Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by DiogenesDog, Nov 24, 2007.
Source: Christian Science Monitor
This my reddit comment to the article cited above.
This is just more of the absolutist divisive we versus them mentality. Define your terms and definitions to support your agenda. Count your beans. For the sake of argument, lets assume that more violence has been done in the name of atheism. SO what?
what a goddamn joke.
DiogenesDog, I'm missing the point? Whatever it is you are trying to say it is over my head. Please bring it down a notch so I can figure out if all is lost or there is a glimpse of hope.
So what? it counter's the claims of militant athiests who are falsely claiming that religion is responsible for more violence and thats why religion should be done away with.
Isnt it amazing how it no longer matters when it doesnt support your position?
d'Souza's premise is stupid. Atheism doesn't motivate mass murders or wars. In fact atheism is probably totally irrelevant to the motivations. But I can also make the same claim when it comes to allegations that religion is the reason for mass murders or wars.
I suspect that religion has been an excuse for mass murders or wars. If I want to take over a neighbouring country to grab their natural resources and I have a mediaevalist population, are they going to give up their lives to make me, their ruler, rich? Nope. But if I tell me our god demands it, watch them saddle up.
Joe Stalin, Mao, atheists both, slaughtered millions. Not in the name of atheism but in the name of power.
This demands a more subtle analysis, d'Souza is filling space.
Bullshit. It is plain and simple. There is no nuiance you can spin on it. The attempt to vilify religion fails over and over and your response is, "gee, those guys didn't do it cause of athiesm they just did it for power."
exactly, filling the space between th ears of militant christians who don't like the fact of their bloody history. Hell, I can see the re-writing of hisotry now: English puritans fleeing England for fear of religious persicution, NOT BY OTHER CHRISTIANS, but by godless athiests...
Atheists use the name of God to put a face on their most vile actions, it's a fact. They do it to discredit Christians, God and to give themselves credibility.
More specifically, I believe true monsters of history were in fact non-Christian, regardless of what they called themselves. Hitler toyed with the concept of God, but I believe he didn't believe in God. He simply used the beliefs of others to suit himself.
THe Inquisition was also the result of politics meeting religion, with politics winning, and putting a religious face on it. Does this mean religion is at fault? No, it means evil can infiltrate any establishment. Which is actually a call for devoutness.
what you believe and what is reality may very well be two different animals. If you don't like the history of your religious affiliation then too bad. trying to elude the fact of 1500 years of christian domination wont make it any less of a fact.
Hitler spoke out of both sides of his mouth like a politican but, clearly, at some level he self identified with christianity, if not the catholic church.
Now, just to show you that I'm not giving you the lion treatment, I would like to suggest the following if you are a documentary sort of gal. I caught it at our local independant theatre and it's quite a compelling story about a christian who stood up to the nazis.
Separate names with a comma.