maddogdrivethru.net

Have to disagree with Prof. Jenkins' view.

IMHO he's correct about the violence in the Bible and the Quran, the Bible is more violent.

But he doesn't mention the two main characters, their teachings and example.

Those individuals are Jesus and Mohammad. Both are examples their followers are expected to follow.

What example did Mohammad leave for his followers, the sword. 100 years after his death Islam had conquered from Gibraltar to Pakistan.

Following Christs death, Christians lived as peaceniks within the Roman Empire and even after they were recognized they were split about violence.
Finally there was Aquinas' Just War theory. Read someplace where Byzantine soldiers went to confession after a battle, confessed if they'd harmed an enemy, and received a penance.

At one point, ~800 years ago Christianity was indeed in many ways quite similar with Islam. At the time Islam didn't always nail their would be scientists to walls or decapitate them while Christians at the time were burning their would be scientists. Both were warlike, oppressive and totalitarian.

800 years later things are different. Islam has lost whatever tolerance to science or minorities it ever had and now largely views their most brutal days as "the golden days". Christianity on the other hand in a lot of world has completely given up on the material world and has even at times found ways to adapt to coexist with science with us having great scientists in the West who find no conflict between science and Christianity.

Atheism on the other hand is no movement but there are atheist movements. Communists had an atheist movement - they wanted to replace religion with communism, communism becoming the gospel, the 'opium for the masses'. They didn't mind murdering religious people if they felt they needed to.

Christianity poses zero risk to me as an atheist. I am not atheist because it's edgy or to hook up chicks at campus. I'm atheist because I spent a lot of time contemplating on the things, studying Christianity deeply along with other religions and this is the stance I ended up with - I can't have faith in such things. In general I don't mind that someone can, as long as they don't mind me not being able to.

Islam poses the greatest threat now- it is growing rapidly in Europe and it is not just politically active, it is a totalitarian religion and it's practitioners murder atheists as the most despicable vermin, worse than infidels.

My Bold.

What would be scientists were burnt, be specific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics

Not all were scientists but Church did burn a lot of people for heresy, others were imprisoned and otherwise punished and silenced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Catholic_Church

The point I am trying to make is that Christians eventually got past that sentiment - Galileo among others were posthumously acquitted of charges against him. This hardly happened with Islam where sacrilege and atheism are widely regarded as worthy of capital sins, where collateral damage is not just tolerated but a a sought after tool of terror while waging Jihad.

Early Christianity was a lot more fanatical than it is today, or do you contradict it? It was a far more totalitarian and all-encompassing religion ~800 years ago than today, don't you agree?

The change is to their merit. No amount of revisionism is going to erase that early Christianity was a different beast from what it developed into over past 800 years where it now primarily manifests as various charities, rehabilitation and pacifist activities without trying to control science except for small groups of science-deniers and with the prevalent Christian scientists constantly lowering the barrier between being a good Christian and respecting science.

In fact I do see certain sneerful and condescending atheists as themselves causing a reaction in some Christians that leads to anti-scientific attitudes when it is perceived that Dr. Egghead is calling them all idiots for having faith while having prestigious Christian colleagues.

It is of course within a person's rights to criticize religion all they want. That can amount to being an asshole and having the opposite reaction to the desired one.

The Never ending hydra-headed "Debate" of Religion by the Maddogs

Abrad & Nero: True Believers
Anthro & Kamo (and others I'm sure . . . Jwilk? Nef?): Agnostics
Richard Dawkins: Atheist schmuck
Doggie: Satirical Curmudgeon
Nef, Chi, nelms, Mac, C_S, etc.: (apparently) quizzical spectators

. . . and the band played on!

First, what are we debating?

With Nero it was mainly theology.

Kamo it's history and the evil man has done, the problem is Kamo only wants to bash Christianity, he's hostile to any criticism of atheism and the horror of the 20th century.

I've nothing against discussing the church's past (and present) evils, I rather enjoy pointing out the biased histories of the past so that's not a problem.

But when somebody rants like this i am not sure about discussing.

That rant wasn't an attempt to communicate with me, more like Herb Sorell damning all non Union members.

How about names of the scientists, not all were scientists doesn't cut it after you posted "While Christians at the time were burning their would be scientists." and I asked for some names.

Atheists did not commit atrocities in the 20th century.

Stalin was an Eastern Orthodox follower.
Pol Pot was raised a Buddhist.
Hitler was raised a Catholic and ultimately attempted to found a new sort of christian church married to the interest of the state.
Most of the people who murdered people in Cambodia were buddhists.
Most of the people who murdered people in Russia were Eastern Orthodox Christians.
Most of the people who murdered people in service to the Third Reich were Lutherans, and to a lesser degree, Catholics.
Boko Haram are Moslems, as are ISIL, AQ and the Taliban.
Most of the people who committed murder on behalf of the Empire of Japan were buddhists and also devotees of Shinto, which was a State Religion for Imperial Japan.
Hideki Tojo was an especially ardent promoter of massacres, and he was a devout follower of Shinto.
Suharto was a moslem and a mass murderer of epic scale.

Same old malarkey. Some people forget 100+ million were killed by communists who were also trying to wipe out religion.