Persecuted Christians

[là bạn điên]

Do I agree with the persecution of these Christians in the Middle East? Sure, why not. Christians are merely getting theirs back in turn for having spent the last couple thousand years persecuting others.

You think Christians in Middle Eastern countries have been doing the persecuting since the advent of Islam 1400 years ago? Or do you think christian in middle Eastern countries should be persecuted for what Christians did elsewhere? You think that Muslims are oppressed in the countries where they behave like this?

[Polaris]

They would just kill for another reason...maybe the actual reason.

I have no doubt there would still be murder and that some murders done now in the name of religion have ulterior motives behind them.

That being said, without religion there would have been and would be significantly less violence in the world.

You actually believe that? How cute...

[Bob Kelso]

I have no doubt there would still be murder and that some murders done now in the name of religion have ulterior motives behind them.

That being said, without religion there would have been and would be significantly less violence in the world.

You actually believe that? How cute...

Cough cough crusades, cough inquisition, hack cough witch burnings, cough French religion wars, splutter choke radical Islamic terrorists,

'Scuse me.

[Esquilax]

You actually believe that? How cute...

How do you even think this is a response? What is wrong with you?

[Jacob(smooth)]

You actually believe that? How cute...

How do you even think this is a response? What is wrong with you?

I actually agree with polaris here (although I grant he could have unwrapped his point a bit).

One of the constants of religion is that powerful men have always used it to manipulate people and to mobilise public consent for wars. Of course its easy to point to many a war which has been fought IN THE NAME of religion. But really, in the absence of religion, would the wars have not happened? Or would people have come up with another excuse?

That being said, without religion there would have been and would be significantly less violence in the world.

Maybe, maybe not. I call "burden of proof".

[theyear12013]

War will most definitely exist without the current Abrahamic religions.

They are just on their way out and new religions are rising. Many people who call themselves Atheists are also anti-religion, but in my opinion religion will always be with us. It just won't be Abrahamic.

[Esquilax]

Maybe, maybe not. I call "burden of proof".

Which is trivially easy to come by: you just need to look for the people that have absolutely nothing to gain from the violence itself, and furnish only biblical justification for doing so; the parents who beat their children, sometimes to the point of serious injury or death, because that's biblical. The gay people beaten and killed because the bible says this should be so. The so called witches that have been burned.

And that's even ignoring the fact that saying religion is merely an excuse already violent people use doesn't absolve religion of responsibility, because it has direct orders that could be used to cover that violence in it in the first place!

I'm not shortsighted enough to say that all violence is based on religion, hell, I doubt that most of it is. But some of it is, and I don't know about anyone else, but when I weigh even one life against the unjustified and undemonstrated promises of an ancient book, I know where those scales are gonna tip.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Can't disagree with you last paragraph but I'm unconvinced by your proof.

To take your example of gay people beaten because the bible said to do so. Is that the prime reason? Or is it just because those people are violent and spiteful bigots who find, in religion, legitimation for their violence and bigotry.

They furnish only biblical justification for doing what they do? That's scarcely proof. It is the justification, but not therefore necessarily the reason. But it sounds better to them than "I'm a scared repressed bully trying to cope with feelings i don't understand"

[theyear12013]

Given the greeks were ok with gay sex it does seem logical to conclude that Abrahamic religions are more anti-gay than the Greeks and hence it is due to the religious customs of said Abrahamic religions.

That said, its not like Abrahamic religions are uniquely anti-gay. East Asian and South Asian cultures also are anti-gay. Only the humanistic west is allowing gay marriage at the moment so while it is certainly cultural / religious there is a common them in human created societies -- perhaps to encourage population growth etc. The ancient Indian Harrapan culture of the Indus river used to be very pro phallus so again -- so perhaps more pro gay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization

But violence will exist regardless.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Ancient Greece was scarcely peaceful though! Less bigotry (in that sense) but plenty of violence!

Violence is an integral part of the human condition. It exists in every society regardless of the nature or prevalence of religion.

To support the hypothesis that there would be less violence With less religion I think one would need to find an atheistic society to compare. People will aways seek to justify violence with godmademedoit but saying it does not make it true. Religion is pretty much pervasive as is religion. I think it's impossible to provide proof (big word) which does not have lashings of post hoc ergo propter hoc all over it.