How many people has Christianity killed?

[velkyn]

You left the part in bold out.

No, I didn't.  You've claimed that religion had "nothing" to do with the crusades. That's hysterical.  It was religion that gave the okay that one could do this without putting one’s soul in danger, that the enemy was godless. Their target, Jerusalem, a city that both sides considered important to their religion.  They could have gone to Egypt to fight for trade, or Turkey, but they didn’t.  was there other reasons, especially after the first crusade? You betcha. But you’ve claimed the religion wasn’t responsible at all and haven’t supported that.

It doesn't negate the fact no. It does highlight something many atheists like to call Christians out for...SPAG.

Yep, and again, doesn't show that religion *doesn't* make people do horrible things.

Right but due to the nature of SPAG and the desire of most people to be left alone, those commandments alone are not enough to rally to war.

and you've yet to show that true.
 

I'm glad you said that. There aren't too many hellfire and brimstone preachers left in America. At least not in the main stream. Those parts of the Bible are being marginalized right before our eyes.

And this matters how?  Are you trying to argue that since Christians now aren’t slavering maniacs that they never were and we should ignore those who did use their religion to do bad things (oh yes and the ones that still do)?  That somehow God now isn’t mumbling and they really really know what he really meant?   
 

No need to find anything else. All the old tried and true reasons for war still exist and you can demonize the enemy without calling upon God. Or in the case of Islamic terrorists you can demonize their religion. The main purpose of demonizing the enemy is to make it easier to justify killing or subjugating the enemy. This is why I get sketchy when I hear you guys demonize the Christian God or the people who believe in Him.

and you can demonize the enemy by calling upon god and claim that they are evil. Hmmm, Christians say that Muslims are wrong.  Muslims say Christians are wrong and golly both refer back to their *religion* to "prove" that.

On a side note, I still haven't read a good explanation why it would be more preferable to be killed by someone who is without the influence of a god as opposed to someone who thinks their God commands them to kill you.

  Wow, nice strawman!  <golf clap>

[Samothec]

The Bible also gives people a reason to love each other and to forgive. Most people just want to be left alone to live their lives. The only way you are going to get them to rally behind your next land grab is to convince them that there is a real threat. Just saying "Hey guys, these people over there are Godless bastards who deserve to die...lets go kill 'em!" ain't gonna work. People need more motivation than that to leave their homes and risk their lives. Hence, propaganda in the absence of a real threat. "These Godless bastards have raided our lands and everywhere they go they rape and pillage. If we don't do something to stop them they will kill us all!"

It has nothing to do with God or Religion. Religion is a tool. Just like Nationalism.  It's just another notch in the ever expanding belt of Us vs. Them. I'm not saying that you should just embrace Christianity or religion. They are potentially dangerous tools. However it is illogical to blame the tool when the problem is the ego-maniacal sociopaths who would wield them for their personal gain.

Do you feel it would be okay for anyone to have access to nuclear weapons? I'm not using hyperbole. Religion facilitates the manipulation of so very many people that the appropriate weapon comparison is to nuclear weapons. I have a problem with that. I don't want anyone having that sort of destructive power.

It doesn't negate the fact no. It does highlight something many atheists like to call Christians out for...SPAG.
Right but due to the nature of SPAG and the desire of most people to be left alone, those commandments alone are not enough to rally to war.
On a side note, I still haven't read a good explanation why it would be more preferable to be killed by someone who is without the influence of a god as opposed to someone who thinks their God commands them to kill you.

What is "SPAG"? The most prominent acronym listed online is "Spelling, Punctuation And Grammar" which makes no sense when substituted in your post. I haven't found any list of acronyms on the site yet so I'm asking.

Getting killed by someone not being influenced by a religion/god is not better. That is not the point. The point is that someone who accepts the delusions of religion is more likely to kill so the best thing it to reduce the influence of all religions/gods.

[Hatter23]

How many people has Christianity killed?

0...zilch...nada

It's like asking how many people Science has killed.

Knock it off.

Ok good point. Fine, how many killings have happened when the inspiration was Christianity....oh and please avoid "No true Scottsman" arguments.

Oh too late, I see you already have. You cannot fathom that the Crusades cannot be attributed to Christianity? Really? Are you that intellectually dishonest or that stupid?

[Brakeman]

Christianity, is the following of Jesus' commands. Jesus commanded that we follow the old testament and the new testament. The following of those commands, such as "don't suffer a witch to live" IS christianity by definition. and thus it has killed many.

..
Engineering hasn't killed anybody, neither has religion.
[/quote]

As highlighted above, The op was about christianity, Again The MEANING of christianity is the following of the teachings of Christ (Jebus). To be a christian you must follow the commands and dictates of christ. Christianity is something you must do, to be. 
if jesus commanded you to kill, then you wouldn't be a christian if you didn't kill, because you wouldn't be following christ. If jesus commanded you to love your neighbor, you wouldn't be a christian if you didn't love your neighbor. Now, one could say that their are no true followers of christ as nobody follows all of his teachings, but it is assumed in the term christian, that you are doing your best.

So if jesus commanded you to follow the rule of killing witches, then christianity did kill the witches as it was christians following christ's commands that did the killing.

If Charles Manson created a following and ordered his brainwashed followers to murder, then the "Mansonites", or the following of Manson's teachings did indeed kill the victims.

[kaziglu bey]

What is "SPAG"?

It stands for "Self-Projection as God". It's why God always seems to hate the same people as whatever follower is speaking for him. People tend to have an idea of what god is like that is a somewhat idealized projection of themselves. Their values, ideas, prejudices manifest through their god.

I found myself asking the same thing when I first joined. Its a very encompassing and useful term, if you ask me.

[riley2112]

The Bible also gives people a reason to love each other and to forgive. Most people just want to be left alone to live their lives. The only way you are going to get them to rally behind your next land grab is to convince them that there is a real threat. Just saying "Hey guys, these people over there are Godless bastards who deserve to die...lets go kill 'em!" ain't gonna work. People need more motivation than that to leave their homes and risk their lives. Hence, propaganda in the absence of a real threat. "These Godless bastards have raided our lands and everywhere they go they rape and pillage. If we don't do something to stop them they will kill us all!"

It has nothing to do with God or Religion. Religion is a tool. Just like Nationalism.  It's just another notch in the ever expanding belt of Us vs. Them. I'm not saying that you should just embrace Christianity or religion. They are potentially dangerous tools. However it is illogical to blame the tool when the problem is the ego-maniacal sociopaths who would wield them for their personal gain.

Do you feel it would be okay for anyone to have access to nuclear weapons? I'm not using hyperbole. Religion facilitates the manipulation of so very many people that the appropriate weapon comparison is to nuclear weapons. I have a problem with that. I don't want anyone having that sort of destructive power.

It doesn't negate the fact no. It does highlight something many atheists like to call Christians out for...SPAG.
Right but due to the nature of SPAG and the desire of most people to be left alone, those commandments alone are not enough to rally to war.
On a side note, I still haven't read a good explanation why it would be more preferable to be killed by someone who is without the influence of a god as opposed to someone who thinks their God commands them to kill you.

What is "SPAG"? The most prominent acronym listed online is "Spelling, Punctuation And Grammar" which makes no sense when substituted in your post. I haven't found any list of acronyms on the site yet so I'm asking.

Getting killed by someone not being influenced by a religion/god is not better. That is not the point. The point is that someone who accepts the delusions of religion is more likely to kill so the best thing it to reduce the influence of all religions/gods.

So are you saying that I should be reduce or taken away or whatever because you afraid of the fact that I don't believe the way you do? I just want to know if I understand you correct.

[One Above All]

So are you saying that I should be reduce or taken away or whatever because you afraid of the fact that I don't believe the way you do? I just want to know if I understand you correct.

I know I'm not Samothec, but he said reduce the influence of religion, not religious people. IMO[1], that means that if you're going to vote on something based on your religion rather than logic and ethics, you don't get to vote at all.

1.	Emphasis on M

[riley2112]

So are you saying that I should be reduce or taken away or whatever because you afraid of the fact that I don't believe the way you do? I just want to know if I understand you correct.

I know I'm not Samothec, but he said reduce the influence of religion, not religious people. IMO[1], that means that if you're going to vote on something based on your religion rather than logic and ethics, you don't get to vote at all.

1.	Emphasis on M

So , if I believe a certain way I shouldn't have the right to vote? Is that what you are saying and do you all really agree with that?

[One Above All]

So , if I believe a certain way I shouldn't have the right to vote? Is that what you are saying and do you all really agree with that?

I really hope your reading skills suck.
No, I am not saying that if you believe a certain way, you shouldn't have the right to vote. I'm saying that if you're not going to base your votes on rational thought, evidence and ethics rather than your religion and personal preferences, then you shouldn't vote at all.

[riley2112]

So , if I believe a certain way I shouldn't have the right to vote? Is that what you are saying and do you all really agree with that?

I really hope your reading skills suck.
No, I am not saying that if you believe a certain way, you shouldn't have the right to vote. I'm saying that if you're not going to base your votes on rational thought, evidence and ethics rather than your religion and personal preferences, then you shouldn't vote at all.

I believe my reading skills are fine. Who would decide if my thoughts were rational or not and how would it be decided?

[One Above All]

I believe my reading skills are fine.

Either you're lying or the strawman was intentional.

Who would decide if my thoughts were rational or not and how would it be decided?

It's simple.
Here's a very common fallacy called "non-sequitur":
This millennia old collection of scrolls says that this is wrong.
Therefore this is wrong.

Here's another one called "ad populum":
A lot of people believe in this millennia old collection of scrolls.
Therefore they are true.

[riley2112]

I believe my reading skills are fine.

Either you're lying or the strawman was intentional.

Who would decide if my thoughts were rational or not and how would it be decided?

It's simple.
Here's a very common fallacy called "non-sequitur":
This millennia old collection of scrolls says that this is wrong.
Therefore this is wrong.

Here's another one called "ad populum":
A lot of people believe in this millennia old collection of scrolls.
Therefore they are true.

Please understand I really am a country boy. Lieing to you or anyone on a forum would be a complete waste of time, and anyone that would do that is just a low life that really needs to get a life. So The statement you made is "I'm saying that if you're not going to base your votes on rational thought, evidence and ethics rather than your religion and personal preferences, then you shouldn't vote at all" My responce to that was "I believe my reading skills are fine. Who would decide if my thoughts were rational or not and how would it be decided"?
It seems like a very up front kind of question. So can you answer it or not? I really don't have the education to have a battle of the mind with you. I am a simple kind of guy that thinks about a lot of things and ask a lot of questions. Is this a problem?

[One Above All]

Please understand I really am a country boy.

Irrelevant to me.

Lieing to you or anyone on a forum would be a complete waste of time, and anyone that would do that is just a low life that really needs to get a life.

Congrats, you've just described the vast majority of theists who come here. It's kinda sad, isn't it?

<snip>
It seems like a very up front kind of question. So can you answer it or not?

I did. If you engage in the fallacies I described, everyone who has studied logic will know. It's that simple.

I really don't have the education to have a battle of the mind with you.

No need for much education in order to learn how to think critically.

I am a simple kind of guy that thinks about a lot of things and ask a lot of questions. Is this a problem?

No problem here. All you have to do is learn how to think critically and you'll get all the answers you'll need.

[riley2112]

Please understand I really am a country boy.

Irrelevant to me.

Lieing to you or anyone on a forum would be a complete waste of time, and anyone that would do that is just a low life that really needs to get a life.

Congrats, you've just described the vast majority of theists who come here. It's kinda sad, isn't it?

<snip>
It seems like a very up front kind of question. So can you answer it or not?

I did. If you engage in the fallacies I described, everyone who has studied logic will know. It's that simple.

I really don't have the education to have a battle of the mind with you.

No need for much education in order to learn how to think critically.

I am a simple kind of guy that thinks about a lot of things and ask a lot of questions. Is this a problem?

No problem here. All you have to do is learn how to think critically and you'll get all the answers you'll need.

All of that writing and all you did was to tell me to engage in the fallacies you described. You answer questions the same way theists do. No wonder theist and atheist can't have a conversation. I may be wrong here but theist or atheist seem to me that they don't what to learn anything about one another. They just want to be right. And you still did not answer the question. But that is OK , as long as you don't give a concrete answer about things you can't get nailed down. Of course you could reach out the olive branch and try to give an answer that I could understand.

[One Above All]

All of that writing and all you did was to tell me to engage in the fallacies you described.

Are you blind, or just stupid?

I did. If you engage in the fallacies I described, everyone who has studied logic will know. It's that simple.

Is that really so hard to understand?

You answer questions the same way theists do.

Theists don't answer questions.

No wonder theist and atheist can't have a conversation.

I was not aware of this. I must inform my theist friends, family and former romantic partners.

I may be wrong here but theist or atheist seem to me that they don't what to learn anything about one another. They just want to be right.

I am honestly looking for evidence that I am wrong about everything.

And you still did not answer the question.

See the first point I made.

