mcfonz wrote:Actually you just proved my point. Earlier you claimed it was religion that is the "inspiration for people to commit atrocities":
No, I claimed religion is
an inspiration, not
the inspiration.
mcfonz wrote:Duff wrote:. . . . . no, you are exactly wrong . . . . . Utopian theologies and ideologies inspire people to commit atrocities, the radicalisation of the young in Muslim societies is proof of that. If your beliefs promise a perfect future for everyone then you can justify anything, because what's a 100k deaths now if it results in utopia/heaven for untold millions in the future?
That clearly suggests that you believe religious scripture 'inspires' people to commit atrocities.
That was in response to my comment:
mcfonz wrote:but whatever anyone ever says, it isn't the religion that says to kill, it is the daft people who want to kill and then look for the religious loophole to justify it.
Which is another of my references to people using religion for their own evils.
Your confused collection of quotes is making no coherent sense whatsoever. Yes, I think religion can inspire people to acts of evil. Your say you believe people just use religion as an excuse, the implication being that without religion they would find a different excuse and still commit the evil acts (you've sctually said this in one of your posts on this thread iirc). You are giving religion a partial pass. I would say a passing knowledge of history or sociology shows that to be nonsense. If that was the case then secular societies would be as violent as religious ones and that is simply not the case. Not that many haven't used religion in just the way you say, the difference being that I also think that in pretty much all of those cases, without the religion (or in the C19 & C20 in particular, the ideology) those monsters would not have been able to perpetrate their crimes to anywhere near the same magnitude.
mcfonz wrote:Duff wrote:I'd add many ideologies to that, particularly utopian ones like Communism, but that is exactly the point which Monty and McFonz were missing with their "Religion is just used as an excuse by nutters" claptrap.
Thing is, I had already commented on an aspect of this as well!
mcfonz wrote:Woodwose wrote:da_bish wrote: Otherwise political parties might be classified as religions.
Well some are based around blind unquestioning faith and little else!
Indeed - I would say most.
Which was about a point we haven't been arguing about, so I fail to see why you are bringing it up.
mcfonz wrote:It appears to me that through most of this you have been saying is that if a man kills with a gun, it is the gun that kills, whilst I have been saying that it is the man.
Once again, it is the opposite, at least in those case of "inspiration". In the case of this argument, the gun is the religious zealot who commits an act of violence inspired by his faith, the wielder of the weapon is the religion. You are blaming the weapon, whereas I am saying that at least some responsibility has to be laid at the feet of the organisation/people/ideology that set him/her off. Not all, not even most of the responsibility, but some. And when multiplied by the thousands upon thousands of incidents, from child abusing priests, immunisation denying mullahs, scriptures and doctrine used to justify genocide or the subjugation of women, the banning of contraception in Africa, the murder of "possessed" children, the suppression of free thought and scientific enquiry, not to mention the millions of deaths from sectarian violence over the ages, that adds up to a huge weight of responsibility. You could argue that religion is the metaphorical gun when used as a justification, but then religion would be a metaphorical M60 and I'm in favour of gun control anyway.
mcfonz wrote:Only now you appear to have changed your mind and despite saying my argument backs up yours, is actually backing up mine which you appear to have adopted.
Nope, your position is just hopelessly muddled and contradictory, so you're not putting the pieces of mine together very well.
mcfonz wrote:However, it would appear that you also don't really care either way as you just think getting rid of religion would prevent the problem, even though you also suggested politics is just as capable . . . . . (20th century case in point).
Not prevent, but I certainly think there would be less ills in the world if humanity did shed itself of it.
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:44 pm)
but that would really be the same as Condi's argument of Atheism being a belief, in this case a blind faith in Marxism. Personally I'm not convinced there is a God/s, as I see no reason to believe that that is the case.
