Forced to be Christian

[OnlyAmbrose]

Let me get this straight. Your argument is
"So what religion has been used to justify and garner support for atrocities throughout history! Look, here are some atrocities, not caused by religion"
Yeah, congrats on religion not being the source of all atrocities and all.

I believe his argument is more along the lines of "here are some atrocities caused by forces fanatically opposed to religion."

[mpjh]

All atrocities are crimes against humanity. All should be treated as crimes with the leaders being treated as criminals. The problem is that when religion is used to justify the atrocity, there is no recourse against god, because after all she is the leader in such cases. I was thinking on this when I fell asleep last night.

During the night I woke in my sleep, and there at the foot of my bed was a luminous pink glow. I put my glasses on and could make out a delicate form with large feathered wings. He, or she I could not tell, stood there, arms crossed, apparently waiting for me.

I asked, "Are you a fairy?" My first inclination because I did not believe in angels.

"No, I am gay, but I am not a fairy. I am an angel." She said.

I asked. "Are there gay angels."

She snickered and said, "Sex isn't important in heaven."

"Oh, too bad." I muttered, then in a clearer voice I asked. "What do you want."

She sighed again and said, tapping her fingers against her biceps, nicely formed ones at that -- there must by gyms in heaven, " I am on a mission to find good men to help save the world."

Perplexed I asked, "Then what are you doing in my bedroom?"

She sighed again, tapping her fingers at a faster rate, and replied, "I drew the short feather. I have to go to the 'outliers,' the ones least likely to be world saviors. So I am starting with you."

"OK, so what do I have to do. I hope it is not dangerous, and you know I am afraid of heights, dirty water, spiders, centipedes, and smart women. I am also allergic to red dirt dust?" I asked.

The warm luminescence around her began to turn decidedly more red, and I sensed some impatience. Her dark green eyes focused on mine and held me firmly in a trance. I had a hard-on. She said, "You are to help solve the world's most pressing problem."

"OK, but how do I solve climate change?" I asked with complete innocence on my face. Her green eyes drilled into my brain and her impatience was now painfully expressed.

She said, "No, you are to stop organized religion from destroying the ability of mankind to love one another and solve problems collectively as god intended."

Dumbfounded, I asked, "How do I do that?"

"Become a communist." She said.

Suddenly I had the most exquisite orgasm and woke up.

What a dream!!

[CrazyAnglican]

Let me get this straight. Your argument is
"So what religion has been used to justify and garner support for atrocities throughout history! Look, here are some atrocities, not caused by religion"

Not at all, Iliad, the OP has been touting the idea that secular governments have a better track record with regard to atrocities than those societies in which religion has a place among the populace. There are plenty of atrocities in the world. One thing is certain, that no single group can be looked at as the cause of them. The evidence that I have posted time after time shows this quite clearly and from many different sources. The OP, at this point, is writing this off as anti-communist propaganda when the source (clearly cited) shows that capitalists are just as guilty.

Any attempt to pin atrocities (in general) on any one group or concept is a narrow look at the phenomenon. The OP is choosing to ignore the bigger picture in an attempt to besmirch an institution that largely has little to do with the events mentioned thus far. I was merely showing that there is certainly a bigger picture to be examined, if we want to look at it fairly. On the other hand, scapegoating a group or concept is a lot easier and doesn't take too much looking into.

[luns101]

Religion has been a major cause of atrocities throughout history.

...as well as one of the vehicles for some of the greatest humanitarian efforts throughout history.

[Iliad]

Religion has been a major cause of atrocities throughout history.

...as well as one of the vehicles for some of the greatest humanitarian efforts throughout history.

While sure religion with its
"We know exactly how the world came about and how you should live about" started some goodwill through the unifying trait of monotheistic religions "follow me and don't be a dick and you'll go a good place, don't follow me or be a dick and go to a bad place" if you would excuse my french. However I believe the other side was much larger.
"Those guys at the other side of the valley think this is how the world came about and they don't think our god is true! Kill them" and "That guy didn't follow this rule which means he is a witch/ghost/demon. Kill him!"

While perhaps some people were spurred by its teachings to do good, this is almost unseen next to the larger amount of leaders who used it easily to dupe superstitious subjects into atrocities.

[CrazyAnglican]

While perhaps some people were spurred by its teachings to do good, this is almost unseen next to the larger amount of leaders who used it easily to dupe superstitious subjects into atrocities.

The numbers of people whom religion spurs to acts of good and kindness are "almost unseen"? Have a look at these.


http://www.goodsamaritan.ms/opportunity.php
http://www.iocc.org/
http://www.salvationarmy.org/ihq/www_sa.nsf
http://www.tearfund.org/
http://www.worldrelief.org/


Given that quickly googling "Christian Charities" comes up with over a million hits before having to do any real research on the issue, I'm pretty confident that there are lots of people out there doing tremendous good in the name of their churches and their gods. That does not excuse even one death in the name of religion, but the whole "religion has warped their minds" line seems an inappropriate (or at least very difficult to support) attempt to tie religion in as the main reason for many atrocities actually carried out by secular organizations (the secular governments of countries that contain a largely religious population).

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it's way too convenient (to the point of being an overgeneralization if not an outright faulty one). Most people in the world are religious to some degree, which would make one assume that most of the people performing atrocities are religous, that's problematic when you consider that atheists only comprise about 10% of the world's population and the Communist regiemes mentioned above are two of the worst offenders. This fact alone makes numbers and percentages easily swing against atheism in this regard. Which, I suspect, is part of the reason that the OP is so keen to deny the peacetime deaths of 40 - 75 million people in the PRC in spite of his indignance at the deaths of 1 million in a war zone. I abhor the violent deaths of any people for any reason (save perhaps to prevent those people from killing others). I make no excuses for any Christian who would perpetrate it; I also detest violence directed by non-religious groups. There is no other way to look at it rationally rather than looking at the numbers and the organizations that carried it out. Churches do not typically have standing armies that are well armed. Secular governments do. Hence secular governments seem to be the ones racking up the highest body counts right now.

[mpjh]

We have been through this before. The christian churches are simply talking credit for a natural impetus in people, the impetus to help one another.

[CrazyAnglican]

We have been through this before. The christian churches are simply talking credit for a natural impetus in people, the impetus to help one another.

Sure we've been through it before, but you still come back to an obviously contradictory stance that you've not been able to resolve. If the natural impetus for good in people is the controlling factor in people's charity, then the natural impetus for bad in them is likewise the controlling factor in their atrocities. According to your own line of reasoning, no group has sufficient influence on it's populace to cause them to do anything that they wouldn't otherwise do? That undercuts your and Iliad's assertions that religion is a factor in people's inhumanity toward others.

[Iliad]

While perhaps some people were spurred by its teachings to do good, this is almost unseen next to the larger amount of leaders who used it easily to dupe superstitious subjects into atrocities.

The numbers of people whom religion spurs to acts of good and kindness are "almost unseen"? Have a look at these.


http://www.goodsamaritan.ms/opportunity.php
http://www.iocc.org/
http://www.salvationarmy.org/ihq/www_sa.nsf
http://www.tearfund.org/
http://www.worldrelief.org/


Given that quickly googling "Christian Charities" comes up with over a million hits before having to do any real research on the issue, I'm pretty confident that there are lots of people out there doing tremendous good in the name of their churches and their gods. That does not excuse even one death in the name of religion, but the whole "religion has warped their minds" line seems an inappropriate (or at least very difficult to support) attempt to tie religion in as the main reason for many atrocities actually carried out by secular organizations (the secular governments of countries that contain a largely religious population).

