Can you name your top ten atrocities committed in the name of God incl. the number of casualties?
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Can you name your top ten atrocities committed in the name of God incl. the number of casualties?
What exactly does it explain?
It explains your immature and hostile attitude expressed in #148. I have the feeling you don't know very much about religion.
hmmm just off the top of my head.
the Crusades.
The genocide committed on the local Indian population in South America. convert or die.
and of course the more recent events in the Balkans?
you can palm these off as political rather than religion. But the fact is religious organizations and politicians have made very comfortable bedfellows.
I am in no way anti any religion.
but we cannot give them a free pass.
There's some truth in most points of view of course, however stupid on the whole.
What interests me about that lot is that there's no mention of the husband satisfying the wife. I've been around a while and from observation I'd say more than half of marriage breakdowns is 'cos the missus isn't satisfied, not just the other way round.
Well he can't have a valid point of view without reading them, can he?
Top 10? Not sure. Difficult to rank because numbers are vague. But some examples:
Crusades: ~1m-9m (and that's counting all the Crusades as a whole)
French Religious Wars: ~2m-4m
Thirty Years' War: ~3m-11.5m - albeit it began as a religious one, but probably not ended as one
9/11: ~3,000
South Thailand Insurgency: ~4,500
The Troubles: ~3,000
Evil things have been done in the name of many things. It's unfair to use that as a stick to beat religion as a whole down with, as many of these acts have darker undertones which contradict religious teachings. It's not as if these texts tell people to kill and torture others in the name of god.
Probably one of the biggest logical fallacies I've seen. Atheism is "the opposite of faith" - you can't just define a war by something that it is not.
For example, we could claim that most casualties today were committed by "non-Nazism", therefore Nazis are better (yes, I'm aware I've just broken a certain Internet law). If we defined every war by what it was not, and ranked them that way, we would have a really skewed view of morality.
What matters is that there have been many conflicts inflicting millions of deaths in the name of religion in the past and present, and they will continue to do so in the future. Religion acts as specific fuel for some wars, determining the rhetoric of the leaders and how forces go about war - so surely, religion is bad.
of course you are right.
no religion teaches us to do evil things. But people interpret texts/scripture to suit their own agenda.
the real argument is, what have leaders of organized religions done to defuse conflicts that have arisen because of 'religious sparks'.
And I don't just mean giving lip service.
no.
Of course he can. The 'religion is stupid' point is particularly well argued.
The Bible itself contains plenty of references to kill in the name of God. Deuteronomy 13, for example: Deuteronomy 13 - Passage Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com
And what is a religious teaching? Religions nowadays are so fractured that there are probably thousands of Abrahamic religion "branches" out there today. Thousand different interpretations of the Word of God. Some of those form terrorist organisations today, some form the bedrock of various cults all over the world. Many of these branches contradict each other - what is the "right" Word of God in this instance? Is it really just a misinterpretation of the religious text, or have you been misinterpreting the religious text all along and the other party is actually correct?
I think religion is fair-game for bashing when it comes to conflicts, as is anti-Semitism (i.e. the Holocaust), greed (various English wars) and cruelty (i.e. what the Japanese did in South-East Asia) and so on. I say we beat every single negative reason for wars with a stick, and religion is one of many.
True, but I don't have a particularly positive view of organised religion anyway. The overriding theme here is that people exploit religion in many cases for personal gain, yet I would not class these people as religious, merely manipulators. Religion has been used - and still is - as a tool for manipulating people, as have things such as poverty.
People should focus their hatred on the people who abuse their positions for personal gain, rather than religion as a whole.
Well one can't expect thousands of years of institutionalized brainwashing to do away with religion overnight, but people are slowly beginning to see the light. Another hundred years or so and most organized religion will be flickering for survival.
It seems you're dividing up the good people from the bad people, and arbitrarily placing the institutions on the side of the good, here. An organized religion is, whatever else it also may be, a group of people, good and bad.
Sorry for not arguing against this well-thought argument.
In the Crusades, various parties tried to take control of the Holy Lands in the names of their Gods. In South Thailand, the insurgency happened because fundamentalist Muslims wanted control of the region to establish a Islamic state independent from Thailand. Part of the Israel-Palestine conflict involves control over Jerusalem.
As I mentioned before, there isn't a single-agreed version of the Word of God throughout the world, so to one branch of, say, Christianity, there are a load of Christians out there who are "doing it wrong". A religion isn't just defined by what is in their religious texts - it's how people apply it, too. If people believe they are committing some act in the name of God, that is faith too. No, it might not reconcile with the teachings of a certain one of many branches of Christianity, but I genuinely don't think this matters. What matters is that the person believes he or she is performing something that is correct to his or her faith.
Certainly, it is an argument for banning extremist interpretations of religions. However, this implies there are non-extremist interpretations of religions and I would like to know what those are. However, I don't think violence against other religions and intolerance towards homosexuals (amongst many other things) should be in these religious texts - and if I were religious, I would be committing blasphemy right now.
Many of us have certain beliefs, and we may have had beliefs as a child that have been lost over time for the right reasons. We might have believed it was right to bully the weak as a child, but we eventually grew up and realised it was wrong. Some of those beliefs are religious, some of those are moral, adapted from our peers and relatives.
Religious beliefs, however, cannot be questioned - you can't question the Word of God. Other beliefs, however, can be questioned when we have evidence to suggest it's wrong - we realise that it is wrong to bully the weak since it hurts others and it's not nice when it happens to you - the belief that bullying is correct is now wrong.
This is where it hurts others the most - because your religious beliefs cannot be questioned. Your parents won't question them. Your religious peers won't. It quite frankly can't be believed to be wrong. It's impossible for opposing religious views to find a compromise - if you do, you're twisting the very words of your beliefs and are no better than those who twist their words to suit their agenda.
I think it's good to have some beliefs as a moral code for yourself to follow. Those beliefs will hopefully help human society, so those beliefs will be good ones (i.e. help the elderly, be nice to others, treat your partner with respect, etc. etc.). Maybe some of those beliefs had good intentions but it turns out that future society doesn't accept them - you will have to adapt those beliefs. That shouldn't be wrong. I'm just not convinced religion follows this mindset of being able to adapt.
Religion was good for society in the past; but we have a better framework for society now, one that doesn't assume that some religious book written thousands of years ago and translated wrongly many times is correct, for the reason that it is more flexible.
not sure Raoul. people want to believe...its a need. What has endured longer than the major religions.
the onus rests on the leaders of these religions. There have been attempts at dialogue between the major faiths. much more needs to be done in that direction for a start if we are going to take away religion as an 'excuse' for the atrocities that are committed.
I never said the institutions were good, if anything I said the opposite.
According to Deuteronomy 13, Christians should be killing all Muslims right now. Are they twisting those words to suit their agenda (i.e. that it shouldn't happen in modern society)?
sorry. i was not being flippant. I felt I already made the points elsewhere on this thread.
Religion in itself is not wrong. For me it is a matter of personal faith. But in no way will I try and impose that on anyone else. No even my own children.
The only way I can 'evangelize' is by living the faith.
that is why I am dead against any attempts to bring Christianity into politics, government and such. Because in the end it will the interpretation of Christianity that will be 'imposed'.
If you are a Christian or a Muslim..live as one. Let that be enough.
I think that it is quite easy for those who have not lived in a religious country (and I am talking about Abrahamic religions) to start telling others how they are wrong to target these religions and how they should be tolerant.
I did not look that up for one reason. Islam came about 600 years after Christianity???
Well, that's a Jewish text for one, so probably not.
I know enough to know that I despise it. I've read enough of the so-called 'holy books' to know that. No matter what these theologians say/have said about their faith, that does not change the fact that the 'holy books' which the Abrahamic religions are founded on are hate-filled books about, among other things, justifying genocide, murder, rape, racism, perverse ideas, and moral rules/laws which are not only flat out ridiculous, but also disgustingly evil and horrible. You cannot get away from that fact, and that fact explains my 'immature' and hostile attitude towards it.
Theism falls short, both scientifically and philosophically, and, perhaps most importantly, morally.
No parent can definitely say they aren't influencing their children. If you unconsciously adapt it into your life then it will show.
If it's the case where they grow up without realising your religion (unlikely) and then you give them a choice, the fact that Daddy is religion X will always sway the child towards that direction.
At the end of the day, they will be influenced unless you keep it absolutely secret (and why would you keep personal beliefs, that you deem correct, so secret?).
Does it matter, though? The text says that if you don't believe our God, you should kill all who practice and worship another religion and deity. Presumably this doesn't imply the text doesn't need to be followed after 600 years.
Now, if it matters and the text failed to take into account it might actually be a bad idea to go round killing Muslims, that text is clearly wrong. But if you don't follow that text, you are no better than those who twist religious words to suit their own agenda.
Why aren't Jews going round systematically attacking Muslims then?
Religion will slowly fade as more people, particularly the poor, have greater access to education, economic opportunity, and most importantly - technology. Complex interdependence, the same force that is gradually bringing down authoritarian systems will ultimately loosen the grip of religion. Its inevitable.
All you have to do is look at Ireland for evidence of this.
In the past 20-30 years as the country has become more affluent and had more people have access to education the influence of the church has diminished hugely.
the point I am making is that religion in itself is not wrong. so if I practice the Christian faith of 'love thy neighbor as thyself' what is wrong with it. I believe we are all God's children. the problems arise due to intolerance of other beliefs.
live and let live.
I do have problems with certain aspects of the Old Testament. Those of the Jewish faith would need to address them. For me Christ's clarifications and explanations of the Scriptures during his time was enough. For example him addressing the sin of adultery and the remedy.
If you mean the current structure of the various faiths, I will agree.
I think religion will always exist in one form or another so long as humanity is around. I would hope the influence of whatever replaces the current organizations will be inclusive rather than exclusive.
Same happened in the US over that period. And its happening in the middle east as we speak. Of course we shouldn't single religion out here. Nationalism, Tribalism, and Authoritarianism (and probably a few isms that don't immediately spring to mind) are all slowly eroding in light of the collective interests of humanity, rather than the artificial, compartmentalized interests of religion or any of the other factors.
That is part of the problem, but an equal part of it is the bad things done "in the name of" their chosen religion.
I hope you're right, but there are worrying problems on the horizon, as the biological sciences advance.
Genetic manipulation, cheap and easy transplants but limited supplies of organs, cloning, being able to choose not just the sex of your baby, but lots of it's characteristics as well, being able to keep people alive until they're 130, but as near-vegetables. I'm no expert, but you can see where I'm going.
Now my method of dealing with these things would be by parliament setting up broad committees, with considered and democratic decisions being made as each need arises.
Think all nations will go along with that? As time goes on various religious feckwits will find that the solution was in the scriptures all along, god's will must be enforced and the evils banished for ever.
Maybe.
Not only do you not know much about religion, you are even worse in theology. Any theology and religious studies undergraduate would confirm this.
Wow, how shallow. Don't need to read Schleiermacher and discuss Bultmann any more because I got a PS3 and an HD TV. What's next on your list, art, literature, philosophy?