8 Atrocities Committed in the Name of Religion
Published on April 2, 2008 - 527 Comments
Throughout history religion has been used as an excuse, or driving force, for some of the worst atrocities imaginable. From pre-history to modern history, religion is, for many people, just an excuse to kill other people. This list highlights eight of the worst atrocities (but not necessarily the top 8).
Human sacrifices were still occurring in Buddhist Burma in the 1850s. When the capital was moved to Mandalay, 56 “spotless” men were buried beneath the new city walls to sanctify and protect the city. When two of the burial spots were later found empty, royal astrologers decreed that 500 men, women, boys, and girls must be killed and buried at once, or the capital must be abandoned. About 100 were actually buried before British governors stopped the ceremonies.
Members of lndia’s Thuggee sect strangled people as sacrifices to appease the bloodthirsty goddess Kali, a practice beginning in the 1500s. The number of victims has been estimated to be as high as 2 million. Thugs were claiming about 20,000 lives a year in the 1800s until British rulers stamped them out. At a trial in 1840, one Thug was accused of killing 931 people. Today, some Hindu priests still sacrifice goats to Kali.
The Mountain Meadows massacre was a mass killing of the Fancher-Baker wagon train at Mountain Meadows in Utah Territory on September 11, 1857, by a group of Mormons and Paiute Indians. The Arkansas emigrants were traveling to California shortly before Utah War started. Mormons throughout the Utah Territory had been mustered to fight the invading United States Army, which they believed was intended to destroy them as a people. Initially intending to orchestrate an Indian massacre, two men with leadership roles in local military, church and government organizations, Isaac C. Haight and John D. Lee, conspired for Lee to lead militiamen disguised as Native Americans along with a contingent of Paiute tribesmen in an attack.
The emigrants fought back and a siege ensued. Intending to leave no witnesses of Mormon complicity in the siege and avoid reprisals complicating the Utah War, militiamen induced the emigrants to surrender and give up their weapons. After escorting the emigrants out of their fortification, the militiamen and their tribesmen auxiliaries executed approximately 120 men, women and children.
The Medieval Inquisition is a series of Inquisitions (Roman Catholic Church bodies charged with suppressing heresy) from around 1184, including the Episcopal Inquisition (1184-1230s) and later the Papal Inquisition (1230s). It was in response to large popular movements throughout Europe considered apostate or heretical to Christianity, in particular Catharism and Waldensians in southern France and northern Italy. These were the first inquisition movements of many that would follow.
Torture was used after 1252. On May 15, Pope Innocent IV issued a papal bull entitled Ad exstirpanda, which authorized the use of torture by inquisitors. The Inquisitors were forbidden to use methods that resulted in bloodshed, mutilation or death. One of the more common forms of medieval inquisition torture was known as strappado. The hands were bound behind the back with a rope, and the accused was suspended this way, dislocating the joints painfully in both arms. Weights could be added to the legs dislocating those joints as well.
The organization is still active today under the name of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Prior to becoming Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger was the head of the congregation.
When Puritans settled in Massachusetts in the 1600s, they created a religious police state where doctrinal deviation could lead to flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears, or boring through the tongue with a hot iron. Preaching Quaker beliefs was a capital offense. Four stubborn Quakers defied this law and were hanged. In the 1690s fear of witches seized the colony. Twenty alleged witches were killed and 150 others imprisoned.
Christians were first, and horribly, targeted for persecution as a group by the emperor Nero in 64 AD. A colossal fire broke out at Rome, and destroyed much of the city. Rumors abounded that Nero himself was responsible. To divert attention from the rumors, Nero ordered that Christians should be rounded up and killed. Some were torn apart by dogs, others burnt alive as human torches. Over the next hundred years or so, Christians were sporadically persecuted. Then in the mid-third century, emperors initiated even more intensive persecutions. This, “The Great Persecution”, is considered the largest. Beginning with a series of four edicts banning Christian practices and ordering the imprisonment of Christian clergy, the persecution intensified until all Christians in the empire were commanded to sacrifice to the gods or face immediate execution. This persecution was to be the last, as Constantine I soon came into power and in 313 legalized Christianity.
The Aztecs began their elaborate theocracy in the 1300s and brought human sacrifice to a golden era. About 20,000 people were killed yearly to appease gods — especially the sun god, who needed daily “nourishment” of blood. Hearts of sacrifice victims were cut out, and some bodies were eaten ceremoniously. Other victims were drowned, beheaded, burned or dropped from heights. In a rite to the rain god, shrieking children were killed at several sites so that their tears might induce rain. In a rite to the maize goddess, a virgin danced for 24 hours, then was killed and skinned; her skin was worn by a priest in further dancing. One account says that at King Ahuitzotl’s coronation, 80,000 prisoners were butchered to please the gods.
Islamic jihads (holy wars), mandated by the Koran, killed millions over 12 centuries. In early years, Muslim armies spread the faith rapidly: east to India and west to Morocco. Then splintering sects branded other Muslims as infidels and declared jihads against them. The Kharijis battled Sunni rulers. The Azariqis decreed death to all “sinners” and their families. In 1804 a Sudanese holy man, Usman dan Fodio, waged a bloody jihad that broke the religious sway of the Sultan of Gobir. In the 1850s another Sudanese mystic, ‘Umar al-Hajj, led a barbaric jihad to convert pagan African tribes.
This article is licensed under the GFDL because it contains quotations from the Wikipedia articles: Mountain Meadow Massacrew, and Medieval Inquisition. Other sources: Religion’s Death Toll, by James A. Haught [1990]
Related Lists7 Terrible Abuses Suffered By Women Around The World10 Lesser Known Massacres Top 10 Most Evil Men Top 15 Quotes By Famous Atheists |
SubscriptionsLike this article? Subscribe to the RSS feed to keep 'em coming, or subscribe via email: |
If you find this site helpful, please leave a donation so you can enjoy the spirit of giving too.
Email This Post
1. Amanda - April 2nd, 2008 at 6:31 am
wow
2. mezzalyrica1184 - April 2nd, 2008 at 6:33 am
am I first? that’s weird…I should think something like Jonestown would be included…great list!
3. Amanda - April 2nd, 2008 at 6:34 am
thats crazy. in the name of religion? im a christian, and to me that means trying to be as nice and kind as possible… not killing all kinds of people.
4. Du - April 2nd, 2008 at 6:37 am
nothing on the current situation of tibet? maybe as a bonus or something?
5. jfrater - April 2nd, 2008 at 6:40 am
mezzalyrica1184: Jonestown is on the incredible recordings list so I left it off this one
Amanda: I agree - that is what it is MEANT to be - it is a shame so many people forget that.
Du: Tibet is suppression by an Atheist government of a religious group - and while atheism can often appear to be as zealously “religious” as religions, it doesn’t quite fit the bill.
6. otay - April 2nd, 2008 at 7:01 am
It is truly amazing what ones religeous beliefs can compel them to do.
7. Bob - April 2nd, 2008 at 7:01 am
Cool, now let’s have a list (it’ll be much, much longer) of atrocities committed in the name of atheism (or secularism, or scientific materialism, or whatever they were calling it at the time).
8. Bob - April 2nd, 2008 at 7:05 am
Also, the word Puritans is innaccurate in #4 (but thanks for not making the mistake of saying witches were burned!). Puritans were members of the Church of England who wanted to purify it from the Romish practices (i.e., candles, bishops, saints, etc.) not, as many seem to think, Christians who wanted to be especially “pure” (in fact all the things that get attacked as “puritanism” these days are basic virtues that all Christians in all ages would hold up as ideal), so those who left England and formed their own churches in the colonies could not have been Puritans, since they were Separatists.
9. corinthian0430 - April 2nd, 2008 at 7:08 am
Why no mention about the crusades?
10. Cthulhu - April 2nd, 2008 at 7:12 am
The Crusades were more political than religious. The Byzantines were getting attacked and asked the Pope for help. It was also a way of getting revenge for Muslim raids on Europe going back to the 700s. The religious angle was just a way to get volunteers.
11. jesse - April 2nd, 2008 at 7:12 am
wait, i am confused, what about the holocaust, am i missing something?
12. Randall - April 2nd, 2008 at 7:14 am
It’s interesting that the relatively isolated incidents in Salem were picked out here, when the witch mania was actually far wider spread in Europe in that century and the centuries before; estimates are that thousands died–and *those* people, in Europe, *were* burned, as well as hanged and tortured.
13. L - April 2nd, 2008 at 7:16 am
Actually, Bob, I cant think of a single atrocity done “in the name of” atheism. I guess you could possibly successfully argue that those killed “in the name of” Communism could MAYBE be considered as such, but I cant for the life of me think of a time when thousands of people were killed solely in the name of Science.
Religion, regardless of the flavor, has always had the power to unite people. You don’t like the man in the village over, and wish him dead, and you need to rally the troops? Tell your tribe that God wants the enemy dead. You don’t even really need a reason! The Magical Sky Wizard (whichever one you chose) can’t be argued with! It is the ultimate power and means of control on a social level. It unites the people under one banner and gives them a sense of purpose, along with immediately validating any behavior (no matter how nasty and out of character) as OK.
“Oh dear, I feel sortof bad about killing all the women and children during that battle. I hope I can feel better about it… and my leaders say that it is OK. Why is it OK? Well, because God said it was OK. Ah, well, there’s the rationalization. Even Granny can’t get mad at me for beheading all those children, and raping the mothers. They didn’t believe in the same God as us, so they aren’t really humans. I am a holy, just man with high social standing now!”
Religion is the ultimate rationalizer.
14. Peanut - April 2nd, 2008 at 7:17 am
Awesome list.
I’d never have thought religion could compell people to kill others.
15. L - April 2nd, 2008 at 7:19 am
also, no, the holocaust, while horrible, was not done “in the name of” religion. Hitler did not kill the jews because they didn’t worship the same god he did. he killed them for other reasons I wont get into here.
16. L - April 2nd, 2008 at 7:22 am
ALSO… lol
The situation in Tibet is not a religious issue. It is a political issue. The Communist government does not want the conflict of power and interest around that the religious leaders of Tibet could use to influence the people. The Chinese government could really give a damn about what they believe in, as long as the people are under their control.
17. lezhog - April 2nd, 2008 at 7:28 am
Jihad is not a “holy war” do some unbiased research and it will be found jihad is a struggle, and in VERY FEW cases any sort of combat. Islam is not about war, and the Muslims who do follow extreme fundamentalism are morons.
18. meangene - April 2nd, 2008 at 7:30 am
The Inquisition has got to be higher than the witch hunt.
19. Bob - April 2nd, 2008 at 7:32 am
L, I love how you misdefine everything to make it not about atheism, secular humanism, scientific materialism, or whatever name you want to slap on the same thing which is anti-religion. The Gulag, the Holocaust, Pol Pot, the Chinese atrocities–all these have been done in the name of anti-religion.
Feel free to spin, though. Clowns turning somersaults always make me laugh.
20. jfrater - April 2nd, 2008 at 7:35 am
Okay - I only included one atrocity per religious group - hence no crusades (though only two of the 8 crusades are generally considered to have been bad - the rest were land wars).
Randall: I picked Salem over Germany because I thought it would be more familiar to people - but yes - things were definitely worse in Germany and Europe.
L (#14): Atheism and science are separate entities - many religious people are also scientifically minded. I would also argue that atrocities were committed against Orthodox Russians by the atheistic communists. The same is still true today in China when Catholics are executed by the state for not adhering to the Patriotic Catholic Church (which is a government controlled version of the Catholic Church). The same is also true in North Korea. Those are three examples just from Communism alone. The Khmer Rouge outlawed religion and execution untold amounts of religious people.
And finally - this is a list about atrocities committed BY religious groups - not against them
21. jfrater - April 2nd, 2008 at 7:40 am
meangene: This list is not in order. But for the record, the witch hunts killed at least 12,000 people, whereas the inquisition handed to the state for execution around 500 - 1,000 people (less than 10% of those killed by the protestant witch hunters). For that reason I think that the Witch trials should be higher than the inquisition if this were an ordered list.
22. jfrater - April 2nd, 2008 at 7:45 am
Lezhog: the problem is that verses like this exist in the Quran:
And the fact is, that while yes, many Muslims are not warring, many are (and using quotes such as the one above to support them). If that is incorrect, why are the “peaceful” muslims who claim to be the majority and TRUE followers of the Quran doing nothing to stop the terrorists who do use it in that way?
23. Ginger Lee - April 2nd, 2008 at 8:03 am
No offense but I thought it was kind of tactless to put Islamic Jihad as number one.
I think that the conquistadors pushing Catholicism on the American Indians should probably be included too. I know part of it is political but in those day they were one and the same.
24. SlickWilly - April 2nd, 2008 at 8:15 am
Who cares whether religion or atheism has a longer list of atrocities attached to it? The fact is, any war that has been waged that has tagged the name of any religion or lack thereof was for purely political reasons. Religion is not “evil” anymore than atheism is “evil.” Evil people have perverted religion (or lack thereof) to justify their own personal crusades. I am an atheist and I’m not an evil person. Just like DiscHuker is a religious person and is not evil. Just like the *vast majority* of people that suscribe to either camp.
25. Lezhog - April 2nd, 2008 at 8:16 am
jfrater,
First of all, I love your website and have been an avid reader since last spring/summer since you first started listing.
In respects to your response:
First I would like to commend you in your research into Qur’an and its blessed teachings, but from what site did you get this Sura? I am a Muslim convert and several English translations and interpretations of the Qur’an I have studied say nothing similar to what you have posted.
My translation of the sura you have post from my personal Al-Qur’an, as translated by Muhammad Farooq-i-Azam Malik is:
Sura 2 Al-Baqarah 190-193
“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight against you, but not to exceed limits. Allah does not like transgressors. Kill them whenever they confront you in combat and drive them out of the places from which they have driven you. Though killing is bad, creating mischief is worse than killing. Do not fight them in the precincts of Al-Masjid-al-Haram(aka a mosque), unless they attack you there; but if they attack you, put them to the sword; that is the punishment for nonbelievers. If they cease hostility, then surely, Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Fight against them until there is no more disorder and Allah’s supremacy is established. If the desist, let there be no hostility except against the oppressors.”
I have typed this ALL to illustrate a point. The sura selection you inserted was a SMALL selection of the overall theme of this part of the sura about how to deal with warfare. When you remove a selection, as you have, you must look at in context, ESPECIALLY ANY RELIGIOUS TEXT, not limited to the Qu’ran. As to Islamic extremists and “fundamentalists” (I say it in quotes because they pervert the Qur’an and hadith the worst, when they should be following it accurately), they are led by people who do as you have just done with your initial response to my original post. You have extracted a small portion of the Qur’an, which takes it out of context, and misinterprets the meaning. I am not saying you are a Islamic extremist, but you are making the mistake many non-Muslims make. Research and study of these religious texts is ESSENTIAL to interpret a meaning.
As to why Muslims do not try to stop them? Often times, the extremists rule the country, giving its Muslim citizens no choice but to listen, move, or die.
26. SlickWilly - April 2nd, 2008 at 8:16 am
Ginger Lee: How was it tactless?
27. Joss - April 2nd, 2008 at 8:19 am
Chilling list. Good call on #1.
28. Randall - April 2nd, 2008 at 8:24 am
Ginger Lee:
Why tactless? Islamic holy wars did in fact kill an enormous number of human beings over the centuries. And Islamic extremism earns many points–many, many points–for being a *modern-day* form of religious zealotry that goes around murdering people. Thousands of people. We are, after all, supposed to be civilized and self-aware, in these enlightened, technological times. One can perhaps understand–to some small extent–the barbarism of past ages… indeed, of only a few hundred years ago. But wholesale murder in the name of religion, in the 21st century? THAT is in incredibly bad taste. And in fact is insane and all the more monstrous.
Modern-day Islamic extremism is even MORE despicable when you examine the history of the Islamic peoples… here was a civilization that had high science, mathematics, learning and philosophy (and terrors and despotism as well of course) at a time when OUR Western civilization was in tatters and in the abyss of a Dark Age. In fact at the time, Islamic scholars and learned men *saved* much of the knowledge our civilization had accrued in Classical times, and this knowledge, or what little had been saved–trickled back to us.
But from that high civilization of learning and wisdom, from science–and even at times of great reason–the Islamic world has partly fallen back into the darkness of anti-civilization with these obsessions with extremist religion and superstition and hatreds. EVEN at a time when these nations command great wealth. This is quite frankly inexcusable.
I don’t believe Jamie was ranking these anyway, but I’d frankly rank Islamic Jihad and number one in any case.
29. rydak - April 2nd, 2008 at 8:25 am
what about the holocaust? its not included in your list..
30. Blackwaffle - April 2nd, 2008 at 8:28 am
uhm, I’m not sure you can say the persecutions of Christians by the Romans was done in the name of religion. The romans didn’t really have religious motive for doing it. Christians (a good number of which would have been former Jews) were a political group as much as a religious group and Nero was using the lions to keep them in check.
31. Lizim - April 2nd, 2008 at 8:32 am
Great list. I am a lapse Catholic and willing to admit that I know very little of other people’s religions. I do not believe that all Muslims are bloodthirsty crazy people, the same way I don’t believe that ALL priests molest children. That sad thing is that some Muslims are bloodthirsty crazy people the same way the some priests molest children. Those people scare me. (Bloodthirsty crazy people and child molesters alike.)
32. jfrater - April 2nd, 2008 at 8:47 am
Lezhog: thank you for going to the effort of posting the full quote for me. I agree that in that context it is far less aggressive - though I do think it still supports the idea of warring until Islam is put in place and I think that people should choose their faith, not be forced in to it by the sword or threat of sword.
As for your final point - there have been many cases where extremists have fought to take control of a nation - why can the non-extremists not also do so? It seems to me that many people supported Khomenei when he came to power - and yet he did many things that I would have thought a peaceful Muslim would object to. Incidentally - please don’t take this as an attack - I am just trying to understand and it is useful to discuss this with someone (you) who has some knowledge from the other side that I do not.
33. dangorironhide - April 2nd, 2008 at 8:50 am
NOBODY expects the Spanish #5!
34. Stefani - April 2nd, 2008 at 8:50 am
I heard somewhere that another “Rule” about the inquisitions, was that the same person could not be tortured more than once a day, so instead the inquisitors would make the torture session last the whole day, as to comply with the “Rule”
35. Idreno - April 2nd, 2008 at 8:56 am
Very interesting list!
I’ve always been somewhat fascinated by the witch hunts, moreso regarding the lack of common sense and logic. We should remember, however, that accusing individuals of being witches is a practice that began a very long time before the Salem trials. Apparently, these sort of accusations still occur in many tribal communities around the world…and the only solution that these cultures can ever find for it is death or expulsion.
It is amazing to me how, historically, people were accused of witchcraft for just about anything - being left handed, talking to oneself, speaking an unknown language around locals, attempting to invent something, finding and making herbal remedies, certain forms of mental diseases and dementia’s that were unexplainable at the time…
I’m currently reading a fabulous book by Ken Follett - World Without End - which takes place in the 14th century - and it’s obvious that the author has done a huge amount of research for his historical novels. In this book he addresses some of the horrors associated with contemporary witch accusations - one device (and I don’t know how true this is - it might just be poetic license on his part) his characters use as hard evidence of being possessed or in league with the devil is if a person has a mole somewhere on their bodies…especially if it is within the genital or breat reason (like a third nipple). Does anyone else know of this sort of reasoning to be historically accurate?
36. Major Wood - April 2nd, 2008 at 8:57 am
This is why religion needs to go away forever. None of them have a shred of evidence supporting them, and as long as religions exist, people will use them as an excuse to commit atrocities.
37. 666 - April 2nd, 2008 at 8:58 am
Bob: Post #4 and #20
Atheism is a secondary characteristic of communism; it was necessary for the early communists to eliminate ‘faith’ in the immaterial, mystic afterlife, so that people would be more malleable to Soviet directives. In essence, faith in god was replaced by faith in communism. Both operated very similarly, (question either and you were punished i.e. killed) atheism quo atheism had nothing to do with Stalin sending millions to their death in Siberia at forced work camps; and everything to do with power, control and suppression of opposition. This is atheism’s great virtue—lack of FAITH.
P.s. Bob: Hitler believed he was doing his ‘work’ in the name of god, it is clear—in his own words—in Mien Kampf (sp.?)
Religion IS evil, plain and simple, stop apologizing for it and denounce it for what it is: an irrational belief system that places the highest virtue on FAITH. When someone believes something on faith, anything can be rationalized. Eliminate the concept of “FAITH” and organized religion—and its hatred of human nature—crumbles without opposition.
And again, the atrocities that were committed by atheistic regimes against religious groups were not in THE NAME OF ATHEISM, but were simply a crackdown against ANY AND ALL OPPOSITION. The atrocities committed by warring factions of differing religions ARE DONE IN THE NAME OF GOD. Slight difference, I understand, but the difference is profound the closer you analyze it.
38. Major Wood - April 2nd, 2008 at 8:58 am
Also, I like how Benedict was a member of the the Nazis and the Inquisition, the two most evil organizations in history. How did he get to be pope?
39. Lewis - April 2nd, 2008 at 9:00 am
Bob: O.K. have it your way, killiing in the name of atheism?Atheism is a lack of belief in God(s) etc. so, if you can name one killing in the name of the ‘lack of the existence of god’I will be quite impressed.
dangorironhide: LOL!What a bunch of ledgends! ‘Monty Python’ obviously.
40. jfrater - April 2nd, 2008 at 9:13 am
Major Wood: Benedict was in the Hitler Youth but so was every other male of his age in Germany - it was required by law. He actually avoided the meetings with the help of the leader of his village who sympathized with his families very anti-Nazi beliefs. And he became Pope because the Catholic cardinals don’t consider the Office of Inquisition to be evil - it did evil things in the past but its current use is to monitor writings and teachings coming from religious orders to ensure that they comply with doctrine and to give them the stamp of approval. It is certainly nothing like it was
41. heavybison - April 2nd, 2008 at 9:16 am
#7: Thuggee Murders: The Britishers in turn started a new regime of oppression and looting(albeit for Land and control, not religion) which lasted for nearly a century. In fact you will see many treasures looted from India in the Museums in Britain (e.g Kohinoor diamond).
The despicable act of Goat sacrifice in the name of a godess is very much an unfortunate act which is still a mainstream activity in eastern India. But then we should all turn veggie, no? (Not that i support the practise in any way)
42. romerozombie - April 2nd, 2008 at 9:18 am
This is why I’m an agnostic. Though I do praise the Mighty Cthulhu.
43. Lewis - April 2nd, 2008 at 9:24 am
romerozombie: what’s that?
44. romerozombie - April 2nd, 2008 at 9:34 am
Lewis: Cthulhu is one of the Great Old Ones, who came to Earth many millenia ago. He’s currently sleeping in his city R’lyeh in the Pacific Ocean. One day he will awake.
45. everlast - April 2nd, 2008 at 9:37 am
It’s hard to believe the whole Islam is a religion of peace stuff when the supposed “good” Muslims do/say nothing against the supposed “radical crazies” like this prominent British Muslim Lawyer, Religious cleric and community leader…
[quote]
A report posted on Islam Watch, a site run by Muslims who oppose intolerant teachings and hatred for unbelievers, exposes a prominent Islamic cleric and lawyer who support extreme punishment for non-Muslims — including killing and rape.
A question-and-answer session with Imam Abdul Makin in an East London mosque asks why Allah would tell Muslims to kill and rape innocent non-Muslims, including their wives and daughters, according to Islam Watch.
“Because non-Muslims are never innocent, they are guilty of denying Allah and his prophet,” the Imam says, according to the report. “If you don’t believe me, here is the legal authority, the top Muslim lawyer of Britain.”
The lawyer, Anjem Choudary, backs up the Imam’s position, saying that all Muslims are innocent.
Click here to watch the interview with Islamic lawyer Anjem Choudary.
“You are innocent if you are a Muslim,” Choudary tells the BBC. “Then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are not a Muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God.”
Choudary said he would not condemn a Muslim for any action.
“As a Muslim, I must support my Muslim brothers and sisters,” Choudary said. “I must have hatred to everything that is not Muslim.”
[/quote]
Link
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344409,00.html
46. bucslim - April 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 am
Since this is the List Universe and we’re doling out atrocities for each religion, let me put up John Travolta in Battlefield Earth. Not only was that atrocious, it came from L. Ron Hubbard.
47. SlickWilly - April 2nd, 2008 at 9:39 am
Lewis: Google “H.P. Lovecraft.”
48. rneiderman - April 2nd, 2008 at 9:41 am
@#31. Roman persecution of Christians had a largely religious motivation. The Roman emperor was revered as divine, and so failure to sacrifice to him was both heresy and treason. The emperor also simultaneously held the position of Pontifex Maximus (high priest), and the main function of that office was to maintain the Pax Deorum (peace of the gods). It was sincerely held that failure to sacrifice to the gods would bring about calamity for the Roman people. Therefore, exclusive monotheism (with the exception of Judaism, being so old the Romans respected it) was illegal.
49. romerozombie - April 2nd, 2008 at 9:43 am
Ruin EVERYTHING SlickWilly. Spoilsport.
50. Lewis - April 2nd, 2008 at 9:43 am
Thanks, name rang bells alright. Cheers.
51. Cubone - April 2nd, 2008 at 9:49 am
To “L” and “666″
It’s a wonder to me that you even use the words “faith” and “belief”.
It seems to me that you have quite a bit of “faith” (a belief in a particular truth) in your own “beliefs”.
The fact is nothing you can say for or against Atheism can be proven absolutely.
Prove that there is no God.
52. jfrater - April 2nd, 2008 at 9:53 am
bucslim: haha I second Battlefield Earth
53. Mom424 - April 2nd, 2008 at 9:56 am
Most religious atrocities serve secular ends. Religion is/was used to dehumanize entire groups of people. “It doesn’t really matter if we kill them, they’re not the same as us” or “They’re going straight to hell anyway”.
Personally I believe the current hold Fundementalist Islam has in the area is due to a climate of hopelessness. The entire region has been preyed upon for centuries; ever since the hey day Randall spoke of. Either by war lords/religious idiots, hereditary rulers, colonialists, or puppet regimes set up by outside interests (ie; big oil). Most areas in the Middle East are dirt poor, at least for the majority of the population. Makes it much easier to hate the wealthy heathens, and death is not such a bad option. The Imams and others interested in maintaining or acquiring power have taken advantage of this.
Randall; you forgot about a popular method of witch trial. Truss ‘em up, throw ‘em in the river; if they float they are a witch, so you kill ‘em, if they sink they’re not, but they’re just as dead.
54. NotIgnorant - April 2nd, 2008 at 9:57 am
About Everlast’s comment #46:
I have never heard of this and this is why there is no response. The dude who said this is absolutely nuts. That is nowhere in the Quran or hadith. Its people like these that give Islam a bad name. The problem is not with Islam but with the people that supposedly follow it. The biggest issue with the muslims is that most of them are illiterate. I would say about about 40 - 50% if not more in my estimation are illiterate and people like this so called Imam take advantage of that. I read the quran and I understand what it says and its context. As to the point previously, the Quran was revealed to the Prophet Mohammad in Arabia starting from about 610 AD to 633AD. During this time the prophet and his people were persecuted and exiled and killed. SO some of the verses talk about are in context to that situation. Lastly, Islam was not spread by the sword. This is a wide misconception. The tartars around 1300AD i believe came and in ransacked most of the muslim empire during that time and during this time they burned the largest library in Baghdad. But later on it was the tartars (the winners of the wars) who later converted to Islam.
55. 666 - April 2nd, 2008 at 9:58 am
RE post #14
Well said, anything goes if FAITH is your highest virtue.
If your nieghbor lives in a nicer house than you: run to your town priest and cut a deal, you ACCUSE, he AGREES, your neighbor is killed, you split the booty with the town priest or the town governor. Thats about how it went.
If you were accused—-you were fucked, because justice, facts, reason and onus of proof were all inverted by the great virtue of FAITH.
56. Ruairi - April 2nd, 2008 at 9:58 am
yeah monty python! - and i met michael palin last week!
57. neilos - April 2nd, 2008 at 10:00 am
Great list, sure to get LOTS of comments. I can’t seem to login, that is I login, but i have to enter my name and email to comment as the site doesn;t recognize me as logged in. Weird.
58. 666 - April 2nd, 2008 at 10:01 am
RE #52
Atheism is NOT belief in ANYTHING.
Of course you cant say x exists…now disprove it. It is an inversion of logic. You say x exists…I say: why? end of story. I would never attempt to disprove something that can’t even be defined! That would be absurd!
59. Lizim - April 2nd, 2008 at 10:08 am
jfrater: You really have a knack for opening cans of worms. Keep doing it!
60. 666 - April 2nd, 2008 at 10:08 am
RE: #55
Notignorant: “the Quran was revealed to the Prophet Mohammad in Arabia starting from about 610 AD to 633AD.
Well, that right there is good enough to reject the whole silly thing. “Revelation” is absurd, anything born of revelation should simply be dismissed, no matter what it states.
Once you adopt proper logic as an axiom, dismissing the absurd can be done rather effortlessly by a first grader.
61. Randall - April 2nd, 2008 at 10:09 am
rneiderman, others:
Now wait a second. An awful lot of nonsense gets talked about Classical Graeco-Roman civilization, so let’s just get some things straight here.
Before I go into that, I need to point out that to the Greeks, religion was hardly the matter of import that it was to the Romans. Both peoples were, in their day, a superstitious lot, concerned with the threat of “evil spirits” and such (partly ghosts of the angry dead, partly spirits inhabiting inanimate objects) even more so than they were concerned with the whims of their rather capricious gods. The Romans, however, tended to take their gods, their fears–and themselves–rather more seriously than the Greeks did, being in general more backward and less refined than their Greek forebears (Greece being a far older and also somewhat more rationally-minded culture). By the time the Greeks reached the high level of their Classical Age (the 5th and 4th Centuries, BC) they (or least the intelligentsia–which, being Greece, was a much larger percentage of the populace than in our world today) treated their “religion” lightly and casually–tied to ritual a great deal, yes, and still superstitious in many ways–but basically, they viewed it as a sort of sidebar of society and their culture–by no means central to who they were. (In Greece, priests were afforded pretty much zilch respect and were certainly did not possess any sort of power). Some particularly wise Greek philosophers were even, in essence, monotheists–believing that all the gods and goddesses were really simply manifestations of the one god, which they continued to call Zeus, but did not manifest in him any of the silly caprices and moral failings that the myths assigned to him.
The Romans, being nowhere near as bright-minded a people (clever, yes, but not as inventive or deeply-thought as the Greeks) were more apt to lend to their “religion” a greater place of importance and honor in society. But this simply bred a higher form of hypocrisy, since few intelligent Romans really took any of the superstitious nonsense practiced in Rome seriously.
Now, some of what rneiderman said is true–the emperor was *sometimes* revered as divine (not always–you’re mistaking the Romans for the Egyptians, who always did revere Pharoah as a god) and they DID demand sacrifice, therefore, to the emperor, if he was one of those bold enough to proclaim himself a god. But more often than not, this was simply a sort of recommended course of action, and not an enforced, strict rule. When people DID worship the emperor, it was almost always seen as a formality, a sort of casual ritual. Nobody bothered much with it most times because no offense was seen in it. The Jews were the exception to this, of course–and for much of their history under Rome, they were not forced to obey on this particular point. Occasionally they were, and it caused uprisings and riots. Easier for the Romans to let it go.
To say, then, that the persecution of the Christians was religiously motivated–in any way like other religiously-motivated crimes of later days–isn’t really accurate. The Romans were in fact quite tolerant to other religions so long as they paid the proper respect to Roman law, customs, and the emperor. What was at issue with Christianity was really two things: 1) legitimacy and 2) politics. In the first point, Christianity, being very new at the time, (and poorly understood) was not deemed a legitimate religion recognized by the Roman State, and therefore was questionable and suspect whenever anything went wrong. Supporting this was the second point—politics. Politically the Christians were convenient scapegoats. They lacked power, were few in number, and acted strangely in the eyes of typical Roman citizens. Moreover, the philosophy of Christianity which preached a brotherhood of man was NOT embraced by this rigid, slave-owning society.
Hence, persecution of the Christians was more an act against a political/social minority group that just happened to involve religion, rather than an actual religiously-motivated sort of persecution.
Another one of my lengthy treatises, but you kids gotta get educated somehow. You won’t listen in school, so I gotta step up to the plate and teach you a thing or two.
62. JMurf - April 2nd, 2008 at 10:13 am
@ Bob: What you named weren’t in the name of atheism, but were carried out by atheists. I can’t think of any atrocities committed ‘In the name of atheism’. Im not a Bible hater or an atheist lover, just get your facts right about the gulags, holocaust and pol pot. To be honest when it comes to war and atrocities, atheism and religion are just as bad as each other
63. JLo - April 2nd, 2008 at 10:19 am
666,
“Religion IS evil, plain and simple, stop apologizing for it and denounce it for what it is: an irrational belief system that places the highest virtue on FAITH. When someone believes something on faith, anything can be rationalized. Eliminate the concept of “FAITH” and organized religion—and its hatred of human nature—crumbles without opposition.”
Are you trying to have on a debate or just rant? Nothing that you say above can be proven or disproven and you provide no substantiating arguments to support your points, as others have done like like Randall or Kraeg. I mean, if you are trying to debate, you are using horrible logic to support your arguments. If religion is evil because some evil things have been done in the name of religion, shouldn’t atheism be evil because some things have been done in the name of atheism or to establish atheism? Again, I could argue against your points if I knew what they were.
64. CK - April 2nd, 2008 at 10:25 am
666 - I find your screen name ironic in that it’s the number of the devil. If you’re atheist, shouldn’t you pick a number that has no meaning whatsoever?
I think this is a good list, it’s very interesting and informative. I think we could also come up with a list where the world’s religions brought about great things. Just like anything out there, there are good sides and bad sides. Believing in a certain faith does not mean you agree with everything that happened (supposedly) in the name of that faith. For instance, a Catholic does not necessarily believe that what happened during the Inquisition should have happened, even if s/he is of the same faith.
65. everlast - April 2nd, 2008 at 10:29 am
JLo, CK
for some unknown reason he has a great hatred for religion and anything related to it. Thats his reason. he has no points to prove, so there is nothing to argue. You can’t argue someones emotional response.
66. MrSelfdestruct - April 2nd, 2008 at 10:37 am
What about the crusades? I am not too knowledgeable on the subject, but that would seem to me to be massacres in the name of religion
67. 666 - April 2nd, 2008 at 10:38 am
Jlo,
How does one “establish atheism”…how do “establish” nothing?
The evil is implied, it is all right there for you: FAITH is the real evil, religion is just FAITH’s embodiment.
CK,
“If I’m atheist”…then 666 has NO meaning. Right? So it is as good as any other. But, seeing that you asked…I have an affection for the concept of “the devil”, in a fictional sense I think he would be a ‘cool dude’ to have a beer with.
68. Randall - April 2nd, 2008 at 10:39 am
I gotta chime in on this atheism thing, also.
As a former atheist myself (no, I didn’t find religion, I simply came to the conclusion that atheism=denial of the spiritual and extra-normal, and I didn’t see this as a tenable belief system, in itself) I totally understand the feelings of atheists who see religion as a tremendous evil that has at least brought more harm than good to the world. I am certainly no fan of organized religion, and don’t consider myself a member of any church or particular faith. I had a girlfriend once who went from Buddhism to Wiccanism to being a Quaker, all in a space of about five years. A bit whacky sure–I don’t deny she was a character–but in essence I was with her, spiritually, in the sense of journey and discovery. I simply didn’t take that route. She finally settled down into a simple, spiritual, personal relationship with god. That destination was pretty much my own, and we simply found our ways their, separately.
Basically, I came to the realization that it’s the servile, unthinking mind that submits–whether to religious dogma or any other kind of dogma. And yes, atheism *can* have a dogma of its own. While it’s the open, deeper mind that steps up, realizes there is a depth and unfathomable mystery to existence and life–and investigates ways to embrace it, while retaining rationality and reason.
The trouble with the last century is that the entire world suddenly came to a head with dogmas and “isms” from both sides of the political spectrum–and these led to the worst atrocities in the history of man. No, few armies march into the field under a banner of atheism, but this is because atheism is a negative quantity–one doesn’t fight for atheism, one stamps out religion. Certainly, however, MANY atrocities have been committed by those whose ideology demanded an atheism of others, and these atrocities have been committed against those who did not wish to be atheists. There is nothing right or just about this–hopefully we all know that. But we also need to admit that it has happened and continues to happen.
We also need to acknowledge that there is a deep need within human beings for some kind of interaction and relationship with something greater than ourselves. Religion doesn’t create this, it’s simply an outward and organized manifestation of it. And it HAS had value in our societies. Religion HAS helped to civilize man, in the past. Certainly the western Church was a civilizing influence during the Middle Ages, if it also often acted in ways we would consider unjust and terrible–and if later became something of a hindrance to progress and knowledge.
Basically, however, the Church isn’t all evil. It has done great good, and has served mankind more than done a *disservice* to it, for all the atrocities and terrors and inquisitions and crusades committed. It’s a close call, I admit. 60/40 maybe, if not even worse. But still… the good has been there.
Lastly… I find this kind of statement:
“Once you adopt proper logic as an axiom, dismissing the absurd can be done rather effortlessly by a first grader.”
To be the kind of arrogance spoken by those who feel they have a corner on the market of rationality and intelligence. It sounds a great deal, to me, like the kind of thing Scientologists spew up from time to time. Rather like something Tom Cruise would say.
69. Mom424 - April 2nd, 2008 at 10:40 am
Its not that atheism and religion are as bad as each other, its just that they have something in common. US. It doesn’t matter what the ideal, humans are not ideal. We will always (I wish it weren’t true) want what the other guy has, be it power, wealth, land, or natural resources, and will find an excuse to get it, and once we have it, do anything to keep it. Religion was/is a handy excuse but so are WMDs. Nothing much changes in human nature, just the justification for our behavior.
70. 666 - April 2nd, 2008 at 10:47 am
Everlast,
I also have a distaste (hatred is a bit strong and is a projection of your OWN emotional state) for people who believe in: (ON FAITH) fairies, gremlins, ghosts, alien abductions, the loch ness monster, big foot, god, mermaids, fire breathing dragons, the people who believe pro wrestling is not fake, etc.
I HATE the CONCEPT of FAITH! Indeed! But the poor slaves who are shackled by faith’s tentacles? A simple distaste, no more, no less…just not the brightest people. I find them to be intellectually dishonest or stupid; neither one is a quality I respect.
71. Randall - April 2nd, 2008 at 10:50 am
“Faith” is simply a word. It demands definition. For some “faith” is an excuse for blind obedience and for having a turned-off mind.
But *there* is such a thing as an intelligent, rational faith. Some are humble enough *as well as* wise enough to recognize this fact.
Some are not.
72. seeker - April 2nd, 2008 at 10:51 am
You might also enjoy Atheist Atrocities.
73. bucslim - April 2nd, 2008 at 10:56 am
Randall - not sure I agree with every point you make about Greek and Roman piety. I think there are a few different angles that can be viewed, particularly in regards to Roman Caesars proclaiming their deity, some scholars would argue that is particularly distasteful to the new fledgling Christian community. You also have to look at the fact that most Christians at that time were looking for Christ’s second coming for the very reason of destroying the Roman Empire, which would have been viewed as treasonous. So in some respects there was a sort of blurring of religious and political reasons. Persecution was indeed a matter of control - something the Romans surely felt was a strange cult with no regards to the Caesar and growing like a weed.
As far as the Greeks were concerned, it’s my understanding that religion and belief were part of the culture - sort of as a matter of fact. And it is hard to escape their reverence for such matters when the gods they worshipped are mentioned and religious practices are in the majority of their surviving documents and traditions.
74. 666 - April 2nd, 2008 at 10:59 am
No Randy,
You are just propping up a straw man with your “scientology” dig. But I will just get to the point.
Randy said:
“As a former atheist myself (no, I didn’t find religion, I simply came to the conclusion that atheism=denial of the spiritual and extra-normal, and I didn’t see this as a tenable belief system, in itself)”
First off, atheism is NOT a belief system; it is a lack of theism. Theism = belief in god; Atheism = lack of belief in god. How and why do you jump to “belief system”?
A belief system is a philosophy (or religion for the believer), atheism tells you NOTHING about HOW to live your life. So, I agree Randy—Atheism is unteneble as a belief system, in itself, this is obvious to any atheist.
Why do you need the “extra-normal” and what evidence do have for any “extra-normal” phenomena? Or do you just play the ’safe’ agnostic card because of lack of courage? or just contextual cowardice? If not the last, then are you agnostic about gremlins?
75. SlickWilly - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:03 am
Randall: Do you think atheism is necessarily mutually exclusive to spirituality? Could it not be possible to be spiritual and still deny that God exists? I suppose it would depend on your definition of spirituality.
76. everlast - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:04 am
666
And you point of your post #70 was what? You have told us nothing new.
You say that my statement about your hate of faith was a projection of my emotional state, then you say you indeed hate faith, so…then my statement was indeed accurate of your view and not a projection.
and regarding post 67, if indeed 666 has absolutely no meaning for you, why DID you come to select that number? Just some random confidence you landed upon by using a dart board with numbers on it? or a computer generated random number machine? no no no, you picked it indeed because of its religious context.
77. 666 - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:04 am
Randall,
Faith: belief in something with no evidence or contradictory evidence.
There is a form of faith (on a secular level) that I respect…e.g. Faith in my friend, a loved one or faith in someone who has built up credibility.
I always have ‘faith’ in someone until they show me that I shouldn’t, i.e. I give people the benefit of the doubt.
This form of faith is much different than the form taken by religious people.
78. Mom424 - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:05 am
666; I have faith in a higher consciousness and I am not intellectually dishonest and stupid is not an adjective ever applied to me. Excitable, obsessive, stubborn, argumentative, a little spazzy, but never stupid. I suggest that you painted too broad a swath with your last comment. Faith does not have to be ignorant, nor an excuse to stagnate. Unfortunately it is often used as a method of control with most fundamentalist sects of any religion; again it is not faith but the use of it by those in power; they wield it like a sword of condemnation instead of a blanket of comfort. Stating that you hate all faith is just about as rigid and uncompromising as the fundementalists you find so abhorrent.
79. SlickWilly - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:09 am
seeker: I would like to point out there other than than brief, unelaborated statement: “Atheism ([killed]>100 MILLION) - at the hands of the militant anti-religious atheists Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong,” there is not one “atheist atrocity” mentioned, and the majority of the page is explaining why atheists are mistaken about Chrisitanity giving rise to subsequent atrocities. I should also mention the page stems from a conserably fundamentalist Christian organization that goes on to state on that very page that Darwin is indirectly responsible for Hitler and Nazi Germany.
While I agree that the idea that religion is evil because of evil deeds done in its name is a bit asinine and ignorant, I would be highly critical of *any* website that supports blind creationism over evolutionary science.
80. 666 - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:10 am
everlast,
you are either not reading my posts or are just dumb, either way I find you boring. You said “hatred of RELIGION” not faith, so now your just putting words in your own mouth (as well as mine). I told you why I picked 666 lazy idiot, read the post before you comment on it, at least grant me that much.
Religion is just a consequence of FAITH! Faith is the real evil, this is the last time I will answer your stupidity / laziness (pick one).
81. SlickWilly - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:12 am
everlast: He picked “666″ because he likes the connotations of one of his favorite fictional characters, the devil. Rather like how some people choose the names of their favorite anime characters as their screennames.
82. Randall - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 am
bucslim:
Sorry dude, but:
A) Not to sound pissy and authoritative, but I was schooled in this shit. (You may have noticed by now that I changed career paths and college majors several times… I ended up earning more than one degree, so I *kind of* have something to show for it, but I’m also living testament to the fact that ADD is real). I’m just asking you to trust me–I don’t just pull this stuff outta my ass.
B) You’ve merely proved my point for me. Political expediency was the main issue for the Romans in how they dealt with Christianity. If Christians were awaiting a second coming so that Jesus would deal with the Empire, well then, all the more reasons for the Romans to be *politically* motivated to axe Christianity while they could.
Also, you miss a key point. A deified emperor was no *more* distasteful to early Christians than it was to the Jews; yet the Jews received a usual dispensation from any enforced worship. The Christian attitude against worshiping the emperor–or any other “idols”—was therefore merely an excuse, another reason, for the Roman powers-that-be to use against the Christians in controlling them and keeping them down. But this had little to do with religion per se. It was, again, a political issue.
Another thing–while some Christians were, yes, concerned with the apocalyptic side of things–this was in fact a carryover from *Jewish* messianic theologies, and was not shared by all Christians. Christianity at the time was FAR from a united, consistent front.
As for the Greeks–believe me, your reading of them is typical of those who look only superficially at the evidence, but it’s nevertheless inaccurate. Belief was *never* a “matter of fact” for the Greeks, except *maybe* the most under-educated class. And even then, their *belief* was less focused on the Olympian Gods (who were more the set of the aristocracy) than on spirits and ghosts and other broad, folk superstitions.
As I said, the Greeks *were* deeply into ritual and pomp and circumstance. They considered this vital… and for the most part there was only so much harm in it. But *religion* was not a “matter of fact” in their culture at any time after their archaic age (up to about 600 BC). Superstitions, yes… used as an occasional expediency and excuse for other things, yes… but never central to who they were.
83. Carroz - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:15 am
Actually, due to Lysenko’s poor scientific process and outright lies, millions of Russians commoners have been estimated to have perish due to famine.
84. Alyssa - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:15 am
Yeah, many institutions often do terrible things, but it’s important to remember that a) institutions can admit they made a mistake and try to make reparations and b)it doesn’t necessarily mean that all the people who belong to those institution are necessarily corrupt and misguided themselves. (Not accusing listverse of doing this, just saying that sometimes people reading it can make that logical leap.)
We have a Muslim family living in the apartment across from us and I have to say that they are the BEST neighbors I’ve ever had. They bring over food sometimes, they help with the baby, and they’re always friendly and nice to us. The invited us to a Ramadan celebration and I was impressed at how dedicated they are to living their religion.
And FYI, even though the Mountain Meadows Massacre is a terrible black mark in Mormon history, there’s always more to the story than can be captured in a paragraph. Anyone who wants to read an article about the massacre that was published by the church’s historian (published last September in the church’s magazine The Ensign on the anniversary of the event).
85. 666 - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:16 am
Mom,
I don’t doubt it for you as an individual, but to philosophize you must generalize. Of course I have met believers who are completely rational in every other way, in every other portion of their life. It still does not mean that “having faith in a higher conciousness” is rational. Faith quo faith is no virtue, and can only lead to irrationality IF FOLLOWED TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS, (just like the 8 atrocities above).
86. 666 - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:20 am
Randy,
How do rectify occams’s razor (not on this list, but you spout it off elsewhere) with agnosticism? Parsimony would state that atheism is the DEFAULT POSITION until compelling evidence is brought forth to dislodge you from the default.
What was your basis from moving from the default (rational) position of atheism?
87. 666 - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:24 am
RE: #81
In fact Satan AKA Lucifer AKA The prince of Darkness is my FAVORITE fictional character of ALL TIMES!
88. 666 - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:25 am
RE #83
Agreed.
But Lysenko actually believed his form of Lamarkism. He was a profound idiot!
89. SlickWilly - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:27 am
Oh good lord, I just realized seeker *wrote* that article. Oy…
90. 666 - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:28 am
The person(s) who created ‘the devil’ is/are creative genius’! The godfather’s of horror as a genre!
91. Amit - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:33 am
Hi,
you forgot the atrocities committed on countless Indians (even today) since centuries.. The practice of Untouchability.
92. Mom424 - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:38 am
Randall; I too would like to know what changed your mind. I developed my own spirituality, I was never heavily indoctrinated in any one religion, so I’ve never had to rebel against it. My spirituality has grown/changed with me as I’ve acquired new insights and knowledge. I’ve considered atheism, as it does make more sense, but in the end I’ve rejected it. Too pat, ignores too many common human experiences, and it offends my sense of rightness.
93. KRH - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:39 am
Mr.Frater as sage as you are, you shouldn’t quote Koranic verses out of their contexts. Research more on the topic using unbiased sources.
94. Barack Obama - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:42 am
Dear Lezhog,
I’m writing to inform you that on Monday a group of muslims stoned a muslim husband and wife to death for adultery. Let me repeat that–STONED A HUSBAND AND WIFE TO DEATH. Aside from the so called ‘Holy Wars’ we live with carried out by people of your religion, can you tell us how this demonstrates value for human life? Most other religions practice tolerance for others (see comment 45), redemption, and forgiveness.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,345088,00.html
Now that said, I believe that all religions must condemn all forms of violence, thus moving towards the core of why religions and their underlying beliefs exist.
95. Randall - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:46 am
666:
Okay asshole, I was against dignifying you with any direct comments, because you’ve made yourself all to clear–you’re an arrogant prick with a dangerous bit of little knowledge who decides he’s going to lord it over people if they give him a little argument. Moreover, you’re the type who ignores direct debate–apparently when you have no point to make or any answer to give, you descend to name calling and ONLY name calling, and endless repetitions of things you’ve previously cacked out. *I* use name calling also–but only for effect, ALWAYS following up with point-by-point argument.
And by the way, grow freaking up. My screen name is RANDALL. Use it properly or fuck off and don’t bother responding to what I write. I give you that courtesy, as adolescent and dumb-ass and unoriginal “666″ is for a screen name–I expect that courtesy in return.
Now.. if you’d read CAREFULLY what I wrote, you’d see that I was in fact NOT recommending agnosticism nor was I stating I was an agnostic. But then, I’m quite sure I made this abundantly clear. Again, it’s the disingenuous sort, such as yourself, who, finding he can’t make a frontal attack in an argument, goes instead for the cheap shot, pretending it’s some chink in the armor.
But, since you apparently need a kind of child-like clarity about these matters, I will repeat: NO, I am not an agnostic.
As to the rest… if you don’t recognize how atheism very much IS a belief system, in essence, then you’re even more witless than I had judged you. No, the simple intellectual act of stating “there is no god” is not in itself much evidence of a “system,” but of course as we all know (or at least we all SHOULD know) intellectual processes do not *stop* at a simple point like that. One has an intellectual support system operating under the statement “there is no god,” or “I am an atheist.” It certainly doesn’t come down merely to “logic,” which you are so fond of pounding your chest about–logically, one cannot say ANYTHING whatsoever about super-normal or extra-normal quantities like gods and such–logic can neither affirm or deny them.
You’re in essence pretending that atheism as a word and a concept turns on one, simple element–namely that there is no god. But of course you know very well that all words and concepts–particularly those that have ideological bends, as atheism does–have context and meaning beyond a dictionary-bound black-and-whiteness.
You define faith thusly:
Faith: belief in something with no evidence or contradictory evidence.
Leaving off the “contradictory evidence” part… please explain then how belief in something “with no evidence” is *evil* per se.
I have no problem with atheism. For the most part I’d rather hang out with a bunch of atheists than with a bunch of Christians any day. But there *is* a sort of mind that has to go around insulting someone else’s belief system, and while Christians can be very guilty of that–so can atheists. And you seem to do a lot of it.
96. 666 - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:48 am
Mom: “I’ve considered atheism, as it does make more sense,…”
Honest and true.
Mom: “but in the end I’ve rejected it.”
Intellectually dishonest.
Mom: “Too pat, ignores too many common human experiences, and it offends my sense of rightness.”
Irrational.
97. Cubone - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:48 am
I’m still confused on the terminology 666:
What is “evil” and how can there be any moral judgement if there is no theology to define it?
“Religion IS evil”
98. MethodMan - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:50 am
Well 666 and all the others who said religion is evil, I am a Christian, and it’s good to know I’m loved by the Creator of everything, and I’ve got a place to go after I die. Enjoy believing that you’ve got nothing to look forward to once you get old! God bless you, you misguided soul!
God rules, and it’s great to be a Christian!
99. 666 - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:54 am
Randall,
You didn’t answer ANY of my “direct questions” to you. You say I don’t have direct debate? You have avoided ALL of my main points:
1. You say you were once an atheist? Yet, not an agnostic, yet deplore organized religion? What the hell is left?
2. Ocamm is convenient as a tool to berate someone else, but the you turn around and completely contradict it.
3. That whole post of yours was basically just a personal insult to me, it had nothing to say about the things I DIRECTLY posed to you.
100. Lewis - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:56 am
Seeker: Yes I did enjoy it, it’s absolutely hysterical, stupidity at it’s best.
Where’s Bob gone?
101. MethodMan - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Cheers Randall! I have nothing against atheists, but insulting a religion is childish and rude, and good job on calling 666 out on that.
102. 666 - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Randall,
“One has an intellectual support system operating under the statement “there is no god,” or “I am an atheist.” It certainly doesn’t come down merely to “logic,”
Yes it does Randall:
Simple logic states that if someone states: x exists.
If no compelling evidence is put forth, then x is rejected.
The person who does not believe x, or has never heard of x, need not say anything regarding x, except the evidence brought forth. Period. Remember William! of Occam! You know him, you are fond of using his razor (when convenient).
103. JT - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
“As to the rest… if you don’t recognize how atheism very much IS a belief system, in essence, then you’re even more witless than I had judged you. No, the simple intellectual act of stating “there is no god” is not in itself much evidence of a “system,” but of course as we all know (or at least we all SHOULD know) intellectual processes do not *stop* at a simple point like that. One has an intellectual support system operating under the statement “there is no god,” or “I am an atheist.” It certainly doesn’t come down merely to “logic,” which you are so fond of pounding your chest about–logically, one cannot say ANYTHING whatsoever about super-normal or extra-normal quantities like gods and such–logic can neither affirm or deny them.”
Herein lies your problem. Atheism is not “there is no God,” it is “I do not believe in God”. There is no belief system in simply accepting what is true based on evidence, and not accepting that which has no evidence to support it.
104. 666 - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Meth,
I was going to ignore your desperation for belief, because it is a confession, and it’s pretty sad…here is your post:
98. MethodMan - April 2nd, 2008 at 11:50 am
Well 666 and all the others who said religion is evil, I am a Christian, and it’s good to know I’m loved by the Creator of everything, and I’ve got a place to go after I die. Enjoy believing that you’ve got nothing to look forward to once you get old! God bless you, you misguided soul!
God rules, and it’s great to be a Christian!
So, you believe in your god because he promised you an eternal paradise? Are you that afraid to die?
105. MethodMan - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
666- First of all, it’s not sad, it’s quite nice. Second, it’s not a confession, it’s being proud to stand up for what I believe in. Third, as a Christian, I’m not afraid to die at all. Being a Christian allows me to have meaning in life, as well as after life. You may see it as little more than a false promise from a God that you don’t believe in. Oh well. Your loss.
106. Randall - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Mom:
(and along the way I’ll answer 666’s occam’s razor question).
Spirituality is not a scientific, logical quantity. Science and logic cannot say anything about that which is by definition beyond science and rationality. Occam’s razor is a logical axiom. It applies very much to things like Bigfoot and UFOs and such, and yes, to things like, “did God speak to me last night, or was I just dreaming?” and “was that God in that burning bush, or was the bush simply glowing by some scientifically-explainable phenomenon?” *Physical* interactions with god (including thinking he’s “talking” to you) fall under this…. but the question as to whether there is a god or not? No…. occam’s razor is about the more plausible answer to a question. Neither side of that question (is there a god?) is more plausible than the other. (Different from the question, “is the god of the Bible real?” for instance).
Now.. as to the process, Mom… it sounds a lot like yours. I grew up in the mild Presbyterian church, and we didn’t even attend that much. I had nothing to rebel against, either. But my beliefs (if you can call them that) developed over a long period of time… it was a philosophical, intellectual journey for me. I found I felt the same way about atheism, in the end, as you did–and found there were deeper questions that even a great mind like Bertrand Russell’s missed and got wrong. (Russell at the time was one of my intellectual heroes) I found I was more impressed by those who open their minds to a humble acceptance of Mystery than I was to those who make life only an equation, as Russell did. In other words, I found more to admire in Buddhism (for instance) and people like DT Suzuki and Henry Miller, than in stuffy, staid (for all their non-conformity) clockwork British minds like Russell and Orwell (as much as I loved them both).
Then too, I was of course influenced by friends–I had a couple highly spiritual (but anti-religious, as I was) friends and girlfriends and we made it all a sort of extended journey together. You know, you read things, discover new things, pass them on…. I was the one least likely to buy into things–I still have never copped to being “Buddhist,” even though it’s probably closest to what I more or less “believe”…. but I’m just not a joiner by nature.
Basically, it was just intellectual and expansive. As anyone who knows me knows, I am all about the science no matter what the question–but to me this was a question disconnected from science. Which is the mistake many Christians–as well as some atheists–make.
107. Cedestra - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Wow, toasty in here…whew!
Good point as far as Scientologists go- they’ve done some very naughty things. Then again, there have been numerous lists about Scientologists. Not that I’m complaining; keep up the good work!
I agree that the Nazi movement was political, and while Hitler’s faith and his feelings play a small role in the overall movement, it was not religious. The Nazis were not a religious organization.
Question: #8, those were BUDDHISTS?!? that committed those crimes? Wow, shakes my view on Buddhists. Damn.
Ginger Lee: This is an inclusive list, not a top 8 list. Islamic Jihad was not listed as the #1, but 1 of 8.
Jamie, in response could you do a list of fictitious and/or humorous religious groups (i.e. Church of the Sub-genious)? Would, uh, soften the overall blow of this list just the tiniest of bits.
108. Randall - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
666 (comment #99)
How about some patience? I have people in and out of my office, meetings to attend, etc. Your answer is above, in #106.
I’m trying to be reasonable with you… god knows why, but it’s in hopes something will penetrate your swelled-balloon conceit. But you are an extremely childish motherfucker. And my patience with such people wears out pretty quickly.
109. Lezhog - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
jfrater post 32
Thank you for your response. As to why peaceful muslims don’t take back their own countries, I really have no definite answer for you. I cannot speak from personal experience, I’m a white male US citizen who has never had to live through these types of things. I can, however, speak for some of the brothers who I attend mosque with who, unfortunately have lived through some of these atrocities. It is easier said then done to overthrow a tyrannical or extremist government. Coat-tailing NotIgnorant’s post #54, most people who live in these countries are illiterate or uneducated, and are really only exposed to teachings from community leaders. Most of them are corrupt, and the few who aren’t live short lives. Outsiders cannot really do much to help because they are overrun by different world issues.
