4 ms·

Were those genocides really motivated by of a lack of religion or other factors like racism and authoritarianism? > Even historically religious motives for "ba

Were those genocides really motivated by of a lack of religion or other factors like racism and authoritarianism? > Even historically religious motives for "bad behaviours" were rare. Doubt. Still, even if that's accurate, my point was that raising people to be easily manipulated sheep doesn't produce a robust society. It just makes them easier to exploit. MLMs are common in predominantly Mormon communities for a reason.

anon291 2y ago
I mean... We constantly hear that European colonization was due to Christianity and yet that cannot account for the treatment of the Syriac Christians of Kerala by the European colonists supposedly driven by Christianity. This is the heart of the matter: any ill by an atheist is determined to be caused by something other than atheism. Meanwhile any motivation of an evil doer who professes a religion is pinned on that religion.
- defrost 2y ago
  > I mean... We constantly hear that European colonization was due to Christianity .. Who is "we" and why do they hear that? Eg: Australia was colonised to take land possession ahead of the Dutch and the French, for finnancial gain, and to utilise the prisoners piling up in hulks on the river flats once the thirteen colonies in North America stopped taking them. The thirteen US colonies were largely established as hard nosed business ventures with substantial private investments that looked for an eventual return. The South and Central American colonies were pretty much all established to support plantations for sugar and other goods. In these examples religion came along for the ride and provided a carrotof comfort in contrast to the sticks and guns of the military who also rode in.
  - anon291 2y ago
    It's constantly used in polemics of Christianity. Whereas actions of atheists are unable to be used against atheism
    - defrost 2y ago
      > It's constantly used in polemics of Christianity. Doesn't make it true though. > Whereas actions of atheists are unable to be used against atheism Why not, aside from the obvious observation that "atheists" are not as homogenuous in their belief as, say, "Catholics". In general the actions of, say, Nazis, can be used against them (ie Nazis) but not against humans globally or atheists in Australia, that's nonsensical.
      - graemep 2y ago
        > Why not, aside from the obvious observation that "atheists" are not as homogenous in their belief as, say, "Catholics". Only if people are doing something because they are Catholics. Atheist polemicists often treat the actions of any (supposed, in many cases) Christian as an objection to Christianity in general, which is just as nonsensical. That is what is objectionable in their argument.
        defrost 2y ago
        > Atheist polemicists often treat I'm sure some do .. I'll even grant that most online that engage in such arguments likely do. I'd suggest the bulk of atheists don't spend much time pointlessly going around and around in such circles. The "common tactics" of "Atheist polemicists" presented here so far are just daft - they're more the hallmark of obsessives that engage in oline forum textfests. > Only if people are doing something because they are Catholics. The statement I made was that "atheists" are not as homogeneous in their belief as, say, "Catholics". I stand by it. I would also suggest that Mormons are more homogeneous as a group than "atheists", the Greek Orthodox are more homogeneous as a group than "atheists", etc. If people engage in activities under the organisational overwatch of the Catholic Church, eg: the Christian Brothers in Bindoon, then the Catholic Church bears responsibility for allowing those actions to proceed unchecked.
        graemep 2y ago
        > I'm sure some do .. I'll even grant that most online that engage in such arguments likely do. Its pretty common to do so. For example, blaming the Spanish inquisition (an arm of the Spanish monarchy) on the Catholic Church, or people claiming that Hitler was a Catholic (without adding the important "as a child" qualifier). > would also suggest that Mormons are more homogeneous as a group than "atheists", the Greek Orthodox are more homogeneous as a group than "atheists", etc. Going back to what I said earlier, the original point was religion vs lack of religion - and I would argue that religious people (Christians, Hindus, pagans, ....) are a less homogenous group than atheists.
graemep 2y ago
> Were those genocides really motivated by of a lack of religion or other factors like racism and authoritarianism? You misunderstand what I said. I was refuting the idea that religion caused genocides, rather than claiming lack of religion caused genocides. I think religion per se is too generic and varied to correlate with anything. Sometimes the lack of a particular religion or variant of a particular religion may either cause or oppose genocide - there is a reason, for example, that the Nazis wanted to replace Christianity with new religions, (Positive Christianity and new-paganism - both very different from the originals they drew on/pretended to be), consistent with their ideology.

anon291 2y ago

I mean... We constantly hear that European colonization was due to Christianity and yet that cannot account for the treatment of the Syriac Christians of Kerala by the European colonists supposedly driven by Christianity. This is the heart of the matter: any ill by an atheist is determined to be caused by something other than atheism. Meanwhile any motivation of an evil doer who professes a religion is pinned on that religion.

defrost 2y ago
> I mean... We constantly hear that European colonization was due to Christianity .. Who is "we" and why do they hear that? Eg: Australia was colonised to take land possession ahead of the Dutch and the French, for finnancial gain, and to utilise the prisoners piling up in hulks on the river flats once the thirteen colonies in North America stopped taking them. The thirteen US colonies were largely established as hard nosed business ventures with substantial private investments that looked for an eventual return. The South and Central American colonies were pretty much all established to support plantations for sugar and other goods. In these examples religion came along for the ride and provided a carrotof comfort in contrast to the sticks and guns of the military who also rode in.
- anon291 2y ago
  It's constantly used in polemics of Christianity. Whereas actions of atheists are unable to be used against atheism
  - defrost 2y ago
    > It's constantly used in polemics of Christianity. Doesn't make it true though. > Whereas actions of atheists are unable to be used against atheism Why not, aside from the obvious observation that "atheists" are not as homogenuous in their belief as, say, "Catholics". In general the actions of, say, Nazis, can be used against them (ie Nazis) but not against humans globally or atheists in Australia, that's nonsensical.
    - graemep 2y ago
      > Why not, aside from the obvious observation that "atheists" are not as homogenous in their belief as, say, "Catholics". Only if people are doing something because they are Catholics. Atheist polemicists often treat the actions of any (supposed, in many cases) Christian as an objection to Christianity in general, which is just as nonsensical. That is what is objectionable in their argument.
      - defrost 2y ago
        > Atheist polemicists often treat I'm sure some do .. I'll even grant that most online that engage in such arguments likely do. I'd suggest the bulk of atheists don't spend much time pointlessly going around and around in such circles. The "common tactics" of "Atheist polemicists" presented here so far are just daft - they're more the hallmark of obsessives that engage in oline forum textfests. > Only if people are doing something because they are Catholics. The statement I made was that "atheists" are not as homogeneous in their belief as, say, "Catholics". I stand by it. I would also suggest that Mormons are more homogeneous as a group than "atheists", the Greek Orthodox are more homogeneous as a group than "atheists", etc. If people engage in activities under the organisational overwatch of the Catholic Church, eg: the Christian Brothers in Bindoon, then the Catholic Church bears responsibility for allowing those actions to proceed unchecked.
        graemep 2y ago
        > I'm sure some do .. I'll even grant that most online that engage in such arguments likely do. Its pretty common to do so. For example, blaming the Spanish inquisition (an arm of the Spanish monarchy) on the Catholic Church, or people claiming that Hitler was a Catholic (without adding the important "as a child" qualifier). > would also suggest that Mormons are more homogeneous as a group than "atheists", the Greek Orthodox are more homogeneous as a group than "atheists", etc. Going back to what I said earlier, the original point was religion vs lack of religion - and I would argue that religious people (Christians, Hindus, pagans, ....) are a less homogenous group than atheists.

graemep 2y ago

> Were those genocides really motivated by of a lack of religion or other factors like racism and authoritarianism? You misunderstand what I said. I was refuting the idea that religion caused genocides, rather than claiming lack of religion caused genocides. I think religion per se is too generic and varied to correlate with anything. Sometimes the lack of a particular religion or variant of a particular religion may either cause or oppose genocide - there is a reason, for example, that the Nazis wanted to replace Christianity with new religions, (Positive Christianity and new-paganism - both very different from the originals they drew on/pretended to be), consistent with their ideology.