The focus of this OP is related to Religious Inspired Evils (since this is the religious section). The sources of evils are from the following religions and their degree of dangerousness are correlated with the number of incidents of evils;
Notes: a. Figure above are from since Sept 2001.
b. * Figures are estimated to the best of my knowledge. Anyone has any actual?
c. The figures are related to number of incidents-with-fatalities, not fatalities. One incident may have up to 3000 fatalities, note the recent Boko Haram massacre.
d. The above are committed by a small percentile [say 0.5%] of their believers.
If we chart the above figures in a graphic histogram, the chart will look very frightening with Islam standing like a big sore thumb. The crude inference from the chart is Islam is a very dangerous religion while the others are not.
The dangerousness of the religions may also be based on other factors such as;
Brainwashing of children
Exacerbate negative instincts and fears in believers.
Promoting “us versus them” malignantly and inclusiveness, superiority.
Dehumanizing non-believers
Hindering Science and other advance knowledge
Scandals related to the religion.
Intolerances
Cruelty
Others [to list here]
If the above are included with violent incidents with fatalities, then the Abrahamic religions are dangerous relatively the others.
This OP is to demonstrate a statistics of ‘religious inspired evils’.
From the figures, one will note the very obvious that Islam warrant serious attention and Islam is a potential threat to humanity. We should trace this issue to its roots to find out ‘Why.’
The other purpose is my attempt to establish reasonable figures of incidents of fatalities [since 911] that are directly inspired by the other religions. As I qualified, the numbers from the non-Islam religions are on my best estimates based on what I have read of in the news since 911.
Others are welcome to put up their own set of figures but the numbers must be supported by AT LEAST one reasonable source as in my case, Link, and the others be preferable actual, if not, best estimates.
These aren’t figures, they are made up shit. You’re assuming the hell that has been Burma/Myanmar isn’t motivated by Buddhism despite almost everybody there being Buddhist. You aren’t considering anti-Christian violence in India perpetuated by fundamentalist Hindus for no reason. You are ignoring violence between Tibet and China for no reason, despite Tibet launching religiously motivated violent attacks against China more recently than 2001.
All you’re doing is taking your uninformed assumption that only Muslims commit religious violence to any notable degree, and stating it in the form of pretend numbers so it looks less like a guess.
Next, you’re saying “Abrahamic Religions are violent” despite the fact that almost all the Islamic violence you ‘cite’ (lol) is violence AGAINST Jews and Christians. You’re condemning victims for being victims for no reason other than it serves your actual agenda here, which is to paint Eastern religion and Eastern culture as more pure and good than what the rest of the world is up to. But being an Abrahamic Religion has nothing to do with the violence of Islam, which makes your categorization arbitrary and self serving. I could just as easily group religions up according to “Religions based on Male Prophets” and “Religions not based on Male Prophets”…and then the first group would be ‘the bad one’ because it contains Islam. But we can’t do THAT because then you’re precious Buddhism would be implicated just as stupidly as you try to implicate Christianity and Judaism in this thread, and we can’t have that because it works against your transparent agenda.
You also aren’t including the most violent non-Abrahamic Religions in your list of non-Abrahamic religions. Some indigenous African beliefs have been motivating tribal wars and genocide for a good long time now.
Going back only as far as 2001 is obviously self-serving- it allows you to include the most violent act by Muslims that anybody can remember, but allows you to leave out the Rwandan Genocide, the Khmer Rouge, Fulan Gong, and other violent acts of non-Abrahamic religions that are obviously useful counter-examples were it not for your arbitrary cut off date.
And then, despite your arbitrary cut off date, you try to pretend that you can conclude something useful about religions that have existed for thousands of years based on their behavior over the past 14 years. Preposterous is the only word for it. It would be like saying lobster is bad for you because it was a 90 year old man’s last meal before he died.
Something to think about with your statistical presentation. 60 million people died in WWII. The global population at that time was about 2.4 billion. Thus, your odds of being killed because of World War II were 1 in 40.
I’m sure that’s quite a bit lower than car accidents, cancer, heart disease, and some other things on your list. Clearly World War II was no big deal at all.
You are so desperate in trying to find holes in my presentation that you have ignorantly sacrificed and caused bereavement to your own intellectual credibility.
I started with statistics [24,834] that has a reasonable credibility, i.e.
The basis is ‘Deadly Terror Attacks since 911’
Obviously to make a credible and correct comparison I have to use the same base, Sept 2001.
You cannot understand this simple Principle?
I have argued quite extensively why the atrocities in Tibet, Myanmar and Sri Lanka by Buddhists were not motivated by Buddhism per se as there are no significant nor extensive evil laden verses in the Buddhist sutras.
