tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-628739406722316178.post2445218680823327541..comments2023-05-05T01:58:26.508-07:00Comments on (un)Revolutionary Rambling: "Militant Atheism"Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10536439307554863179noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-628739406722316178.post-10631858282805288572011-01-16T19:46:07.974-08:002011-01-16T19:46:07.974-08:00"But, as atheism did not contribute to those ..."But, as atheism did not contribute to those leaders' massacres, religion has influenced and contributed to massive amounts of killings in human history."<br /><br />This is nonsense. In the next sentence you use the Crusade and the Inquisition as your sources of how religion has influenced and contributed to mass killings and this isn't very well researched. The Crusade(s)...9 of them...were attempts by the Leaders of the different groups, who were seperated by the "relgion" they claimed sought out to gain land, money, and most importantly POWER. The only thing that religion had to do with this war was it was used as a cover for what was actually happening. The greedy leaders of each faction were claiming what they were doing was devinely sactioned...when actually that was just a ploy to get the soldiers and the public to do their bidding. The Inquisition? Roman Inquisition, Spanish Inquistion, or Portuguese Inquisition...it really doesn't matter which one you were refering to, they were all powerplays by the Royalty to exterminate those who disagreed with them, thus not religiously based. These examples are synonymous with the stories of the Athiests. Both use religion or beliefs as a way of covering what they were really doing. Stalin was trying to acrue power by eliminating his opposition which was the church...If what Stalin did wasn't religiously based then neither are the othersAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-628739406722316178.post-78739843203959491992011-01-16T19:45:35.019-08:002011-01-16T19:45:35.019-08:00Overall I would rate this rant as a quality writte...Overall I would rate this rant as a quality written piece but, some of your points don't hold any weight at all. Your point regarding Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao being Athiest had nothing to do with the atrocities that they commit, which I happen to agree with, but you also bring up people such Ted Haggard, Former President George W. Bush, and "Roman Catholic" Adolph Hitler as people who are obviously diests. Just as we can't blame the motives of Mao and company on them being Athiests, I don't think it is fair to blame Bush and co.'s motives on them being diests...unless of course you actually are George W. Bush or Ted Haggard and are letting us inside your true motivations for the atrocities that incured.<br /> And using Richard Dawkins as a reference source for judging a fellow athiest is like using a Christian Minister as a reference saying that Christ was evil. No matter what the truth is both of those examples are going to support their fellow bretheren.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-628739406722316178.post-8294203621169887672010-09-17T19:09:27.692-07:002010-09-17T19:09:27.692-07:00This is excellent.This is excellent.lisahgoldenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11158660223296807317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-628739406722316178.post-67600429929604944432010-09-17T06:57:03.301-07:002010-09-17T06:57:03.301-07:00Wonderfully stated, Steve.Wonderfully stated, Steve.Shawn Higginshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05942963688450443708noreply@blogger.com