Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Garbage Religion
Author Message
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 9,657
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 383
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Garbage Religion
(10-10-2017 04:26 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 04:09 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 02:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 01:53 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 01:47 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  You could, but it'd be countered with the millions upon millions of lives murdered by world leaders who were atheists.

Can you name them?

Lenin
Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
Mussolini
Slobodon Milosevic

While it's debatable how much each of these leaders were truly atheist (Stalin studied to be a priest, Pol Pot discussed karma like he was a Buddhist, etc), even with the point conceded that all of these guys were true blue atheists, there is at least a reasonable chance to estimate the amount of murder they committed.

Contrast that with the thousands of years of killing in the name of religion...I think the numbers would not be in favor of religion.

The only reason why Christians and Muslims did not kill more people during the middle ages is simple: they lacked the technology that the people in your list had access to. That is why this is such a fallacious argument. If person A had 5 million people killed while person B had 10 million deaths on his/her hands...it does not mean that person B is twice as evil as person A.

People like to cite the middle ages when talking about "killing in the name of religion." But they never are cognizant of the fact that the Christians doing the killing was FOR THE MOST PART (i'm not denying the burning witches at the steak) retaliatory attacks against the Muslim empire who attacked and took land in the first place.




We’re talking about religion. All 3 Abrahamic religions have blood on their hands. Don’t forget the European colonial empires from the age of exploration thru the 20th century. How many people were butchered for the sake of the crown?

The USA was founded on judeo Christian values. How many native Americans had their land stolen and killed because of American expansion?
10-10-2017 04:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
umbluegray Online
Legend
*

Posts: 28,691
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 521
I Root For: The Tigers!
Location: Memphis
Post: #52
RE: Garbage Religion
(10-10-2017 02:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 01:53 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 01:47 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(10-07-2017 12:23 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  I could easily argue religion has caused more strife and suffering throughout humanity than any concept of non-belief....

You could, but it'd be countered with the millions upon millions of lives murdered by world leaders who were atheists.

Can you name them?

Lenin
Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
Mussolini
Slobodon Milosevic

Thank you.

That was too easy.
10-10-2017 05:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
umbluegray Online
Legend
*

Posts: 28,691
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 521
I Root For: The Tigers!
Location: Memphis
Post: #53
RE: Garbage Religion
(10-10-2017 04:09 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 02:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 01:53 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 01:47 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(10-07-2017 12:23 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  I could easily argue religion has caused more strife and suffering throughout humanity than any concept of non-belief....

You could, but it'd be countered with the millions upon millions of lives murdered by world leaders who were atheists.

Can you name them?

Lenin
Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
Mussolini
Slobodon Milosevic

While it's debatable how much each of these leaders were truly atheist (Stalin studied to be a priest, Pol Pot discussed karma like he was a Buddhist, etc), even with the point conceded that all of these guys were true blue atheists, there is at least a reasonable chance to estimate the amount of murder they committed.

Contrast that with the thousands of years of killing in the name of religion...I think the numbers would not be in favor of religion.

The only reason why Christians and Muslims did not kill more people during the middle ages is simple: they lacked the technology that the people in your list had access to. That is why this is such a fallacious argument. If person A had 5 million people killed while person B had 10 million deaths on his/her hands...it does not mean that person B is twice as evil as person A.

Here's an interesting article -- from HuffPo, no less.

Is Religion the Cause of Most Wars?

Quote:In their recently published book, “Encyclopedia of Wars,” authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare. While, for example, it is estimated that approximately one to three million people were tragically killed in the Crusades, and perhaps 3,000 in the Inquisition, nearly 35 million soldiers and civilians died in the senseless, and secular, slaughter of World War 1 alone.

Given this, religious war account for less than 2% of all people killed in warfare, logic demands that more than 98% were killed for reasons other than religion.



'What Every Person Should Know About War'

Quote:Estimates for the total number killed in wars throughout all of human history range from 150 million to 1 billion.

Going with some math here...

Low end: 150,000,000 deaths
Caused by Religious wars: <2% = 3,000,000

High end: 1,000,000,000
Caused by Religious wars: <2% = 20,000,000

So, based on the information from the two links above, wars caused by religion have claimed anywhere from 3 million to 20 million lives.

Mao was responsible for the death of an estimated 40 million to 65 million alone.

