Bashing Atheists?

Remove all ads!

Rally, while I really would like this to be true, I'm not as sure as you are. While I think the statement is true when limiting to members of SP, I do not think it can be applied to the population of Canada or the U.S. as a whole. Believe me, my views are much more closely aligned to yours as compared to Gnarff's, I'm just not sure we're in the majority here.

 

AFI, I meant to limit my assessment of majority/minority to the SP community.

 

Such knowledge of truth or not only comes through faith, not by logic.

The jury is still out on science and alternative philosophy. While Science has done many things for us, it has also done many things to us (environmental degradation, weapons of mass destruction, fostering dependencies which make it a crutch on it's own). The Same with alternative philosophies. While some of them, in their own way, try to make the world a better place, their existence caused the undecided to question the credibility of other doctrines out there, ultimately leading to such disparities in principle. as we see here.

For every breach of the Law, there is a price to be paid. We ourselves cannot pay that price. Therefore Jesus Christ extends that grace to us, paying that price on our behalf, on condition that we simply do as he asks. We do not accept these terms (rejecting Christ and his offer) then we are responsible for the price of our sins...

And would this love not include trying to share those thing that make them feel happy with others?

Marriage, even then was between man and woman. They considered homosexuality better, but they didn't marry other guys...

Then you understand my outrage against the law then. You claim I'm in a minority and would like me to shut the *Bleep* up. That's the same way I feel about the Aetheists and homosexuals, but they won't either...

The point was that I don't want crap like that taught until my children are old enough to deal with that. Would you not be offended if someone wanted to teach something contrary to the morality you've tried to establish in your home before the child was old enough to understand the reasons and consequences? What if, when your child was just learning to speak, someone wanted to teach the child a number of swear words? Would you not be offended?

There are Aetheists that are basically good people and people that claim to be Christian but do really evil things. It's not the people I disagree with, it's their beliefs, and I do have some obligation to challenge them when these beliefs are presented publicly...

That's why I am really angry with my Government over the gay marriage laws. They basically gave a minority a right which flies in the face of the beliefs openly supported by the majority.

 

I think both of us have to define the populations a little better by what we mean by majority and minority:

Homosexuals are obviously in the minority, while heterosexuals are the majority.

While I will agree that the majority of people living in North America are Christian, what I am unsure of is whether or not a majority of people are opposed to gay marriage on religious (specifically Christian) or moral grounds.

Having said that, I do not doubt that the majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage, considering it was up for a vote in 11 states in the 2004 fall elections, and it got "no" votes in all 11 states. The percentage of people voting "no" to gay marriage was in excess of 60% in all 11 states, and in some states, it exceeded 70%. This clearly shows not just a majority, but a very strong majority opposed to gay marriage - it averaged out to about a 2 to 1 margin.

What is impossible to discern from those figures is why people voted against gay marriage. Certainly, there are good chunk of those people did in fact oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, and I personally know several people like this. However, I also know of several people who oppose gay marriage, but it is not for any religious reason. I know people who say it is "unnatural" or against "natural law". Other people are just homophobic.

But I feel that there is one other big reason why people vote "no": If you are not gay, or don't have a close friend or a family member who is gay, then you really have nothing to gain by voting "yes". When the general feeling from the majority of the population is apathy, they are much more likely to keep the status quo, and I think that is why the vote turned out the way it did. My personal feeling is that about 1/3 of the public was in favor, 1/3 opposed for one reason or another, and 1/3 really couldn't care one way or the other, but took the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude.

 

Again, you grossly mischaracterize what I'm saying. I do NOT want you to shut up. All I want is that you leave me free to enjoy my life (insofar as that life doesn't impact yours... and aside from SP I can't see how our lives otherwise intersect) according to my standards, while I leave you in peace to do the exact same thing. Neither one of us has the right to set rules or standards of behavior for the other.

If that were true, the legislature would never have been in a coinfiguration to make passage of that law possible. I think (and I have no statistics to prove this) that you're projecting your wishful thinking onto the majority of Canadians, Gnarff. Do you have the statistics that I lack? I'm sincerely curious, here.

