Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

13233353738196

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    God commanded that these women be taken in marriage and that sexual relations ensue.
    No He didn't.
    Deuteronomy is ascribed to Mosses and most probably was texts collected at the time of Joshua. Its not Gods tablets of stone or the Voice of God. It the laws of the tribes of Israel.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    Why would you assume that only people on here know more about the old testament than on other forums ? Some may some, may not.

    For the same reason that I assume that the regular posters on the Cricket forum will be more likely to know about the fielding restrictions during a 20/20 Batting Powerplay than will the regular posters on the LGBT Forum.

    It's hardly rocket science. The posters on particular fora frequent those same fora because they have an interest in, and therefore tend to have more knowledge on, the subject matter.

    It is lunacy to suggest that if posters in the appropriate forum don't find your arguments convincing then you can issue a challenge for them to meet you in an entirely different forum.
    Look PDN , it is not about proving anything one way or the other, it is about interpretation.
    Which is why I've insisted all allong that there are two plausible interpretations - but you and a few atheists seem determined to prove that the only correct interpretation is the one that suits you.
    God commanded that these women be taken in marriage and that sexual relations ensue.

    You can believe that this is all by consent and not forced consent, and that what happened with Galileo when he recanted or Moriscos abjured their faith, or Tosca bowed to Scarpia, were all examples of consent. But in the real world people do not acept an either/or choice as consent .

    Judging by the amount of red herrings you're raising there, I'm thinking you're angling to take this to the Fishing Forum (see what I did there).
    Now unless you are prepared to accept the challenge of putting the question on another forum I am done with you.

    Ok, let's take it to the Cricket Forum, but I still think you'll be on a sticky wicket. I'll let you start the thread. In order to slip it past the Cricket Mods I suggest you entitle the thread - "Bowling a Maiden Over".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Do we need spin doctors to tell us how to apply it to our lives. No.

    Just as long as you don't confuse the professional theologians thoughout history and in the present who have studied the scirptures for their entire lives with said "spin doctors".


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    For the same reason that I assume that the regular posters on the Cricket forum will be more likely to know about the fielding restrictions during a 20/20 Batting Powerplay than will the regular posters on the LGBT Forum.

    It's hardly rocket science. The posters on particular fora frequent those same fora because they have an interest in, and therefore tend to have more knowledge on, the subject matter.

    It is lunacy to suggest that if posters in the appropriate forum don't find your arguments convincing then you can issue a challenge for them to meet you in an entirely different forum.


    Which is why I've insisted all allong that there are two plausible interpretations - but you and a few atheists seem determined to prove that the only correct interpretation is the one that suits you.



    Judging by the amount of red herrings you're raising there, I'm thinking you're angling to take this to the Fishing Forum (see what I did there).


    Ok, let's take it to the Cricket Forum, but I still think you'll be on a sticky wicket. I'll let you start the thread. In order to slip it past the Cricket Mods I suggest you entitle the thread - "Bowling a Maiden Over".

    Just more bull&^t waffle and trivialising, you are a disgrace as a moderator


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    Just more bull&^t waffle and trivialising, you are a disgrace as a moderator

    Oh marien, marien! You need to learn to read posts in the 'spirit' in which they were written. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    Oh marien, marien! You need to learn to read posts in the 'spirit' in which they were written. :)

    well as you have The Holy Spirit in your corner whats the point


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    Why would you assume that only people on here know more about the old testament than on other forums ? Some may some, may not.

    Why would you assume "argument from ignorance " is proof of anything?
    It is a fallacy. "We just don't know whether X is true or not " is not proof that X is true!"
    Look PDN , it is not about proving anything one way or the other, it is about interpretation.

    Look marienbad it not about "this is just my opinion and that makes my opinion about UFO's/ unicorns/the Bible" equal to anyone else!

    If you make a claim about UFOs Unicorns or The Bible then it IS for you to support that claim!
    God commanded that these women be taken in marriage and that sexual relations ensue.

