Batman Slapping Robin

then this will be a perfect world for grumpy cat

Just showing respect for the Muslim people.

definition here http://www.dictionary.com/browse/solipsistic?s=t

Sorry not sorry! :-)

There is no such thing as a "religion of peace". Religion as a whole is barbaric, cultish, and dangerous, in large groups especially.

But secular humanism had brought us such great hits as "the Great Leap Forward", the holocaust, and Pol Pot's killing fields....

I'm pretty sure the nazis were actually religious (and even if they weren't, Goodwin's Law, people), and there is a lot more dirt on religion than on atheism. The Crusades (started by either Christians or Muslims, depending on who you ask), witch burnings, the Spanish Inquisition, Islamic terrorism (of course), abortion clinic bombings...

Another thing I noticed was that other than the holocaust (which I already mentioned), none of those atrocities were motivated by faith or lack of faith (sure, communists are anti-religious, believing religion a tool of capitalist pigs (except for North Korea)), but they were just killing people that disagreed with them (just like the religious examples shown above). All in all, I find that human beings just love killing each other for stupid reasons, and religion, far from preventing this, gives even more reasons and makes said reasons even more stupid.

Oh, and unless you live in a third world Islamic theocracy hellhole, you owe your country's existence (in its current form) and freedoms to "secular humanists".

In spite of secular humanists. Sin ce they acknowledge no higher power they declare themselves the arbiters of morality and gods... Alexis De Toqueville among many others documented what was behind America's rise and the Wests in general...

Secular humanism prescribes that moral principles be judged by whether or not they enhance or promote health, responsibility, and well-being within human society, and that the best path to establishing an ethical society is through mutual understanding, education, freedom of expression, universal and equal human rights, and democratic governance. This is what secular humanists consider the foundation of morality, and what most people in first world democracies would likely dub the basis ethical conduct as well. Theocracies, on the other hand, are far more inclined to promote the very opposite, namely tribalism, indoctrination, imposed orthodoxy, bigotry, and despotism.

Glad someone gets my point.

Hitler was a catholic and the rest I do not think would describe themselves as secular humanists!

There is nothing in secular humanism that is exclusively concordant with or solely pertinent to the atrocities of fascism or communist despots. Secular humanism ideologically rejects supernaturalism and any associated dogmas or superstitions in matters of ethics, government, or society. Instead, it proclaims that any institutionalized belief must be methodologically scrutinized, without taking anything on faith or justifying anything with doctrine. It also professes that the best way of achieving an ideal society is through free exchange of thought, the understanding of opposing viewpoints, and the of those who are superficially different from ourselves.

Mao Zedong, as far as we can tell, was not religious himself in any demonstrable way, and was oppressively antitheistic. But his regime is in no way one built on secular humanism. What he and his regime DID promote among the Chinese people was servility, mindless credulity, personality cult, indoctrination, suppression of free thought, violent social conformity, and the absolute suppression of ideological dissention. Not only are these things all at odds with secular humanism, they are also often the hallmarks of organized religion and theocracy.

As for Hitler, he goes directly against secular humanism entirely. He was a spiritualistic theist, who's religious beliefs were based both on Germanic Paganism and Christianity. He was a creationist, a denier of evolution, and believed that the extermination of the Jews was in accordance with the will of "The Creator." His belief in the Master Race and Nordic-Bloodline myths, as well as his pseudoscientific approach to racialism, are also diametrically opposed to the ideologies of secular humanism.

Pol Pot wasn't areligious either; he didn't believe in a god exactly, but seemed to be a spiritualist nonetheless, and believed he was divinely inspired and that his actions were part of a manifest destiny. His regime also catered to the doctrine of Buddhist nationalists, which he used to justify his unorthodox approach to Communism. So again, nothing akin to secular humanism.

On every belt buckle on German soldiers was written "gott mit uns" look it up :)

I agree that many religions have spread a lot of bad stuff throughout history. But can you really say religion as a whole? Religion isn't one thing, by definition religion is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects". In this age of don't judge and don't generalize whole groups, there seems to be the tendency to lump religions together and make it one thing religion, and say religion is bad. Which religion though? That's like saying country is all bad. Country is not singular when referring to a land under the control of one government. Which country in particular? All countries have different heritages and customs and traditions and cultures and everyone in a given country has different values and beliefs. So can you say countries as a whole are good or bad things? Would it be better as a lawless, borderless, orderless world? That's up for debate and is very hard to prove seeing as there is little, if any, documentation on the world with no governments and no borders, there has always and will always be people who rise to power.
You could just as easily say there are no peaceful people. People as a whole are barbaric, cultish, and dangerous, in large groups especially. But like any general judgements, it is hard to back up.

You have a point.

It is not blasphemy to mock god, if you think so.. I have to believe in a higher being..We are not at the same, there's a lack of proof, god does not exist. I'm anti-theist

There's a video that settles this dispute:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g44DSD0UUD8&t=412s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuI4Nzc07Io

Did you watch the video?

she is a nut

So you watched it?

http://www.jmanjackal.net/eng/engbusy.htm

Seriously, how do 56 people upvote this?

The level of douchbaggery is high with this one!

Great argument

No point in arguing with imgflip trolls!

They acknowledge "isa" but deny He was deity and that He died on the cross. Without those facts, you have no Christianity. As for a religion of peace, the Quran teaches the expansion to a global Islamic Kingdom through conquest. Hence, you had the Muslim invasions across thesis occupations of former Roman Empire in N Europe, Turkey, N Africa, and into Spain. Thankfully Frank Martel spanked them and halted their aggression in France. The Crusades were a countermeasure to the Islamic aggression. Yes, I have studied history. Bet your schools left out a "few key facts" and you were too lazy to dig.

Christians nations didn't conquer Europe. It's the people of Europe who converted to christianity, aproximately at the end of the roman empire. They conquered America but it was not by the means of unprovocated violence. That simply not true. What is true however, is that Spanish and Portugueses, once they were established, started tu use Indians as slaves. But the Pope Paul III explictely condemned those actions, and the Dominicans, like Las Casas, tried to stop them. As for the conquest of Australia and Africa, it was done in more recent times and not for religious motives (and if unprovocated violience was used, it was exceptional and not a common rule, for example in the case of the conquest of Congo by the Belgians).

That is true- but just because a "Christian nation" did something doesn't mean that squared with Christianity and the Scriptures. Rome co-opted it for their ow reasons, my argument is that conquering lands is consistent with the Quran and is a doctrine while it is not.a doctrine of Christianity nor can be found in the New Testament.

You raise an interesting point. Jesus, a Jew, said He did not come to set up a worldly kingdom, but a spiritual one based on redemption, Grace, and love. So, the Jews rejected Him because that wasn't what they were after. Later, Rome misappropriates promises made to Israel and calls Rome the "New Jerusalem". Their error is conflating Israel and the Church and it has, I agree, caused much confusion.

How many atheist terror attacks today ?

This is true, the Islamic empire was the biggest the world had seen at that time, but then the Europeans when they got going created bigger ones. Especially the catholics exported their version of Catholicism. It's why I am surprised the south americans and Filipinos still put up with that shit today.

If you say it's the more peaceful of religions then you admit that your own religion is less peaceful than islam, and that islam is therefore better than your own religion. Which is a bit self-defeating for yourself, don't you think?

<use the Jains as a role model and we will have peace.