And there are plenty of non-religious charities.However the charities are mostly a very recent thing. I am talking more historically throughout the times when religion did in fact warp people's minds. Hunting down perceived heretics, who could not in any way prove themselves innocent and the sort.

When the Church was in power in Europe, and at other times religion played a very large role in politics, religion caused conflicts, and was used to incite and justify wars. Though, for example, The Crusades were not just fought for God, and the kings did aim for profit, the propaganda tool, religion, made it a "holy war".

I don't think you are going to try to argue that the Church and religion was the major cause of most atrocities commited. Whether or not the people fervently believed in their justification, or only used religion as a tool, it matters little.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it's way too convenient (to the point of being an overgeneralization if not an outright faulty one). Most people in the world are religious to some degree, which would make one assume that most of the people performing atrocities are religous, that's problematic when you consider that atheists only comprise about 10% of the world's population and the Communist regiemes mentioned above are two of the worst offenders. This fact alone makes numbers and percentages easily swing against atheism in this regard. Which, I suspect, is part of the reason that the OP is so keen to deny the peacetime deaths of 40 - 75 million people in the PRC in spite of his indignance at the deaths of 1 million in a war zone. I abhor the violent deaths of any people for any reason (save perhaps to prevent those people from killing others). I make no excuses for any Christian who would perpetrate it; I also detest violence directed by non-religious groups. There is no other way to look at it rationally rather than looking at the numbers and the organizations that carried it out. Churches do not typically have standing armies that are well armed. Secular governments do. Hence secular government seem to be the ones racking up the highest body counts right now.

You're slightly missing my point. You show figures of Communist states. Sure, Stalin was an atheist. But he did not perform his atrocities for atheism. He did not justify his actions with atheism. His motive was not atheism. He did not incite people with atheism. Those are critical differences. He was a heartless dictator who performed many atrocities, but his motive was lust for power.

Religion on the other hand has done the above things. There were not simply atrocities performed by people, who were also religious, but atrocities which religion started or justified.

And up until the idea of freedom of religion, when people branched out in different religions and most became far less fervent, making using religion as justification much harder, religion was by far the greatest source of atrocities.

[CrazyAnglican]

And up until the idea of freedom of religion, when people branched out in different religions and most became far less fervent, making using religion as justification much harder, religion was by far the greatest source of atrocities.

This alone though belies the idea that your argument is out of date. People are using secular power to perform atrocities that, in the past, both secular power and religious authority were used to carry out. Religion, you might say, has "cleaned up it's act" much more admirably than secular power structures have in this regard. Why then would you even bother with the ancient history of religious atrocities when more heinous secular ones are right under your nose?

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm

You're slightly missing my point. You show figures of Communist states. Sure, Stalin was an atheist. But he did not perform his atrocities for atheism. He did not justify his actions with atheism. His motive was not atheism. He did not incite people with atheism. Those are critical differences. He was a heartless dictator who performed many atrocities, but his motive was lust for power.

Actually I think you might have missed the overall point, I was not intimating that atheists or atheism is bad. The OP made the assertion that secularism was safer than considering religious views as a basis for policy decisions. Both Stalin and Mao were secular figures and neither were exactly safe for their populace. Hence secularism can't be said to be a proof against atrocities.

[mpjh]

We have been through this before. The christian churches are simply talking credit for a natural impetus in people, the impetus to help one another.

Sure we've been through it before, but you still come back to an obviously contradictory stance that you've not been able to resolve. If the natural impetus for good in people is the controlling factor in people's charity, then the natural impetus for bad in them is likewise the controlling factor in their atrocities. According to your own line of reasoning, no group has sufficient influence on it's populace to cause them to do anything that they wouldn't otherwise do? That undercuts your and Iliad's assertions that religion is a factor in people's inhumanity toward others.

You have missed the point again. You keep trying to divide the world into good and bad. I am indifferent to good and bad. People do what they do because they perceive it in their self interest, and society interferes only to the extent that the larger society's interest supersedes. It is a nature result of who and what we are. Because we are conscious and aware of ourselves, we can create culture that basically codifies this process. It is not a struggle between good and evil, it is human organization to survive and procreate. So religion, by defining the natural impetus to cooperate as a "good" act, takes credit for something the humans do as part of surviving.

[CrazyAnglican]

And there are plenty of non-religious charities.However the charities are mostly a very recent thing.

Once again, I'm not attacking atheism. There are even Atheistic Charities (at least one that I found) and that's great, but it does nothing to diminish the good that people do in the name of theis religion and god(s). My citing of Christians charities was to refute your statement that the good was not visible. High visibility is not always the point of charity, but it is there nonetheless.

I am talking more historically throughout the times when religion did in fact warp people's minds. Hunting down perceived heretics, who could not in any way prove themselves innocent and the sort. When the Church was in power in Europe, and at other times religion played a very large role in politics, religion caused conflicts, and was used to incite and justify wars. Though, for example, The Crusades were not just fought for God, and the kings did aim for profit, the propaganda tool, religion, made it a "holy war".

Once again you are bringing up old human rights violations from a time when very few (secular or religious organizations) would have gained an Amnesty International Seal of Approval, that coupled with your own concession that religion isn't as much of a factor nowadays should put this one to rest.

I don't think you are going to try to argue that the Church and religion was the major cause of most atrocities commited. Whether or not the people fervently believed in their justification, or only used religion as a tool, it matters little.

I'm sorry but I didn't get your point here. I certainly wouldn't argue that the Churches and religion was the major cause of of most atrocities committed. Luns, OA, MTG, and I have been arguing the exact opposite of that for quite a few pages now.

[Iliad]

And up until the idea of freedom of religion, when people branched out in different religions and most became far less fervent, making using religion as justification much harder, religion was by far the greatest source of atrocities.

This alone though belies the idea that your argument is out of date. People are using secular power to perform atrocities that, in the past, both secular power and religious authority were used to carry out. Religion, you might say, has "cleaned up it's act" much more admirably than secular power structures have in this regard. Why then would you even bother with the ancient history of religious atrocities when more heinous secular ones are right under your nose?
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm

No I would not. I said that because of freedom of religion and the move to separate religion from politics, religion has become a harder way to control the masses. However the point that religion has been the major cause of atrocities. The separation of religion from politics and the freedom of religion made atrocities caused by religion much rarer. Atrocities still happen, just like atrocities happened throughout history without religious backing.

What I am saying is that until freedom of religion and secularity, religion was by far the greatest cause of atrocities. Secularity and freedom of religion made them harder, but of course other atrocities still happened.

You're slightly missing my point. You show figures of Communist states. Sure, Stalin was an atheist. But he did not perform his atrocities for atheism. He did not justify his actions with atheism. His motive was not atheism. He did not incite people with atheism. Those are critical differences. He was a heartless dictator who performed many atrocities, but his motive was lust for power.

Actually I think you might have missed the overall point, I was not intimating that atheists or atheism is bad. The OP made the assertion that secularism was safer than considering religious views as a basis for policy decisions. Both Stalin and Mao were secular figures and neither were exactly safe for their populace.

I think we're both slightly on different pages, arguing slightly different things.
But the bold part is ridicilious.
"Look here are two dictators who were secular, so therefore secularity is bad"
Let's ignore all the other secular leaders shall we? Here, I'll embark on this logic
"Democracy must be abolished and we should go back to monarchy. Look at Hitler! He was elected democratically!"
Uhh, yeah it doesn't work that way.

I was talking about something slightly different. But even still secularity is much safer than having religion work with politics again.

[CrazyAnglican]

We have been through this before. The christian churches are simply talking credit for a natural impetus in people, the impetus to help one another.