110. stevenh - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Re #1 (and those who doubt the place of Islam in today’s list)
Is Islam is the religion of peace? Visit http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
or more interesting, visit Memri TV @ http://memritv.org/
This organization records and translates what is being broadcast to the ‘Arab Street’. It is very different from what is said in English.
Please pay special attention to:
#1729 (I am not a fan of the US President, but note that this is what is being taught to children)
Though nobody is killed by these atrocities (after all these are just TV broadcasts), the viewers - from children to adults - are slitting throats, detonating bombs, and perhaps worst of all…
They are remaining silent in the face of the actions of their brethren. The few who do speak out (e.g. Wafa Sultan) have fatwas pronounced and are often forced into hiding:
see http://littlegreenfootballs.co.....ntry=29458
Jamie;
I saw that your rule was one atrocity per religion group, but the truth is that you could have filled this list with just one religion.
’nuff said.
111. bucslim - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
# 82 Randall - much respect, however I too was schooled in this area as well. Had it not been for my overwhelming talent and skill behind a camera, I would have ended up in classical history and culture. And I’m not necessarily saying you’re wrong. But I do believe there is evidence that religion played a part in the persecution of Christians. If I am a deity, I demand obedience. Palestine was a province of Rome, they played along because they didn’t want Rome to meddling in their affairs. Christianity sprung up all over - no real province to strong arm. Because most of the early church was looking for Christ’s immediate return, thereby being treasonous AND sacrilegious, I think we essentially are on the same page.
I don’t believe my interpretation of Greek culture to be superficial. The two monumental pieces of classical Greek literature surround the gods interactions with themselves and human affairs - be it their meddling or assistance. But I will agree with you that this sense of belief is different than what we would consider faith. This is what I mean by ‘matter of fact.’ It’s not necessarily a religion by our standards of faith and obedience. And indeed it was required reading for any educated person for ages to come. I really don’t consider that to be a marginal area of Greek culture or daily life for that matter.
112. 666 - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
No Randall,
Occam’s razor can absolutely be used to dismiss the existence of “god”.
You asked for a definition of faith, now I ask for a definition of “god”. If you are incapable of defining it, how can one then believe in it…or…for that matter even the possibility? I answered you…to the point concerning parsimony (same thing as the razor).
You also keep talking about “spirituality”, but can’t seem to define this either.
If “spirituality” is just what gives people meaning in life, then the concept does not belong in a philosophical discussion of the existence of god (still not sure what you mean by god though, NO ONE has ever defined it).
If “spirituality” is some form of extra-sensory, “beyond human capacity” sort of thing, then yes Occam’s razor works rather nicely.
I must reject the second form of “rationality” as simply another perversion of logic, humans have 5 senses—ALL knowledge is gained via these 5 senses (until science can demonstrate otherwise, which in turn I will amend my position, until then…) if something is termed “extra-sensory”—one is obligated to show evidence.
The first form of “spirituality” is simply a human capacity—to find meaning in their life, no mysticism needed.
113. riley - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Talk about starting the Great Religious Debate of 2008!
Personally, I think religion is NOT evil… people are (or can be). People will always, and have always manipulated what they need to gain whatever they want, including killing in the name of religion. However, when you break it down, I think there is nothing wrong with believing in something, however when you use it to manipulate, persecute, and remove words from context, then it is bad. As well, many people tend to not think about religious texts practically… Think about it… if you spread a rumor, wait till it comes back and see how much is changed… now think about how thousands of years could change that! All I mean is you must take religious texts with a grain of salt… use your human ability of reason, and don’t believe it only because your supposed to, but understand it, and rationally decide to believe it!
I believe in God and in goodness, but I am married to an atheist and it has never been a problem!!
114. Csimmons - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Weren’t the people from #7 in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom? Other than that inquiry, very good list, well in my view any way. I knew Islmaic Jihads would be on here, as well as the Salem witch hunts, all so very cruel.
115. Csimmons - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
riley: I too don’t see religion as evil(does cause most wars though)it’s all about how serious people take their religion and what they decide to do.
116. Randall - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
666:
For someone who prattles on about logic, your written syntax in regards to it sometimes makes not even a smattering of sense:
You said:
“1. You say you were once an atheist? Yet, not an agnostic, yet deplore organized religion? What the hell is left?”
Okay….
Yes, I was once an atheist.
No, I am not an agnostic.
Yes, I did and do deplore organized religion. (Though I’ve qualified that–I don’t despise it to the extent that some do. Historically and culturally I know religion has done some great good).
What is left? You ask.
You honestly believe there are only three choices to make about SPIRITUALITY? Are you THAT shallow and superficial, that dense?
There is spirituality *sans* ORGANIZED religion, for one thing. There is a personal relationship with one’s beliefs, not beholding to any church or *systematized* religion. There is an intellectual acceptance that there is a mystery to consciousness, existence, life itself.
There are also those who would NOT include certain spiritual philosophies (for lack of a better descriptive) in with the ORGANIZED religions–Buddhism, for instance. I, for one, do not include Buddhism in with the *organized* religions of the world. Buddhism is a *personal* system. You don’t have to cleave to any particular doctrine, though of course in practice many do, to at least two different types of Buddhism… and of course there’s also the “system” set down by the Buddha himself, 1400 years ago. But this is hardly of the nature of Catholicism or Protestantism, for instance. Neither are the wide and varying “doctrines” of Hinduism.
CLEARLY there are not only three choices in this.
117. 666 - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Also Randall,
You have insulted me more in one post than I have you in entirety. BUT I DON’T CARE! Keep them coming, I don’t take it personally!
No, you answered incorrectly in post 106, why can the razor be used to dismiss a conversation with god, but not the existence of god? You give no reasoning, and you are biased about this particular point.
So, let me keep score:
1. Randall is NOT an atheist.
2. Randall is NOT an agnostic.
3. Randall deplores organized religion.
4. Randall is spiritual (whatever he means by that)
5. Randall is ???
6. I don’t think even he knows!
118. Cedestra - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
#112 666:
“I must reject the second form of “rationality” as simply another perversion of logic, humans have 5 senses—ALL knowledge is gained via these 5 senses (until science can demonstrate otherwise, which in turn I will amend my position, until then…) if something is termed “extra-sensory”—one is obligated to show evidence.”
Unless you’re Renee DeCartes…then your screwed.
LOL Sorry, continue bludgeoning… Just wanted to break up the debate with a bit of dry humor (?)
119. Csimmons - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:40 pm
BTW, Would Jonestown be considered an atrocitie because of religion or just some wack-job being too secluded with a cult? Of course I mean no offense to Jim Jones relatives who I read an article about saying how his grandson plays for San Diego university.
120. Tonny SS - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Uhh, the title for the first one should not be BUDDHIST Burma. It’s not Buddhist practice, it’s more like of Hinduism and local paganism somewhat unique to Southeast Asia.
Ayudhya, the old capital of Thailand, and other cities in Southeast Asia (usually capitals) were also founded on human sacrifices. The logic is that the dead will become spirit watching over the welfare of the citizens living there.
121. Randall - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
“Occam’s razor can absolutely be used to dismiss the existence of “god”.”
How? What is the more plausible, reasonable choice between the two options? Is there a “god” or is there NOT a “god?”
How do YOU define god, then?
I don’t KNOW what god is. I am not so arrogant to assume that I could know such a thing. I certainly don’t go around praying to some disembodied intellect who hears what I have to say and answers me, in thought or deed, if that’s what you’re getting at.
God to me is a mystery, the mystery of existence and being itself. Science answers ALL my questions but that one–what is behind it all? Maybe in the end, nothing. I don’t know. But I don’t believe so. I believe there is something. I believe it is consciousness and light, reason… and the impetus that drives us on to not merely *exist,* but to surpass existence.
I don’t even care about the question “Why?” To me that too is a Mystery. But it’s worth investigating maybe.
Now how the HELL do you apply Occam’s Razor to ANY of this? What does plausible/implausible even MEAN to these questions and thoughts?
Jesus H. Freaking Christ.
122. Lewis_RATM - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Cedestra:Actually we have 23 senses, heat, air movement, stuff like that, good point though,
123. Tonny SS - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Although 100 people are a bit excessive. The song about Siam capital city mention one pregant woman sacrifice for the city’s ‘pillar’.
124. SlickWilly - April 2nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
JT: The point of Randall’s missive is that atheism colors every though