Religion

  On 3/24/2012 at 4:54 PM, lumpenprol said:

I'll just go on record to say that three of the most deep, interesting, and ethical women I know are religious

Interesting people can be religious. That says absolutely nothing about the validity of religious belief.

dammit I missed this thread and don't have a whole day to respond to most of the comments.

My 2 cents is that some of us live in a time and on a continent that almost prides itself on having faith in a God figure that cannot be proven and is used as a tool to inform culture, policy and the moral landscape. To be a judge, to be a politician, to be a public figure that wants to help change the world for good, one almost necessarily HAS to either belief in the christian myth, or one has to pretend to, in order to have that privilege.

Life if a strange and funny thing... who knows why we are the way we are, why or how we developed conscious brains... why the big bang seemed to have happened... how those original particles that hit each other to cause the expansion of the universe got there in the first place (which is definitely something that few people talk about outside of philosophical discussions) ??

We should just admit that we don't know anything, and maybe, that we CAN'T know everything. There was a cool remark by somebody, maybe sagan, that it seems that the further OUT (telescopes) and the further IN (microscopes) we look the more we find.

I would argue that then supposing that we do know something and then basing rules/regulations/rituals/beliefs on that only leads to a stunting of our possible understanding of the world. It allows individuals (especially vulnerable and also unsophisticated individuals) to develop prejudices and disrespect. Fred's take on page 1 I'm totally OK with as his "feeling" that there is something that may be receiving his worship isn't going to be stunting anybody else's feeling. He's not saying, "oh and I also have a feeling that only men and women should have sex."

Think about what life will be like here in North America in the year 3012. Scientology will be over a 1000 years old, as will mormonism. I worry that L Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith might be figures like jesus or moses for SOME people or fuck knows and ppl will forget that they made this stuff up. I grew up in large christian communities that refuse to believe that the new testament was written by men (which is fact) sometimes over hundreds of years later (fact), and that lots of that stuff actually didn't happen at all (fact). This goes the same for all religious txts.

And here we are a couple THOUSAND years later with debates about stem cell research, debates about gays in the military, debates about mayan calendars ending, debates about all kinds of things that really only pull mass groups of people apart. Yes, they may pull smaller groups of people together but almost never large groups without splintering and schisms over sometimes silly things in hindsight. And people are discriminated against, are tortured, and die in the meantime.

Good posts!

Another 2 cents: it's good to know that for the largest part of history people have been under some kind of religious rulership. The earliest forms of religion date back 10.000 years, if I can believe the wiki. It was roughly 100 years ago Nietzsche declared God dead. And 50 years ago many Western societies still had strong religious institutions.

Some things just need time. I have faith in humanity and like to believe that in a 1000 years we have overcome this "psychological twitch". Given the long history of religion, lots has changed in a relatively small amount of time.

I hope you're right Del.

  On 3/24/2012 at 3:00 PM, chassis said:

aaaaaaaaaand full circle back to, people can believe what ever the fuck they want, just dont fuck with me.

but they do, constantly, religious people have a right to vote after all..

I accidentally posted this in the catholic wedding thread, but,

Humans always loved to put human traits onto things that bear no resemblance whatsoever. God is our way of personifying the universe and the laws which govern it so we can pretend we identify with it and not be so terrified by the uncertainty of life itself. It assuages our fears but can use them against us. I do not believe that the universe makes conscious decisions. I also think that free will is an illusion, but it is a necessary illusion to hold people accountable for their actions. The human race is like a culture on a petri dish. Are we any more self aware than that?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/18/florida-atheists-unbless-highway-with-unholy-water/

i think smettingham has it right, the burden of proof is on those espousing a belief. it seems the same to me, whether someone is shoving evangelical christianity or atheism down my throat.

live and let live i say.

  On 3/24/2012 at 7:05 PM, Candiru said:

I accidentally posted this in the catholic wedding thread, but,

 

Humans always loved to put human traits onto things that bear no resemblance whatsoever. God is our way of personifying the universe and the laws which govern it so we can pretend we identify with it and not be so terrified by the uncertainty of life itself. It assuages our fears but can use them against us. I do not believe that the universe makes conscious decisions. I also think that free will is an illusion, but it is a necessary illusion to hold people accountable for their actions. The human race is like a culture on a petri dish. Are we any more self aware than that?

