[Irviding]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 19:06)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 00:28) I disagree completely. Those morals were taught by religion and, while forced upon people, eventually become a regular part of life. What you are assuming is totally short-sighted, and frankly, ridiculous. "We would've had them anyway" is worse than a strawman argument. Keep in mind though I agree with most of your sentiment otherwise. So you are saying that religion predates ethics? If that's the case, then why did early man not annihilate itself? I mean, most early religions were polytheistic, and monotheism only really began to take effect with Judaism (and that's only arguably monotheistic), so I think you dramatically overstate the importance of "God" as opposed to the general principal of "higher beings". Personally, I feel that the opposite of your suggestion is true. Logically, what is "moral" or "ethical" can be entirely explained in terms of protecting a species and avoiding diluting the gene pool. It's the same principle that stop animal species from annihilating themselves for no apparent reason, and I feel that to insinuate that somehow religion is responsible for the creation of ethics entirely contracts our understanding of instinct. I mean, if animals defend the purity and depth of the gene pool without the influence of a higher being, then why do humans need another "higher" power to do exactly the same?

You're stretching what I said. What I essentially argued is that religion provided a set of morals for people to abide by. Those morals eventually turned into mores. I'm not arguing that we wouldn't have known morals if some higher being did not tell us them. I'm arguing that the scripture codified by early humans lead to the morals of today. Look at common law. So much of it is a direct result of biblical scripture. Ethics such as not sleeping with your neighbor's wife, or even not killing another man - is that something humans would know from the start? I don't think so. These ethics became social mores because of religion dictating as such in earlier times. Why would early humans who didn't subscribe to any religion whatsoever choose to not sleep with their neighbor's wife? To not steal?

[Rusty Balls]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 01:54)

Why would early humans who didn't subscribe to any religion whatsoever choose to not sleep with their neighbor's wife? To not steal?

Ey?

We're not a solitary lived species. Since the dawn of man we've existed in groups as a means to survive our harsh habitat.

The more successful the group, the more successful man is and an unloyal group is certainly not going to be a successful one. I'm sure even Neanderthal man was quick to establish that pissing off his mate caveman bob was a poor way to aid his own survival.

Thus, the beginnings of a common moral code.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (Rusty Balls @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 21:20)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 01:54) Why would early humans who didn't subscribe to any religion whatsoever choose to not sleep with their neighbor's wife? To not steal? Ey? We're not a solitary lived species. Since the dawn of man we've existed in groups as a means to survive our harsh habitat. The more successful the group, the more successful man is and an unloyal group is certainly not going to be a successful one. I'm sure even Neanderthal man was quick to establish that pissing off his mate caveman bob was a poor way to aid his own survival. Thus, the beginnings of a common moral code.

It's not as simple as pissing another man off though. There are numerous parts of scripture and even today's moral code that hurt the feelings of others but are "alright".

I just think that there is a real animosity towards anything and everything religious by a vast amount of people, especially Europeans, and I'm just not sure why.

[trip]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 22:43)

I just think that there is a real animosity towards anything and everything religious by a vast amount of people, especially Europeans, and I'm just not sure why.

I'm not sure it is animosity or more just a greater number of people who question religion and spirituality thus making it more visible. It also may be a next generation thing. I'm willing to bet my parents generation was the first generation to start questioning this whole religion/church thing in large numbers. They went on to have kids, and just like all kids they inherit the religious or no religious beliefs of their parents until they are able to think for themselves.

Thanks to a required class at university I have read all of the main religious texts, and you have to admit that the book of Genesis is pretty far fetched. I can see how something as simple as the first book in the bible having the more free thinking youth of today scratch their heads and say "yeah right"

A lot of things boil down to volume. It's like going to a frat party of meat heads and thinking to yourself "wow, why are there so many assholes here?"

Sorry for the long pointlessness to point out something as simple as there are just more nonbelievers now.

[3niX]

Well...

