Why don't you believe?

Your are of course correct here. I did not formulate clearly enough. I was thinking in terms of modern science. Of course inventions and progress does not happen in a vacuum. Other civilizations made important inventions and made important contributions to the body of knowledge “back then”. The Sumerians were big on astronomy and mathematics, the Egyptians had good knowledge of astronomy, but also of mathematics, the greeks were big on philosophy, natural philosophy and mathematics. Indian mathematicians made important contributions. But the seeds of modern science was kickstarted mainly in (christian) europe, but highly influenced by islamic science (and by extension Indian science, from which it imported important ideas and results) and greek philosophy, mathematics, and natural philosophy. And of course input from the chinese eventually contributed. But these were the foundations on which modern science could build. In the christian sphere, at least some of the scientific work that were done were motivated by a desire to decode “Gods creation”. In any case, speculating how things would have progressed in other cultures and under other belief systems had it not been for the Abrahamic religions will be a matter of counterfactual history.

Actually, the first long and thin edged weapons (i.e. swords) were made of copper. Bronze came later.

The destruction of The Great Library of Baghdad also destroyed a big body of painstakingly built up knowledge.

1 Like

Post 372

And… within that same initial post…

So - we went from that to this

I do love the input of the “Christianized Vikings” however,

Regardless of whether they went the extra step of “imposing belief”, they did impose themselves when they “raided, invaded or settled

The idea I was pursuing was the tribal aspect of our species to kill, invade, rape, steal, etc regardless of race/color.

Certain religious thought have become more dominant than others, as have political ideological systems as have economic systems - etc.

So under “Paul” Christianity was able to gain a foothold in Roman society and eventually launch itself as a useful tool (above others). So Mohammed was able to launch his ideas on the back of “prophecy” and again, political gains were made… the Old Testament was recordings of the religious/political/Royal system.

If one was to argue; would human societal laws be more “humane” without religion? Cool topic.

However…my “takeaway” from the way @Socialdarwin expresses ideas are not as a human evolutionary movement (of systems) but as a racial division. No different than believing that all the Aboriginal (North Americans) got along just fine with their “pagan” religions…(not true btw).

Religious folk approach it as “if everyone believed as I do, we’d have peace, morals, etc*” - I don’t necessarily see a huge difference in the approach taken by @Socialdarwin

BUT again…thanks @Get_off_my_lawn for the extra Viking info.

Hmmmm :thinking:…like a “territory”? The USA has “territories” worldwide and military installations worldwide.

Perhaps a word you are looking for is the idea of “Annex”

I do not agree with the annexation of Palestine.

HOWEVER not everyone has the same view.
Their position (Israel’s) came out of the 6 day war.

The Middle East has a long complicated history both politically and religious (let alone cultural),
That I personally am not nearly qualified to discuss in any great depth.

@Socialdarwin … I assume you mean Zionism; a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. When speaking of an agenda that the Nation of Israel has for itself, just as every National group has for itself…

Everyone has an agenda. Canada has one, I have one, you have one, DuPont has one, Rupert Murdoch has one, every individual, corporation, and nation has an agenda.

So what is the point in focusing in on this “Zionist agenda”?

White people are God’s Chosen Race! God has created an elect group of White people to rule the world. Racial interbreeding is forbidden by the Bible. Join the Living Hope Ministeries today and follow the teachings of our beloved leader Jaco Van Der Merwe.

The ”truth” he is referring to is the belief that the world’s white Protestants, including the Afrikaners, are God’s chosen people, born to rule."

“They are seen as the only true descendants of Biblical Israel’s 12 lost tribes, and thus the only people with whom God has concluded his holy covenant. Only they will be saved by God at the end.”

”There was a time, long ago, when we should have taken the country by force, as God ordered us to. However, we have waived that right through disobedience,”

He claims people from all walks of life are ”converting” across the country to these beliefs. One of them is Ryna Kritzinger, mother of convicted bus killer De Wet Kritzinger.
Kritzinger grew up on a farm in neighbouring Edenville district and went to school in Kroonstad. He was recently jailed for life after the racial killing of three black people on a bus. Kritzinger maintained in court that he did not commit murder because blacks ”are not human beings”.

Okay Van der M. distances himself and his Church from the lunacy of Kroonstad… at least publically… but can we see how K got there in the first place?

My way of pointing out the obvious.

@David_Killens perhaps as a human he has an empathy towards other humans who have been displaced, told where to live (reserved lands) were brought for slave labor as a means of economic development and … :woman_shrugging:t2: well, continue all over the world in almost every country to this day finding ways of operating and moving out of marginalization (treatment of a person, group, or concept as insignificant or peripheral.)