Sure we've been through it before, but you still come back to an obviously contradictory stance that you've not been able to resolve. If the natural impetus for good in people is the controlling factor in people's charity, then the natural impetus for bad in them is likewise the controlling factor in their atrocities. According to your own line of reasoning, no group has sufficient influence on it's populace to cause them to do anything that they wouldn't otherwise do? That undercuts your and Iliad's assertions that religion is a factor in people's inhumanity toward others.

You have missed the point again. You keep trying to divide the world into good and bad. I am indifferent to good and bad. People do what they do because they perceive it in their self interest, and society interferes only to the extent that the larger society's interest supersedes. It is a nature result of who and what we are. Because we are conscious and aware of ourselves, we can create culture that basically codifies this process. It is not a struggle between good and evil, it is human organization to survive and procreate. So religion, by defining the natural impetus to cooperate as a "good" act, takes credit for something the humans do as part of surviving.

Even without calling these things "good" or "bad", the impetus to cooperate in the extermination of a rival group could easily be argued to be in the best interest of another groups survival (hence warfare and/or genocide). You are still trying to show religion to be ineffectual in spurring people towards altruism at the risk of excusing any atrocity as being a natural impetus or survival instinct. It is still contradictory regardless of the terms used.

[Iliad]

We have been through this before. The christian churches are simply talking credit for a natural impetus in people, the impetus to help one another.

Sure we've been through it before, but you still come back to an obviously contradictory stance that you've not been able to resolve. If the natural impetus for good in people is the controlling factor in people's charity, then the natural impetus for bad in them is likewise the controlling factor in their atrocities. According to your own line of reasoning, no group has sufficient influence on it's populace to cause them to do anything that they wouldn't otherwise do? That undercuts your and Iliad's assertions that religion is a factor in people's inhumanity toward others.

You have missed the point again. You keep trying to divide the world into good and bad. I am indifferent to good and bad. People do what they do because they perceive it in their self interest, and society interferes only to the extent that the larger society's interest supersedes. It is a nature result of who and what we are. Because we are conscious and aware of ourselves, we can create culture that basically codifies this process. It is not a struggle between good and evil, it is human organization to survive and procreate. So religion, by defining the natural impetus to cooperate as a "good" act, takes credit for something the humans do as part of surviving.

Even without calling these things "good" or "bad", the impetus to cooperate in the extermination of a rival group could easily be argued to be in the best interest of another groups survival (hence warfare and/or genocide). You are still trying to show religion to be ineffectual in spurring people towards altruism at the risk of excusing any atrocity as being a natural impetus or survival instinct. It is still contradictory regardless of the terms used.

While yes atrocities, at the base, are caused by the faults of human nature, religion has started, justified, incited atrocities.

You're kinda stretching it there, but even if for example a religious war was a quest for nothing but more land and wealth, even still religion played a very large role in getting the people on the side and allow them to perform atrocities against their thought to be inhuman enemies.

[CrazyAnglican]

No I would not. I said that because of freedom of religion and the move to separate religion from politics, religion has become a harder way to control the masses. However the point that religion has been the major cause of atrocities. The separation of religion from politics and the freedom of religion made atrocities caused by religion much rarer. Atrocities still happen, just like atrocities happened throughout history without religious backing.

What I am saying is that until freedom of religion and secularity, religion was by far the greatest cause of atrocities. Secularity and freedom of religion made them harder, but of course other atrocities still happened.

Yet there is no escaping that religion, in the form that it takes now, is not the cause of very many atrocities or at least it is not the "greates cause of them". That pretty much weakens your stance against it, why not focus on the institutions that are performing the greates evil in our time rather than looking back at another one?

You're slightly missing my point. You show figures of Communist states. Sure, Stalin was an atheist. But he did not perform his atrocities for atheism. He did not justify his actions with atheism. His motive was not atheism. He did not incite people with atheism. Those are critical differences. He was a heartless dictator who performed many atrocities, but his motive was lust for power.

Actually I think you might have missed the overall point, I was not intimating that atheists or atheism is bad. The OP made the assertion that secularism was safer than considering religious views as a basis for policy decisions. Both Stalin and Mao were secular figures and neither were exactly safe for their populace.

I think we're both slightly on different pages, arguing slightly different things.
But the bold part is ridicilious.
"Look here are two dictators who were secular, so therefore secularity is bad"
Let's ignore all the other secular leaders shall we? Here, I'll embark on this logic
"Democracy must be abolished and we should go back to monarchy. Look at Hitler! He was elected democratically!"
Uhh, yeah it doesn't work that way.

I was talking about something slightly different. But even still secularity is much safer than having religion work with politics again.

Which is not at all my point. The thing that I think may be causing us some problem is that I'm not attacking anyone's viewpoint. I'm merely defending my own by making sure that we look at the big picture. Secularism is fine; I live in a secular state that I'm quite fond of. It's the idea that one group or concept can be scapegoated as the "cause of the greatest atrocities" that I'm standing against. The reason that I'm standing against it is simple. Once you point the finger at one group as being problematic to all others, the next step is to move to erradicate it. That's a pattern that has been repeated over and over in all of the atrocities that we've discussed thoroughout this thread.

[mpjh]

Religion is a flawed codification of human nature in our culture. In the hands of those with power it has become a means to control and manipulate. It has provided the clarion call for slaughtering innocent people across the globe. It has provided the justification for transforming murder into collateral damage. It has provided the camouflage for suicide bombing and the killing of innocents.

Religions own massive amounts of land and property. Religions control massive amounts of wealth and resources. Religions spend ennormous amounts on getting their religious theology into civil laws. Religions act in the interests of the powerful and wealthy, and provide a salve for the terrible consequences such people impose on the world in the pursuit of their power and wealth. Religions are nothing more than the tools of oppression, and the resources they devote to maintaining their assests far outweights any charitable giving they dabble in.

When religions sell their property and use the proceeds to help the poor and vulnerable, I will give them a second look.

[CrazyAnglican]

While yes atrocities, at the base, are caused by the faults of human nature, religion has started, justified, incited atrocities.

Perhaps, but are there not many atrocities caused by many other things? The following was a commentary about the information I cited above. It clearly shows that no one group can be shown to be at fault for atrocities. It is most decidedly a human failing and one that many religions and religious figures stand against.

That's why I was so startled to discover that there is absolutely no pattern to the chart. If I had simply picked 25 countries out of a hat, I could not have gotten a more diverse spread than we've got here. We've got rich countries and poor countries; industrial and agrarian; big and small. We've got people of all colors -- white, black, yellow and brown -- widely represented among both the slaughterers and the slaughterees. We've got Christians, Moslems, Buddhists and Atheists all butchering one another in the name of their various gods or lack thereof. Among the perpetrators, we've got political leanings of the left, right and middle; some are monarchies; some are dictatorships and some are even democracies. We've got innocent victims invaded by big, bad neighbors, and we've got plenty of countries who brought it on themselves, sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind. Go on -- take a third look. Find any type of country that is not represented among the agents of a major blooding, and probably the only reason for that is that there aren't that many countries in that category to begin with (There are no Hindu or Jewish countries on the chart, but then, there's only one of each on the whole planet, and they're both waiting in the wings among the next 25.).

You're kinda stretching it there, but even if for example a religious war was a quest for nothing but more land and wealth, even still religion played a very large role in getting the people on the side and allow them to perform atrocities against their thought to be inhuman enemies.