Give me evidences where these Buddhist monks justified their violence based on verses from the Buddhist sutras.
The main, primary and sole reason is due to ‘ethnic’ conflicts.
Re statistics for the other religions.
I am on the look out and attempting to compile actual numbers and will change when I have done. However, intuitively and based on my readings and knowledge, I don’t think the number of incidents (not fatalities) are significant.
As for Hinduism, I will have to do some sub-analysis as it comprised of hundreds of religions, thus it would not be fair to lump them up for this purpose.
My statistics is confined to mainstream religions and not cults on the fringes. The folk religions I referred to are the significant one with common features from the Chinese Folk Religions. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_folk_religion
I will have a look at African Folk Religions.
However, note the Rwandan Genocide happened in 1994 which is out of scope of this OP.
To clear your ignorance, note these points; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_i … 4_Genocide
I qualified the above and did not claim they are objective at this stage.
My objective is to ultimately to ensure the above figures are reasonably factual.
The principle is, analogically to get to the final polished statue, one has to make rough cuts [thereby the best estimates] at the beginning, else we will get no where.
Nevertheless what I can sense is the very uneasy subliminal psychology from posters instead of driving to be more objective.
There’s no desperation on my part. What I’m point out to you are transparent flaws that anybody reading your work should notice, and indeed, I think I’m one of four or five people trying to explain these flaws to you.
The obvious point (obvious to everybody but you, I suppose), is that a religion can provoke violence even if it’s holy texts don’t have what you and you alone define as ‘evil verses’. The fact that religious violence occurs in all the examples I’ve given despite the lack of these verses makes that clear, but you stick to this reprehensible argument- “Religions only are responsible for evil if they have evil verses”. But the only thing defending this argument is you saying it over and over again! When Hindus attack Christians because they hate people with different religions than them, when Fulan Gong blows up a bunch of people because of their take on Buddhism, when Tibet launches terrorists strikes on China for no reason other than they refuse to give up their theocracy, these SHOULD be cluing you in that, yes, religions can cause evil irrespective of what appears in their texts. But no, your response to all of this, clearly demonstrated in the above quote is, “Since I have decreed that no evil act can be motivated by a religion unless the religion’s text has evil verses, these acts must not have been motivated by the religions, despite all appearances to the contrary.”
But why believe such a stupid thing as that? Because you need that thesis in order to defend your East > West baloney. That’s the only reason.
Even children are familiar with stories where innocent maxims like “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander” or “A penny saved is a penny earned” leads to mischief and disaster. Even children. So why are you sticking to this “A source is only responsible for what it expressly states” like I’m a boy who’s never had a high school English course, or never read a political speech?
No, because that is YOUR standard that anybody who has studied religion academically would laugh at! Everybody knows that Tibet engages in violence against China because of their Buddhist beliefs. Everybody knows that. If you have some retarded maxim that makes that impossible, then your maxim needs to go, not fucking reality.
The funny thing is that this "Only what's in the Buddhist sutras counts as Buddhism" horseshit is completely against the spirit of Buddhism in the first place. What am I supposed to do if I meet the Buddha in the road, Prismatic? What does that say about the idea that Buddhisms' meaning is contained in an explicit list of sentences and nowhere else?
Ah yes. It makes perfect sense to call Abrahamic religion violent because of what Muslims do, but we can't possibly lump all Hindus in the same boat because of fairness and shit.
What you seem to be missing is the rather obvious fact that it isn’t religion that causes much of anything. Religions, just like governments, allow for many people to join in on collective actions. The actions are almost never inspired directly from any religion any more than by any government, but rather merely a very few political “leaders” who use any means to gain what they want.
Religion is merely one of many “causes” to be fighting for (or against). The USA currently proposes an eternal war state against potential terrorism. No religion involved at all, yet a proposed eternal state of war. That is desirable merely because it grants permanent dictatorial power to the President (anything to promote socialism).
Wars and atrocities are caused entirely by people. Religions merely temper it.
You can chart anything and make it appear frightening and dangerous as long as you don’t provide a comparison.
If he had put a bar on that chart, showing Japanese bathtub fatalities in 2011 (which was 14,000), then the danger of Islamic attack would appear much smaller.
People are constantly being manipulated. The Paris attacks will undoubtedly prompt “democratic” governments to give increased powers to security agencies in order to protect us from a miniscule threat - easier wiretapping, more surveillance, longer detention, less justification for search warrants, more restrictions on travel and maybe even torture.
Well, I provided a comparison. Your chances of dying in WWII were 1 in 40, as compared to heart attacks and cancer which we know is higher. Therefore WWII wasn't that big of a tragedy, and it was overblown. I mean shit, that's counting military and civilian casualties. What people really get worked up about is the Holocaust, which statistically, was no big deal at all. I mean, 6 million Jews over several years? Small potatoes compared to malaria or even the flu, no doubt.
