Here let me put some quotes together for you (all from this forum) to illustrate the point:

Jack Klein Said
“You know who else believes their holy book gives them all the answers, … Radical Islamists. Why don't you follow their sterling example and go get yourself killed. If only we could arrange for all the people who believe their particular half-mad scribblings from ancient times are the one and true that to kill each other all off, I think the rest of the sane people in the world would be well off.”
**sigh**-blind faith thread (luckily all you have to do is click on Jack’s profile and it’s the top one in his replies)


So, to begin with he apparently wishes to arrange for some crazy people to kill one another off, so that the rest of “us”, sane people, will be better off. But how does he define crazy? Given my username I’m certainly curious.

Here's Jack's answer
“Simple put, why are "normal" individuals who claim to have a personal experience with God sane, and people like L Ron Hubbard, or David Koresh, etc seen as nuts?

Why is one deserving of respect, and the other scorn? Is it because the one has a lot more people willing to buy into the same delusion? From an objective standpoint, neither is. They're both equally crazy. And thus, not rational.”




So here is the answer? Anyone claiming to have a personal experience with God is irrational and crazy? My daughter? My Dad? My Grandmother? Me? Thus Jack would like to arrange it so that we would all be killed off in some imagined religious shooting match? Why? What have we done? Oh wait, I think I saw something a while back.

Ah yes here it is!


Jack said
“This is the legacy of religion. This is why zealotry and unthinking faithful terrify me.

They do evil and murder, and believe its God's will.”




We scare him! Huh? Fear, now that is a prime motivator in lots of atrocities. Careful Jack you’re advocating the very same thing that you decry and this time in the name of “reason”.

Regardless of the number of times that we patiently explain that the very same things he holds onto. Atrocities in the name of religion, are overblown. Theism cannot be stated a the prime or even a major source of warfare and atrocity, but Jack has swallowed the Kool-Aide and will think that I'm irrational for disagreeing with him (I suppose).

So you're saying that the Crusades, the Inquistion, the witch trials, and 9/11 have nothing to do with religion?

Inquisition, rather.

No I'm saying that a religous war (among so many that are not)

a religious court that had no jusrisdiction over anyone who wasn't CHristian and ultimately cannot be reliably shown to have adjudicated the deaths of more than about 2,000 people (terrible but in most cases on a par with secular court at the time, since lots of the people who went before it were given pennance rather than death)

a witch hunt that resulted in the deaths of sixteen people (again terrible but hardly a huge atrocity when compared to atrocities of hte 20th Century)

and the work of less than fifty terrorists, which did take the lives of thousands but had how many other equally (I'd argue moreso) faithful people rolling up their sleeves to help their neighbors?

What I'm saying is relax. Your Christian neighbor isn't foaming at the mouth waiting for a reason to kill you and you shouldn't be hoping for his death in return. I firmly state that anyone losing their lives for any reason is an atrocity. I just have a realistic outlook about violence. It's a human condition, not a religious one.

Ah wait sorry, the Witch trials resulted in around 25 deaths. Still doesn't have the ring of an extermination or Soviet purge.

Crazy you are far from correct, unless you are talking solely about Salem. Europeans had been doing this shit for over a century by the time it got to the Americas. And in Salem alone there were at least 25 deaths, funny how religion relates to politics in most of the connections between accused and accuser... and it makes me wonder

witch trials generally means the Salem Witch Trials in my mind, yes and I fast posted you there. Still the witch burning in Europe (again terrible) is one of those things that lets people indulge their imaginations at how widespread it must have been and how many people must have died. The actual data on this is terribly sketchy. Across all of Europe for all of the Middle Ages (1000 years or so) there simply isn't anything but wild speculation. I've heard people estimate into the millions. To which I reply really? Do you know the populaiton of that area over that time period?

I never said it was in the millions, I've read lots of articles on witch trials, and there were pretty popular in small towns across Europe. Funny that you mention sketchy data, Mr. Bible.

Once again. What does the fear of a group of Mideval Christians have to do with Christianity today? What does this show by the way? It shows a religious community growing in their appreciation of life over the centuries and a greter appreciation (on the part of many CHristians) for the words of Christ. Take a look at the Christian atrocities. The most recent (more than 200 years ago) resulted in less than thirty deaths. Since then Christians got involved in banning slavery and promoting the Civil Rights Movement.

Not to mention that it's a little ironic (and thoroughly in keeping with the theme of this thread) that you're condemning people today for things that other did long ago, but seem to sketch over this little gem:

"If only we could arrange for all the people who believe their particular half-mad scribblings from ancient times are the one and true that to kill each other all off, I think the rest of the sane people in the world would be well off.”

from the guy you appear to be defending. Do you agree with his sentiment? Why not condemn him?

