You're mostly a nation of greedy bigots who are Sunday Christian's and go back to default mode once your leave your local Christian cesspit



    So to summarize a) Catholic priests are much less likely to sexually assault a child than a public school teachers, 

    What a detestable little toad you are, I can just see you like other 'christian' hypocrites protecting abusing priests by spouting out meaningless unfounded 'comparisons'


    2) people of faith are happier and healthier, 3) 


    Which is why in America armed guards are needed to protect children in schools and 90 % of the prison population identifies as 'christian' 

    America identifies as a 'christian' nation yet has the highest prison population in the world , the highest gun death /accident count in the world , USA is ranked 129th least peaceful country in the world , corrupt sh-t holes like Uganda , Nicaragua , Saudi Arabia rate higher .......'Christian's' are happier ......ROFLMAO 


    people of faith are more charitable with their money and time than atheists, 4)


    No they're not , they are like you they detest the poor 


    socialist Atheistic countries kill a lot more people.

    Next time you're praying will you thank your god for wiping out 20 million of his sheeple?





  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -  
    @John_Seamus



    Okay, I agree to a certain extent. You are right. People's morality has changed.

    Yes because morality evolves with us and our societies. What extent would you not agree on?

     The Bible certainly has parts that reference slavery as you commented. But again, one of the most basic commandments is "You shall not steal." 

    That's irrelevant really , think about it what you're saying is your god is actually contradicting himself right?

    People will twist parts of the Bible to justify their actions.

    Again irrelevant , what's that got to do with slavery 

     It wasn't Christianity that invented slavery. 

    Why who is saying it was?

    The Jews and early Christians were not so different in that regard to many other pagan and secular cultures of the ancient times. At least the Catholics were able to recognize how bad slavery was and how much it violated people's rights. 

    So Catholics disagreed with their god? When exactly did Catholics realise slavery was wrong?

    It took protestants much longer. 

    How do you know?

    Heck, today people haven't learned. Slavery is still practiced by Islamic cultures and other cultures in Asia. 

    Again what has this got to do with your god approving of slavery 


    Read this one verse 


    However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

    Do you agree with your gods dictates on slavery or not?
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -   edited January 12
    @Nomenclature
    Every year, Forbes magazine lists the fifty most generous charitable givers in the United States (and therefore, the world). The first three on the list are all self-declared atheists.

    Wow!!  If that's true, that just means the rest of the atheists are LESS charitable than reported. I don't see how that helps the argument to claim that people of faith are the worst, when you are providing evidence that the average atheist, who already gives significantly less of their income to charity than people of faith, is actually giving even less than the amount reported.  But I will say "thanks" for helping me prove my point.

    You think I am cherry picking studies?!  That's funny.  Let's look at a few shall we:

    The Mayo Clinic 

    Most studies have shown that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes, including greater longevity, coping skills, and health-related quality of life (even during terminal illness) and less anxiety, depression, and suicide. Several studies have shown that addressing the spiritual needs of the patient may enhance recovery from illness....

    Studies have found that religious involvement is associated with less cardiovascular disease....

    Studies have found that religious involvement is associated with lower blood pressure and less hypertension... 

    Studies have shown that religious involvement is associated with health-promoting behaviors such as more exercise, proper nutrition,  more seat belt use, smoking cessation, and greater use of preventive services. 
    The Mayo Clinic must really be a bias source to not agree with the Atheist magazine you cited.  LOL

    American Journal of Epidemiology as reported by Harvard

     [A]ccording to a new study from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Researchers found that people who attended weekly religious services or practiced daily prayer or meditation in their youth reported greater life satisfaction and positivity in their 20s—and were less likely to subsequently have depressive symptoms, smoke, use illicit drugs, or have a sexually transmitted infection—than people raised with less regular spiritual habits.
    “These findings are important for both our understanding of health and our understanding of parenting practices,” said first author Ying Chen, who recently completed her postdoctoral fellowship at Harvard Chan School. “Many children are raised religiously, and our study shows that this can powerfully affect their health behaviors, mental health, and overall happiness and well-being.”

    American Journal of Epidemiology and Harvard.  Sounds like shady sources to me.  Not credible sounding ones like Atheist promoting websites.  Harvard and the American Journal of Epidemiology can't hold a candle to IHateGod.com.  LOL 
    Nomenclature
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4891 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin

    The mistake you are making is lumping large groups of people together that are actually strongly segmented. Comparing atheistic governments to religious governments and finding the former more violent is like comparing Asian people to white people and finding the former more violent. Yet you would be lumping, say, modern Japanese (who are the least violent people in the world) with the 30-s Japanese (who were some of the most violent people in human history). This does not make a lot of sense, you realize. Similarly, it does not make a lot of sense to lump today's atheistic Japanese government with today's atheistic North-Korean government.

    What makes more sense is comparing the amount of violence caused by monotheistix religions with the amount of violence caused by atheism - and here the picture changes quite a bit. Communist governments slaughter millions not in the name of atheism, but in the name of communism - which does not even imply atheism, and there have been Muslim-communist dictators (read about Somalia's Barre, for instance). The opposite is not true for the Christians and Muslims slaughtering each other and oppressing their populations in the Medieval era, or groups like ISIS or Hamas today: they kill(ed) explicitly because of what their holy books dictated them to do.

    Regarding charity, while it is true that in many Western countries Christians statistically donate more to charitable causes than atheists, that is merely one specific metric. Conversely, atheists contribute disproportionally more to facilitating scientific and technological advances that, in the long run, benefit everyone (including the charity recepients) more than a bunch of old clothes or food trays.

    Lastly, the fact that Christians are more charitable does not imply that Christians are more moral (which is the subject of this thread). Christians are naturally more moral according to the Biblical morals, but the Biblical morals are just one set of morals that has its own problems. I am an atheist, and I do not do much anonymous charity - but I do a lof of random nice things all the time that elevate everyone's mood. These acts do not have an explicit monetary value and, therefore, never contribute to the charity statistics - so how can you make a reasonable comparison?
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 12
    @just_sayin
    Wow!!  If that's true, that just means the rest of the atheists are LESS charitable than reported.

    No, it means the three richest people in the world weren't part of the sample group. Try using your brain.

    I don't see how that helps the argument to claim that people of faith are the worst

    I never made the argument that people of faith aren't charitable. That's the wild tangent you jumped toward after refusing to address the initial points I made. You launched into a bizarre straw man fallacy in an effort to move the debate in a direction you felt comfortable with. So far all I've seen from you are attacks against socialists and atheists, all of which are grounded in complete rubbish.

    What makes things worse is that your posts are lengthy because you lack the ability to make a coherent argument and explain it in simple terms.

    You think I am cherry picking studies?!

    I don't "think" you are cherry-picking studies. I proved that you are doing so. The last graph you linked was part of a ResearchGate paper published by a practising Roman catholic and it's twenty years old. I linked you to three more recent studies with opposing results. 

    Let's look at a few shall we

    No, you absolute dolt. The answer is not to cherry-pick more studies. The answer is to address those studies I have already posted which contradict you.

    Most studies have shown

    And so you fraudulently claim you want to look at more studies, but you have not linked a study. You've linked a claim made by someone working for the Mayo Clinic, who is giving an opinion. Here's someone with a different opinion:-

    https://metro.co.uk/2013/04/30/are-atheists-more-generous-than-christians-this-homeless-mans-experiment-seems-to-suggest-so-3707441/

    Once again, you seem to have missed this in your rush to cherry-pick any text you can find which supports your existing opinion.

    Frankly, I think you are a joke. You are so biased it is almost laughable.

    American Journal of Epidemiology and Harvard.  Sounds like shady sources to me.