I'm not sure this is a bad thing. Maybe abandoning religion would actually do more harm than good, even if it isn't true (subjectively speaking; "harm" and "good" don't mean much from a naturalistic perspective).

I wanted to get back to some points I was making but lost a whole post to my browser being annoying as fuck. But I will say (this actually wasn't one of my points earlier) that most Christians don't consider that morality actually comes from the Bible, but rather the Bible is one of God's main physical connections to our world and is objectively authoritative. In fact, many Christians use the general belief in an objective morality as an argument (don't want to elaborate on that right now).

  On 3/24/2012 at 6:14 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 4:54 PM, lumpenprol said:

I'll just go on record to say that three of the most deep, interesting, and ethical women I know are religious

 

Interesting people can be religious. That says absolutely nothing about the validity of religious belief.

Perhaps not. But seeing as every other point has been mercilessly beaten to death, I figured I'd throw that into the mix. It's in the same vein as Fred's comment. And the old saying that "there are no atheists in foxholes." Sometimes life brings you to a point where you suddenly have faith. And with the right people, this provides them with the rock they needed in their lives. When it comes down to it, I think most of us would prefer reading the collected works of Martin Luther King (or even Fred McGriff) over this thread, right? And to me, that in itself says something. We are all just little floating (ape) brains trying to figure out this conundrum called existence.

Incidentally I'm pretty sure there would be an interesting philosophical argument to make that it's the faith itself that's important, not whatever grounds it's built upon. But I'm not well-equipped to explore that.

Yet another thought: whenever I see videos with Dawkins or others I always end up thinking "why all the fuss? Why dedicate yourself to this?" Then it occurs to me that there must be a good helping of envy that continues to drive them forwards...

  On 3/25/2012 at 12:45 AM, lumpenprol said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 6:14 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 3/24/2012 at 4:54 PM, lumpenprol said:

I'll just go on record to say that three of the most deep, interesting, and ethical women I know are religious

 

Interesting people can be religious. That says absolutely nothing about the validity of religious belief.

 

Perhaps not. But seeing as every other point has been mercilessly beaten to death, I figured I'd throw that into the mix. It's in the same vein as Fred's comment. And the old saying that "there are no atheists in foxholes." Sometimes life brings you to a point where you suddenly have faith. And with the right people, this provides them with the rock they needed in their lives. When it comes down to it, I think most of us would prefer reading the collected works of Martin Luther King (or even Fred McGriff) over this thread, right? And to me, that in itself says something. We are all just little floating (ape) brains trying to figure out this conundrum called existence.

 

Incidentally I'm pretty sure there would be an interesting philosophical argument to make that it's the faith itself that's important, not whatever grounds it's built upon. But I'm not well-equipped to explore that.

 

Yet another thought: whenever I see videos with Dawkins or others I always end up thinking "why all the fuss? Why dedicate yourself to this?" Then it occurs to me that there must be a good helping of envy that continues to drive them forwards...

Im not quite sure how you reach a lot of these conclusions. Yes, of course a lot of us would rather read MLK than this thread. But Id rather read Bertrand Russell over Martin Luther King. Also take into fact that Martin Luther King is a historical figure, a man that existed outside of a strictly religious paradigm. Plenty atheists admire MLK for what he did, that still doesn't validate his belief in a deity whatsoever.

Heres a rough example of why this doesn't work:

A schizophrenic helps a young girl cross the road. Therefore there must be some "good" in the man's schizophrenic condition. Take the deeds as they are.

We are not ape brains. We are biologically related to apes via a common ancestor. That does not equate to being apes. Birds are not dinosaurs.

I used to use the foxholes example myself, but ultimately it says nothing about the validation of a faith or belief in a deity. Ask yourself why one would suddenly believe in a God when they are in a foxhole. Its because they are scared, horrified, and there is a good chance that their life will end while in that foxhole. In situations such as these, people are far more likely to believe irrational beliefs in order to fulfill a desire not to die at that moment, and to continue life elsewhere, to not remain in fear, to see their loved ones again, to never fight a war again, etc. etc. Again, this example says nothing about the validity of faith, only that faith can fulfill human desire's to live forever/have peace forever.

You are right that we are trying to figure out the nature of existence. We do this through logical processes via shared human experience and perception (science, philosophy, etc.). To claim that a deity is the explanation for existence without appertaining to any logical principles or rational evidence, such a position is no different from me claiming I know all there is about history without reading a history book. It's arrogant, and it is dangerous.

