Re: wondering if anyone is going to deal with reality?
quote:This is some sort of pointless distraction argument designed to lead people away from the actual discussion. An activity that I seem to notice PD is involved in quite a lot.
You brought the verses in as evidence of deaths motivated by religion. I disagreed because IMO stories are not valid sources of data for this type of comparison. You persisted, so now I've asked that you show that within the context of the stories that the deaths were actually motivated by religion since you wish to count them as true. You brought them in as evidence.
quote:This question is for PD -
Lets say I am a bible literalist and I say that I am moraly superior to you. You ask me to provide my count. I include all of the deaths from the history books that I have (including the bible). You count up all of the deaths from the history books you have. My position of moral superiority has been created using the bible as fact. I have come to my position using the bible as fact. I provide my numbers of the deaths, including those deaths cause by god and you tell me that I cannot use those figures because you do not believe that my religious book is fact. I have based my whole fucking life around this book. Including my position on morality. And you, you arrogant fuck are going to stand sit there and tell me that my book is fictitious so my position is invalid?
IMO, not a good hypothetical. The Christian using the Bible as fact would add to his numbers if he is actually using all the ones you listed (although I doubt if he would). My count should be lower. Why would I want to correct him when I'm ahead?
What you're missing is that I'm not telling a Bible Literalist that he can't use the numbers because his book isn't fact. I'm telling a religion free person that the stories he pulled numbers from aren't fact and, IMO, the numbers aren't valid when comparing atrocities in reality. You keep reversing the scenario.
Out of curiosity, has there actually been a Bible Literalist who counts the deaths from those stories in their numbers concerning moral superiority? Did Portillo? The blog I referenced in Message 29 didn't.
You're ranting more about the fact that I've said the stories aren't fact, which you don't believe they are either, than addressing the verses that you introduced as evidence. If the religious members have an issue with my position concerning this thread, I have no doubt they will let me know.
Are you going to address the evidence you presented in Message 11 and show how those deaths were due to a religious reason?
Samson had a hissy fit and killed 30 men. That had nothing to do with religion. He needed anger management classes.
quote:The two statements end in the same result. Everybody dies.
You supposedly want deaths caused specifically for religious reasons, not just that everyone dies.
It is deaths caused specifically for religious reasons. Message 122
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up hypothetical and general statements instead of actually addressing the deaths you listed in Message 11. They all aren't the same. Why did God tell the group to kill everyone? Conquering another tribe to take their land, isn't necessarily a religious reason. Just because God gave the order doesn't make it a religious reason. We have to read the story to understand the motivation.
quote:Are you actually planning on dealing with the OP at all?
You brought the Bible verses in as evidence of deaths for religious reasons. What were the religious reasons behind the deaths in the verses that you provided in Message 11?
Re: wondering if anyone is going to deal with reality?
From what I can understand, Purple Dawn and now Catholic scientist do not think that the deaths at the hands of God are religiously motivated.
Well, what the hell do you mean by "religiously motivated". I think it means that you did something because of your religion.
Like, the 9/11 attacks were religiously motivated by Islam.
On the other hand, Timothy McVeigh, while being a christian, wasn't motivated by christianity to bomb buildings, he was pissed at the government.
God, himself, doesn't have a religion imho.
How can killing people for not following the instructions of god only count as religiously motivated when a person does it, but not when God does it himself?
Because God isn't in a religion where he worships himself. God is the object of worship for religions, he isn't religious himself.
So if I killed nearly every person on earth because they are breaking gods rules, that would be religiously motivated. Yet if god kills nearly every person on earth because they are breaking his rules, then it is not religiously motivated.
What a load of bullshit.
Its not about the end result at all. Its about the motivation for the act. If your religion is what motivated you to do the act, then that act was religiously motivated. God doesn't count as "religious" so he cannot be religiously motivated. Its not that complicated and its not a semantic distraction.
This is some sort of pointless distraction argument designed to lead people away from the actual discussion.
Speculating motives only makes you look foolish. We have a genuine disagreement here, and there's no reason to sling shit.
