A Brief History Of Religion

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

I thought it was funny, but some people aint gonna be amused.

It is a very funny cartoon and seems right on.

Edited to correct horrible spelling.

when late 19th century and early 20th century anthropologists depicted "cave-men", Neanderthals (because they were assumed to be sub-human) were always shown as scruffy and sloped, whilst brave Homo Sapiens were shown lantern jawed and clean shaven...

I have two names on a post-it on my computer monitor. What do you want to bet I have correctly identified the person who will flip out first about this?

On edit: It's hilarious, by the way.

I think I'll go out and burn some shit down, maybe off a few animators. Am I not justified in these actions?

Arrest them before they can escape to Holland!

Got any

I have my extinguisher handy. Nothing yet, but guess we need to wait for the night crowd.

: insert smiley with angel wings and a halo here :

Who do we petition to get new emoticons added to the list?

Surprisingly quiet. Must have been the preemptive mocking. Might have to try that more often.

Well done.

That cartoonist deserves an award.

And has been up for one several other years.

No, it's not a poll. It's a test -- a very scientific test based on a very scientific theory, the "Two Cultures Theory" of C.P. Snow (no relation to Hank, Phoebe, or Yellow Snow).

The Test: The Test consists of one question.

Take another look at the Horsey cartoon in the original post.


Why did the Rock-Worshiper bash the Other Guy?

----a. The Rock Worshiper was Religious.

----b. The Other Guy was Obnoxious.

----c. Both a and b.

----d. Neither a nor b.

----e. That's NOT Funny!


Scoring: Scoring? You can't be scoring, you're on the Internet.

Oh, wait, wrong kind of scoring. Here's the right kind:


----a. You're One Of Us.

----b. You're One Of Us, too.

----c. Everybody in this forum hates you, you know.

----d. You're a Quantum Physicist. Or not. It depends on your momentum and mass. Or not.

----e. You're a True Believer. It doesn't matter what kind. Really.





--p!

I think the cartoon is in half-jest/satirical mode, so I'm not sure we can really get a conversation going over it.

But yeah, I disagree and I think it is simplistic.

Oh, and if the guy really believed the stone was sacred, would he really hit someone with it? (that's a half-serious question)

Because its even more sacred now that its been baptised with the blood of heretics.

Geez, everyone knows that.

Evoman

the ever-growing Brass Knuckle Cult....

Anyway, I think someone would fight in defence of a "sacred object", and not use it for attacking. Furthermore, having the blood of heretics on it would be an impurity. Just the way I see it.

Once again, I'm half-not-serious.

Why do catholics drink blood every week??

but the body and blood OF THEIR SACRED ROCK, um I mean SAVIOR.

Tasty blood

they do it to imbibe the blood of their "savior" (don't ask me to defend it because I'm not a Christian). Something pictured in the cartoon would be like a pious person breaking an icon of a Saint over someone's head, something that would seldom, if ever, happen.

Yes, the blood of heretics is an impurity, but thats the point. The sacred rock cleanses the blood, so that it is no longer impure. Don't you know that the sacred rock loves you? It bashes your head in only because its the only way to get through the thick skull (literally) and save you. Either way, submit the Sacred Rock, and you will feel its love.

your argument is that a religious person would readily a.) use the object of their extreme piousness to attack someone and b.) not care about the blood of the offender on the SACRED object? That holds very little water, if any.

The person hit him with the sacred rock himself, the rock itself did not drive the person to attack, and we know this because of what the attacker says after the action. He wasn't trying to save the other person, he was just trying to hurt him. The person wasn't submitting to the sacred rock, he was simply praying to it, which is different.

Got anything else?

n/t

What does that have to do with this?

You are saying it is incongruous.

What if it was a suicide rock attack??

would one kill someone while simultaneously killing themselves with a rock?

Furthermore, people who carry out suicide attacks do not (perhaps rarely) use items they deem as "sacred" for weapons.

be more incredulous that the guy would endanger or sully his "sacred" rock than that he would commit violence in the name of his beliefs?


"Furthermore, people who carry out suicide attacks do not (perhaps rarely) use items they deem as "sacred" for weapons."

I disagree. I think they probably consider their body a sacred vehicle for their god's work.
A temple in motion, as it were.

but the way it was done. That's what I find weird about the cartoon.

I admit I don't know the exact mindset of a suicide bomber, but I don't think that the C4 would be considered "sacred". Even if it was (which is possible), it would certainly not be the central object of that person's piousness, as in this cartoon.

The cartoon depicts the birth of religion as violent fundies must see it.

That seems reasonable.

(It could be more specific in its self-description, but that's not really important)

sorry...but that was good. A suicide rock attack....hehe

Well, yeah, the first time was out of a desire to hurt. But once the blood of the heathen caveman hit it, the sacred rock, which was pure until that time, became aware of first sin. Now the sacred rock has a mission. Thanks to the action of the psycho caveman, who is now the Grand Pope Rock Collector, neaderthal-kind shall forever be saved, one way or another *gulp*.

Isn't that obvious? ;)

The cartoon is one take on the first moments of the birth of modern religions as they're being acted out in our world by extremist fundies.

The Stonist's "most high" beliefs are contradicted by the blasphemer, so he hits him with his rock. His most treasured concepts were threatened, so why not? Did his victim die, or just knocked out? In any case, it's not clear that death is the intention. The Stonist then rationalizes the violence by saying he was protecting a "real" god in a real way, and not just being ultra-senstive about his purely abstract ideas about god.

The idol is a rock, appropriate because of the "stone age" setting, and also necessary for the cartoon to work. The idol needs to be capable of being used to kill someone and not get broken.
The guy realizes that the rock won't get damaged by smashing the other guy in the head with it, so is never placed in harm's way as you've suggested.
He wouldn't have done that if it was a wicker hat for two reasons: 1. It would break. 2. The wounds wouldn't be fatal.
Maybe it was the rock's sturdiness as a tool that led to the idolatry of it? Maybe there aren't any other rocks around? What happens when the rock sect crosses paths with the paper and scissors sects? Will they have three-way sects?

A different way to look at it is that the cartoon is making an ironic statement similar to a couple of the Mohammed cartoons.
It's showing the stupidity and hypocrisy of committing violence "In the Name of God". Iow, the cartoon is only addressing the birth of the religion of the violent extremists.
Afterall, every one of the peaceful believers will tell you, "that's not how my religion began. :)

it is a caricature of fundamentalists today, that is reasonable. However, it does portray the artist's view of the history of religion in its entirety, which is what most people are objecting to (kind of objecting to, it's a cartoon, after all).

His most treasured concept is that the rock is sacred, so why would he use the rock as a weapon? That is contradictory to the premise of what his beliefs are. I don't care how mad someone is about someone insulting their religion, I doubt anyone would use something deemed "sacred" to attack the offender (and even if it has happened, that hardly constitutes the entire history of religion). The stonist seems to apologize to the stone, so it is my view that he acted by his own prerogative, not out of assumed responsibility. It still seems weird that someone would "protect" something by using it to hit someone's skull. Oh, well.

It is interesting that animist religions have been less guilty than monotheistic religions. The religions of the book (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) scorn anyone who sees divinity in entities that are not men; they despise the very concept that divinity is present in all things. Those same religions (monotheistic) were seen as idiotic by the "polytheists" of the Roman Empire, mostly because they shunned truth and logic as a matter of principle and relied solely on faith instead (which is the same exact objection many atheists have today). It is not a coincidence that these religions are responsible for most of the crimes that cause people to write cartoons like the one above. Why would animist/polytheistic religions be insulted if they are not only largely innocent from such wrongdoing, but also the victims of the aggressive tactics of the monotheistic religions? Just a comment of mine.

The act of smashing a sacred object over someone's head is a crime against its sanctity (in his eyes) itself. It doesn't matter if the rock is still intact, it is not the way a person who believes in the rock's sanctity would behave. We can't really go deeper, because this is really a made up situation by a person who wanted to present a certain viewpoint. However, I can't accept that it was its usefulness that led to its position, because he only cited how he liked to meditate on its existence; furthermore, he would not justify his actions if its purpose was to be a tool, because its purpose would have been met. There are certainly other ways to attack a person, and someone who is fundamentalist would have little problem in harming themselves physically (as in punching) to meet an offense.

I think that if it is addressing fundamentalists specifically, it is reasonable (although very simple).

"Afterall, every one of the peaceful believers will tell you, 'that's not how my religion began.'"

They might, but it is my belief that the religions that the monotheists consider "primitive" did NOT have violent beginnings. If someone sees divinity in a rock, then why wouldn't they see divinity in another rock or someone else's rock? However, if someone claims to be the only divine religion, and that their book is better than anyone else's, then they are very likely to resort to violence in their petty delusion. Again, just a thought.

Your incredulousness that the guy uses the object of his faith as a weapon and rationale at once, is the exactly the reaction the cartoon is going for.

Look around the world today.

From the outside, killing in the name of god looks totally hypocritical and stupid, right?
That's all the cartoon is saying.

I was saying that in the premise of "The History of Religion", it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't.

If the point was that people MISUSE their religion by hurting others with its MISUSE, I completely agree.

why get worked up over dumb?

Poorly drawn? Message is off? Misses the point? Perchance you can enlighten.

quote:

is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, arrives at an absurd result, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong, since it led to this absurd result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I haven't taught that in my communication class for, um, about a month and a half now. It was a nice little review.

Any chance you can tell me how this cartoon is an example of reductio ad absurdum? Clearly it is metaphoric (the artist doesn't think that current religious strife started with rock worship), as well as symbolic (the rock symbolizes any number of religious "dieties"), argueably allegoric (there is a moral lesson being taught through the symbolism), and possibly hyperbolic (I don't think the artist would argue that all religion sucks all the time, but I don't know that person so I can't say for sure). But reductio ad absurdum. Hmmmm. Don't think so.

Let's break it down by your definition:

"one assumes a claim for the sake of argument" It appears to me that the claim (both through classic logic, Toulmin, and many others) would be that religion is bad.

"arrives at an absurd result" The result of the cartoon is that people kill others because they mock their religion--this happens so I don't see how it would be "absurd."

"and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong, since it led to this absurd result." It pretty much ends with the claim it started with.

Again, I don't think you know what you are talking about.

because it is not only pathetically oversimplified, but also completely inaccurate.

Also, the cartoon does assume the opinion that religion is bad.

If you want to say: "Well, some people kill over religion, so religion is violent", then someone else can just as easily say the exact same thing about atheism, and both of you would be wrong.

because you are both making different arguments.

You seem to say it is a hasty generalization and that is why it is flawed. To THAT argument, I would would agree. But it is an editorial cartoon which are inherently based on hyperbole, overgeneralization, and stereotypes. You gotta admit that, right?

What I admit above has NO BEARING on it being reductio ad absurdum, which is just a false claim and faulty logical analysis. It is not an absurd result, just a flawed major premise.

Atheism has no substance. Atheism is nothing.

Do you have any idea of what happened during the Spanish Civil War?

Atheism is something, that much is undeniable. Of course, you just wanted to say your meaningless sidestep of a comment, even though it has little to do with the topic at hand. I expected nothing less.

How the spanish civil war occured BECAUSE of atheism.

I'm listening.

No, I said during. Difference.

"There were massacres of Catholic clergy and churches, monasteries and convents were burned with severe impact to the rich Spanish historical and artistic heritage. Twelve bishops, 283 nuns 2,365 monks and 4,184 priests were murdered."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War

Now, I said that anyone who blamed this on atheism would be (and I quote) "wrong". Would you agree with that?

Also, I sympathize with the Spanish Republican cause during the Spanish Civil War more than anyone. It was a fight of justice against oppression, and it is beyond sad that this took until Franco's death to triumph.

as there goes a Catholic, git 'im. The Church threw its lot in heavily with the Nationalists, lionizing Franco, whose savagery shocked even the Italian fascists. They had a big hand in getting themselves targetted as combatants in that clusterfuck. And Franco was no slouch in slaughtering Basque Catholics, BTW. Decades after the conflict, a Spanish council of bishops and priests adopted a resolution asking for pardon from the people for the Church's partisanship during the fratricide.

there were reasons for the reprisals against the Church, including a widespread disdain for the hierarchy itself (which I agree with completely).

The point I'm making is that there are some violent acts that are "anti-religious". These have other reasons behind them, but so did the Crusades (which were driven by political reasons as much as religious). To say it is the fault of any general group is incorrect, as this instance demonstrates. I hope that clarified why I even brought this up.

I would also like to reiterate that there are very few movements/groups/causes I hold in such high reverence as the Spanish Republican one during this conflict. I respect them and what they fought for to the highest degree, and that is a great understatement.

And you failed to listen, atheism has no substance. Nothing can be done in the name of atheism, because atheism is nothing.

Religion is different, because that is belief in something. People kill because of that.

It's very simple.

During the Spanish Civil War, Catholics were killed because of atheist zeal. These were part of reprisals against the Church because of the political circumstances, but it does not excuse a lot of murders that occurred because of atheist sentiments. What I said was that they were not the fault of atheism and were intertwined with other reasons, just like the Crusades were intertwined and mostly driven by non-religious factors. That's the main point.

It's too bad that you couldn't have thought about it and come up with a reasonable conclusion yourself, but as I said, I expected nothing less.

You say "Catholics were killed because of atheist zeal" and then in the next sentence, mention "reprisals against the Church".

It seems to me like a "reprisal against the church" has alot to do with religion, Catholicism specifically.

It is impossible to kill based on a lack of something.

Has anyone ever killed because of their lack of belief in animated washing machines???

Rhetorical question.

While, as the other poster and I are agreeing on, most of what happened against the Catholic Church was in a reaction to its alliegence with fascism, A LOT of murders did happen, senseless violence which was motivated by such zeal.

Again, I have repeatedly stated that this was not the fault of atheism, and that it would be mistaken to say it was.

Atheism is something. Is black a color?

That rhetorical question is quite possibly the most irrelevant and ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time. I'm not even going to address it.

No, atheism is nothing

black absorbs ALL colors and reflects none.

making it a lack of a color

absorb all colors.

It absorbs all colors and reflects none, making it a lack of color.

since it absorbs all colors, the outward appearence is a lack of color, but the object the inclusion of all colors.

Space looks black. Space is not an object.

With regards to light, black is the absence of.
With regards to paint, black is the presence of.

that this kind of stuff is really interesting. The appearence of "black" can be both the presence and absence of light.

I say, it's impossible to kill because of atheism
You say, "are you aware of spanish civil war"
Then, you go on to state that no, the spanish civil war was NOT because of atheism

Have a nice day

I say "are you aware of the Spanish Civil War?". I say that the murders against Catholic clergymen was not because of atheism, but involved motivation that was taken from atheism. I say that these murders happened because of atheist zeal, but the atrocities cannot be blamed on atheism. I compare this to how wrongdoing cannot be blamed on a religion, even if some occured because of religious zeal.

What I didn't say:

I never alluded to or suggested the conflict OR those murders were because of atheism.

I'm glad you've yet again demonstrated your inability to think rationally or comprehend the most basic of concepts. Once again, I expected nothing less.

is a product of atheism??

Is that what you are saying???

They hated catholics enough to kill them, and that's the fault of atheism.

Gimme a break.

"...but the atrocities cannot be blamed on atheism."

(You got the "cannot" part, right?)

"I never alluded to or suggested the conflict OR those murders were because of atheism."

How does that equal "the fault of atheism"? Hint: It doesn't.

That's consistent with my premise that atheism is nothing, and nothing is, and can ever be done in the name of atheism.

it's consistent with the premise that atheism is something, and that it cannot be blamed for certain actions that have related motivation.

Just like a religion cannot be blamed for certain actions that have related motivation.

For an example of mass murder done BECAUSE of atheism

Anti-Catholic murders during the Spanish Civil War had political motivation, but they were also motivated by anti-religious sentiment, sentiment that was fueled by atheist perspectives (beliefs).

OK, now try to concentrate on every word:

As I have stated before, they cannot be blamed on atheism.

I should avoid those.

you have an atheist perspective. You are an atheist, no? If so, you have an atheist perspective.

By the way, I'm probably going to stop responding because this has become pointless. If you can't grasp what I'm saying, that's not my fault.

That's why I'm asking you.

If you are also unaware of any atheist perspectives, then how can you possibly know that these people murdered BECAUSE of them??

you have an atheist perspective. The people involved in the murders also had an atheist perspective. I know that they killed with motivations taken from this perspective, although other factors were involved. Why? Because the actions were anti-religious, and the murderers' atheist mindsets played a role in this.

This is pointless.

You say the murderers had atheist perspectives, fueling their murderous rage.

I ask, what are these perspectives??? You dodge repeatedly.

I agree, the murderers had anti-religious feelings and perspectives. These feelings had NOTHING to do with atheism, because atheism is nothing.

You said "I say that the murders against Catholic clergymen was not because of atheism, but involved motivation that was taken from atheism."

Which atheist doctrine was this murderous rage taken from??

Clue me in.

a doctrine. The motivation was taken from anti-religious sentiment which was obviously fueled by atheist perspectives (or, as some would correctly say, beliefs). However, those murders cannot and should not be blamed on atheism.

I haven't heard of any atheist perspectives.

Clue me in.

like the perspectives of the people who carried out the murders. They were atheists.

But they murder based on other things, like strict adherance to Marxist doctrine, anti-semitism driven by religion, etc.

the murders were done because of many reasons, reasons which included anti-religious feelings which were due to atheist perspectives (beliefs).

the murderers harbored.

You seem to know they harbored some, so, which ones??

have atheist perspectives.

Just to be clear, I don't expect a reasonable or intelligent response.

Atheism can be part of other political philosophies that are anti-religious, such as Communism. Atheism can be practiced in a clearly anti-religious manner, punishing and/or killing those that are religious.

I don't know where you get the idea that atheists can't kill.

Of course they can. But if they kill, they aren't doing so because of their atheism.

beliefs. Atheism is part and parcel of a communist belief system. As such, they kill because of their atheism.

Point me to the atheist doctrine that makes atheist communist.

I only need to point to a communist doctrine that shows that a communist is an atheist. Being an atheist is part of being a communist.

Just so there are no misunderstandings, the word "atheist" also covers those who have an active disbelief in God. Many of these conversations fall apart over how different participants use word meanings.

I can accept that, in most communist regimes, being atheistic is part of being a communist.

It doesn't go in reverse, however. Atheism does not imply communism.

Atheism is nothing.

Here are some different definitions.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm

Some have suggested the use of modifiers, like:
"Strong Atheist," or "Positive Atheist," or "Hard Atheist" to refer to a person who asserts that no deity exists.
"Weak Atheist," "Negative Atheist," "Soft Atheist," "Skeptical Atheist" to refer to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are no rational grounds that support his/her/their existence.
Peter Berger suggested that the term "methodological atheism" be used to describe theologians and historians who study religion as a human creation without declaring whether individual religious beliefs are actually true.
The terms "Noncoherent Atheist" or "Noncoherentism" have been suggested to cover the belief that one cannot have any meaningful discussions about deities, because there exist no coherent definitions of "god."

Give me something tangible.

And don't divide it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_communism

Ideally, anyhow.

Both you and Inance are being quite cryptic.

I think you're just "pretending" to not understand. Far easier feign ignorance than it is to face facts, I suppose.

Inaneinanity:

"And you failed to listen, atheism has no substance. Nothing can be done in the name of atheism, because atheism is nothing."

Many here, including myself, think that atheism is an active belief, rather than a "lack of belief in Gods". Being relatively new here, you missed the thousands of notes on this subject previously argued.

I perfectly understand your position. I just don't agree that it is what you say it is.

They aren't compelling, and seem idiotic to me.

So I ignore them.

kwassa knows better than any atheist what it is that we think/believe. So that's why we are all wrong, and he is right. Got it?

and I largely agree. The point I was trying to make, rather badly, is that I think the example of Republican atrocities as an atheist counterpoint to the likes of the Crusades is inapt. I really don't know of any indications that they were compelled by "atheist zeal". The factions that comprised the Republicans, with the exception of the Communists, didn't profess atheism as doctrine. It's notable that there weren't pogroms against Catholics at large or religious purges within Republican ranks. The targets were the clergy and Catholic institutions, who were of a piece with the fascist/monarchist authoritarians. In other words, they were specific to enemies who were Catholic, but not only because they were Catholic.

The Crusades, while primarily a matter of power politics and venality, did have a religious component, in so far that in at least a few of them, the pious combatants were commissioned to do violence for God. For them, the war was holy. The claimants who use the Crusades as an example of religion gone amok have a better case than those who would cite the Spanish butchery as atheists run off the leash.

"The factions that comprised the Republicans, with the exception of the Communists, didn't profess atheism as doctrine."

IIRC, the Communists were pretty sizable, and so were the Anarchists, who despised hierarchy itself. I do believe that many senseless murders occured, and even if they are to be considered isolated, they still happened and were very much due to the anti-religious sentiment that was palpable at the time.

"The targets were the clergy and Catholic institutions, who were of a piece with the fascist/monarchist authoritarians. In other words, they were specific to enemies who were Catholic, but not only because they were Catholic."

I agree with this. However, many clergymen were shot in the head for little real reason, and one was almost crucified (from "The Spanish Civil War" by Hugh Thomas; I don't have the page #, sorry). While I consider the Catholics in Spain to be an "enemy", I find it difficult for one to justify such a killing, especially when such killings were not rarities.

