"J. R. Molloy" wrote:
>
> Robert Coyote asks,
> > Is it possible that all the "atrocities" cause by Religion would just as
> > likely have happened for other reasons because religion was the excuse for
> > the acts, other excuses could have served the tyrants uses as substitutes?
>
> If so, then why didn't the tyrants use some other excuse? Why did they choose
> religiosity? Tyrants can turn anything into religiosity it seems, except for
> authentic science. Stalin made communism into a religion, and Mao Zedong did
> approximately the same. Call it what you will, it still needs debunking, and
> it's still anti-science. And there's no need to put the word atrocities in
> quotation marks. They were real atrocities (though I don't think I used that
> term, so you're not quoting me).
>
Excuse me but one of the most horrid massacres in history, that
done by communist Russia and China against their own people, was
done in the name of science and rational social order. Oh yeah,
I forgot, you'll call that religion too just so it will fit your
itty bitty theory. OK. I'll play. Some would call the claim
that science and technology explains and has a handle on all
that is worthwhile and that all it (science) doesn't handle is
meaningless a religion or at least an arbitrary belief outside
the court of proof. So heh, I guess you got me. Whatever you
believe enough to use to excuse such shenigans must be
"religion".
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:42 MDT