He's got a point. Socialism's body count rivals that of religions. I don't know the exact numbers, but I have read statements it is larger than religions, maybe due to population increase.

Its amazing how quickly and elegantly you proved yourself wrong

How so? He has an estimate of 50 Million people. I've heard of similar figures. Religions' body count is probably in the same range, so yes, their death counts rival each other. And I'm not so sure Socialism is over yet.


A quick google finds,
Socialism’s Death Toll: 100 Million Victims

I can't speak for its credibility. I haven't actually read it yet.

Ever heard of Rasputin?

We are all the same hardware, all that differs is the software. So whether you are running Religion 1.0, Socialism 1.1, West Ham Utd 2.0 etc... your propensity for violence is going to be similar.

Aaaaand you disprove yourself brilliantly again!

I agree with that. Whether religion or an atheistic "ism", its a program and platform for subjugating the will of one group of people to another's.

This idea of "uniting" is somewhat naive and creepy. Such proclamations of "peace" have normally been preludes to horrible deaths. Truly, what we haven't learned is how to live with each other and let live. I think it would be even worse without religion.


You're missing or denying some facts of history.

Agree. Attributing the ills of the world to some particular group is to my mind a convenient simplification. It generally boils down to "If we could just get rid of all the "X" things would be fine". Substitute pretty much any aspect of human desire, genetic trait, preference or culture and you're almost guarantee'd to be on the wrong path.

And before anyone objects to the above generalisation by saying "What if we could eliminate stupidity?" think of the disastrous effects this would have in economics, politics, and the advertising and entertainment industries, not to mention the popularity of internet forums.

__________________
If everyone you know agrees with you consistently, they are either not listening, or not capable of critical thought.

I find such simple generalisations, while seemingly practical, quite naive and wishful in thinking. What we call rules of laws are whatever a particular population has agreed upon. For example, France can ban the Burkini with some constitutional changes. For someone who believes they've received their laws from the eternal and divine, these secular laws are somewhat difficult to take seriously in comparison. Yes, sure, they can follow them for convenience, but it doesn't mean they are respected. If there is a good value proposition to follow them, sure it makes sense to go along with it. The minute that value proposition is no longer providing any reward, we'll drop it and ignore it.

From this perspective, secular laws are somewhat meaningless to those who believe they have divine and eternal laws. Its like rules to a game at a children's party in comparison. It would seem kind of silly to take too seriously.

Isn't that the case with all secular laws in all situations? Religious people believe their laws come from God, and that God wants them to respect those laws even if nobody is looking and if there is no earthly reward, and depending on how religious they are, even if those laws go against common sense.

If you take God out of the equation, laws only become a means to an end, or a compromise. When you feel nobody is looking, or that the end is no longer what you are striving for, or the other side of the compromise is in a weaker position than you, there is no compelling reason to uphold that law and you either seek to change it or just ignore it. Secular law thus seeks out the situation of lowest entropy, which is not necessarily the same as being just or right. It's not only religious people who do this in secular societies. Secular people do it too.

Yes, it is culturalization. In terms of relating to other human beings, I think it is essential, and should be the primary rule in terms of relating to other human beings. Religion, or most of it, should only be for inner disciplines to apply to oneself, and perhaps to a like minded community. Where we have problems is when there is an attempt to apply religion to those who don't believe in or want it. That is oppression. In this day and age, I would be happy for that outward application of religion to be outlawed.

Going off point slightly, I've just been crying laughing at Hussain Manawer on The Wright Stuff.

For those who may not have heard of him, Hussein won the Rising Star Programme competition last year, and his prize is a trip into space in 2018.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015...n_8627014.html


Hussein said that he flies an awful lot for his work, and every time he flies, he's the subject of 'random' security checks. At Heathrow, he's even been given 'Prevent' leaflets about preventing radicalisation. As Hussein gives Prevent lectures in schools as part of his work, he doesn't mind this because it shows that the security agencies are doing something, buy the irony...

What had me in stitches however, was the story of when he flew into Minneapolis, and during the 'random' security check, was asked what he does for a living. His answer... "I'm a trainee astronaut" ...wasn't well met

So if this:
is according to you:

But then you come around and say exactly the same

So, so authentic !!! I apologise, sir.

"More dumpling?"
"No thanks, I'm stuffed"
Plonk!
"Have some chicken with that!"
Plonk!
"Ummm, thank you."

Reminds me of this sketch

Well, all my relatives behave like that.

We need better stratification and reintegration of what religion means at which level. For example,
1-Personal
2-Community
3-Society
4-National
5-International

Religion should only be confined to #1 and #2. Any impedance of religion at that level would be a violation of human rights, and does not work. The commies tried it and failed.

In a multi-religious society, religion should not be allowed in #3. This is where we have the problems today. Yet it is compounded by seditious and divisive political factions that obfuscates and ambiguates the influence of #1 & #2 on #3. If we don't get this straight, we'll have problems at a societal level.

On number #4 and #5, this is where you normally find the mass murder of people. It isn't only the influence of religion at this level. Atheistic ideologies have caused more deaths at this level. I agree that religion should be banned at this level. It would help prevent religious radicals from even trying. But it won't stop non-religious genocide.

Agree for most - but those increasing numbers who are Sharia adherents want something more than materialism.

Generally agree but note that Sharia has specific carrot-and-stick methods for converting people to Islam that are much more specific and methodological than a minority simply adopting the culture of the majority. For instance, in Sharia, a non-Muslim cannot be in charge of a Muslim so a non-Muslim can never be a manager in the larger economy, a non-Mulsim must pay the jizya, sometimes, you have physical punishment of non-Muslims who are people of the book (pagans are simply killed), such as the requirement that non-Muslims wear heavy wooden yokes around the neck. Then you have the rules of marriage and inheritance, where a Muslim man can marry a woman of any religion; a Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim man; a Muslim man may divorce a woman by saying "I divorce you" three times but a woman cannot do the same; all children of a divorced couple go with the father; and all children of a Muslim man are automatically Muslim regardless of the religion of the mother.

Putting aside the frequent use of plain old physical force, you can see the effectiveness of Sharia in growing the population of Muslims versus the native religion with the passing of generations. Egypt is a classic example of this dynamic at work through the last 13 centuries.