Religion
Related: About this forumWhat's wrong with religion is that it has always enabled people like...
Santorum to misuse it, to the detriment of large portions of society, and against the interest of intellectual, humanistic, secular ways to solve human problems.
"Santorum says Obama agenda not "based on Bible"
A devout Roman Catholic who has risen to the top of Republican polls in recent days, Santorum said the Obama administration had failed to prevent gas prices rising and was using "political science" in the debate about climate change.
Obama's agenda is "not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology," Santorum told supporters of the conservative Tea Party movement at a Columbus hotel.
When asked about the statement at a news conference later, Santorum said, "If the president says he's a Christian, he's a Christian."
But Santorum did not back down from the assertion that Obama's values run against those of Christianity.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/18/us-usa-campaign-santorum-idUSTRE81H0M220120218
People like Santorum offer more and more convincing evidence that thoughts along solely religious lines only add to the problems humans face as they attempt to live together on this planet. If 9/11/2001 didn't convince religious believers that religious thinking was fraught with more problems than solutions, Rick Santorum gives us yet another example, and he talks only within terms of one religious faith, Christianity. If Christians thought only Muslims were mistaken when Muslims used their religious beliefs to justify their inhumanity to others, here's a home-baked American Christian example that religious thought is hardly adequate to handle the problems our nation and our world faces today, and may actually be an example of adding more the to problem than offering any type of solution.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,673 posts)(at least the way many people practice it) is that, because by very definition it's unprovable, its adherents have to rely on faith alone. The basic tenets of any religion, including not only the existence of a supreme being or beings but the behaviors required of humans by said being(s), are ultimately the products of human believers. The believers believe because humans told them to. Since they have no way to prove objectively that what they believe is true, rather than allowing doubts they dig in harder - the more they are challenged the more adamantly they insist what they believe is true.
Not only that, people who believe something different (with equal intensity) are not just wrong but deluded, even evil or satanic. Religious beliefs can become such a central part of a person's identity that any doubt by others (or the person him/herself) is unbearable. For people like that, their religion has to be an integral part of their entire universe, including, maybe even especially, their government. When that happens all hell breaks loose.
napoleon_in_rags
(3,991 posts)My faith is pure, I embrace science, I embrace all challenges to it as further illumination. I love the atheists for their spiritual purity, for instance. I have fear of nothing divine for gays. This world is how it is.
Why make this a battle against religious like me instead of a battle FOR reason? Don't you understand that I love science, but have within me my faith? Why not narrow your focus down to those few theists who think they have the right to rule through ignorance, instead of focusing on me and my kind?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,673 posts)But the specifics of any religion come from people. For example, centuries ago the Council of Nicea got together and decided exactly what Christians were supposed to believe, and in so doing they specifically decided to omit certain scriptural writings and to reject the so-called Arian heresy. One might argue that the bishops were acting on instructions from God, but considering how the various doctrines of the church have changed over the years - and various Christian sects believe fairly drastically different things, how can we say that people, rather than God, aren't responsible for these "beliefs"? How does one decide what, exactly, to believe? I'm not criticizing belief, just wondering where it all comes from.
napoleon_in_rags
(3,991 posts)There is something there, and all these attempts have been to describe it.
Recently, I have been reading the Gita.
http://www.amazon.com/Bhagavad-Gita-Annotated-Explained-Illuminations/dp/1893361284
Krishna says at one point, he will appear as whatever the believer expects. Then there is the other part, where he says "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds" a line recalled by Oppenheimer when he saw the bomb go off, infinitely appropriate once you read the text he was referencing. Later I saw a movie about one of the Manhattan project scientists, laying in the bed when it was his time to die, saying "I hope I don't reincarnate, death is so boring". The Gita was the text these top minds took seriously, not foolish fundyism.
