If you had answered my last two questions you would have your answer.
There are many examples of when the text of the Bible or the Koran call for killing in the name of God. In this thread and outside of it you can easily find them. It is arguable that those texts are being twisted, but the point remains that the text is a jumping off point, it is the foundation of justification. Religious killers have the doctrine, a vengeful god, and the organization (followers) behind them.
They view the muslims they kill as fake muslims, and they use the word of the Koran to justify that position. ISIS is using religion to justify their actions, Stalin isnt, you just said so.
You seriously don't know this one?
I will fact check the history. But really you must see how you are proving my real point; the doctrine is also to blame, and religion is arguably worse as it threatens eternak damnation to disbelievers and non-conformists.
Great. If you don't want to believe it then you are free to do so bud.
Answer? I think youve gone a bit off the tracks. Im simply identifying motive and criticizing doctrine. You are practically affirming my equating of religious doctrine with other radical doctrine.
Lets assume what you say above is true. It still doesnt disprove my argument. If a religion or any other ideology explicitly states in its text that it is OK or commanded to kill, then when people kill in that religions name, the doctrine shares blame. If the doctrine is being edited or perversely interpreted to justify killing then that new doctrine is to blame and the original may not be. Differentiating between the two isnt something im arguing against. But in this thread the more specific point is the powerful ultimatum and tool of manipulation of religion that non-religous ideologies lack; eternal damnation.
The motive of Stalin killing those millions was his doctrine.
Yes some will no doubt misuse or interpret it wrong, that is the person`s doing, not the doctrine. You can`t blame the many for the actions of the few.
i dont see the relevance my freedom to believe to this discussion.
He acted in spite of his doctrine, very different than what ive been criticizing.
says the trump loving retard who wants to ban all muslims because 0.0001% of them have done some bad stuff.
Not atheism, but Stalin's agenda to spread atheism. The doctrine of atheism, which doesnt even make sense to exist, could not have been interpreted to justify Stalin. Acting on the behalf of atheism makes no sense, where as acting in the name of your god makes sense. Therefore atheism cannot share blame equal to religion. Also, to be transparent im not convinced either way whether the new testament or Koran truly call for killing in the name of the religioun, but the more i read the more i an convinced that they do or that they could moreorless easily be interpreted that way.
What if the doctrine could be easily interpreted the other way but followers are negligent in amending it to reflect logical morality? I blame the doctrine more than the complicit followers, but the followers bear responisbility over their doctrine. If they amend their religion to reflect morality, then the doctrine is righted and the power of religion can be a positive. The power of religion isnt inherently immoral, people make it that way by injecting immoral threats and commands into the doctrine. There is no harm in beleiving in a god, unless the doctrine under which that god exists commands you to kill under the ultimatum of eternal damnation.
I think its very relevant. You have the freedom to believe or not to believe. Those under Stalin, Mao and Paul Pot were forced to not believe.