@J1Militans Part 1 / 5
I dont think i've claimed that all religouse people have done evil things, in fact i dont think i've even claimed that all religions have done evil things.
About what you said about Dawkins.
I would not say that religion if the root of all evil, however religion causes alot of harm, or you might even say, causes alot of evil, if you want to use that word. :)
About Hitchens.
I would actually agree with him, wars have been fought it the name of religion / God.
@J1Militans part 2 / 5
However they have never been done so in ''the name of atheism''. People are motivated by their believes, not the other way around. Its not like people are going around killing each others and yelling stuff like ''in the name of disbelief of a magic elf under Jacobs bed, we will win this war'', that would be just silly :P
Sure atheist have started wars, and done horrible deeds, however that has nothing to do with their atheism.
Turha101 has replied to your comment on Christopher Hitchens Vs Dinesh D'Souza (What's So Great About God?) (Part 1):
@J1Militans part 3 / 5
You cant really compare concepts like, freedom, justice, or equality to religion, they are not even remotly simular.
Atheism is merely a position, to the question about theism, it has nothing to do with anything else, than the question about if a someone believes in a God.
To say something like atheistic regimes, is missleading, since atheism has nothing to do with it.
@J1Militans part 4 / 5
Sure there are some i ideologies, that are by the very definition not theistic, therfore atheistic, like communism, but that has nothing to do with atheism.
What Dinesh is basicly trying to do, is point a finger at atheist, and make it seem like atheism would somehow be bad.
An atheist, is simply someone who is NOT a theist, how can something like that, motivate you to do anything?
@J1Militans part 5
To give you an simple example of how, well dumb, it is to blame anything on atheism
I have a pink small gorilla under my bed
But look at all the none believers in the small pink gorilla, look at what they have done, they have murdered alot of humans, they have gone to war, they have raped women.
If i said something like this, would you then defend / hold the same position? Also would you think that any wars have been started, because of the disbelief of the small pink gorilla?
beh, it's not letting me edit the font or background color. Oh well...
ReplyDeleteI'll answer by points.
ReplyDelete1. Oh no, not that, but that religious people have done evil in the name of religion.
And sure, I think mankind has done a lot of evil in the name of religion, but not religion itself has done a lot of harm. Take the Islam terrorists. How come there are some Muslims who are peaceful. They hold the same religion as the Taliban.
I would say it is man who is corrupted.
We have some atheists helping people here and there, and we have atheist Hitler or Stalin or Mao killing people.
While I agree with Dinesh that the atheistic regimes have done a lot more damage, I do not think that atheism has a systematical Creed that says "I believe in no God. I believe I should kill those who believe in God."
Thus I think instead of blaming religion or atheism (though again, I agree with Dinesh in that atheism seems to be even more harmful when used badly), we must blame ourselves.
The same Taliban Muslim terrorits would have been atheistic Nazis most likely, just as a good atheist would make a good Christian, or just as Ghandi advocated peace.
Even within my own Church we see this. There have been times in which Popes gave their blessings to soldiers to go fight (we can debate the Crusades at another time and another post) and now we got JPII and BXVI saying sorry for past evils and urging humanity to come to peace. Heck, at Mass everyday we pray for peace.
I think I've said too much here though there's more to say.
Conclusion #1: It is not religion or the lack of, but it is man himself who can do evil.
2. I think much of this was covered above. I would agree to an extent that they do not go saying "in the name of atheism I make war on you," but many of these regimes do include atheism, or pressupose atheism.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting point to make would be this: a lunatic can say "God told me to kill," but if he truly is a believer, he *has* to answer to his religion, especially if his religion advocates peace, like Christianity.
I'll talk more about Divine Commands below.
3. If you listen to other debates of Dinesh, he rightly points to great virtuous advancements in society done because of Christianity, like compassion or going to help other nations. These were brought by Christianity, though in themselves they can be used by any human.
ReplyDeleteMy point is this. We could link ideas of freedom, love, justice, equality very, very strongly with the core values of Christianity: God is Love, God is Just, God made us free and not slaves, God made us all the same, etc.
Nonetheless, I think to argue about that alone would be missing the point.
(The same goes about "Atheistic regimes," I don't think this is the core of our argument, but I would say that because many of these regimes presuppose atheism, we could safely call it that. I don't know enough about these regimes to fully back up my argument though.)
