Philosophy Now Forum

Kayla wrote:i live in deep rural american south - and i grew up in a sort of semi-rural area - still in american south. i know this part of the world quite well

You may. But most Christians are not Americans, and among those that are, are not residents of the Old South. So perhaps a wider frame of reference would help.

what i see around me is consistent with media claims

No doubt. The media loves yahoos. They make great print, great pictures, great videos. Their slogan for crime stories is, "If it bleeds, it leads." Their slogan for religions might be, "If it rages, move it to the front pages." You'll look in vain there for balanced reporting.

Kayla wrote:

So you have to know what the religion instructs them to do before you can rightly judge the role it may or may not have had in the choices they made. And wanting to know the answer, I have read the Bible and the Koran, and have had discussions and debates with proponents of both sides. Have you?

in fact i have

Then you would know. So you could answer this simple question: which religion says, "Love your enemies, and do good to them that abuse you," and which one says "I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them"?

Kayla wrote:odd how islam calls for violence and christianity does not and yet professed followers of both have a similar track record for violence, overall

Not even close to true: that's simply an urban legend that is wildly off point. But let me help you out there.

Of the world's casualties by violence, a generous estimate is that 7% died in religious conflicts, of all kinds everywhere. Of those, 3.5% were killed by one religion, the so-called "Religion of Peace," Islam. The other 3.5% is comprised of all other religions combined -- pantheism, Buddhism, Catholicism, paganism, animism, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. (Encyclopaedia of War, 3 Vols. secular source) (I might add that Atheism killed 148 million in the last century alone, but Atheists hate it when you tell them that fact, so we can pass over that for now.)

The right conclusion is this: by any fair metric, religion has not historically been a huge cause of violent deaths -- but when it has, it's 50% of the time one religion among them all that has killed people: Islam. On rare occasion, Christianity has been used as an excuse for violence: always in contravention of Christ's express orders when it has happened. But the percentage of violent death from that sort of thing, however deplorable in every case, is statistically miniscule. That's the truth.

So there is not even a hint of truth to the idea you articulate above. And anyone who looks it up will find out the same. So I implore you to check me on that.

But do you care? Some people don't. More than a few are you so desperate to have an excuse to dismiss Christianity entirely that they will accept any distortion as sufficient reason to do it. That's the only way we can explain the perpetuation of the statistical and exegetical absurdity that Islam and Christianity have some kind of parallel in that department.

But you may be more fair-minded. We'll see.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Of the world's casualties by violence, a generous estimate is that 7% died in religious conflicts, of all kinds everywhere. Of those, 3.5% were killed by one religion, the so-called "Religion of Peace," Islam. The other 3.5% is comprised of all other religions combined -- pantheism, Buddhism, Catholicism, paganism, animism, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. (Encyclopaedia of War, 3 Vols. secular source) (I might add that Atheism killed 148 million in the last century alone, but Atheists hate it when you tell them that fact, so we can pass over that for now.)

does this include the slave trade and conquest of the americas which were frequently justified in religious terms as bringing christianity to the savages - or in case of the slave trade, bringing savages to christianity

paganism and animism are not distinct religions nor is pantheism

have buddhists and hindus ever engaged in anything like the crusades? does it make sense lump buddhists and christians in the way you have

from the get go, your numbers seem iffy

But do you care? Some people don't. More than a few are you so desperate to have an excuse to dismiss Christianity entirely

i have no interest in dismissing christianity. you know, being christian myself. but that does ot mean i want to deny what was often done in the name of christ, and i do not want to indulge in the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

That's the only way we can explain the perpetuation of the statistical and exegetical absurdity that Islam and Christianity have some kind of parallel in that department.

does your book provide a more detailed breakdown of non-islamic religious deaths - an if not, why not?







But you may be more fair-minded. We'll see.[/quote]

Kayla wrote:does this include the slave trade and conquest of the americas which were frequently justified in religious terms as bringing christianity to the savages - or in case of the slave trade, bringing savages to Christianity

Wow. I guess that answers my question about fair-mindedness. You've bought into every prejudicial old-wives' tale you could possibly have encountered.

paganism and animism are not distinct religions nor is pantheism

There is no important distinction to be made on that point. They're broad categories into which we have collected similar superstitions. I could have said the specific "Yoruba myths" or I could have said the "Thuggee cult," but I did not bother to parse the fine details. There's no harm in not bothering, in this case.

have buddhists and hindus ever engaged in anything like the crusades? does it make sense lump buddhists and christians in the way you have

Yes, they have. Buddhists -- go look at Myanmar. Hindus -- go look at the caste system, sati, the Untouchables, Hindu-Muslim riots...and so on. But the Crusades are first and foremost, a Muslim phenomenon. They sacked their way from Saudi Arabia to Spain, and occupied those territories for centuries. The famous counter-crusades of the Catholic church were a response to that. But what the Catholics do they will have to explain, since I and nobody like me was involved in all that.

I can see you really need to do some history. This is all public record, common-knowledge, European history I'm reciting here.

from the get go, your numbers seem iffy

They're derived from an excellent, scholarly, well-documented, comprehensive and fully secular source. Perhaps they look iffy because you have no idea what the truth is on that matter. Go do the numbers yourself, and you'll see.

Just to make it easy for you, which of the wars of the 20th Century could you call "religiously motivated"?

But the wars of the 20th Century killed more human beings than were killed in all wars previously, combined. By even that metric, "religion" is not a major cause of killing.

does your book provide a more detailed breakdown of non-islamic religious deaths - an if not, why not?

It does. It lists them all by country, categories and death toll. And it lists the Islamic ones too. But go look it up, and you'll find out.

Immanuel Can wrote:... But the Crusades are first and foremost, a Muslim phenomenon. They sacked their way from Saudi Arabia to Spain, and occupied those territories for centuries. ...

Not quite sacked then and compared to later Christian rule they were positively tolerant towards other religions.

Arising_uk wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:... But the Crusades are first and foremost, a Muslim phenomenon. They sacked their way from Saudi Arabia to Spain, and occupied those territories for centuries. ...

Not quite sacked then and compared to later Christian rule they were positively tolerant towards other religions.

They were not, you stupid idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!