Political Crossfire Forums

[wormwood]

Quote: I'd be fine with a nation of atheist Buddhists So Buddhism doesn't count as a religion, in that Buddhists aren't naturally dumber like you say religious people are? Or are you ok with religious stupidity as long as it involves no deity?

[John]

Quote: To say that religion will always be around is not unlike an ancient Egyptian saying someone, somewhere will always worship Osiris. No one, nowhere worships Osiris. One day, that will go for all the gods and all the pantheons.

:lol:

[Dr. Wojtyla]

wormwood wrote: Quote: I'd be fine with a nation of atheist Buddhists So Buddhism doesn't count as a religion, in that Buddhists aren't naturally dumber like you say religious people are? Or are you ok with religious stupidity as long as it involves no deity?

No, I'm fine with it because atheistic Buddhism isn't a religion. A Buddhist atheist is just someone who tries to live their life along the middle path of moderation, attempting to detach oneself from worldly pleasure and suffering. There are two ways to deal with the very real problem of suffering and detachment is simply one of the two ways.

[Gilbert1908]

Dr. Wojtyla wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: JDHURF wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: This is a fine hypothesis except that while Islam grows at an ever faster pace and Christianity continues to grow after 2000 years, although at a slower rate than in the past, atheism shows NO statistcal growth as a % of the population.

So if Islam, Christianity and other religions continue to grow and atheism remains a relatively fixed % of the population, how is it even remotely possible that "religion" will disappear over the next century? You seem to be oblivious to the reality of the world outside of the United States, Sweden 46-85% non-believers (atheists or agnostic), Vietnam 81%, Denmark 43-80%, Norway 31-72%, Japan 64-65%, Czech Republic 54-61%, Finland 28-60%, France 43-54%, etc.
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

Take a look again at WORLD growth rates on the very same site and you will find that what I said is true.

My point was WORLD wide growth rates NOT the USA or the top 50 countries, the world is a bit larger than that.

And Islam has replaced Christianity as the fastest growing religion, while Christianity continues to grow just not a fast as it had been. Atheism has no perceptible growth patter world wide.

Atheism relative to world population is a static % in a 5% according to YOUR site and that % is a subset of "nonreligious" more than half of which DO believe in God but do NOT go to a particular church, the rest are agnostics etc..

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

Unfortunately, Gilbert is right and JD is wrong. You can't cite a handful of countries and say this is part of a larger trend, as nearly every country not named is overrun with religion.

The truth is very few people are willing to admit to that they are atheists, but more the the point, very few people are completely devoid of religion.

Religion's failure in the 21st century will not be the story of the atheist population rising and the religious population falling. Rather, it will be a continuation of the trend observed in the 20th century: religion will matter less and less to the religious. The population of Christians will continue to be replaced with the population of "Christians." As the sphere of science and technology grows, religion itself will matter less and less. The defect in our brains that causes us to posit a supreme being will find other sources of satisfaction.

To say that religion will always be around is not unlike an ancient Egyptian saying someone, somewhere will always worship Osiris. No one, nowhere worships Osiris. One day, that will go for all the gods and all the pantheons.

I ask a simple question, when in world history have anything less than 95% of human beings done anything but believe there is God of some kind and then what possible evidence is there that in the forseeable future there is ANYTHING that would lead ANYONE to believe that level of would change?

[Gilbert1908]

Dr. Wojtyla wrote: wormwood wrote: Quote: I'd be fine with a nation of atheist Buddhists So Buddhism doesn't count as a religion, in that Buddhists aren't naturally dumber like you say religious people are? Or are you ok with religious stupidity as long as it involves no deity?

No, I'm fine with it because atheistic Buddhism isn't a religion. A Buddhist atheist is just someone who tries to live their life along the middle path of moderation, attempting to detach oneself from worldly pleasure and suffering. There are two ways to deal with the very real problem of suffering and detachment is simply one of the two ways.

Yet on principal Tibetan Buddhists reject homosexuality behavior as wrong and do not accept female monks, interesting that simply because there is no God involved you can accept Buddhism beliefs, but not Catholic. beliefs.

[greeneye]

Dr. Wojtyla wrote: greeneye wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: greeneye wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: Oh, and if your research has produced results that prove a divine presence, I recommend you notify the press and the authorities immediately, seeing as how you've made the biggest discovery in the history of mankind.