The same (perceived) misconception about majority rules applies to public school agenda. Public schools have to set a curriculum that meets the needs of as broad a segment of the population as possible. If enough of the population was dissatisfied with any element of that curriculum, they'd set up a cry to have it changed. But it will take a majority to make that change. The schools can make a change to placate any vocal minority, but it won't become a permanent change if the majority doesn't want it to. I'm afraid that you have to swallow your lumps and face the fact that you really may be in the minority on this one. However, that doesn't mean you should stop trying to influence the majority to see your perspective, or that you shouldn't find other avenues to teach YOUR children what you think is proper.

Unfortunately, that's the way a democracy works - if a minority doesn't like what the majority has put in place, it's incumbent upon the minority to take action and/or find alternatives, even if that mean spending your own money. Here's an example fro my own life: people in my district have decided that full-day kindergarten isn't necessary in all elementary schools. So, as a working mom, it's incumbent on ME to find (and pay for!) a program to cover the hours of my son's day when I'm at work but school isn't in session. I don't like it, but I do it.

Gnarff, I'm done. I don't have the energy to beat my head against your brick wall any longer. Go in peace, friend, and I wish you well in finding a wife and raising a family in the manner you see fit. Trust that I'm off doing the same (the raising the family part, not finding a wife ).

/me shakes hands with Gnarff and leaves him with an olive branch

 

You're right, it is in this one arena that our lives intersect. But here we are, in an area of debate. My point is somehow offensive in parts, but there will never be total agreement where standards differ. I may be setting a higher standard in my expectation of others, to the resentment of those that disagree.

There are a number of factors that may have contributed to this. First, Same Sex Marriage was skirted around during the election campaign by all four major parties, so people were given facts on political agendas, not moral ones. Secondly, the party in power did coerce its members to support the party line on this matter, potentially swinging some votes into the for column that would have been opposed. Third, the Conservatives which are strong in the West opposed this, so it may be possible that the Bloc Quebecois (Quebec only) Voted in favour of the legislation just to spite Western Canada. The bottom line is that Canadian politics is filled with childish behaviour and corruption, and the people are some how forgotten...

So they include things in their curiculum but ban opposition from religious sources citing the Separation of Church and State. If you insist on teaching Evolution, then also include Creation to allow the student to decide, not simply teach from Science but neglect creation because it from religion. If you want Sexual education (really, it is important), then make sure to mention that Chastity is perfectly acceptable too. Without an official voice supporting Abstinence, then young people will be pressured to experiment with Sex, possibly before they are ready...

 

I started this post as a light hearted peek at another side of the coin in other threads -- looks like it got bogged down into the deep, profound, and heavy humor-killer mode.

 

I've noticed that these debates often seem to become derailed once the folks on the religious side decide that in certain situations or circumstances it is completely acceptable to ignore modern scientific concensus, and then instead choose to base their arguments upon two thousand years of hearsay.

I'll admit that, in retrospect, it does seem somewhat unfortunate that mankind chose to play their big chip-"this comes from God" much too early with regard to nature. If only we'd have waited a few thousand years, our religious arguements would hold more weight today.

Sadly enough, the people of two thousand years ago did not accurately describe nature. They were not stupid mind you, it was just all the disease, starvation, illiteracy, brutal violence,
and tedium of course, to name just a few malignments.

We are much better at answering really important questions today. We know a lot of this stuff because of our understanding of mathamatics and physics. Some of these concepts may be difficult and mentally taxing, but others are not. It is problematic when religious folks disregard even humble scientific disciplines if their answers disagree with the teachings of their respective sacred book, ancient stories, and/or communal knowledge.

Take C-14 dating and its inferences.

The atmosphere has a large carbon dioxide portion which plants incorporate into their mass when they create carbohydrates. When they do this they "fix" their carbons from the atmosphere. With these normal carbons there will be a few radioactive isotopes. We know how long it takes C-14 to decay with high precision. You can determine how much C-14 has decayed and then infer the age of the object.

This discipline is not often accepted by religious folks.

We have found hominoid skulls showing a gradual change from ape to man over the course of four million years or so, yet it is not acceptable in religious institutions to acknowledge what this infers.

Despite the fact that geological evidence and C-14 dating concur about the age of the objects, their implications are ignored.

Of course, when C-14 dating helps prove some ancient city of biblical times did in fact exist, it is readily accepted. Such are people.

I just feel that when having a debate, it is a highly flagrant breach of social contract to invoke magic, miracles, angels, or demons when discussing things that deal with matter. You can infer what made of matter implies...

It is highly unfair to expect that calling a miracle-wielder out and saying, "...enough with the magic already!", is to be considered impolite.

This social norm seems archaic. It is limiting discussions, particulary the public ones, to calmly allow someone to rationally discuss magic occuring as if we all lived in a fairy tale.

They should be scorned into silence and eventually, given enough advancment in technology, sent back in time to the magical world of pre-urban agrarian society which they so love to embellish.

Then we can rationally discuss things.

[ July 10, 2005, 23:12: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

 

Is that like saying that the Aetheists should be scorned, ridiculed and driven into Ghettos where they will die out and leave us religious folk in peace? While Science has done great things for people in general, It comes into question when it is used to attack the validity of Religion, that's going to cause problems. Not many people like being told that they are wrong. Further, I tried to suggest a potential alternative to Explain C-14 dating that did not contradict Scripture, and it was quickly mocked. Somewhere along the line, ALL of your scientific theories are based off of an assumption, so don't try to tell me that you are absolutely right. Likewise, just because our starting assumptions can't be tested and proven in some fancy lab with expensive equipment you cannot assume it to be false.

Much of what you discredit by denouncing faith comes from personal experience. All that you can examine about that is my testimony of what happened in my own life and a record of my feelings. Nothing concrete, but that does not mean it is not real. You criticize us for rejecting things because they do not meet our taught faith, but reject our own report of subjective events because there's no hard, scientific evidence. Isn't that a double standard?

 

No Gnarfflinger, it is entirely different.

I am saying that you (yourself) could go dig around in the jungles and plains of Africa (and Asia, Europe, Australia, well, all over). Given enough luck, you might discover a skull that resembles something between an ape and a man.
OK. I know it will require a lot of luck, but that is not the important point.

The important point is that these skulls and bones truly do exist and you could find one!

Once you did, you (yourself) could take that fragment or structure and then have a test done it. I am sure if you found a skull, you would find happy benefactors willing to donate the costs.

You will find that the more apelike the skull appears, the older it is. The more human it appears, the more recent. It is a broad spectrum.

You would also find that the tests you had run would confirm your initial guess that the skulls with a smaller cranial capacity were older.

These tests are done by comparing your skull with an index of confirmed skulls. Not rocket science.

Geological evidence, such as soil type and known "markers" (thin layers of minerals or dust or whatever that are found world wide at a certain soil depth/age) would help indicate when the skulls were buried. The C-14 tests would tell you exactly.

The C-14 tests would confirm the ape-to-human trend over the course of several million years.

I realize it is a little silly to expect you, a single person, to go out and do all of this, including finding someone to help pay for the more gizmo-oriented tests. But you put me in a difficult spot.

The techniques I just described are done by a large number of really bright people world-wide (they probably have even better tests I don't know of). The tests I have just described have given the same results again and again. There is a trend of ape-like skulls to human skulls lasting millions of years long!

This has been agreeded upon by the vast majority of trained professional scientists.

But you refuse to believe all these really bright people...and then are incapable or unwilling to do the tests yourself. It is understandable, most are not able to C-14 date skulls they find in the hedge.

But how can we discuss this topic?

You can argue against the validity of the tests. You should in fact. It's vital to the process. But this has been done for years. C-14 dating has been proven to be accurate through vast independent testing.

Most religious folks then just say they have a different way of believing what is true or not.

I simply want to make the point that replying to sound scientific data with tribal stories thousands of years old (involving magic, miracles and demons) is impolite. It is!

Do they think we are children just discussing some silly backyard game in the dirt? How can the oogty-boogty-woogty be tolerated by adults?

It's boggling why people don't stop acting like that.

 

The only assumption we need is
a) Anything that happens, happens.

Yes, science has. Matter of fact, more advanced science is the difference between the cavemen and us today. Compare this to religion. Apart from mental comfort, the only thing religion has done for humanity is made a billion people dead.

 

@ LKD: Try posting anything about homosexuality; it normally only takes about 5 or 6 posts for it to become a fundamentalists vs liberals thread...

I went to a Anglican school, and trust me, you copped a lot more flak for being religious than not. Of course, maintaining a quiet dignity about your position, irrespective of it, was key to getting along with everybody. No-one ever gave me a hard time for being under- or over-religious.