The point I'm trying to make is this: Faith takes radically different forms all over the world, some are against reason, some are not. I for one could never pray to a state subsidized welfare God like the fundies advocate. If my God is not oppressed, not whispered only between the cracks in the forgotten places of this world, it is not worthy to be my God. If you really sink your teeth into the beauty of science for instance, you will find something higher and unnameable, and there we are. There is too much to this universe to focus on everything you don't love, what I am saying is focus on what you do: REASON!!!
Love and Peace,
Nir
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)"Why make this a battle against religious like me instead of a battle FOR reason?"
Why is this "battle" FOR reason, as seen by you, a "battle against religious like" you?
Because neither Santorum nor you have one shred of evidence ("reason"
confirm or deny one person's set of religious beliefs over or instead of another person's. Faith is a poor argument, no matter whose mind it is in.
Religious faith proves absolutely positively nothing, and yet it is used by anyone to assert their own superiority over another way of thinking, to assert one's identity in opposition to people who think differently, ("battle against religious like me instead of a battle FOR reason" , or look differently, or act differently, and to argue for legal special privileges and exemptions from governmental regulation for a certain group, the group of the "faithful", the group who act and look like the faithful.
Faith cannot be quantified nor qualified, since it is un-measurable, and faith tends to argue against approaching problems rationally, to the point where faith is being used as justification to kill other human beings, to limit ways of learning, or to restrict the rights of certain groups, blacks, gays, women, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, whoever. Faith is a weapon for assertion of privilege, not an offer of absolute equality based upon reason and rational thought.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,673 posts)Sometimes people get all defensive if you suggest that there's nothing underpinning their faith but... faith. I guess that's the very definition of faith - something you believe that you can't prove. I am not at all bothered by religious people, those who believe in something they can't prove, if it's something that makes them feel better about themselves and their lives, or that inspires them to do good things. I'm all in favor of anything that helps people get through their days. And it's absolutely true that religious faith has inspired people to do some very good things as well as some very bad things; much of the great art, architecture and music of Western civilization was originally the product of the medieval church because people were inspired to create wonderful things soli deo gloria.
Where the wicket gets sticky is the point where somebody's faith conflicts with somebody else's, or with somebody else's lack of it -- where somebody's engraved-in-stone belief in some version of God and all the details of how God supposedly wants everybody to live turns into a government's official policies. Santorum thinks birth control is sinful and contrary to God's will. Fine. I don't. He doesn't get to legislate his faith. And very bad things happen when people decide what God wants the government to do.
And here's another thing I don't get: If there really is some universal, cosmic Truth, why are there so many religions? Why doesn't God reveal the same Truth to everybody? He could, if he's God...
napoleon_in_rags
(3,991 posts)"to the point where faith is being used as justification to kill other human beings"
Knife is being used to kill other beings? Oh no! Knife is bad!
Except I personally use it to cut my vegetables. Again, my question is the same as in post 6. Faith takes all kind of forms, some allow science (as mine does) some do not. Why not focus on what you truly love? Reason? Why not advocate that, instead of something else that sometimes runs against reason? Why not keep your eyes on the ball: what you love = reason???
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,673 posts)which is that faith is just fine, even if unprovable, as long as it doesn't become the basis of legislation imposing it on people who don't accept it.
napoleon_in_rags
(3,991 posts)My God need no subsidies from government. Any God that is does is pretty pathetic.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)napoleon_in_rags
(3,991 posts)It comes from the most gritty scientist in me, the fact that we all live in a dynamic system, where what we believe ultimately contributes to the outcome, the whole thing is beyond perception by its quantifiable nature. It comes from the most dedicated Christian/Jew in me, the content of Hebrews 11. It comes from the most pure Hindu in me, belief in the content of the Gita. It comes from the Buddhist in me, the idea that a deeper unity unites us all. I believe in faith alone, with great faith. We all are one.
part man all 86
(367 posts)part man all 86
(367 posts)he broadcasts like radio waves into our minds and distorts truth. All truth is distorted, science, religions, economics, and so on. With these days being literally the last few days of the reign of man, the world is not going to end, satan and his demons are moving throughout the world and aligning the nations for world war three. Roman catholic church will be a promient player in the coming weeks. With satan using his churches to cause despair and start upturning everything we human cherish. Santorum and the bishops are just stirring the pot and each day it will get worst. Of course that is my opinion and I am sticking to it. Plus God the Father is not the mean gods of traditional christianity, that is satan's preverted theology.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,673 posts)part man all 86
(367 posts)but hopi indians have some prophecies that are pararell to my church's beliefs.
part man all 86
(367 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,673 posts)There's a lot of crazy stuff in the Bible; just read Leviticus. The Bible is merely a collection of myths and legends of some nomadic proto-Hebraic tribesmen dating from the Iron Age. Although it has some some lovely poetry and some great philosophical musings (along with the crazy stuff), it's not the repository of Truth.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)fail to see that far greater threats to free thought, and freedoms in general, have come from the atheistic cultures and governments. That is why I criticize atheism as being so narrowly-focused, while touting itself as a bastion of free thought - rubbish. And, history clearly proves that point.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)"lumping" indeed...
humblebum
(5,881 posts)and hitting the alert button. Open debate? Not so much.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)*Yawn*.
To be clear, since sarcasm has never been your strong suit, if someone alerted on you, it wasn't me.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)
Its like you have that post saved on cut-and-paste. That many right-clicks can cause carpal tunnel syndrome.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts) humblebum
(5,881 posts)standbys of hitting the alert button, vacuous arguments and ad homs, or taunting. Classic. The broken record thing is really getting to be a broken record.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
Good luck with that.
edhopper
(33,570 posts)The Enlightenment was so much more oppressive than the Dark Ages.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)same on the opression scale.
one lead to modern Democracy, the other the Inquisition.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)edhopper
(33,570 posts)I don't see how the Churches oppression lead to it. In fact it was the easing of that oppression that lead to it.
The Enlightenment on the the other hand, lead directly to modern Democracy.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Of course atheism is narrowly focused. It is a lack of belief in gods...period. It is not, and has NEVER pretended to be, anything more, and has no need to explain why it is not an overarching worldview or philosophy of living, like many religions are.
And where have you ever seen atheism touted as a "bastion of free thought"? Answer: Nowhere. Just more of your invented, manure-filled straw men. Atheism is merely one of many facets of skeptical thought and rational inquiry, not the source.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)And of course everyone knows that it has never been associated with the concept of "free-thinker." SARCASM
You live in a world of denial. Atheism is programmed mental construct that severely limits human reasoning.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)you're still a blatant liar. I never said that atheism was narrow minded, and you, me and everyone else knows it. I said that it was narrowly focused, just like many other things. Prove me wrong. Or at least prove that you have a clue about the difference.
Atheism is a matter of waiting for credible, reliable evidence for the existence of gods before accepting same. When that evidence comes along, minds will change. Nothing is limited, except by the inability of people like you to actually provide that evidence. I realize that's a hard concept for you to grasp, but keep trying.
And while you're at it, link to a quote anywhere that claims that atheism is "a bastion of free thought"
humblebum
(5,881 posts)as far as your "evidence" goes. Again, you are narrowly focused (aka "narrow-minded" in this particular context). The only "type" of evidence you consider to exist is objective and empirical. Realistically, not everyone adheres to that POV, and recognizes that subjective evidence indeed exists, regardless of your opinion.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)about the difference between "narrow minded" and "narrowly focused", or else you know perfectly well and are just trying to float a bullshit argument to people even more empty-headed than the usual apologists.
We're done here.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Response to humblebum (Reply #36)
cleanhippie This message was self-deleted by its author.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)
btw, I believe you're one of the ones who's fond of the Alert feature. I've certainly never used it, even when confronted by ignorance and bigotry.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)saras
(6,670 posts)...which is why substantial portions of our brain are committed to process things other than evidence.
Personally I think there's "religion" (in the sense it is usually used, meaning Western monotheisms only) for the same reason that there's oppression, which is that wherever there is real power there is organized criminals seeking to control it.