    I am beginning to suspect you might have a serious mental health problem. Your Harvard study has nothing to do with charity or lifespan. If we're just posting random studies now, which have nothing to do with your actual claims (and which can of course be explained with a basic understanding of the way human psychology works), then no problem:-

    Atheists are more intelligent than religious people, finds study

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/athiests-religious-people-intelligence-smarter-study-imperial-college-london-a8183131.html

    Atheists Are Nicer Than Christians

    https://www.sciencealert.com/atheists-are-nicer-than-christians-but-only-when-they-have-something-to-prove

    Global study claims atheists are just as happy as those with a faith

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9702653/Religion-ISNT-secret-happiness-global-study-claims.html
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: The who debate lumps people and groups together

    @MayCaesar
    This may have escaped your notice, but the whole premise of the debate lumps groups of people together.  To claim that a militant Muslim in Iraq is the same as the average Muslim in the US would be wrong.  To claim that all Christians believe the same thing is wrong. Yet, many debaters have claimed that extremist actions by some reflect an entire faith, or all faiths.  I think you might be pointing the finger at the wrong group of debaters.

    I have provided numerous sources that show that religious people are:
    1) More generous than secular people with their time and money ✔
    2) Enjoy many health benefits from their participation in religious services ✔
    3) Are less likely to commit crimes and kill people ✔

    I've also shown that governments that have stated atheistic policies have killed more people in the 20th century than have been killed in declared religious wars for the last 1,000 years.  ✔

    I've also shown evidence that a child is safer with a Catholic priest than with a public school teacher when it comes to being sexually asaulted. ✔

    These facts are only disputed by questionable atheistic websites.  But places like the DOT, Harvard, the Mayo Clinic and numerous credible historians agree with me.
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 12
    @just_sayin
    I have provided numerous sources that show that religious people are:
    1) More generous than secular people with their time and money ✔
    2) Enjoy many health benefits from their participation in religious services ✔
    3) Are less likely to commit crimes and kill people ✔

    Translation: I've cherry-picked any texts I can find which validate my existing religious beliefs, and simply ignored the many sources which contradict them.

    I've also shown that governments that have stated atheistic policies have killed more people in the 20th century than have been killed in declared religious wars for the last 1,000 years.

    Translation: I made a bunk claim, and when my claim was shown to be bunk, I simply ignored it and then repeated the same bunk claim several hours later. 

    What even is an "atheistic policy"? You're literally making stuff up.

  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature
    Just because you repeat a lie doesn't mean that socialist atheistic countries didn't kill more people int he 20th century than all the religious wars in the last 1,000 years.
    From the Washington Post:, Remembering the biggest mass murder in the history of the world

    But both Hitler and Stalin were outdone by Mao Zedong. From 1958 to 1962, his Great Leap Forward policy led to the deaths of up to 45 million people – easily making it the biggest episode of mass murder ever recorded.

    And that wasn't the full total for China, but just that one "event".

    From the AP news:

    The People’s Republic of China tops the list, with 76 million lives lost at the hands of the government from 1949 to 1987. The Soviet Union follows, with 62 million lives lost from 1917 to 1987. Adolf Hitler’s Nazi German government killed 21 million people between 1933 and 1945. Then there are lesser murdering regimes, such as Nationalist China, Japan, Turkey, Vietnam and Mexico. According to Rummel’s research, the 20th century saw 262 million people’s lives lost at the hands of their own governments.
    You have been proven wrong, yet again.  Have you had enough, or are you thirsty for more?  

    Hey, it would be helpful if you cited some source that isn't funded by China, Russia or an atheistic society.  Just sayin
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 12
    @just_sayin
    Just because you repeat a lie doesn't mean that socialist atheistic countries didn't kill more people int he 20th century than all the religious wars in the last 1,000 years.
    A country is a piece of land, pal. I can see you're having great difficulty comprehending the basic laws of physical reality, but land doesn't kill anybody. The fact that you accuse me of lying is hilarious, since I've already proven the opposite is true. Estimates of the number which died in Russia range between 9 and 60 million, while estimates of those which died in China range between 40 and 80 million. 

    Let's compare that to the number which died in religious wars and/or conquests:-

    Spanish Conquest Of The Americas - 30,000,000 - 70,000,000 deaths.

    Spanish Inquisition - 100,000 - 2,000,000 deaths.

    Taiping Rebellion- 20,000,000 - 30,000,000 deaths.

    Muslim Conquest of India - 6,000,000 - 80,000,000 deaths.

    French Wars of Religion- 3,000,000 deaths.

    Congolese Genocide - 5,000,000 - 10,000,000 deaths.

    War in the Sudan- 2,600,000 deaths.

    Thirty Years War- 8,000,000 - 11,000,000 deaths.

    Madhi Revolt- 5,500,000 deaths.

    The Reconquista - 10,000,000 + deaths.

    Albigensian Crusade- 1,000,000 deaths.

    Panthay Rebellion- 1,000,000 deaths.

    Crusades - 1,000,000 - 9,000,000 deaths.

    Hui Rebellion- 640,000 deaths.

    Partition of India- 500,000 deaths.

    European Witch Hunts - 300,000 deaths.

    As we can see, you're making up your own fake facts. Even worse, you are simply ignoring that during religious wars, religion is the actual cause of the conflict (and therefore deaths), whereas atheists aren't in the business of killing others simply because they aren't atheists.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4891 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin

    I do not question these facts: I question the supposed implications of them. Albeit in the facts you listed there is something I want to clarify: what do you mean by "atheistic policies" of the governments you mentioned? Say, in China the Muslim population on the West is heavily oppressed due to their religion - but so were Muslim populations in Medieval Europe and parts of the Middle East. It seems to me that these are not atheistic policies, but anti-ideological policies not specific to atheism.

    As for lumping of the religious groups together such as Muslims compared to lumping atheists together, there is a difference. ISIS members kill people because of Islam: they state this much openly, justifying their actions by claiming that they are the will oh Allah. On the other hand, murderous communists, Nazis, Japanese imperialists and so on killed because they believed in communism, National-Socialism and Japanese imperialism respectively. They did not butcher millions because they wanted to assert violently that god does not exist, and many of those they butchered were atheists themselves.

    Are there peaceful Muslims, Christians, Judaists? Sure. There are also peaceful communists, Nazis and Japanese ultranationalists. It does not change the fact that all these ideologies are fundamentally based around the idea of subjugation of the individual to some collectively accepted entity: god, Allah, proletariate, the folk or the empire. There is nothing of this kind inherent in atheisn, which is simply lack of belief in supernatural beings. "I do not believe in unicorns, so you must die" - said no one ever.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
    It seems to me that these are not atheistic policies, but anti-ideological policies not specific to atheism.

    He's basically trying to say any deaths not caused as a direct result of religion are as a result of some invention of his own sick mind which he calls "atheistic policies". The man's mind is clearly damaged.

  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -   edited January 12
    @Nomenclature
    You are mighty generous in labeling something a religious war rather than a war by a country with religious people in it.  Dishonest much? 
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 12
    @just_sayin
    You are mighty generous in labeling something a religious war rather than a war by a country with religious people in it.  Dishonest much? 

    Lmao. Coming from the same guy who just claimed a hundred million died from "atheistic policies", that's seven different kinds of hilarious.

    Dee

  • .
    @John_Seamus

    Where do I start with your complete Bible stupidity?!

    YOUR BIBLE QUOTE #1: "No. Slavery is a very old thing that has been in humanity since the beginning. The Bible mentions this because it was so ingrained into their culture. Catholicism has always been very anti-slavery." 

    HELLO? How can you insidiously recognize that your primitive faith has been anti-slavery, where in your Bible it shows that slavery is accepted by none other than Jesus the Christ where He gives instructions on how to BEAT A SLAVE?!

    JESUS AS GOD SAID: "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." (Luke 12:47-48)




    YOUR BIBLE QUOTE #2:  "So does Christianity" No, it doesn't. It teaches to hate the sin and love the sinner. The whole New Testament is about unity under God."

    WRONG in relating to Christianity not to specifically hate others that do not follow their doctrine as the passage below so states in NOT loving the sinner: 

    "If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, BUT KILL HIM. Your hand shall be the first raised to SLAY HIM; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall STONE HIM TO DEATH, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12) 




    YOUR BIBLE QUOTE #3:
      "And woman being seen as less is not a product of these religions. That has been a big thing for almost every ancient civilation. Again, many of the most important people in these religions are women." 

