One Atheist argument (finally?) disregarded?

[opus649]

If you can find some examples where a leader destroyed other people's lives solely based on some religious conviction, do share.

Crusades?

In short, any of these leaders claiming to be following through with the Jihad with their terrorism is violating its own rules, so once again, I doubt they honestly care about the Muslim religion.

I understand your point, and perhaps this is semantics, but couldn't they simply be ignorant or victims of poor teaching? After all, there have been some pretty heinous acts committed in the name of Christianity despite the fact that Jesus called on everyone to turn the other cheek. Isn't it a little presumptuous to assume none of those people believed they were truly doing the work of God?

I could go on, but you get the picture.

I do, and I don't necessarily disagree. I was just surprised by such a definitive statement. I, personally, would not find it so easy to claim what is in another man's heart. However, I understand the point you are making. Thanks for taking the time to clarify.

Edited to fix quote blocks

[PaulSacramento]

If you can find some examples where a leader destroyed other people's lives solely based on some religious conviction, do share.

Crusades?

In short, any of these leaders claiming to be following through with the Jihad with their terrorism is violating its own rules, so once again, I doubt they honestly care about the Muslim religion.

I understand your point, and perhaps this is semantics, but couldn't they simply be ignorant or victims of poor teaching? After all, there have been some pretty heinous acts committed in the name of Christianity despite the fact that Jesus called on everyone to turn the other cheek. Isn't it a little presumptuous to assume none of those people believed they were truly doing the work of God?

I could go on, but you get the picture.

I do, and I don't necessarily disagree. I was just surprised by such a definitive statement. I, personally, would not find it so easy to claim what is in another man's heart. However, I understand the point you are making. Thanks for taking the time to clarify.

Edited to fix quote blocks

The crusades were a counter to Islamic expansion, with religion NOT being the sole factor or, to be honest, the primary factor but being the "rally cry".
Much crap has been done under the excuse of religion, almost every religion and we can say that about almost ANY ideology so, religion is irrelevant in that regards.
Much crap has been done under the banner of certain "interpretations' of texts in the Koran, something that is still evident today and much crap is done under the banner of christian "interpretation" of certain texts too, all that proves is that people will take what they want, twist it to me what they want and to stupidity because, in short, they want to.

[opus649]

The crusades were a counter to Islamic expansion, with religion NOT being the sole factor or, to be honest, the primary factor but being the "rally cry".

I must respectfully disagree. My understanding is that the goal of the Crusades was to restore Christian access to the Jewish holy lands. I don't see how religion and specifically Christianity cannot be viewed as the primary if not solitary factor in those wars. I'm not condemning the Crusades or criticizing Christendom here. The original statement was, "If you can find some examples where a leader destroyed other people's lives solely based on some religious conviction, do share." The Crusades are such an example.

Sources:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... 5/Crusades
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc5.ii.ix.ii.html

[PaulSacramento]

The crusades were a counter to Islamic expansion, with religion NOT being the sole factor or, to be honest, the primary factor but being the "rally cry".

I must respectfully disagree. My understanding is that the goal of the Crusades was to restore Christian access to the Jewish holy lands. I don't see how religion and specifically Christianity cannot be viewed as the primary if not solitary factor in those wars. I'm not condemning the Crusades or criticizing Christendom here. The original statement was, "If you can find some examples where a leader destroyed other people's lives solely based on some religious conviction, do share." The Crusades are such an example.

Sources:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... 5/Crusades
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc5.ii.ix.ii.html

The crusades were a direst response to Islamic expansion, yes?
If Islam had NOT expanded MILITARILY, then there would have been no crusades, yes?
While the Islamic expansion can be viewed as a religious one, since conversion was a factor, the fact that they occupied territory FIRST and "converted" second shows that territorial expansion was the primary goal ( or else they would have sent missionaries first).
The response from Christendom was to counter attack, free the occupied lands FIRST and convert ( or not) second.
So it seems that religion, while a factor, was not the sole factor or primary one.
Certainly it became the main "calling" factor to get people to fight for lands that were NOT their own but as we know, just because the "peons" fight for a reason they THING is the one, doesn't make it so.

My point is simply that religion was NOT the sole reason for the crusades and, perhaps, not even the primary one.

[Beanybag]

Most wars are fought over resources/land/power...But throughout history, leaders have utilized the people's religion to manipulate their alliances and motivate or unite the people in favor of their war.

Agreed to this. But I would point out that atheism is no more a reason to fight wars than religion.

[bippy123]

They will also continue to ignore the over 200,000 killed in the span of 100 years by atheistic regimes, especially in Russia where they took Russian orthodox priests and tortured them to try to force them to say that God doesn't exist.
Talk about brutality on a huge scale

I don't like numbers games, no one "wins" with those.
But, the number of deaths attributed to atheistic regimes is in the 10's of millions.
Of course, all that proves is that people kill for any reason at all that they can justify to themselves.
Of course that in of itself is only "bad" if one has a basis to view it as "bad", one can almost argue that the extermination of the "less fit for survival" is just the "natural" course of existence.

Oops, missed a few zeros. I meant to say 200 million.