Jeffrey Formosa

http://worldzone.net/family/johnande...ndexztwo.shtml

A lot of evil at acts at that site but the one that had the highest death toll would be this

"The Thirty Years' War produced the largest religious death toll of all time. It began in 1618 when Protestant leaders threw two Catholic emissaries out of a Prague window into a dung heap. War flared between Catholic and Protestant princedoms, drawing in supportive religious armies from Germany, Spain, England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France and Italy. Sweden's Protestant soldiers sang Martin Luther's "Ein 'Feste Burg" in battle. Three decades of combat turned central Europe into a wasteland of misery. One estimate states that Germany's population dropped from 18 million to 4 million. In the end nothing was settled, and too few people remained to rebuild cities, plant fields, or conduct education."

Pouye

There is no question that two religious (and also political... these wars were not only religious in nature) factions fighting is an absolute disgrace. But just the very fact that you call these acts "evil" tells me something about your "beliefs":

In a widely publicized case a year before the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial," attorney Clarence Darrow successfully defended two university students against the capital offense of murdering a boy for the intellectual experience of it. Argued Darrow, "Is there any blame attached because somebody took Nietzche's philosophy seriously and fashioned his life on it?... Your Honor, it is hardly fair to hang a nineteen-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university."
(source: Clarence Darrow, quoted in Carol Iannore, "The Truth About Inherit the Wind," in "First Things," Vol. 70; Feb. 1997;pp 28-33)

Adolf Hiltler said it well: "Nature is cruel, therefore we too can be cruel."
(source: Adolf Hitler, quoted in Christopher Nugent, "Masks of Satan"; London: Sheed and Ward, 1983; pp 170)

The new science of evolutionary psychology has arisen to assert that we simply act out the script of our DNA. Advocates propose a single principle, the "selfish gene," to explain behavior, and evolutionary theorists herald this insight as the most important advance since Darwin.

The theory basically goes like this:

I do what I do, always, to perpetuate my genetic material. Even individual acts that do not benefit me personally will benefit my gene pool.

Although specialists may believe this selfish-motive theory, for most people it does not ring true (including myself). Therapists who spend all day listening to people's stories know that the choices we make do not easily reduce to a single explanation. Parents learn by hard experience that no reward-and-punishment scheme can guarantee the results they want.

Some of the questions I ask myself as a Christian and father of two:

What drives us, any of us, to become the persons we are? What makes some students responsible and conscientious while others drop out of school? What drives some people to be millionaires, others to be missionary nurses, and others to watch TV all day and leech off society or their parents? No single explanation of purpose or motive tells the full story.

For instance: Not long ago, two evolutionary psychologists really pissed some feminists off by presenting rape as a normal part of natural selection (using the selfish gene theory). Rape, they said, was a technique males use to spread their seed as widely as possible. This distasteful theory made perfect sense to advocates of the theory.

We feel outrage when we hear stories of mothers drowning their children, men abusing infants, snipers open fire on strangers, ten year olds are raped and/or used as sex slaves. On what grounds do we feel outrage if we truly believe that morality is self-determined or scripted in our genes? And if morality is not self-determined, then who determines it? How do we decide?

Rock

Magus55

Whats your point? Stalin was atheist and killed 22 million people.

cybergeek

It's obvious what the point is.
That religion has been more a curse than a blessing.
No doubt Stalin the marxist(and therefore an athiest) did
kill millions.
But this is only one individual and he is outnumbered by
the number of religious zealots, who in the past have
caused their fair share of bloodshed and misery.

The statistics or numbers may differ but the sad fact is
that religion as a whole has caused perhaps more suffering
and misery in the long run than the marxist regimes.
If only because the world's religions have been around for thousands of years, where the oldest marxist regime is less
than 80 years old.

Magus55

Those who claim to follow religion may have caused the greatest misery in the world, but you seem to forget that statistics do matter. There are 4-5 times more theists than atheists. That means for every atheist that can committ an atrocity, 5 theists can. Theists aren't any more perfect than atheists. Everyone is corrupt. And you also seem to forget, the second largest religion in the world, directly condones violence and killing for their god. It isn't however fair to blame all religion, and all theists for the attrocities in history just because people carry out violence in religions name; just as it isn't fair to blame all atheists for the marxist regimes.

diana

A couple of questions I have for you here:

1. What are the religious leanings of the writers of the books you reference, and
2. What is the full name of the trial you quote?

I want to look it up. Thank you in advance.

You say "assert." Do you mean, perhaps, "theorize"?

I realize they may sound like they mean the same, but one is loaded and one is not. So I thought I'd get clarification.

You forgot to mention how much they pissed off the rest of the evolutionary psychologists.

I suspect society crafts our ideas of right and wrong, and our own experience--what we'd want to happen to us and what we'd accept happening to our children and loved ones--refines it. The fact that not everyone is outraged by the same things would suggest that what you're discussing here is, in fact, quite subjective.

d

braces_for_impact

Well I did a little googling, and look what I found
Here

A quote from the above link:

I think I might do some more looking into this "case".

In response to Pouye's other statements, I think Diana handles it quite nicely.

While our genes may drive us, we are the evolutionary beneficiaries of a larger brain, therefore genetic factors are not all that human beings are about. It is these same larger brains that drive us to create rules to govern our existence.

diana

Now that I'm more awake and alert and all, I did a little Googling myself.

I found this little story all over everything out there, written word for word as you quoted it, Pouye. I highlighted the bit that shouldn't be repeated as it stands, no matter how many people have made this mistake in the past, as it implies that the two boys walked free, thanks to the machinations of Darrow.

Here you can read the entire closing argument for yourself. A relevant quote: Not quite the same as the implication in your quote, no?

If anyone has a better reference for this trial than what I found, I'd like to read it.

Meanwhile, I'll just leave everyone to suppose what are the religious leanings of Carol Iannore....

d

[Edited to change the post icon from that retarded winky face and to add:

It also bears remembering that Darrow was defending two teenaged boys from the death penalty. America is still loathe to sentence those so young to death. Presumably, it's more humane to give them life without parole. "Clarence Darrow successfully defended two university students against the capital offense of murdering a boy" in the same sense that Malvo's lawyer "successfully defended" him.]

variant 13

Strange that, Richard Dawkins (author of the Selfish Gene) thinks we can overcome our selfish genes.

NOt everyone feels outraged, some think they deserved it, they asked for it, wanted it. (devils advocate)

What else decided our morals other than our experiences? It's not religion coz we can have morals without it, and justify it to.

diana

Interesting point. Also, as distasteful as it is to us, I'd speculate that the perpetrators of the crimes felt no outrage at their own actions.

d