Comments on: Religious Rhetoric http://www.dakwegmo.com/religious-rhetoric/ letting the wookie win Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:56:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: marcus http://www.dakwegmo.com/religious-rhetoric/comment-page-1/#comment-103 marcus Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:34:35 +0000 http://www.dakwegmo.com/religious-rhetoric#comment-103 It is a weaker position because it is no longer the most extreme case. It's the difference between saying religion is the worst thing ever, and religion is one of the worst things ever. Once you start qualifying extreme statements, they become less effective. I also don't think it works to indict all religions based on the hypocrisy of one. Saying "1 death in the name of religion might as well be 100,000 because of religions stance against killing" might be an effective argument against Christianity, but it doesn't work for other religions that take a different stance against killing. Both Judaism and Islam, for example, teach that killing in order to fight evil is perfectly justified. You can even find evidence of this position in the New Testament, though it doesn't appear in the Gospels. Even if I were to concede the point that some Christians are hypocrites and kill in spite of their beliefs, it still doesn't prove that all religion is bad, or even that Christianity is necessarily bad, just that evil people have been members of the religion. It is a weaker position because it is no longer the most extreme case. It’s the difference between saying religion is the worst thing ever, and religion is one of the worst things ever. Once you start qualifying extreme statements, they become less effective.

I also don’t think it works to indict all religions based on the hypocrisy of one. Saying “1 death in the name of religion might as well be 100,000 because of religions stance against killing” might be an effective argument against Christianity, but it doesn’t work for other religions that take a different stance against killing. Both Judaism and Islam, for example, teach that killing in order to fight evil is perfectly justified. You can even find evidence of this position in the New Testament, though it doesn’t appear in the Gospels. Even if I were to concede the point that some Christians are hypocrites and kill in spite of their beliefs, it still doesn’t prove that all religion is bad, or even that Christianity is necessarily bad, just that evil people have been members of the religion.

]]> By: cory http://www.dakwegmo.com/religious-rhetoric/comment-page-1/#comment-101 cory Fri, 30 Mar 2007 05:34:58 +0000 http://www.dakwegmo.com/religious-rhetoric#comment-101 marcus i have to disagree about taking a weaker stance as 1 death in the name of religion might as well be 100,000 because of religions stance against killing marcus i have to disagree about taking a weaker stance as 1 death in the name of religion might as well be 100,000 because of religions stance against killing

]]> By: marcus http://www.dakwegmo.com/religious-rhetoric/comment-page-1/#comment-99 marcus Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:37:55 +0000 http://www.dakwegmo.com/religious-rhetoric#comment-99 cory, My point in writing this was to debunk a rhetorical device commonly used by critics of religion. It's an invitation to people to stop and think about the things they hear before they mindlessly accept them as fact and repeat them. I agree with you that even one death in the name of religion is wrong, but I don't think the fact that some evil people use religion to justify their evil behavior is sufficient grounds to condemn religion as a whole. If the statement, "More people have been killed in the name of religion than any other reason", were true it would be a pretty strong position against religion. It isn't true, so critics have to take a much weaker position arguing that even one death caused by religion is wrong. cory, My point in writing this was to debunk a rhetorical device commonly used by critics of religion. It’s an invitation to people to stop and think about the things they hear before they mindlessly accept them as fact and repeat them. I agree with you that even one death in the name of religion is wrong, but I don’t think the fact that some evil people use religion to justify their evil behavior is sufficient grounds to condemn religion as a whole. If the statement, “More people have been killed in the name of religion than any other reason”, were true it would be a pretty strong position against religion. It isn’t true, so critics have to take a much weaker position arguing that even one death caused by religion is wrong.

]]> By: cory http://www.dakwegmo.com/religious-rhetoric/comment-page-1/#comment-97 cory Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:04:45 +0000 http://www.dakwegmo.com/religious-rhetoric#comment-97 allow me to somewhat tweek the subject if i could.the true atrocity of the deaths by religion is not the live it took but conundrum it presents,christianity is about love forgiveness and understanding isn't it?every thing that killing is not. i'm not saying that a crazy man killing for whatever reason is ok but killing in the name of something that is supposed to be above murder is rather upseting.so yes there have been more deaths behind other idioligies than religion but you have to ask yourself is even one death in the name of religion ok? allow me to somewhat tweek the subject if i could.the true atrocity of the deaths by religion is not the live it took but conundrum it presents,christianity is about love forgiveness and understanding isn’t it?every thing that killing is not. i’m not saying that a crazy man killing for whatever reason is ok but killing in the name of something that is supposed to be above murder is rather upseting.so yes there have been more deaths behind other idioligies than religion but you have to ask yourself is even one death in the name of religion ok?

]]> By: marcus http://www.dakwegmo.com/religious-rhetoric/comment-page-1/#comment-81 marcus Sat, 27 Jan 2007 05:04:09 +0000 http://www.dakwegmo.com/religious-rhetoric#comment-81 I think using the Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc. effectively supports my argument against the statement that more death has been caused by religion than anything else in the world. I think it's fair to say that in the 20th Century everyone interested in killing someone else had access to modern weapons. However, the most prolific killers during this period of time were not those killing in the name of religion. There were hundreds of wars that took place during the 20th Century, many of them in the name of one religious ideology or another, yet even combined their death toll doesn't come close to that of any one of the major atrocities of the 20th Century. I agree that if the crusaders and defenders of Jerusalem had been using modern weapons the death toll would have been far greater, but that would be true of every armed conflict since then as well. I am reasonably confident that the end result would still be that the numbers of those killed in the name of religion wouldn't be as great as many of the other reasons people kill each other. I think using the Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc. effectively supports my argument against the statement that more death has been caused by religion than anything else in the world. I think it’s fair to say that in the 20th Century everyone interested in killing someone else had access to modern weapons. However, the most prolific killers during this period of time were not those killing in the name of religion. There were hundreds of wars that took place during the 20th Century, many of them in the name of one religious ideology or another, yet even combined their death toll doesn’t come close to that of any one of the major atrocities of the 20th Century.

I agree that if the crusaders and defenders of Jerusalem had been using modern weapons the death toll would have been far greater, but that would be true of every armed conflict since then as well. I am reasonably confident that the end result would still be that the numbers of those killed in the name of religion wouldn’t be as great as many of the other reasons people kill each other.

]]> By: brian http://www.dakwegmo.com/religious-rhetoric/comment-page-1/#comment-80 brian Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:07:05 +0000 http://www.dakwegmo.com/religious-rhetoric#comment-80 Interesting point of view. I think you should not have mentioned Mao, Stalin, Hitler, disease, natural disasters etc. as this wasn't killing in the name of God. Perhaps it would be better to only consider those killed by religion, the inquisition and politics intertwined with religion . During the middle ages in England, Europe and the middle East for example, where religion was regarded as a way of life and hope for a comfortable existence after death it was a crime against state and church to be a heretic. Unfortunately the Muslims of the middle East still practices this policy today. Stoning and 9-11 for example. Had the Christian crusaders and the Muslims been squared off with modern weapons including of course the airplane as a weapon there would have been much greater loss of life not to mention how the course of history would have been altered. Killing people in the name of God is simply another way of eliminating rivals or other undesirables and it is safe to say we have killed many and many more will die. Interesting point of view. I think you should not have mentioned Mao, Stalin, Hitler, disease, natural disasters etc. as this wasn’t killing in the name of God.

Perhaps it would be better to only consider those killed by religion, the inquisition and politics intertwined with religion .

During the middle ages in England, Europe and the middle East for example, where religion was regarded as a way of life and hope for a comfortable existence after death it was a crime against state and church to be a heretic. Unfortunately the Muslims of the middle East still practices this policy today. Stoning and 9-11 for example.

Had the Christian crusaders and the Muslims been squared off with modern weapons including of course the airplane as a weapon there would have been much greater loss of life not to mention how the course of history would have been altered.

Killing people in the name of God is simply another way of eliminating rivals or other undesirables and it is safe to say we have killed many and many more will die.

]]> By: marcus http://www.dakwegmo.com/religious-rhetoric/comment-page-1/#comment-78 marcus Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:04:17 +0000 http://www.dakwegmo.com/religious-rhetoric#comment-78 I considered leaving that part out, because while Stalin and Mao were atheists, it wasn't the driving force or motive for their barbarism. I considered leaving that part out, because while Stalin and Mao were atheists, it wasn’t the driving force or motive for their barbarism.

]]> By: Michael http://www.dakwegmo.com/religious-rhetoric/comment-page-1/#comment-77 Michael Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:48:31 +0000 http://www.dakwegmo.com/religious-rhetoric#comment-77 It seems that from your research you have statistically shown a corralition that I have always suspected existed. My biggest concern with politics and religion is when a zealot in either, or both, groups suspends moral judgement in favor of thier ideology. It seems we really get into hot water when we have relious politicians using both ideologies to ignore the common morality that links all beings. A small note on your statistics: Many fundimentalist Christians consider atheism a religious belief system. They use this as a means to critisize the teaching of evolution in schools, claiming that Evlution promotes one religion over another. Given this they would likely also interpret the communist atrocities you mentioned as deaths caused by a religion, albiet Atheism. Great post. I've always felt that the ststistics weren't quite as bad exrteme as the sound bite would make one think, but never felt like actually adding them up. Thanks. It seems that from your research you have statistically shown a corralition that I have always suspected existed.
My biggest concern with politics and religion is when a zealot in either, or both, groups suspends moral judgement in favor of thier ideology. It seems we really get into hot water when we have relious politicians using both ideologies to ignore the common morality that links all beings.
A small note on your statistics: Many fundimentalist Christians consider atheism a religious belief system. They use this as a means to critisize the teaching of evolution in schools, claiming that Evlution promotes one religion over another. Given this they would likely also interpret the communist atrocities you mentioned as deaths caused by a religion, albiet Atheism.
Great post. I’ve always felt that the ststistics weren’t quite as bad exrteme as the sound bite would make one think, but never felt like actually adding them up. Thanks.

]]>