Sounds like you might need a personal invitation to witness the next "move the mountain by faith" event.

If you PM your contact information, we'll send you a personal invitation next time one is scheduled. 8:)

P.S.
BTW, the authorities have already been notified of such events
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fatima which thousands of people did witness. And if you're really interested there are lots of pictures and testimony at your local library.

Millions of Catholics have seen the Virgin Mary. Millions of Hindus have seen milk bleed from the eyes of Ganesh's statue.

That's right.... miracles happen all the time... :-D Fatima, however, was one of the biggest known and witnessed miracles in the 20th Century.

Truth is a democracy now?

Has nothing to do with democracy. The Miracle at Fatima was witnessed by about 70 thousand people. It was documented by the press and the local authorities. Many pictures were taken. There is much that was documented and available to research about the miracle at Fatima. It happened and it was a major 'public event' and miracle in the 20 Century, unlike most modern day miracles.

If your question is ... just because thousands of people saw the miracle, does that make the miracle a truth that this phenomena did actually occur. Yes. If north is north. The documentation and unprecedented amount of people who did witness this miracle (from all religious faiths, BTW) in the 20th Century confirms for all history that this event and miracle did indeed take place. However, it is understandable why some people, not only atheists, can read the exhaustive evidence, testimonies and historical data of this event and say.... "no this miracle did not happen" and give their own justification to deny the evidence and testimony." But then, anyone is free to say north is south. :(

Dr. Wojtyla wrote: Whichever miracle got the most votes is the most true, rendering all the other religions' miracles false?

Miracles (God's intercession in the laws of nature) happen all the time all over the world throughout all cultures. Miracles are not restrained by man beliefs. God's grace and intercession in the material world (known as miracles by man) is not limited nor subjected to by man's religious belief. God's grace (through intercession) is God's grace.

Dr. Wojtyla wrote: Or are you saying the Catholic God also makes Ganesh cry milk?
There is One God. The same force (spirit) that allowed the miracle at Fatima to occur is the same force (spirit) that allows Ganesh to cry milk.

[greeneye]

Dr. Wojtyla wrote: But the dumb tend to be religious. Personally I think it has more to do with mental weakness. Oftentimes, though, I suspect perfectly intelligent people simply haven't gotten around to exploring metaphysical ideas.

This is a rather ignorant statement. Some of the greatest thinkers not only of our modern times but throughout history including scientists, philosophers, scholars, and literary giants were guided by their religious belief in God. These were not dumb people, Wojtyla These were visionaries and independent thinkers who went "against the status quo of belief" but yet greatly contributed toward civilization and the progressive movement of it, most of them in a positive way. And this, by no means is an exhaustive list.

So I might rephrase your statement, "Personally I think it has more to do with mental weakness" to say ... "I think it has more to do with mental greatness and a passion for compassion. And compassion is God's nature.

a.k.a. William Shakespeare
Adam Smith
Albert Einstein
Alexander Fleming
Alexander Graham Bell
Alexander the Great
Antoine Laurent Lavoisier
Antony van Leeuwenhoek
Aristotle
Asoka
Augustus Caesar
Buddha
Charlemagne
Charles Darwin
Christopher Columbus
Confucius
Constantine the Great
Cyrus the Great
Edward de Vere
Edward Jenner
Enrico Fermi
Ernest Rutherford
Euclid
Francis Bacon
Francisco Pizarro
Galileo Galilei
Genghis Khan
George Washington
Gregor Mendel
Gregory Pincus
Guglielmo Marconi
Henry Ford
Hernando Cortes
Homer
Isaac Newton
James Clerk Maxwell
James Watt
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Jesus Christ *
Johann Gutenberg
Johann Sebastian Bach
Johannes Kepler
John Calvin
John Dalton
John F. Kennedy
John Locke
Joseph Lister
Joseph Stalin
Julius Caesar
Justinian I
Lao Tzu
Leonhard Euler
Louis Daguerre
Louis Pasteur
Ludwig van Beethoven
Mahavira
Mani
Mao Zedong
Martin Luther
Max Planck
Mencius
Menes
Michael Faraday
Michelangelo
Mikhail Gorbachev
Moses
Muhammad
Napoleon Bonaparte
Nicholas Copernicus
Johannes Kepler
Galileo Galilei
Rene Descartes
Isaac Newton
Robert Boyle
Michael Faraday
Nicolaus Copernicus
Nicoli Machiavelli
Nikolaus August Otto
Oliver Cromwell
Orville and Wilbur Wright
Peter the Great
Plato
Pope Urban II
Queen Elizabeth I
Queen Isabella I
Rene Descartes
Roger Bacon
Shih Huang Ti
Sigmund Freud
Simon Bolivar
St. Augustine
St. Paul
Sui Wen Ti
Thomas Edison
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Moore
Thomas Malthus
Ts'ai Lun
'Umar ibn al-Khattab
Vasco da Gama
Voltaire
Werner Heisenberg
Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen
William Harvey
William T.G. Morton
William the Conqueror
Zoroaster