The best of spiritual power renders people undeterred by death, fear, or suffering. It seems pretty obvious to me that tyrants and potential tyrants are going to want to monopolize that as much as they are going to want to monopolize large weapons.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)But that would require finding fault with American culture instead of religion.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)what's wrong with one thing is something completely different.
I am not limiting my view as narrowly as you are doing, focusing only upon one American politician. This kind of phenomenon has been happening for well OVER 2000 years, using religion as a justification for any number of irrational inhumane activities. Indeed, right within my original post, I went back over 10 years to the events of 9/11/2001, something NOT caused by "American culture", but by the same religious fanaticism Santorum is displaying now.
So, no, I am afraid your comment shows a complete misunderstanding of history and of the subject of my post. Religious fanaticsim, be it from the Taliban or from an intolerant Roman Catholicism from the mouth of an American Presidential candidate, is what I am referring to, NOT "American culture", whatever that is.
I would thank you in the future to engage in some serious critical thinking before attempting to reinterpret and misrepresent the opinions of other posters.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The religions are the same up here in Canada as in the States, but they aren't being egregiously misused in our politics. Why is that?
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)And I would guess you don't read the press of Italy, France, Germany, the UK, or so many other nations where religious fanatics are now attempting and have attempted for hundreds of years to influence the policies and practices of their governments.
Try using "the Google".
Here is one example from another English speaking nation:
The accusation comes from the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord (George) Carey, who attacked what he called a “deeply worrying” ruling in the High Court that has denied a man the right to appeal against an unfair-dismissal ruling.
Gary McFarlane worked for Relate, formerly the Marriage Guidance Council, but he refused to provide therapy for same-sex couples, citing his Christianity.
Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/291393#ixzz1mvhLhELP
The press is replete with hundreds of examples a week from devout fanatical religious believers who are struggling to retain or assert their religious control their nations' governments.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)You quote the Archbishop of Canterbury, but it's really no surprise that he would say something like that. The Archbishop isn't in politics, though. (Edited to add: all kinds of interest groups try to influence the political process from the sidelines, but what counts is if their issues make it into the dialogue between candidates and voters.) My point is that the USA is the only Western nation in which religion plays a significant role in national politics. Even in Italy, that most Catholic of all nations, religion isn't a significant political force. They elected a porn star, after all.
Politicians are nothing if not pragmatic. They are in the business of getting elected after all, and in order to do that they use arguments that appeal to voters. If religion appeals to them, that's what gets used. If nationalism appeals, that gets used. If economic issues are uppermost on their minds, politicians use those. Voters simply reflect the zeitgeist, and any politician who is serious about getting elected uses arguments, rhetoric and propaganda that resonates with the culture.
The fact that America is the only Western nation in which religion plays an important political role - despite the fact that most countries show similar levels of religious self-identification as the USA - indicates to me that the issue is more about how Americans think about religion than the intrinsic nature of religion itself.
Let me give you a bit of perspective on what has formed my outlook. I'm a Canadian who comes from a solid line of politically active socialist atheists, going back to my grandparents and continuing two generations past me. I grew up immersed in Canadian left-wing politics - my grandparents helped found the CCF in Manitoba and my mother ran as an NDP candidate in Ontario several times. I'm in the third of five family generations of explicit atheists. I have a scientific university education. I've spent three years of my life living in Europe, with a lot of additional travel time in Eurasia, Africa, Central and South America. I have paid very close attention to the politics of every country I've visited, and most of the ones I haven't.
You may not agree with my conclusions, but I assure you they are critically thought out.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)I regret not grasping your point, as you see it, as some uniquely American phenomena.
Perhaps you can start your own thread about how American politics is more influenced by religion than, say, any nation with predominantly Roman Catholics, or than say, the UK and the Church of England.