Lets say I am a bible literalist and I say that I am moraly superior to you. You ask me to provide my count. I include all of the deaths from the history books that I have (including the bible). You count up all of the deaths from the history books you have. My position of moral superiority has been created using the bible as fact. I have come to my position using the bible as fact. I provide my numbers of the deaths, including those deaths cause by god and you tell me that I cannot use those figures because you do not believe that my religious book is fact. I have based my whole fucking life around this book. Including my position on morality. And you, you arrogant fuck are going to stand/sit there and tell me that my book is fictitious so my position is invalid? You are telling me that I cannot have developed my own opinions because the book I based my opinions on is not fact in your view.
Does that hypothetical situation seem sensible to you at all?
Why do you swear on the bible in court if it is just a book?
Why dont you go down to a court house and tell them that they should just throw their bibles away. the book is not true, so swearing on a bible should mean nothing. But to a lot of people it does mean something. It does not matter that it is a work of fiction.
Why do people (Message 113) automatically give Christopher Hitchins a hard time because he wrote a negative review of Mother Teresa?
Because people develop their opinions and positions on things that are often not true. That does not make their position any less real.
How about you go talk to the Jews and tell them that they dont have to circumcise their baby boys anymore because even though they believe that they have to, you are right and they are wrong, the bible is a work of fiction so it can all stop.
Then you can head over to Africa and tell them all that condoms are OK again because the popes position is based on a work of fiction so everyone can tarp up whan they fuck from now on. (the church has recently changed their position on this issue)
Then you can tell the Jehovahs witnesses that its ok for them to have blood transfuctions because their book is a work of fiction, you are right about this and they are wrong. it does not matter if they believe it to be true. They just need to do whatever you say because you say so.
Then you can do a big 'Purple Dawn saves us all' world fucking tour. you will need to visit many nations and you can tell all of the crazy islamic extremists that there is no heaven. Their book is a work of fiction so there is no reason to perform any actions or develop any opinions using the book. They will tell you it is fact. You can nod and smile in a condescending way and just keep telling them you are right and they are wrong. Tell them that they need not develop any opinions of positions on the teachings of their book, even if they do believe that it is fact because it is not. Any they should take your word for it.
People do some very stange things and develop strong opinions based on the teachings of their favourite holy book.
People develop their opinions of morals on their holy book.
I know that you can be justified in saying that their opinion may not be valid in all debates.
But who the fuck are you to tell them that their own opinions are not valid because you do not believe that their holy book is true.
I could base my morals on the 'Clifford the Big Red Dog Books' if I wanted to. And I could do a damn sight worse. Would my moral position be invalid because the books are a work of fiction? Of course they wouldnt. Just because the events that have lead me to my current position did not happen in your view does not mean they cannot be an effective means of justifying a personal position.
Holy shit, man, calm the fuck down. Argue the position, not the person.
Isn't the whole point being motivated by something other than yourself?
It's not clear.
Well here's the claim again:
quote:Atheistic regimes have killed over 100 million people. Thats 10,000 times more than all religious atrocities put together since the beginning of time.
Wouldn't a religious atrocity be one that was motivated by a religion?
Now, the context of the quote is a little cloudy... Here's pretty muc how it went down:
Portillo writes:
BFT writes:
Portillo writes:
And how blind you are to think that Hitch never threw a few stones at religion.
My point was that he have negative things to say about religion but he backed up everything he said.
He backed up everything he said? Atheistic regimes have killed over 100 million people. Thats 10,000 times more than all religious atrocities put together since the beginning of time.
So, to me, Protillo seems to be referring to some claim made by Hitch regarding religion killing more peope than atheism, or something like that. Are you aware of anything like that from Hitch?
"Because God wants it" is pretty much the only religious reason, in the last analysis.
I see that PD brought in this definition of "religious":
Wouldn't a religious atrocity be one that was motivated by a religion?
By religious beliefs, yes.
So, to me, Protillo seems to be referring to some claim made by Hitch regarding religion killing more peope than atheism, or something like that. Are you aware of anything like that from Hitch?
No, but he might have.
You're using definition 1 and I'm using 2 so it makes sense that we're talking past each other.
Well, the religious beliefs referred to in 2 mostly seem to take the form "God thinks this", "God wants that", "God would like me to put the following group to death ..."
So, to me, Protillo seems to be referring to some claim made by Hitch regarding religion killing more peope than atheism, or something like that. Are you aware of anything like that from Hitch?
No, but he might have.
I think it'd help if we knew what was being referred to.
Well, the religious beliefs referred to in 2 mostly seem to take the form "God thinks this", "God wants that", "God would like me to put the following group to death ..."
So, since you have god as religious, you'd imagine him going: "hrm, I wonder what I would think that I should do. Oh, I bet its this. I better follow what I want, so I'm gonna do that. Hooray. All praise to me." ?
Just as a general point, it's quite revealing that the question 'what religion is God?' or 'what religion is god a member of?' is just too damn embarrassing and revealing to answer.
The concept of God being a Muslim, Hindu or a Baptist is utterly bonkers. Even those that believe in him, seem to know that he's above all that nonsense.
So how come it's so important down here on our little planet?
You brought the Bible verses in as evidence of deaths for religious reasons. What were the religious reasons behind the deaths in the verses that you provided in Message 11?
There are admittedly religiously motivated killings in the OT, even if we discount actions by God himself (presumably on theological grounds which don't interest me - such as 'God's beliefs aren't technically religious'). For example in Deuteronomy 20
quote:But of the cities of these peoples, that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes; but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite, and the Amori, the Kana`ani, and the Perizzi, the Hivvi, and the Yevusi; as the LORD your God has commanded you
I don't think it ever mentions how many people that is, however. If the Israelites came to this opinion, and this drove them to destroy the above mentioned groups as the Bible claims, it would have been religiously motivated. Whether it happened at all, and the reasons behind what really happened aside, those that would claim the Biblical history is accurate need to account for these relatively large (for the time (given lower population densities)) massacres in their tallies for religiously motivated deaths.
The concept of God being a Muslim, Hindu or a Baptist is utterly bonkers. Even those that believe in him, seem to know that he's above all that nonsense.
An important, but potentially off-topic, point should be made here. They don't seem to know anything, they profess the belief that he is above all that nonsense but they don't seem to know that.
There is no reason to discount the possibility that God is following his own religious views about the universe. That religion maybe about super-supernatural things, or it could be strangely self-referential. We don't know and we can't know. I suppose believing something strongly might give the appearance of knowing, but it doesn't fool most of us skeptics
To attempt to swing it back on topic, religious people often claim the moral high ground, despite not being able to know anything about the supposed moral system that they're following*. Something of a paradox, if you ask me.
* They just have strong beliefs about their divinely inspired moral system - I just cannot stretch to calling those beliefs 'knowledge'.
An important, but potentially off-topic, point should be made here. They don't seem to know anything, they profess the belief that he is above all that nonsense but they don't seem to know that.
There is no reason to discount the possibility that God is following his own religious views about the universe. That religion maybe about super-supernatural things, or it could be strangely self-referential. We don't know and we can't know. I suppose believing something strongly might give the appearance of knowing, but it doesn't fool most of us skeptics
Well yeah, but if we're talking about "the god of the Bible", then there's things we can ascribe to him as a character... and I don't think we can call him religious.
If you're comparing religion vs. non-religion, and wanted to add up the deaths caused by each, would you really count the deaths from The Flood as being religiously motivated (assuming you're counting for the side that believes in the Bible)?
Further, the question in the OP seems to be talking about deaths caused by man in the name of religion (and thus not by god) vs. deaths caused by man in atheist regimes... so either way it doesn't seem fair to include deaths caused by god.
Heh, if we're going to count the deaths by god in the religious pile, then shouldn't we count all naturally occuring deaths in the atheist pile since they would technically be deaths "without god"?
Well yeah, but if we're talking about "the god of the Bible", then there's things we can ascribe to him as a character... and I don't think we can call him religious.
You don't think, but you don't know either. The Bible does not state categorically that the god of the Bible is areligious. And further even if the Bible said it, we have no way if knowing that this statement truthfully corresponds to reality. But even if we grant the existence of a single God of The Bible, we cannot know if it is religious.
