Deadliest religion ever?

[Crunchy]

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.

I sort of agree with you on this but I believe that religious ideologies can be especially bad (see below in my comment) However that leads to the question of what it takes to get good people to do bad things. 

IMO, it involves faith.
Not faith in other people mind you, but faith in ideas, even when espoused by someone you trust. I think that we must have some faith in those around us even if it is sometimes misplaced. But faith in beliefs and ideologies... even secular ideologies( but especially religious ideologies) is pure evil. 

The only difference between religious and secular ideologies is this:

Secular ideology: I think we should live by rules X, Y and Z
Religious ideology: God told me we should live by rules X, Y, and Z

The reason that secular ideologies are better is because when asked to defend your secular ideology, you have no choice but to make some attempt at a rational argument. With a religious ideology, all you have to say is "because god says so", no more thought required. One invites rational thought (even if people often fail at rationality) and the other rejects it out of hand. I think this is why religious ideologies can sometimes persist for thousands of years whereas bad secular ideologies seem to burn out.

Perhaps this is why Weinberg singled out religion.

[Edwardo Piet]

I already explained to you that I think the statement is a factually inaccurate blanket statement

Hence why you don't understand the scare quotes.

and that the scare quotes are there to express contempt for the phrase stones to death because that's a use of scare quotes.

One of many uses of it and it's bloody obvious that that's not the use here.

The use is to try and push away morons who say the statement is inaccurate when THAT'S NOT THE FUCKING POINT.

It's not meant to be taken literally. 'Stoned to death' means MORE than throwing rocks at someone until they're dead. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

Holy crap you're just being intentionally dense to take advantage of the fact I'm too easily triggered.

It's so fucking obvious as fuck that 'stoned to death' is to get people to catch on to the actual point and not respond like a literal-minded moron.

---

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.

Again that's NOT the point.

The point is that religious ideas are very harmful and it's the ideas not the people that are the cause of the harm.

All these objections like taking the 'stoned to death' statement literally or saying "other ideologies are harmful too" is just dodging the fucking point and being petty.

It's the same as those fucking morons that are bigoted against all muslims and called a racist and their response is "it's not racism because Islam Islam isn't a religion." when that's just an irrelevant truth because it's still BIGOTED AS FUCK.


So much facepalm at all these petty, pedantic and irrelevant truths that always dodge the core point.

[Harry Nevis]

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.

Except for abortion bombings, abortionist killings, KKK, etc.

[paulpablo]

I already explained to you that I think the statement is a factually inaccurate blanket statement

Hence why you don't understand the scare quotes.

and that the scare quotes are there to express contempt for the phrase stones to death because that's a use of scare quotes.

One of many uses of it and it's bloody obvious that that's not the use here.

The use is to try and push away morons who say the statement is inaccurate when THAT'S NOT THE FUCKING POINT.

It's not meant to be taken literally. 'Stoned to death' means MORE than throwing rocks at someone until they're dead. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

Holy crap you're just being intentionally dense to take advantage of the fact I'm too easily triggered.

It's so fucking obvious as fuck that 'stoned to death' is to get people to catch on to the actual point and not respond like a literal-minded moron.

---

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.

Again that's NOT the point.

The point is that religious ideas are very harmful and it's the ideas not the people that are the cause of the harm.

All these objections like taking the 'stoned to death' statement literally or saying "other ideologies are harmful too" is just dodging the fucking point and being petty.

It's the same as those fucking morons that are bigoted against all muslims and called a racist and their response is "it's not racism because Islam Islam isn't a religion." when that's just an irrelevant truth because it's still BIGOTED AS FUCK.


So much facepalm at all these petty, pedantic and irrelevant truths that always dodge the core point.

You should work on not being triggered so easily and being so sure of your own opinions.  And projecting your opinions, stated as facts, along with your triggered emotions onto other people's quotes.

[Edwardo Piet]

And you should work on being less dense.

I'm sure of something when it's obvious as fuck to anyone with brain cells who understands context and the point being made and realizes that irrelevant truths and petty diversions don't make you smart when you can't grasp something very basic (or rather, you pretend not to because you're disingenuous as fuck. You're not that fucking dense but you sure as hell like acting that way in an attempt to make yourself look good. But anyone with more than 7 brain cells will see right through you and realize it makes you look like an idiot to anyone who isn't super dense themselves).

This isn't the first time you've played dumb as hell in a disagreement. You do this all the time. You get obtuse and disingenuous when you're corrected. You react like 2+2=6 and then say "oh I thought you said 3+3" knowing full well they didn't say that and what they meant.

And you love to pretend that intended meaning doesn't exist and equivocate your ass off, too.

[SteveII]

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.

Then you are equivocating. You don't really mean what is the most deadly religion, you mean what religion did people correctly or incorrectly conduct violence in the name of. These are not the same question.

[Brian37]

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. 

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.

Then you are equivocating. You don't really mean what is the most deadly religion, you mean what religion did people correctly or incorrectly conduct violence in the name of. These are not the same question.

I don't like the topic of this thread one bit because it is a distraction that allows humans of all labels to ignore we are not a a separate species. Our behaviors as a species, both compassionate and cruel, good or bad are evolutionary. No one label in our species history has been 100% violence free. Your book is not a scientific explanation of evolutionary biology nor does it explain human psychology/sociology in groups. It, like every other religious writing merely reflects the times of which they were written and the bad guesses humans made as to where they thought morality came from.

I don't buy your "My God/bible is the source of human morality". But I don't buy it when Muslims or Jews or Buddhists or Hindus try to claim a patent on morality either. 

We can see other mammals display acts of compassion and we can see other mammals be very cruel to other species and even within their own groups. Our behaviors are in us, in our genes, not in mythology or superstition or fictional sky wizards. 

Not even in Buddhism or Hinduism. There is no such thing as "Nirvana" or reincarnation. Just like you wont get punished after you die for not following Allah/Jesus/Yahweh, you wont be punished by  becoming a cockroach in your next life as some believe. 

The only thing that can be said about ANY religion is time place and context as to which sect and which geography is causing more problems. But our ability to be violent and cruel is in our species, religion allows humans to compartmentalize that to the point of making excuses to be violently cruel. That is not a patent owned by any one label.

Right now at this point in history, the Middle East is far more theocratic than the west, sure. But once you read world history about all religions, you can find plenty of religiously justified cruelty. There is not one religion with a 100% squeaky clean history. Now if you insist on masturbating over your super hero we can point out past and present events that prove your book is also used as an excuse to be cruel to others.

[paulpablo]

And you should work on being less dense.

I'm sure of something when it's obvious as fuck to anyone with brain cells who understands context and the point being made and realizes that irrelevant truths and petty diversions don't make you smart when you can't grasp something very basic (or rather, you pretend not to because you're disingenuous as fuck. You're not that fucking dense but you sure as hell like acting that way in an attempt to make yourself look good. But anyone with more than 7 brain cells will see right through you and realize it makes you look like an idiot to anyone who isn't super dense themselves).

This isn't the first time you've played dumb as hell in a disagreement. You do this all the time. You get obtuse and disingenuous when you're corrected. You react like 2+2=6 and then say "oh I thought you said 3+3" knowing full well they didn't say that and what they meant.

And you love to pretend that intended meaning doesn't exist and equivocate your ass off, too.

Show reasonable evidence that the creator of this meme is using scare quotes that definitely mean the phrase is talking about people who are stoning people based on biblical influence.

Just saying it's obvious and calling other people stupid isn't evidence by the way, that doesn't hold up in court or on here.

Also the meme doesn't have to be correct, you seem to be viewing this like it's an infallible piece of text from your own personal religion and couldn't possibly be wrong.
So again fallacious arguments from incredulity don't count.

[SuperSentient]

Then you are equivocating. You don't really mean what is the most deadly religion, you mean what religion did people correctly or incorrectly conduct violence in the name of. These are not the same question.

Call it what you want, everyone reading the question knows that it doesn't literally mean a religion killing someone, but the people influenced by their religious beliefs. I highly doubt you thought that either. 
"Correctly" and "incorrectly" conducting violence is your false dichotomy of objective religious morality that varies ideologically, so no, your point against the question is not valid.

[Edwardo Piet]

And you should work on being less dense.

I'm sure of something when it's obvious as fuck to anyone with brain cells who understands context and the point being made and realizes that irrelevant truths and petty diversions don't make you smart when you can't grasp something very basic (or rather, you pretend not to because you're disingenuous as fuck. You're not that fucking dense but you sure as hell like acting that way in an attempt to make yourself look good. But anyone with more than 7 brain cells will see right through you and realize it makes you look like an idiot to anyone who isn't super dense themselves).

This isn't the first time you've played dumb as hell in a disagreement. You do this all the time. You get obtuse and disingenuous when you're corrected. You react like 2+2=6 and then say "oh I thought you said 3+3" knowing full well they didn't say that and what they meant.

And  you love to pretend that intended meaning doesn't exist and equivocate your ass off, too.

Show reasonable evidence that the creator of this meme is using scare quotes that definitely mean the phrase is talking about people who are stoning people based on biblical influence.

Just saying it's obvious and calling other people stupid isn't evidence by the way, that doesn't hold up in court or on here.

Also the meme doesn't have to be correct, you seem to be viewing this like it's an infallible piece of text from your own personal religion and couldn't possibly be wrong.
So again fallacious arguments from incredulity don't count.

You're asking me to prove that the phrase 'stoned to death' refers to biblical stoning.

LOL



My case rested a long time ago Mr. Intentionally Dense.

Next someone will use the phrase 'light as a feather' and you'll ask me to prove that they weren't talking about the feather not being dark.

By the way... when I call you a jackass don't bother asking me if I'm literally calling you a donkey.

Your insistence that the author wasn't being clear enough and I am not being clear enough is Excited-Penguin level obtuseness at this point.

Now I'm just waiting for Boru to step in doing an impression of you saying that we all need to be clear on what the words 'all', 'clear' 'words' and 'mean' mean.