So, in the worst-case scenario, religious wars have been responsible for up to 20 million deaths throughout history. This pales to one mass extermination in the 20th century alone.
10-10-2017 05:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
umbluegray Online
Legend
*

Posts: 28,691
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 521
I Root For: The Tigers!
Location: Memphis
Post: #54
RE: Garbage Religion
(10-10-2017 04:43 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 04:26 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 04:09 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 02:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 01:53 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Can you name them?

Lenin
Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
Mussolini
Slobodon Milosevic

While it's debatable how much each of these leaders were truly atheist (Stalin studied to be a priest, Pol Pot discussed karma like he was a Buddhist, etc), even with the point conceded that all of these guys were true blue atheists, there is at least a reasonable chance to estimate the amount of murder they committed.

Contrast that with the thousands of years of killing in the name of religion...I think the numbers would not be in favor of religion.

The only reason why Christians and Muslims did not kill more people during the middle ages is simple: they lacked the technology that the people in your list had access to. That is why this is such a fallacious argument. If person A had 5 million people killed while person B had 10 million deaths on his/her hands...it does not mean that person B is twice as evil as person A.

People like to cite the middle ages when talking about "killing in the name of religion." But they never are cognizant of the fact that the Christians doing the killing was FOR THE MOST PART (i'm not denying the burning witches at the steak) retaliatory attacks against the Muslim empire who attacked and took land in the first place.




We’re talking about religion. All 3 Abrahamic religions have blood on their hands. Don’t forget the European colonial empires from the age of exploration thru the 20th century. How many people were butchered for the sake of the crown?

The USA was founded on judeo Christian values. How many native Americans had their land stolen and killed because of American expansion?

How many can't-say-native-Americans-because-they-migrated-from-Eurasia tribes killed other can't-say-native-Americans-because-they-migrated-from-Eurasia tribes before Europeans ever arrived on this continent?
10-10-2017 05:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 9,657
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 383
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Garbage Religion
(10-10-2017 05:39 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 04:09 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 02:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 01:53 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 01:47 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  You could, but it'd be countered with the millions upon millions of lives murdered by world leaders who were atheists.

Can you name them?

Lenin
Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
Mussolini
Slobodon Milosevic

While it's debatable how much each of these leaders were truly atheist (Stalin studied to be a priest, Pol Pot discussed karma like he was a Buddhist, etc), even with the point conceded that all of these guys were true blue atheists, there is at least a reasonable chance to estimate the amount of murder they committed.

Contrast that with the thousands of years of killing in the name of religion...I think the numbers would not be in favor of religion.

The only reason why Christians and Muslims did not kill more people during the middle ages is simple: they lacked the technology that the people in your list had access to. That is why this is such a fallacious argument. If person A had 5 million people killed while person B had 10 million deaths on his/her hands...it does not mean that person B is twice as evil as person A.

Here's an interesting article -- from HuffPo, no less.

Is Religion the Cause of Most Wars?

Quote:In their recently published book, “Encyclopedia of Wars,” authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare. While, for example, it is estimated that approximately one to three million people were tragically killed in the Crusades, and perhaps 3,000 in the Inquisition, nearly 35 million soldiers and civilians died in the senseless, and secular, slaughter of World War 1 alone.

Given this, religious war account for less than 2% of all people killed in warfare, logic demands that more than 98% were killed for reasons other than religion.



'What Every Person Should Know About War'

Quote:Estimates for the total number killed in wars throughout all of human history range from 150 million to 1 billion.

Going with some math here...

Low end: 150,000,000 deaths
Caused by Religious wars: <2% = 3,000,000

High end: 1,000,000,000
Caused by Religious wars: <2% = 20,000,000

So, based on the information from the two links above, wars caused by religion have claimed anywhere from 3 million to 20 million lives.

Mao was responsible for the death of an estimated 40 million to 65 million alone.

So, in the worst-case scenario, religious wars have been responsible for up to 20 million deaths throughout history. This pales to one mass extermination in the 20th century alone.

Regarding wars fought in the name of religion, you brought documentation to show that I was off the mark regarding that statement. Well done, because I learned a little bit more about history. The number of wars for truly secular reasons as a percentage of total number of wars is higher than I would have thought.

Regarding the evils of Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot, they surely did these in the name of communism. And regardless of their starting point in life, they appeared to be atheists at the time. But would you classify communism as a movement to promote atheism as its dominant feature? I would say no. The primary driver for communism was to enact a new economic system tied to a government to - in theory - create a workers paradise.

The original point I was going for was to state that at the end of the day, most atheists, christians, muslims, etc are very similar over all when it comes to the capacity of good or evil. In your last response, you cited the author's comments about WWI being a senseless secular war. I agree that it surely was. But what is also interesting about WWI is that most of the nations at war had an established state religion during that time period - which would objectively call them Christian Nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Europe

Interestingly enough, a lot of the nations who fought in the war gave up their state religions around 1918.

Even when you look at the documentation you provided - 93% of wars fought were for secular reasons - that too would prove that it doesn't matter what religion you are or aren't. People are people, and that transcends religion.
10-10-2017 09:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
geosnooker2000 Online
I got Cleopatra in the basement
*

Posts: 16,434
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 518
I Root For: Tiger Football
Location: Somerville, TN
Post: #56
RE: Garbage Religion
(10-10-2017 09:43 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 05:39 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 04:09 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 02:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 01:53 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Can you name them?

Lenin
Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
Mussolini
Slobodon Milosevic

While it's debatable how much each of these leaders were truly atheist (Stalin studied to be a priest, Pol Pot discussed karma like he was a Buddhist, etc), even with the point conceded that all of these guys were true blue atheists, there is at least a reasonable chance to estimate the amount of murder they committed.

Contrast that with the thousands of years of killing in the name of religion...I think the numbers would not be in favor of religion.

The only reason why Christians and Muslims did not kill more people during the middle ages is simple: they lacked the technology that the people in your list had access to. That is why this is such a fallacious argument. If person A had 5 million people killed while person B had 10 million deaths on his/her hands...it does not mean that person B is twice as evil as person A.

Here's an interesting article -- from HuffPo, no less.

Is Religion the Cause of Most Wars?

Quote:In their recently published book, “Encyclopedia of Wars,” authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare. While, for example, it is estimated that approximately one to three million people were tragically killed in the Crusades, and perhaps 3,000 in the Inquisition, nearly 35 million soldiers and civilians died in the senseless, and secular, slaughter of World War 1 alone.

Given this, religious war account for less than 2% of all people killed in warfare, logic demands that more than 98% were killed for reasons other than religion.



'What Every Person Should Know About War'

Quote:Estimates for the total number killed in wars throughout all of human history range from 150 million to 1 billion.

Going with some math here...

Low end: 150,000,000 deaths
Caused by Religious wars: <2% = 3,000,000

High end: 1,000,000,000
Caused by Religious wars: <2% = 20,000,000

So, based on the information from the two links above, wars caused by religion have claimed anywhere from 3 million to 20 million lives.

Mao was responsible for the death of an estimated 40 million to 65 million alone.

So, in the worst-case scenario, religious wars have been responsible for up to 20 million deaths throughout history. This pales to one mass extermination in the 20th century alone.

Regarding wars fought in the name of religion, you brought documentation to show that I was off the mark regarding that statement. Well done, because I learned a little bit more about history. The number of wars for truly secular reasons as a percentage of total number of wars is higher than I would have thought.

Regarding the evils of Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot, they surely did these in the name of communism. And regardless of their starting point in life, they appeared to be atheists at the time. But would you classify communism as a movement to promote atheism as its dominant feature? I would say no. The primary driver for communism was to enact a new economic system tied to a government to - in theory - create a workers paradise.

The original point I was going for was to state that at the end of the day, most atheists, christians, muslims, etc are very similar over all when it comes to the capacity of good or evil. In your last response, you cited the author's comments about WWI being a senseless secular war. I agree that it surely was. But what is also interesting about WWI is that most of the nations at war had an established state religion during that time period - which would objectively call them Christian Nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Europe

Interestingly enough, a lot of the nations who fought in the war gave up their state religions around 1918.

Even when you look at the documentation you provided - 93% of wars fought were for secular reasons - that too would prove that it doesn't matter what religion you are or aren't. People are people, and that transcends religion.

Yes, but what you imply is that Christians (or Jews or Muslims) are disqualified from fighting wars? If the Crusaders were in fact trying to take back land taken from them by Muslims who were trying to "kill or convert", I see that as no vice. Likewise, Andrew Jackson drove the Indians out to the West (trail of tears) and it WAS shameful. But did he do it in the name of Christ? Or did he do it for economic reasons totally disconnected from religion? I really don't know - I'm asking the question. At any rate, I know anyone following the principles and teachings of Christ would not have exterminated a populace they were "invading". They would have tried to convert but not kill.
10-10-2017 10:32 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 9,657
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 383
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Garbage Religion
(10-10-2017 10:32 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 09:43 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 05:39 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 04:09 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 02:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Lenin
Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
Mussolini
Slobodon Milosevic

While it's debatable how much each of these leaders were truly atheist (Stalin studied to be a priest, Pol Pot discussed karma like he was a Buddhist, etc), even with the point conceded that all of these guys were true blue atheists, there is at least a reasonable chance to estimate the amount of murder they committed.