I wouldn't agree with this - it is what people have done with religion that has led to so many deaths. Science, too, has led to innumerable deaths, and frequently a technology or science which is developed with the aim of improving life is used to destroy it. I apologise if I'm hitting a raw nerve here for some, but I doubt that the Wright brothers could have conceived that their invention would (arguably) become the catalyst for the World Trade Centre attack in 2001.

Technology is neutral; the core principles of most religions are almost neutral. It is what is done with them that matters, and that is a human issue and failing. I identify myself as nominally Christian because I believe strongly in the basic messages contained in the New Testament. I don't really know if there is a god - I would like to believe so, since I have so little faith in humankind's inherent goodness or decency. As a university student in a liberal humanities discipline, I copped a lot of crap about that. But that's my view, shaped by my life - I can't and wouldn't make anyone else see things that same way if they don't wish to.

Re: Gnarfflinger's quote - I see no reason why there has to be a mutually exclusive setting, other than dogmatism on both sides. All the evidence to hand demonstrates that Creationism, as dictated in the Bible, is inaccurate. This points to one of three conclusions:

1 - our science is faulty or incorrect;
2 - Creationism is wholly incorrect; or
3 - Creationism as explained is incorrect.

I have no problem with people seeking meaning in their own lives. In fact, I wholeheartedly encourage it. If that means adopting a lifestyle I do not agree with, well, good luck to you. Just don't expect me to do the same, and I won't hassle you about it. Where religion (theistic or otherwise) becomes problematic for me is when the basic ideas become beliefs structured around a worldview and experience that can only be drawn from human (ie: imperfect) experience. To paraphrase from Dogma, people will die for a belief; people will kill for a belief. A belief - any belief - is determinist; you either have it or you don't, and your membership, responses and attitudes will depend on them. The difference between religious (and I clump any other doctrine in with religion here) and other beliefs is generally that other ones develop by exposure and experience, not simply faith in a desirable message which one cannot know is true and is defensible by personal conviction.

Science should not be counter-culture to religion or deliberately seek to undermine it. However, to privilege any religion to the point that it is unassailable, untouchable and cannot be viewed as anything but truth (even in the absence of persuasive proof) seems to fly in the face of its original purpose as a means to explain the world. If someone asks for convincing and is faced with "hard evidence vs. 'trust me'", they will take the former; if they believe the latter, no amount of "evidence" will convince them otherwise (hence the miracle and mystery of faith). It is at this point that the critical thinkers start to see the abuses and excesses of organised religion, and then... well, who's heard of the Reformation?

I know that some people on these boards are strongly religious, and I do not seek to challenge their beliefs. I merely submit that, in an argument where one side is asking for reason, a reliance on faith is inadequate and frustrating for everyone involved. If believing that we are all the work of a deity (or deities) and that we have a place in a divine plan/tussle gives you a sense of purpose, then more power to you. It's hard to think of yourself as a quadrillions-to-one fluke occurence of positive and negative electrical impulses floating on a smallish ball of rock orbiting a medium-sized star in an unimaginably massive universe and retain any sense of meaning.

I'm not trying to step on toes; if anything, I want to put shoes on everyone. In a modern society, you cannot hold to such an exclusionary position; people will do things you disagree with. Everyone has a value position, and the only way to co-exist is to accept that other people will be different. You may want them to be like you, to believe as you do, but if they refuse to, you have no right to deny them unless their actions will bring harm to you.

Of course, "harm" is such a flexible concept that it will always be turned to the purposes of the unscrupulous. All people require to be convinced of the need for an erosion of liberty is the belief that they are threatened, and they will follow. It was true in ancient times when the Jews, Christians and Moslems were persecuted; it was true when Goering said much the same at Nüremberg, and it's still true today.

Science and all its rationalism is still based on a set of assumptions, but ones which are (usually) less easily abused than faith. It is usually the purpose to which both are turned that is responsible for death and violence; it is not the message that kills, but the messenger.

[ July 11, 2005, 08:10: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

 

Yirimyah:

Well, isn't it science that's led to those billion deaths? Without it, we wouldn't have such lovely things as: Explosives! Nuclear warheads! Gas chambers! Carbine gas-powered semi-automatic weapons! Swords! And other lovely things.