    No he didn't even do that!
    And "I like what I get" isn't the same as "I get what I like
    You can believe that this is all by consent and not forced consent,

    forced consent is NOT consent!
    and that what happened with Galileo when he recanted or Moriscos abjured their faith, or Tosca bowed to Scarpia, were all examples of consent.

    Galileo was wrong according to the knowledge at the time that he had ! His dialogue on two worlds was a false dichotomy. He didnt mention the Tychonic system! And he knew about it. But it is a different issue.
    That is all it comes down to and all the rest on either side is just smoke and mirrors.

    No it does not! If you claim "God commanded rape" THE BURDEN IS ON YOU to support the claim with evidence.
    Now unless you are prepared to accept the challenge of putting the question on another forum I am done with you.

    I.e. you can't support your claim so you resort to argument from ignorance which is just compounding fallacies.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    Just more bull&^t waffle and trivialising, you are a disgrace as a moderator

    Look up "ad hominem" while you are looking up the other fallacies will you.
    Oh and Mr Pudding -who thanked this post- do you also consider the moderation a disgrace?

    I have had plenmty of run ins and disagreements with PDN and other mods all of which I'm happy to point out when and where bias exists. But I don't doubt their bone fides and that they actually do their job trying their best to be fair and level handed.

    The idea that "if i cant win it is because of so much bias on your part that any other forum would reject" is preposterous.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Just as long as you don't confuse the professional theologians thoughout history and in the present who have studied the scirptures for their entire lives with said "spin doctors".

    No I was referencing Mariens reference to catholic use of bibles.
    Remember when owning a bible was indicative of being protestant ?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    No I was referencing Mariens reference to catholic use of bibles.
    Remember when owning a bible was indicative of being protestant ?
    Indeed she once made all sorts of conjectures and a big song and dance about me for using a quote from Douay–Rheims Bible.
    We can argue all night about Coverdale, Wyclif or Tyndell and King James "onlyists" so I trey to avoid sticking to any one English translation. I also have studied Latin and have a greek Interlinear translation. I have also used the Watchtower New World Translation when discussing with JW's.
    Catholics don't center in on the written Biblical word, yet they have a huge tradition of scholars to which they can refer.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    ISAW wrote: »
    Indeed she once made all sorts of conjectures and a big song and dance about me for using a quote from Douay–Rheims Bible.

    Actually I'm pretty sure that was Patrica McKay. But we are off topic. :)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    Actually I'm pretty sure that was Patrica McKay. But we are off topic. :)

    I stand corrected and apologise to marian if that is true and if she found it in any way hurtful that one might believe something that turns out to be factually incorrect. I'd hope she would think the same of the Israelite soldiers should she be wrong about them raping women.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    ISAW wrote: »
    I stand corrected and apologise to marian if that is true and if she found it in any way hurtful that one might believe something that turns out to be factually incorrect. I'd hope she would think the same of the Israelite soldiers should she be wrong about them raping women.

    Since they've been dead for over 3000 years, they're probably not that bothered. ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    No I was referencing Mariens reference to catholic use of bibles.
    Remember when owning a bible was indicative of being protestant ?

    From personal experience, I don't recall any such thing, there was always a Bible in my parents home - I didn't particularly pay it much heed though for a long time.

    St. Jerome a Doctor of the Church once wrote that ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of Christ. I think he was bang on too! From a personal viewpoint, I do believe that it's important to read Scripture and to appeal to those who have studied it too and listen, people spend many many years, in particular Priests etc. studying historical context and debating, discussing consensus, they still do.

    Catholics hear Scripture both old and new Testament, the Gospels etc. every day at mass, it runs in cycles. Perhaps with the onset of widespread literacy, it became more popular to own your own though Tommy. I think Irish Catholics may have been slightly behind our Protestants brothers and sisters in Christ in this regard. Where there's a will there is a way though..


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    Since they've been dead for over 3000 years, they're probably not that bothered
    but the passage of time would not make two wrongs into a right except perhaps to a relativist.
    Mind you there might well be some relativists like Zombrex about to tell you ( in spite of their lack of biblical knowledge ) that when people get richer and/or get more education they become more atheistic the quazi-facist "religion is for poor ignorant people " (which to me also seems unsupported by available evidence).


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    ISAW wrote: »
    but the passage of time would not make two wrongs into a right except perhaps to a relativist.
    Mind you there might well be some relativists like Zombrex about to tell you ( in spite of their lack of biblical knowledge ) that when people get richer and/or get more education they become more atheistic the quazi-facist "religion is for poor ignorant people " (which to me also seems unsupported by available evidence).

    I assume that Zombrex isn't a relativist - at least when it comes to certain things.


  • Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Ciaran0


    When you assume you make an ass out of U and Me. :P


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    but the passage of time would not make two wrongs into a right except perhaps to a relativist.
    Mind you there might well be some relativists like Zombrex about to tell you ( in spite of their lack of biblical knowledge ) that when people get richer and/or get more education they become more atheistic the quazi-facist "religion is for poor ignorant people " (which to me also seems unsupported by available evidence).

    ISAW you seem to be having trouble keeping up with the conversation.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    ISAW you seem to be having trouble keeping up with the conversation.

    Not really. The general point is, to a moralist, if something is morally wrong ( e.g. rape happened ) then it can still be considered wrong today. To a relativist like Zombrex something like rape or child abuse can be considered in a different light depending on the culture of the day. Butthen his raising of "the Bible condones rape" becomes a self defeating argument if one believes one can interpret morals depending on the times. Christians don't believe that however. A similar argument applies to nihilists like you.

    The only think I was adding was to suggest that for example zombrex "pads out" the relativist/ atheist argument with attributing quazi-facist superiority to the atheist position in that atheists are sort of " a cut above the rest" and that whenever a society gets wealthy or more educated there is a tendency to atheism. Apart from being unsupported this is also self defeating because coming from a relativist perspective it is proposing some sort of absolute "natural law" in which education or wealth tend to produce a higher proportion of atheists. I assume the thesis is when everyone gets educated and poverty is eliminated then the atheists will take over the majority? Hasen't happened broadly speaking and whenever atheists ran society with atheism as a central plank they ran it back into the stone age. so much for wealth and education.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    Not really. The general point is, to a moralist, if something is morally wrong ( e.g. rape happened ) then it can still be considered wrong today. To a relativist like Zombrex something like rape or child abuse can be considered in a different light depending on the culture of the day. Butthen his raising of "the Bible condones rape" becomes a self defeating argument if one believes one can interpret morals depending on the times. Christians don't believe that however. A similar argument applies to nihilists like you.

    You are describing normative moral relativism: A position that neither myself nor Zombrex holds.

    After doing some further reading, "rape" is too strong a word for what God condones. But the objectification of women (and on a broader level, the treatment of people in general) condoned by the Israelites in the Bible (and by Jewish extremists in modern Israel) is morally abhorrent if one assumes compassion as a core ingredient of their moral system. Nihilism (and descriptive relativism) don't stop me from saying this, even if such treatment is analysed in the context of history and social customs. Similarly, I think "arranged" marriages in India and Pakistan are morally repulsive, and enable the horrific treatment of women, even though I can understand how economic factors also must be understood in order to get a complete picture.
    The only think I was adding was to suggest that for example zombrex "pads out" the relativist/ atheist argument with attributing quazi-facist superiority to the atheist position in that atheists are sort of " a cut above the rest" and that whenever a society gets wealthy or more educated there is a tendency to atheism. Apart from being unsupported this is also self defeating because coming from a relativist perspective it is proposing some sort of absolute "natural law" in which education or wealth tend to produce a higher proportion of atheists. I assume the thesis is when everyone gets educated and poverty is eliminated then the atheists will take over the majority? Hasen't happened broadly speaking and whenever atheists ran society with atheism as a central plank they ran it back into the stone age. so much for wealth and education.

    It is not supposing a natural law. It is a speculation on socio-economic trends in western societies.

    And as an aside, your assertion that atheism is responsible for atrocities still goes unsupported.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    And as an aside, your assertion that atheism is responsible for atrocities still goes unsupported.
    Yeah but it really needs to stop hanging around with oppressive dictatorships to break the association. Come to think of it, so dose Islam and so did Christianity at one time.
    ISAW;
    (snip) if one believes one can interpret morals depending on the times. Christians don't believe that however. A similar argument applies to nihilists like you.
    But then you spend pages trying to re parse the bible to claim it doesn't contain stuff that isn't morally acceptable now
    whenever atheists ran society with state-ism as a central plank they ran it back into the stone age.
    Fixed that for you!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    You are describing normative moral relativism: A position that neither myself nor Zombrex holds.

    So you speak for him do you?
    If Zombrex is not a moral relativist then let him say so himslef.
    After doing some further reading, "rape" is too strong a word for what God condones.

    So you are speaking for Zombrex on that then are you and saying both ouif you were wrong? Seeing as a relativist or nihilist can never be morally"wrong" by their own definition I use the "logically wrong" = false claim definition of "wrong " here.
    But the objectification of women (and on a broader level, the treatment of people in general) condoned by the Israelites in the Bible (and by Jewish extremists in modern Israel) is morally abhorrent if one assumes compassion as a core ingredient of their moral system.

    Nove try to move from the particular to some vague general claim. Butthe issue hwere is "God ordered rape" Now above you admit you were wrong about that. Butdoes Zombrex? Or do you speak for him?


    And as an aside, your assertion that atheism is responsible for atrocities still goes unsupported.

    Oh I think I have posted plenty of support that regimes with atheism as a central pillar of their philosophy did untold damage to societies. Put it this way. You tell me any criterion for Christianity doing harm and we can apply the same to regimes that insisted "there is no god". Can you do that?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    So you speak for him do you?
    If Zombrex is not a moral relativist then let him say so himslef.

    You are moving from a particular claim to some vague general claim. The specific form of relativism you described in your last post is normative moral relativism. I do not know if Zombrex describes himself as a relativist, but he certainly does not subscribe to normative moral relativism.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75055873&postcount=151
    So you are speaking for Zombrex on that then are you and saying both ouif you were wrong? Seeing as a relativist or nihilist can never be morally"wrong" by their own definition I use the "logically wrong" = false claim definition of "wrong " here.

    Nove try to move from the particular to some vague general claim. Butthe issue hwere is "God ordered rape" Now above you admit you were wrong about that. Butdoes Zombrex? Or do you speak for him?

    I am not speaking for Zombrex. Yes, I now believe the claim is, at the very least, misleading. Instead, they are exploited under a system of "compelled consent" for captives. Similarly, the women of Jabesh Gilead were "compelled" to consent to marriage.
    Oh I think I have posted plenty of support that regimes with atheism as a central pillar of their philosophy did untold damage to societies. Put it this way. You tell me any criterion for Christianity doing harm and we can apply the same to regimes that insisted "there is no god". Can you do that?

    You have not shown any support. Atheistic regimes can be the masks worn by totalitarians and fascists, just as theistic regimes can be. I do not disagree with this. I.e. I agree that harm has been done by regimes that insisted "there is no god", just as harm has been done by regimes that insisted "there is a god" (Incidentally, while such regimes might have been atheistic, they certainly weren't morally relativist).


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    You are moving from a particular claim to some vague general claim. The specific form of relativism you described in your last post is normative moral relativism.

    Dpo you speak for Zombrex when you say he is not a normative moral relativist or anything else?
    I am not speaking for Zombrex.

    Good that is thatoine put to bed for you! Butfor Zombrex we will have to wait and see. It might be a long wait :)
    Yes, I now believe the claim is, at the very least, misleading.

    I admire your honesty and congratulate you for it. Not that you need any "moral support" from the likes of me :) Happy New Year in any case.
    Instead, they are exploited under a system of "compelled consent" for captives. Similarly, the women of Jabesh Gilead were "compelled" to consent to marriage.

    Different argument which I also challenge ( and IU have given my reasons) but the field has been ceded on " God ordered rape" and I thank you for your honesty on that.
    You have not shown any support. Atheistic regimes can be the masks worn by totalitarians and fascists, just as theistic regimes can be.

    Ah so when regimes said "God does not exiost" is central to their regime and killed all religious leadrs and then started rounding up the believers to kill them, atheism had nothing to do with it?
    Funny how the same criterion isnt applied to "religious" leaders isn't it? I mean they weren't doing it for totalism or fascism on no - religion is to blame!
    I do not disagree with this. I.e. I agree that harm has been done by regimes that insisted "there is no god", just as harm has been done by regimes that insisted "there is a god" (Incidentally, while such regimes might have been atheistic, they certainly weren't morally relativist).

    Much much much more done by the atheistic regimes. Huindreds of millions of dead compared to maybe millions of dead.

    In addition what great civilization was built by atheism? What structures management or bui8ldings did they leave us?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    Do you speak for Zombrex when you say he is not a normative moral relativist or anything else?

    Good that is thatoine put to bed for you! Butfor Zombrex we will have to wait and see. It might be a long wait :)

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...&postcount=151
    Ah so when regimes said "God does not exiost" is central to their regime and killed all religious leadrs and then started rounding up the believers to kill them, atheism had nothing to do with it?
    Funny how the same criterion isnt applied to "religious" leaders isn't it? I mean they weren't doing it for totalism or fascism on no - religion is to blame!

    I never said religion is to blame. Religion (distinct from theism) can be an enabler.
    Much much much more done by the atheistic regimes. Huindreds of millions of dead compared to maybe millions of dead.

    In addition what great civilization was built by atheism? What structures management or bui8ldings did they leave us?

    And why are such things due to atheism instead of, say, the economic environment, population densities, advanced weaponries, and global contingencies? Many great civilizations were polytheistic, for example. Would you say their polytheism is responsible for their greatness? And the small handful of atheistic regimes were all adopted by totalitarians and fascists with great capability for destruction.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    What structures management or bui8ldings did they leave us?
    Interesting point from the ziggurats to the cathedrals some kind of belief in God or gods seems to exist.
    Non belief just gives utilitarian shopping centers and Brutalist architecture.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Morbert wrote: »
    And why are such things due to atheism instead of, say, the economic environment, population densities, advanced weaponries, and global contingencies? Many great civilizations were polytheistic, for example. Would you say their polytheism is responsible for their greatness? And the small handful of atheistic regimes were all adopted by totalitarians and fascists with great capability for destruction.

    I think there are humans who are bad examples of humanity, and give in far too much to their own idealism and worldview at the expense of being living examples of the 'community' of humans living on the planet, despite their Christianity, Atheism, Judaism, etc. etc. etc.

    There are certainly many examples of bad Christians - I would set this aside to the message of Christianity, which I think (obviously) is a force for goodness, humility and care for fellow man in the world. Most Western nations were built on Christian foundations. Do I think atheists are bad people, certainly not! However, I think it depends on what kind of spin off worldviews get attached as a side dish to any kind of belief. Imo, fundamentalism (even Atheist fundamentalists- which DO exist) at the expense of others is bad for humanity.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »

    The page you requested does not exist on the server.
    And why are such things due to atheism instead of, say, the economic environment, population densities, advanced weaponries, and global contingencies?

    That cop out would not apply to any christian regimes would it?
    Many great civilizations were polytheistic, for example.