But that is OK , as long as you don't give a concrete answer about things you can't get nailed down.

I did give a concrete answer. See above.

Of course you could reach out the olive branch and try to give an answer that I could understand.

See above.

[Hatter23]

All of that writing and all you did was to tell me to engage in the fallacies you described. You answer questions the same way theists do. No wonder theist and atheist can't have a conversation. I may be wrong here but theist or atheist seem to me that they don't what to learn anything about one another. They just want to be right. And you still did not answer the question. But that is OK , as long as you don't give a concrete answer about things you can't get nailed down. Of course you could reach out the olive branch and try to give an answer that I could understand.

I think you are confusing "should not vote" with "should not be allowed to vote" they are two different things.

[riley2112]

All of that writing and all you did was to tell me to engage in the fallacies you described.

Are you blind, or just stupid?

I did. If you engage in the fallacies I described, everyone who has studied logic will know. It's that simple.

Is that really so hard to understand?

You answer questions the same way theists do.

Theists don't answer questions.

No wonder theist and atheist can't have a conversation.

I was not aware of this. I must inform my theist friends, family and former romantic partners.

I may be wrong here but theist or atheist seem to me that they don't what to learn anything about one another. They just want to be right.

I am honestly looking for evidence that I am wrong about everything.

And you still did not answer the question.

See the first point I made.

But that is OK , as long as you don't give a concrete answer about things you can't get nailed down.

I did give a concrete answer. See above.

Of course you could reach out the olive branch and try to give an answer that I could understand.

See above.

I am not blind so I must be stupid. However , being that I am stupid and you have surpassed me in intelligence, you have the ability to come back down to my level and explain to me what I am to stupid to see. While I do not have the ability to raise to your level which we now have evidence that I am not capable of doing. I appear to be at your mercy. So can you answer the question in a way that even I can understand. If you can I would be so proud of you and I may learn something in the process.

[riley2112]

All of that writing and all you did was to tell me to engage in the fallacies you described. You answer questions the same way theists do. No wonder theist and atheist can't have a conversation. I may be wrong here but theist or atheist seem to me that they don't what to learn anything about one another. They just want to be right. And you still did not answer the question. But that is OK , as long as you don't give a concrete answer about things you can't get nailed down. Of course you could reach out the olive branch and try to give an answer that I could understand.

I think you are confusing "should not vote" with "should not be allowed to vote" they are two different things.

Thank you, that I understand. Why was that so hard for me. I guess I may be stupid.  Thank you again, you are a caring person.

[One Above All]

everyone who has studied logic

<snip>

Is that better?

[riley2112]

everyone who has studied logic

<snip>

Is that better?

I guess the logical thing for me to do is to start studying logic.   sorry to have tested your patience. 

 (thanks again hatter, I owe you )

[riley2112]

I know I'm not Samothec, but he said reduce the influence of religion, not religious people. IMO[1], that means that if you're going to vote on something based on your religion rather than logic and ethics, you don't get to vote at all.

1.	Emphasis on M

I believe this is where I got confused.

[One Above All]

I know I'm not Samothec, but he said reduce the influence of religion, not religious people. IMO[1], that means that if you're going to vote on something based on your religion rather than logic and ethics, you don't get to vote at all.

1.	Emphasis on M

I believe this is where I got confused.

That was my mistake. I meant to say "shouldn't".
My apologies.

[Hatter23]

All of that writing and all you did was to tell me to engage in the fallacies you described. You answer questions the same way theists do. No wonder theist and atheist can't have a conversation. I may be wrong here but theist or atheist seem to me that they don't what to learn anything about one another. They just want to be right. And you still did not answer the question. But that is OK , as long as you don't give a concrete answer about things you can't get nailed down. Of course you could reach out the olive branch and try to give an answer that I could understand.

I think you are confusing "should not vote" with "should not be allowed to vote" they are two different things.

Thank you, that I understand. Why was that so hard for me. I guess I may be stupid.  Thank you again, you are a caring person.

You are welcome. I have made the error myself, and completely understood why you were confused.

And BTW, I have rather thoroughly studied logic. It might seem dry at first, but when you realize it is a formula for detecting when someone is pulling a fast one on you, it gets a lot more interesting. Once I studied logic, I realize what most advertisements, political speeches, and preachers have in common; fallacies.

[riley2112]

I know I'm not Samothec, but he said reduce the influence of religion, not religious people. IMO[1], that means that if you're going to vote on something based on your religion rather than logic and ethics, you don't get to vote at all.

1.	Emphasis on M

I believe this is where I got confused.

That was my mistake. I meant to say "shouldn't".
My apologies.

Thank you .

[riley2112]

You are welcome. I have made the error myself, and completely understood why you were confused.

And BTW, I have rather thoroughly studied logic. It might seem dry at first, but when you realize it is a formula for detecting when someone is pulling a fast one on you, it gets a lot more interesting. Once I studied logic, I realize what most advertisements, political speeches, and preachers have in common; fallacies.

Thank you again. I will make an effort to educate myself on this. I can see where it could come in handy.

[Samothec]

Snipped for focus

Getting killed by someone not being influenced by a religion/god is not better. That is not the point. The point is that someone who accepts the delusions of religion is more likely to kill so the best thing it to reduce the influence of all religions/gods.

So are you saying that I should be reduce or taken away or whatever because you afraid of the fact that I don't believe the way you do? I just want to know if I understand you correct.

And in response,

I know I'm not Samothec, but he said reduce the influence of religion, not religious people. IMO[1], that means that if you're going to vote on something based on your religion rather than logic and ethics, you don't get to vote at all.

1.	Emphasis on M

Your observation was correct, Lucifer, I said and meant "reduce the influence of all religions/gods". However there have been moments when I have slipped back towards theism and felt that god wanted me to do things. The most recent[2] and significant was watching the movie "Frailty" for the first time. It seemed like god was sending me a personal message to go out and act on my recurring thoughts and kill people. Fortunately I resisted and was able to restore myself. Otherwise, Riley, I could have been out there reducing the people – like you.

I haven't had a good life – part of the reason I know god isn't good. "No good deed goes unpunished" was a running theme in my life – in addition to other crap I don't feel like sharing right now. But unless god appears to me and demonstrates to MY satisfaction that he exists and that killing people is genuinely what he wants me to do and is not just problems in my head, then I refuse to succumb to ignorance, superstition and those psychological problems. Let me ask you Riley, do you really want me to believe in god? (If you're smart you'll say "No.")

I believe my reading skills are fine. Who would decide if my thoughts were rational or not and how would it be decided?

A person's mental health is usually decided by a psychologist/psychiatrist. Unfortunately religion and belief in god have been grandfathered in as supposedly rational. Otherwise a lot of people would be having a judge looking over their psych evaluation to decide if they need to be placed in a secure environment.

Yes, I have a therapist who has been helping me deal with my problems.

2.	soon after it came out on DVD

[One Above All]

Your observation was correct, Lucifer,

Of course it was.
[/egocentrism]

However there have been moments when I have slipped back towards theism and felt that god wanted me to do things.

I think this happened to me a couple of times as well.

The most recent[1] and significant was watching the movie "Frailty" for the first time.

1.	soon after it came out on DVD

Never heard of it, but after reading what you said, I don't think I want to.

It seemed like god was sending me a personal message to go out and act on my recurring thoughts and kill people. Fortunately I resisted and was able to restore myself.

Same here, more or less. Thanks to my former supernatural beliefs, my head is filled with violent images. Thankfully, I pay no attention to them.

Otherwise, Riley, I could have been out there reducing the people – like you.

And you would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling brain cells!

I haven't had a good life – part of the reason I know god isn't good. "No good deed goes unpunished" was a running theme in my life – in addition to other crap I don't feel like sharing right now.

It gets better with time.

But unless god appears to me and demonstrates to MY satisfaction that he exists and that killing people is genuinely what he wants me to do and is not just problems in my head, then I refuse to succumb to ignorance, superstition and those psychological problems.

I see no reason to succumb even if every single god ever invented by any sentient species anywhere came to me and told me to do things I know to be wrong. I would give them the finger and demand my fucking phone call.

(If you're smart you'll say "No.")

Personally, if YHWH existed, I would want everyone to believe in it, for it would be the truth. But that's just me.

[Samothec]

And you would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling brain cells!
 

Can I swipe this?
"And (I) would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling brain cells!"

LOL – I feel like using it as my signature but I'm not sure how much sense it makes on its own so I'll sleep on it (as well as waiting for your reply)

[One Above All]

Can I swipe this?

Of course.

LOL – I feel like using it as my signature but I'm not sure how much sense it makes on its own so I'll sleep on it (as well as waiting for your reply)

Don't let the bed bugs bite.
Seriously, don't let the bed bugs bite. It hurts.