The point would be: even if they are not alike, these concepts (freedom, justice, etc.) are things that people use in order to fight wars, like fighting to set the blacks free, or to fight terrorism, etc. You substitute any of those words with religion and we see that, though they are different things (even if they can be linked), the principle is still the same: that man uses them for war does not make them evil.
Religion, if deemed evil, must be looked at itself and not what people do with it.
The same for atheism. To me atheism is evil because it leads you from God, not because Hitler had atheistic ideas, etc.
4. Dinesh is simply responding that atheism has actually more to answer for than religion, if we are to take Dawkins' and Hitchens' charges as true.
ReplyDeleteAnd to your question, in another debate Dinesh begins by saying how the New Atheists got something in particular, they are antitheists: if I don't believe in a purple unicorn, I do not write a book against it, I simply live life as though he didn't exist; but the new atheists do more than just being NOT theists.
So if you take that premise, an atheist could easily going from attacking someone's beliefs through writing (as Dawkins, etc), to attacking the believers and burning churches, etc. After all, we've seen this happen (and yes, it does go the other way around... So back to point #1: it's man who is corrupt, and he uses any means to justify his corruption, whether it be atheism or some religion).
5. Man I already feel bad about writing an essay instead of pragraphs like you did. I apologize.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes. Your example is true just as if someone begins killing in the name of Santa.
But the problem here is that to religious people this Santa of ours IS real, not an idea.
I'm not going to kill anyone in the name of God because of my faith and because of how I am.
I think if I ever use my religion to justify a killing, then it's not because of my faith/religion but because of my misguided anger or something, and my using religion is merely a justification of my actions.
But here we shall get into Divine Commands now.
6. Divine Command.
ReplyDeleteThe premise of religions does not go in whether they are harmful or not, because I think we've established it is man who can be harmful, and he'll use religion or atheism to justify his evil ways.
But the true question here is: God.
All religions claim to have God or gods. Well, if these gods or God does not exist, then the religion is immediately false.
But if God exists, then it is no good to compare religion to believing in Santa, since God does in fact exist.
Does that make sense?
-The difference between believing in Santa and believing in someone that actually exists.
Now. If what Christians say about God is true, then there is room for rightful violence, just as it is not wrong to defend your own house or family or person if someone is about to kill you - even if it means killing that person.
If the same God that made morality and made the Command "Thou Shalt not Kill" truly tells a person (like Abraham) to kill, the apparent contradiction is compared to how to Government may sometimes put a temporary halt in certain laws, or when a cop who is directing traffic tells you to go forward even though the traffic light is red.
The catch is this: How do you know when God is telling you to trespass His own created law?
That's why is better NOT to kill or do things in the name of God, because I'm pretty sure 99% of those times it wasn't God telling them to do so.
So. If God does not exist, then yes, all killing in the name of God is utterly wrong because it is based on a false premise.
And if He exists, then at least 99% of the time it is still wrong, since it is unlikely, I dare say, that God will have people go to war in His Name.
The Divine Command thing answers the objections raised by wars in the Old Testament, but God does not communicate this way to us anymore. Perhaps the Crusades were really God's will, perhaps it was simply man's war-mongery, or perhaps it was both.
Turha101 has replied to your comment on Christopher Hitchens Vs Dinesh D'Souza (What's So Great About God?) (Part 1):
ReplyDelete@J1Militans part 1 / 2
If you want i can copy all that to some blog or something simular.
When a atheist does something, he does it because he is motivated by something.
Note, im not trying to say that atheist have not done anything bad, or something simluar, all im saying is that the bad things done by atheist, have nothing to do with atheism, because of the very definition of the word atheist.
Not being a theist, is not a motivational factor.
The same case could be made for theism tho.
@J1Militans part 2 / 2
ReplyDeleteIf someone only believes in a God, but does not know what the God wants / commands etc, then the person can not be motivated by his theism.
''When an atheist does something he may not be doing it because of religion''
You can be an atheist and still be in a religion, take buddhism for an example, some buddhist would define themselves as atheist.
Atheism does not mean anti religon, just that you are not a theist.
So atheist can be motivated by their religion aswell.
I think I agree with all you said more or less.
ReplyDeleteI think it's unfair that the New Atheists want religions to answer for crimes done in their names but want atheism to come out unstained.
I say, either we all answer, or we all don't answer.
Though it gets a little tricky, depending on what religion, too. Like radicals Islam taking some verses only, or some Christians saying "God wills it" (as explained above in the "Divine Command" part).
I say it is man who is guilty and corrupt, and religion can help him in his corruption just as atheism can.
Ello ^^
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, i gotta warn you, this is kinda long, so it might hurt
your eyes :P
1
Religion has motivated / supported alot of the things that i would
consider to be wrong, slavery for one, killing whitches for another.
If you are trying to argue that religion itself has not harmed
anyone, because its an idea, then i would disagree with you there
aswell. To give you a simple example of how the idea can hurt
someone, is for an example the fear of hell, which has made some
peoples lives more dificult, because they fear something that their
religion teaches them that will happen if they are not ''good''
believers.
There are many reasons to why people have different opinnions, or
acts in different ways, within the same religion.
Just to give you a few.
There are those who dont take the quran as literally as others.
There are those who interpret the quran differently than others.
etc
You can see the same thing in christianity, KKK members would
consider themselves to be a christian organisation, yet i bet you
dont share the same views as them.
Or how about the westboro baptist church? :)
There are fundamentalist of every ideology / religion.
''We have some atheists helping people here and there, and we have
atheist Hitler or Stalin or Mao killing people.''
Well firsty, i would say that Hitler was not an atheist, i can give
you some quotes of him to show you why.
However thats besides the point, i dont care if Hitler was an
atheist, i dont care if Stalin, Mao or anyone else of those guys were
an atheist. Because what they did NOT believe in, is irrelevant, what
is relevant is what they did believe in. I hate to repeat this, but
people are motivated by their beliefs, not the other way around.
I can make you a long list of what they did not believe in, however
that would not tell you why they did what they did. The only thing
that would tell you why they did what they did, is their motivations,
their beliefs.
It does not matter if Hitler did not believe in Santa, magical pixies
or whatever, that has nothing to do with the reasons / motivations
behind his actions.
I know this is really repetive, and thats why discussing this might
feel like beating a dead horse, but the thing is, we are motivated by
what we believe, by what we think, by what we feel, etc. We are NOT
motivated by things we do not believe in.
Atheism does not tell you what to think, what to do, how to feel,
what to say, it does not even comfort anyone. All atheism is about,
is a position to a question, that question is, ''do you believe in
God(s)?'', thats all there is to it.
I really dislike the whole ''atheistic regimes'', since its
missleading, it makes it seem like atheism had something to do with.
I would not totally agree with you, that we should blame ourself, we
should in the sense that we have done stupid things and had dumb
ideas. But instead of blaming ourself, i would blame the ideas,
ideologies, that we have had / created.
This includes religion.
However there was one thing that you said, that i found funny.
Tell me, what did you mean with
''atheism seems to be even more harmful when used badly''
How can anyone use atheism for anything? :o
2
ReplyDeleteBecause some of thos regimes include atheism in them, it does not
mean that atheism had anything to do with them.
Take communism for an example, which is basicly state worship, where
the state decides everything. Now it would be better for the state,
if people did not waste their time on going to church or praying,
since then they use up time they could have spent for working for the
state.
So for the state, religion ( in this case it was the church ) was a
bad thing, so they removed them.
The churches back then had alot of power, why would the state want to
share the power with something they could abolish?
Also do you have any idea how much money the churches had?
There are other reasons aswell, this is just a few of them.
About the lunatic scenario.
What makes you think that the lunatic would not have truly been a
believer?
If he is a true believer, he believes that he has to answer to his
GOD, and since his God is telling him to do something, he should
obey.
Ello ^^
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, i gotta warn you, this is kinda long, so it might hurt
your eyes :P
Crap this was too long, before i noticed that i posted part 2 :/
1 ( part 1 :P )
Religion has motivated / supported alot of the things that i would
consider to be wrong, slavery for one, killing whitches for another.
If you are trying to argue that religion itself has not harmed
anyone, because its an idea, then i would disagree with you there
aswell. To give you a simple example of how the idea can hurt
someone, is for an example the fear of hell, which has made some
peoples lives more dificult, because they fear something that their
religion teaches them that will happen if they are not ''good''
believers.
There are many reasons to why people have different opinnions, or
acts in different ways, within the same religion.
Just to give you a few.
There are those who dont take the quran as literally as others.
There are those who interpret the quran differently than others.
etc
You can see the same thing in christianity, KKK members would
consider themselves to be a christian organisation, yet i bet you
dont share the same views as them.
Or how about the westboro baptist church? :)
There are fundamentalist of every ideology / religion.
''We have some atheists helping people here and there, and we have
atheist Hitler or Stalin or Mao killing people.''
Well firsty, i would say that Hitler was not an atheist, i can give
you some quotes of him to show you why.
However thats besides the point, i dont care if Hitler was an
atheist, i dont care if Stalin, Mao or anyone else of those guys were
an atheist. Because what they did NOT believe in, is irrelevant, what
is relevant is what they did believe in. I hate to repeat this, but
people are motivated by their beliefs, not the other way around.
I can make you a long list of what they did not believe in, however
that would not tell you why they did what they did. The only thing
that would tell you why they did what they did, is their motivations,
their beliefs.
It does not matter if Hitler did not believe in Santa, magical pixies
or whatever, that has nothing to do with the reasons / motivations
behind his actions.
1 ( part 2 / 2 )
ReplyDeleteI know this is really repetive, and thats why discussing this might
feel like beating a dead horse, but the thing is, we are motivated by
what we believe, by what we think, by what we feel, etc. We are NOT
motivated by things we do not believe in.
Atheism does not tell you what to think, what to do, how to feel,
what to say, it does not even comfort anyone. All atheism is about,
is a position to a question, that question is, ''do you believe in
God(s)?'', thats all there is to it.
I really dislike the whole ''atheistic regimes'', since its
missleading, it makes it seem like atheism had something to do with.
I would not totally agree with you, that we should blame ourself, we
should in the sense that we have done stupid things and had dumb
ideas. But instead of blaming ourself, i would blame the ideas,
ideologies, that we have had / created.
This includes religion.
However there was one thing that you said, that i found funny.
Tell me, what did you mean with
''atheism seems to be even more harmful when used badly''
How can anyone use atheism for anything? :o
3
ReplyDeleteIm not trying to say that religion ( lets take christianity for an
example ) has done only bad things, there are alot of good things
christians have done, there is no denying that.
However alot of bad things have been done aswell, for an example, the
whole condom thing in Africa, where chatolics are spreading a rumor
that condoms would spread aids, and that you will burn in hell if you
use condoms. Just because they are against condom ussage, they spread
lies.
Also there are organisations which are not founded by christians, or
by the christianitys principles which do great things aswell. Its not
like christians are the only ones helping other people.
The reason why i dislike it, when you compare religion to freedom,
justice, etc, is because, things like justice are concepts, while
religion is more like an idea. Sure religion can have a opinnion
about what justice is, but i still find it silly to compare concepts
to religion.
''The same for atheism. To me atheism is evil because it leads you
from God, not because Hitler had atheistic ideas, etc. ''
Well to be fair, atheism does not lead anyone away from God. Atheism
is a position about the excistanse of a God. ^^
There are reasons why people stop to believe in a God, wheter they
cant find evidence for one, or get bullied away from the belief, it
has nothing to do with atheism.
Also there are those who have never heard of a God, they are by the
very definition atheist. :P
4
ReplyDeleteAtheism has actually nothing to answer for, since its a just
disbelief.
About the whole new atheist thing. The reason why there are atheist
speaking against religion, is because of the huge impact it has on
the world. People are trying to get their religiouse views taught in
schools ( for an example, creationism ), people are badmouthing
scientific reasearch, discoveries, and theories because it goes
against their beliefs, etc.
Would you not speak up about it, if there were unicorn believers
going around doing the same thing?
If religion did not influence anything, then there would be not so
much talk against religion.
'': it's man who is corrupt, and he uses any means to justify his
corruption, whether it be atheism or some religion''
The thing is, you cant use atheism to justify anything :P
However religion can support your views, so you can use religion to
justify your actions.
( i noticed that my text was kinda weird, i wrote it in notepad, but i fixed it now )
ReplyDelete5
ill answer the thing about santa in my reply to part ''6''.
When you talked about that you would not kill anyone because of who you are, and your faith.
Well there are those people who would, because of their faith. Religion is a powerfull tool, it can create hatred and fear, against a group / race of people.
If for one example, a religion teaches that black people uses evil magic, eat babies, and kills anyone in their sight, and thats why they should be killed before they have a chanse to kill you.
Then if someone seriously believed in this religion, then that person would probably fear black people, and because the person was fearing for his own safty, he would probably try to stay away from black people, or murder whenever he sees one.
Religion can be the reason why someone feels a certain way towards someone else. So when you talked about missguided anger, it can be a religion who causes that anger to begin with.
6
ReplyDelete''The premise of religions does not go in whether they are harmful or not, because I think we've established it is man who can be harmful, and he'll use religion or atheism to justify his evil ways.''
Even tho i've speaked negativly about religion in this post, i want to point one thing out. I am not trying to say that all religions are something bad, or everything religion can lead someone, or motivate someone, to do something, is always something that i would consider evil.
However there was something in what you said that made me wonder, and that was the last sentance. When you included atheism in what man can use as justification, i have to ask you.
How can atheism justify for anything? Or more to point, how can atheism justify someones action?
Now to answer to the whole santa thing.
You made two points, and then one conclusion in this post.
''All religions claim to have God or gods. Well, if these gods or God does not exist, then the religion is immediately false.
But if God exists, then it is no good to compare religion to believing in Santa, since God does in fact exist.
Does that make sense?
-The difference between believing in Santa and believing in someone that actually exists.''
Sure that makes sense, however if Santa is real, then there is no good to compare religion, to believeing in Santa, you see where im going with this?
Its true that comparing Santa to, lets say Obama, would be silly, since we have good reasons to believe that Obama is real, however we have no good reason to believe that Santa would be real.
But when it comes to God, its a different story. As far as i know, nobody has ever been able to present any good evidence for the excistance of their God. So the truth is, we dont know if there is a God or not, but just as we dont know if there is a God or not, we also dont know if there is Santa really is real.
The reasons why you can compare the belief in Santa to the belief in God, is because we dont know if either one of them exist, and as far as i know, there is just as much supporting both views. :)
However because theist tend to be tierd of hearing about the Santa and God comparisons, thats why i tend to make up something silly, and compare believing in God to that. For an example, there is a naga living in a magical bottle under my bed, the naga controlls everything that happens in this world.
I really dont want to go to the morality discussion, thats why im going to let that one slide.
However when you mentioned about the cop directing traffic, there is mentioned ( or atleast in my country ) in the traffic law that if that happens, you are supposed to ignore the traffic lights, so its not really a contradiction, its a special case in the system :P
You might be pretty sure that 99% of the time when God has ''told'' someone to kill someone else, it has not been God doing so. ( i would say that im pretty sure its 100%, but hey, i cant know for sure :P )
The thing is this, to those people who have heard ''Gods voice'', to them its real, they really believe that its their God telling them to do stuff.
There is one thing i find very intresting, and that is that in this post you keep on using 99%, and i was wondering why?
You said it yourself that its unlikely that God would have people start wars in his name. Well if its unlikly it does not have to be 99%, it might aswell be 80%. ^^
To your last post, there is only one thing i want to quote from there, since i've answered to everything else more or less.
''I say it is man who is guilty and corrupt, and religion can help him in his corruption just as atheism can. ''
Since you keep on puting atheism in sentances like this, rather than saying ''naha'' all the time, i would want you to explain to me.
What do you think atheism is?
And how can atheism motivate someone?
6
ReplyDelete''The premise of religions does not go in whether they are harmful or not, because I think we've established it is man who can be harmful, and he'll use religion or atheism to justify his evil ways.''
Even tho i've speaked negativly about religion in this post, i want to point one thing out. I am not trying to say that all religions are something bad, or everything religion can lead someone, or motivate someone, to do something, is always something that i would consider evil.
However there was something in what you said that made me wonder, and that was the last sentance. When you included atheism in what man can use as justification, i have to ask you.
How can atheism justify for anything? Or more to point, how can atheism justify someones action?
Now to answer to the whole santa thing.
You made two points, and then one conclusion in this post.
''All religions claim to have God or gods. Well, if these gods or God does not exist, then the religion is immediately false.
But if God exists, then it is no good to compare religion to believing in Santa, since God does in fact exist.
Does that make sense?
-The difference between believing in Santa and believing in someone that actually exists.''
Sure that makes sense, however if Santa is real, then there is no good to compare religion, to believeing in Santa, you see where im going with this?
Its true that comparing Santa to, lets say Obama, would be silly, since we have good reasons to believe that Obama is real, however we have no good reason to believe that Santa would be real.
But when it comes to God, its a different story. As far as i know, nobody has ever been able to present any good evidence for the excistance of their God. So the truth is, we dont know if there is a God or not, but just as we dont know if there is a God or not, we also dont know if there is Santa really is real.
The reasons why you can compare the belief in Santa to the belief in God, is because we dont know if either one of them exist, and as far as i know, there is just as much supporting both views. :)
However because theist tend to be tierd of hearing about the Santa and God comparisons, thats why i tend to make up something silly, and compare believing in God to that. For an example, there is a naga living in a magical bottle under my bed, the naga controlls everything that happens in this world.
I really dont want to go to the morality discussion, thats why im going to let that one slide.
However when you mentioned about the cop directing traffic, there is mentioned ( or atleast in my country ) in the traffic law that if that happens, you are supposed to ignore the traffic lights, so its not really a contradiction, its a special case in the system :P
You might be pretty sure that 99% of the time when God has ''told'' someone to kill someone else, it has not been God doing so. ( i would say that im pretty sure its 100%, but hey, i cant know for sure :P )
The thing is this, to those people who have heard ''Gods voice'', to them its real, they really believe that its their God telling them to do stuff.
There is one thing i find very intresting, and that is that in this post you keep on using 99%, and i was wondering why?
You said it yourself that its unlikely that God would have people start wars in his name. Well if its unlikly it does not have to be 99%, it might aswell be 80%. ^^
6 ( part 1 / 2 )
ReplyDelete''The premise of religions does not go in whether they are harmful or not, because I think we've established it is man who can be harmful, and he'll use religion or atheism to justify his evil ways.''
Even tho i've speaked negativly about religion in this post, i want to point one thing out. I am not trying to say that all religions are something bad, or everything religion can lead someone, or motivate someone, to do something, is always something that i would consider evil.
However there was something in what you said that made me wonder, and that was the last sentance. When you included atheism in what man can use as justification, i have to ask you.
How can atheism justify for anything? Or more to point, how can atheism justify someones action?
Now to answer to the whole santa thing.
You made two points, and then one conclusion in this post.
''All religions claim to have God or gods. Well, if these gods or God does not exist, then the religion is immediately false.
But if God exists, then it is no good to compare religion to believing in Santa, since God does in fact exist.
Does that make sense?
-The difference between believing in Santa and believing in someone that actually exists.''
Sure that makes sense, however if Santa is real, then there is no good to compare religion, to believeing in Santa, you see where im going with this?
Its true that comparing Santa to, lets say Obama, would be silly, since we have good reasons to believe that Obama is real, however we have no good reason to believe that Santa would be real.
But when it comes to God, its a different story. As far as i know, nobody has ever been able to present any good evidence for the excistance of their God. So the truth is, we dont know if there is a God or not, but just as we dont know if there is a God or not, we also dont know if there is Santa really is real.
The reasons why you can compare the belief in Santa to the belief in God, is because we dont know if either one of them exist, and as far as i know, there is just as much supporting both views. :)
However because theist tend to be tierd of hearing about the Santa and God comparisons, thats why i tend to make up something silly, and compare believing in God to that. For an example, there is a naga living in a magical bottle under my bed, the naga controlls everything that happens in this world.
6 ( part 2 / 2 )
ReplyDeleteI really dont want to go to the morality discussion, thats why im going to let that one slide.
However when you mentioned about the cop directing traffic, there is mentioned ( or atleast in my country ) in the traffic law that if that happens, you are supposed to ignore the traffic lights, so its not really a contradiction, its a special case in the system :P
You might be pretty sure that 99% of the time when God has ''told'' someone to kill someone else, it has not been God doing so. ( i would say that im pretty sure its 100%, but hey, i cant know for sure :P )
The thing is this, to those people who have heard ''Gods voice'', to them its real, they really believe that its their God telling them to do stuff.
There is one thing i find very intresting, and that is that in this post you keep on using 99%, and i was wondering why?
You said it yourself that its unlikely that God would have people start wars in his name. Well if its unlikly it does not have to be 99%, it might aswell be 80%. ^^
To your last post, there is only one thing i want to quote from there, since i've answered to everything else more or less.
''I say it is man who is guilty and corrupt, and religion can help him in his corruption just as atheism can. ''
Since you keep on puting atheism in sentances like this, rather than saying ''naha'' all the time, i would want you to explain to me.
What do you think atheism is?
And how can atheism motivate someone?