In recent months, a spate of atheist books have argued that religion represents, as End of Faith author Sam Harris puts it, “the most potent source of human conflict, past and present.”

Columnist Robert Kuttner gives the familiar litany. “The Crusades slaughtered millions in the name of Jesus. The Inquisition brought the torture and murder of millions more. After Martin Luther, Christians did bloody battle with other Christians for another three centuries.”

In his best-seller The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins contends that most of the world’s recent conflicts—in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland, in Kashmir, in Sri Lanka—show the vitality of religion’s murderous impulse.

The problem with this critique is that it exaggerates the crimes attributed to religion, while ignoring the greater crimes of secular fanaticism. The best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem Witch Trials. How many people were killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually, fewer than 25. Yet the event continues to haunt the liberal imagination.

It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the Crusaders’ and Inquisitors’ misdeeds of more than 500 years ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be around 5,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to malnutrition or illness.

These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are miniscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the twentieth century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.

Moreover, many of the conflicts that are routinely counted as “religious wars” were not fought over religion. They were mainly fought over rival claims to territory and power. Can the wars between England and France be counted as religious wars because the English were Protestants and the French were Catholics? Hardly.

The same is true today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not, at its core, a religious one. It arises out of a dispute over self-determination and land. Hamas and the extreme orthodox parties in Israel may advance theological claims—“God gave us this land” and so forth—but the conflict would remain essentially the same even without these religious motives. Ethnic rivalry, not religion, is the source of the tension in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.

Yet today’s atheist authors insist on making religion the culprit. Consider Harris’s analysis of the conflict in Sri Lanka. “While the motivations of the Tamil Tigers are not explicitly religious,” he informs us, “they are Hindus who undoubtedly believe many improbable things about the nature of life and death.” In other words, while the Tigers see themselves as combatants in a secular political struggle, Harris detects a religious motive because these people happen to be Hindu and surely there must be some underlying religious craziness that explains their fanaticism.

Harris can go on forever in this vein. Seeking to exonerate secularism and atheism from the horrors perpetrated in their name, he argues that Stalinism and Maoism were in reality “little more than a political religion.” As for Nazism, “while the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominantly secular way, it was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity.” Indeed, “The holocaust marked the culmination of…two thousand years of Christian fulminating against the Jews.”

One finds the same inanities in Dawkins’s work. Don’t be fooled by this rhetorical legerdemain. Dawkins and Harris cannot explain why, if Nazism was directly descended from medieval Christianity, medieval Christianity did not produce a Hitler. How can an ideology advanced by Hitler as a repudiation of Christianity, be a “culmination” of two thousand years of Christianity? Dawkins and Harris are employing a transparent slight-of-hand that holds Christianity responsible for the crimes committed in its name, while exonerating secularism and atheism for the greater crimes committed in their name.

Religious fanatics have done things that are impossible to defend, and some of them, mostly in the Muslim world, are still performing horrors on behalf of their creed. But if religion sometimes disposes people to self-righteousness and absolutism, it also provides a moral code that condemns the slaughter of the innocents. In particularly, the moral teachings of Jesus provide no support for—indeed they stand as a stern rebuke to—the historical injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity.

The crimes of atheism have generally been unleashed through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth. Of course if some people—the Jews, the landowners, the unfit and the handicapped—have to be eliminated in order to achieve this utopia, this is a price the atheist tyrants and their apologists have shown themselves quite willing to pay. Thus they confirm the truth of Dostoyevsky’s dictum, “If God is not, everything is permitted.”

Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.

It’s time to abandon the mindlessly-repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.

By Dinesh D’Souza

Signed and subscribed to by FROSBEL

^^

Even Muhammad and Co, could never in their life time match the madness of atheist Tyrants.


Over 1,400 years we can attribute Islam and Catholic madness to about 30 million dead , and sad and disgusting as this sounds, we are talking about a very long time period.

On the other hand atheists managed to triple this figure in just 30 years.

Give them more time and we are all dead.

I have seen many atheists ,the militant ones, they accuse Muslims and Christians of violence, but they are more fierce, hateful and diabolical. Now I am talking about the evangelistic atheists here.

