I am no longer surprised when lefties wipe the fog from their eyes and 'suddenly' realize that they didn't know what were the repercussions of their befuddled world-view. Painting the dystopias of every Marxist state as mis-applied Marxism, they plow on into Marx lite, never having read Marx or Lenin, at least not critically. A world vie…
I am no longer surprised when lefties wipe the fog from their eyes and 'suddenly' realize that they didn't know what were the repercussions of their befuddled world-view. Painting the dystopias of every Marxist state as mis-applied Marxism, they plow on into Marx lite, never having read Marx or Lenin, at least not critically. A world view that excludes God Is a world view that proceeds without light. It attempts to describe what it will not see.
And, the answer is, yes, I have read Marx, and found his ranting preposterous.
"People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship.
Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."
People have never become too reasonable. All people everywhere in all times have been driven by emotion, and have thus rejected “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” James 1:27 KJV
Except the political atheist ideological regimes of the 20th century killed over 100,000,000 people. No religion for the entire history of humanity can compete with that record.
Harris essentially equated religion with political ideology in order to erase this radical distinction. It is harder to hate on religion when compared to body count of atheist regimes.
I'm not sure you see the irony in complaining about people who "lump all religion into one pile without distinguishing between them", while also throwing around MASSIVE overgeneralizations like "the atheist ideology". There literally is no such thing, any more than there's a "non-astrology ideology" or a "leprechauns aren't real ideology".
If you go back through every crusade, jihad, pogrom, etc. in world history (don't forget the Aztecs et al), numbers will start adding up pretty quickly for "the theist ideology". Especially on a per capita basis (i.e. adjusting for population growth), the "religious ideology" would still be a clear winner.
My apologies… the Nazis and commies killed over 100,000,000 in less than 100 years. Both ideologies eschew religion and in fact punish it. Is that better?
The crusades were a response to Muslim military aggression, and again, more importantly, cannot hold a candle to the nazis and commies.
Ditto all your other examples including the religious wars in 17th century europe.
And just ftr, the Inquisition killed under 1000 (not something the 1000 dead people are likely comforted by).
I’m not denying much blood over the last 2000 years has been spilled in the name of religion. I’m saying if we want decide whether religion or an ideology that embraces atheism is more dangerous the commies and nazis are clear winners.
I am no longer surprised when lefties wipe the fog from their eyes and 'suddenly' realize that they didn't know what were the repercussions of their befuddled world-view. Painting the dystopias of every Marxist state as mis-applied Marxism, they plow on into Marx lite, never having read Marx or Lenin, at least not critically. A world view that excludes God Is a world view that proceeds without light. It attempts to describe what it will not see.
And, the answer is, yes, I have read Marx, and found his ranting preposterous.
He sure got that "religion is the opiate of the masses" part right though.
You answered yourself below much more cogently that I could have.
These days it might be more accurate to substitute "political extremism" for "religion"
Sam Harris once made a similar point:
"People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship.
Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."
People have never become too reasonable. All people everywhere in all times have been driven by emotion, and have thus rejected “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” James 1:27 KJV
Except the political atheist ideological regimes of the 20th century killed over 100,000,000 people. No religion for the entire history of humanity can compete with that record.
Harris essentially equated religion with political ideology in order to erase this radical distinction. It is harder to hate on religion when compared to body count of atheist regimes.
Hitler was a vegetarian - doesn't mean vegetarianism leads to genocide. You're confusing correlation with causation.
Harris identified the specific causal factors, which are also heavily present in religion.
I’m not confusing anything. I’m suggesting Harris is motivated by an anti-religious pov. Mostly because he’s motivated by an anti-religious pov.
Ideologies are ideologies. Adding God or taking God away from the equation makes them very different things.
Ah yes, everybody knows ISIS had enough God in their ideology that it made their whole worldview nothing but sunshine and rainbows.
That is more reasonable. At least you compare things in the same category.
But you make the same mistake Harris makes. You lump all religion into one pile without distinguishing between them.
Still, ISIS can’t hold a candle to the atheist ideology body count. All religions cannot. 100,000,000 in less than 100 years is pretty remarkable.
I'm not sure you see the irony in complaining about people who "lump all religion into one pile without distinguishing between them", while also throwing around MASSIVE overgeneralizations like "the atheist ideology". There literally is no such thing, any more than there's a "non-astrology ideology" or a "leprechauns aren't real ideology".
If you go back through every crusade, jihad, pogrom, etc. in world history (don't forget the Aztecs et al), numbers will start adding up pretty quickly for "the theist ideology". Especially on a per capita basis (i.e. adjusting for population growth), the "religious ideology" would still be a clear winner.
My apologies… the Nazis and commies killed over 100,000,000 in less than 100 years. Both ideologies eschew religion and in fact punish it. Is that better?
The crusades were a response to Muslim military aggression, and again, more importantly, cannot hold a candle to the nazis and commies.
Ditto all your other examples including the religious wars in 17th century europe.
And just ftr, the Inquisition killed under 1000 (not something the 1000 dead people are likely comforted by).
I’m not denying much blood over the last 2000 years has been spilled in the name of religion. I’m saying if we want decide whether religion or an ideology that embraces atheism is more dangerous the commies and nazis are clear winners.