My thesis has to do with just what the dangers any fanatical religious thought can bring to any popular campaign, peacefully legal or otherwise. I don't restrict it to the United States, nor to political activity alone, be it 9/11, or Northern Ireland, or the Israeli-Arab debacles, religious fanaticism has been behind dozens if not hundreds of humanitarian outrages throughout modern history.
My reading of "American culture" looks back to the founding and Constitutionalizing of a government where separation of church and state was a key element. In a nation so founded with a clause of separation within our First Amendment, it only becomes noteworthy that we have enabled such fanatical religious efforts toward restrictions upon, for example, women's freedoms to become center stage in a desperate last gasp of the privileged to retain their power by invoking such blatant religious bigotry in the forefront of campaigning. True, only in America, can we see our nation's Constitutional intent contrasted so boldly against religiously justified political skulduggery personified in Rick Santorum or Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann, to name just the most recent egregious examples.
In other nations, where religious privilege is enshrined within the governmental functions, (the UK, for example), the noteworthiness of the contrast between religion's overreach and governmental control is less spectacular, more of an accepted societal norm, stretching back centuries. Or more radically, we see that Muslim nations simply employ religion as the sole justification for any number of actions to limit human rights and freedoms, or as justifications for attacking others either within their own nation, or elsewhere worldwide. Rick Santorum's bold fanaticism pales in comparison to those of many other religious and political leaders worldwide, and perhaps, only because he is an American, where we are supposed to live under a Constitution prohibiting such religious control over our lives, only because we are here, does his outrageous behavior, based upon his religious beliefs, make headlines here and worldwide.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I agree that religion has served as a convenient hook for social division in all the examples you mention. It's fascinating to me that in western nations that have a state religion, such as the UK and Norway, there is little overt religious influence on the political process,while in the beacon of constitutional church-state separation - the USA - there is so much. There seems to be more at work there than simply religion, though in some places like the Middle East that's about all there is.
IMO this reflects the human tendency to divide people into in-groups and out-groups, and religion is one simple and deeply-rooted tool for that. Other issues have served as well - tribal origins (e.g. Hutu/Tutsi), economic ideology (socialist/capitalist), social class etc. - but religion has always been an easy identifier. My only caution would be not to let your concern with the evils of religion blind you to the many other ways people have found to demonize their fellow man.
I think that religion is fairly innocuous as long as it is not imposed on others, and plays no role in social governance. As long as those two caveats are met, I see no reason not to let people believe anything they wish. Keeping religion out of politics requires vigilance, but in many places no more vigilance than needs to be given to other divisive issues like class, ethnicity or economic philosophy. You've clearly identified cases where this is not so, however. And the more that religion forms part of the cultural fabric (like in the ME, Northern Ireland and the USA) the greater its potential for incursion into the political arena.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)ignoring that fact totally distorts the historical record. And if you insist upon marginalizing that fact, then your devotion to "serious critical thinking" has no credibility. HUGE, significant part of history.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)for office in a democracy were "militant atheist fanatics"?
Which "militant atheist fanatics" bombed the WTC and Pentagon?
We all have gotten your message that the worst evil in the world is atheism, (according to you).
Your position on that is clear. It may not be convincing, (given the last few thousand years of western and religious history) but it is clear what your position is.
Thanks for the chuckle.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)So much for "critical thinking." And, how you got my"... message that the worst evil in the world is atheism" (according to me) is beyond me, since I have never said that. However, there more than enough empirical evidence to verify the role of atheism, and other thoroughly non-religious causes of wars and atrocities.
Tell me. You claim "This kind of phenomenon has been happening for well OVER 2000 years." Who then were those "candidates for office in a democracy" running on religious credentials 2000 years ago?
You are an historical revisionist if you call yourself an historian. And quite telling is your attempt at diversion by trying to belittle your respondent.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)that broken record. It might sell more copies. You do so attempt to entertain us with your "open-minded" ideas, though.
Do let me know when the first war in the name of atheism breaks out!
