Is atheism the New Evangelism?

[Who's Doing What?]

This is tossed around as if it were 'conventional wisdom'. But there is no real basis for this statement based on the historical record.

I defy you to list a few of the most bloody 'religious' wars in history.

I will then show you that particular war was not about religion at all.

If you do try taking up the challenge, don't bother with the 12th/13th century Crusades or the 16th/17th century religious wars. Those ones are too easy for me. Pick a tough one!

No please do explain how a bunch of christians trying to rid the "Holy Land" of non-christians is not a religious based war.

[noahbody]

I defy you to list a few of the most bloody 'religious' wars in history.

I will then show you that particular war was not about religion at all.

Was WW2 not about religion at all?

"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work."

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

[Mad_Michael]

No please do explain how a bunch of christians trying to rid the "Holy Land" of non-christians is not a religious based war.

The Western European 'Crusader Wars' of the 12th and 13th century were all about land.

Europe was at that time suffering from a huge population boom (that ended with the Plague in 1350's) that was caused by a variety of improvements in agriculture (3 fields rotation and the deep-furrow plow and halter).

A surfeit of aristocratic young males with no land to endow them with was a major source of political instability in Europe at that time.

The Crusades were an attempt to annex Middle Eastern land to the European feudal system. Urban II preached at Clermont about conquering the 'land of milk and honey' - not about smiting Muslims.

Count Behemond was one of the leaders of the 1st crusade - certainly the most illustrious and respected military leader of the 1st Crusade (that had no official leader). Antioch was one of the first cities of the Middle East conquered by the Crusaders. Behemond, whose troops were the ones that actually took Antioch, promptly proclaimed himself Count of Antioch and immediately started to make alliances with his new Muslim neighbours in defence of his new territory against the claims of other Christian Crusaders.

This was the first official act of the Crusades. It established a pattern that was endlessly repeated for several centuries and a half-dozen Crusades. The minute any Crusader got his hands on some land, he immediately stopped crusading and set about establishing a feudal state under his own control - and was ready and willing to ally with Muslims against Christians to maintain it.

It was the constant alliances of these people with the Muslims against their fellow Crusaders that shows the true nature of the game - it was a land-grab plain and simple, with a bit of religious rhetoric thrown on top.

If it was all about religion (or even partly about religion) we wouldn't see dozens and dozens of alliances signed between Crusader Lords and Muslims against other Christian Crusaders.

(I don't have access to my library right now so I can't list for you a bunch of these alliances in detail)

[Mad_Michael]

I defy you to list a few of the most bloody 'religious' wars in history.

I will then show you that particular war was not about religion at all.

Was WW2 not about religion at all?

"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work."

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Hitler's religious posturings were entirely self-serving. For the most part, he was most consistently a mystic - a strong believer in astrology and all kinds of occult theories.

And the whole of WW2 from the German perspective is about two things: 1) 'Living Space' - Germany was full and needed more room to grow, and 2) Revenge on the west for the humiliation of Versailles.

The Jews just happen to have been convenient scapegoats for both of these policies: 1) Jews were very numerous in Poland and Russia (Germany's traditionally desired 'living space'), and, 2) Jews were blamed for selling out Germany in WW1.

I can't see any religious angle at all for the Soviets, Brits, French, Japanese or Americans in WW2.

[Who's Doing What?]

No please do explain how a bunch of christians trying to rid the "Holy Land" of non-christians is not a religious based war.

The Western European 'Crusader Wars' of the 12th and 13th century were all about land.

Europe was at that time suffering from a huge population boom (that ended with the Plague in 1350's) that was caused by a variety of improvements in agriculture (3 fields rotation and the deep-furrow plow and halter).

A surfeit of aristocratic young males with no land to endow them with was a major source of political instability in Europe at that time.

The Crusades were an attempt to annex Middle Eastern land to the European feudal system. Urban II preached at Clermont about conquering the 'land of milk and honey' - not about smiting Muslims.