Contrast that with the thousands of years of killing in the name of religion...I think the numbers would not be in favor of religion.

The only reason why Christians and Muslims did not kill more people during the middle ages is simple: they lacked the technology that the people in your list had access to. That is why this is such a fallacious argument. If person A had 5 million people killed while person B had 10 million deaths on his/her hands...it does not mean that person B is twice as evil as person A.

Here's an interesting article -- from HuffPo, no less.

Is Religion the Cause of Most Wars?

Quote:In their recently published book, “Encyclopedia of Wars,” authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare. While, for example, it is estimated that approximately one to three million people were tragically killed in the Crusades, and perhaps 3,000 in the Inquisition, nearly 35 million soldiers and civilians died in the senseless, and secular, slaughter of World War 1 alone.

Given this, religious war account for less than 2% of all people killed in warfare, logic demands that more than 98% were killed for reasons other than religion.



'What Every Person Should Know About War'

Quote:Estimates for the total number killed in wars throughout all of human history range from 150 million to 1 billion.

Going with some math here...

Low end: 150,000,000 deaths
Caused by Religious wars: <2% = 3,000,000

High end: 1,000,000,000
Caused by Religious wars: <2% = 20,000,000

So, based on the information from the two links above, wars caused by religion have claimed anywhere from 3 million to 20 million lives.

Mao was responsible for the death of an estimated 40 million to 65 million alone.

So, in the worst-case scenario, religious wars have been responsible for up to 20 million deaths throughout history. This pales to one mass extermination in the 20th century alone.

Regarding wars fought in the name of religion, you brought documentation to show that I was off the mark regarding that statement. Well done, because I learned a little bit more about history. The number of wars for truly secular reasons as a percentage of total number of wars is higher than I would have thought.

Regarding the evils of Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot, they surely did these in the name of communism. And regardless of their starting point in life, they appeared to be atheists at the time. But would you classify communism as a movement to promote atheism as its dominant feature? I would say no. The primary driver for communism was to enact a new economic system tied to a government to - in theory - create a workers paradise.

The original point I was going for was to state that at the end of the day, most atheists, christians, muslims, etc are very similar over all when it comes to the capacity of good or evil. In your last response, you cited the author's comments about WWI being a senseless secular war. I agree that it surely was. But what is also interesting about WWI is that most of the nations at war had an established state religion during that time period - which would objectively call them Christian Nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Europe

Interestingly enough, a lot of the nations who fought in the war gave up their state religions around 1918.

Even when you look at the documentation you provided - 93% of wars fought were for secular reasons - that too would prove that it doesn't matter what religion you are or aren't. People are people, and that transcends religion.

Yes, but what you imply is that Christians (or Jews or Muslims) are disqualified from fighting wars? If the Crusaders were in fact trying to take back land taken from them by Muslims who were trying to "kill or convert", I see that as no vice. Likewise, Andrew Jackson drove the Indians out to the West (trail of tears) and it WAS shameful. But did he do it in the name of Christ? Or did he do it for economic reasons totally disconnected from religion? I really don't know - I'm asking the question. At any rate, I know anyone following the principles and teachings of Christ would not have exterminated a populace they were "invading". They would have tried to convert but not kill.

No, my point is that despite professing a belief in a deity who does not want us to fight wars, we still fight wars. Being a Christian or a Muslim or a Buddhist does not seem to make you any less inclined to fight a war than anyone else. The counterpoint of being an atheist makes you more likely to be a blood thirsty tyrant is equally not true.
10-11-2017 07:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Online
laughing at MSM meltdown
*

Posts: 30,000
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 953
I Root For: StL Blues & USM
Location: who knows?
Post: #58
RE: Garbage Religion
(10-11-2017 07:21 AM)miko33 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 10:32 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 09:43 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 05:39 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 04:09 PM)miko33 Wrote:  While it's debatable how much each of these leaders were truly atheist (Stalin studied to be a priest, Pol Pot discussed karma like he was a Buddhist, etc), even with the point conceded that all of these guys were true blue atheists, there is at least a reasonable chance to estimate the amount of murder they committed.