    Women are seen as 2nd class citizens in the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible, and if you are a member of the priestly pedophile infested Catholic faith, I suggest you actually READ your Bible to prevent you from proffering outright LYING statements like are shown in your quote above about women not being less in value, which biblically is a LIE as shown that they are less in value in being 2nd class citizens in the passages below:

    1.  "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

    2.  “ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman in man. For the man is not of the women; but the woman of the man.” (1Corinthians 11: 3,8 ) 

    3.  “I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.” (Ecclesiastes 7:26)

    4.  "The women should keep silent in the churchesFor they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

    5.  "Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered." (1 Peter 3:7)


    John Seamus, now if you are a Hell Bound Catholic, quickly go to your "sweat box confession" booth and tell the priest, of which is hopefully not a PEDOPHILE, that you have blatantly LIED on DebateIsland Religion Forum and say as many "Hail Mary's" that are needed for Jesus to forgive you, understood? GO, run, hurry!


    NEXT CATHOLIC PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE "JOHN SEAMUS" THAT OUTRIGHT LIES ABOUT HIS FAITH, WILL BE ... ?


    .



  • PepsiguyPepsiguy 81 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: For 1 they aren't cults

    Whether or not Christianity is a cult or not depends on the denomination. If you are talking about JWs, then that is a cult. If you think Protestantism, well that's the antithesis of a cult(in the popular definition). 

    Islam is sort of a cult(with all the jihad and stuff) but there are peaceful Muslims as well, but it has 3 main denominations:

    * Shia
    * Sunni
    * Quranist

    Judaism also depends on the denomination:

    Overall, Judaism has no single charismatic leader or founder. Some debate wether its Abraham(4000 year old religion) or Moses(3500 year old religion). I personally choose the 4000 year old date because I'm a devout Christian.

    * Haredi(ultra orthodox): extremely devout, but they have not gotten involved in any terrorist attacks.
    * Orthodox: very devout, but they have not gotten involved in any terrorist attacks.
    * Conservative: Do not believe that the bible is divine, yet they follow its commandments
    * Reform: Do not believe the bible is divine and follow very few commandments
    * secular: this is self explanatory.

    A cult isn't defined by its belief. A cult can be religious, but can also be centered political, philosophical, self help, exercise, ideas, basically  just about anything can form into a cult. A cult is defined by its structure, a cult is basically a uniform organization based around the extreme revering of a charismatic figure. Cults are uniform in their belief and do not allow space for critical thinking or debate. Cults recruit people using techniques like brainwashing and exposing them to less extreme doctrines before getting to their weird stuff(as scientology does). None of these



  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -  
    Yes they're all cults , Christianity is a blood cult where id-otic delusionals gather in draughty buildings on a Sunday as an array of assorted charlatans , chancers and conmen /women mumble incantations about the body and blood of Jesus , the truly  hilarious thing is these same delusional sheeple laugh at the ancient Mayan blood letting cults where blood was used to open dialogue with god .....Irony 
  • @Pepsiguy

    YOUR QUOTE OF ADMITTANCE OF BEING A DEVOUT CHRISTIAN: "Some debate wether its Abraham(4000 year old religion) or Moses(3500 year old religion). I personally choose the 4000 year old date because I'm a devout Christian."

    Just how DEVOUT of a pseudo-christian are you when you do the simple biblical math is realizing that Jesus as God (2 Peter 1:1) is a brutal serial killer, especially of innocent infants and children?!  Are you proud to tell others that you pray to a horrific brutal killer god named Jesus that murders innocent children? Huh?


    JESUS AS GOD MURDERED THE FIRST BORN OF EGYPT: "And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.” (Exodus 12:29) "

    JESUS AS GOD MURDERED INNOCENT CHILDREN AND INFANTS: ‘"This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[ all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."  (1 Samuel 15:2-3)

    JESUS AS GOD SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE MURDERED: "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death. (Matthew 15: 3-4). 

    The “command” that Jesus was referring too and that was in effect at His time, and forever, was when Moses said: “Honor your father and mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.” (Exodus 21:17) "


    NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE "PEPSIGUY" THAT WORSHIPS A JESUS AS GOD THAT MURDERS INNOCENT CHILDREN AND INFANTS, WILL BE ... ?

    .
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch