Atheism: Past, Present, and Future

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Milesian

Perhaps it can be summed up thus - "Christianity has not been found tried and wanting, it has been found difficult and left untried"

That can be said about anything in the world.
A 2000kg stone is difficult, and left untried too... people either avoid trying to lift it, or they get a hernia.

Why set the bar too high? Why expect such a religion to truly reach billions of people?

[Perun]

Alright Hilmar C. Krueger, Professor of History at the University of Cincinnati did write an essay on the relations between commerce and the Crusades in the The Crusades edition of the series Turning Points in World History.

He notes that the Crusades did help open up trade between East and West, but again this is more an effect rather than a cause of the Crusades.

Within the same book, Ronald C. Finucane also addresses the issue of why men went on Crusades. He does note that many criminals and thieves, and outlaws of all sorts went on the Crusades. He notes that while many may have been motivated by chances for plunder many others were sincerly motivated by penance(Crusading was seen as a form of penance).

In the end he notes:
"Though the crusaders may have been impelled by a mixture of motives, the 'religious' impulse was still the most visible. Many rushed forward to accept their cloth crosses in the sincere belief that Jerusalem cried out to be liberated from the infidel, that their armed pilgrimage would win them blessings of the Church in this life and the companionship of the saints in the next."
--pg. 84

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Perun

Of all the religions in the world, atheists attack Christianity the most.

Is that some official statistic, or just your idea about it?

When arguing against the concept of there being a god, whose concept of god gets attacked?

I don't know, whose? The ideal of god which originated with Judaism perhaps.

Alright. Atheists like to claim that religion causes oppression, war, suffering, being lead by frauds who promise paradise, etc. Yet the worst of all these have occured when secularism and atheism became major forces in society and politics.

The worst? Worst... how exactly?

Take into account that:
The world today has 6 times more inhabitants than it used to have
some 90 years ago. The weapons are more advanced also.

So, for example, imagine the crusades in proportion to modern times.

Besides that... can one really measure the level of suffering?

The Orthodox Tsarist regime even at its worse never degraded to the brutality of the Soviet regime. Ivan the Terrible for example towards the end of his life even recanted and tried to help the families of those he killed. Lenin or Stalin never did anything of the sort. Richard Pipes also notes that the Tsarist secret police the Okhrana never degraded to the levels that the Cheka/NKVD did.

Whoa there... how do you know that the people involved in this were or weren't religious christians???

The French revolutionaires or the Cheka/NKVD agents could've personally believed in the christian God, while the Tsars and Emperors of medieval Europe could've easily been atheist in their own mind.

And of course all this violence was done in the name of "the Enlightenment" or "Communism", or some other utopian dream.

Utopian dream? Or, failed attempt at reaching a society which would be more perfect than the one people lived in?

How does religion come into the equation there?

So whats being critiqued here is the common atheist argument that religion leads to so much horrors and evils; when in fact atheism has been connected to the same atrocities(which were even of worse quality than their religious counter-parts). This is something that cant be ignored.

You're building a straw man. Not everyone is into whining about victims and cruelties.

But many atheists do. I dont know how many times George W. Bush and his fundementalist cronies are used as arguments against Christianity.

Why not? If Bush's choices are lead by his belief in religious righteousness ( or whatever ).

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Perun

Alright Hilmar C. Krueger, Professor of History at the University of Cincinnati did write an essay on the relations between commerce and the Crusades in the The Crusades edition of the series Turning Points in World History.

He notes that the Crusades did help open up trade between East and West, but again this is more an effect rather than a cause of the Crusades.

Within the same book, Ronald C. Finucane also addresses the issue of why men went on Crusades. He does note that many criminals and thieves, and outlaws of all sorts went on the Crusades. He notes that while many may have been motivated by chances for plunder many others were sincerly motivated by penance(Crusading was seen as a form of penance).

In the end he notes:
"Though the crusaders may have been impelled by a mixture of motives, the 'religious' impulse was still the most visible. Many rushed forward to accept their cloth crosses in the sincere belief that Jerusalem cried out to be liberated from the infidel, that their armed pilgrimage would win them blessings of the Church in this life and the companionship of the saints in the next."
--pg. 84

Could you please avoid posting entire articles and excerpts?

Is it possible for you to write what YOU think, in YOUR words?

In my opinion, your and Fade's tendency to post articles instead of straight answers is just a spamming tactic, not proper discussion.

If you really want to quote someone, you can quote one or two sentences.
Try it, you really can. Not to mention that 90% of your posts are made up of quotes. Truly annoying.