The decline of evangelical Christians.

[Yonadav]

Not really, if we suppose a right wing violent take over, the first people oppressed would be liberals, Jews like Ben Shapiro, and atheist like Richard Spencer would probably do well. In the age of Trump, all that matters is you toe the party line, not your religious affiliations, or lack there of.


I support secular governments. Christianity in its original conception lacked any political power, or even pretense of acquiring it, and it was far more admirable and radical in that form, then once it took the thrown from Rome.


Yea, but not much now, they seem to get along just fine, in spite of their differences.

Damn you are ignorant of history. Even today if you go to Ireland, they literally have walled off communities between Catholics and Protestants. For you to claim that the different sects of Christianity get along is nonsense. 

FYI, as far as Rome falling to Christianity, that was not because a God caused it, it was because the old polytheism fell out of favor.

The early Church Rome adapted simply replaced the brutality of the prior polytheism with the brutality of the early Church. It is a myth that every single pope in it's history was kind and non violent. Christianity was spread throughout Europe through force the same way The ancient Roman polytheists used force to create their dynasty.

Just so you know, the obelisk in St Peter's square was the same obelisk brutal tyrant Caligula stole from Egypt. The Church would claim it was a symbol noting the defeat of evil, but the reality is all that use of it was, was saying, "Now we are the top dog."

Don't study history through the lens of a hobbyhorse issue. The violence between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland was more of an ethnic conflict than a religious one. The Catholics were from indigenous families that had been oppressed by British invaders who were Protestant. So it was a natives verses invaders conflict. The participants in such conflicts will always use inflammatory rhetoric about the ways in which the other side is different. Hence, the hateful religious rhetoric in conflicts in which the belligerents are of different religions.

Telling people that they are ignorant doesn't make you look like you are dominating the discussion.  It just makes you look like you are trying to feel good about you.

[Brian37]

Damn you are ignorant of history. Even today if you go to Ireland, they literally have walled off communities between Catholics and Protestants. For you to claim that the different sects of Christianity get along is nonsense. 

FYI, as far as Rome falling to Christianity, that was not because a God caused it, it was because the old polytheism fell out of favor.

The early Church Rome adapted simply replaced the brutality of the prior polytheism with the brutality of the early Church. It is a myth that every single pope in it's history was kind and non violent. Christianity was spread throughout Europe through force the same way The ancient Roman polytheists used force to create their dynasty.

Just so you know, the obelisk in St Peter's square was the same obelisk brutal tyrant Caligula stole from Egypt. The Church would claim it was a symbol noting the defeat of evil, but the reality is all that use of it was, was saying, "Now we are the top dog."

Don't study history through the lens of a hobbyhorse issue. The violence between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland was more of an ethnic conflict than a religious one. The Catholics were from indigenous families that had been oppressed by British invaders who were Protestant. So it was a natives verses invaders conflict. The participants in such conflicts will always use inflammatory rhetoric about the ways in which the other side is different. Hence, the hateful religious rhetoric in conflicts in which the belligerents are of different religions.

Telling people that they are ignorant doesn't make you look like you are dominating the discussion.  It just makes you look like you are trying to feel good about you.

Holy shit do I hate that dodge.

Yes religion caused the conflict between Catholics and Protestants, period. 

Catholic is a religion, nothing more. Protestant is a religion, nothing more. Both are sub sects of Christianity. And both sects also exist outside Ireland as well.

I am not Irish myself, but I was raised a Catholic here in America, so it is an absurd claim that it is "ethnic".

I have the same problem when Jews and Muslims fight over Palestine/Israel and forget polytheists existed in that same land prior to either.

Same with Buddhism. Richard Gere is a pasty white American, who was not born in Asia, but calls himself Buddhist. Sammy Davis Jr is black, and called himself Jewish.

Nobody can change their skin tone or facial features, but there is plenty of evidence worldwide that humans do give up prior claims their parents and or society sold them, leave those positions for other religions, or ditch them altogether.

[Acrobat]

Damn you are ignorant of history. Even today if you go to Ireland, they literally have walled off communities between Catholics and Protestants. For you to claim that the different sects of Christianity get along is nonsense. 

The Ireland question aside, by in large, in today worlds, christians have gotten along just fine with other christian sects. 

Clearly you recognize that in America we get along just fine?

Now there's close to 2 billions christian in the world, what percentage would you say of these christian seem to be able to get along with other christians of different denominations?

The entire population of Ireland is about 5million, so that barely even makes a dent.

