Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:55 am
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:10 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:18 pm
Hmm...by any fair assessment, one could only say that that's grossly statistically false.
Far and away, by orders of magnitude, the harm done by Socialism/Communism has vastly outstripped even the worst abuses "religion" has ever been accused of. In the last century alone, over 140 million people died in entirely secular wars, over 100 million of them under Socialist and Communist regimes. Nothing even remotely
close to that has been achieved by any religion, even the most violent, or even by all of them put together, throughout the entire span of recorded history.
Meanwhile, some "religions" are historically tied to absolutely no deaths or damage at all. Not any. So whatever "religion" is taken to be, it can't all be equal.
How can a guy be so statistically wrong? It boggles the mind.
The 'socialist/communist' charge has no logical link to whether religion is problematic.
But that wasn't the statement. The claim was not, "religion is problematic." The statement was that religion was the cause of "more harm...
than any other cause but profit."
And since Atheist regimes, and particularly Socialist regimes, are the number one cause of harm to human beings, claiming a death toll orders of magnitude above any other possible "cause," the claim is manifestly false.
That's all.
That the socialist 'regimes' have defaulted to what the American's First Amendment asserted with better clarity, does this include such systems that declared a divorce of religious people's right to impose laws that have no basis in JUSTIFYING lawmaking?
You are either sick or are being political ONLY. Governments by and for the people in ANY system cannot properly represent people if it favors ANY PARTICULAR religious laws.
If you think that it is alright to impose religious laws, then you are enemy of the people, period. Communism (or socialism) historically have been religious, not 'atheistic'. The only surviving communism is in literal communities, like cults, that specifically live in a place they believe is only owned by their 'god'. So get off your high horse on this irrational argument. Hitler had more attrocities with clearer evidence than the Communists of Russia's U.S.S.R. and in a way that intentionally had this in mind. The communists of Russia likely interpreted the strong Jewish communities that segregated themselves apart from all others as a form of "National Socialism" as Hitler was. As such, whether for right or wrong, we lack the specific justifications to presume their 'purges' as related to Anti-semitism or whether it was against those who demanded a 'right' to OWN property in direct opposition to the then forming Communism.
In contrast, National Socialists attempt to FOSTER religious thinking and AT ANY MEANS. The Communists of the Russian purges were REACTING in light of the times and issues relevant to them then. The idea of 'shared ownership' has no relationship to whether people have religions or not but whether those religious people believe it right to demand society to have blind faith in a dictators (via 'ownership') to rule on their handy excuse that God speaks to them or through them to rule, something no one can prove nor disprove. THAT is and has always led the path to attrocities uniquely.
And, as I pointed out, and that you cannot seem to follow, is that IF there was no GOD, why would the atheist be more at fault for being correct than to the religious persons? You seem to have some intrinsic belief that Atheists actually BELIEVE in God but are the Devil in disguise pretending to be non-religious.
Tell me, given two identical twins of which one asserts that a unicorn is in a magical room in their mind telling them what is right, versus the other who attempts to appeal to ONLY things that both of you can actually argue without appeal to magic, which one would you choose to trust if you had to pick one of them to lead?
