oVo wrote: CrazyAnglican wrote:People who seek power tend to do so through political not religious channels nowadays.
Unfortunately that is not true. Religion of all kinds have an instant mass audience and support that can't be overlooked. Even George Bush used his Christian knowledge to appeal to conservative voters of both parties during his campaigns for president... and to prop up the idea that as Commander in Chief he "made the right choices" for which he "has no regrets."
Can't be overlooked certainly, but as the commander in chief of a secular nation he wielded secular (not religious power) which actually backs up my assertion that people tend to seek power through political channels nowadays. It's a simple fact that George Bush is a politician not a clergyman. He is a politician who used emotional appeal to shore up conservative Christian support (not all Christians are conservative nor did all of them vote for him, btw), and he is a politician who sought, obtained, and weilded power through political means. George Bush was no religious leader, he was a leader who was religious and used religious rhetoric.
oVo wrote:"Believers" of all faiths have killed more people in the name of their GOD in this world than for any other reason.
This is actually pretty much false if you look at the numbers. I realize that it's an oft used rhetorical device, but the machinations that one has to go through to make it look true are just too convoluted. Here, take a look for yourself:
1) Only about 7% of a huge sampling of wars throughout history (a sampling of approx 1,700 wars) can be shown to be directly begun by any church or religion, including those which can be shown to have had religious objectives. (If you exclude wars involving Islam "in response to your 9-11 and Afghanistan references" the number drops to about 3.5%) (Day. Vox.
The Irrational Atheist. pg 100.) Day cites the following source
The Encyclopedia of War for this information.
2) The five bloodiest events of the 20th Century all involved officially atheistic goverments, but no single group (believers or non believers, etc.) can be singled out as any more at fault than any other. (White.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm ) The difference is that I accept that people of all walks of life will find many different reasons to kill one another. Having a religion makes one no more violent than the absence of religion does.
The rhetorical sleight of hand comes into play when one begins to take the "think of all the preists and their sermons" line of reasoning. Oddly enough you shot that down with your idea that murders happen even though religions say 'thou shalt not murder'. If that's the case then how can a religion be responsible for young men going off to war (any moreso than governmental drafts) when many don't listen to even such a basic commandment with the full weight of societal law behind it. On one hand, we have the intimation that religion is ineffectual at curbing murder (entirely impossible to prove beyond the anecdotal level) and on the other we have people marching off to war because "sombody told them it was God's will" (also entirely impossible to prove beyond the anecdotal). The line of reasoning just doesn't make sense as it's impossible to tell why a large group of people do anything. We just cannot speak for large groups like that, and yet it still leaves us with one very important question. That is, If religion is so bad at enforcing even one very clear and concise commandment from scriptures, how could it be effectual in bringing about frequent conflicts in which scripture isn't clear and churches take no official stance?
oVo wrote:Killing with religious overtones continues in this century... the World Trade Center, Afganistan, Iraq, Israel, Somalia, Indonesia... on and on... as it has always been. It doesn't matter if it's Christian or Muslim, religious might makes right.
Hmmm. Killing with religious overtones. What are we to make of that? Certainly most people in the world have some form of religion so chances are that a group of people who participate in a war is likely to have some religion.
Yet the counter claim is a bit stronger. Killing with anti-religious overtones is just as prevalent and arguably deadlier (in terms of estimated body count) in the past century. Take a look at the website I cited above, the estimate is about 60,000,000 people that perished over the course of the century at the hands of two officially atheistic governments combined. That's certainly nothing to ignore. The combined death tolls of all the conflicts you mentioned don't approach that.
oVo wrote:Back to that subject line Forced to be atheists... you can't be forced to be an atheist,
but whatever your beliefs may be... that faith can certainly be tested.
Absolutely, hence the "and still refusing" part.
are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