[Yonadav]

Don't study history through the lens of a hobbyhorse issue. The violence between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland was more of an ethnic conflict than a religious one. The Catholics were from indigenous families that had been oppressed by British invaders who were Protestant. So it was a natives verses invaders conflict. The participants in such conflicts will always use inflammatory rhetoric about the ways in which the other side is different. Hence, the hateful religious rhetoric in conflicts in which the belligerents are of different religions.

Telling people that they are ignorant doesn't make you look like you are dominating the discussion.  It just makes you look like you are trying to feel good about you.

Holy shit do I hate that dodge.

Yes religion caused the conflict between Catholics and Protestants, period. 

Catholic is a religion, nothing more. Protestant is a religion, nothing more. Both are sub sects of Christianity. And both sects also exist outside Ireland as well.

I am not Irish myself, but I was raised a Catholic here in America, so it is an absurd claim that it is "ethnic".

I have the same problem when Jews and Muslims fight over Palestine/Israel and forget polytheists existed in that same land prior to either.

Same with Buddhism. Richard Gere is a pasty white American, who was not born in Asia, but calls himself Buddhist. Sammy Davis Jr is black, and called himself Jewish.

Nobody can change their skin tone or facial features, but there is plenty of evidence worldwide that humans do give up prior claims their parents and or society sold them, leave those positions for other religions, or ditch them altogether.

You are one who is dodging reality.  The Irish were Catholic. The British were Protestant. The Protestants in Ireland are the descendants of British invaders. The Catholics are descended from the indigenous population. When Catholics and Protestants are trying to kill each other, there is another contentious factor in play.

You make my case for me, when you cite being a Catholic here in America. When was the last time that a Protestant tried to kill you? How much hatred have you experienced from Protestants? As an American, you aren't an Irishman fighting against British oppression.

[Brian37]

Damn you are ignorant of history. Even today if you go to Ireland, they literally have walled off communities between Catholics and Protestants. For you to claim that the different sects of Christianity get along is nonsense. 

The Ireland question aside, by in large, in today worlds, christians have gotten along just fine with other christian sects. 

Clearly you recognize that in America we get along just fine?

Now there's close to 2 billions christian in the world, what percentage would you say of these christian seem to be able to get along with other christians of different denominations?

The entire population of Ireland is about 5million, so that barely even makes a dent.

Where?

Less violent today, does not mean were never violent, nor does it mean they cant get violent in the future.

No, sorry, even today, even though the different sects of Christianity are more civil today, does not mean Christianity is the cause of that civility. Again, religion in the west became less violent in spite of religion, not because of it.

Even today even in America we see plenty of right wing Christian hate groups who have committed crimes against other liberal Christians. Even today you will not get a White Evangelical Trump voting Baptist to agree with a black Baptist who voted for Obama. 

This isn't just about Christianity. Even in Asia, you wont get a Tibet Buddhist sect to agree with a Chinese Buddhist sect with a Japanese Shinto Buddhist sect.

The reason the west became more civil, is not because of religion, but because of concepts of checks on power.

---

And again, I am being very fair. Not even the word "atheist" denotes nationality, ethnic, race. "Atheist" doesn't even denote political or economic view. The world would still have divisions and conflicts, even if all 7 billion of us were atheists.

The point is all 7 billion of us are one thing, humans, the same species. Our borders and social norms we are used to, are of locality, but that does not change nor will ever change that we are the same species.

[Yonadav]

The Ireland question aside, by in large, in today worlds, christians have gotten along just fine with other christian sects. 

Clearly you recognize that in America we get along just fine?

Now there's close to 2 billions christian in the world, what percentage would you say of these christian seem to be able to get along with other christians of different denominations?

The entire population of Ireland is about 5million, so that barely even makes a dent.

Where?

Less violent today, does not mean were never violent, nor does it mean they cant get violent in the future.

No, sorry, even today, even though the different sects of Christianity are more civil today, does not mean Christianity is the cause of that civility. Again, religion in the west became less violent in spite of religion, not because of it.

Even today even in America we see plenty of right wing Christian hate groups who have committed crimes against other liberal Christians. Even today you will not get a White Evangelical Trump voting Baptist to agree with a black Baptist who voted for Obama. 

This isn't just about Christianity. Even in Asia, you wont get a Tibet Buddhist sect to agree with a Chinese Buddhist sect with a Japanese Shinto Buddhist sect.

The reason the west became more civil, is not because of religion, but because of concepts of checks on power.

I personally haven't said anything about there being peace because of religion. Don't set up such an obvious strawman.
And you again argue my point for me by using examples like white baptists and black baptists. If they were of a different religion, you would be claiming that they are fighting over religion.  I would point out that the conflict is racial with one side enjoying privilege and the other experiencing oppression. And then you would probably tell me that I am ignorant.