Count Behemond was one of the leaders of the 1st crusade - certainly the most illustrious and respected military leader of the 1st Crusade (that had no official leader). Antioch was one of the first cities of the Middle East conquered by the Crusaders. Behemond, whose troops were the ones that actually took Antioch, promptly proclaimed himself Count of Antioch and immediately started to make alliances with his new Muslim neighbours in defence of his new territory against the claims of other Christian Crusaders.

This was the first official act of the Crusades. It established a pattern that was endlessly repeated for several centuries and a half-dozen Crusades. The minute any Crusader got his hands on some land, he immediately stopped crusading and set about establishing a feudal state under his own control - and was ready and willing to ally with Muslims against Christians to maintain it.

It was the constant alliances of these people with the Muslims against their fellow Crusaders that shows the true nature of the game - it was a land-grab plain and simple, with a bit of religious rhetoric thrown on top.

If it was all about religion (or even partly about religion) we wouldn't see dozens and dozens of alliances signed between Crusader Lords and Muslims against other Christian Crusaders.

(I don't have access to my library right now so I can't list for you a bunch of these alliances in detail)

Ok if that is how you want to look at it. The "holy land" had nothing to do with being "holy" it was just that it was land.

Please explain how the following conflicts and atrocities are not religious based:

Jihad ( pick one or twenty)

Iraq sectarian

Ireland

The Holocaust

The Inquisition

Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia

Witch Trials (#s in the 000's)

10th century Afghanistan (Muslim/ hindu)

Kashmir pre-14th century(Muslim/ hindu)

Pakistan 1947(Muslim/ hindu)

Bangledesh 1971(Muslim/ hindu)

Goa 16th century (portugese christians/ hindu)

Tarain 1192( Muslim/Bhuddhist)

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

[White Doors]

No please do explain how a bunch of christians trying to rid the "Holy Land" of non-christians is not a religious based war.

The Western European 'Crusader Wars' of the 12th and 13th century were all about land.

Europe was at that time suffering from a huge population boom (that ended with the Plague in 1350's) that was caused by a variety of improvements in agriculture (3 fields rotation and the deep-furrow plow and halter).

A surfeit of aristocratic young males with no land to endow them with was a major source of political instability in Europe at that time.

The Crusades were an attempt to annex Middle Eastern land to the European feudal system. Urban II preached at Clermont about conquering the 'land of milk and honey' - not about smiting Muslims.

Count Behemond was one of the leaders of the 1st crusade - certainly the most illustrious and respected military leader of the 1st Crusade (that had no official leader). Antioch was one of the first cities of the Middle East conquered by the Crusaders. Behemond, whose troops were the ones that actually took Antioch, promptly proclaimed himself Count of Antioch and immediately started to make alliances with his new Muslim neighbours in defence of his new territory against the claims of other Christian Crusaders.

This was the first official act of the Crusades. It established a pattern that was endlessly repeated for several centuries and a half-dozen Crusades. The minute any Crusader got his hands on some land, he immediately stopped crusading and set about establishing a feudal state under his own control - and was ready and willing to ally with Muslims against Christians to maintain it.

It was the constant alliances of these people with the Muslims against their fellow Crusaders that shows the true nature of the game - it was a land-grab plain and simple, with a bit of religious rhetoric thrown on top.

If it was all about religion (or even partly about religion) we wouldn't see dozens and dozens of alliances signed between Crusader Lords and Muslims against other Christian Crusaders.

(I don't have access to my library right now so I can't list for you a bunch of these alliances in detail)

Ok if that is how you want to look at it. The "holy land" had nothing to do with being "holy" it was just that it was land.

Please explain how the following conflicts and atrocities are not religious based:

Jihad ( pick one or twenty)

Iraq sectarian

Ireland

The Holocaust

The Inquisition

Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia

Witch Trials (#s in the 000's)

10th century Afghanistan (Muslim/ hindu)

Kashmir pre-14th century(Muslim/ hindu)

Pakistan 1947(Muslim/ hindu)

Bangledesh 1971(Muslim/ hindu)

Goa 16th century (portugese christians/ hindu)

Tarain 1192( Muslim/Bhuddhist)

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

One 'conflict' that would count for many more deaths than all of those combined would be the cultural revolution in China. That's over 20 million people dead. More than the combined people that died in the conflicts in your list here. I don't think you would seriously argue that Mao's cultural revoultion has anything to do with religion would you?

When are people going to realize that it is human pathos of fanaticism that kills? What they are fanatical about is really irrelevant.

Be it communism, fascism, feudalism, ethnism, racism etc. The one constant is intolerance for others - and yet, here we are having atheists being openly intolerant of religious minded folks.

It really makes one wonder about the state of our education system.

[Mad_Michael]

Please explain how the following conflicts and atrocities are not religious based:

Jihad ( pick one or twenty)

You pick one specifically. The term means "struggle", not "war", and as such, your statement has no actual meaning.

Iraq sectarian

Was the US invasion of Iraq a religious war?

And what do you call those who seek to defend their land from foreign invaders and occupation armies?

And amongst the Sunni vs Shi'ite, that is not a religious dispute. There is no doctrinal difference between Sunni and Shi'ite. These religious labels really only serve to distinguish socio-cultural-political differences between two groups that share the identical religion. Neither group is attacking Islam.

Ireland

Entirely political. The Irish have been fighting against English overlordship for centuries. Catholic vs Protestant is mere 'short-hand' for Irish and British.

The Holocaust

This wasn't a war. However, it was a bunch of people dying. A bunch of people who had the misfortune to inhabit territory that Nazi Germany claimed as their own.

I don't see how one can assert that Nazi murder of Jews was religious driven. There is no substantive religious component there at all - it was a very secular policy, done for entirely secular political reasons.

The Inquisition

The Counter-reformation was a political act in response to the Reformation removing significantly large numbers from under the Roman Catholic family.

It was a Catholic policy applied in Catholic countries primarily against Catholics.

Perhaps I'll deal with your other examples later on when I have more time.

[noahbody]

Hitler's religious posturings were entirely self-serving.

Religion was also used by Hitler to gain support for war. Self-serving or not, it played a role. Saying WW2 had nothing at all to do with religion is false.

"We have experienced a miracle, something unique, something the like of which there has hardly been in the history of the world. God first allowed our people to be victorious for four and a half years, then He abased us, laid upon us a period of shamelessness, but now after a struggle of fourteen years he has permitted us to bring that period to a close. It is a miracle which has been wrought upon the German people.... It shows us that the Almighty has not deserted our people, that He received it into favour at the moment when it rediscovered itself. And that our people shall never again lose itself, that must be our vow so long as we shall live and so long as the Lord gives us the strength to carry on the fight." (Adolf Hitler, in a speech to the "Old Guard" of the Party at Munich on March 19, 1934)

[myata]

Huge life loss was caused by religous fanatics as well as atheist ones (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khmer Rouge).

Branding each others views as erroneous and fit for "elimination" is a sure way to follow in their track, no matter which side one thinks themselves to be on. Maybe, the solution lies in eliminating war, rather than each other's "erroneous" beliefs?

[Mad_Michael]

Hitler's religious posturings were entirely self-serving.

Religion was also used by Hitler to gain support for war. Self-serving or not, it played a role. Saying WW2 had nothing at all to do with religion is false.

"We have experienced a miracle, something unique, something the like of which there has hardly been in the history of the world. God first allowed our people to be victorious for four and a half years, then He abased us, laid upon us a period of shamelessness, but now after a struggle of fourteen years he has permitted us to bring that period to a close. It is a miracle which has been wrought upon the German people.... It shows us that the Almighty has not deserted our people, that He received it into favour at the moment when it rediscovered itself. And that our people shall never again lose itself, that must be our vow so long as we shall live and so long as the Lord gives us the strength to carry on the fight." (Adolf Hitler, in a speech to the "Old Guard" of the Party at Munich on March 19, 1934)

Just about every speech by a Presidential candidate in the US invokes "Lord give us the strength", and "God bless America" etc., etc.

Does that mean USA is a theocracy?

A few citations of 'God' doesn't make a religious war. For a war to be a 'religious war', some religious purpose or some religious goal must serve as the principle element of the war.

Besides which, if it was a religious war, why did Roman Catholic Hitler, allied with Roman Catholic Italy make war on Roman Catholic Belgium?

And Hitler was a fanatical vegitarian - does that mean WW2 was a vegitarian war? I'm sure he praised vegitables often.

[Who's Doing What?]

Please explain how the following conflicts and atrocities are not religious based:

Jihad ( pick one or twenty)

You pick one specifically. The term means "struggle", not "war", and as such, your statement has no actual meaning.

So jihads have nothing to do with religion? And they are not violent? OK.

Iraq sectarian

Was the US invasion of Iraq a religious war?

And what do you call those who seek to defend their land from foreign invaders and occupation armies?

And amongst the Sunni vs Shi'ite, that is not a religious dispute. There is no doctrinal difference between Sunni and Shi'ite. These religious labels really only serve to distinguish socio-cultural-political differences between two groups that share the identical religion. Neither group is attacking Islam.

Really so two religious groups killing each other is not religous? OK

Ireland

Entirely political. The Irish have been fighting against English overlordship for centuries. Catholic vs Protestant is mere 'short-hand' for Irish and British.

Sure. Pro V. Cath. not a religious war, or violence even. Even though they kill each other. Gotcha.

The Holocaust

This wasn't a war. However, it was a bunch of people dying. A bunch of people who had the misfortune to inhabit territory that Nazi Germany claimed as their own.

I don't see how one can assert that Nazi murder of Jews was religious driven. There is no substantive religious component there at all - it was a very secular policy, done for entirely secular political reasons.

Really so singling out a certain religon for extermination has nothing to do with religion?

The Inquisition

The Counter-reformation was a political act in response to the Reformation removing significantly large numbers from under the Roman Catholic family.

It was a Catholic policy applied in Catholic countries primarily against Catholics.

People being killed for actions, real or imagined against the church. Again nothing to do with religion. People were just killed in it's name for crimes against it.

You know if you repeat this type of stuff often enough for long enough it might actually become believable.

Perhaps I'll deal with your other examples later on when I have more time.

I am sure you will try.

[Mad_Michael]

Please explain how the following conflicts and atrocities are not religious based:

Jihad ( pick one or twenty)

You pick one specifically. The term means "struggle", not "war", and as such, your statement has no actual meaning.

So jihads have nothing to do with religion? And they are not violent? OK.

It is perfectly obvious that I've said no such thing.

I repeat, please give a specific example of a particular 'Jihad' war. It is your argument and your challenge. You are dodging your own point.

Really so two religious groups killing each other is not religous? OK

As I stated above, the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite is entirely cultural & political. They share the same religion entirely and completely. There is no difference between them on any religious issue. The only distinction is in partisanship for two different lines of succession of the Caliphs in descent from the Prophet - a dispute that occured some 1200 years ago and cause a political faction split within the Islamic community.

Ergo, Sunni vs Shi'ite battles inside Iraq are of the character of a 'civil war' (for control of the state apparatus between two domestic factions) rather than a 'religious war' (for religious domination). Indeed, no matter who wins or loses between Sunni vs Shi'ite in Iraq, they are all Islam and nothing would change in the mosques and schools.

Ireland

Entirely political. The Irish have been fighting against English overlordship for centuries. Catholic vs Protestant is mere 'short-hand' for Irish and British.

Sure. Pro V. Cath. not a religious war, or violence even. Even though they kill each other. Gotcha.

Please cite a major battle that occured between these alleged 'Protestant' and 'Catholic' armies in Ireland. Remember, it is your thesis here that religious war is the dominant or most prevailent form of war throughout history.

Really so singling out a certain religon for extermination has nothing to do with religion?

I didn't say that. I only stated that it quite obviously wasn't a 'religious war' - or if it was, it was a very one-sided one.

But I do believe that the Nazi extermination of Jews (and many others such as homosexuals and gypsies) is entirely explicable in secular terms. Certainly the arguments that Hitler used to justify hating Jews and for politically repressing them in Germany throughout the 1930's wasn't religious driven. Hitler's fanatical hatred of Jews was entirely political and economic (and woefully misguided - see Mein Kampf)

And while it is true that Hitler made nice with the Catholic Church in Bavaria in the early days in order to have their blessing for his election, it is also true that once the Nazis were in power, they paid nothing more than lip service (if even that much) to any Christian notions and didn't blink at throwing priests in jail. Official Nazi Germany was most certainly a secular state in extremis.

People being killed for actions, real or imagined against the church. Again nothing to do with religion. People were just killed in it's name for crimes against it.

The history of the Roman Church and their various 'methods' of ensuring doctrinal purity amongst their followers does not constitute a "religious war". It does constitute an interesting period of history though.

You know if you repeat this type of stuff often enough for long enough it might actually become believable.

So, your thesis here is that "religious war" is the primary cause of war throughout history, and yet you have been so far unable to actually offer a 'clear-cut' case. I have shown that secular motives dominate each of your examples so far. The mere presence of a religious label applied to the combatants in a war does not constitute a 'religious war'.

And I certainly have never disputed the historical fact that many many people have died at the hands of the Church, or at the hands of 'religious zelots' without any official 'Church' sanction, or at the hands of religion or religious ideals in general. Nor have I denied that the name and authority of religion has often been invoked to support these secular wars.

But on the big scale of history, the number of people killed in actual 'religious wars' or by the Church itself, through methods such as the Inquisition, is a relatively small number in history. You can include the Islamic Caliphate here too. Even if you include the early 13th century AD Albegensian Crusade in Southern France, the total number through the last couple thousand years, is still not much more than a few million, certainly less than ten million.

Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia

Witch Trials (#s in the 000's)

10th century Afghanistan (Muslim/ hindu)

Kashmir pre-14th century(Muslim/ hindu)

Pakistan 1947(Muslim/ hindu)

Bangledesh 1971(Muslim/ hindu)

Goa 16th century (portugese christians/ hindu)

Tarain 1192( Muslim/Bhuddhist)

Witch trials aren't a "religious war". And quite remarkably, most modern scholarship now places this one clearly in the 'secular' camp. 'Witch', as it now turns out, was a term used in Court to get rid of widows who owned valuable land that was desired by more powerful interests within the town.

As for the others, I can't claim any competence in the study of Islamic or Asian history. Though I would suggest that the two 20th century examples here were clearly secular wars with secular goals, fought between two sides that just happened to have different religions. In neither case was the goal of the war to 'religiously dominate' the other. The goals in both wars was control of territory - and/or nationalism.

So even if we grant a few of the older historical examples (that I'm not going to research right now), I still suspect that the overall 'religious war' kill number remains relatively and/or comparatively low (in a large scale historical perspective).

Religion, in all of its guises and forms, over the course of the last 2000 years can easily account for a few million killed - perhaps ten million as a good estimate if we are to include the whole of the planet. But this number barely just matches Stalin alone in his early days and he's just one 'secular' killer. Religion needs the whole planet and several thousand years to get this kind of number. Not much comparison here.

[AndrewL]

deleted....repost later when i figure out the quoting system

[AndrewL]

WTF, i cant figure out the quoting on this damn site........ arrghhhhh....

Andrew

[Mad_Michael]

WTF, i cant figure out the quoting on this damn site........ arrghhhhh....