    I note the "theistic" there without "a" before it? i.e. they believed in something.
    Would you say their polytheism is responsible for their greatness?
    I would say it is only more evidence for theism as opposed to atheism.
    Would you say it isn't?
    And the small handful of atheistic regimes were all adopted by totalitarians and fascists with great capability for destruction.

    Nice try at the cop out. so the small not even a handful of christian regimes who led to the death of people are regarded as tarring Christianity with the "evil regime" brush but the ENTIRE ( it isnt a "small handful" or sample it is every single atheistic regime) atheistic lot are to be excused for hundreds of millions of deaths?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    The page you requested does not exist on the server.

    Fixed

    Neither myself nor Zombrex adopt normative moral relativism, yet you keep on insisting we do.
    That cop out would not apply to any christian regimes would it?

    I note the "theistic" there without "a" before it? i.e. they believed in something.

    I would say it is only more evidence for theism as opposed to atheism.
    Would you say it isn't?

    Nice try at the cop out. so the small not even a handful of christian regimes who led to the death of people are regarded as tarring Christianity with the "evil regime" brush but the ENTIRE ( it isnt a "small handful" or sample it is every single atheistic regime) atheistic lot are to be excused for hundreds of millions of deaths?

    So are you admitting that, when you say "Atheism causes atrocities", you are simply making an absurd statement and using it as a rhetorical device to highlight the absurdity of the claim "Christianity causes atrocities". Or do you actually believe atheism was responsible for atrocities?

    If it is the latter, then that is a cop out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Ciaran0


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Interesting point from the ziggurats to the cathedrals some kind of belief in God or gods seems to exist.
    Non belief just gives utilitarian shopping centers and Brutalist architecture.

    How can one claim that utilitarian shopping centers and Brutalist architecture came about as a result of non belief? Is there some record of which architects built which shopping centres and what their personal beliefs were?

    Yes many of the greatest feats of architecture and most beautiful designs, as well as many of the greatest works of art and music have been created in honour of God. But they were made by humans. It's terrible to think that we're not capable of amazing art by ourselves. We are.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Ciaran0 wrote: »
    How can one claim that utilitarian shopping centers and Brutalist architecture came about as a result of non belief? Is there some record of which architects built which shopping centres and what their personal beliefs were?

    Yes many of the greatest feats of architecture and most beautiful designs, as well as many of the greatest works of art and music have been created in honour of God. But they were made by humans. It's terrible to think that we're not capable of amazing art by ourselves. We are.

    I didn't claim that they came out of non belief, I remarked that without the greater ideal of something other than utility things don't amount to much more than what they aim for. I would never claim that God had a hand in work. That would be a little too interventionist for my liking.
    You are right tho I should have said that.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    Neither myself nor Zombrex adopt normative moral relativism, yet you keep on insisting we do.

    You believe you can make up your own conscience for yourselves and no authority outside of yourself informs your conscience. Or that the whole idea of "good" and "evil" is meaningless.
    So are you admitting that, when you say "Atheism causes atrocities", you are simply making an absurd statement and using it as a rhetorical device to highlight the absurdity of the claim "Christianity causes atrocities". Or do you actually believe atheism was responsible for atrocities?

    Yes to the last question. Regimes with "there is no God" = atheism as a central tenet.

    "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
    -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

    "We must combat religion"
    -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

    “Down with religion and long live atheism;
    the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
    - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

    "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
    - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

    https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#Wolak2004
    #
    # "State atheism is the official promotion of atheism
    # by a government, typically by active suppression of
    # religious freedom and practice."
    ...
    "An atheist, Pol Pot suppressed Cambodia�s Buddhist religion:
    # monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of
    # Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing
    # other religious sentiments were often killed.
    ...
    # About 1.7 million Cambodians, or about 20 percent of the population,
    # were worked, starved, or beaten to death under Pol Pot�s regime."
    # - http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579038/pol_pot.html
    ...
    # "Forty-eight percent of Cambodia's Christians were killed
    # because of their religion."
    ...
    # "the state established atheism as the only scientific truth."
    # - Daniel Peris,
    # "Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless"
    # Cornell University Press 1998 ISBN 9780801434853
    ...