Contrast that with the thousands of years of killing in the name of religion...I think the numbers would not be in favor of religion.

The only reason why Christians and Muslims did not kill more people during the middle ages is simple: they lacked the technology that the people in your list had access to. That is why this is such a fallacious argument. If person A had 5 million people killed while person B had 10 million deaths on his/her hands...it does not mean that person B is twice as evil as person A.

Here's an interesting article -- from HuffPo, no less.

Is Religion the Cause of Most Wars?

Quote:In their recently published book, “Encyclopedia of Wars,” authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare. While, for example, it is estimated that approximately one to three million people were tragically killed in the Crusades, and perhaps 3,000 in the Inquisition, nearly 35 million soldiers and civilians died in the senseless, and secular, slaughter of World War 1 alone.

Given this, religious war account for less than 2% of all people killed in warfare, logic demands that more than 98% were killed for reasons other than religion.



'What Every Person Should Know About War'

Quote:Estimates for the total number killed in wars throughout all of human history range from 150 million to 1 billion.

Going with some math here...

Low end: 150,000,000 deaths
Caused by Religious wars: <2% = 3,000,000

High end: 1,000,000,000
Caused by Religious wars: <2% = 20,000,000

So, based on the information from the two links above, wars caused by religion have claimed anywhere from 3 million to 20 million lives.

Mao was responsible for the death of an estimated 40 million to 65 million alone.

So, in the worst-case scenario, religious wars have been responsible for up to 20 million deaths throughout history. This pales to one mass extermination in the 20th century alone.

Regarding wars fought in the name of religion, you brought documentation to show that I was off the mark regarding that statement. Well done, because I learned a little bit more about history. The number of wars for truly secular reasons as a percentage of total number of wars is higher than I would have thought.

Regarding the evils of Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot, they surely did these in the name of communism. And regardless of their starting point in life, they appeared to be atheists at the time. But would you classify communism as a movement to promote atheism as its dominant feature? I would say no. The primary driver for communism was to enact a new economic system tied to a government to - in theory - create a workers paradise.

The original point I was going for was to state that at the end of the day, most atheists, christians, muslims, etc are very similar over all when it comes to the capacity of good or evil. In your last response, you cited the author's comments about WWI being a senseless secular war. I agree that it surely was. But what is also interesting about WWI is that most of the nations at war had an established state religion during that time period - which would objectively call them Christian Nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Europe

Interestingly enough, a lot of the nations who fought in the war gave up their state religions around 1918.

Even when you look at the documentation you provided - 93% of wars fought were for secular reasons - that too would prove that it doesn't matter what religion you are or aren't. People are people, and that transcends religion.

Yes, but what you imply is that Christians (or Jews or Muslims) are disqualified from fighting wars? If the Crusaders were in fact trying to take back land taken from them by Muslims who were trying to "kill or convert", I see that as no vice. Likewise, Andrew Jackson drove the Indians out to the West (trail of tears) and it WAS shameful. But did he do it in the name of Christ? Or did he do it for economic reasons totally disconnected from religion? I really don't know - I'm asking the question. At any rate, I know anyone following the principles and teachings of Christ would not have exterminated a populace they were "invading". They would have tried to convert but not kill.

No, my point is that despite professing a belief in a deity who does not want us to fight wars, we still fight wars. Being a Christian or a Muslim or a Buddhist does not seem to make you any less inclined to fight a war than anyone else. The counterpoint of being an atheist makes you more likely to be a blood thirsty tyrant is equally not true.

thank you....that is the overall point....
10-11-2017 07:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
umbluegray Online
Legend
*

Posts: 28,691
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 521
I Root For: The Tigers!
Location: Memphis
Post: #59
RE: Garbage Religion
(10-10-2017 09:43 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 05:39 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 04:09 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 02:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 01:53 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Can you name them?

Lenin
Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
Mussolini
Slobodon Milosevic

While it's debatable how much each of these leaders were truly atheist (Stalin studied to be a priest, Pol Pot discussed karma like he was a Buddhist, etc), even with the point conceded that all of these guys were true blue atheists, there is at least a reasonable chance to estimate the amount of murder they committed.

Contrast that with the thousands of years of killing in the name of religion...I think the numbers would not be in favor of religion.

