crocodile deathroll

Islam is ATM but Christianity has a much bloodier history of violence.
Islam now is probably almost as bad today as Christianity was 800 to a thousand years ago.
BTW, Aztecs had pretty gruesome human sacrifice rituals, so I am sure they would be well up there.

Blui

Right and racism has a definition on paper, but i can make it mean loving everyone unconditionally right?

I don't recall anyone in authority or any substantial group having a different definition.

Show me one.

Why do you make this poor analogy? by your argument i can say racism means loving everyone unconditionally, why? who knows, an arbitrary re-definition is flawed.

You might like to note that all those are in fact belief systems, atheism never purports to be one, just as racism is not a belief system.

It is not a doctrine of the belief in God, thanks for agreeing with me.

So i can argue for an infinite amount of definitions for a term, merely if someone believes in it?
rofl.

atheism isn't a belief system, quote me one atheist whom supports this.

Thanks for agreeing with me, btw you contradicted your above statement, if you agree christian angels is not a belief under the belief of God, then neither can you state any belief that Atheism may lead to, is somehow an 'atheism belief system'

quote me a chinese that stated this doctrine under atheism.

Your call.

you just contradicted yourself, if atheism is simply 'no belief in God' there is do doctrines.

show me the evidence, specifically show me an atheist whom did a bad act because someone believed in God.

really? my mother is antireligious but believes in God.

Is she then atheist? according to you she is.

Nice logic there.

adren@line

nope, because that is a contradiction.
One cannot be an atheist or follow an atheistic doctrine and believe in God.

I never stated that there was an alternate "on-paper" definition.

that is not my argument.

you are interpreting my argument and then warping it to infer contradiction.

atheism is a counter-belief system summed up by one simple counter-belief.

The atheistic systems all elaborate and digress on other topics.

nope.

indeed.

sure I can state that.

you are comparing contradiction to non-contradictions in your analogies.

who said they started it under atheism?

that isnt a contradiction, that is reference to hierarchy.

car is to ford as atheism is to ___________

research the Chinese Government. too lazy to do it for you.

nope, that is not according to me. never stated that.

mojuang

religions are all violent.no need for the multiple choices.those who claim people kill people are the same as those who hold that guns dont kill people..its people who do it!

Mughal

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=27517

Blui

Oh? so now your using the 'paper definition of atheism'
You contradict your own argument.

YOu pretty much did when suggesting atheism has doctrines.

No, your arguing atheism has doctrines because some atheists have other beliefs which you believe arbitrarily go under atheism.

The definition of atheism does not have any doctrine.

quote me these atheistic systems.
Where? who said these?

Nope, you contradict your own argument, you believe atheism has doctrines because some beliefs may be led to or from atheism, but the same could be said of eugenics and evolution, christian angels and God.

However no one believes evolution has eugenics under its 'doctrines' or God and christian angels.

evasion, ball is in your court, wheres your evidence? cite me a chinese that said atheism had doctrines.

Car is to Ford? a car is a car.

True, your laziness speaks about your credibility, know what burden of proof is?

Show evidence of your claim, debate properly.


you replied

Nice contradiction.

EsoCyn

By the time the Chinese invaded Tibet (1959), Tibet was one of the last serfdoms.

The histories of religions and religious activites probably vary a lot. Christianity claims to be a peace loving religion, but it's history shows it to be a very violent one. Buddhism may espouse peace, but that doesn't mean that it's followers are peaceful or freedom loving - that was the point of the article. If you read it, comprehended it and stopped making strawmen (and ranting about irrelevent things such as Hindi history), you probably would have realized this.

And yet, you still haven't provided any evidence to prove this. Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

Isolated cases? Holding 25,000 Serfs, on one monestary, is "isolated"? 700,000 out of the 1.2 million population were serfs. That's not "isolated", sir.

If you're arguing that cases of torture are isolated, I suggest that you re-read the article, and remind yourself that even if these cases were isolated, that the life of a serf was not a picnic and was, as quoted by a runaway serf in the article, being a "slave without rights".

And again, he wasn't trying to make a connection between Buddhist teachings and it's violenty history. The fact is, religious adherents to Buddhism were violent - extremely violent, in Tibet's case. They held serfs and slaves and enforced a brutal class system. The only person trying to make the connection to Buddhist teachings is you.

In fact, he points out in the article, very clearly, that the nobility and monks manipulated teachings to further enrich their wealth (in a more violent way than Evanglists do today, so to speak);

TomboyMom

Historically: Christianity. Currently: Islam.