I must have missed it, as I studied a few dozen Papal wars, Islamic campaigns, and other conflicts. I must admit, I'm weak on Chinese and African tribal campaigns, and what gods those involved.
I did study a few hundred religious tyrants in the last 2000+ years who limited the rights of their citizens and waged some pretty bloody wars, all in the name of their particular god.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)“No wonder they hated and libeled Russia! For the news is spreading, and is triumphing even over reactionary opposition that Russia is doing the finest and soundest reconstructive work of our time, and it is doing this, not only without God, but on a basis of militant Atheism.” Joseph McCabe 1936
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 20, 2012, 04:38 PM - Edit history (1)
the ones aptly named for their religious components, over a dozen Papal wars, etc.(no I don't mean Paypal)...
in favor of those 2 or 3 where some historians reference a few atheist leaders and efforts.
I see!
(I'll also ignore your lack of scholarly citation, reference, and context of your quote)
You have concentrated on a few certainly predominantly last century economic justice wars over dozens of religious other ones over tens of centuries. Very well then.
How's that Dub Step coming along? Will it have a beat we can dance to?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Where did I ever ignore any religious wars? And i don't see you supplying a wealth of sources either, just a load of general information. You still haven't ID'd those democratic leaders, yet. So what gives?
"In favor of those 2 or 3 where some historians reference a few atheist leaders and efforts." If you have been around here for any length of time you would have seen many sources quoted ad nauseam. And what does the time period have to do with anything? Over the past century more people were murdered under atheist dictators, and by atheists than all religious wars, and in the 20th century alone.
Huge efforts were put forth to stamp out religion in the USSR, China, East Asia, Eastern Europe, etc. And then you had a little thing called the French Revolution. And of course today a grand effort is being made to force adherence to atheism in Tibet. Atheism the primary goal? I never said that. But A primary goal? Definitely. And much of it was done directly in the name of atheism.
The only thing it proves is that you have a very narrow POV of the various reasons why people do what they do. Question. If given the choice would more people live with freedom of religion or without?
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)Because I have no "other ways of knowing" !!!
To quote your most logical "ways of knowing"
"And what does the time period have to do with anything?"
OH, I don't know, More time, more sampling? More examples, more observations? Kind of "scientific" terms, I know how you like to avoid scientific analysis of events in history, and just go for the agenda you have in mind.. by the way, how's that dub step coming, you like to repeat yourself alot, that's what this new teenage trend in music is all about..you have many sound and text samples to choose from, repeat and repeat and repeat, that's what "dub-step" is all about in creating music we can all dance to.
"Over the past century more people were murdered under atheist dictators, and by atheists than all religious wars, and in the 20th century alone." And, of course, in 1912, there were no machine guns, no bomber aircraft, (""Over the past century more people were murdered", (And what does the time period have to do with anything?) couldn't have had anything to do with modern warfare techniques, could it? ...NO!!! Of COURSE you're going to go for the atheist angle of this... how could I have failed to see it coming???
Your last post, the one I'm quoting here, if I were you, don't enter into your high school debate team.... oh wait... what's that? You're already out of high school? COOL! Don't enter into college debate team... oh wait, you're already a college grad? COOL!! How come you missed logical argument and points of relevancy in the rules of college forensic debate? Did you not compete on a college debate team? Did you go straight to looking for a job pushing your religious agenda when you were a freshman and skip all the chances to learn about logical argument?
I'll give you a pass on this one: you thought that, since the most deadly wars in history were in the 20th century, you thought you could win a debate because a few atheists showed up to fight some battles and got a lot of people dead. Nice theory, but not strictly a scientific prooof that atheism is more deadly than any war, now, is it, given all the other technological variables the 20th century afforded for methods of killing?
I guess you leave out more than half the facts, choose whatever numbers favor your case, in isolation of other numbers, in isolation of technological advances in methods of killing. Yeah, I figured you thought all those dozens of religious wars where only a a few tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands died in the 16th century were not worth mentioning, you're more into the Pol Pot stuff, I bet, where so many died of simple malnutrition when no "Christian" nation on the planet intervened to save a few million poor Asian rice farmers.