[Brian37]

Where?

Less violent today, does not mean were never violent, nor does it mean they cant get violent in the future.

No, sorry, even today, even though the different sects of Christianity are more civil today, does not mean Christianity is the cause of that civility. Again, religion in the west became less violent in spite of religion, not because of it.

Even today even in America we see plenty of right wing Christian hate groups who have committed crimes against other liberal Christians. Even today you will not get a White Evangelical Trump voting Baptist to agree with a black Baptist who voted for Obama. 

This isn't just about Christianity. Even in Asia, you wont get a Tibet Buddhist sect to agree with a Chinese Buddhist sect with a Japanese Shinto Buddhist sect.

The reason the west became more civil, is not because of religion, but because of concepts of checks on power.

I personally haven't said anything about there being peace because of religion. Don't set up such an obvious strawman.
And you again argue my point for me by using examples like white baptists and black baptists. If they were of a different religion, you would be claiming that they are fighting over religion.  I would point out that the conflict is racial with one side enjoying privilege and the other experiencing oppression. And then you would probably tell me that I am ignorant.

UGGGGGGG!

Now you use the word "racial". First you used "ethnic" next it will be "cultural."

Please do one thing, accept that I am not arguing against human rights. Then accept that I am not saying race and ethic or culture are things that do not exist, THEY DO. But merely as artificial constructs humans came up with, and yes, those things cause divisions. All I am arguing is that that there are enough people in religion who hide behind the words "race" "ethnic" and "culture". That ignorance is what allows things like the genocide of the holocaust, or the genocide of Native Americans or even today the mistreatment, abuse and murder by Buddhists of Muslims living in Myanmar. 

"Atheist" is not a race, an ethic or cultural thing is it? White people are not the only atheists in the world. There are Irish atheists, and Italian atheists, and former Muslims and former Jews and former Hindus, and black atheists as well. 

Again, I cannot escape my skin color or facial features. But I did give up my former religion. 

If you want better relations between different races, ethnics, cultures, then it is paramount to not let anyone of any religion to use religious excuses to justify the tribalism between those artificial constructs.

[Yonadav]

I personally haven't said anything about there being peace because of religion. Don't set up such an obvious strawman.
And you again argue my point for me by using examples like white baptists and black baptists. If they were of a different religion, you would be claiming that they are fighting over religion.  I would point out that the conflict is racial with one side enjoying privilege and the other experiencing oppression. And then you would probably tell me that I am ignorant.

UGGGGGGG!

Now you use the word "racial". First you used "ethnic" next it will be "cultural."

Please do one thing, accept that I am not arguing against human rights. Then accept that I am not saying race and ethic or culture are things that do not exist, THEY DO. But merely as artificial constructs humans came up with, and yes, those things cause divisions. All I am arguing is that that there are enough people in religion who hide behind the words "race" "ethnic" and "culture". That ignorance is what allows things like the genocide of the holocaust, or the genocide of Native Americans or even today the mistreatment, abuse and murder by Buddhists of Muslims living in Myanmar. 

"Atheist" is not a race, an ethic or cultural thing is it? White people are not the only atheists in the world. There are Irish atheists, and Italian atheists, and former Muslims and former Jews and former Hindus, and black atheists as well. 

Again, I cannot escape my skin color or facial features. But I did give up my former religion. 

If you want better relations between different races, ethnics, cultures, then it is paramount to not let anyone of any religion to use religious excuses to justify the tribalism between those artificial constructs.

You are the one who used the example of white baptists and black baptists. I pointed out that you are being wildly inconsistent. First you argue that people are fighting over religion, and then inexplicably tried to somehow backup your argument with the example of white and black baptists. You shot down your own argument.

You also shot down your own argument when you used Ireland's strife between Protestants and Catholics. I pointed out that the Catholics were Irishmen fighting British oppressors who were Protestants. You tried to use your own American Catholic upbringing to inexplicably disprove this, but only demonstrated that you aren't an Irishman fighting British oppressors.

You distort reality by viewing everything through an anti-religious lens.

[Jehanne]

I believe that peace in Northern Ireland was due to the rise of atheistic naturalism.

Protestantism is stiring the BS clockwise as opposed to counterclockwise.

[Yonadav]

I believe that peace in Northern Ireland was due to the rise of atheistic naturalism.

Protestantism is stiring the BS clockwise as opposed to counterclockwise.

I would say that EU membership and a pretty good economy had a lot to do with it. And according to one former Provo that I know, it was because their mothers told them that they wanted the fighting to stop.