What will really happen is the leftist newspapers will write stories expressing their FEARS that the above will happen, and browbeat people into confessing that Islam is no more violent than any other religion, and that the real problem in society to day is Islamophobia. More Islamic terrorists attacks will happen, papers and politicians will refuse to call them Islamic terrorist attacks because they don't want to offend Muslims, and anybody who criticizes Islam in the midst of this will have the full ire of the media and politics directed against them for rocking the politically correct boat.
Based on what numbers is the increased security more dangerous than Islamic terrorism? I understand the fear of an expanding security state, but we've had that paranoia for 14 years- and what has gone wrong? If you take every injustice perpetrated by the Western World as a result of increased security measures against Islamic Terorrism, does the sum total of them add up to one Charlie Hebdo?
Prismatic used the term religion “inspired” evil. Either he doesn’t know what ‘inspire’ means, or he’s changed his criteria partway through his argument.
What has gone wrong?
Let’s see…
A completely fabricated war in Iraq. At least 100,000 dead and maybe as many as 600,000 depending on which numbers you believe. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
Warrantless surveillance of US citizens. Which you probably don’t care about.
Well, he even admitted that whatever is correct or good is merely whatever he prefers. So his arguments are a bit moot, not that much different than GIA.
But we found WMD's in Iraq, as well as Al Queda training camps, and Saddam was in violation of sanctions justfying war that had been put in place in the 90's. Clinton had been lobbing missiles into Iraq for his entire presidency. What you saw in 2002 was not a new war, it was an escalation in hostilities that had been going on for 20 years, and ended up justified. What is it that you think was completely fabricated? Did Saddam not attack Kuwait? Did we not agree to a ceasefire with specific conditions? Was he not in violation of those conditions for virtually the entirety of Clinton's presidency?
salon.com/2009/06/30/accountability_7/
[/quote]
So enemy combatants guilty of crimes that would earn them the death penalty in any court dying in prison is a crisis to you, but islamic terrorism is minuscule and insignificant? Maybe we should throw up some numbers about the odds of dying in a U.S. prison camp vs., I dunno, skin cancer.
When did Western Culture become so weak and self-hating that aggression against itself is excused, but defense against that aggression is condemned?
“and Saddam was in violation of sanctions justfying war that had been put in place in the 90’s.” - Those were UN sanctions and the US had to form the Coalition of the Stupid Willing when the UN would not support an invasion in 2003.
What if it was a person’s own fault which ideas they live by and accept?
It’s easier to blame a book than it is to blame a bad person.
Bad people evade morality in a variety of ways.
If I wrote a bible and added in some things like eat your own babies, would it be my fault if someone actually did it?
Who cares about the conclusions of 2005? The New York Times reported about soldiers finding WMD's in Iraq during their tours a couple weeks ago. It was all over the news. It's something they knew and didn't report about because it didn't fit the "Bush's War was unjustified" narrative that you're pushing here. Hell, wikileaks exposed that in 2010. It's old news that there were WMDs in Iraq, it's not more popularized because there's not a politician to hang with the fact.
The UN was wrong. The sanctions were being violated, had been violated for a decade, and the violations were expressly punishable by a resumption of military force. The UN didn't support the invasion because the leadership was on the fucking take getting cheap Iraqi oil- you know, that thing people on your side of the issue constantly pretend the US went into Iraq over? :slight_smile: The real oil greed was on the side of folks who were content to keep Saddam in power in violation of sanctions because they were reaping a fat payday off in the Oil for Food scandal.
It sucks, I know, but your beliefs about the Iraq war are a fantasy concocted by anti-war protesters who vanished the instant Obama took office. Now that there’s not a Republican in the Big Chair to tear down, it’s ok to actually talk about the real stuff that happened instead of make-believe.
What really happened is actually the story supported by the evidence- everybody knew Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was in violation of sanctions. The UN, being greedy bastards getting rich off of Oil for Food used Hans Blix and endless talks to stall a military campaign as long as they possibly could, giving Iraq time to move their chemical weapons or destroy them. We finally went in, found very few such WMDs, and those we did find weren’t reported in the news because the media had it out for Bush. The dust settled, a Democrat took office, Iraq became his problem, and now we can hear the truth because there’s no incentive to suppress it and ratings to be gained by breaking stories.
This was all predicted years go by people who follow the media. When Bush was still in office, the conservative consensus was that we’d have to wait until he was out of office for the media to be willing to actually report what happened and fairly examine his legacy. So now here we are. There’s no reason to rely on 2003 data that was put out back when there was a media gag order against anything that didn’t make Bush look like Skeletor.
