Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]No. He isn't "wrong" at all. [/B]
Oh really. He says: "Substitute "religion" for "political ideology" and you have the same thing."
Political ideology=/= atheism.
Especially if religion goes against a particular political ideology, then you get religious persecution.
Again, political ideology =/= atheism. Also, how do you account for the times religion has persecuted another religion?
Persecution is persecution, no matter who is on the business end of it and whose dishing it out. However, there has been no such act done in the name of atheism. By atheists yes, but not to spread the cause of atheism.
So how is he not wrong.
PS. Since the coward could not come up a rebuttal, I replied to you.
Originally posted by psmith81992
That isn't a good argument. Simply stating that since there are more religious people in the world, there are also more religious related deaths in the world begs some kind of proof.👆
The antireligious always try and put a religious label on most atrocities.
We're just responding to your claims. Like I said, I think the discussion is silly anyway. Most of these killings were done in the name of other things, but you created this "killing while atheist/theist" metric, not me. If we limit it to things done in the name of "religion/no-religion", then your examples go out the window just like mine.
Most of us aren't "antireligious" either.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Religion caused deaths, political ideologies cost even more. They are interchangeable.
Those were and are religious nations though. The Allies and smaller nations were also religious.
84% of the world is religious, according to this. You'd run out of atheists long before I ran out of religious options. We wouldn't be at square one. The religious numbers would keep stacking while the atheist ones peter out.
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/
I agreed that political ideologies killed more people.
The problem is that you said atheists had a higher kill count than the religious, which isn't true. I think you're misinterpreting this as some attempt to demonize the religious, which it isn't.
I'm more curious what you consider religious at this point, since you're rejecting openly religious nations like Japan and Germany.
Originally posted by Ayelewisi don't know about this mantra.. just seems off to me
Oh really. He says: "Substitute "religion" for "political ideology" and you have the same thing."
Political ideology=/= atheism.Especially if religion goes against a particular political ideology, then you get religious persecution.
Again, political ideology =/= atheism. Also, how do you account for the times religion has persecuted another religion?
Persecution is persecution, no matter who is on the business end of it and whose dishing it out. However, there has been no such act done in the name of atheism. By atheists yes, but not to spread the cause of atheism.
So how is he not wrong.
PS. Since the coward could not come up a rebuttal, I replied to you.
basically any example of "religious persecution" also had a political/power aspect to it... including the crusades, the inquisitions, 9/11, isis, etc
religion and power, or ideology and power have always mingled together in the intentions of people
it's never just about religious beliefs alone the way you are demanding it be about atheism alone... if we use that standard then the only 'religiously motivated acts' we should be talking about are crazy people who murder or do random shit based on their beliefs. which atheists have also done... more rarely (then again atheism is just getting started in terms of its ideological influence), but they have.
Originally posted by red g jacks👆
i don't know about this mantra.. just seems off to mebasically any example of "religious persecution" also had a political/power aspect to it... including the crusades, the inquisitions, 9/11, isis, etc
religion and power, or ideology and power have always mingled together in the intentions of people
it's never just about religious beliefs alone the way you are demanding it be about atheism alone... if we use that standard then the only 'religiously motivated acts' we should be talking about are crazy people who murder or do random shit based on their beliefs. which atheists have also done... more rarely (then again atheism is just getting started in terms of its ideological influence), but they have.
Originally posted by Star428i think russia is traditionally eastern orthodox christian... communism demanded atheism as a matter of ideology, but the russian people had such strong cultural roots in the russian church that they were unsuccessful in stamping out religious sentiment in russia
I must admit that I was a little confused by his statement as well. Italy, I can understand people thinking that but Russia? Never heard that before.
Originally posted by red g jacks
i don't know about this mantra.. just seems off to mebasically any example of "religious persecution" also had a political/power aspect to it... including the crusades, the inquisitions, 9/11, isis, etc
religion and power, or ideology and power have always mingled together in the intentions of people
it's never just about religious beliefs alone the way you are demanding it be about atheism alone... if we use that standard then the only 'religiously motivated acts' we should be talking about are crazy people who murder or do random shit based on their beliefs. which atheists have also done... more rarely (then again atheism is just getting started in terms of its ideological influence), but they have.
You're generalizing.
What tenet of atheism do you believe these killings were conducted "in the name of?"
There is nothing about not believing in gods that commands you to kill the infidel.
Originally posted by Ayelewisthen give a specific example of systematic religious persecution/oppression/violence where politics and/or power/other earthly human motivations played no role
You're generalizing.
if my generalization is wrong then you should be able to give some examples where it doesn't apply.
What tenet of atheism do you believe these killings were conducted "in the name of?"i think you're falling back on petty semantics... cause technically "not believing in a god" has no ideology behind it, it's just one stance on one issue.There is nothing about not believing in gods that commands you to kill the infidel.
but in reality, that stance is mingled with a whole host of ideological beliefs... there are conclusions that typically follow from a materialist/atheistic pov just like there are conclusions that generally follow from a monotheistic religious pov... the only real difference is there is no official holy book or church of atheism.
Originally posted by psmith81992
You're kidding right? I'm from communist Russia. Russia is the opposite of religious.
Originally posted by Star428
I must admit that I was a little confused by his statement as well. Italy, I can understand people thinking that but Russia? Never heard that before.
The strong mainstream push against homosexual rights in Russia is a result of a large and deeply conservative religious sector of Russian society.
Now here's a caveat: while Russia is still not an incredibly religious nation as a whole, the Russian Orthodox Church wields outsized influence over Russia's political landscape.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
You two clearly haven't been keeping up with what's going on in Russia.The strong mainstream push against homosexual rights in Russia is a result of a large and deeply conservative religious sector of Russian society.
Now here's a caveat: while Russia is still not an incredibly religious nation as a whole, the Russian Orthodox Church wields outsized influence over Russia's political landscape.
Not to mention, How U.S. Evangelicals Helped Create Russia's Anti-Gay Movement.