[Dr. Wojtyla]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: wormwood wrote: Quote: I'd be fine with a nation of atheist Buddhists So Buddhism doesn't count as a religion, in that Buddhists aren't naturally dumber like you say religious people are? Or are you ok with religious stupidity as long as it involves no deity?

No, I'm fine with it because atheistic Buddhism isn't a religion. A Buddhist atheist is just someone who tries to live their life along the middle path of moderation, attempting to detach oneself from worldly pleasure and suffering. There are two ways to deal with the very real problem of suffering and detachment is simply one of the two ways.

Yet on principal Tibetan Buddhists reject homosexuality behavior as wrong and do not accept female monks, interesting that simply because there is no God involved you can accept Buddhism beliefs, but not Catholic. beliefs.

You specifically said Tibetan Buddhists.

[Dr. Wojtyla]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: JDHURF wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: This is a fine hypothesis except that while Islam grows at an ever faster pace and Christianity continues to grow after 2000 years, although at a slower rate than in the past, atheism shows NO statistcal growth as a % of the population.

So if Islam, Christianity and other religions continue to grow and atheism remains a relatively fixed % of the population, how is it even remotely possible that "religion" will disappear over the next century? You seem to be oblivious to the reality of the world outside of the United States, Sweden 46-85% non-believers (atheists or agnostic), Vietnam 81%, Denmark 43-80%, Norway 31-72%, Japan 64-65%, Czech Republic 54-61%, Finland 28-60%, France 43-54%, etc.
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

Take a look again at WORLD growth rates on the very same site and you will find that what I said is true.

My point was WORLD wide growth rates NOT the USA or the top 50 countries, the world is a bit larger than that.

And Islam has replaced Christianity as the fastest growing religion, while Christianity continues to grow just not a fast as it had been. Atheism has no perceptible growth patter world wide.

Atheism relative to world population is a static % in a 5% according to YOUR site and that % is a subset of "nonreligious" more than half of which DO believe in God but do NOT go to a particular church, the rest are agnostics etc..

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

Unfortunately, Gilbert is right and JD is wrong. You can't cite a handful of countries and say this is part of a larger trend, as nearly every country not named is overrun with religion.

The truth is very few people are willing to admit to that they are atheists, but more the the point, very few people are completely devoid of religion.

Religion's failure in the 21st century will not be the story of the atheist population rising and the religious population falling. Rather, it will be a continuation of the trend observed in the 20th century: religion will matter less and less to the religious. The population of Christians will continue to be replaced with the population of "Christians." As the sphere of science and technology grows, religion itself will matter less and less. The defect in our brains that causes us to posit a supreme being will find other sources of satisfaction.

To say that religion will always be around is not unlike an ancient Egyptian saying someone, somewhere will always worship Osiris. No one, nowhere worships Osiris. One day, that will go for all the gods and all the pantheons.

I ask a simple question, when in world history have anything less than 95% of human beings done anything but believe there is God of some kind and then what possible evidence is there that in the forseeable future there is ANYTHING that would lead ANYONE to believe that level of would change?

Currently 16% of the world is non-religious. So that's 84% of people who actively believe in a God of some kind. That might not ever change. But people were more religious in the past, and that leads me to believe they'll probably be less religious in the future.

[John]

Dr. Wojtyla wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: JDHURF wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: This is a fine hypothesis except that while Islam grows at an ever faster pace and Christianity continues to grow after 2000 years, although at a slower rate than in the past, atheism shows NO statistcal growth as a % of the population.

