Eve of the Apocalypse: Twilight

Weighing out all the good and bad all the listed religions have done. Which religion has benefited the world the most, or otherwise has hurt the world the least?

Express your thoughts and feelings with keen vigilance!
you
my
friend
So discuss!

To my knowledge, there has never been a war fought nor a people enslaved or killed for either of the religions of Buddhism or Hinduism.

My religious beliefs are a little more complicated than that. I believe in the ideas and laws of Christianity, but I don't believe there's some dude who's going to judge me based on the events in my life day by day. I believe in the law, and I believe in god at a spiritual and ideological sense.

you could say I have almost pagan beliefs I guess.

And yes, I know that's not what this thread is supposed to be about.

To my knowledge, there has never been a war fought nor a people enslaved or killed for either of the religions of Buddhism or Hinduism.

That's because they are not allowed to fight?

Yeah, and Christians are supposed to "love thy neighbor."

What are you getting at?

If Hindus and Bhuddists aren't allowed to fight and Christians are supposed to love their neighbors, then why did the Christians kill their neighbors (failing to follow their own religion's code of ethics) while the Hindus and Bhuddists didn't fight (following their religion's code of ethics)?

Actually, I thought my lack of knowledge of such actions might be simply ignorance, as demonstrated by this article after a quick Google search. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/world ... india.html

The pope allowed the Nazis to proceed and in return the priests were not toally owned by the regime. As consequence, we kinda had christianity as state religion ( I guess ), the state collects taxes for them and keeps a part of the tax for itself and everybody is happy.

Christians kill their neighbors

Please elaborate on this.

And just because you claim you are something, doesn't make it so.

NONE!

they all speak of the same principles: being a decent person.

unfortunately, they are a tool of mass control, and are often abused by people.

Hey, Wicca was added! I am fairly confident in saying no mass killings were carried out by Wiccans.

Dark, if you are unaware of Christians killing people in the name of Christianity, you need to go back to school.

I am perfectly aware of that, but you made is sound as though it's still happening.

And you didn't mention Islam though....rather funny.

I would also add an atheism option, since your talking about "good" influence and "bad". In terms of raw numbers, atheism has killed the most, and would be by far the most deadly belief. Hilter, Po Pot, Stalin, these were all devout atheists who held a firm belief in Darwinian theories. Muhammad "claimed" to be a Catholic, but so what? Too, numerous other horrific acts were claimed in the name of atheism, such as school shootings, namely Columbine.

Too, the Crusades can't really hold up here. Yes, there was some bad stuff that the Christians did, but that was a war, you can't judge it on the same premise as say....a genocide.

That much said, this doesn't mean atheists are somehow all evil, but you can't ignore facts and history, it's all there.

How about witch burnings? How about the arrests, torture, and executions of the Knights Templar on or related to church orders? How about the fact that declaring war goes directly against the concept of "love thy neighbor" and therefore does apply? Let's not forget the Inquisition! Then, there are those rulers who conquered other nations for the sole (supposed) purpose of spreading Christianity.
I used Christianity as an easily citable source, since I actually know a bit about what the Bible says. I have no idea what the Koran says, but I made no effort to exclude any religion except for those I specifically named.
Muhammad was atheist? Says who? Wikipedia says that his religion or lack thereof is a matter of dispute due to inconsistent statements attributed to him.

I'll be moderating this thread quite heavily so make sure your posts aren't offensive or unreasonably accusatory otherwise you won't have one at all.

To my knowledge, there has never been a war fought nor a people enslaved or killed for either of the religions of Buddhism or Hinduism.

Ohh there has. I come from a Hindu background, though my parents are secular and in some very traditional Hindu branches I'm not a Hindu (though I am in others). Hindus massacred Buddhists when they first started cropping up and there have been plenty of wars in China over Buddhism (800? - 1230ish, around the time the Mongols took over whenever that was). In Southeast Asia as well there were wars between Hindu and Buddhist people like the Vietnamese colonization of Champa, a Hindu kingdom in what is now Southern Vietnam. There's been wars between Buddhists (conflict in Myanmar being a huge one, various conflicts in Vietnam, earlier conflicts in Southeast Asia) and there have been tons of wars between Hindus in India.

Hindus have been murdering each other since the dawn of the religion. Brahmins killing dalits and kshatriyas killing brahmins and fighting over the interpretation of texts, the oneness or apartness of god blah blah. I think it's a bit short sighted to say that Hinduism or Buddhist hasn't seen the same sort of ridiculous conflict that's plagued all religions. However, that said that does not diminish the fact they're very different from Western religions and are far more open to truth seeking. It's important to know though that Buddhism and Hinduism are very opposed in their theories and aren't really friendly with each other (which makes it difficult for me to be a Hindu-Buddhist but I manage).

That's because they are not allowed to fight?

This is very wrong. I think, if you're going to post in this thread, you should read more about both Hinduism and Buddhism.

That much said, this doesn't mean atheists are somehow all evil, but you can't ignore facts and history, it's all there.

I don't think there's any concrete number on the amount of people killed by religion. Muhammad was not an Athiest, it's very confusing what he was and Stalin's kind of in the same boat. Muhammad led quite a Christian regime and Stalin led a pretty Athiest one but both flirted with the other side and did whatever it took to maintain power and order. So no, Athiesm is not the most "deadly" religion. I very seriously doubt you can quantify a most "deadly" religion.

Too, the Crusades can't really hold up here. Yes, there was some bad stuff that the Christians did, but that was a war, you can't judge it on the same premise as say....a genocide.

No, actually the Crusades were a good example of a sort of genocide ('religiciocide' or something). The Crusades were disgusting and Christians earned themselves quite an awful reputation among Jews and Muslims for the shitstorm they created. They mass-murdered, raped and pillaged to the extreme and there's even documented evidence of cannibalism on the Christian's side.

Also, Christians have committed genocide hundreds of times. Look at South America; with Coréz and his Catholic men who forcibly converted thousands of natives by the sword. You had the French in North Africa (Catholics) and the Boers in South Africa (Protestants) murdering and enslaving black people and forcing them into Christianity. British people killed thousands of Indians and persecuted hundreds during their regime for being Hindu or Muslim scholars and gave preferencial treatment to Christians. So this is a bit silly, to say Christians haven't committed genocide. Of course they have.

I did say "to my knowledge" and corrected myself after just a bit of Googling. I think that, perhaps, American history classes (even supposed world history classes) focused on European and American history, rather than that of the "Far East." Or, maybe I just don't remember that part.

That's fine I was just pointing out they're about as bad as any religion when it comes to killing others. It's a human thing and I don't think any religion that gets big could ever hope to stop that kind of stuff from happening.

No, actually the Crusades were a good example of a sort of genocide ('religiciocide' or something). The Crusades were disgusting and Christians earned themselves quite an awful reputation among Jews and Muslims for the shitstorm they created. They mass-murdered, raped and pillaged to the extreme and there's even documented evidence of cannibalism on the Christian's side.

Also, Christians have committed genocide hundreds of times. Look at South America; with Coréz and his Catholic men who forcibly converted thousands of natives by the sword. You had the French in North Africa (Catholics) and the Boers in South Africa (Protestants) murdering and enslaving black people and forcing them into Christianity. British people killed thousands of Indians and persecuted hundreds during their regime for being Hindu or Muslim scholars and gave preferencial treatment to Christians. So this is a bit silly, to say Christians haven't committed genocide. Of course they have.

Ha, notice your not mentioning the Muslims? You forget, they did all these things too. Also, the crusades are hugely overblown.

I never said Christians didn't commit genocide, I said the crusades are a poor example, and they are, because it was a war, and all those bad things happen during wars. It's an attempt to paint Christians as evil and obsessive of death.

The numbers are there, and I can prove it, and yes, Muhammad was an atheist, at least he tried to run a atheist-based empire. He and his generals regularly quoted Darwin, and drew several ideals from him, including his "super race".

What about the Irish Republication Army?

What?

Look it up.

Your "supper race" insults me on a personal level.

[Luftwaffles] He didn't say or do anything that implied he was, don't make unfounded accusations like that it's a bit insulting. Consider this an informal warning not to say something like that again.

As a prewarning, don't attack anyone in the thread, though you are free to respectfully disagree. However I think it's getting close to closing if certain persons aren't willing to argue intelligibly.

Ha, notice your not mentioning the Muslims? You forget, they did all these things too. Also, the crusades are hugely overblown. I never said Christians didn't commit genocide, I said the crusades are a poor example, and they are, because it was a war, and all those bad things happen during wars. It's an attempt to paint Christians as evil and obsessive of death.

The Crusades are not an attempt at making Christians look bad and evil. The Crusades were horribly excessive and are a really huge black spot on the history of Christianity and its relationship to the Middle East. Some Muslims also committed horrible crimes, but approaches in modern history have reconstructed the way we look at the Crusades. In most credible universities it's no longer studied as a romantic, unifying Christian war but attempted genocide and a period of immense intolerance.

You seem to also contradict yourself by making an inference that it is perfectly acceptable for genocide or mass murder to be carried out during a war because "things happen" while condemning people like Muhammad and Stalin for doing the same thing. They're actually both equally detestable and just because one side is Christian does not make it acceptable.

The numbers are there, and I can prove it, and yes, Muhammad was an atheist, at least he tried to run a atheist-based empire. He and his generals regularly quoted Darwin, and drew several ideals from him, including his "supper race".

I am going to point out that Darwin himself was Unitarian for most of his life before becoming agnostic (quite apart from athiesm) and a bit of a deist. So I don't see why references are continually being made to him as if he started athiesm. Muhammad was a religious man and has on numerous occasions professed himself a God fearing Christian, but he was also quite intrigued by the occult, German paganism and other religions. His swastika comes from Hinduism where it represents the evolution of the universe and from Buddhism but that's another story. He was not an athiest though he certainly battled without faith throughout his life. His Third Reich was quite as Christian as any other German state and he manipulated churches like he did other institutions in Germany at the time.

It's one thing to point out that religious excesses and debate the nature of god (or lack of him) or other bs like that, but it's another thing to turn a religion thread into a "Muslims did it first!" kind of bullshit. If I catch any posts like that I'll be deleting them right away, so bare in mind you keep being respectful. It's also "super" race not "supper" race, which is what offended Dekar.

Perhaps he just dislikes the concept of people being genetically engineered to be eaten as a major meal of the day?

I don't like that idea either