So your final point, why all the fuss?

Well, when you ultimately look at it, knowing that logic, rational discourse and reason are the only demonstrable ways humans can understand the world and the universe, we should focus on using that to explain the universe. To say that an inherently irrational explanation for existence is a correct position or at the very least acceptable position in discourse should not be acceptable. Why? Because if one is willing to suspend disbelief and ignore evidence or the lack thereof to meet a burden of proof, they are showing a willing ignorance to use these basic human faculties.

Also, I am increasingly annoyed by peoples' claims that "snooty atheists" are trying to force atheism down peoples' throats. Once again, atheism is a null hypothesis/DEFAULT position. Someone claiming theism is POSITING THE EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING. Why on earth should I accept that this can be taught and espoused in public and political arenas with absolutely no logical evidence, but to simply point out that there is no logical evidence for belief in that claim is unacceptable and "snooty"? To take such a position towards atheism reveals a very obvious and disturbing bias.

Look guys, Im not calling you retards or mongoloids or stupid. Im not wishing you would die or be punished or beaten. I used to be a theist myself, this wasn't an easy choice. There came a certain point where there was absolutely no discernible evidence for me to claim the position that any deity exists. I can only hope that in time others can understand such a lack of belief, and also understand that a lack of belief in something that has no evidence is not being "snooty". A lot of us simply refuse to let go of the idea, because it comforts us, it suspends disbelief in favor of the fantastical, because our parents and our society was also indoctrinated with the same thing for the same reasons. Its hard to let go; it was incredibly hard for me to let it go. But at some point I realized that I should only strive to believe in things that have evidence to justify belief.

Mmm...a few thoughts

1) I think the idea is faith is not a hypothesis that requires external, logical confirmation. It comes from within. It's the "oceanic feeling" that so pissed off Freud, because he couldn't deconstruct it

2) reason is pretty groovy and all, but there's a pretty decent argument to be made that as much as it can enhance human happiness and contentment, it can also undermine it. To give a simple example, my knowledge of the "fact" that the sun will eventually expand to engulf the earth and incinerate it makes me feel depressed. So does the "knowledge" that the universe will keep expanding to the point where (if there are any humans left alive) we will no longer be able to see neighboring galaxies. This is not to say that I willfully reject rationality, but I don't place that high a premium on it.

3) At its best, my basic understanding of faith is that it should give you a "glass is half full" approach to life, rather than half empty. It should be a rock to rely on, and a guide for an ethical life. Be clear I'm not specifying what particular brand of faith.

4) As for what I myself believe, I guess I'm a secular humanist. My biggest faith is in humanity, which is why I don't see a point in trying to "convert" believers to atheists. I do think atheism is inherently nihilistic if one is going to try to use it as some sort of foundation to build from; as you say, it's a null position.

5) I'm completely with you as far as any particular faith/religion affecting govt. and all the freedoms we hold dear. I have a zero tolerance approach there.

Er, and I just read Franklin's post, which I agree with wholeheartedly.

  On 3/25/2012 at 4:28 AM, lumpenprol said:

Mmm...a few thoughts

1) I think the idea is faith is not a hypothesis that requires external, logical confirmation. It comes from within. It's the "oceanic feeling" that so pissed off Freud, because he couldn't deconstruct it

2) reason is pretty groovy and all, but there's a pretty decent argument to be made that as much as it can enhance human happiness and contentment, it can also undermine it. To give a simple example, my knowledge of the "fact" that the sun will eventually expand to engulf the earth and incinerate it makes me feel depressed. So does the "knowledge" that the universe will keep expanding to the point where (if there are any humans left alive) we will no longer be able to see neighboring galaxies. This is not to say that I willfully reject rationality, but I don't place that high a premium on it.

3) At its best, my basic understanding of faith is that it should give you a "glass is half full" approach to life, rather than half empty. It should be a rock to rely on, and a guide for an ethical life. Be clear I'm not specifying what particular brand of faith.

4) As for what I myself believe, I guess I'm a secular humanist. My biggest faith is in humanity, which is why I don't see a point in trying to "convert" believers to atheists. I do think atheism is inherently nihilistic if one is going to try to use it as some sort of foundation to build from; as you say, it's a null position.

5) I'm completely with you as far as any particular faith/religion affecting govt. and all the freedoms we hold dear. I have a zero tolerance approach there.

