BS: Qu: Regarding Religion

Subject: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 02:43 PM

Does anyone have any idea how many people have been killed in the name of religion over the millennia. In this I would hope that ALL religions are included, including if possible, estimates for religions in pre-history.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 03:30 PM

I'd say it is pretty nigh impossible to classify a war as primarily a religious war. See "Criteria for classification" in Wikipedia for varying opinions on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: gnu
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 03:46 PM

No, nobody does.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jack Campin
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 03:52 PM

Unknowable.

A lot less than the number killed for the sake of property, for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 05:48 PM

Wot Jack said. While I have no truck whatsoever with religion of any kind, I think that religion has been extensively used as an excuse to wage war, when the actual motive for so doing was very different. Nothing like claiming that you have God on your side and charging into battle under a crucifix, of course, no matter how unchristian your true motives. For balance, of course, the same thing happens in Islam, Judaism and, well, you name it. Some quite nasty stuff going on between Hindus and Muslims in India at the moment. Of course, religion causes huge misery the world over, generally by controlling people with an authoritarian iron fist. Religion may not kill you but it can condemn you to restrictions on your freedom, poverty, ill-health and unwanted pregnancies. And all predicated on a myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 06:07 PM

Good point. It could be argued that religion itself kills very few whilst using a religion as an excuse for other more temporal gain is perhaps the biggest premeditated killer. Ideology is bound in such things and spreading your control over others is where the fighting the good fight / jihad etc comes into it.

You could argue I suppose that without spreading, converting and influencing the lives of people for gain, religion has no other purpose. Hence in enlightened liberal democracies such as ours, the whole idea of being told what to do and how to think is anathema. Another nice spin off is the resulting low tolerance of bigotry based on differences in general. Seeing everybody as equal works for me, works for you and even politicians see "prosperity through equality" as a vote winner.

But the past? See Dylan's "God on our side" for details....

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Vashta Nerada
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 06:13 PM

Some philosophers view early religions as formalized practices to survive in difficult or dangerous landscapes and social practices needed for the group to thrive.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 06:31 PM

Well these days I think we could argue that organised religion itself creates those difficult or dangerous landscapes and social practices.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,#
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 07:37 PM

All wars are bankers' wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 07:38 PM

"A lot less than the number killed for the sake of property, for sure."
As churches (as distinct from religions) tend to dedicate themselves to maintaining the status quo, it is virtually impossible to separate them - typical example, the Crusades, ostensibly about Christianising the East but in fact all about opening Eastern Trades routes and spices.
The various Empires were gained in the name of civilising the 'heathens' - political and economic power, impure and simple.
Scratch any 'religious' war and you'll find a political or economic agenda not far below the surface.
None of this has anything to do with true religion of course - just a flag to march under
Jim Carroll

Subject: Gravity is solved?
From: GUEST,RESIDENT
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 08:34 PM

THIS THREAD IS CLOSED














MINDED.




The most significant scientific discovery thread about our first detection of gravity waves sans gravitons was closed by a few religionists and that has made me angry that religionists with the support of a prejudiced cowardly mod can still attack science with pithy censorship =.


A SCIENCE ADVOCATE has never actually closed a religious thread.
We are not superstitious or wish to censor religion.
We would like to see more maturity when it comes to closing important science threads even if it is attacked by religion or even psychopathic voices.


One could prove their understanding and reopen the thread about the single signature most important scientific measurement in 80 years.


Religion is a business with all the foibles of mankind and any business. AS for war see; Steve's
post .

Do you think there is such a thing as totally uncorrupt non criminal leader in any church because of religion? If it is your medicine, use it as directed and watch out for side effects.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Feb 16 - 09:39 PM

Yeah, Don, I'm sure the Gravity thread would have gone back to being about gravity after another 2,000 or so posts from the trolls.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 02:37 AM

Yep. Dragging superstition into an exciting subject such as our understanding of gravity and the connotations for our knowledge of the world does tend to disappoint the more rational amongst us.

Of course, if we didn't have religion we'd have to invent it, according to Voltaire. I reckon it's all down to modesty. You want to rule the world but it would be vanity to say it's because you want to so you invent a nothing concept that you can attribute your greed to and do it in the "name" of it.

One way or another, and Stalinist dogma can easily fall into that category, (the nothing concept being the people themselves) religion is the excuse, but is it the cause? We certainly see a rise in people considering blasphemy a crime against their reason, and in that sense, the religion is the end product. Although the effect is to increase the stranglehold by those doing well out of it.

