Ah, Texas, now that is an arguable debate there on if the death penalty institution is motivated through Christian ideology. I would say yes...nut that wasnt my point and a WHOLE other argument. The reason i mentioned it was to highlight the correlation between areas of intense religious beliefs and intense craziness, like leading the world in executions from the land of the free. My reference to Texas wasn't to argue that Texas does it because of their extreme religious devotion (even though I do believe that) it was to show extremism walking hand in hand with extremism.
you asked," Anyways do you believe that these people would not have found a way to create other atrocities?" I believe that other atrocities throughout the course of humanity would happen certainly even despite the absence of religion. I dont claim that the absence of religion would make the world a PERFECT place, only a BETTER one. However, one atrocity less is always a good thing no? Furthermore, on these specific atrocities, they never would have happened without religion to begin with, so for these specific ones i see to reason to assume that another atrocity would happen in its exact place in substitute. THOSE THINGS HAPPENED SOLELY BECAUSE OF RELIGION. Their absence would have made the world better.
Why do you assume the world would be better? You have no idea how many atrocities would have happened if religion wasn't around. And like I said there is still atrocities without religion and there could have been alot more without religion ever existing.
You said, "People that claim they do these evil/cruel acts because their religion wants them too are either evil for following that religion or are lying hypocrites for blaming their religion." It is a convenient stance to take to say that anyone who does something bad in the name of god was never representing that religion to begin with (despite the perpetrators statement that it does) If bad happens because of religion, it HAPPENS BECAUSE OF RELIGION. it is an objection to your belief, that is why you are finding coping methods, like denial, to say they are unrelated.
Why would I have denial to defend them. They have separate beliefs then me. My beliefs are that thy are wrong. If I had the same beliefs as them then yes I probably would be in denial because I would be crazy. You can't use those people to justify the act of eradicating religion as a whole. Now if you have a problem with the crusades take it up with them (not with me) and try to eradicate them alone.
you said, "Alright I have to agree with you that there would be no more atrocities in the name of god" then you say ,"my new argument is that there would still be just as many atrocities in the world with or without religion." So if there are one or two fewer attrocities due to the lack of religion, (in reality hundreds more), isnt that FEWER ATROCITIES?
Yes, but only fewer atrocities in the name of god, but who's to say that other atrocities wouldn't have appeared. If you have proof that shows that no other atrocities would have occurred then I will end my argument here but without that proof you can't say the world would be better. Also understand all history would be different so it's impossible to say the world would be better without religion.
You have basically agreed, despite your recognition of such, that the world would have been a better place without those atrocities, which were due to religion, and would never have happened if religion was not present. In texas terms, that means the world would have been a better place if religion hadnt occurred. You know that feeling that just happened in your brain, a combination of frustration and denial...thats what we call coping.
I have not agreed the world would be a better place. I agreed that there would never have been an atrocity in the name of god.
Why do you say in Texas terms? Don't automatically assume texans are stupid.
Why are you so prejudice towards texans? Did you try to rip open a new asshole and they just punched you in the face or something?
your turn curly