Andrew

I did read about half your post before you deleted it - half scanning the quote blocks looking for the error! Then I closed out figuring you might be trying to fix it.

[Mad_Michael]

The one constant is intolerance for others - and yet, here we are having atheists being openly intolerant of religious minded folks.

It really makes one wonder about the state of our education system.

I should like to think that as I am most certainly not intolerant of religious minded folks. Indeed, I am, 'theoretically speaking', defending 'religion' against the charge of 'most mass murderer' here. I respect religion as religion, so long as we follow the liberal principle of separation of Chuch and State. My respect for religion is held as a fundamental tenet of liberalism. Live and let live.

When the Church tries to step over the State line, only then I shall draw the sword. But that is unlikely since that battle has already been fought long ago. The 'seculars' won. It is over. No need to fight.

[AndrewL]

Andrew, this is probably a topic we've touched on in the past.

En garde!

The internet is such a small place.

That is perhaps because volume is just another form of violence. If they don't listen to moderate voices, they aren't likely to listen to loud moderate voices.

Let me rephrase that. Because moderates believe in god, either loudly or silently, they offer legitimacy and tacit support to the fundamentalists, whether they want to or not. If 1 billion Muslims believe that the Koran is the infallible and true word of the creator of the universe, doesn't the suicide bomber have a point? He really believes it, after all, and why shouldn't he, his entire life every moderate around him has told him it is true, there will be a glorious reward for defending Islam through whatever means, even through death.

Indeed, the fundamentalists have not increased their visibility by 'speaking loudly'. They have done it with deeds.

Exactly. And why do they believe what they believe. If the there were no moderates, they would not have been exposed to the 'truth' of the book. There would be no fundamentalists.

I see no value, purpose or function in moderate religious people harranguing immoderate fundamentalists.

True. The value would be in moderates ceasing to be even moderate, they would become more inclined to just accept the mystery of the universe as a mystery, rather than attaching certain ‘infallible truths’ to it that they cannot have any way of knowing.

You accept my thesis then?

I accept that atheists are more outspoken these days.

Now all we have left to establish is the validity and justification of the distinction between moderate and immoderate atheists.

American conservatives are politically allied with religious fundamentalists. Of course they are going to take that line.

I thought I could turn it around on them.

Indeed, that line of argument is un-conservative by definition of a lack of moderation, but one can't expect consistency or rationality in partisan politics.

And the statement 'admits' nothing. It is not a proven argument or statement or fact - just a partisan tactic.

Very true.

I have no formal objections here - though I might suggest that atheists have no need to expand upon anything. Faith is a personal and subjective thing. If some person comes to you and asks your view on faith, I should think you should be welcome to give it.

Faith is not a personal and subjective thing. Faith is political, and people of faith have always been on the attack, looking for souls to convert. Spirituality is personal and subjective. Faith is, and always has been, part of the public discourse.

The burden of atheists has always been to show that spirituality, ethics, and morals is fully compatible and superior in a humanist secular way of life. That is what we need to expand on.

By why the need to aggresively expound it? There is no commandment or Godly reward for prolselytizing from some atheistic anti-God. Even the most expansive interpretation of the principles of personal morality and/or ethics doesn't require an atheist to go around to 'save souls' or 'disabuse' the believers.

Very true. Im just naturally confrontational. Especially when it comes to religion and politics.

Absolutely - public discussion forums are places for public discourse and the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of expression do have some application (limited of course by various applicable laws and terms of service and whatnot).

But I repeat, given "we now have a forum" - why the need for the soapbox? Are you not granting the religious fundamentalists more credit and influence than they actually have by taking up arms? Does not the very act of 'taking up arms' against them not act as a catalyst for religious fundamentalism in the first place? Are you not trying to throw gasoline on a fire here?

Religious fundamentalism grew in political power in the 70 and 80s in NA, when atheists were silent.

You must not meet fire with fire. That just feeds the flames. Given what you say, there is all the more reason to engage a different approach. If you must fight a battle, take Sun Tzu to heart, not Blitzkrieg.

lol... i should read Sun Tzu then.

If fundamentalist religious people stayed home and prayed all day or spent all their time in Bible study, no one would care. To each his own. But it is the fact that they sometimes perhaps overstep the bounds of civil society in their desire to impose their fundamentalism upon you, me and society. That is why some people rightfully feel they have a duty to object to religious fundamentalism.

That’s exactly it. I pick up my newspaper and i see a creation science museum just opened in Alberta. And then i read the editorial page and i see opinion that say the Royal Tyrell paleontology museum is the same thing as a creation science museum. And that is just wrong. And it makes me very outspoken, as well as concerned.

Now if an atheist stayed home and speculated about a godless universe all day long, no one would care. To each his own. But when they sometimes perhaps overstep the bounds of civil society in their desire to impose their atheism upon you, me and society, that's when moderate and responsible people have a duty to rightfully object to these 'positivistic' atheists.

I have seen no attempt to impose by the current crop of active atheists. I just see books that are making rational arguments against and for a position, no different than any book on history, art, politics, or religion.

I fail to see any difference between the characteristic of 'positivistic' or 'fundamentalist' here. They are indeed quite similar in character and form.

If I or Richard Dawkins are fundamentalist’s then so are the writers who question the standard 'tale' of Chris Columbus as the first to visit the new world. I really cant see the difference.

Absolutely. Rational criticism is a core principle of classical liberalism and I can never defy that.

But where is the rational criticism?

All I see is 'partisan attack' in the application of the term 'evil'. That is to play the same game.

Ive tried. Some people see it, other accuse me of being a cruel and evil person for even questioning their religious views. (even when im not confrontational or mean spirited). Sometimes im just confrontational, i admit. I alluded to one of my favorite rational criticism in the previous post. That is, Dawkins argues very convincingly that humans don't, and never have, taken their morals from scripture or religious belief. On the contrary, our religious beliefs are created mainly by our morals at whatever given time. Thereby eliminating the notion that non-religious people have nothing to base their morals on. There are many, many more rational criticisms to be found in both of Harris's books, Dawkins book, and others. (i have not read Hitchens book, mainly because i find him so distasteful as a human being in the first place).

Cheers.

Andrew

[Who's Doing What?]

No religious war and violence Mad Michael?

How about 25 current religious conflicts and wars?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

[Who's Doing What?]

Remember, it is your thesis here that religious war is the dominant or most prevailent form of war throughout history.

If you are going try and debate me atleast get what I said right when you are trying to put words in my mouth.

Go back to my original post and try reading what I wrote.

[Who's Doing What?]

One 'conflict' that would count for many more deaths than all of those combined would be the cultural revolution in China. That's over 20 million people dead. More than the combined people that died in the conflicts in your list here. I don't think you would seriously argue that Mao's cultural revoultion has anything to do with religion would you?

When are people going to realize that it is human pathos of fanaticism that kills? What they are fanatical about is really irrelevant.

Be it communism, fascism, feudalism, ethnism, racism etc. The one constant is intolerance for others - and yet, here we are having atheists being openly intolerant of religious minded folks.

It really makes one wonder about the state of our education system.

Actually between Hitler and Stalin there were as many as 14 million Jews killed due to their religion. That closes the gap pretty quick.

Did the Chinese cultural revolution have anything to do with religion?

Between 1966 and 1968, Mao's principal lieutenants, Vice-Chairman Lin Biao and Mao's wife, acting on his instructions, organized a mass youth militia called the Red Guards to overthrow Mao's perceived enemies and seize control of the state and party apparatus, replacing the Central Committee with the Cultural Revolution Committee, and local governments with revolutionary committees. In the chaos and violence that ensued, many revolutionary elders, authors, artists, and religious figures were purged and killed, and millions were persecuted and possibly as many as half a million people died.[1]

So some amongst the 20+ million in the cultural revolution were killed for their religion.