It was Voltaire by the way who said that those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 07:02 AM

There's a slightly tongue in cheek saying you should never ask a question unless you know what the answer will be. Ok, that's not really true, but you should know what the purpose of the question is and what use you would make of answer. And I can't offhand come up with answers to those that appeal to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST, 34
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 10:38 AM

In some ways it doesn't matter if it's a religious war, or if religion is just used to sell the war. Either way, it's a religious war, and the practitioners of religion are responsible, either by starting the war or by being willing to go fight in it. For the non-religious, the most visible attribute is people talking about God while killing other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 11:14 AM

Countless times, I've posted comments regarding the hypocrisy of the national dialogue, being controlled by the TWO bankster/corporate OWNED 'political parties'....and pointed to using the angst of the people, as a tool to compose, or play music.
Wars are usually fought over the way money and/or property is handled and who controls it...and therefore, even if your particular ideology hides it from your own eyes and understanding, your ideology is just an avenue, for the owners of the parties, to gain popular support FROM THEIR VICTIMS!!!...and fight over MONEY!!!

However, on the other hand, I don't believe ANY wars have been started over MUSIC...which, by the way, is a LOT higher calling, AND what 'Mudcat' is 'supposed' to be about.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,wysiwyg minus cookie
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 01:23 PM

A start: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 03:32 PM

I don't believe ANY wars have been started over MUSIC...which, by the way, is a LOT higher calling, AND what 'Mudcat' is 'supposed' to be about.

Hence your complete lack of erudite posts on musical threads?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 04:48 PM

Strange that there are complaints about Christians getting threads closed as nearly always it is the atheists who introduced the subject.   Yet it is probably mostly the abusive among the atheists who cause thread closure.                                                      Related question to OP.    Does anyone know how many people who have been killed by atheist states?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 05:03 PM

No we don't, Pete. Go on, tell us.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 05:35 PM

Of course, constitutionally speaking, only The UK and Iran have a notional leader who is also head of a state religion.

Can't wait for pete's take on what constitutes an atheist state. Especially as for most rogue ones, the nation is the religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 07:21 PM

Presumably under Marxo-Leninism, religion ["Opium of the people"] would be forbidden or at least much frowned on; but nevertheless lots & lots of people were killed. It could of course be retorted that the State-approved belief in the teachings of Marx & Lenin constituted what could be regarded as a 'religion' (who was it who said something about "That arch-Jesuit, Stalin"?). As those old enough to remember him back in the 1940s, the BBC's good old tame philosophy Professor C E M Joad* was in the habit of prefacing every reply to questions put to the "Brains Trust" panel with the words "It depends what you mean by ..." It brought him a certain amount of ridicule; but I always thought, and still think, that he had an excellent point. It always does 'depend on what you mean by...', dunnit?

≈M≈

*interesting Wikipedia entry on Prof Joad

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Feb 16 - 10:14 PM

Also, there are data in The Better Angels of our Nature (blicky).

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 02:18 AM

Just to clarify in case necessary for full comprehension, my last post was an attempt to furnish a partial answer the previous question

"Does anyone know how many people who have been killed by atheist states?"


to which a negative answer had been returned.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 03:25 AM

Or "no" as non rambling posters would say.

😎

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 03:47 AM

Will you kindly apprise your goodself, Dr Muskibumz, of the crucial & essential fact that criticisms of, and endeavours of amendments to, my elected prose style constitute an insufferable impertinence up with which I shall not put!

So yah·sux·boo·2·u, ɷ-face!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 04:20 AM

"Presumably under Marxo-Leninism, religion ["Opium of the people"] would be forbidden or at least much frowned on"
Pretty reasonable summing up of The Soviet Union here.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
"The vast majority of people in the Russian empire were, at the time of the revolution, religious believers, whereas the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism. "Science" was counterposed to "religious superstition" in the media and in academic writing. The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, etc.), but public displays of religion outside of such designated areas were prohibited. In addition, religious institutions were not allowed to express their views in any type of mass media, and many religious buildings were demolished or used for other purposes"
That was, as far as I know, more or less the state of things throughout the Communist world
I've visited some beautiful religious buildings in Communist countries, still in full use - Sofia Cathedral is pretty outstanding.
How many people killed by atheist states - about the same number as angels that can dance on a head of a pin - silly question Mike.
Wars are waged for political and economic reasons - not or anti-religious ones - religion is often the banner that flies over the armies, but it is seldom, if ever the cause fought for.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 04:38 AM

"silly question Mike."
.,,.

Wasn't my question, Jim. It was Pete7**. I was simply seeking for an example in response -- which you appear to agree was accurate as an answer ("Pretty reasonable summing up of The Soviet Union here"), whevs might have been the perpetrators' motivations.

If you are working in one of your denunciatory modes, then kindly have the goodness to ensure that your denouncements are accurately directed!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 05:48 AM

"If you are working in one of your denunciatory modes"
Am not - I responded to what I believed was an unanswerable question - neither denouncing nor denuding the enquirer.
I assumed it was rhetorical.
Stop picking fights on a Sunday morning - far to nice a day here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 07:32 AM

You picked the fight with me, dammit -- attributing an idiocy of someone else's to me! I wasn't the bloody 'enquirer'!

It wasn't me, sir. It was him! · ie Pete*******.   

Oh, wotza-use. Roll on Man·U v Arsenal...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 07:54 AM

"attributing an idiocy of someone else's to me"
Picked up from your posting - it was addressed generally to what I believed was a rhetorical question - but if it's so important - apologies
Jim Carroll
Did you know my uncle once owned Manchester United? - not a lot of people know that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 08:17 AM

Apologies accepted, natch.

Tell us more about your uncle & Man U -- much more interesting than all this metaphysical wotnotz...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 08:43 AM

We don't often talk about that - imagine growing up in Liverpool with that hanging over you.
My Uncle, Louie (Edwards), once owned Man Un. - don't know much about him - never met him - just that really.
Black sheep of the family.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 09:11 AM

Yeah Jim, a Man U connection? This is terrible news. I don't know what to say. Speechless is what I am. You'll be telling me next your grandad played for Man City. Jaysus...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 10:04 AM

It's very disappointing really, a Mancunian supporting Liverpool.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 10:45 AM

"a Mancunian supporting Liverpool."
Sorry lads - not a Mancunian - born and bred in the Pool
No interest in football whatever - that and the Beatles drove me away from home.
Family story tells of my going into town with my dad on the top of the bus and passing the Everton ground - pointing to the Stand, I asked him what that big building was.
Before he could reply the man in the seat behind said "Eh mate, are you bringing up a ******* atheist?"
More interested in the fact that my Uncle Louie was a crooked businessman rather than what team he owned/supported.
Jim Carroll
Went to a Man City game once (at Fulham) - my mate had to wake me up when it was over
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 11:00 AM

Liverpool and Man U connections eh? Why am I not surprised? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 11:14 AM

Well, at least we've got the thread back on to

R E L I G I O N!

≈M≈

Up The Gunners -- tho I've just watched Man U win — Poo!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 03:28 PM

Yeah, and Liverppol unjustly kicked out on bloody penalties. Damn.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 03:37 PM

Nothing unjust mate. Cream rises to the top, and vice versa.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 16 - 05:56 PM

As does scum. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 02:45 AM

True. It looks like Hull will be promoted with us. Except they'll be lazy and not have to go through the play offs first.

Been a few years since I went to Anfield. Came away with points the last time I went, but these days most people say that.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 03:42 AM

Sorry lads, 'bout time we drifted back to spiritual matters rather than the important things in life
My and my Uncle Louie's fault entirely
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 04:40 AM

Jim it's Steve Shaw who is a Mancunian and I have to say in supporting Liverpool a disappointment.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 05:41 AM

It's a genetic thing. I come from one of those thousands of families which have an inbuilt and irremovable hatred of Manchester United. I have a grudging respect for City because they have several of my favourite players. Sergio Aguero would get in my world team anytime. And we're grateful for James Milner. Actually, as a lad I went most often to Gigg Lane as it was just up the road from where we lived, but my first love was Burnley in their early sixties glory days, the great Jimmy Mac being my hero. Truth to tell, I just love a good footie match well played. It really can be the Beautiful Game, played on much better pitches than I ever remember and so fast and skilful.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 05:52 AM

I suppose you all know that, as with Glasgow, our two teams are fairly rigidly divided into religious groups.
I've just learned that my Uncle Freddie managed to buy himself a plot in Goodson Park and his urn now rests under the 'blessed turf'
Never been sure how the Church squares that sort of thing with their somewhat jaundiced view of cremation.
Did you know that there are only four crematoria in the whole of the Republic of Ireland - one of the first being sited in the town of Ovens, in Cork - you can't beat the Irish sense of humour!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 06:22 AM

Yes, strange how cremation was regarded as an abomination until 1963 when the Pope changed his mind and said it wasn't after all. :-). All to do with believing in the resurrection of the body. You'd have thought that resurrecting a pile of ashes would be no more difficult for God than resurrecting a worm-eaten pile of mouldering compost, but hey ho. It's amazing the little things that God can get cross about. I mean, one piddling nicked bloody apple and we're all in the shite for evermore...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 06:26 AM

And wasn't 1963 the year sexual intercourse was invented? Vintage year, that one!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 06:32 AM

Nah, it was the 7th May 1969.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 07:03 AM

July 4th 1963 at 6-30 in the crypt of Liverpool's Catholic Cathedral
Jim Carroll