Should I mention that they also encouraged slavery for far over a hundred years, and formed movements like the kkk as well. Here's my point. People are people and they will do what they think is in their interest regardless of the moral frame at times. Medieval Christians show one of the dangers of extremist faith, that's what they show. And by "words of Christ" I hope you mean "the possible words of Jesus of Nazareth, life long carpenter and martyr for his unique way of life" I prefer to keep things secular and non-nationalistic or idealistic if I'm going to hunt out and kill people thank you very much, I don't like the idea of a supreme power influencing possibly people's perception of and drive to change their realties. It's not in the numbers (and still your numbers are off and if you challenge me on this I will once again attack your premise by the same means), it's the very horrible idea at the center of all this.

crazy i only read your last post, and disagreed with it, i didn't read that, and i won't condemn him, of course he's foolish though because crazy religious people don't just stop at killing each other, they could kill nonbelievers and that would piss me off

shit, just missed a live game phase, i'm done talking for now

Ever heard of saying something provocative to make a point?

Believe me, religious nuts don't need my encouragement to kill people.

I mean, how many people did Mary I execute in attempt to make England Catholic again? Or did Lizzy 1 kill to keep it Protestant.

Your own lovely little island (I assume since you're Anglican that you're English, but you get the point in any case) has its own history of religious brutality.

crazy it doesn't show the power of the message of christ it shows some secular common sense, if we keep killing each other life is going to suck for us all, so let's tone down the religion a bit and move forward (using politics as the machine to kill people we dislike)

Also, you're conducting what is known in the business as an ad hominem attack... you're not addressing my actual argument, but attempting to attack me and my credibility. Its generally recognized as a major logical fallacy when you attempt to say "This person is bad because of X, therefore anything this person says is wrong, because I disagree with X"

Also known as Godwin's law when you bring in Hitler.

And the very horrible idea that we agree on is that people will be inhumane. Regardless of the reason.

Yet in the face of Jack's outright wish for the deaths of his opposition (even intimation that he'd like to arrange it), you will refuse to take seriously the idea that any atheist is capable of the same? Why? Are you so geared to thinking of Christians as the opposition that you'll refuse to see anything that's uncomfortable in those you agree with?

Christians have "God" on their side

@ Jack

So, you're trying to justify the remark finally, by the assumption that I'm indulging in an ad hominem? I haven't said that nothing you say can be trusted nor have I likened you to anyone. I have faithfully quoted you, if it's an embarrasment now. Sorry. Perhaps you should be careful of what you publish? To wish for anyone's death and then try to make your opposition seem like ravening madmen is the true ad hominem.

Not really, everything is subjective after all, I don't pass judgements outside of outright stupidity on people. I have a fantasy of purging the world of believers, except I'm not feeling the hand of God and frankly I don't have the energy.

@otto

SO you are feeling the hand of God blunting you zeal. Better watch out, Jack might think that you're "crazy".

at least my name's not "Crazy" =P he has a point though.

and I don't firmly believe in God, so no...

@ jack

no I'm not English the Anglican communion has 70 million members with churches on every continent (with the possible exception of Antarctica).

But lets take England. Sure it has seen religious brutality, but let's add in all of the murders of people that had nothing to do with religion. Were they all sane and justifiable? Of course not. The point being that murder is not sane and is rarely justifiable. The question remains why you think that this particular reason for killing that happened hundreds of years ago is particularly heinous. The answer is most likely becuase it's convenient to believe that for your attack on religion. There is no reason to fear your Christian neighbor, but I'm beginnig to have my doubts about you. You seem to take the rhetoic as if it's fact.

He's just a Texan (only steers and queers, I'm just jking you of course). A) Sanity is for the weak. B) Justifiable is an interesting term. C) Murder has no sense.... Yes I'm playing the devil's advocate here, let's see your response. I say power to religious people who want to kill others. GO HITLER, YEAH FASCISM ROOTED IN RELIGION

It is an ad hominem attack.

You haven't even begun to address any of my actual arguments.

And yes, both theists and non-theists have committed crimes. However, there have been vastly more dead because of religion than the lack thereof.

In addition, no atheist killed theists in the name of their non-belief. The very concept is silly. Stalin and Mao killed millions for their own power, and for Marxism-Leninism. Their believe in that philosophy.

Their problem is much the same as believers. Once one believes in something no matter what, atrocities happen, because your belief overrides your rationality. Its happened to Christians, Muslims, Stalinists, Maoists, Hitlerites, etc.

Their one common thread is the abdication of reason in favor of belief in the Idea.

And that is the problem.