And, by the way, I never read a passage in the Bible that said "And bring upon thine enemies the wrath of thy chemical weapons if he dost not adopteth thy faith!" What I've read is "And God so loved the world that he gave his only son. God gave him so that whoever believes in him will not be lost, but have eternal life." Stuff like that.

Without science, we'd still be in caves, peaceful and vegetarian as can be. It, far more than religion, has killed humans. Car crashes? Lung cancer? Land mines? These aren't religious things.

I hate the ridiculous statement that religion's caused {insert number snide anti-theist (not the same as an atheist, mind) thinks of first here} deaths.

Edit: And, more on topic, I've gotten much more flak everywhere in my life since becoming a Christian than when I was atheist/agnostic/indecisive. I never had anyone treat me with such utter disdain as many atheists treat Christians. I could see how the attempts at outreach and friendliness all the while trying to convert you might irritate someone after a while, but I find the sneering arrogance and truly hateful attacks on my beliefs and intellect to be much worse.

 

Perhaps you confuse "because of" and "by means of", Slith? I never heard of anyone being killed because he didn't believe in biology.

 

Religions, in my opinion, drive people apart, whereas science does not, thereby providing yet another us vs. them scenario, which always brings along with it the potential for disaster. It does not matter religions are not intended to cause strife - they do it regardless. Our world works like that.

On topic - I have never ever been given a hard time for being (nominally) of Christian faith. Nor for being an atheist/agnostic/whatever. Frankly, no one cares, no one wants to know.

However, I can see how people will get riled up if one starts to preach at them, proclaiming one lives by superior morals, and holding against others they are destined for damnation and such, as some Christians are wont to do. Personally, I wouldnt suffer this insolence either.

Oh, and better not chat around how you think its a fact that Adam and Eve were the First of humankind or something similar. Polite folks would make a face behind your back. Others will go and tell you in no uncertain terms that you are not too tightly wrapped in the head. Rightly so.

Thus, overall, I feel that most Europeans are handling the problem of religion properly. They avoid it. And, at last, they dont waste life for it anymore. Not their own, not that of others. Progress has been achieved here.

 

I once proposed an alternative that was consistent with things I've been taught, and was thouroughly mocked by someone who tried his hardest to bridge the gap, but eventually gave up because he ultimately was unwilling to accept everything I was trying to reconcile as presented in scripture. You criticize us when we refuse to accept that we may be wrong, but refuse to consider that you yourselves may be wrong. What's the difference between "The Bible says" and "My textbook says"? Not a heck of a lot...

No less polite as looking down upon us because we refuse to abandon our beliefs, which we hold sacred and resent the cheapening description that you present here.

Once again, you label all religion and Religious people with the same label as those who abuse it, be it a Pope that promised special seats in Heaven to those that seek to liberate the Holy Land, to inquisitioners that tortured people that were accused of Heresy (as tempting as that sounds, I know that's wrong) to Osama Bin Laden who used his religious doctrine to order the murder of thousands of innocent people. That's fine, I can play by your rules too. You seem to have an unhealthy contempt for any religious people for your own reasons. Let us compare you to Adolf Hittler who hated the Jews, or Osama Binalden who hated anyone that was not militantly Muslim. Unfair Button pushing? If you agree, then maybe you will stop holding the faithful responsible for those that take the name of God to justify murder and torture...

I have claimed all along that it is abuse of Religion that has caused these deaths, but no worse than abuse of science. How many people every year are killed by careless use of a fire arm? How about Drug related deaths? Impaired Driving? Pilot error? Industrial accidents? In the last hundred years, that has to have ourstripped the crusades, The Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch hunts, and every year that is many times more than any Terrorist strikes (even 2001).

I've tried to reconsile what science has claimed with Scripture, or even found alternative explanations that did not contradict scripture that acknowledge what was found, but was only ridiculed in the end. It seems that Science is as untouchable as religious dogma, but they get pissy if you try to point that out...

In AoLS, someone quoted passages from the Koran that seemed to portary an aggressive message towards non-Muslims (Christian, Jew or Aetheist). Christianity teaches that Murder is wrong, and that we ought not hate people, even forgiving those that wrong us...

