This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Religion IS crazy!

Jump to new
Ves said:
The questions "How many people have died in the name of religion...." or "How many people have been killed by Atheists"
.
Click to expand...

the wording of those questions is wrong, and that is what's causing the confusion here.

the first part is right where you asked " how many people have died in the name of religion"

But the second part should be " how many people have died in the name of atheism" not "how many people have been killed by atheists"

Offcourse Atheists have killed people, all sorts of people have killed for all sorts of reasons. The fact that a person who happens to be an atheist kills some one, doesn't at all mean that his or her atheism was the root cause.

In the same manner I am not attributing every murderer who happens to believe in a god to religion.

eg. the IRA were catholic, but their religion was not the root cause of their actions, so I am not attributing that to religion (I do give religion blame for causing the conflict to drag on for so long, but it wasn't the root cause)

Much like the religion wasn't the root cause of the IRA killings, Atheism wasn't the cause for the communist ones.

So when I say religion is the cause of a lot of killings, saying "but, atheists have killed too" is an invalid reply.
 
Mother murders boy to get him into heaven before he can sin.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/12/mom-kills-son-believing-boy-would-be-better-off-in-heaven/

 
I still think the questions themselves are a bit silly.... and mostly pointless.

But if you wish to pursue that line of thinking (ignoring all other factors), then why does "atheist" or "atheism" have to appear in the second question at all? Alternatives could be "godless", "non-believers", "those who are not religious" etc. Are any of these really meaningful comparisons? Why hasn't anyone else questioned this?

Sadly, the way questions are framed, and the answers these lead to, have become very important in our society (see the media especially). This often leads to questionable conclusions.
 

atheism has to appear in the sentence because The people I was responding to were accusing atheism of killing more people than religion.

Normally this accusation comes from theists when they are admitting that religion has lead to a lot of killings, but they try and make religion sound less bad by then saying "But atheism has killed a lot more"

My beef with the statement that "atheism has killed more" is that as I have pointed out, atheism is simply one answer to one question. atheism is simply the position of not being convinced a god exists.

There is no direct line from simply not believing in a god to then committing violent crimes, it would take another set of beliefs for you to become convinced that you need to kill people, however religion is not a simple belief that a god exists, it is a multilayer set of beliefs based on texts which have instructions to kill people.

I mean I would be willing to admit that simply believing a god exists is not enough to kill people either, except in cases where people are convinced their private thoughts are a god talking to them, but religion is not simply believing a god exists, its a whole bunch of doctrine and faith beliefs. It's the doctrine and faith in religion that leads to the nasty stuff, atheism has neither of those.
 
Hodgie said:
It's a little odd that the Father had no idea that his wife and mother of his son was a religious psychopath that would kill her own child. Surely there would be signs.
Click to expand...

He was probably raised with the idea that religion is a good thing, and faith was a virtue.

Most people look up to people who are church goers as being good people.

It's ironic that the dad said "even during such a trying time, he says his faith is what’s getting him through"

It's like your son dies from a drink driver, and then you say alcohol is getting you through the rough patch.
 
Value Collector said:
It's the doctrine and faith in religion that leads to the nasty stuff, atheism has neither of those.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't, but surely you cannot find me someone who is just an atheist.... so in theory it sounds good, but in reality it's probably a moot point. It's the whole pigeon holing / stereotyping and the focusing on minutiae, while ignoring the whole situation in these discussions that makes me shake my head ("Well they are X, so they may do Y...."). It's the whole can't see the forest for the trees thing...
 

In the same context, you cannot find some who just grows a moustache. They have a world view beyond the simple act of growing a moustache. Yet people with moustaches have been responsible for the slaughter of millions. Hitler and Stalin being just two.

I agree with VC, being and atheist (or having a moustache) are not pertinent in these cases as they are not the motivation of the tyrant.

Your argument would hold some water if ALL atheists also shared some common other core beliefs. But that is not the case. Some are communist, some fascists, some upholders of democracy. The same goes for scientific, secular and other beliefs. Their opinions on such subjects are as diverse as any other group. As VC says, there is no dogma or doctrine attached to atheism, other than non-belief in a God.

But in the case of religious extremists, they are carrying out in many cases an edict of their doctrine. They may have diverse opinions in some areas, but not in their dogma. That is followed to the word and there can be a direct correlation between that doctrine and their actions.
 
Ves said:
No it doesn't, but surely you cannot find me someone who is just an atheist.... so in theory it sounds good, but in reality it's probably a moot point. ...
Click to expand...