So if Islam, Christianity and other religions continue to grow and atheism remains a relatively fixed % of the population, how is it even remotely possible that "religion" will disappear over the next century? You seem to be oblivious to the reality of the world outside of the United States, Sweden 46-85% non-believers (atheists or agnostic), Vietnam 81%, Denmark 43-80%, Norway 31-72%, Japan 64-65%, Czech Republic 54-61%, Finland 28-60%, France 43-54%, etc.
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

Take a look again at WORLD growth rates on the very same site and you will find that what I said is true.

My point was WORLD wide growth rates NOT the USA or the top 50 countries, the world is a bit larger than that.

And Islam has replaced Christianity as the fastest growing religion, while Christianity continues to grow just not a fast as it had been. Atheism has no perceptible growth patter world wide.

Atheism relative to world population is a static % in a 5% according to YOUR site and that % is a subset of "nonreligious" more than half of which DO believe in God but do NOT go to a particular church, the rest are agnostics etc..

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

Unfortunately, Gilbert is right and JD is wrong. You can't cite a handful of countries and say this is part of a larger trend, as nearly every country not named is overrun with religion.

The truth is very few people are willing to admit to that they are atheists, but more the the point, very few people are completely devoid of religion.

Religion's failure in the 21st century will not be the story of the atheist population rising and the religious population falling. Rather, it will be a continuation of the trend observed in the 20th century: religion will matter less and less to the religious. The population of Christians will continue to be replaced with the population of "Christians." As the sphere of science and technology grows, religion itself will matter less and less. The defect in our brains that causes us to posit a supreme being will find other sources of satisfaction.

To say that religion will always be around is not unlike an ancient Egyptian saying someone, somewhere will always worship Osiris. No one, nowhere worships Osiris. One day, that will go for all the gods and all the pantheons.

I ask a simple question, when in world history have anything less than 95% of human beings done anything but believe there is God of some kind and then what possible evidence is there that in the forseeable future there is ANYTHING that would lead ANYONE to believe that level of would change?

Currently 16% of the world is non-religious. So that's 84% of people who actively believe in a God of some kind. That might not ever change. But people were more religious in the past, and that leads me to believe they'll probably be less religious in the future.

What makes you think that people were more religious in past?

Are you basing your assumptions on the history of the US (a very young nation)?

[Dr. Wojtyla]

John wrote:

What makes you think that people were more religious in past?

Are you basing your assumptions on the history of the US (a very young nation)?

Are you joking? If anything the United States was a huge exception to this rule. The religious tolerance of the United States is one of the main reasons we can't imagine today what religion meant 300 years ago.

Take the most reactionary, orthodox Muslim country you can think of right now. That's how much religion was part of daily life everywhere for most of history. Today, the death penalty is reserved primarily for murderers, and occasionally drug dealers in some countries. In some countries, you can be put to death for religious offenses. This was far more common in the past.

In fact, in many of the countries I'm talking about, blasphemy laws are still on the books. They're simply so out of sync with modern values they're never enforced.

[John]

Dr. Wojtyla wrote: John wrote:

What makes you think that people were more religious in past?

Are you basing your assumptions on the history of the US (a very young nation)?

Are you joking? If anything the United States was a huge exception to this rule. The religious tolerance of the United States is one of the main reasons we can't imagine today what religion meant 300 years ago.

Take the most reactionary, orthodox Muslim country you can think of right now. That's how much religion was part of daily life everywhere for most of history. Today, the death penalty is reserved primarily for murderers, and occasionally drug dealers in some countries. In some countries, you can be put to death for religious offenses. This was far more common in the past.

In fact, in many of the countries I'm talking about, blasphemy laws are still on the books. They're simply so out of sync with modern values they're never enforced.

What you fail to see...is that these "modern" values are really "Christian" values....really not very "modern" at all. You're just benefiting from the results Christianity has had on some societies. Imagine Sweden or Norway is Christianity hadn't had its effect on them.

The reason things like hospitals exist is because it is a Christian concept.

[Dr. Wojtyla]

John wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: John wrote:

What makes you think that people were more religious in past?

Are you basing your assumptions on the history of the US (a very young nation)?

Are you joking? If anything the United States was a huge exception to this rule. The religious tolerance of the United States is one of the main reasons we can't imagine today what religion meant 300 years ago.

Take the most reactionary, orthodox Muslim country you can think of right now. That's how much religion was part of daily life everywhere for most of history. Today, the death penalty is reserved primarily for murderers, and occasionally drug dealers in some countries. In some countries, you can be put to death for religious offenses. This was far more common in the past.

In fact, in many of the countries I'm talking about, blasphemy laws are still on the books. They're simply so out of sync with modern values they're never enforced.

What you fail to see...is that these "modern" values are really "Christian" values....really not very "modern" at all. You're just benefiting from the results Christianity has had on some societies. Imagine Sweden or Norway is Christianity hadn't had its effect on them.

The reason things like hospitals exist is because it is a Christian concept.

It's not because people get sick and would like to pay money to get better?

[Dr. Wojtyla]

Either way, you can tell Christianity we said thanks for their services. Will they take a check?

[mODULAR mAN]

John wrote:
The reason things like hospitals exist is because it is a Christian concept.
Where do you get your info?!

Quote: One hundred years after Christ had died suppose some one had asked a Christian, What hospitals have you built? What asylums have you founded? They would have said "None." Suppose three hundred years after the death of Christ the same questions had been asked the Christian, he would have said "None, not one." Two hundred years more and the answer would have been the same. And at that time the Christian could have told the questioner that the Mohammedans had built asylums before the Christians. He could also have told him that there had been orphan asylums in China for hundreds and hundreds of years, hospitals in India, and hospitals for the sick at Athens.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/inginfid.htm


From wiki:
Quote: Early history of hospitals
In ancient cultures religion and medicine were linked. The earliest known institutions aiming to provide cure were Egyptian temples. Greek temples dedicated to the healer-god Asclepius might admit the sick, who would wait for guidance from the god in a dream. The Romans adopted his worship. Under his Roman name Æsculapius, he was provided with a temple (291 BC) on an island in the Tiber in Rome, where similar rites were performed.[1] State-supported hospitals also appeared in China later during the first millennium A.D.


[edit] Early hospitals in southern and western Asia
The Sinhalese (Sri Lankans) are perhaps responsible for introducing the concept of dedicated hospitals to the world. According to the Mahavamsa, the ancient chronicle of Sinhalese royalty written in the 6th century AC, King Pandukabhaya (4th century BC) had lying-in-homes and hospitals (Sivikasotthi-Sala) built in various parts of the country after having fortified his capital at Anuradhapura. This is the earliest literary evidence we have of institutions specifically dedicated to the care of the sick anywhere in the world.[2] Mihintale Hospital is perhaps the oldest in the world.[3]

Institutions created specifically to care for the ill also appeared early in India. King Ashoka founded 18 hospitals c. 230 BC. There were physicians and nursing staff, and the expense was borne by the royal treasury.[4]

The first teaching hospital, however, where students were authorized to methodically practice on patients under the supervision of physicians as part of their education, was the Academy of Gundishapur in the Persian Empire. One expert has argued that "to a very large extent, the credit for the whole hospital system must be given to Persia". [5]

[mODULAR mAN]

Gilbert1908 wrote: I ask a simple question, when in world history have anything less than 95% of human beings done anything but believe there is God of some kind and then what possible evidence is there that in the forseeable future there is ANYTHING that would lead ANYONE to believe that level of would change?

Atheism is growing, but I fear you are more or less correct. People will always believe in some god-concept because we are hardwired for it. (I could offer many polls that say one thing or another).

As history has shown, it won't always be the same god, but it will be some manifestation of the answer to the question "why?"

This is not a powerful enough reason for me to believe, but I accept that many people either need to believe, or couldn't be bothered to think about it (and are happy to have a sky-being they can plead for help to).


(BTW, I want to remind you that if 95% of people believe in a god, one has to wonder why there is so much war, evil and pain in the world? If they believe that their soul will be in jeopardy, then they must be acting in the belief that god is blessing them. This doesn't speak well for religion. Obviously, it isn't the 5% of atheists causing all the strife.)

[ideal]

Dr. Wojtyla wrote: John wrote:

What makes you think that people were more religious in past?

Are you basing your assumptions on the history of the US (a very young nation)?

