I know that some pretty evil ideologies like fascist and colonialism existed in the past...

Native American religions

...

Aztec religion

>fascism
>evil

>evil

>evil

>Fascism
>Evil

All monotheistic religions have done more harm than good.

I'm a pretty goddamn staunch Atheist, but that is an unquantifiable statement.

>trying to quantify a philosophical matter
There's your problem.

It's an absolute statement so it damn well ought to be.

>evil

>absolute statement
I know it's easy to assume this, but it isn't, I don't intend for it to be absolute with no exceptions.

Monotheism was largely to blame for the atrocious Dark Ages, the crusades, the unbelievably long stretch of retarded "philosophers" and scholars / theologians between the Greeks and ~18th century Europe. Not to say everything was bad, but it was only until we started climbing out of that monotheistic hole that we started advancing and becoming more self-deified again.

Scientology.

>evil

Apply yourself.

>this extremely shallow understanding of religion and/or cultures

People were born cunts and will use any means to be cunts to one another.

>he fell for the "Middle Ages were dark because of noprogress" meme

They were dark because the dominant ideologies were shit.

>Monasticism
>Excrement

youtube.com/watch?v=VABSoHYQr6k

3/10

Dark Ages are called dark because of lack of written sources.

As if anything would have been worth preserving. Much of the Middle Ages was intellectually worthless to say the least, excluding any technological progress.

>This is a legacy from both the Renaissance and Enlightenment, when scholars contrasted their intellectual cultures with those of the medieval period, to the detriment of the Middle Ages. Renaissance scholars saw the Middle Ages as a period of decline from the high culture and civilisation of the Classical world; Enlightenment scholars saw reason as superior to faith, and thus viewed the Middle Ages as a time of ignorance and superstition.[13]

That image has been debunked countless times.

>Renaissance scholars saw the Middle Ages as a period of decline from the high culture and civilisation of the Classical world; Enlightenment scholars saw reason as superior to faith, and thus viewed the Middle Ages as a time of ignorance and superstition.
All of which is completely true.

The fact that Europe was under threat from the Islamic caliphs one can come to understand why history in these times was viewed as not so glorious as in the immediately preceeding centuries; perhaps even 'dark'.Most people were illiterate during this period, and I can't help but to think this was done on purpose by the Church.

catholicism
>helped make islam crazy
>consistently tried to stop the labour movement
>supported fascism
>literally pedophiles
obviously not all catholics are like that but got damn

>helped make islam crazy

y?

Confucianism aint got shit on its antithesis, Legalism, which is basically "the state should have limitless power, and is justified in doing any act to maintain that power."

Hanbali Islam is obviously pretty fucking deranged.

Scientology is a nefarious scam.

"Worth preserving." You talk like that on a history board?

>Confucianism
>Bad

pick one.

Confucius teachings are based and interesting - maybe Daoism is shit, but who knows - none of us are Chinese or practitioners of it.. maybe.

Religions are constructs not entities capable of doing harm, it's people that do evil in name of religion.

This statement is becoming more annoying than hell-fire preachers.

for you

The Witch burning was extremely well documented and happened very infrequently. While I'm not going to try and justify it, I will maintain that it was of absolutely marginal importance.

crusades

it doesn't work like that. someone doesn't just make up a religion and get everyone to believe exactly what he thought was reasonable.

people will agree with things that serve as workable excuses for things they wanted to do anyway. yes, eventually the culture begins to affect people. just not in a way any one person had any real control over.

>just not in a way any one person had any real control over.

What if everyone has partial control (not equal contribution)?

isn't that what i said?

The pre-Abrahamic religions in North Africa and the Middle East were pretty bad.

Into the sacrificial furnace you go, user.

>so many falling for such a shitty bait thread

As if they were not the same before the crusades

>everyone who disagrees with my viewpoint is /pol/

that puritans are somehow more morally strict than other contemporary denoms of that time is a meme. They're called puritans because they wanted to purify the Church of England from what they percieved as Roman Catholic influences. There's no reason to believe they're puritans in the way we know it today.

I am 100% believer. But this would be all religions as long as they don't unify.

Become very real. Even though it is sure God and a spiritual world exists, religions are actually often very irreal about matters. Example as Christianity towards the great commandment or 1 Corinthians 6 : 9-11.

Real, like a common spiritual house that clearly works well. No real complaints about in general or some other important matter. And not an issue of having to believe as an activity. Something just clearly IS or IS not. Honestly investigating it becomes clear God IS.

Leave

Semantics

Religion or religious adherents? If the former maybe if the later no

Fascism wanted to be good and futuristic at its time.
I only believe mosley's strain to live up to this promise.

Wahhabis are seriously evil fuckers.
Atztec gods were insatiable.
Some strains of hinduism work only on the back of a slavecaste and some classical pagan gods such as Zalmoxis had fucked up sacrifiecial practizes endorsing selfish behaviour and murdering for spiritual profit.

why are wahhabis evil?

You simply cannot have peace with them.
Wherever they are allowed to breed, they become a threat to your prolonged existence or the one of your children.
They will never accept any belief deviating from their own while not being able to spread their own on the basis of superiourity but by simply multiplying, threats and bribery.
The societies dominated by them become stagnant as they are rigidly fashioned after the lifestyle of small 6th century deserttowns and repressed to the point that the vilest atrocities are practioned in secrecy such as the abuse of houseslaves in saudiarabia.

what's the difference between them and muslims?

None of those things are true of Muslims in general.

The Catholics burned more people, But you can always defend them by pointing out they preserved western culture for 2000 years.

>Implying atheism isn't just advanced monotheism with god abstracted away into an imagined "Human nature" or "Science."

You're still a monotheist because you can only accept one worldview. You perpetuate the harm done by abrahamism.

>Implying modern capitalism doesn't do more or less the same thing on a larger scale.

They decidedly were not.

islam is the one true religion because it's gonna take over everything in the end

there's nothing wrong with capital punishment

Not in itself no, but the spanish inquisition and native american genocides were not capital punishment.

Nice DattoDoesDestiny font you fucking Jew

>was there any evil religion that done more harm than a good?

Christianity and Islam

>in general