Zionists in Israel for example are atheists, yes I said it. See how they treat the Palestinians like animals. If they are not killing their children and women, they are packing them together like sardine in concentration camps and starving them.

Atheists are evil , period.

The article re-posted here does more than inform about so-called atheistic brutalities. It probably did a better job of establishing Harris's and Dawkins's claims that religion indeed is responsible for the most wars in the past centuries.
YOu see, frosbel, when religious fanatics fight, it is very obvious that they fight in the name of their god, Allah or jehovah. They never mince words when they defend their actions. Go back to the inquisition and you see very clearly that the pope and his cohorts never failed to state that their actions were justified by the god or gods they revere. Same applies to muslim faithfuls who carry out suicide attacks. On the other hand, never did your examples, Stalin and co., make it a fight against religion so that atheism might rule. On the contrary, they maintained a political climate to which religion, capitalism and a number of other ideologies were rather unfavourable. Though Dawkins has mentioned it, you apparently have not gotten it. You should know that Nazism was indeed the product of centuries-long christian sentiment against jews, and that's why it sold so easily. Anti-Semitism, from which Nazism evolved, still permeates Europe and America of today. So it is no surprise when Mel Gibson or some other highly placed individual rants against Jews. Pray, is Mel Gibson a Nazist?

D'Souza, who you have quoted with such relish, has offered a totally unworthy opinion, as is usual of this inebriated fellow. The same D'Souza wrote that Obama is ruling with the ideas of his long dead Luo father. These are words only attributable to someone who has is mind in the clouds.

sauer:

The article re-posted here does more than inform about so-called atheistic brutalities. It probably did a better job of establishing Harris's and Dawkins's claims that religion indeed is responsible for the most wars in the past centuries.
YOu see, frosbel, when religious fanatics fight, it is very obvious that they fight in the name of their god, Allah or jehovah. They never mince words when they defend their actions. Go back to the inquisition and you see very clearly that the pope and his cohorts never failed to state that their actions were justified by the god or gods they revere. Same applies to muslim faithfuls who carry out suicide attacks. On the other hand, never did your examples, Stalin and co., make it a fight against religion so that atheism might rule. On the contrary, they maintained a political climate to which religion, capitalism and a number of other ideologies were rather unfavourable. Though Dawkins has mentioned it, you apparently have not gotten it. You should know that Nazism was indeed the product of centuries-long christian sentiment against jews, and that's why it sold so easily. Anti-Semitism, from which Nazism evolved, still permeates Europe and America of today. So it is no surprise when Mel Gibson or some other highly placed individual rants against Jews. Pray, is Mel Gibson a Nazist?

D'Souza, who you have quoted with such relish, has offered a totally unworthy opinion, as is usual of this inebriated fellow. The same D'Souza wrote that Obama is ruling with the ideas of his long dead Luo father. These are words only attributable to someone who has is mind in the clouds.

Of all people Dinesh D’Souza is whom our man frosbel is quoting. . . .The man that is know to change his theories many many times. . . .

mazaje:

Of all people Dinesh D’Souza is whom our man frosbel is quoting. . . .The man that is know to change his theories many many times. . . .

Let me start with you first.

He made mistakes in the past and so what.

Obviously you cannot compare him to those fanatics like Alex Jones and co. He at least admits his errors.

But on this matter he is dead right !!!

sauer:

The article re-posted here does more than inform about so-called atheistic brutalities. It probably did a better job of establishing Harris's and Dawkins's claims that religion indeed is responsible for the most wars in the past centuries.

If that is your perception of the article you need to go back to paragraph 1 and re-read. This time please put on your glasses 

YOu see, frosbel, when religious fanatics fight, it is very obvious that they fight in the name of their god, Allah or jehovah. They never mince words when they defend their actions.

When religious folk fight you say they use the name of their GOD , on this might agree.  But then I have another argument, if religious folk go to fight wars which have not been commanded  them in their holy scriptures , then that religious person's faith is null and void. He might think he is fighting for his GOD, but his GOD does not recognize him, because he does not adhere to the tenets of the true religion.

Go back to the inquisition and you see very clearly that the pope and his cohorts never failed to state that their actions were justified by the god or gods they revere.

