As for the last part,you were either being naive or else trying to rationalize a militant form of atheism(can't read your mind and assume motive,actually
).The leaders of those communist governments,and also the early ideological proponents,believed that atheism was a superior religious attitude and felt that the inferior theistic ones should be eliminated.In that sense,they were no different from Muslim crusaders who have invaded,conquered and slaughtered hordes of people who dissented.You can argue semantics,but it would be merely THAT,semantics,because the conduct of the oppressors was nearly identical.
As for this part, we'll have to agree to disagree.
I'm well aware of how sexual abuse exists everywhere;no offense,but I didn't need you to explain that to me
.I was merely comparing various religions and which ones had a greater frequency of manipulation of ministerial power.
Well, since you wrote "As a general rule,I've found that sexual abuse of women and children is far more common in religions such as Catholcism,Islam,Mormonism,etc.(haven't done a thorough compare/contrast study)", I understood that you felt such crimes more common in the various Christian faiths (edit: and other Religions of the Book) than in other faiths or societies - which is not accurate. I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you said.
Again,I'm fairly literate
,so I didn't need you to read the dictionary for me
;I even clarified that those belief systems weren't religions for EVERYone,but they definitely ARE religions for certain people...even large numbers of them.You either have a biased,contemptful view of religion or you're being intellectually dishonest when you claim that evolution and other worldviews are never 'religious'.
I have no doubt about your level of literacy and general knowledge. This is the reason why this discussion is of interest to me. Believe me, I do not waste my time arguing with brainless people
Life is too short.
However, I like to define the terms I use in such discussion. This enables a better mutual understanding. You have defined religions in a way that I can not agree (even stating that it was the most relevant definition
), so I simply brought a definition that I find most acceptable and complete. I maintain my position. A religion is a religion and an ideology is an ideology. However, I can understand what you mean by saying that certain concepts are religions for certain people
Atheist, agnostic whatever. To make my own position clear:
As far as an omnipresent impersonal creator - I'm open-minded on this. Science cannot disprove the existence of God.
- I no longer believe in a personal God and saviour although I used to.
- I think when you are dead that's it.
- I do not claim I'm right and others with their personal beliefs are wrong. I have no wish to impose my view on anyone else.
- I do have respect for other people's religious convictions.
- I've not looked into other religions apart from Christianity and have no desire to do so.
If you ask what or who started the big-bang, the answer you'll get from a physicist is that it is a meanigless question because time and space did not exist before the big-bang. And if there's no time - it is meaningless to put a question about "before
the big band". I suspect most people find that answer unsatisfactory. To be told that their question is meaningless as an answer usually riles most people up.
From the bolded quote, you propably could define yourself as an agnostic. From what I know of your ideas, I would also say that you are a humanist and an open-minded person