The only reason why Christians and Muslims did not kill more people during the middle ages is simple: they lacked the technology that the people in your list had access to. That is why this is such a fallacious argument. If person A had 5 million people killed while person B had 10 million deaths on his/her hands...it does not mean that person B is twice as evil as person A.

Here's an interesting article -- from HuffPo, no less.

Is Religion the Cause of Most Wars?

Quote:In their recently published book, “Encyclopedia of Wars,” authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare. While, for example, it is estimated that approximately one to three million people were tragically killed in the Crusades, and perhaps 3,000 in the Inquisition, nearly 35 million soldiers and civilians died in the senseless, and secular, slaughter of World War 1 alone.

Given this, religious war account for less than 2% of all people killed in warfare, logic demands that more than 98% were killed for reasons other than religion.



'What Every Person Should Know About War'

Quote:Estimates for the total number killed in wars throughout all of human history range from 150 million to 1 billion.

Going with some math here...

Low end: 150,000,000 deaths
Caused by Religious wars: <2% = 3,000,000

High end: 1,000,000,000
Caused by Religious wars: <2% = 20,000,000

So, based on the information from the two links above, wars caused by religion have claimed anywhere from 3 million to 20 million lives.

Mao was responsible for the death of an estimated 40 million to 65 million alone.

So, in the worst-case scenario, religious wars have been responsible for up to 20 million deaths throughout history. This pales to one mass extermination in the 20th century alone.

Regarding wars fought in the name of religion, you brought documentation to show that I was off the mark regarding that statement. Well done, because I learned a little bit more about history. The number of wars for truly secular reasons as a percentage of total number of wars is higher than I would have thought.

Regarding the evils of Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot, they surely did these in the name of communism. And regardless of their starting point in life, they appeared to be atheists at the time. But would you classify communism as a movement to promote atheism as its dominant feature? I would say no. The primary driver for communism was to enact a new economic system tied to a government to - in theory - create a workers paradise.

The original point I was going for was to state that at the end of the day, most atheists, christians, muslims, etc are very similar over all when it comes to the capacity of good or evil. In your last response, you cited the author's comments about WWI being a senseless secular war. I agree that it surely was. But what is also interesting about WWI is that most of the nations at war had an established state religion during that time period - which would objectively call them Christian Nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Europe

Interestingly enough, a lot of the nations who fought in the war gave up their state religions around 1918.

Even when you look at the documentation you provided - 93% of wars fought were for secular reasons - that too would prove that it doesn't matter what religion you are or aren't. People are people, and that transcends religion.

I completely agree -- 100%. It's human nature -- regardless of religion. Which is also a suggestion as to why man needs religion.

As Benjamin Franklin replied to Thomas Paine after reading The Age of Reason, "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?"

I have often noted that those who point the finger of hypocrisy toward Christians have no leg to stand on. Everyone is a hypocrite when it comes to living their life on their own chosen belief system.

I agree that the atheist can be as moral as the theist. However, the atheist has no objective basis for morality.



By the way, I'm including below the complete text of Franklin's review of Paine's work.


Quote:The Age of Reason – A Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Thomas Paine

I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For, without the belief of a Providence that takes cognisance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion that, though your reasons are subtle, and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind spits in his own face.

But were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantage of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.

I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person, whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a great deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?

I intend this Letter itself as a proof of my Friendship, and therefore add no Professions to it, but subscribe simply yours,

B.F

Obviously Paine did not follow Franklin's advice to "burn this piece." And Franklin was exactly right regarding his prediction of the backlash Paine would face.

As it was, after his death no cemetery would accept his body. He was buried in a field on his farm.

Thomas Paine's Remains Are Still a Bone of Contention
Los Angeles Times
April 01, 2001|From Associated Press

Quote:When he died in 1809, he was generally out of favor, partly for his opposition to organized religion, partly for his arguments against the elite running the country. He was buried on his farm but didn't even get the simple low stone wall around his grave that he specified in his will.
10-11-2017 05:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Online
laughing at MSM meltdown
*

Posts: 30,000
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 953
I Root For: StL Blues & USM
Location: who knows?
Post: #60
RE: Garbage Religion
(10-11-2017 05:25 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 09:43 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 05:39 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 04:09 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 02:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Lenin
Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
Mussolini
Slobodon Milosevic

While it's debatable how much each of these leaders were truly atheist (Stalin studied to be a priest, Pol Pot discussed karma like he was a Buddhist, etc), even with the point conceded that all of these guys were true blue atheists, there is at least a reasonable chance to estimate the amount of murder they committed.

Contrast that with the thousands of years of killing in the name of religion...I think the numbers would not be in favor of religion.

The only reason why Christians and Muslims did not kill more people during the middle ages is simple: they lacked the technology that the people in your list had access to. That is why this is such a fallacious argument. If person A had 5 million people killed while person B had 10 million deaths on his/her hands...it does not mean that person B is twice as evil as person A.

Here's an interesting article -- from HuffPo, no less.

Is Religion the Cause of Most Wars?

Quote:In their recently published book, “Encyclopedia of Wars,” authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare. While, for example, it is estimated that approximately one to three million people were tragically killed in the Crusades, and perhaps 3,000 in the Inquisition, nearly 35 million soldiers and civilians died in the senseless, and secular, slaughter of World War 1 alone.

Given this, religious war account for less than 2% of all people killed in warfare, logic demands that more than 98% were killed for reasons other than religion.



'What Every Person Should Know About War'

Quote:Estimates for the total number killed in wars throughout all of human history range from 150 million to 1 billion.

Going with some math here...

Low end: 150,000,000 deaths
Caused by Religious wars: <2% = 3,000,000

High end: 1,000,000,000
Caused by Religious wars: <2% = 20,000,000

So, based on the information from the two links above, wars caused by religion have claimed anywhere from 3 million to 20 million lives.

Mao was responsible for the death of an estimated 40 million to 65 million alone.

So, in the worst-case scenario, religious wars have been responsible for up to 20 million deaths throughout history. This pales to one mass extermination in the 20th century alone.

Regarding wars fought in the name of religion, you brought documentation to show that I was off the mark regarding that statement. Well done, because I learned a little bit more about history. The number of wars for truly secular reasons as a percentage of total number of wars is higher than I would have thought.

Regarding the evils of Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot, they surely did these in the name of communism. And regardless of their starting point in life, they appeared to be atheists at the time. But would you classify communism as a movement to promote atheism as its dominant feature? I would say no. The primary driver for communism was to enact a new economic system tied to a government to - in theory - create a workers paradise.

The original point I was going for was to state that at the end of the day, most atheists, christians, muslims, etc are very similar over all when it comes to the capacity of good or evil. In your last response, you cited the author's comments about WWI being a senseless secular war. I agree that it surely was. But what is also interesting about WWI is that most of the nations at war had an established state religion during that time period - which would objectively call them Christian Nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Europe

Interestingly enough, a lot of the nations who fought in the war gave up their state religions around 1918.

Even when you look at the documentation you provided - 93% of wars fought were for secular reasons - that too would prove that it doesn't matter what religion you are or aren't. People are people, and that transcends religion.

I completely agree -- 100%. It's human nature -- regardless of religion. Which is also a suggestion as to why man needs religion.

As Benjamin Franklin replied to Thomas Paine after reading The Age of Reason, "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?"

I have often noted that those who point the finger of hypocrisy toward Christians have no leg to stand on. Everyone is a hypocrite when it comes to living their life on their own chosen belief system.

I agree that the atheist can be as moral as the theist. However, the atheist has no objective basis for morality.



By the way, I'm including below the complete text of Franklin's review of Paine's work.


Quote:The Age of Reason – A Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Thomas Paine

I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For, without the belief of a Providence that takes cognisance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion that, though your reasons are subtle, and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind spits in his own face.

But were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantage of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.

I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person, whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a great deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?

I intend this Letter itself as a proof of my Friendship, and therefore add no Professions to it, but subscribe simply yours,

B.F

Obviously Paine did not follow Franklin's advice to "burn this piece." And Franklin was exactly right regarding his prediction of the backlash Paine would face.

As it was, after his death no cemetery would accept his body. He was buried in a field on his farm.

Thomas Paine's Remains Are Still a Bone of Contention
Los Angeles Times
April 01, 2001|From Associated Press

Quote:When he died in 1809, he was generally out of favor, partly for his opposition to organized religion, partly for his arguments against the elite running the country. He was buried on his farm but didn't even get the simple low stone wall around his grave that he specified in his will.

sounds eerily similar to someone I've seen in the mirror......

disclaimer: in no way am I a whore anymore....ben and corp. had it figured out 03-wink
(This post was last modified: 10-11-2017 06:29 PM by stinkfist.)
10-11-2017 06:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.