Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Look at the whole post. If you add up the numbers from the wars and purges driven by Communism it adds up properly. But I am not making this a war of numbers, I was just pointing out a fallacy in another argument. But yes, the numbers do add up.

I don't think they do as at least some of the numbers you are trying to lay are religious.. and..the whole of history... really ?

Again, it was just a point to show that a great cost of human life is not strictly limited to religion, therefore the argument that says religion is bad because of killing people is intrinsically flawed. That was the only point I was making. Again, sorry for the lack of clarity.

bah..fair enough then.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Oh Dawkins, that crazy man! Agreed on the lack of exclusivity between religion and atheism, although many would call your point sheer foolishness.

That's because, at least in my experience, most atheists know very little about religion, theism, spirituality, et al. Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris are all very good representations of the mean atheist opinion.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Does my point make more sense now?

Yep, I also agree.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Interesting, I thought you didn't like the idea of a "Classical" god.

I don't, but I also do my best to make sure my own bias doesn't infect my understanding of controversial terms.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
I never said Hitler wasn't religious, as you well pointed out it isn't exclusive at all. Rather I was trying to point out Hitler's strong belief in his, and the Aryan race, being supreme, and elevating them to god-like status. As far as I can tell he was an atheist in the "classical" sense.

Its an interesting argument, but I think he was just nuts (syphilis does that to you). His statements about God/god never had any consistency such that one can claim he didn't believe in one.

Its important to remember that any belief in any God/god (obviously metaphor complicates this) is sufficient to disqualify one from any claim to atheism.

JEB_Stuart wrote:The idea that something cannot exist because there is no evidence is a double edged sword as it can also support the opposite.

Yeah, absolutely. When there’s no evidence it’s fairly intuitive to assume that’s because it isn’t there, but when you start looking at the spiritual, which by definition is beyond the material, then absence of evidence in the material world is perfectly consistent with an afterworld.

Live and let live is all well and good, and I find it quite an appealing ideology, but it is prone to singling out more evangelically minded as awful people. Not that I am saying that every missionary attempt is a good one, far from it, I just don't like to see people demonized or mocked for simply following a central tenet of the Faith. Do you agree?

Fair point. I know a few people that take ‘live and let live’ and extend it to the point where everyone is free to believe what they want, as long as they never ever mention it in public or wear anything signifying their religion. Which is, of course, completely unfair to people of faith and not actually very tolerant at all.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for a JW to come knocking on the door looking for converts, that’s what he believes. It is also perfectly acceptable to tell the JW you’re not interested.

Exactly where the right to religious expression becomes too much is a tough question, as there are a lot of factors involved. I think more leeway needs to be given when the religion in question is doing positive things in the community, and more leeway should be given to individual believers when they only have a small number of believers.

Actually I don't think we have talked about this before. Maybe, but I honestly don't recall. I remember the epic WWII debate, but that's it....

It wasn’t in the epic WWII thread, it was before that. It must have been with another poster.

Again, it was just a point to show that a great cost of human life is not strictly limited to religion, therefore the argument that says religion is bad because of killing people is intrinsically flawed. That was the only point I was making. Again, sorry for the lack of clarity.

Yeah, I agree with that entirely. I think at the start of the 20th century, if someone took a very superficial look at history they might conclude that religion led to a lot of historical violence. But the 20th century established pretty clearly that people didn’t need religious conviction to be dicks, that all kinds of other beliefs (fascism, communism, nationalism) could easily produce death and violence.

But there is a trap in taking things too far the other way. In looking at ideologies like Nazism and thinking that because it wasn't overtly tied to religion it must be atheist. Nazism was filled with all kinds of conflicting ideas about religion, as it was embraced whenever it furthered Nazi power, and condemned whenever it restricted Nazi power (as Nazism like all fascism was ultimately a fetish over power). Religion, either a belief in it or a rejection of it, just wasn't a part of Nazism.

The truth is any belief, if taken to the point where it is more important than the well being of individuals, is likely to end up with piles of bodies. When religious bodies gain temporal power and start believing in things greater than the well being of individuals, it often ends up in piles of bodies. When non-religious bodies gain temporal power and start believing in things greater than the well being of individuals, it often ends up in piles of bodies.

You have to remember also that if the crusaders had machine guns and tanks, and a population as large as the population at the starts of WWI and WWII, they probably would have killed a hell of a lot of people too.

Gor a bunch of guys with swords, they did pretty well in the numbers game

And I think that rather than raise the Aryans to godhood, Hitler may have just been replacing the Jews as the "chosen people", and perhaps giving his selected group of people special rules to let them live above everyone else. Pretty much every society or culture will have a "master race". Romans once lorded it over everyone else in their empire, for example.

In relation to the actual reason to this thread, I am still suspect on the existance of any kind of afterlife at all. Your molecules will get absorbed back into the earth and become other things, the chemical reactions which power your body will cease, meaning that your brain will shut down and be unable to send signals, meaning your conciousness will be unable to continue.

I do not personally believe that there is any kind of soul or "force" which makes up a person. It is just a series of chemical and electrical reactions running around a set of specialised cells, and it all stops when the cells die.

It would be nice (in some ways) if you "lived on" after bodily death, but I do not think that it is actually the case.