[Mad_Michael]

No religious war and violence Mad Michael?

I have categorically denied making that statement.

I have stated that religion is not the majority of war, or violence in human history - in contradiction to your assertion to the contrary.

How about 25 current religious conflicts and wars?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

Your site reference is not credible.

We are defining "religion" rather loosely here to include Communism

[Mad_Michael]

Remember, it is your thesis here that religious war is the dominant or most prevailent form of war throughout history.

If you are going try and debate me atleast get what I said right when you are trying to put words in my mouth.

Go back to my original post and try reading what I wrote.

Then when you look through history more people have did in the name or their god than for any other reason, save perhaps disease.

(I am assuming that "did" was a typo and was meant to be "died").

You here assert that religion or belief in God has killed more people than any other reason.

For that to be true, the vast majority of wars that have been fought would have to be entirely religious wars.

Ergo, my argument that the majority of wars fought in history have not been primarily religious wars. Wars fought for secular reasons or secular goals have killed far more people than religion ever has.

[Mad_Michael]

One 'conflict' that would count for many more deaths than all of those combined would be the cultural revolution in China. That's over 20 million people dead. More than the combined people that died in the conflicts in your list here. I don't think you would seriously argue that Mao's cultural revoultion has anything to do with religion would you?

When are people going to realize that it is human pathos of fanaticism that kills? What they are fanatical about is really irrelevant.

Be it communism, fascism, feudalism, ethnism, racism etc. The one constant is intolerance for others - and yet, here we are having atheists being openly intolerant of religious minded folks.

It really makes one wonder about the state of our education system.

Actually between Hitler and Stalin there were as many as 14 million Jews killed due to their religion. That closes the gap pretty quick.

Did the Chinese cultural revolution have anything to do with religion?

Between 1966 and 1968, Mao's principal lieutenants, Vice-Chairman Lin Biao and Mao's wife, acting on his instructions, organized a mass youth militia called the Red Guards to overthrow Mao's perceived enemies and seize control of the state and party apparatus, replacing the Central Committee with the Cultural Revolution Committee, and local governments with revolutionary committees. In the chaos and violence that ensued, many revolutionary elders, authors, artists, and religious figures were purged and killed, and millions were persecuted and possibly as many as half a million people died.[1]

So some amongst the 20+ million in the cultural revolution were killed for their religion.

In your own citation, the figure of "as many as half a million people died" is the claim. Then you claim it as evidence for a claim of 20 million?

And I don't see how you can claim Chinese atheist communists were being driven by 'religion' to kill religious people.

Btw, religious martyrs are not a particularly viable example of how religion kills.

[White Doors]

Oh my...

So if a religious person is killed by a fanatical secularist, it is the religions fault?

Do you really believe this?

Also, you do know that 'Jew' is an ethnicity do you not? The Jews at the holocaust were killed because they were ethnically Jews, not because they were practising the jewish religion. It mattered not to the the SS and SD if the Jews renounced their faith on their march to the gas chambers.

Stalin is the biggest mass murderer in the century with the most mass murders. The 20th century was undoubtedly mans' bloodiest and it also marked the century with religion at it weakest point in world history.

If you do not see this it is simply because you do not want to.

[Who's Doing What?]

Then when you look through history more people have did in the name or their god than for any other reason, save perhaps disease.

(I am assuming that "did" was a typo and was meant to be "died").

You here assert that religion or belief in God has killed more people than any other reason.

For that to be true, the vast majority of wars that have been fought would have to be entirely religious wars.

Ergo, my argument that the majority of wars fought in history have not been primarily religious wars. Wars fought for secular reasons or secular goals have killed far more people than religion ever has.

No sorry I said nothing of wars. That is your own invention. Dying or being killed because of religion does not necessarily mean you are getting killed in a war. People fought the crusades in the name of god. You may argue that it was a land grab, but even if it was, that only involved a very few of the overall number of christians who thought they were doing "gods work".