While the Crusades are great historical importance, they are but one example of the “Dangers of Religion.” (See other posts in which this is
You can't seem to understand that the crusades represent no "example" in yoru favor. I guess you're not interested in debating the crusades?
Gee, what a shock. And all that tough talk about being the reasonable atheist with facts and reason on your side.
I called your bluff. We both know you have no education on this subject.
Ad hominem is no refutation for the examples of “Dangers of Religion.” That is the case in point.
What I refuted was your non sequitur conclusions from your "examples."
You’re correct groups and individuals “will use their religion as a catalyst.”
I'm also correct that people will use whatever is at their disposal. That could be loyalties to frats, political groups, or any kind of social club. Religions only represent one kind of social cluster. You don't seem to understand much about psychology or sociology. You want to take advantage of the fact that most humans are theistic so you can pull an exercise in reductionism and claim the lowest common denominator must identify what's "dangerous." This will only fly for idiots who don't know how to properly deduce facts.
A flawed line of argument. Guns don’t kill, people kill, (so every 1st grader should have a gun and be trained in how and when to use it) It’s an absurd argument.
It isn't an argument, it is a point of fact. People do kill people. Guns kill people only when people use it. Sometimes it happens by accident, but in most cases death by arms are intentional, and if a gun wasn't available, the assailant would find other means to kill. Likewise, if religion is a convenient tool, it will be used. Not by just any religionist, but by a person who intends to enact violence; a decision that may or may not be independent of religious belief.
Again, in all your talk about science, you're avoiding the most relevant field: psychology. The science of human behavior. You want to sweep it under the carpet, ignore the entire idea of social behavior within groups, the effects of depression, drug abuse, and anything else unrelated to religion.
Humans have historically killed and used religion as the basis justifying that killing.
So what? "Historically," humans have done an endless amount of stupid things that are dangerous. The fact is Christianity has played no role in any of the major wars of the last two centuries. Instead it was about ecomonic/political struggle. So by yoru logic, the only safe route is anarchism. No governments, no wars.
But the danger is far greater than merely killing.
Oh? So let's see where the goal posts will be moved this time. Explain for us how it is "dangerous" to believe in God.
The principles here stands unrefuted:
Stop quoting yourself like you're a witty philosopher. Calling your quipish comments "principles" that defy refutation is almost as funny as it is stupid. It is your job to substantiate your claims. You haven't done this, nor can you.
Nine links to documentation regarding the atrocities of the Crusades.
Wow, internet links!!
Documentation he calls it!! Yes, that's the form of research our esteemed cyber scroller has in mind for us. And all this time we were led to believe he was interested in scientific fact, established by reason and critical thought.
No refutation of points, issues, or evidence.
On the contrary, I have challenged you to debate the crusades as an example of "Christian" danger. You keep skirting the issue because we both know the scope of your knowledge on this subject is narrow
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein