Statistics of Democide by TheHappyTrader

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Statistics of Democide

POSTED BY: THEHAPPYTRADER
UPDATED: Saturday, October 16, 2010 07:34
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1188
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, October 14, 2010 7:43 AM

Democide is a term coined by the political scientist R. J. Rummel for "the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder."

We seem quick to blame most of the problems of the world on religion, but is that really the case? I found some interesting statistics concerning as much. I hope the charts come out readable

Selected Pre-20th Century Democide and Totals1
Cases Years2 Democide3 Religious?
China 221 B.C.-19 C. 33,519,0004 No
Mongols 14 C-15 C 29,927,000 No
Slavery of Africans 1451-1870 17,267,000 No
Amer-Indians 16 C-19 C 13,778,000 No
Thirty Years War 1618-1648 5,750,000 No
In India 13 C-1 9 C 4,511,0005 No
In Iran 5 C-19 C 2,000,0004,5 No
Ottoman Empire 12 C-19 C 2,000,0005 No
In Japan 1570-19 C 1,500,0005 No
In Russia 10 C-19 C 1,007,0005 No
Christian Crusades 1095-1272 1,000,000 Yes
Aztecs Centuries 1,000,0006 Yes
Spanish Inquisition 16 C-18 C 350,000 Yes
French Revolution 1793-1794 263,000 No
Albigensian Crusade 1208-1249 200,000 Yes
Witch Hunts 15 C-17 C 100,000 Yes
Total For All Cases pre-20 C 133,147,000 2,650,000
Hypothetical Total 30 C B.C.-19 C A.D. 625,716,0007
International war-related dead 30 C B.C.-19 C A.D. 40,457,0008
Plague dead (Black Death) 541 A.D.-1912 102,070,0009

1. Adopted from STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE.
2. Unless otherwise noted, years and centuries are A.D.
3. Unless otherwise noted, these are a best guess estimate in a low to high range.
4. Excludes democide in China by Mongols.
5. An absolute low.
6. A very speculative absolute low.
7. From STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE.. Calculated from the 20th century democide rate and the population for each century since 30 B.C.
8. From table STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE. Total undoubtedly inflated by democide.
9. A minimum: includes plague dead in circa 541-542 A.D.; 1346-1771 in Europe; 1771 in Moscow; 1894 in Hong Kong; and 1898-1912 in India. From Duplaix (1988, p. 677-678).

What percentage of these killings were due to religious democide? It is less than 3% of the totals. The surprising thing is that these killings occurred during a period of time when virtually all the peoples of the world were involved in some sort of religion. Here is the data for the 20th century:
TABLE 1.2
20th Century Democide1
REGIMES YEARS DEMOCIDE2 Atheist?
U.S.S.R. 1917-87 61,911,000 Yes
China (PRC) 1949-87 35,236,000 Yes
Germany 1933-45 20,946,000 No
China (KMT) 1928-49 10,075,000 No
Japan 1936-45 5,964,000 No
China (Mao Soviets)3 1923-49 3,466,000 Yes
Cambodia 1975-79 2,035,000 Yes
Turkey (Armenian Genocide) 1909-18 1,883,000 No
Vietnam 1945-87 1,670,000 Yes
Poland 1945-48 1,585,000 Yes
Pakistan 1958-87 1,503,000 No
Yugoslavia (Tito) 1944-87 1,072,000 Yes
North Korea 1948-87 1,663,000 Yes
Mexico 1900-20 1,417,000 No
Russia 1900-17 1,066,000 Yes
China (Warlords) 1917-49 910,000 No
Turkey (Ataturk) 1919-23 878,000 No
United Kingdom 1900-87 816,000 No
Portugal (Dictatorship) 1926-82 741,000 No
Indonesia 1965-87 729,000 No
LESSER MURDERERS 1900-87 2,792,000 ?
WORLD TOTAL 1900-87 169,202,000 107,047,000

1. From STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE.
2. Includes genocide, politicide, and mass murder; excludes war-dead. These are probable mid-estimates in low to high ranges. Figures may not sum due to round off.
3. Guerrilla period.