QUOTE

@3niX That's prepostorous. Your statement is most obviously inspired by the propaganda of the capitalists. The Soviet Union was not a dictatorship. The process of Russification has led people to believe that. And they only banned the Russian Orthodox Church and other forms of Christianity. The Bolsheviks mostly consisted of Jewish representatives, who may have indeed turned Athiest, but had a large amount of support from the Jewish community. Lenin and Stalin looked down on pogroms and other anti-semitic acts, so no, the Soviet Union was not anti-religious. Christianity is merely an inspirer of Monarchy and of whom Stalin considered an enemy of Communism. I hate Christianity anyways, who cares. (Other than Christianity) [Supreme]

Propaganda eh?

QUOTE (Wikipedia on 'dictatorship')

A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual: a dictator. It has three possible meanings: 1. A Roman dictator was the incumbent of a political office of the Roman Republic. Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was originally neither arbitrary nor unaccountable, being subject to law and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and later dictators such as Sulla and the Roman Emperors exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily. 2. A government controlled by one person, or a small group of people. In this form of government the power rests entirely on the person or group of people, and can be obtained by force or by inheritance. The dictator(s) may also take away much of its peoples' freedom. 3. In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.

And the definition of stalinism (since you seem to glorify the period in which Stalin ruled):

QUOTE

The bureaucratic, authoritarian exercise of state power and mechanistic application of Marxist-Leninist principles associated with Stalin.

QUOTE

(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the theory and form of government associated with the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin (original name Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili; 1879-1953): a variant of Marxism-Leninism characterized by totalitarianism, rigid bureaucracy, and loyalty to the state

QUOTE

Stalinism - a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)

QUOTE

Stalinism,  the method of rule, or policies, of Joseph Stalin, Soviet Communist Party and state leader from 1929 until his death in 1953. Stalinism is associated with a regime of terror and totalitarian rule.

Also, the soviet leadership actually persecuted all forms of religion (including different forms of christianity and islam) but the Russian Orthodox Church was hit hardest because it had the largest following. Stalin might have openly said that he was against anti-semitism but he also said stuff like:

QUOTE

Every Jewish nationalist is the agent of the American intelligence service. Jewish nationalists think that their nation was saved by the USA. . . They think they are indebted to the Americans. Among doctors, there are many Jewish nationalists.

Which is as clear a case of closet anti-semitism as Ive ever seen.
Not to mention many of the actions that were taken against jewish individuals.

Furthermore, I find it hypocritical to claim that you dont like beliefs being pushed down on you but dont mind the persecution of christians in order to raise prominence of atheism. So its actually OK to shove down beliefs on someone if they match your views?

[Irviding]

QUOTE (trip @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 23:05)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 22:43) I just think that there is a real animosity towards anything and everything religious by a vast amount of people, especially Europeans, and I'm just not sure why. I'm not sure it is animosity or more just a greater number of people who question religion and spirituality thus making it more visible. It also may be a next generation thing. I'm willing to bet my parents generation was the first generation to start questioning this whole religion/church thing in large numbers. They went on to have kids, and just like all kids they inherit the religious or no religious beliefs of their parents until they are able to think for themselves. Thanks to a required class at university I have read all of the main religious texts, and you have to admit that the book of Genesis is pretty far fetched. I can see how something as simple as the first book in the bible having the more free thinking youth of today scratch their heads and say "yeah right" A lot of things boil down to volume. It's like going to a frat party of meat heads and thinking to yourself "wow, why are there so many assholes here?" Sorry for the long pointlessness to point out something as simple as there are just more nonbelievers now.

Once again, I know the Book of Genesis is nonsensical. I am a Catholic in the sense that I agree with the religious teachings and it is what my family is. But in terms of my actual beliefs, I am really just a Deist.

To define a Deitst:

Deism (Listeni/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is a religious philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an intelligent creator(s). According to deists, the creator rarely, if ever, either intervenes in human affairs or suspends the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by intervening in it. This idea is also known as the clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own. Two main forms of deism currently exist: classical deism and modern deism.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 02:54)

Ethics such as not sleeping with your neighbor's wife, or even not killing another man - is that something humans would know from the start?