I think you raise a couple of decent points which Im tempted to respond to, but you guys seriously don't understand what Im saying here.

A null hypothesis is NOT A BELIEF. Nihilism is belief in nothing. Atheism is a lack of belief towards theist claims.

Think about it like this:

Atheism is no more a belief than "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.

So on the nihilistic thing, atheism is not nihilistic, nor can it be. Because it is not a belief system. Instead, atheism is the rejection of deist positions and claims VIA usage of logic and rational inquiry. This same usage of logic and rational inquiry leads people to create their own subjective systems of belief.

You just said yourself in that quote you are a secular humanist. That's great! I agree with that! But you also said you have faith in humanity. This is much, much, MUCH different than faith in deist positions. Why? Because there is demonstrable evidence in which an individual can form a reason to believe humanity can do good.

Again, atheism is a lack of belief in deist claims. Atheism does not indicate a lack of faith, at least in the way you would describe it. You have "faith" in humanity not on a blind irrational belief, you came to that conclusion using logic and rational inquiry. Basically, the reason for you having "faith" in humanity is due to some sort of demonstrable evidence (being a human, seeing families, individuals doing good deeds, etc.). That is a very different conception of faith from religious or deist grounds (ie. belief in something with NO rational evidence).

But my point about whatever my own brand of "secular humanism" is (whether or not it qualifies for that catchall), is that it's important not to be a dick. So why give a shit if others believe in a flying spaghetti monster? Why be so keen on debunking their belief? (I think it makes life more interesting if people all don't think the same way).

When you say "a null hypothesis is NOT a belief", that may be true for you, but certainly not for Dawkins. Motherfucker has seemingly spent way too much time on this topic. So it has become a lifestyle for him. I'd call that a "belief" (ie, a central, motivating principle of his life). Which is probably why he comes across as a cunt a lot of the time, because it's pretty sad to base your life around trying to pop holes in people's balloons (and rather futile I might add)

In my day-to-day experience, I know very much what it's like to envy religious faith from the outside. Mainly because of these lady friends I have, who seem very calm and centered due to their faith. Like you, I tend to be more skeptical, so I'll probably always be on the outside of the candy shop looking in through the window. For example, if we someday conclude after brain imaging studies that "faith makes people happier, and live longer", it will still be impossible to prescribe it, because you can't take "faith" in pill form (kind of ironic that a logical dissection of the utility of "faith" renders it unattainable). It's kind of like the paleo diet. Yeah, we might have evolved best for a certain diet, but damned if a big mac or piece of chocolate cake don't taste delicious. That's part of the conundrum of modern existence; we're constantly at war with the delicious phantasms that our logic has constructed for us. But they may not be "human-sized." And they may not make us happy.

Again, though, if push comes to shove and some dude like Santorum is up in my grille, then yeah. Secular govt. is where it's at.

Ive seen religious faith completely ruin people's lives, and see them fail to achieve their true potential. It can go either way. I don't know why anyone should be envious of religious faith. You should be envious of their calm, not the unsupported reasons for their calm.

I am keen on debunking their belief because despite the claim that they keep their beliefs to themselves, they do not. They vote. They elect their own representatives who often represent me on the basis of illogical belief systems. That's why I am keen on debunking those beliefs.

Those are good points. But like you said, "it can go either way." If religious faith is a human construct, then it evolved to fit us. Which means it contains good and bad, it's not simply a blindfold that prevents our advancement as a species.

It is a matter of degrees for me too, though. I can find a way to get along with anyone who: believes the bible is to be used as a general guide on how to live an ethical life; believes Jesus is the son of God (who am I to say he wasn't?); goes to church/mosque/whatev on a regular basis; thinks of God as some nebulous force in the universe 5) still has an inquisitive mind/wrestles with their faith. I have much less tolerance for people who believe a book is literal truth, deny evolution, and pick fights. Like you, I'm hoping that kind of zealous, hidebound religious faith gets chucked out the window - along with "angry atheism."

  On 3/25/2012 at 5:48 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Ive seen religious faith completely ruin people's lives, and see them fail to achieve their true potential. It can go either way. I don't know why anyone should be envious of religious faith. You should be envious of their calm, not the unsupported reasons for their calm.

 

 

I am keen on debunking their belief because despite the claim that they keep their beliefs to themselves, they do not. They vote. They elect their own representatives who often represent me on the basis of illogical belief systems. That's why I am keen on debunking those beliefs.

I've seen some of the downsides of faith, but I've also seen some very positive things. Hell, I've seen many people's lives improved because Christians converted them. They are much happier people after that. This is all anecdotal evidence, but the numbers show it as well (granted, these studies are mostly correlational). As far as personal, anecdotal stories go, I have a friend whose major bi-polar disorder is almost completely gone because of his conversion to Christianity, something which would not have happened if Christians had not tried to convert him. Who cares if it's psychosomatic?

Religious people being happy usually has more to do with the sense of community than having faith in whatever. People like to be together. Go make the same tests to atheists who have weekly gatherings and do stuff together and you will get similar results as with religious people when measuring "happiness", life quality etc.

  On 3/25/2012 at 7:02 AM, azatoth said:

Religious people being happy usually has more to do with the sense of community than having faith in whatever. People like to be together. Go make the same tests to atheists who have weekly gatherings and do stuff together and you will get similar results as with religious people when measuring "happiness", life quality etc.

I dunno; I've met people who seem to be happier because they have a concrete goal in life and they can look forward to the end of their lives as being a positive change. Plus, I hear people talking about how religion is horrible for the world and we'd be better off without it, but I don't think there's much evidence for that; I think many of them are just angry at stupid conservative Christians, or are bothered by bad experiences with one or two religious persons.

  On 3/25/2012 at 7:11 AM, gmanyo said:

  On 3/25/2012 at 7:02 AM, azatoth said:

Religious people being happy usually has more to do with the sense of community than having faith in whatever. People like to be together. Go make the same tests to atheists who have weekly gatherings and do stuff together and you will get similar results as with religious people when measuring "happiness", life quality etc.

 

I dunno; I've met people who seem to be happier because they have a concrete goal in life and they can look forward to the end of their lives as being a positive change. Plus, I hear people talking about how religion is horrible for the world and we'd be better off without it, but I don't think there's much evidence for that; I think many of them are just angry at stupid conservative Christians, or are bothered by bad experiences with one or two religious persons.

There are more religions than conservative Christianity, you know. Ask women in Saudi Arabia what they think about religion.

What does having a goal in life have to do with religion? Of course having a purpose in life will make anyone feel better, but no religion is needed for that. And personally I always found it backward to long for the afterlife, instead of enjoying your life here and now.

You can list all the benefits of having faith in a religion and I bet that all of them can be done without an irrational belief in a deity or the supernatural.

  On 3/25/2012 at 7:02 AM, azatoth said:

Religious people being happy usually has more to do with the sense of community than having faith in whatever. People like to be together. Go make the same tests to atheists who have weekly gatherings and do stuff together and you will get similar results as with religious people when measuring "happiness", life quality etc.

yeah i was always attracted to what I heard about "unitarian universalist" practice. I gather they just get together and draw inspiration from a variety of religious sources. In the end I was too lazy though.

  On 3/25/2012 at 5:36 AM, lumpenprol said:

But my point about whatever my own brand of "secular humanism" is (whether or not it qualifies for that catchall), is that it's important not to be a dick. So why give a shit if others believe in a flying spaghetti monster? Why be so keen on debunking their belief? (I think it makes life more interesting if people all don't think the same way).

 

When you say "a null hypothesis is NOT a belief", that may be true for you, but certainly not for Dawkins. Motherfucker has seemingly spent way too much time on this topic. So it has become a lifestyle for him. I'd call that a "belief" (ie, a central, motivating principle of his life). Which is probably why he comes across as a cunt a lot of the time, because it's pretty sad to base your life around trying to pop holes in people's balloons (and rather futile I might add)

 

In my day-to-day experience, I know very much what it's like to envy religious faith from the outside. Mainly because of these lady friends I have, who seem very calm and centered due to their faith. Like you, I tend to be more skeptical, so I'll probably always be on the outside of the candy shop looking in through the window. For example, if we someday conclude after brain imaging studies that "faith makes people happier, and live longer", it will still be impossible to prescribe it, because you can't take "faith" in pill form (kind of ironic that a logical dissection of the utility of "faith" renders it unattainable). It's kind of like the paleo diet. Yeah, we might have evolved best for a certain diet, but damned if a big mac or piece of chocolate cake don't taste delicious. That's part of the conundrum of modern existence; we're constantly at war with the delicious phantasms that our logic has constructed for us. But they may not be "human-sized." And they may not make us happy.

 

Again, though, if push comes to shove and some dude like Santorum is up in my grille, then yeah. Secular govt. is where it's at.

Dawkins gets a lot of flack these days but someone has to get the ball rolling in contemporary society.. He's stated that publicly and understands that most people's opinions of him are increasingly negative. He is, however, merely espousing a middle ground or Neutral position (we don't know so let's keep all arguments on the table for scientific study) as a replacement to the extreme position of major religions (we know and don't need to prove anything). It's funny by the way that he gets so much negative press for a neutral position. He argues, just like the rest of the so-called "four horsemen" and myself and smetty here that though believing in fairy tales can sometimes bring small groups of people together and help us sleep at night but it stunts our race. it allows for all the things that I said in my previous post which brings far more negatives and than positives for us, and for succeeding generations. And it goes back to that bertrand russell vid. in that catholic wedding thread where he argues that purposeful belief (you could insert "faith" easily) in things that are not true will not lead to good.

that's a big argument but I don't think it's a tough one to back up.... even Pinker's history of the decline of violence (in his book The Better Angels of our Nature) gives a great insight as to the violence that christianity has promoted and enforced over the last couple thousand years is a strong argument for the elimination of Gods that are violent as fuck at least (partially why I'm not as opposed to eastern religions)

Mostly I'm just against ignorance. I refuse to believe that we are better off believing in "feelings" and in having "faith". To me that's (at least) intellectual laziness and just like parents of lazy kids we ought to kick people in the ass and get them off the couch and participating in real life.

Could you imagine if instead of regular sunday school (which is a fucking atrocity that I would also argue borders on child abuse) children around the world got lessons in virtue ethics, in actual history, and were taught contemporary theories like evolution and maybe even some experimental physics lessons on how the world may have come about for fun?

So, for dragging us kicking and screaming into a world like this I will support Dawkins and harris, and dennett,and hitchens, and whoever else comes along and is brave enough to attack the religious right.

  On 3/25/2012 at 7:02 AM, azatoth said:

Religious people being happy usually has more to do with the sense of community than having faith in whatever. People like to be together. Go make the same tests to atheists who have weekly gatherings and do stuff together and you will get similar results as with religious people when measuring "happiness", life quality etc.

i's like to address this topic from another point of view.

Christianity - Why not???

"

Ancient Pagans

• 
  As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
  
• 
  Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
  
• 
  Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.
  
• 
  Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468]
  
• 
  Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]
  
• 
  Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
  According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..."
  
• 
  In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.
  
• 
  In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]
  
• 
  The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.
  [DO19-25]
  

Mission

• 
  Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]
  
• 
  Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]
  
• 
  Battle of Belgrad 1456: 80,000 Turks slaughtered. [DO235]
  
• 
  15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Victims unknown. [DO30]
  
• 
  16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused "greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".
  Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage. [sH99, 225]
  

Crusades (1095-1291)

• 
  First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]
  
• 
  Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands. [WW23]
  
• 
  9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then turkish), thousands respectively. [WW25-27]
  
• 
  Until Jan 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown) [WW30]
  
• 
  after 6/3/98 Antiochia (then turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women & children) killed. [WW32-35]
  Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents—save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. [EC60]
  
• 
  Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]
  
• 
  Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (jewish, muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]
  (In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude")
  
• 
  The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished." [TG79]
  
• 
  Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer in all of palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition". One million victims of the first crusade alone. [WW41]
  
• 
  Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ". [WW45]
  
• 
  Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]
  
• 
  Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akkon 1291 probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone). [WW224]
  _{Note: All figures according to contemporary (Christian) chroniclers.}
  

Heretics

• 
  Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]
  
• 
  Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between 372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]
  
• 
  Albigensians: the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians. [DO29]
  The Albigensians...viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]
  Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (greatest single pre-nazi mass murderer) in 1209. Bezirs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbours and friends) 20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]
  
• 
  Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed. [WW181]
  
• 
  subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half the population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were exterminated. [WW183]
  
• 
  After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake 1324. [WW183]
  
• 
  Estimated one million victims (cathar heresy alone), [WW183]
  
• 
  Other heresies: Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).
  
• 
  Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada alone allegedly responsible for 10,220 burnings. [DO28]
  
• 
  John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]
  
• 
  University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna. [DO59]
  
• 
  Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori (Rome) on 2/17/1600.
  

Witches

• 
  from the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several thousand.
  
• 
  in the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or hanged. [WV]
  
• 
  incomplete list of documented cases:
  The Burning of Witches - A Chronicle of the Burning Times
  

Religious Wars

• 
  15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]
  
• 
  1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action). [DO31]
  
• 
  1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. Thousands were actually slain. [DO31]
  
• 
  1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]
  
• 
  17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader. After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ... to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and carrion for maggots and crows'." [sH191]
  
• 
  17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers." [sH191]
  
• 
  17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]
  

Jews

• 
  Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Christians. Number of Jews slain unknown.
  
• 
  In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388. [DA450]
  
• 
  17. Council of Toledo 694: Jews were enslaved, their property confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]
  
• 
  The Bishop of Limoges (France) in 1010 had the cities' Jews, who would not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]
  
• 
  First Crusade: Thousands of Jews slaughtered 1096, maybe 12.000 total. Places: Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons), Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund, Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations Germany except Metz/France, Prag/Czech) [EJ]
  
• 
  Second Crusade: 1147. Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully, Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). [WW57]
  
• 
  Third Crusade: English Jewish communities sacked 1189/90. [DO40]
  
• 
  Fulda/Germany 1235: 34 Jewish men and women slain. [DO41]
  
• 
  1257, 1267: Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]
  
• 
  1290 in Bohemian (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed. [DO41]
  
• 
  1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51 towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland. [DO41]
  
• 
  1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two thousand) burned. [DO41]
  
• 
  1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]
  
• 
  1389 In Prag 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. [DO42]
  
• 
  1391 Seville's Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were slain, 25,000 sold as slaves. [DA454] Their identification was made easy by the brightly colored "badges of shame" that all jews above the age of ten had been forced to wear.
  
• 
  1492: In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than 150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way: 6/30/1492. [MM470-476]
  
• 
  1648 Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain. [DO43]
  

Native Peoples

• 
  Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy Crusader) the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as a means to propagate Christianity.
  
• 
  Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered in the Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people who, he said, "ought to be good servants ... [and] would easily be made Christians, because it seemed to me that they belonged to no religion." [sH200]
  While Columbus described the Indians as "idolators" and "slaves, as many as [the Crown] shall order," his pal Michele de Cuneo, Italian nobleman, referred to the natives as "beasts" because "they eat when they are hungry," and made love "openly whenever they feel like it." [sH204-205]
  
• 
  On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, "making the declarations that are required" - the requerimiento - to claim the ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And "nobody objected." If the Indians refused or delayed their acceptance (or understanding), the requerimiento continued:
  

• 
  Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony: "justifieinge the undertakeres of the intended Plantation in New England ... to carry the Gospell into those parts of the world, ... and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome of the Ante-Christ." [sH235]
  
• 
  In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of "the marvelous goodness and providence of God" to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as "for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess." [sH109,238]
  
• 
  On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [sH204]
  
• 
  The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and spanish raids.
  
• 
  As one of the culprits wrote: "So many Indians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous." [sH69]
  
• 
  The indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell." [sH70]
  
• 
  What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
  "The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive." [sH72]
  Or, on another occasion:
  "The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute beasts...Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs." [sH83]
  
• 
  The "island's population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out." Eventually all the island's natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus "the Caribbean's millions of native people [were] thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century". [sH72-73] "In less than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been exterminated." [sH75]
  
• 
  "And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitln [Mexico city] was next." [sH75]
  
• 
  Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).
  
• 
  "When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead." [sH95]
  

Of course no different were the founders of what today is the US of Amerikkka.

• 
  Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without native help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians. Warfare among (north American) Indians was rather harmless, in comparison to European standards, and was meant to avenge insults rather than conquer land. In the words of some of the pilgrim fathers: "Their Warres are farre less bloudy...", so that there usually was "no great slawter of nether side". Indeed, "they might fight seven yeares and not kill seven men." What is more, the Indians usually spared women and children. [sH111]
  
• 
  In the spring of 1612 some English colonists found life among the (generally friendly and generous) natives attractive enough to leave Jamestown - "being idell ... did runne away unto the Indyans," - to live among them (that probably solved a sex problem).
  "Governor Thomas Dale had them hunted down and executed: 'Some he apointed (sic) to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheles, others to be staked and some shott to deathe'." [sH105] Of course these elegant measures were restricted for fellow englishmen: "This was the treatment for those who wished to act like Indians. For those who had no choice in the matter, because they were the native people of Virginia" methods were different: "when an Indian was accused by an Englishman of stealing a cup and failing to return it, the English response was to attack the natives in force, burning the entire community" down. [sH105]
  
• 
  On the territory that is now Massachusetts the founding fathers of the colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the "Peqout War". The killers were New England Puritan Christians, refugees from persecution in their own home country England.
  