Probably not, every atheist would have a load of different opinions. If some one calls them selves an atheist, all you know about them is one piece of information, which is that the don't believe a god exists.

they could be an

atheist communist
atheist humanist
atheist white supremacy activist
atheist Nazi
atheist libertarian
atheist charity worker
atheist anything

The atheist part alone can not lead to killing, for an atheist to kill, they have to have another unrelated belief eg white supremacy, communist etc.

however someone who is Islamic, can be lead to kill solely by their faith in their religious doctrine, they don't actually need any other belief.

So when I talk about blaming religion I am talking about the situation where it is the religion was the leading factor that has lead to the crime.

If some one was a Christian , eg a member of the IRA, who kills for political reasons, I am not going to blame the Christian faith, because that would be an unfair misrepresentation, but when the theists try and blame atheism for killings done by an atheist communist they are making the same unfair misrepresentation.
 
SirRumpole said:
Most of them are.
Click to expand...

yes, but only because people in general are good people.

Most church goers are good people despite of their religion, not because of it.

I have no doubt that Pav for example is a good guy deep down, Unfortunately he has some bigoted opinions that cause him to lose his shine, and that opinions stem from his religious faith, and unfortunately not even rational, reasoned debate can sway his opinion, because he knows 100% that his god can't be wrong, which to me is sad.

What I don't like is the extra, unearned respect some people give to church goers, because they have a general feeling that church makes people better, which is not the case.

My Dad for example when describing his new neighbour a while back said "he seems like he must be a good guy, he goes to church" that's without even knowing which church he attends, or what his beliefs are. that's the unearned respect I am talking about.

not to mention you can get away with all sorts of crazy if you just tell people you are religious.
 
Hodgie said:
It's a little odd that the Father had no idea that his wife and mother of his son was a religious psychopath that would kill her own child. Surely there would be signs.
Click to expand...
Yes, you'd think so. But the father himself sounds like a bit of a crackpot too, and like most crackpots perhaps he lacked the capacity for clear thinking.
 
bunyip said:
Yes, you'd think so. But the father himself sounds like a bit of a crackpot too, and like most crackpots perhaps he lacked the capacity for clear thinking.
Click to expand...

Yes that's true, and unfortunate.

I just thought there would have been a big leap between someone that goes to church and follows the word of god to someone able to commit such an atrocity. Are there no prior indications?

I would have thought there would have at least been a conversation between father and wife about their son and where he is headed in life and how they need to raise the boy to live righteously. No discussion around "hey honey, lets kill our son so that he has save passage into heaven and is unable to commit any sins in his life."

Surely if your wife held the above extreme belief, being married to her and raising a child for the previous 10 years there would be some indication such as prior disciplinary actions or discussions around what to do with their child.

Also, what of the wife now, if her beliefs are so strong to commit such an act would she now believe that she is doomed to eternal damnation as she has now murdered who child, that's got to be a significant sin.

Or can she just see a priest and confess her sins which will wipe her slate clean and allow her a free pass into the kingdom of heaven?

Just completely wasted her and her son's one and only life...... I cannot even begin to understand the mind of these people.
 
Now this is crazy:-


http://abcnews.go.com/US/snake-handling-pentecostal-pastor-dies-snake-bite/story?id=22551754
 
+1: very clear summary.

You're right. It's not something I've previously really focused on despite observations that many church goers are actually less charitable and demonstrate less kindness toward others than do people with no loyalty to any religion.

Hodgie said:
Just completely wasted her and her son's one and only life...... I cannot even begin to understand the mind of these people.
Click to expand...
Neither could any rational person, Hodgie.

( I thought it was bad enough when I read in the paper recently that some parents are demanding a general anaesthetic for their children just for a filling, because they don't want the kid to have any negative experiences in life!)
 
Religion should be a extra-curricular activity, like following football, cricket, tennis, golf, darts or what ever you fancy.

Religion should have no place in the formal education system.

Religion should have no place in government.

Feel free to follow any religion you like, as long as you don't bother me.
 

There are some good things about religion Mac, e.g. Xmas and Easter holidays. They give we atheists an excuse to get pi$$ed out of our brains, just like the Christians. I visited my local Dan Murphys today and was lucky to get a parking space. Xmas in Australia is not about snow and reindeer. It's all about booze. We are the boozy country.

Merry Christmas all.
 

I am warming to you Calliope, you have good intentions but your delivery is a bit harsh (like someone with a South African accent).

Must be that time of the year again, I am starting to like the enemy.
 

She can if she's a Catholic!
 
Macquack said:
I am warming to you Calliope, you have good intentions but your delivery is a bit harsh (like someone with a South African accent).

Must be that time of the year again, I am starting to like the enemy.
Click to expand...

I'll drink to that Mac. Skål
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...