I am happy you used the word gods here , because though the Catholics believe in a GOD, they do not in the true sense of the word comply with all the requirements of the holy scriptures. The crusades for example comes to mind.

On the other hand, never did your examples, Stalin and co., make it a fight against religion so that atheism might rule. On the contrary, they maintained a political climate to which religion, capitalism and a number of other ideologies were rather unfavorable.

Your logic is fundamentally flawed. They formed a totalitarian society where a belief in GOD could have earned you the death penalty or hard labor in a camp.

The aftermath of this, was that a people were produced who were soulless and could therefore carry out murders without a flinch of compassion. Stalin and CO formed the communist state based on Marxism which was introduced by Karl Marx a hard core atheist.

To now suggest that Stalin fought wars and or killed people because of some other reason is a bare faced lie. Their ulterior motive was to spread Communism worldwide. This is a historical fact.

Though Dawkins has mentioned it, you apparently have not gotten it. You should know that Nazism was indeed the product of centuries-long christian sentiment against jews, and that's why it sold so easily. Anti-Semitism, from which Nazism evolved, still permeates Europe and America of today. So it is no surprise when Mel Gibson or some other highly placed individual rants against Jews.

If Nazism flourished because of anti-Semitism which is true , then it was only a vehicle for them to take power and impose their ideology on the whole of Europe ,  which was in essence the superiority of the Aryan race. Hitler might have been born catholic , but it is true to say that one of his goals was to do away with religion altogether . Indeed the Nazi SSS solders pleaded allegiance to Hitler and not to Christ. This is the whole essence of atheism, Man , the ultimate power and not GOD.

To suggest that Hitler was a Christian is to me akin to you lying between your teeth, because you know it is not true .

D'Souza, who you have quoted with such relish, has offered a totally unworthy opinion, as is usual of this inebriated fellow. The same D'Souza wrote that Obama is ruling with the ideas of his long dead Luo father. These are words only attributable to someone who has is mind in the clouds.

If I get it wrong in one area , this is no indication that I am wrong on all fronts. And by the way I did not post it here, because I thought this may be true, I posted it because I know it is true.

I repeat Atheism when implemented in various forms is the greatest danger to the existence of mankind.

Case closed.

It's rather pitiable to read you defend this untenable post emanating from a sufficiently deluded individual. You know it's true, and you make rather lame attempts at defending these man's ideas.

When religious folk fight you say they use the name of their GOD. Lets agree on this. But then I have another argument, if religious folk go to fight wars which have not been commanded to them in their holy scriptures , then that religious person's faith is null and void.

Can you confidently say that "these religious wars have not been commanded to them by their holy scriptures"? Please consult the books religious individuals brandish. Not one of them leaves war, raids or invasions out. Even the bible has episodes where the supposedly chosen children of israel did whatever they desired and got away with it. They raided virgin lands, looted people's treasures and seized Jericho, simply because a god promised it to them. This is not defendable; and it only served to beget the many wars and crusades that followed, inclusive of the Jerusalem crusades!
Christians like you have a rather funny way of justifying early christian crimes because they are in the bible and are penned in black and white, while finding the best way to exonerate christianity from the present-day wars it has caused: those came only later!


Your argument that Catholicism is flawed serves no purpose. You are no more christian than the christian pastor who thinks burning a koran is honoring god, or than the christian priest whose only understanding of penitence is when people come to beg him for forgiveness. No! You bunch are all christians, with the same fundamental belief in the bible and in a christian god. Might I include that you are no more religious than a muslim faithful who holds mecca sacred and mohammed as god's most holy messenger. You bunch are all religious, typified by your fundamental religious thoughts and dogmas. To say, god does not recognize one and recognizes the other severely defeats your position.

I repeat, Nazism is more the product of Atheism than it is of anything else. In subtler forms, Nazism still exists in today's world and its adherent are both from the west and mostly christians. For example, Mel Gibson . In fact, most conventional people find hatred towards jews rather normal and substantiated, with many christians still holding them responsible for Jesus' death, a grave tragedy. Thus, if Nazism is responsible for evil, that evil is certainly not its sometimes atheistic leanings.