And Perhaps you confuse the spewed forth by some people who claim to be religious with the actual teachings of religion. Perhaps you mistake the Methods used by the inquisitioners with the example provided in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as set by Jesus Christ. Have you ever heard of anyone being Forgiven to death? You can't believe that you really can kill someone with love (true love, not some sick psyuchotic version that some people claim) or kindness? Maybe you confuse the parts of the Koran where the instructions are given about killing Infidels with the beliefs of Christians (who, according to the Koran, are the infidels). The people that religion is accused of killing were instead killed by renegades, and that has more to do with human pride and arrogance than God...

I disagree about Science not causing strife. Here in the forums of SP, I've seen science used as a beatstick to bring us religious nuts in line and to try to forse us to abandon our religious doctrine. It has yet to succeed.

Nobody likes being told that they are wrong. Some will accept correction, others will not. My religion teaches that we can repent and change our ways, but if we don't, then we sell our selves short of our potential...

The bottom line in this goes back to Pascal's Wager. He postulated that Either God exists or he doesn't. If He doesn't (as the Aetheists and Anti-Theists claim) then whether or not we believe is irrelevent. You can't in the end, point and laugh at us Christians if you yourself have ceaced to exist. But if God exists, (and I am among the believers) then His promises to the Faithful are real, and so is his promise to those that do not believe. Are you willing to risk Damnation by refusing to believe or will you seek out salvation and exaltation by forsaking Sin and worshiping and serving God all the Days of your life? It has been my experience that as you worship and serve the Lord, you will gain a conviction that He is real, and will come to know His love for us. Modernly, you may wager the disposition of your immortal soul on various faiths, but the Lord has made it clear what lies in store for those that worship false Gods...

 

Then what do think about this?

"But the khights of Christ may safely fight the battles of their Lord, fearing neither sin if they smite the enemy, nor danger at their own death; since to inflict death or to die for Christ is no sin, but rather, an abundant claim to glory. In the first case one gains for Christ, and in the second one gains Christ himself. The Lord freely accepts the death of the foe who has offended him, and yet more freely gives himself for the consolation of his fallen knight.

The knight of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently, for he serves Christ when he strikes, and serves himself when he falls. Neither does he bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister, for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of the good. If he kills an evildoer, he is not a mankiller, but, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. He is evidently the avenger of Christ towards evildoers and he is rightly considered a defender of Christians. Should he be killed himself, we know that he has not perished, but has come safely into port. When he inflicts death it is to Christ's profit, and when he suffers death, it is for his own gain. The Christian glories in the death of the pagan, because Christ is glorified; while the death of the Christian gives occasion for the King to show his liberality in the rewarding of his knight. In the one case the just shall rejoice when he sees justice done, and in the other man shall say, truly there is a reward for the just; truly it is God who judges the earth.

I do not mean to say that the pagans are to be slaughtered when there is any other way to prevent them from harassing and persecuting the faithful, but only that it now seems better to destroy them than that the rod of sinners be lifted over the lot of the just, and the righteous perhaps put forth their hands unto iniquity."

In Praise of the New Knighthood (Liber ad milites Templi: De laude novae militae)
St. Bernard of Clairvaux

The author of this passage is not a renegade, as you use to call them but someone who was nominated saint by the Catholic Church.

 

There is a lot of difference. As one of the members here pointed out, evolution is a theory. It is based upon scientific results which are correct, as far as science goes. The theory in it's foundations is proven, as far as I know.

Religion, on the other hand, is based on pure faith. (There may be archeological findings that prove the existance of places and persons that also appear in religious texts.)

So, evidently religion is based on pure thought, on fantasy (And I don't mean that as an insult.) There is nothing proven about religion. It can't be, because it wouldn't be based on faith anymore.

The same goes for "intelligent design". You may believe that god initiated evolution. But can't prove it. As long as that does not happen, it has nothing to do with science.

 

No.

No.

I don't.

Not really.

You said so before.

What's your point? I posted in answer to Slith who said that religion is a choirboy in the killing department when compared to the billions of deaths science has led to. I did so, because it is an easy mistake to make to talk about abuse of science and abuse of religion as if the processes and backgrounds of those two mechanisms were exactly the same. Which they are not.

I said: billions have been killed by means of science.
And: billions have been killed because of religion.

Do you get it now *wink, wink*?

What you say is not even opposed to this, you just claim that those deaths have to be accounted for by "renegades" (a.k.a. non-LDSers). Well, those renegades were still religious. Still, it feels good to know that you are a real Christian; I feel blessed in the knowledge of your love, which you amply demonstrated up to now.