Yeah, I get your point, Christianity and religion are more important than any number of godless atrocities ever evidenced in the human history of religious groups fighting amongst each other.
Atheists are the worst enemies, because more millions died under threats from someone who called those other humans "atheists", and because you say so, and you are such a balanced and an unbiased historian, you ONLY want all the facts out there, and you have a completely objective viewpoint from your "other ways of knowing"!!!!
We all know that now.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)be sticking to the subject. I am not really concerned about why or how all these people died. Fact is, it is quite true that more died under atheist governments and dictators than in all religious wars, and yet you continue to hype about the atrocities of religion.
And, certainly it wasn't all accomplished by more advanced weapons. Shovels, axes, and starvation, etc., seem to be quite common to all eras. You are still attempting to rationalize, but facts are facts.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)all these people died"
Nice argument when you want to ignore other variables! Doesn't make it as a modern debate tactic.
"Fact is, it is quite true that more died under atheist governments and dictators than in all religious wars"
And modern humans are equal to apes, in their abilities to kill others of the same species?
Hint: apes don't have any religions!
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Your variables are nothing more than excuses to rationalize those events. IOW, dead is dead. The simple fact is that many were killed for not adapting to forced state atheism.
In 1955, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev said, "We are doing everything we can to eliminate the bewitching power of the opium of religion.”
The ATHEIST’S HANDBOOK was published in Moscow in 1959 in conjunction with Khrushchev’s campaign to eliminate the remaining traces of religion in the U.S.S.R. This text attacks the Bible, the Qur’an, Christianity, and Islam. “Science,” says the Handbook, “has long since established that Jesus Christ never existed, that the figure of the alleged founder of Christianity is purely mythical.”4 And according to the Handbook, the Apostle Paul, too, turns out to be “a mythical figure.”
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)Ok, here's an experiment you and I can do...
Your religious football team, 11 members, equipped with rocks, my team, one fire-thrower and 9 machine guns and a B-2 bomber.
Tell me... how does that
"mean nothing" to your team when we line up and fire?
Logic of your arguments seems to have left you back with the stone or bronze or iron or steel age those "other ways of knowing" (other than science and history), whereas I advanced to the cyber world, and to satellite communication, you're still trying to figure out smoke signals for your side... but you are free to carry on... with such foolish apples to oranges comparisons, and try to make your case.. if more advanced people kill more, they are more dangerous, or not, whatever you decide.
Is atheism the enemy? Or is technology of warfare? You decide what part of that argument advances your case, and ignore the other part which we will all focus upon when you ignore one. You don't know about any debate strategy, now, do you? REALLY, you don't, do you?
Summary of lack of logical argument, and primary logical fallacy:
Atheists with advanced science-based weapons killed more, theists with primitive weapons in previous wars killed less, therefore Atheists are worse because they killed more!. Logic??? Anyone??? Anyone?? Beuhler? Beuhler?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)which is that an estimated 130 million people died because of these acts in the 20th century. The Nazis had far more powerful weapons at their disposal and yet killed fewer. By your reasoning that shouldn't have happened. Shovels, axes, and starvation were used to take a tremendous amount of lives, as well as fire arms.
As a matter of fact, according to your reasoning more should have died in WW II, but the death count was around 50 million. And yet the weaponry used was far more potent than that used in the backwoods of Russia or China.
The fact is, sir, that it happened, and that is what you are trying to obscure. First, you wrote it off as frivolous and now you say it happened, BUT. Your "logic" just doesn't hold, but you do know how to dance.
The most important point, though, is that regardless of how they died, religion WAS NOT the cause.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)It hippie. When he has nothing else to contribute to a discussion, he either screams "militant atheist!, militant atheist! over and over, gives a hearty yawn, or shows everyone that he knows how to copy and paste an image of a broken record. There must be a diagnosis for such behavior.