• 
  When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite the Indian chief's pledge they attacked.
  Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of what they were after, because when they were greeted by Pequot Indians (long-time foes of the Narragansetts) the troops nevertheless made war on the Pequots and burned their villages.
  The puritan commander-in-charge John Mason after one massacre wrote: "And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished ... God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven ... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies": men, women, children. [sH113-114]
  
• 
  So "the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and to give us their land for an inheritance". [sH111].
  
• 
  Because of his readers' assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to quote the words that immediately follow:
  "Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them..." (Deut 20)
  
• 
  Mason's comrade Underhill recalled how "great and doleful was the bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers" yet reassured his readers that "sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents". [sH114]
  
• 
  Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to devour children from their mothers breasts, in the colonists' own words: "blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them." (This was inspired by spanish methods of the time)
  In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was near. [sH107-119]
  
• 
  The surviving handful of Indians "were parceled out to live in servitude. John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking for 'a share' of the captives, specifically 'a young woman or girle and a boy if you thinke good'." [sH115]
  
• 
  Other tribes were to follow the same path.
  
• 
  Comment the Christian exterminators: "God's Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his Beauty!"
  "Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!" [TA]
  
• 
  Like today, lying was OK to Christians then. "Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them: when the Indians 'grow secure uppon (sic) the treatie', advised the Council of State in Virginia, 'we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cutt downe theire Corne'." [sH106]
  
• 
  In 1624 sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenseless Indian men, women and children. [sH107]
  
• 
  In a single massacre in "King Philip's War" of 1675 and 1676 some "600 Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a 'barbeque'." [sH115]
  
• 
  To summarize: Before the arrival of the English, the western Abenaki people in New Hampshire and Vermont had numbered 12,000. Less than half a century later about 250 remained alive - a destruction rate of 98%. The Pocumtuck people had numbered more than 18,000, fifty years later they were down to 920 - 95% destroyed. The Quiripi-Unquachog people had numbered about 30,000, fifty years later they were down to 1500 - 95% destroyed. The Massachusetts people had numbered at least 44,000, fifty years later barely 6000 were alive - 81% destroyed. [sH118] These are only a few examples of the multitude of tribes living before Christian colonists set their foot on the New World. All this was before the smallpox epidemics of 1677 and 1678 had occurred. And the carnage was not over then.
  
• 
  All the above was only the beginning of the European colonization, it was before the frontier age actually had begun.
  
• 
  A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery.
  
• 
  In many countries, such as Brazil, and Guatemala, this continues even today.
  

More Glorious events in US history

• 
  Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England's most esteemed religious leaders, in "1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs 'to hunt Indians as they do bears'." [sH241]
  
• 
  Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church ("I long to be wading in gore") had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving with a white flag: 400-500 killed.
  From an eye-witness account: "There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were afterwards killed ..." [sH131]
  More gory details.
  
• 
  By the 1860s, "in Hawai'i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the carnage that by then had reduced those islands' native population by 90 percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected total die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this missionary said, somewhat equivalent to 'the amputation of diseased members of the body'." [sH244]
  

20th Century Church Atrocities

• 
  Catholic extermination camps
  Surpisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveli, a practising Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!
   
  In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar - orthodox-Christian serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdient der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did nothing to prevent them. [MV]
  
• 
  Catholic terror in Vietnam
  In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters - the Viet Minh - had finally defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2 billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all (most non-buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South. With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman, the Vatican's spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the U.S. forces in Vietnam "Soldiers of Christ", a scheme was concocted to prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]
   
  Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman Catholicism.
   
  The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read:
  
• 
  
  • 
    "Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp."
    

• 
  Rwanda Massacres
  In 1994 in the small african country of Rwanda in just a few months several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a conflict of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.
  

As can be seen from these events, to Christianity the Dark Ages never come to an end...."

Please fuck off if you're just going to copy and paste large walls of text from some unknown source.