Which branches of religions are the most dangerous?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-11-2012, 07:58 AM
RE: Which branches of religions are the most dangerous?
(25-11-2012 03:20 AM)Janus Wrote:  
(24-11-2012 09:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  Oh yeah, that John Calvin was a bag of laughs. How many did he have executed for heresy?


Seems you have bullshit opinions even on stuff you evidently haven't got the vaguest clue about. How do you make that stuff up? Who was ever executed by, or under orders of Calvin for his/her religious beliefs? Name me one! Only one!
FYI: killing heretics was precisely the opposition's, the inquisition's trade mark m.o.! That was exactly what was different about Calvin (and Zwingli, and Luther, etc.).
During Calvin's years in Geneva he wielded great power. Many were executed by the authorities for transgressing the laws that Calvin had helped to be enacted. Those executions did not happen without his consent and approval.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 02:48 AM
RE: Which branches of religions are the most dangerous?
I could have done a better job phrasing the question, if I sparked a better idea for a better question, then I'll be happy with that.
My question was mostly about real world cultures, someone said it is cultural mitosis, I think that's a great way to put it. But people wear that label proudly, so I'm just trying to get a better understanding of those labels. If someone says they are a fundamentalist anything, I think its safe to assume they are pretty far off the deep end and you should be careful of what you say or they might kill you.
But if they are Amish or a Buddist, you can safely tell them you are an atheist without worrying for your life.
That is what I meant by my question. I don't mean the relgious sects in terms of what their beliefs are, but in terms of real world cultures that wear those labels, and how willing to resort to violence those cultures are.

If that is beyond what people here might know, a more practical question is, which cultures are the most harmless? I think Buddists would be near the top of that list. Are any Christian sects pretty much atheists in practice? Like I said before, where they are like a gateway out for people not emotionally strong enough to just come to terms with the fact the evidence for Yaweh is underwhelming?

I'm more about questions than answers. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 03:53 AM
RE: Which branches of religions are the most dangerous?
(27-11-2012 02:48 AM)ratty Wrote:  ...
But if they are Amish or a Buddhist, you can safely tell them you are an atheist without worrying for your life.
...

To address an implied misconception...

Many (but not all) Buddhist's are atheists.

Buddhism is about right-living and not about right-believing.

This does not require a deity.

Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: