Originally posted by BlazingLovatic That's perfectly fine, providing it was in the context of a for/against/opinion exam type question. It's not them trying to brainwash you, but to help you understand other people's points of view & sides of the argument, so you can therefore use that to construct/relate it to your own opinion.

Originally posted by lousaysthings May I ask where you're from? It's a shame your religious education was so poor. I learned, from a teacher trained in Religious Education, about Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism AND Christianity, which is something that should happen across the board. Also, all Christian teaching was taught as BELIEF, not fact - no-one was being forced into believing anything, merely understanding a different point of view. In a perfect world, the religious education I received would be taught worldwide.

Originally posted by Bobba Religious education should be looking at a variety of different beliefs and religions and it needs to teach a balanced argument weighing up the pros and cons. If it is taught like that then I think it is really beneficial.

Originally posted by hello_world RS was so easy I just changed my religion on every paper to back up my opinion one second I'm a Jew, then suddenly the Muslim is me

Originally posted by Thisisit It's a myth that spending all day learning about other peoples beliefs will help you construct a better belief of your own - what does that is learning about the rational arguments for and against different beliefs.

Originally posted by fabbriche http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecu...e_Soviet_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

This is the literal definition of a logical fallacy. The Soviet Communist regime, for one thing, emerged as a product of the violence surrounding religious conflict in other parts of the world, and Mao Zedong's politics were not atheism-based. He may have been an atheist, but it's technically incorrect to say that his actions stemmed from his religious views since the Cultural Revolution was borne more out of anti-imperialism and cultural dogma than explicit religious views.

All instances of Communist-driven genocide were horrifically brutal, but you cannot place atheism behind them, per say, regardless of the movements' leaders' beliefs, because no part of atheism advocates for...anything. That's where the fundamental difference between Atheist-Communist connections and religious conflicts comes in - faith-based massacres generally stem from the idea that ___'s faith is the One True Faith, and all other must be eliminated/people must be converted, etc., and constituents of these policies support them from their respective holy texts. Atheism has no holy texts. The whole point of it is that it isn't a religion. Therefore, claiming that any single cultural movement against religion by, for example, Communists, is inherently an atheism-driven act is incorrect, since atheism has no compelling component. Which I realize doesn't make a lot of sense, but there is a philosophical element to it so bear with me.

The USSR was a horrific case of violent atheism, undeniably, but it was catalyzed by every preceding instance of violent theism, like, ever. I don't know enough about it to comment further, but people with the capacity for evil will always find an impetus, which applies to both sides of this issue, and any other.

In other words, because there are no characteristics of atheism besides being an atheist, meaning one just doesn't follow any organized faith or believe in a deity, any rampaging leader who committed religious genocide may have taken on the atheist moniker out of, you know, convenience. There are very few examples (speaking comparatively) of actual anti-religious massacres originating definitely from atheism. In the Soviet Union (where my family is from, by the way, and I say that not because I think it gives me any extraneous insight but because I was raised by people who actually experienced said injustices, and made sure I understood them), the idea of the atheist state existed as part of the idea of Marxism-Leninism in the 20th century. Because it went hand in hand with Communism, and was formed primarily from Karl Marx's historical knowledge, can you really blame the concept itself? With theism, a convincing argument can be made to that effect, whereas with atheism...it's trickier.

Originally posted by fabbriche The story of creation as told in the Bible is an allegory, therefore it gives no dates, and is completely compatible with theories such as the Big Bang and evolution. These theories are only incompatible with biblical literalism

Originally posted by fabbriche The number of people murdered by atheistic communist regimes in just 100 years is 5x greater than the number people killed in religious wars in 2000 years.

Originally posted by Blueberry Kisses This is the literal definition of a logical fallacy. The Soviet Communist regime, for one thing, emerged as a product of the violence surrounding religious conflict in other parts of the world, and Mao Zedong's politics were not atheism-based. He may have been an atheist, but it's technically incorrect to say that his actions stemmed from his religious views since the Cultural Revolution was borne more out of anti-imperialism and cultural dogma than explicit religious views. All instances of Communist-driven genocide were horrifically brutal, but you cannot place atheism behind them, per say, regardless of the movements' leaders' beliefs, because no part of atheism advocates for...anything. That's where the fundamental difference between Atheist-Communist connections and religious conflicts comes in - faith-based massacres generally stem from the idea that ___'s faith is the One True Faith, and all other must be eliminated/people must be converted, etc., and constituents of these policies support them from their respective holy texts. Atheism has no holy texts. The whole point of it is that it isn't a religion. Therefore, claiming that any single cultural movement against religion by, for example, Communists, is inherently an atheism-driven act is incorrect, since atheism has no compelling component. Which I realize doesn't make a lot of sense, but there is a philosophical element to it so bear with me. The USSR was a horrific case of violent atheism, undeniably, but it was catalyzed by every preceding instance of violent deism, like, ever. I don't know enough about it to comment further, but people with the capacity for evil will always find an impetus, which applies to both sides of this issue, and any other.

Originally posted by DAP You really have no way of determining that without any historical evidence of a comprehensive census body and/or any other strategy that would otherwise produce accurate estimates. It's cute to see you spout your zealous rhetoric and make such outrageous, logically false claims in a desperate attempt to deride atheism and all other religions that don't subscribe to your organized faith. It's so cute to see you minimize horrific atrocities committed by headstrong Christians (the Thirty Years War to the Spanish conquest in Latin America and Jewish persecution) to demonize atheism at your own convenience. And it's so adorable to see you attempt to develop a semblance of a solid foundation for your delusional argument, when as point out earlier, you don't even know the history of these movements and how insignificant atheism was to these leaders. You even fail to realize that atheism isn't even an organized institution.

EXTINGUISH HA

Originally posted by Elusive Chanteuse That's very convenient isn't it? lol

Originally posted by Ichinaru19 All I can say is SHOW ME THE NUMBERS then fabricche. Also you're ignoring the well argued comments that state that Atheism is not an organization unlike religious groups.

Originally posted by DAP You really have no way of determining that without any historical evidence of a comprehensive census body and/or any other strategy that would otherwise produce accurate estimates. It's cute to see you spout your zealous rhetoric and make such outrageous, logically false claims in a desperate attempt to deride atheism and all other religions that don't subscribe to your organized faith. It's so cute to see you minimize horrific atrocities committed by headstrong Christians (the Thirty Years War to the Spanish conquest in Latin America and Jewish persecution) to demonize atheism at your own convenience. And it's so adorable to see you attempt to develop a semblance of a solid foundation for your delusional argument, when as point out earlier, you don't even know the history of these movements and how insignificant atheism was to these leaders. You even fail to realize that atheism isn't even an organized institution.

You quite literally did not read a thing I wrote.
Additionally, the bolded, which I take to be the crux of your argument, makes no sense.