Well, they are quite prevalent in hierarchical animal societies. Most pack animals, when operating in packs, have assigned mating partners based on their position in the pack, and it's rare for them to try and mate outside these limits without some kind of aggression from those higher up the hierarchy. Not killing other members of one's own species is pure common sense and is equally prevalent in the animal world- you fight for control, but inside a pack hierarchy there are seldom cases of one animal killing another.

HydraulicWarrior- to deny the fact that Communism is dictatorial when it is, by it's very definition, is pretty insane. You also appear to be making a conscientious effort to re-write history to match your own beliefs. You appear to have largely ignored the MASSIVE level of persecution directed at Jews during the later part of Stalin's rule. By the early 1940s, Judaism had been almost entirely annihilated in the public consciousness of the Soviet Union, and during the period 1946-53 the Politburo lead a violent campaign against "Zionists" (as usual, a guarded term used by anti-Semites to justify targeting all Jews) which has resulted in a modern Russia which still clings to the lingering remains of anti-Semitism. Also, your comment about Communists being Jewish descended is largely irrelevant, primarily because in that context "Jewish" refers to an ethnic and not a religious group.

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Sunday, May 6 2012, 09:45

[HydraulicWaRiOr]

QUOTE (3niX @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 05:59)

So its actually OK to shove down beliefs on someone if they match your views?

Who ever said that? I like Jews. I like Muslims, I myself am a follower of most Buddhist philosophy, I just hate Christians. If it were my decision, I would have them all imprisoned until they all denounced their beliefs, I would remove churches, and I would hold book burnings of the bible. I'm not a hypocrite, I just despise laws coming from a book which persecute those for no reason. This is the very reason the whole religion deserves a reform, or absolute annihilation. And Stalin wasn't a closet case at all. He was jewish. He was also Georgian. But despised any idea of non-Russian nationalism. That's what Russification was for. Stalin was very much like Bismarck. Bismarck was highly Prussian nationalist, and advocated the removal of the Catholic Church and Socialists along with everyone who wasn't loyal to him.

[Supreme]

This post has been edited by HydraulicWaRiOr on Sunday, May 6 2012, 21:47

[Irviding]

QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 16:24)

QUOTE (3niX @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 05:59) So its actually OK to shove down beliefs on someone if they match your views? Who ever said that? I like Jews. I like Muslims, I myself am a follower of most Buddhist philosophy, I just hate Christians. If it were my decision, I would have them all imprisoned until they all denounced their beliefs, I would remove churches, and I would hold book burnings of the bible. I'm not a hypocrite, I just dispise laws coming from a book which persecute those for no reason. This is the very reason the whole religion deserves a reform, or absolute annihilation. And Stalin wasn't a closet case at all. He was jewish. He was also Georgian. But despised any idea of non-Russian nationalism. That's what Russification was for. Stalin was very much like Bismarck. Bismarck was highly Prussian nationalist, and advocated the removal of the Catholic Church and Socialists along with everyone who wasn't loyal to him. [Supreme]

Stalin wasn't Jewish.

[HydraulicWaRiOr]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 21:46)

QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 16:24) QUOTE (3niX @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 05:59) So its actually OK to shove down beliefs on someone if they match your views? Who ever said that? I like Jews. I like Muslims, I myself am a follower of most Buddhist philosophy, I just hate Christians. If it were my decision, I would have them all imprisoned until they all denounced their beliefs, I would remove churches, and I would hold book burnings of the bible. I'm not a hypocrite, I just dispise laws coming from a book which persecute those for no reason. This is the very reason the whole religion deserves a reform, or absolute annihilation. And Stalin wasn't a closet case at all. He was jewish. He was also Georgian. But despised any idea of non-Russian nationalism. That's what Russification was for. Stalin was very much like Bismarck. Bismarck was highly Prussian nationalist, and advocated the removal of the Catholic Church and Socialists along with everyone who wasn't loyal to him. [Supreme] Stalin wasn't Jewish.