I assume that you are talking about the Christian God. In this (and most cases of religion) it’s simple. I refuse to believe any claim that is:

  1. Unable to be proven
  2. Nearly impossible to be disproven (i.e. God lies outside of spacetime)
  3. Backed by rationalization, self-justification, fallacies, and theoretical arguments
  4. Amended when becoming unpopular
  5. Said to be true without any logical assertions

Define “Zionist agenda”, and demonstrate evidence to support your claim. I’ll find that more compelling than an ad hominem fallacy. As my view will depend on what you mean, hence my pointing out the wording is a little facile.

As they do for the UK, are we part of this Zionist agenda you claim exists?

Israel has a right to defend its sovereignty, land and people, but no right to confiscate and settle lands outside its internationally recognized borders. I think you’ll find there are many people in Israel and the US who are opposed to the latter. Sadly many of the islamic countries that neighbour the state of Israel have made declarations of intent to destroy them. Yet it wouldn’t be fair to call it a Muslim agenda. Do you understand why?

I’m not seeing any point to this non sequitur sorry?


Again I refer you t The Indian sub continent. One of the most famous conquerors was the Buddhist Ashoka The Great.

The unifier of china was the emperor Chin. He did that by war. That was in the third century bce

In modern times there was the Japanese and their attempt to build a vast Asian Empire. They were and are an odd mixture of Animist Shinto and Buddhism.

I’ll repeat my point, perhaps more clearly; Wars are seldom if ever fought on moral principle or religious grounds although warring nations like to claim god is on their side . EG throughout WW1 and WW2, The German Wehrmacht had belt buckles with the engraved with the words 'GOT MIT UNS" (god is with us)


1 Like

Be at me too it. In reality there are political and non political Zionists.

Having said that, I do not sup[port the government of Israel nor their treatment of the Palestinians. Nor do I accept the claim that any country has a right to exist. Do a comparison of political world maps over the last say 150 years.

IMO countries come into existence and survive for as long as they can defend themselves against their neighbours


Before it was created I might have agreed, but it’s difficult to envisage an alternative now. Israel should exist only along the borders it had when it was created. The money spent on arming them should go to compensate their immediate neighbours, in return they agree that Israel has the right to coexist.

If only it were that simple.

Not entirely sure any right can be bought. If favours are exchanged it becomes a contract.

Perhaps put it this way; Imo ,wars are rarely if ever fought on moral principle. Same goes for the foreign policies of all nations. Relationships between nations are almost invariably decided by their perceived best interest. That almost always means relations between nations entail quid pro quo at some level.

IMO neighbouring countries can only exist when there is perceived mutual self interest or neither side is strong enough to simply destroy/conquer the other.

It’s my perception that the case of Israel and the Arab world is much like Rome vs Carthage, with the Arabs being Rome. Regardless of what they say, Rome will not be satisfied until Carthage is wiped from the face of the earth. That may take generations. During that time circumstances may change radically for either or both sides from outside causes. EG through climate change.

I see your point, but my intent was that as far as possible all sides should respect and have the same rights as each other.

I’m under no illusions of course.

1 Like

I fail to see how being atheist is comparable to a quirk. Also, I do not have any issues with a Creator that does not exist; rather, my issue is with theists who use the god concept to dictate the lives of non-believers.


Welcome @Foxaire

Can’t say I have any issues with god either …I’m also good with my garden fairies 🧚🏻‍♀ - some here keep (Cranks? :thinking: David?) a dragon :dragon: in their garage.

Welcome to Atheist Republic Foxaire.

@Whitefire13 That is not a dragon, I just need to clean out the sewer trap. And what you assume is dragon fire … well, cough cough … methane.

It’s not my fault that when I light up my beard gets singed.

Absolutely right. If they’d just stop doing that and also stop hurting little children, I wouldn’t care what they do.

Really? You don’t remember Eric the Rainbow Farting Unicorn Who Lives in My Garage? And Walter the Purple Square Pooping Wombat who is his best friend. Well I am miffed, and so are they.

I keep telling Eric its not nice to play practical jokes on David by connecting a hose from his anus to the back of his garage. But hey, 'corns will be 'corns.

Oh and welcome Foxair, hallo agus fàilte

1 Like


That you do not understand is irrelevant. Such a claim is called an argument from incredulity fallacy (look it up)

Wonderful. However, that’s simply a personal opinion. Have a go at explaining why

Why? Are you allowing them to dictate your life? If you have a real issue, are you doing anything about it, or just whining? (what with you being an unbeliever and all)

1 Like

Welcome to AR @Foxaire.

As you point out, a lot of theists who come here don’t understand what atheism is, and because their theism is very important to them, they wrongly project the same importance onto atheists lack of belief.

The truth is my lack of belief in any deity is not more significant to me than my lack of belief in mermaids or dragons. If religions were an entirely harmless delusion, the likelihood is I’d not even bother discussing it.