He must be pretty miffed at His hippie son then, too.
Scientology’s a good suggestion for modern examples. That and Westboro Baptist Church…
The religion whose followers think Salman Rushdie should be killed for blasphemy. One of those followers would prefer Salman Rushdie be burned in actuality (just as a deterrent, of course) rather than in effigy. That follower sang at the “Rally to Restore Sanity” today.
I love how you, in an attempt to curb criticism of the Christian church, state that there are liberal churches only to then say that those liberal churches have got it all wrong.
They may be wrong but that still disproves the point that all churches are conservative.
All of them. And the fact that so many still feel they have any relevance to modern life is just pathetic.
Proof that “liberal” churchs that accept gay marriage losing members? :dubious:
And why not? Is it off limits because it happens to be politically powerful in America, which is where most posters are? It’s amusing; the farther away or less powerful a religion is, the more “detestable” it becomes. Scientology is horrible and evil, but Christianity is at worst slightly misguided - not because Scientology is actually worse, but just because it is less powerful.
Check membership numbers for the Episcopalian Church.
Have Presbyterians committed mass cultic suicide? Have Baptists practiced human sacrifice? Have Episocpalians forced children into perverted sexual practices? Have Methodists been founded by overzealous sci-fi writers who force congregants to cough up money to learn the truth?
Why are you even arguing with him? He’s a fanatic.
Fanatic Christians caused the Crusades and the Inquisition or bombed abortion clinics, Fanatic Aztecs killed people by tearing their hearts out, Fanatic Muslims caused 9/11 and a thousand other terrorist attacks, Fanatic Communists killed millions in Russia and China… and Fanatic Atheists think that all religion is evil and that we’d be better off if all religious people died.
What makes Der Trihs any better than Stalin, Bin Laden, Mao Zedong, or any other fanatic? Just the fact that so far, his fanatic words have been empty.
Typical double standard. An atheist complains about religion on a forum and he gets equated to mass murderers. As if the fact that I haven’t ever killed anyone - never so much as punched someone over my beliefs - much less killed millions is just some tiny little detail.
And I condemn all fanatics without exception to ideology.
I never compared your actions to their actions. I compared your philosophy (IE, I am right and everyone else is wrong and should believe what I do or they are stupid) to their philosophy (IE I am right and everyone else is wrong and should believe what I do or they are stupid, and I have the means to kill stupid people).
See the comparison?
Well, he does have logic on his side, so…
You and the late Saddam Hussein are (were?) both religious. You might as well be Saddam.
See the comparison?
Also: Believing that you are right and everyone else is wrong and having the means to kill stupid people doesn’t mean anything. You can have the means to kill whoever the hell you want; it’s choosing to do so that creates the difference.
If I were a dictator of all the world I promise that I wouldn’t commit a genocide of the religious nuts.
In other words, everyone who thinks that snow is cold and that anyone who denies it is an idiot is the moral equivalent of Stalin.
With respect, it’s a bad one. It’s like comparing somebody with a shaky grasp of sociology to the Unabomber. It kinda glosses over the Unabomber’s distinguishing characteristic, which involves making bombs.
Besides, Stalin’s followers were fanatics: Stalin himself was a sociopath.
Religion or way of life?
I understand that some of the Ya̧nomamö tribes don’t believe in fate, so if something bad happens it must be because somebody put a curse on you. One third of Ya̧nomamö males die from warfare. Their tribal sport appears to involve 2 players taking turns bashing each other in the head as hard as they can with a stick. Their aboriginal neighbors think they’re nuts and try to avoid them. Cite: O’Hanlon, Redmond. In Trouble Again, as published in Granta. Incidentally, he’s not an anthropologist or even necessarily a trustworthy storyteller.
IIRC, those are the ones who execute someone for witchcraft every time someone dies of natural causes because since as you say they don’t believe in natural causes. “Ya̧nomamö” is a name that seems to come up a lot whenever the subject of nasty tribal societies comes along.
As for your question “religion or way of life?”; I say both. Their refusal to believe in death by natural causes (and killing people over it) is an example of religion; their general extreme violence is an example of “way of life”. Although the latter might be because their religion tells them to “go forth and kill people randomly”, for all I know.
Those guys weren’t “fanatic”, they were mainstream Aztecs.
No religion or sect is inherently detestable. Individuals within these faiths (or among the non-religious) may be detestable. Or they may be good, even “saintly” people.