Inform yourself properly before setting out to quote an drunk man's argument!

sauer:

It's rather pitiable to read you defend this untenable post emanating from a sufficiently deluded individual. You know it's true, and you make rather lame attempts at defending these man's ideas.

Okay we are now going Muslim here with regard to circular arguments. If you had read the last paragraph , I stated that based on my own knowledge and research , I can confirm the article is dead accurate. So though you try to slander him, I have heard him speak on SOME issues I agree with and he makes more sense than your drunk atheist evangelist, Christopher Hitches. He also makes more sense that your role model , the religiously fanatical atheist Richard Dawkins.

Can you confidently say that "these religious wars have not been commanded to them by their holy scriptures"?

Quote  me if you may , a verse in the bible where Jesus Christ himself commanded his followers to go and fight wars in his name. If you cannot find any , by implication your point is totally invalid.

However with ISLAM we can agree. The Quran is soaked with verses asking for the murder of the infidel. But ISLAM is no match for Stalin , Hitler or Chairman Mao.

Please consult the books religious individuals brandish. Not one of them leaves war, raids or invasions out. Even the bible has episodes where the supposedly chosen children of israel did whatever they desired and got away with it.

Have you taken the time to sit down , open a bible and read about the wars which happened in the old testament  thousands of years ago , and try to understand the context    It's about context, context,context. If you have not done this , but quote these verses anyhow, it depicts a lazy student.

However moving forward, Jesus Christ never commanded anyone for that matter to go and kill others, he instead gave his life for others , many of them ingrates who reject his love and sacrifice to their damnation and utter loss.

Christians like you have a rather funny way of justifying early christian crimes because they are in the bible and are penned in black and white, while finding the best way to exonerate christianity from the present-day wars it has caused: those came only later!

Justifying Christian crimes, you lost me here 

Your argument that Catholicism is flawed serves no purpose.

Nope it does, but obviously to hang on to your strawed argument, you cannot let go of this lie !

You are no more christian than the christian pastor who thinks burning a koran is honoring god, or than the christian priest whose only understanding of penitence is when people come to beg him for forgiveness. No! You bunch are all christians, with the same fundamental belief in the bible and in a christian god. Might I include that you are no more religious than a muslim faithful who holds mecca sacred and mohammed as god's most holy messenger. You bunch are all religious, typified by your fundamental religious thoughts and dogmas. To say, god does not recognize one and recognizes the other severely defeats your position.

You are a 'dunce' when it comes to religion in it's historical form, and I do not say this to disrespect you , I really mean it.

Context, context, context?? Huh? U make me laugh. Why is it you guys r able to conveniently interpret the bible only for your own purposes? I wish you'd apply the same common reasoning that wants you to hold slaughter as indefensible to your interpretation of religion. But no, you'd do dat only wen it suits you.

Of course, jesus doesn't need to command his followers to kill. He didn't need to, just as he never commanded them to celebrate his birth, or his death, or to erect monstrous buildings after his name. But, duh, christians now do. And they make no pretense about. This is where u r obviously missing it. The influence associatd with receiving heavenly commands is unparalled and its gory tales are best left to one's imaginatn.

I wuldnt want to exchange words with u. But please don't get me started on d history of d religions. My intention isn't even to prove that to you. Nevertheless, i would be absolutely stunned if an excellent student of religious history believes all your spurn'd crap, with wat we know of d trinity, d last chapter of mark or christmas. Isn't it no surprise that a gud number of theologians, whose focus is in part history, distance themselves from ur dogma?

Frosbel, did you know that Bush got a message from God to invade Iraq ?
No ? Ok.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.

Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egpytian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

I should probably stop there but you asked for words of Jesus

Will Mathew 10:34 suffice ?

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Anyone who suggests religion has caused most wars just doesn't know history.

Wars are fought for MONEY and POWER.

A-Omega:

Anyone who suggests religion has caused most wars just doesn't know history.

Wars are fought for MONEY and POWER.

Right there! Even God himself has regretfully admitted that MAN is continually Evil in his ways, Religion is just a convenient scape-goat. somebody did not do his biology homework right