Remember, I'm not trying to tell you that it's never a factor. I'm merely pointing out that the idea that it's "the major factor" is erroneous. Compare two different fronts in WWII. THe Americans and Italians fought against one another in the Italian campaign. They were both largely Christian countries and had little history of animosity toward one another. There was a ratio of one civilan casualty for every three military ones which is about average for the time and shows no overt initiative to cause civilian casualties. One the other hand the Germans and Russians (both told by their respective governments that the other side was subhuman and would commit great atrocities if not stopped) fought on the Eastern Front. As a result of conflict between these two secular powers (one largely Christian and the other officially atheistic) the civilian to military ratio is almost one to one.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm

[CrazyAnglican]

Religions own massive amounts of land and property. Religions control massive amounts of wealth and resources. Religions spend ennormous amounts on getting their religious theology into civil laws. Religions act in the interests of the powerful and wealthy, and provide a salve for the terrible consequences such people impose on the world in the pursuit of their power and wealth. Religions are nothing more than the tools of oppression, and the resources they devote to maintaining their assests far outweights any charitable giving they dabble in.

Look mpjh we've been through this and I've shown you substantial evidence to the contrary point for point and yet you still see fit in stereotyping and throwing unsubstatianted acusations. Are you actually going to cite a source that a neutral party could look into to see if there is anything to your stance?

[Iliad]

No I would not. I said that because of freedom of religion and the move to separate religion from politics, religion has become a harder way to control the masses. However the point that religion has been the major cause of atrocities. The separation of religion from politics and the freedom of religion made atrocities caused by religion much rarer. Atrocities still happen, just like atrocities happened throughout history without religious backing.

What I am saying is that until freedom of religion and secularity, religion was by far the greatest cause of atrocities. Secularity and freedom of religion made them harder, but of course other atrocities still happened.

Yet there is no escaping that religion, in the form that it takes now, is not the cause of very many atrocities or at least it is not the "greates cause of them". That pretty much weakens your stance against it, why not focus on the institutions that are performing the greates evil in our time rather than looking back at another one?

Because they are not one uniform blanket. Yes, different states have performed atrocities. Most of them shared nothing but their methods of scapegoating, etc. But religion has served as a great tool for atrocities throughout history. And secularity and freedom of religion is stopping from that happening again. However people who fervently believe in religion, who twist its words and use it as a tool for violence still exist, thought they have less power. Look at the Middle East, and the extremists who think they are fighting for a noble cause and will be rewarded. Look at America, and the extremists there. Look at the mobs that hunt down the witch and torch her car. Religion is still here, but it has less power. I take a stance against the religion, because it still causes conflicts to this day, blockades the advancement of human knowledge, and moves toward ignorance.

It is the ultimate tool for manipulating with its claims of understanding the universe and telling you what to do. It has been the greatest cause of atrocities in history and only recently have been to reduce the chances of a mass-scale atrocities caused by religion. Yet they still happen to this day.

Which is not at all my point. The thing that I think may be causing us some problem is that I'm not attacking anyone's viewpoint. I'm merely defending my own by making sure that we look at the big picture. Secularism is fine; I live in a secular state that I'm quite fond of. It's the idea that one group or concept can be scapegoated as the "cause of the greatest atrocities" that I'm standing against. The reason that I'm standing against it is simple. Once you point the finger at one group as being problematic to all others, the next step is to move to erradicate it. That's a pattern that has been repeated over and over in all of the atrocities that we've discussed thoroughout this thread.

I'm sorry but I have the right to voice my opinion. Until secularity and freedom of religion religion was the cause of greatest atrocities. After secularity the scale of such atrocities and conflicts reduced, as its effectiveness as a mass-propaganda tool weakened.

You can try to portray yourself as a victim about to be lynched by a mob, but you are taking this too far. No, not every time people had a problem they resorted to violence.

Religion has been the cause of most of the atrocities that have happened throughout history. I am not blaming you specifically, nor Christianity, though because it was in power for such a long time in such a large area it sparked many atrocities, but religion which is a very easy way to manipulate people.

[mpjh]

Funny how the "civilians" were Russian.

Nothing, absolutely nothing in WWII compares to the Holocaust. Next on the list are the firebombing of cities including Dresden and Tokyo, and finally, the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All performed by so-called Christians.