A lists 22 atheistic regimes that committed 153,368,610 murders in the 20th century alone:
Murders by Atheists (20th Century) Country Dates Murders
Afghanistan 1978–1992 1,750,000
Albania 1944–1985 100,000
Angola 1975–2002 125,000
Bulgaria 1944–1989 222,000
China/PRC 1923–2007 76,702,000
Cuba 1959–1992 73,000
Czechoslovakia 1948–1968 65,000
Ethiopia 1974–1991 1,343,610
France 1793–1794 40,000
Greece 1946–1949 20,000
Hungary 1948–1989 27,000
Kampuchea/Cambodia 1973–1991 2,627,000
Laos 1975–2007 93,000
Mongolia 1926–2007 100,000
Mozambique 1975–1990 118,000
North Korea 1948–2007 3,163,000
Poland 1945–1948 1,607,000
Romania 1948–1987 438,000
Spain (Republic) 1936–1939 102,000
U.S.S.R. 1917–1987 61,911,000
Vietnam 1945–2007 1,670,000
Yugoslavia 1944–1980 1,072,000

Now, I'm not claiming Atheism makes people violent. This is just a response to all the go se claiming their would be no violence without 'irrational religion.' As we can clearly see, atheist are capable of mass murder and intolerance too. Do we assume astheist are fundamentally flawed or do we attribute this to human nature, personal failure or a number of other factors? Can we do the same when it comes to religious people and violence? What do yall think?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2010 7:55 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Heavens, who was so stupid as to say there would be no violence without 'irrational religion'? That's just plain stupid. Humans will find any NUMBER of "reasons" to be violent, and religion is probably among the lesser of those. Power, politics, nationalism, ethnic differences, corruption, racism...the list is endless. Religion is just another prejudice which can be taken to great lengths to attain power.

We are a species of war; if not religion, many other rationalizations are just as convenient!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:05 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
As we can clearly see, atheist are capable of mass murder and intolerance too.

Which one?

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:19 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
As we can clearly see, atheist are capable of mass murder and intolerance too.

Which one?

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

I'm not sure I follow, but I suspect your referring to my less than perfect grammer or somesuch. I was basically saying, Atheist can be every bit as intolerant and violent as religious folks.

Also concerning who said the 'irrational religion' thing. I was paraphrasing multiple comments and the general sense I often get from RWED when religion is mentioned, specially in association with terrorism. I try not to call people out specifically, unless I need clarification on something, as I'm more interested in ideas than 'winning' an argument against a particular person.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:25 AM

KWICKO

Actually, I was pointing out that there is one grammatical error that it seems that EVERY SINGLE "CONSERVATIVE" on this site makes: They are serially unable to learn how to pluralize words that end in "-ist".

I have to wonder, is there a special Republican School where they teach the exact same bad grammar lessons? Is that also where they teach right-wingers to drop the last syllable off the Democratic party's name? (Or is that because right-winger's have trouble with words of more than four syllables?)

The plural of "terrorist" is not "terrorist"; it's "terrorists".
The plural of "atheist" is not "atheist", it's "atheists".

Quote:

Also concerning who said the 'irrational religion' thing. I was paraphrasing multiple comments

Don't do that. Rappy gets very, very, VERY angry when you do that, and starts DEMANDING that you track down his exact quote, or retract everything you ever said.

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:48 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Haha, I'm choosing not to take offense at the right winger comments. I don't really like to be lumped in with any one group, and my own grammar problems stem from my own struggles in classes. Not that it's an excuse for everything, but I am dyslexic. Reading and writing was a struggle for me for a long time and only in the past couple of years have I began to do either for personal enjoyment. Also, spell check catches me when I write beleive instead of believe but does not inform me of atheist vs atheists.

Maybe the right wingers at large have some tendencies, but please don't attribute my reading/writing issues to them or their own things to me. I'm not a straight ticket voter, or a blind follower of anything. I even voted for Obama, though in hindsight I'm not sure it was the correct choice, but I really don't want this to become an Obama based thread.

Funny note on the Rappy thing, though I don't believe that is exclusive to him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:31 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Now, I'm not claiming Atheism makes people violent. This is just a response to all the go se claiming their would be no violence without 'irrational religion.' As we can clearly see, atheist are capable of mass murder and intolerance too. Do we assume astheist are fundamentally flawed or do we attribute this to human nature, personal failure or a number of other factors? Can we do the same when it comes to religious people and violence? What do yall think?

I wouldn't really call the listed regimes atheist. I'd actually call them secular; China in particular does have a few religions, state sponsored. There's Taoism, and Confucianism, and Buddhism, and they have set up their own Dalai Lama, which is why they're at odds with the one from Tibet...

I'd actually look pretty closely at what this commentator is trying to say and his background. Most people who play with numbers and statistics have an agenda.

Not to say atheists aren't irrational, I am one, and I think the religion (and it is one) has flaws. As such, I'm perfectly willing to allow practice and even teaching of ideas with a religious origin in school, so long as the community agrees to it, and so long as minority faiths can opt out. Perhaps a different model for schools could adequately meet the needs of both groups without having to divide or segregate.

I think if you want to find where violence comes from, you need to look no farther than extremist versions of religion or ideology. The normal religious and ideological folks are still nuts in their own way, but harmless. It's probably unfair to paint both with the same brush.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2010 12:34 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Haha, I'm choosing not to take offense at the right winger comments. I don't really like to be lumped in with any one group, and my own grammar problems stem from my own struggles in classes. Not that it's an excuse for everything, but I am dyslexic. Reading and writing was a struggle for me for a long time and only in the past couple of years have I began to do either for personal enjoyment. Also, spell check catches me when I write beleive instead of believe but does not inform me of atheist vs atheists.

