(sorry, source again wikipedia)

AT Syn - sorry, I recognize that the Bible hardly contains the firt recorded murder. I simply meant to say the first recorded murder in the Christian religious tome that most of us are familiar with.

But my point remains the same - Christians who believe in the Bible certainly must make the argument based upon the Cain and Abel story that man can be cognizant of God (and hell) and commit murder.

Of course, as a Christian, you also believe that murder (or lack thereof) is not the determining factor as to whether or not you go to hell.

It is belief, or lack thereof, in Jesus Christ as the sinless son of God, dying on the cross for your sins and raising himself from the dead, that determines whether or not you go to heaven or hell.

That's the Christian doctrine.

I don't agree krellin. That is the belief of a very certain sect of Christianity, but it's certainly not within the canon of Thomas Aquinas for example.

Ora there are many murders in Gilgamesh that are the result of battles, I meant.

I can't help but feel that we're drifting off course...

ok, my thesis; People kill for a reason, like 'he threatened me', 'his people attacked my way of life', and 'Some crazy guy hacking a soldier's head off and i want an excuse to express my anger'; people do not kill because they have no belief.

SYn - the vast majority of "Christianity" holds this belief. That you have identified some sect that worships a one-off writing hardly constitutes Christianity.

Regardless - you can believe in god and kill...you can be an atheist and kill. Religious belief can or can not be attributed to why people kill, depending on the situation.

the real question is: When people kill (falsely) in the name of religion, are they killing for truly religious reasons? Or personal fucked up reasons they are attributing to religion, but which are really personal, selfish reasons?

The distinction between killers and non-killer is not one between theists and atheists.

Atheists who follow some other belief, like a cult of personality in Kim Jong Un, or maybe Jesus of Nazareth can kill justifiable (in their minds) just as Islamic extremists can.

In other words, if you have grossly misinterpretted your religion and are using it to kill, even though the religion doesn't call for murder, are you murdering for religious reasons still?

i.e. does religious belief exist apart from the believer?

Did you just identify Aquinas as a "sect"?

and Atheism as having no belief?

I'm out of here.

Atheists have a strong belief...they have no belief in God.

and Aquinas does not override the Bible. He is a scholar and a commentator...but his works are not contained in the Bible.

The overwhelming majorityof Christians have never read their Bible, let alone aquinas.

Krellin, i had to unmute you to see what drove Synappse over the edge.

Atheists don't have to have any strong belief, if you never tell a child about santa claus, how can they have a strong belief in NO santa.

I don't have a strong belief in No Thor, and No Zeus, and No Tooth fairy. The claim that Atheists have a strong belief seems silly. (Some atheists may have such a strong belief, but not all)

If an atheist just doesn't think the question of god is interesting, then they can acknowledge that other people think there is a God but not really think about it at all. Like i bet you don't spend much time thinking about numerous concepts which are unimportant to your life. <and muting>

no, that's unfair, I'll keep you unmuted until you do whatever it was to earn a mute in the first place.

But one thing, if (and i'm assuming here) you are NOT an atheist, why do you presume to know what they strongly believe?

Nice Dawkin-esque arguments, but there aren't a multitude of texts and canonical belief of Tooth Fairy's. God is a legitimate philosophical concept, if you read texts of deists like Spinoza or Thomas Paine, and Atheists are opposed to that concept.

I am an atheist, but I am very much intolerant of the majority of atheists, and I think it is better to be a religious person, generally speaking.

Someone who "doesn't really think" about God isn't an atheist. An atheist is someone who actively believes there is no God (and in the majority of cases that a belief in God is stupid.)

Anyway this thread was a terrible idea and I really want to leave it, but without rudely ignoring your points

I have heard Dawkins, sorry, he's an ass, and an anti-theist, he is against religion, quite clearly. He is something you could follow and possibly even kill for. (though his 'militant atheists' don't have any weapons or violence to their names, i think the militant title may be a little misleading)

But he's an ass, and i don't like his tactics...

@Synapse, i was talking to Krellin about his claims on what atheists believe. Didn't make that clear, i think...

"Someone who "doesn't really think" about God isn't an atheist. An atheist is someone who actively believes there is no God (and in the majority of cases that a belief in God is stupid.)"

I was raised in a Roman Catholic country, in a roman catholic family, and went to a roman catholic school, by the age of 11 i realised there was no god. I had thought about it and decided what i believed, and then i stopped thinking about it.

I didn't really think about this 'god' concept again, because i had a new way of thinking, I just thought, 'What is the right thing to do...'

Never needing again to refer my thoughts to what would jesus do, or what do those people with the misconception of God think i should do...

(i gave up my atheism at about 16, but that's another story)

So, no, never did i worry about whether it was more or less valid than Zeus, or Thor's morality.

My personal theological beliefs are summed up in:


“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

I'm still pretty baffled at two things: that people want to argue that these killings were not religiously motivated and that their interpretation of their religion is wrong. They were clearly religiously motivated. I don't understand how anyone can claim their take on the word of God is superior to anyone else's either. They are branded as 'radicals' and 'misguided' or have 'misinterpreted' because their actions and beliefs don't fit with what it now acceptable. I'm pretty sure if we had a toppling of secular power all of a sudden the more authoritarian and draconian interpretations would re-emerge in greater numbers and it would be the current moderates who would be radicals.

I am willing to concede that this was a religious attack if you also concede that the Soviet Union was an atheist movement--for any argument in favour of one is a hypocrasy of the other.

Also, +1 to that Marcus Aurelius quotation. It's actually a pretty humanist quote.

The two situations are not comparable. The Soviet Union followed a Communist dogma. Enemies of communism were killed or persecuted. I simply don't think there was an NKVD agent or soldier or anyone else who went through the process - I don't believe in any god and because of that I'm going to kill you. It would much more likely be - your dogma conflicts with my dogma (communism) so I will kill you.

In this instance the individuals themselves stated they had carried out the killing in the name of God and their co-religionists.

I simply don't think there was an NKVD agent or soldier or anyone else who went through the process - I don't believe in any god and because of that I'm going to kill you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

Or read Religious Policy in the Soviet Union. What you just described happened a lot in fact.

The LMA article states the membership never exceeded 5 million individuals. The population at the time was 130-140 million people. I think I made a statement earlier about conceding that it may have happened but that if it had it was a drop in the ocean compared to the dogmatic and in particular religious killing that has occurred.

I haven't read Religious Policy in the Soviet Union. Who is the author? I'll check it out.

I will accept that communism was an atheistic movement, if you will tell me how that affects my claim : 'people do not kill because they have no belief.'