[CrazyAnglican]

I'm sorry but I have the right to voice my opinion. Until secularity and freedom of religion religion was the cause of greatest atrocities. After secularity the scale of such atrocities and conflicts reduced, as its effectiveness as a mass-propaganda tool weakened.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. I can't see the base for your assertion though. The 20th Century was probably the bloodiest in history. The scale of atrocitices was unprecedented and that was after secularity and freedom of religion. Religious atrocities went down and other more heinous atrocities took their place.

You can try to portray yourself as a victim about to be lynched by a mob, but you are taking this too far. No, not every time people had a problem they resorted to violence.

I'm not, nor am I accusing you of violence or even that intention. You've always been a great person to debate against, however, it is a pervasive, preliminary step throughout history to single a group or ideology out as being "the main cause" of everyone else's ills before taking steps to rectify the situation. Are you denying that you'd like to see more people reject religion? Your own argument seems to undercut that stance if you do.

Religion has been the cause of most of the atrocities that have happened throughout history. I am not blaming you specifically, nor Christianity, though because it was in power for such a long time in such a large area it sparked many atrocities, but religion which is a very easy way to manipulate people.

The problem that I have with this line of reasoning is that it's based on a general dismissal of religious adherents' ability to see through anyone trying to manipulate them. With a literacy rate of 90% in most industrialized countries people have access to the religious texts themselves and can use them to refute would be manipulators. Yet Communism wasn't a very easy way to manipulate people?

[Martin Ronne]

Funny how the "civilians" were Russian.

Nothing, absolutely nothing in WWII compares to the Holocaust. Next on the list are the firebombing of cities including Dresden and Tokyo, and finally, the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All performed by so-called Christians.

"War is cruelty, you cannot refine it." - William Tecumseh Sherman

[mpjh]

Funny how the "civilians" were Russian.

Nothing, absolutely nothing in WWII compares to the Holocaust. Next on the list are the firebombing of cities including Dresden and Tokyo, and finally, the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All performed by so-called Christians.

"War is cruelty, you cannot refine it." - William Tecumseh Sherman

Religious leaders justify war every day.

[CrazyAnglican]

Funny how the "civilians" were Russian.

Nothing, absolutely nothing in WWII compares to the Holocaust. Next on the list are the firebombing of cities including Dresden and Tokyo, and finally, the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All performed by so-called Christians.

No they weren't. Hold onto whatever notion you would like but the evidence for these acts come straight from Russia.

After the repulse of the German attack on the Soviet Union and Soviet troops entering Germany and Hungary in late 1944, the number of war crimes - plunder, murder of civilians, and especially rape- reached a level previously unheard of. In both Soviet and current Russian history books on the "Great Patriotic War" these war crimes are almost never mentioned.[6][7] However, evidence of such facts was found and published by Western historians after Soviet archives were opened to the public following the end of the Cold War.

Crimes by the Red Army in the territories it occupied between 1939 and 1941 -- (Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovenia) -- and the follow-up atrocities of 1944–1949 have been present in the historical consciousness of these countries ever since. Nevertheless, a systematic, publicly controlled discussion only began after the fall of the Soviet Union.[8]. This is also true of the territories occupied by Soviet forces in Manchuria and the Kuril Islands after the Soviet Union breached its neutrality pact with Japan in September 1945.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

Religious leaders justify war every day.

Really? Who justified it today? How many and what percentage of the whole d othey represent? I'm not attempting to be sacractic; I'm merely showing that this is a huge generalization and a very faulty one. Look at the number of religious leaders that have won Nobel Peace prizes as well. That likewise proves nothing about the whole.

Martin Ronne has a good point and doesn't deserve to be summarily dismissed as if his ideas weren't pertinent. War is most decidedly ugly. It doesn't matter for what reason it's waged, It's still horrific.