I didn’t say centuries, I said millennia. And you don’t need organized religion or war for persecution. You just need the general attitude that anyone who doesn’t revere the local superstitions loudly enough is evil and should be killed. An attitude that has been the norm among most people and which they have even applied to their own children.
Only some sorts of Buddhism. Not all Buddhist schools are atheistic. While theism isn’t a central tenet of Buddhism like most other religions, many strains have theistic beliefs, or elevate some Buddha and Bodhisattva to de facto theistic state. Pure Land as commonly practices, for instance.
How can you be so sure you have ancestors? I’m open minded enough to accept that, for certain definitions of ‘ancestor’, maybe the situation is just a little more complicated than you like to think.
Now, did I take my pills today, I can’t remember?
Yeah, I just don’t see that in Asia and yet they have a pretty rich religious tradition.
I must agree with this.
The bloodthirst and craving for killing off people of other religions is really only found with this “God of Love” fellow.
I wouldn’t know of any religions, other than the Jahwe’s and it’s derivatives, that forced people to convert by the sword.( and fire and the rack and… and… and).
Not familiar with India, I take it?
The Aztecs subjugated their neighbours and made them submit to regular “flower wars” so they could feed their death cults’ need for human flesh.
That’s different.
Someone had to make sure the sun comes up again.
Besides the prisoners usually had a similar belief, they weren’t forced to convert.
Oh, yes what are you referring to with India? Thuggee?
Generally, conversion wasn’t requested, because the religion was tied to the people of that particular area-if you didn’t live there, you were automatically fair game.
My lack of belief in cultural deities stems from a few simple points:
-
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any intelligent supernatural processes at work anywhere in nature. This is a fact. Get used to it.
-
I have never been presented with a definition of a “god” that has not been completely and utterly incoherent.
-
A great deal of religions are ridiculously pessimistic and have an abysmal framework for establishing morality.
-
Invoking “gods” as an explanation for anything actually explains nothing. As a model for increasing our understanding of the universe, theistic and anthropic lines of reasoning are utterly useless.
-
We’ve literally dreamed up thousands of gods during the span of human history, and at one time or another their adherents were supremely confident of their existence as well. There is nothing to me that suggests the validity of one over the other.
-
Bronze age myths are not particularly compelling in providing evidence for the existence of supernatural entities.
-
People tend to think that a universe without supernatural boogeymen is somehow “less special,” or “meaningless.” This strikes me as pathologically egocentric and to me displays a supreme lack of perspective.
The idea that people can operate under the assumption that the existence of their particular cultural diety is just a “given,” and that their belief is somehow the default for humanity makes it extraordinarily difficult for me to take them seriously.
Oh come now - Thor and the FSM are both completely coherent. Extremely implausible for differing reasons, but coherent. (The IPU not so much - but that’s deliberate.)
I don’t think I’ve encountered a god-concept more incoherent than the IFG, though.
The International Forum on Globalization?
My friend Snake’s nickname for ol’ Jehovah-“Invisible Flying Goalposts”.
No, more the partition and ongoing Hindu-Muslim violence. I understand people will point out that one side is Yahwistic-derived monotheism, but it takes two to tango and Hindus give as good as they get.
That’s exactly what my wife says, everytime she starts an argument.