Maybe the right wingers at large have some tendencies, but please don't attribute my reading/writing issues to them or their own things to me. I'm not a straight ticket voter, or a blind follower of anything. I even voted for Obama, though in hindsight I'm not sure it was the correct choice, but I really don't want this to become an Obama based thread.

Fair enough. I tend to notice patterns, so things like that tend to jump out at me.

Quote:

Funny note on the Rappy thing, though I don't believe that is exclusive to him.

Funny!

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2010 12:38 PM

KWICKO

Quote:

Not to say atheists aren't irrational, I am one, and I think the religion (and it is one) has flaws.

Sorry, no. Atheism is NOT a religion. It's "areligion" - it's the utter LACK of a religion. Christians, Jews, Muslims... they all have one god. They are atheists towards every other god that everyone else might believe in, but they still have their one god that they believe in. Atheists just go them one god further in their disbelief.

Atheism isn't a religion any more than science is a religion, or economics is a religion.

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2010 12:48 PM

KWICKO

Byte, I do think you're on the right track with the secularism and radical ideologies, though.

I'd call it "statism" rather than even secularism. Communism was SUPPOSED to do away with gods AND the state - once people were "enlightened", the state would wither and die away (no more ludicrous an idea than Adam Smith's supposition that all people would act out of "enlightened self interest").

Problem is, in the old Soviet Union, and seemingly with China too, for the most part, the gods just end up getting REPLACED with The State. Instead of worshipping god, people worship the state, and it becomes the most important thing in their lives, one way or another.

So they aren't really atheists, but statists. And as such, they can easily become radical zealots, just the same as fervent religious freaks often do.

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2010 1:52 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Sorry, no. Atheism is NOT a religion. It's "areligion" - it's the utter LACK of a religion. Christians, Jews, Muslims... they all have one god. They are atheists towards every other god that everyone else might believe in, but they still have their one god that they believe in. Atheists just go them one god further in their disbelief.

Atheism isn't a religion any more than science is a religion, or economics is a religion.

Oh? Does Atheism not inform the world view? Is it something that cannot be known, but which you believe on principle or faith, because you can't believe anything else?

When Atheism is paired with science, not only do you have a faith; you have a set of rules. Scientific Method. Good. Well meaning. But increasing iterations of science become increasingly closed minded, refusing to question the conclusions of yesteryear.

Religion.

Arrogance to think any belief is special, and separate/different from the problems plaguing other belief systems.

Atheists just have it crapsack, because we can't even take comfort in anything like the other religions do. Eat, shit, sleep, then die. Insignificance is the truth we are too nervous to look in the face.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2010 1:53 PM

DREAMTROVE

Thanks for the statistics, they're decent ballpark. A scan for socialists in that lot would also return some conclusions on why people were unlikely to support socialists.

Overall, organizations that are large and in charge are involved. Organized religion is clearly a threat, but religion isn't. Neither is atheism. But secular govt. is. Monarchy is.

A thing no one wants to research is what almost all of these have in common. And of course, that would be something that said common element has an interest in you not researching. Jes sayin.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2010 2:40 PM

MAL4PREZ

I had a post here about science, but had to rethink it. I'm an atheist, and base that on science. I don't think of it as a belief system, as much as scientific method.

I'll believe what there is evidence for, but there is no evidence behind religion. In that way, atheism is not a belief system in the way that msot religions are.

I am not blindly believing something because some schmoe wrote a book a few thousand years ago. I am believing what my own eyes tell me. That is not a belief system as much as it is a science.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2010 3:28 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Sorry, no. Atheism is NOT a religion. It's "areligion" - it's the utter LACK of a religion. Christians, Jews, Muslims... they all have one god. They are atheists towards every other god that everyone else might believe in, but they still have their one god that they believe in. Atheists just go them one god further in their disbelief.

Atheism isn't a religion any more than science is a religion, or economics is a religion.

Oh? Does Atheism not inform the world view? Is it something that cannot be known, but which you believe on principle or faith, because you can't believe anything else?

Sorry, but by those criteria believing your house is haunted or believing in the existence of Atlantis would qualify as "religions", too. :)

Quote:

When Atheism is paired with science, not only do you have a faith; you have a set of rules. Scientific Method. Good. Well meaning. But increasing iterations of science become increasingly closed minded, refusing to question the conclusions of yesteryear.

Religion.

Really? It seems I hear some new scientific hypothesis every year, some new way of thinking about an old, "accepted" conclusion. Science is the practice of asking, "And then?", "Why?", and "What next?"

Quote:

Arrogance to think any belief is special, and separate/different from the problems plaguing other belief systems.

Atheists just have it crapsack, because we can't even take comfort in anything like the other religions do. Eat, shit, sleep, then die. Insignificance is the truth we are too nervous to look in the face.

You got a frog in your pocket? Who's this "we" you speak of? ;)

I'm keenly aware of our insignificance - as a species, as a planet, as a solar system.

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2010 4:37 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:

Sorry, but by those criteria believing your house is haunted or believing in the existence of Atlantis would qualify as "religions", too. :)

You know if you believe in ghosts and paranormal and psychics, you're more likely to believe in angels? There's a reason for that.

At the same time, not believing has the same likelyhood of making you less likely to believe other stuff, and yet it is often just as inflexible as a positive belief.

Quote:
Really? It seems I hear some new scientific hypothesis every year, some new way of thinking about an old, "accepted" conclusion. Science is the practice of asking, "And then?", "Why?", and "What next?"

My problem is I've begun to think science is less about this now, and more about feeling smug and superior; then trying to prove it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2010 5:13 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Hey, discussion that is not entirely You're wrong I'm right based. Shiney!

I personally have never thought of atheism as a religion, but those are interesting points on atheism as a cultural influence.

Whoever made the comment about organization being what is most dangerous, I am totally in agreement. I thought these stats were interesting on account of I am so often hearing (perhaps in the real world more than RWED) arguments to the effect of religion is so evil, more people have been killed in the name of God than anything blah blah blah horseshit. My intention was to show how ridiculous it is to call 3% of historical killings a majority.

I also found it very interesting that people are bringing up differing classifications of atheists or nonreligious folk. Every form of atheism (state-ism, etc...) is lumped together for the same reason every religion is. These are general religion vs no religion stats, not Islam vs Christianity vs socialism vs atheism vs flying spaghetti monster. Funny how when we speak of Islamic terrorists or Christian bigots the specific classifications and denominations aren't so important...

On not believing in something you have no evidence of, I won't fault you for it. Part of faith is being able to believe in something greater than the self without requiring instant gratification to your every question. On that same notion, it ain't smart to just put your faith in anything without thinking about it. I have nothing against atheists (remembered the 's' this time) and am not of the mindset that every belief contrary to mine is inferior and leads straight to hell.

Concerning religion and science, there's a quote that pretty much sums up my viewpoint and goes something to the tune of "Religion without science is foolish, but science without religion is pointless." Absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence after all. Just because you can't understand something, doesn't mean it can't exist. Not necessarily looking to change minds as much as open 'em a little.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 15, 2010 8:07 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I see atheism as a "philosophy" much like buddhism. No god to pray to, no one all-powerful figure looking over your shoulder judging you. No heaven, no hell. I was an atheist before I found buddhism, which gave me some new insight into myself and others, so I decided to pursue it. But, despite it being called such, it's not a religion.

What fascinates me is that nobody every mentions the correlation between buddhism and atheism. Buddhists ARE atheists, in that we don't believe in a "god"...but maybe the separation comes in that we do believe in some sort of general balanced force that affects people's lives. Dunno.

But I don't see atheism as a "religion" at all. Doesn't religion require gathering, teachings, rules, and looking to someone outside of yourself who has influence in your life and to whom you must pray? Atheism fits none of those criteria.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 15, 2010 3:46 PM

DREAMTROVE

Byte,

I think that's the difference between science and scientists. Science is about what's possible, Scientists are often about what they can get credit for, and not letting go of what they've already gotten credit for that might in fact be wrong...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 15, 2010 3:50 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence after all. Just because you can't understand something, doesn't mean it can't exist. Not necessarily looking to change minds as much as open 'em a little.

My solidifed worldview says no no no! and my skepticism says haha, I'm a dumbass.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 15, 2010 3:53 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
But I don't see atheism as a "religion" at all. Doesn't religion require gathering, teachings, rules, and looking to someone outside of yourself who has influence in your life and to whom you must pray? Atheism fits none of those criteria.

Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, and a few others are prominent preachers of the atheist faith. You don't have to worship a god to worship at the altar of narcissism.

When you believe that strongly and don't care if you offend anyone else, and don't question any of your beliefs, it's hard to argue it's not a religious belief.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 15, 2010 3:57 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Byte,

I think that's the difference between science and scientists. Science is about what's possible, Scientists are often about what they can get credit for, and not letting go of what they've already gotten credit for that might in fact be wrong...

True.

I like science and I practice it. I think it's the best hope we all have (that's why I classify myself as a scientific atheist). But I think other people... twist it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 16, 2010 7:34 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I still don't see atheism as a "religion" and probably never will, no more than I view buddhism as a "religion". I think both are philosophies, and I believe "religion" denotes some "god" to follow.

I do agree about the difference between science and scientists, definitely!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE