This is an article on Yahoo that is modern and up to date.I realize there will be many on the frum who will try to explain it away.This article shows that none of us are innocent of wrongdoing.
2006-11-21 00:03:50 · 5 answers · asked by Derek B 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20061121/cm_csm/ydsouza
2006-11-21 00:04:09 · update #1
The problem is not with religion or atheism. The problem is with fanatical ideology, be it religious or secular. My problem with the article is that it makes bold conclusions without providing any kind of support. For instance:
"The indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades."
and
"Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history."
Agree or disagree, the writer should at least make some small effort to back up these strong claims. Otherwise, it's just blowing smoke.
2006-11-21 00:07:33 · answer #1 · answered by Brad 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wars were originally fought over resources. Then blood vengeance comes
into play, and can start up again over the littlest thing.
Religion is just one way, the ones who want power, stir up people to do
thier bidding. If a country is collapsing from inside. Create an enemy
from the outside, and you can ally even constant enemies within the
country. The age old solution!
2006-11-21 08:16:47 · answer #2 · answered by THE NEXT LEVEL 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree that the attacks on religion because it is violent misses the point, but on the other Hand I have to wonder if the person who wrote that article read Sam Harris' book. Harris wasn't just attacking Religion he was attacking blind faith in ideology, which Communism and Fascism certainly the worst. Dawkins' argument (if I remember correctly) is that most wars are made worse by religious tension not truly caused by it.
In my opinion it is not religion that is violent, it is people who surrender critical thinking to an ideology.
2006-11-21 08:16:35 · answer #3 · answered by Just Wondering 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
First of all, your article is 'OPINION'. Both sides of the debate have nothing but their own personal opinions, usually about the opposing side. And yes, as hubris is mentioned in the article, the hubris of BOTH sides of this argument are the root of their folly. Dawkins is on the wrong track yes, but the man who wrote the article and who has authored a book demonizing 'liberals' is way off on the wrong track. Ever hear 'Two wrongs don't make a right'?
We are ALL wrong and in that I agree with you.
2006-11-21 08:23:32 · answer #4 · answered by a_delphic_oracle 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It was written by a neoconservative who has problems with coeducation, feminism, affirmative action and social welfare programs. He also said slavery was never a racist institution because "black people owned slaves too". I'm not surprised he's saying atheists cause problems. His books are pretty controversial.
2006-11-21 08:23:04 · answer #5 · answered by Pico 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