Are you joking? If anything the United States was a huge exception to this rule. The religious tolerance of the United States is one of the main reasons we can't imagine today what religion meant 300 years ago.

Take the most reactionary, orthodox Muslim country you can think of right now. That's how much religion was part of daily life everywhere for most of history. Today, the death penalty is reserved primarily for murderers, and occasionally drug dealers in some countries. In some countries, you can be put to death for religious offenses. This was far more common in the past.

In fact, in many of the countries I'm talking about, blasphemy laws are still on the books. They're simply so out of sync with modern values they're never enforced.

I think your confusing religious leaders being more powerful with people being more religious. Five hundred years ago, science wasn't telling us much about the nature of our world. The only people answering those questions were clergy which put them in a position of power.

[thefranzkafkafront]

greeneye wrote: Dr. Wojtyla wrote: But the dumb tend to be religious. Personally I think it has more to do with mental weakness. Oftentimes, though, I suspect perfectly intelligent people simply haven't gotten around to exploring metaphysical ideas.

This is a rather ignorant statement. Some of the greatest thinkers not only of our modern times but throughout history including scientists, philosophers, scholars, and literary giants were guided by their religious belief in God. These were not dumb people, Wojtyla These were visionaries and independent thinkers who went "against the status quo of belief" but yet greatly contributed toward civilization and the progressive movement of it, most of them in a positive way. And this, by no means is an exhaustive list.

So I might rephrase your statement, "Personally I think it has more to do with mental weakness" to say ... "I think it has more to do with mental greatness and a passion for compassion. And compassion is God's nature.

a.k.a. William Shakespeare
Adam Smith
Albert Einstein
Alexander Fleming
Alexander Graham Bell
Alexander the Great
Antoine Laurent Lavoisier
Antony van Leeuwenhoek
Aristotle
Asoka
Augustus Caesar
Buddha
Charlemagne
Charles Darwin
Christopher Columbus
Confucius
Constantine the Great
Cyrus the Great
Edward de Vere
Edward Jenner
Enrico Fermi
Ernest Rutherford
Euclid
Francis Bacon
Francisco Pizarro
Galileo Galilei
Genghis Khan
George Washington
Gregor Mendel
Gregory Pincus
Guglielmo Marconi
Henry Ford
Hernando Cortes
Homer
Isaac Newton
James Clerk Maxwell
James Watt
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Jesus Christ *
Johann Gutenberg
Johann Sebastian Bach
Johannes Kepler
John Calvin
John Dalton
John F. Kennedy
John Locke
Joseph Lister
Joseph Stalin
Julius Caesar
Justinian I
Lao Tzu
Leonhard Euler
Louis Daguerre
Louis Pasteur
Ludwig van Beethoven
Mahavira
Mani
Mao Zedong
Martin Luther
Max Planck
Mencius
Menes
Michael Faraday
Michelangelo
Mikhail Gorbachev
Moses
Muhammad
Napoleon Bonaparte
Nicholas Copernicus
Johannes Kepler
Galileo Galilei
Rene Descartes
Isaac Newton
Robert Boyle
Michael Faraday
Nicolaus Copernicus
Nicoli Machiavelli
Nikolaus August Otto
Oliver Cromwell
Orville and Wilbur Wright
Peter the Great
Plato
Pope Urban II
Queen Elizabeth I
Queen Isabella I
Rene Descartes
Roger Bacon
Shih Huang Ti
Sigmund Freud
Simon Bolivar
St. Augustine
St. Paul
Sui Wen Ti
Thomas Edison
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Moore
Thomas Malthus
Ts'ai Lun
'Umar ibn al-Khattab
Vasco da Gama
Voltaire
Werner Heisenberg
Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen
William Harvey
William T.G. Morton
William the Conqueror
Zoroaster

Um..... what?

[JDHURF]

Yeah, I don’t think he bothered to look over that list before he posted it, what with clear atheists like Stalin, Gorbachev, Einstein, Voltaire, etc.

[John]

Quote: Where do you get your info?!


“Christianity, as soon as it conquered the state, put an end to gladiatorial shows, not because they were cruel, but because they were idolatrous. The result, however, was to diminish the widespread education in cruelty by which the populace of Roman towns were degraded. Christianity also did much to soften the lot of slaves. It established charity on a large scale, and inaugurated hospitals”
-Bertrand Russell