Today the greatest evil is the god deniers who think its ok to kill millions of unborn babies just because they are covered by their mother's skin. Then again the other godless regime China deal in body parts. What is it with godless people?

Religion has many aspects. Christianity has its god and angels and cherubs and burning bushes, etc., but it also has its underlying moral principles. Love they neighbour - i.e., 'agapaw' - have regard and concern for one's fellow human beings, is surely a better principle than not to trust or associate with non-believers. Don't exploit the weak, as Christ demonstrated with his expulsion of the money-lenders.

I keep going on about the Good Samaritan, someone who helps someone else who is NOT from his own group, which seems to be unusual amongst religions. This story is similar to the story of Esther in the Old Testament. And surely the essence of the story of Christ, true or not, is one of sacrificing one's well-being and life for others ?

My parents were communists, working-class which was rare among communists, so I was raised in a religious environment worshipping first Stalin and Lenin, while leaning towards the Stakhanovite sense of dedication to a cause. When we split from the pro-Russians about sixty years ago, like many devout people we went even further devout and supported Mao. That came to an end after revelations about his murder of Lin Piao and more generally, his degenerate lifestyle, not to mention finding out afterwards about the millions killed and jailed during the Cultural Revolution. With it died any belief in the efficacy of socialism. But I hope that the sense of dedication to the people has survived.

I don't see that as much different from the best of Christian or Jewish or Muslim principles, of the Golden Rule to relate to others as I would wish they relate to me. And I wouldn't be surprised if most Christians these days don't go along with the burning bushes and cherubs stuff.

No, I still don't believe in any gods, or in an after-life: I certainly am not in a hurry to die, but once that happens, in my view, that's it. If I'm lucky, I've got another twenty years, then the worms can have me.

Joe

Hey loudmouth2, you are more than what the worms consume. You are living now and making an impact in this Universe. Your impact remains in your family and friends and beyond. They will know what that is and be influenced by it. It is your life story as lived in that mortal body. That impact is written in the history of the Universe. Do not pull a curtain over yourself and pretend you never existed.

Joe,

I go along with the burning bush, the Israelis used its calculated location to find oil in one account that I read.

More here:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1131312/000113131206000057/fwpthw.htm

.

According to the Encyclopedia of Wars (2005), of the 1,763 wars that occurred between 8 000 BC and 2 000 AD, 123 (nearly 7%) were considered “religious wars”.

Also, in 2011, the historian, Matthew White, published “The Great Big Book of Horrible Things : The definitive Chronicle of History’s 100 Worst Atrocities”, in which he listed the following :

Religious Conflicts:

Taiping Rebellion- 20,000,000 Deaths (Rank- 6th)
Thirty Years War- 7,500,000 Deaths (Rank 17th)
Madhi Revolt- 5,500,000 (Rank 21st)
Crusades (in the East)- 3,000,000 Deaths (Rank- 30th)
French Wars of Religion- 3,000,000 Deaths (Rank 30th)
War in the Sudan- 2,600,000 (Rank 35th)
Albigensian Crusade- 1,000,000 Deaths (Rank- 46th)
Panthay Rebellion- 1,000,000 Deaths (Rank 46th)
Hui Rebellion- 640,000 Deaths (Rank 66th)
Partition of India- 500,000 (Rank 70th)
Cromwell’s Invasion of Ireland- 400,000 Deaths (Rank 81st)

Human Sacrifice :

Gladiatorial Games- 3,500,000 Deaths (Rank 28th)
Aztec Sacrifice- 1,200,000 (Rank 45th)

There are at least two other conflicts that might be added to the totals given by White that involve significant enough religious motivations to be included here. They include the Roman-Jewish Wars (350,000 Deaths- Ranked 94th) and the Great Turkish War (384,000 Deaths- ranked 89th). White lists the Roman Jewish Wars under the primary category of “Colonial Wars” and the Great Turkish Wars under the primary category of “Clash of Cultures.” While White or others could certainly make a strong argument for framing both wars these ways, there is nevertheless a significant enough religious component to include them under the general category of religious wars, even if only to fend off potential critics who would object to their exclusion. Including them does not change the final analysis much, as instead of 13% of the world’s greatest atrocities being religiously inspired it brings the total to 15%.

.

To Banjo Paterson

If the encyclopedia of wars is correct, then that means that out of 1763 wars referenced, roughly 1640 of those wars were not religious, and only 143 were. It makes it sound like religion isn't the big culprit when it comes to wars.

Regarding "The Great Book of Horrible things," of those hundred things listed, only thirteen (possibly fifteen) have a religious influence involved? That also means that 75-77 of the worst 100 atrocities made, were not influenced nor motivated by religion. The smoking gun isn't facing religion. I'd even wager a look at the ones that have a religious influence and ask the question: "how many of those atrocities were actually following their religion's teachings when committing the horrible acts?" If any of them were in line with their religion to mass slaughter people, then a more focused look at that religion and that event should be done, with a follow up question of "why."

I'd wager that only a few of the atrocities are actually following their religion's directions, and of those that are following their religion, the focus should be on that specific religion. Islam is the only religion that I am aware of that still has violent acts as acceptable within the religion itself. Most other violence that I'm aware of isn't taught from a religion, yet it's still there. Something to think about.

On that note Banjo, I've a question that so far no one in the atheist crowd has tried to answer. "Why are atheists so divisive?" Is there a explaination you can share from your own understanding? (You usually try to stick to points instead of insults or changing the topic, so I have higher hopes for an answer from you, then so far from Belly, Jayb, or Individual, who've all either changed the topic away from them and added insults to cover their tracks.)

There might be a rational for atheist divisive behavior towards religion. But so far I don't think anyone wants to hold themselves to the standards they hold religions to. Thus no explaination.