Deadliest religion ever?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think that recognizing very obvious changes in context, structure, and goals is jettisoning the earlier in favor of the latter. You can't ignore the differences and they need some sort of reconciliation and framework to understand them both (technically happening in what is formally known as systematic theology).

I'm sure that you've found plenty of ways to rationalize your beliefs, but so long as you respond to the suggestion that your religion is bloodthirsty by imposing an "nt only" qualifier, that's exactly what you're doing.  

Like I said, I see no reason to bicker.  I understand why you'd want to be rid of the OT.  I also understand why that's not a possibility for you, hence the need for reconciliation.  I'm simply pointing out that any separation is incoherent within the christian framework and won't remove any of the same in the NT anyway. I think it's a good thing, that christians have largely moved on. Yall were pretty live.

The same can be said of and for islam and muslims.

/ shrugs

[Edwardo Piet]

You're way too sure of your own opinion.

You're not even being ambiguous about which religious texts the meme is talking about.

So you know that this meme was created to specifically talk about biblical stoning and not any other religion such as Islam?

And you still haven't really explained what you were talking about when you said something about  scare quotes applying to individal words even when they're used in full sentences.

I never said it was used in this meme for an individual word or the sentence, it's used around that phrase and I've said I think I know why it's used around that phrase and my reasoning relates to how scare quotes are used unlike your reasoning.

Your reasoning jumps straight to you knowing for a fact the scare quotes mean the person who made the meme is talking about people who stoned people to death relating to the bible.

It's extremely bloody obvious. And you're being intentionally dense.

What the fuck do you think the purpose of a meme saying "no one was ever stoned to death by an atheist." is? It's the fucking same as Min's point about Jehovah and Steven Weinberg's point here:



It's extremely bloody obvious what "No one was ever 'stoned to death' by an atheist." is getting at.

[paulpablo]

I already explained to you that I think the statement is a factually inaccurate blanket statement and that the scare quotes are there to express contempt for the phrase stones to death because that's a use of scare quotes.

You then went onto say something about "apparently scare quotes only affect individual words now even when they're applied to full sentences" even though I never said the scare quotes were applied to an individual word or a full sentence.
youre saying "even when they're applied to a full sentence" so where are they applied to a full sentence? They aren't applied to a full sentence in the meme at all, they're applied a phrase.

You're claiming to know precisely which religious texts the author of the meme was talking about which is why I think you're too sure of your own opinion overall.

I don't even claim to know exactly what the author meant but my opinion isn't dense, it perfectly relates to how scare quotes are used and how English is used.

---

I also think that statement by Stephen Weinberg is false too, I think that other ideologies can influence people's behaviour just as badly as religion.

[SuperSentient]

I agree with your point, but would add that to claim a religion is deadly, you would have to look at the religious teachings themselves to make a determination. Do the teachings promote violence? If not, the religion is not 'deadly' and any deaths that may have occurred in it's name should be laid at the feet of the people committing them.

What if the persons understanding of the religion motivates them to commit violent acts?
For example, a radical sect of Islam where people interpret the past wars mentioned in the Qur'an and Islamic history as being applicable to today and are convinced that God will be pleased. 
Even if the majority of followers of a religion or common understanding of their views disagree with violent acts, there is still religious motivation in there. 
This could apply to many religions.
The Christian church (in the dark ages) killed many people who simply went against their teachings (including other Christians that had different understandings). Not Christianity you say? The mainstream church of the time held to these acts.

[SteveII]

I agree with your point, but would add that to claim a religion is deadly, you would have to look at the religious teachings themselves to make a determination. Do the teachings promote violence? If not, the religion is not 'deadly' and any deaths that may have occurred in it's name should be laid at the feet of the people committing them.

What if the persons understanding of the religion motivates them to commit violent acts?
For example, a radical sect of Islam where people interpret the past wars mentioned in the Qur'an and Islamic history as being applicable to today and are convinced that God will be pleased. 
Even if the majority of followers of a religion or common understanding of their views disagree with violent acts, there is still religious motivation in there. 
This could apply to many religions.
The Christian church (in the dark ages) killed many people who simply went against their teachings (including other Christians that had different understandings). Not Christianity you say? The mainstream church of the time held to these acts.

First, I think this only applies to Islam. Second, it can easily be construed the way the radical's interpret it and only an extra-koran argument of "that was then" gets us to the more peaceful sects. So, if a religious writing is unclear exactly when violence is called for, I fault the religious writing. 

There is a difference when a religious writing/teaching calls for violence under xyz conditions and the adherent made a mistake in the conditions versus a religions which never calls for violence and the adherent believes for reasons not contained in the writing/teachings that violence is called for. 

The mainstream church in the dark ages where not acting in accordance with the religions teachings. How then can you say Christianity killed anyone? People either had other motives or were mistaken. Christianities writings have been available from the beginning and could have been checked.

[The Valkyrie]

I'm working on a religion (okay, more a cult of personality), that will make these other religions humble in comparison to the bloodshed we will perform. Though if it works those religions will cease to exist.

Any volunteers?

[SuperSentient]

First, I think this only applies to Islam. Second, it can easily be construed the way the radical's interpret it and only an extra-koran argument of "that was then" gets us to the more peaceful sects. So, if a religious writing is unclear exactly when violence is called for, I fault the religious writing. 

No, it applies to any religion. If someone is committing violent acts in the name of a religion, then it would be because of their religious beliefs that motivate them. If you belief in a religion with writings that may imply that violence is immoral, the person may also justify themselves in disagreement that the religion they hold to fully condemns their violence. 

How then can you say Christianity killed anyone?

People who have held to that religion killed people because of religious purposes, the religion itself doesn't kill anyone, but what makes something a religion is its followers that contain it and/or writings that propose it. 

So, by "deadliest religion", I mean religion with most violence and deaths in its name. If I practice Christianity and I am spiteful to someone else and decide to kill them in revenge, then no, that is not religious violence. However, if I murder people because they are homosexuals and use the bible and morality of God as the reason I am justified in this, then I am committing religious violence. Now, you try to make a point that someone may go against their religion but try to justify their actions with the religion, however, there are clearly ideological differences among religious people of the same religion concerning their religion, and to say that they are not part of the religion because they disagree with what you think is surely inaccurate to do. Same applies with religiously motivated violence.

---

I'm working on a religion (okay, more a cult of personality), that will make these other religions humble in comparison to the bloodshed we will perform.  Though if it works those religions will cease to exist.

Any volunteers?

An atheistic humanist religion?

[The Valkyrie]

My cult will be strictly humanitarian.

After all, humans are the most plentiful food source on the planet, currently.

[Minimalist]

You are conflating Christianity with the OT theocracy. The two covenants are very different in their context, structure, and goals.

Don't blame us for that, Stevie.  It's you clowns who tried to connect those dots.  Not us.  Marcion had no trouble writing up a version of jesusism which dumped yhwh right down the shitter.

[Brian37]

You are conflating Christianity with the OT theocracy. The two covenants are very different in their context, structure, and goals.

Don't blame us for that, Stevie.  It's you clowns who tried to connect those dots.  Not us.  Marcion had no trouble writing up a version of jesusism which dumped yhwh right down the shitter.

Good point. I sometimes forget an argument I have used "Don't blame us for something we were not around to write and didn't write".

It never occurs to them that the first writer was followed by the second and the second wanted to tweak the first, like software gets a new version. OH CRAP that proves Bill Gates is the one true God because none of his Windows versions are consistent and full of holes and every other version causes a crash.