The Crusades started chiefly because of power politics. Many people were more easily brought to fight in them because of religious zeal, but it was not religion which was the cause. My point is that it would be incorrect to blame the conflicts on religion, just as it would be equally incorrect to blame the murders in the Spanish Civil War on atheism.

There is no evidence for claims of atheist motivation in the Spanish atrocities. At the time, Communists were vastly outnumbered by Anarchists, and in any case the Communists have never been blamed for the killings. The two groups who were, Anarchists and so-called Radicals, were not atheist. They were anti-Church, which most any peasant or laborer, whether the most ardent believer or meanest secularist, would have been. The division in Spanish society fell nearly neatly across class lines, not between believers and non-believers.

"...many clergymen were shot in the head for little real reason, and one was almost crucified... I find it difficult for one to justify such a killing..."

Yes, such savagery and wantoness is difficult to justify. But an assertion that they were compelled by atheism just because they were inexplicable is itself inexplicable. You need some connection, tenuous or otherwise, to actors driven by their atheism, and they just aren't there. As an atheist, I know that a lack of God(s) is no guarantor of sanity or civility, nor does belief imbue someone with a propensity for madness or brutality. But the Spanish atrocities as a counterexample to the Crusades is to me as nonsensical as using, say, the Hindenburg disaster. The Crusades had a religious component, arguably minimal though it may be, and any proposed atheist example should have the same.

I wish I could find the passage where it talks about this in the huge book I have. I do think the Anarchists were most numerous in Catalonia, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

At any rate, it seems common sense that atheist feelings were a dry leaf in the campfire that were those killings. Would you not agree that although a peasant Christian would have approved of the actions, an atheist's mindset (a "strong atheist", to be precise) would help with them? I haven't said it was the reason they happened, and my original point was that atheism cannot be blamed for them, but some feelings that arose from secularism/atheism may have acted as a factor in them, however minor. In this way, it does serve as an accurate counterexample.

Anyway, I could cite the Stalinist oppression of the Russian Church if you really want another example.

Just to clarify:

"But an assertion that they were compelled by atheism just because they were inexplicable is itself inexplicable."

I completely agree with you. I have stated continuously that would be "wrong" to blame those actions on atheism in any way. I really hope you don't think I'm trying to do that, because I am doing the opposite.

I never mistook your intent, just objected to your example. Yes, Stalin/Church is better, there's evidence that can be argued in that instance.

~Who's there?
-Itsa
~Itsa who?
-It's a cartoon!

You can't strictly apply the rules of logic to this cartoon and expect to understand the cartoon.
The cartoon isn't making an argument.
It is satirical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

while I was still in high school, actually. I was published weekly in the city newpaper. I've drawn, and drawn cartoons, most of my life.

I understand how stripped down the form gets to make a point. The point, however, is pretty dumb. This would be a better cartoon if it was called "a brief history of belief systems" because the behavior described applies to many beliefs about what is the real truth, and not just religion. Making this point only against religion reveals nothing but the prejudices of the artist, which are substantial, of course.

...should be expected nowadays.

... to religion? Are the religious folks so completely out-of-touch with the world around them, and all the horrible things that are (and have been) done in the name of their deity. What exactly is it that prevents them from that understanding WHY so many people have hostile reactions to religion?

Although I can understand the instinctive posture that many of them take... but I often wonder why it is that they don't also take the opportunity to examine WHY IT IS that (their) religion is so despised and ridiculed. In quiet moments, when they aren't having to be so busy retorting to posts and defending the indefensible... do they ever take a moment and think to themselves "why do so many people feel this way about my religion"?

The ostrich-mentality of many religious folks never ceases to amaze me.

folks when religion is painted with a wildly inaccurate broad brush by atheists?

arwalden:

"Are the religious folks so completely out-of-touch with the world around them, and all the horrible things that are (and have been) done in the name of their deity. What exactly is it that prevents them from that understanding WHY so many people have hostile reactions to religion?"

Actually, not all that many people ARE hostile to religion, so I realy don't accept that premise.

Religious people do know the history of terrible things done in the name of their Diety, and are also aware that the Diety was misrepresented, or used as an excuse for a power grab, or nationalistic tendencies that were mixed with religion, or a whole variety of other things that brought about death and mistreatment. So did many other things that humans believed in that were and are completely secular.

"In quiet moments, when they aren't having to be so busy retorting to posts and defending the indefensible..."

Um, excuse me, where does that happen, here at DU? Who has defended crimes committed in the name of religion?

You made excuses for crimes done in the name of religion.