If you're comparing religion vs. non-religion, and wanted to add up the deaths caused by each, would you really count the deaths from The Flood as being religiously motivated (assuming you're counting for the side that believes in the Bible)?
I would say we do not know if the flood was religiously motivated since we don't know god's full motivation for his actions. How did he get from 'these people are wicked' to 'so I will destroy them all'? Maybe he has a religious view, who can really say? The Bible is silent on this, as far as I can tell.
Further, the question in the OP seems to be talking about deaths caused by man in the name of religion (and thus not by god) vs. deaths caused by man in atheist regimes... so either way it doesn't seem fair to include deaths caused by god.
I agree. That's why in Message 173 I mentioned the deaths that men caused in the Bible as a result of their religious beliefs, rather than deaths that God directly caused.
The OP talks about the kill rate of the various religions. It is only a minor spin from this to talk about the death rates caused by the gods. Not all gods command genocide. Not all gods slaughter thousands upon thousands of people directly. The God of The Bible* is himself guilty of killing many. If he really existed then the cost of that existence perhaps should be tallied when we are talking about moral high ground.
Can anyone who thinks that their god killed 15,000 people for complaining (Numbers 16) really claim the moral high ground? Can they claim it over people that simply lack the belief that their god did any thing at all?
* I deny that there is such a creature. There are many gods of the Bible.
If God is a moral being, and if religion is the source of morals then logically God must have a religion that underlies all his moral judgements :-).
That's not really a joke - there is a lot of confused thinking on the subject of morality and it's relationship to religion, and you need to be sure that you've got your views straightened out.
I agree. That's why in Message 173 I mentioned the deaths that men caused in the Bible as a result of their religious beliefs, rather than deaths that God directly caused.
Pretty much the point I was making was that that's how it should be done... And you provided a great example.
Too, if you're going to consider events that actually happened, I don't think you can just blanketly apply religious motivation to the individuals involved in that particular battle, or whatever.
That's why I don't think you can get good numbers to actually make a comparison with.
Can anyone who thinks that their god killed 15,000 people for complaining (Numbers 16) really claim the moral high ground? Can they claim it over people that simply lack the belief that their god did any thing at all?
I don't think any particular religion can claim the moral high ground. Neither do I think "the non-religious" can.
And it just seems silly to add up some number of deaths, like I said earlier, it would be easier to look at the good things as some of those are actually prescribed specifically by the religion so it'd be easier to assign a motivation. But even then, it doesn't really matter.
Potillo did make a fairly specifc claim tho, and part of it was talking about the deaths of "atheist regimes". So he wasn't even comparing motivation to motivation.
Are you familiar with any arguments from Hitch that talk about the number of deaths caused by religions, or anything like that? Because I think P was referring to something specific if you go back and read the context of the quote.
Um did anyone find any deaths caused by atheism yet because untill you do religion is infinitly worse then atheism. You can find deaths whos primary cause was religion just about whenever in history you choose to take a look. past decade a few muslims decided to slam a plane in to the WTC buildins cause their god commanded it a few thousand died but i still see nothing on the atheist pile. 3000/0 you get a divide by zero erreor choosing an infinitly small number to get close to zero you get a ratio of religion infinitly worse then Atheism.
Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
Too, if you're going to consider events that actually happened, I don't think you can just blanketly apply religious motivation to the individuals involved in that particular battle, or whatever.
We can detect religious influence though. The Crusades were called and getting into heaven was the promise given to those that made the long and dangerous journey to the Holy Lands. That and whatever wealth they could plunder. I think it safe to present the Crusades as religiously motivated violence, even if there were also secular reasons for doing battle as well.
Are you familiar with any arguments from Hitch that talk about the number of deaths caused by religions, or anything like that? Because I think P was referring to something specific if you go back and read the context of the quote.
Hitch famously argued that religious mindset was behind the so called atheist regimes. Maybe the leaders were atheistic, but they tapped into the power of belief in authority figures that religion had primed their audience to. Nevertheless, this is a separate thread, so we're given license to veer from the context of the specific claim and discuss similar and related claims at our leisure. But don't take my word for it, in a little over 2 minutes Hitchens is pretty much bang on topic for this thread:
™ Version 4.2
