The only reason for that is the many genocides perpetrated against members of other religions. Especially in places like Australia and the Americas where Christians were bloodthirsty invaders. By equating the two, all you’re doing is continuing the work of conquistadores and other murderous colonisers. It’s factually wrong, but more importantly, it’s morally wrong. There’s no reason to act this disgracefully.
Europeans regularly killed other Europeans, who were Christian. The natives could have met them at the shore with a stack of bibles and the colonizers still would have slaughtered them.
I don’t care about motivation or how a bunch of murderers felt, I care about the victims of genocide and the loss of massive religious diversity. Don’t you care about that too? Or is the only thing that matters to you what the conquistadores “intended” while they were raping girls and destroying villages?
The only reason for that is the many genocides perpetrated against members of other religions. Especially in places like Australia and the Americas where Christians were bloodthirsty invaders.
Ah, I see the problem. You read me say “reason” and assumed I meant reason as in motivation, when I actually meant reason as in cause, because you have the reading comprehension of a 4th grader. Then you proceeded to derail this conversation with a pointless tangent about motivations that nobody else cares about.
Here, I’ll give an educational example of the word reason as in cause: “The reason the beanstalk grew that night, was because Jack’s mother threw the magic beans out the window into the garden.”
See? Reason as in cause. You just can’t read properly.
It’s not a cause lmao. Europeans were going to violently colonize the Americas, Africa, and Australia whether they followed Jesus, Buddha, or no one at all. It’s not like the Bible said “hey guys, those people over there don’t have guns, and they’ve got lots of gold”.
And now you’ve completely lost track of the entire conversation.
The causal reason that people today use “religious” as shorthand for “Christian” is that the other religions in colonised continents were wiped out or reduced to a few members.
Argue against what I actually said instead of what you wish I said.
The only reason for that is the many genocides perpetrated against members of other religions. Especially in places like Australia and the Americas where Christians were bloodthirsty invaders. By equating the two, all you’re doing is continuing the work of conquistadores and other murderous colonisers. It’s factually wrong, but more importantly, it’s morally wrong. There’s no reason to act this disgracefully.
Europeans regularly killed other Europeans, who were Christian. The natives could have met them at the shore with a stack of bibles and the colonizers still would have slaughtered them.
It sounds like you’re saying religious genocide doesn’t matter because it would have happened anyway.
I’m saying it was European colonial genocide, religion was a secondary or tertiary motivation, and yes it would have happened anyway
I don’t care about motivation or how a bunch of murderers felt, I care about the victims of genocide and the loss of massive religious diversity. Don’t you care about that too? Or is the only thing that matters to you what the conquistadores “intended” while they were raping girls and destroying villages?
Really? This you?
Ah, I see the problem. You read me say “reason” and assumed I meant reason as in motivation, when I actually meant reason as in cause, because you have the reading comprehension of a 4th grader. Then you proceeded to derail this conversation with a pointless tangent about motivations that nobody else cares about.
Here, I’ll give an educational example of the word reason as in cause: “The reason the beanstalk grew that night, was because Jack’s mother threw the magic beans out the window into the garden.”
See? Reason as in cause. You just can’t read properly.
It’s not a cause lmao. Europeans were going to violently colonize the Americas, Africa, and Australia whether they followed Jesus, Buddha, or no one at all. It’s not like the Bible said “hey guys, those people over there don’t have guns, and they’ve got lots of gold”.
Gb2 r/atheism with your nonsense
And now you’ve completely lost track of the entire conversation.
The causal reason that people today use “religious” as shorthand for “Christian” is that the other religions in colonised continents were wiped out or reduced to a few members.
Argue against what I actually said instead of what you wish I said.