Alright I messed up there. He was Georgian Orthodox. But I believe his mother was of Jewish descent. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Supreme]

[Tyler]

QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 15:24)

Who ever said that? I like Jews. I like Muslims, I myself am a follower of most Buddhist philosophy, I just hate Christians. If it were my decision, I would have them all imprisoned until they all denounced their beliefs, I would remove churches, and I would hold book burnings of the bible. I'm not a hypocrite,

You very much are. There is a staggeringly large section of the religious population that either does not know of the atrocities that were attributed to religion itself, or does not realize the implication. There is also a large section that was groomed to be religious from birth, with no other choice, and as such know no other way. To simply dismiss all these people as firebrand priests and hypocritical zealots- no matter what percentage actually is, is atrocious in and of itself.

QUOTE

And Stalin wasn't a closet case at all. He was jewish

It can be seen through many sources that Stalin was a proponent of atheism and antitheism. He established the Society of the Godless. He demolished numerous churches, executed tens of thousands of priests and monks. The Great Purge, although not specifically targeting religious populations in general, still accumulated various deaths of Jehovah's Witnesses and the like.

[Vladislav of Kronstadt]

QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 21:24)

QUOTE (3niX @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 05:59) So its actually OK to shove down beliefs on someone if they match your views? Who ever said that? I like Jews. I like Muslims, I myself am a follower of most Buddhist philosophy, I just hate Christians. If it were my decision, I would have them all imprisoned until they all denounced their beliefs, I would remove churches, and I would hold book burnings of the bible. I'm not a hypocrite, I just despise laws coming from a book which persecute those for no reason. This is the very reason the whole religion deserves a reform, or absolute annihilation. And Stalin wasn't a closet case at all. He was jewish. He was also Georgian. But despised any idea of non-Russian nationalism. That's what Russification was for. Stalin was very much like Bismarck. Bismarck was highly Prussian nationalist, and advocated the removal of the Catholic Church and Socialists along with everyone who wasn't loyal to him. [Supreme]

Your post is incredibly offensive.
Listen, I don't know you, or if you really are the genocidal bastard you just showed yourself to be in that post. You just praised the greatest mass murderer in human history like he was some sort of crusader against the corrupt Church.
Well, sorry to break you dreams, but Stalin killed more people than Hitler himself, around 25 million in the Inter War Period alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
Besides the fact that he demolished churches and murdered hundreds of thousands of people, he also had lots of fun at the Katyn Massacre , when he ordered the death thousands of polish officers :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
So you see, my dear Stalinist friend, your hero was a "crusader" against humanity itself.
If you deny these things, than you are no better than a neo nazi, really.

[HydraulicWaRiOr]

It's entirely justified. The very fact that there are Christians who even despise each other for a small variety of little difference in the area of belief should say that the destruction of the religion should at least be considered as a radical solution to the problem. The bible is an anti-semitic, racist, homophobic atrocity that deserves it's destruction indefinitely. And there are many who are not aware of the prejudice beliefs they are attatched to, but the very fact that they are unable to see the error of their ways should make them obsolete as human beings. Anyone who looks down on one for what they consider to be imperfections simply because a book told them so deserves to be removed from public and isolated.

[Supreme]

This post has been edited by HydraulicWaRiOr on Sunday, May 6 2012, 22:28

[3niX]

Well...

QUOTE

Who ever said that? I like Jews. I like Muslims, I myself am a follower of most Buddhist philosophy, I just hate Christians. If it were my decision, I would have them all imprisoned until they all denounced their beliefs, I would remove churches, and I would hold book burnings of the bible. I'm not a hypocrite, I just despise laws coming from a book which persecute those for no reason. This is the very reason the whole religion deserves a reform, or absolute annihilation. And Stalin wasn't a closet case at all. He was jewish. He was also Georgian. But despised any idea of non-Russian nationalism. That's what Russification was for.

Your posts imply such a way of thinking. And how is an average christian so much different from a muslim, buddhist, atheist or any other person? What makes you such a bitter person towards them?

Stalin was definitely a closet case. He was a lunatic with huge amounts of power. It shouldnt be that surprising that he abused that power to promote his own twisted views. Also, he might have had jewish roots (though I doubt it) but he definitely wasnt jewish. And russification was more about subjugation than anything else.

QUOTE

Stalin was very much like Bismarck. Bismarck was highly Prussian nationalist, and advocated the removal of the Catholic Church and Socialists along with everyone who wasn't loyal to him.

Except that Bismarck was actually liked on merit and that he worked to improve the lives of his countrymen (unlike Stalin who was just a paranoid and power hungry little f*ck).

EDIT:

QUOTE

Anyone who looks down on one for what they consider to be imperfections simply because a book told them so deserves to be removed from public and isolated.

So, pretty much most of Cosmopolitan readers?

This post has been edited by 3niX on Sunday, May 6 2012, 22:19

[Typhus]

QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 22:09)

It's entirely justified. The very fact that there are Christians who even despise each other for a small variety of little difference in the area of belief should say that the destruction of the religion should at least be considered as a radical solution to the problem. The bible is an anti-semitic, racist, homophobic atrocity that deserves it's destruction indefinitely. And there are many who are not aware of the prejudice beliefs they are attatched to, but the very fact that they are unable to see the error of their ways should make them obsolete as human beings. Anyone who looks down on one for what they consider to be imperfections simply because a book told them so deserves to be removed from public and isolated.

But wouldn't your life feel empty without having such idiots to compare yourself to?
Honestly, there's nothing more uplifting than the sense of superiority one gains from the folly of others.
Like I said before, Utopians like yourself seem to grieve over every little injustice. Just enjoy the diversity of the world, enjoy their pitiful, meaningless existence.

This post has been edited by Typhus on Sunday, May 6 2012, 22:14

[HydraulicWaRiOr]

QUOTE (Typhus @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 22:12)

QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 22:09) It's entirely justified. The very fact that there are Christians who even despise each other for a small variety of little difference in the area of belief should say that the destruction of the religion should at least be considered as a radical solution to the problem. The bible is an anti-semitic, racist, homophobic atrocity that deserves it's destruction indefinitely. And there are many who are not aware of the prejudice beliefs they are attatched to, but the very fact that they are unable to see the error of their ways should make them obsolete as human beings. Anyone who looks down on one for what they consider to be imperfections simply because a book told them so deserves to be removed from public and isolated. But wouldn't your life feel empty without having such idiots to compare yourself to? Honestly, there's nothing more uplifting than the sense of superiority one gains from the folly of others. Like I said before, Utopians like yourself seem to grieve over every little injustice. Just enjoy the diversity of the world, enjoy their pitiful, meaningless existence.

I have enough fun having Sikh, Muslim, and Jewish friends. I tire of wallowing around the idiocracy that is Christianity. According to the bible, anyone who isn't Christian qualifies for their destruction. Mostly Athiests like myself. According to the bible, Blasphemy is unforgivable, so I see no reason why I should care for the persecution of any Christian, because he himself will only continue to criticise those others for being raised differently, so I don't understand why that itself doesn't justify the destruction of Christianity. Christianity has pushed itself through to existence by any means necessary, whether it be genocide, imprisonment, or threats, so I don't quite understand why it shouldn't go out the same way. What does it say in the bible? An eye for an eye?

[Supreme]

[Vladislav of Kronstadt]

QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 22:43)

QUOTE (Typhus @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 22:12) QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 22:09) It's entirely justified. The very fact that there are Christians who even despise each other for a small variety of little difference in the area of belief should say that the destruction of the religion should at least be considered as a radical solution to the problem. The bible is an anti-semitic, racist, homophobic atrocity that deserves it's destruction indefinitely. And there are many who are not aware of the prejudice beliefs they are attatched to, but the very fact that they are unable to see the error of their ways should make them obsolete as human beings. Anyone who looks down on one for what they consider to be imperfections simply because a book told them so deserves to be removed from public and isolated. But wouldn't your life feel empty without having such idiots to compare yourself to? Honestly, there's nothing more uplifting than the sense of superiority one gains from the folly of others. Like I said before, Utopians like yourself seem to grieve over every little injustice. Just enjoy the diversity of the world, enjoy their pitiful, meaningless existence. I have enough fun having Sikh, Muslim, and Jewish friends. I tire of wallowing around the idiocracy that is Christianity. According to the bible, anyone who isn't Christian qualifies for their destruction. Mostly Athiests like myself. According to the bible, Blasphemy is unforgivable, so I see no reason why I should care for the persecution of any Christian, because he himself will only continue to criticise those others for being raised differently, so I don't understand why that itself doesn't justify the destruction of Christianity. Christianity has pushed itself through to existence by any means necessary, whether it be genocide, imprisonment, or threats, so I don't quite understand why it shouldn't go out the same way. What does it say in the bible? An eye for an eye? [Supreme]

If I would meet you, become good friends, and after a long period of time, I would tell you I am a christian, would you abandon me ?


Would you forget the good times we had , just judging by my beliefs ? Take note, I will not judge you for being a atheist.

[Tyler]

QUOTE

What does it say in the bible? An eye for an eye?

It also says "..render unto Caesar.." Can you imagine glorious, quotable phrases like that being burned for the sake your personal satisfaction?

QUOTE

According to the bible, anyone who isn't Christian qualifies for their destruction.

Why do you have such an immense hard-on for Christianity? You realize Islam draws from the same Abrahamic texts, and institutes similar laws according to blasphemers and nonbelievers, right? They even have a special sub-type dedicated to the unconverted Muslims they may come across (it's not a pretty fate for that lot).

QUOTE

Christianity has pushed itself through to existence by any means necessary, whether it be genocide, imprisonment, or threats, so I don't quite understand why it shouldn't go out the same way.

Because that's extremely barbaric and asinine. Not to mention a fallacy. The way in which something is formed is not exclusive to which the way that same thing must dissipate, especially in cultural or social concepts.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 23:43)

According to the bible, anyone who isn't Christian qualifies for their destruction.

According to the bible (both Christian and Jewish), God permitted Satan to torture Job as part of an sadistic wager. You can't take scripture literally without coming across as a massive idiot. And as for clauses celebrating the destruction of other religions, it's quite obvious you've never read either the Torah or Koran. Remember, the early Israelites practically revel in the destruction and genocide of 200,000 Assyrians at the behest of God, and literal interpretations of the Koran are responsible for Salaffi Takfirism which actively celebrates and idolises one committing murder or even suicide for the purpose of killing unbelievers.

[HydraulicWaRiOr]

QUOTE (Vladislav of Kronstadt @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 22:50)

If I would meet you, become good friends, and after a long period of time, I would tell you I am a christian, would you abandon me? Would you forget the good times we had, just judging by my beliefs?Take note, I will not judge you for being a atheist.

I would probably shun you, let alone try as hard as I could to refrain from removing you from existence.

QUOTE (sivispacem)

Remember, the early Israelites practically revel in the destruction and genocide of 200,000 Assyrians at the behest of God, and literal interpretations of the Koran are responsible for Salaffi Takfirism which actively celebrates and idolises one committing murder or even suicide for the purpose of killing unbelievers.

That predates civilized culture. The whole of Jewish people showcases no severe disapproval of anything other than anti-semitism and hasn't ever during A.D. However, Christianity has encouraged the complete eradication of several things within the last 100 years, which stumps anything any other religion has ever done.

[Supreme]