> Let's not even get into the fact that most religions are covered in blood throughout history.
It's interesting how commonly non-theist's facts are expressed in conveniently ambiguous figures of speech when it is convenient, but when something similar is done in religious scripture it is considered a big no no.
Regarding "most religions are covered in blood".....what does this mean?
Does it mean that all religious scriptures have blood on their pages?
Does it mean that every single "member" (according to some unstated categorization algorithm) of every single religion across time was "covered in blood" (a phrase for which we we lack a definition)? Or, maybe only some members (which would then require a universally agreed upon cutoff point)?
Or, something else entirely?
And then if we were being thorough, we may find it interesting to compare the frequency of this phenomenon in other, non-religious forms of human collectives, lest our comments are misinformative (a big no non these days, at least sometimes)....but then, would that be in violation of the "Whataboutism" rule, the origin and validity of which seems rather unclear?
It's interesting how commonly non-theist's facts are expressed in conveniently ambiguous figures of speech when it is convenient, but when something similar is done in religious scripture it is considered a big no no.