    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/58c9df7a83bdd7e3/075891ef8abd879d#075891ef8abd879d
    I arrived in alt.atheism, observed
    that all the arrogant undergrads who thought they had invented
    freethinking were violently abusive towards ANY religious poster,
    holding them ALL collectively responsible for any act by any one,
    or group, no matter how small and unrepresentative..
    i.e. not just ALL 1.6 Billion Muslims slagged because of 16
    Saudi Al Qaida, but ALL religions.
    ...
    I decided that if they were going to corrupt young minds with this
    vile injustice, I would give them the Bloody History of Atheist
    Tyrannies, and when they accused me of 'attacking atheists'
    because of the actions of a few, explaining, NO, that is what
    YOU do, declaring Christians evil fools because of the Crusades,
    or the Inquisition, or the Borgia Popes, I hold only those
    who COMMITTED those acts responsible, AND (because they always
    avoided the truth and attacked the messenger) THOSE COMPLICIT,
    (like Neo-Nazi apologists for the holocaust), in being apologists
    or deniers of the 60,000,000 killed in atheist regimes.
    As for the first. I am just pointing out if you claim it is absurd how come the same can't be applied to Christianity?

    Nice try at the reverse!:) But you have it backwards. You are the one on the side claiming religion and Christianity is a negative thing and that atheism is a superiour belief system. I am the one who pointed out that you or your side can't claim some thing about atheism is absurd and then not apply the same reasoning to Christianity!


    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/58c9df7a83bdd7e3/075891ef8abd879d#075891ef8abd879d
    When a simpleton abused him, Buddha listened to him in silence,
    but when the man had finished asked him,
    "Son, if a man declined to accept a present offered to him,
    to whom would it belong?"
    The man answered "To him who offered it."
    "My son," Buddha said, "I decline to accept your abuse. Keep it for
    yourself.
    "Among all my patients in the second half of life, that is, over
    thirty-five, there has not been one whose problem in the last
    resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life.
    It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because
    he had lost that which the living religions of every age
    have given their followers, and none of them has really
    been healed who did not regain his religious outlook."

    -Carl G. Jung Modern Man in Search of a Soul
    If it is the latter, then that is a cop out.

    I'm quite happy to apply the same criteria to Christianity as to atheism. Show me all these Christian "slaughter regimes" and we can compare them to the ones that had "ther is no god" as a principle. Furthermore show me all the atheist regimes who did anything usefull for society at all. Or even the non regimes! Even single small groups of atheists who organised and came together as atheists and did something for society based on their atheism! What Vincent De Paul like organisation did they form? what work did they do for the homeless or poor? What artworks did they make? All I see is groups of militant atheists hell bent on having a go at believers and putting them down!

    I have friends who are atheists and who I go out of my way to help. But they don't promote atheism are have it as anything people should subscribe to or society should be run by and they respect and admire priests or believers and don't try to ridicule them. if you are that type of atheist I don't really have a big problem with your philosophy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Ciaran0


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    I didn't claim that they came out of non belief, I remarked that without the greater ideal of something other than utility things don't amount to much more than what they aim for.

    I know what you mean I suppose but certainly not always true. Look at cars for instance. More and more thought is being put into the look and design of cars these days, simply so that they'll look(and maybe sell) better. I have seen some beautiful looking cars, which certainly didn't have a greater ideal or higher purpose to their design. They're beautiful simply for the sake of being beautiful.

    Also I've been in some rather lovely shopping centres too. :P


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    You believe you can make up your own conscience for yourselves and no authority outside of yourself informs your conscience. Or that the whole idea of "good" and "evil" is meaningless.

    We don't believe we can make up our own conscience. But regardless, the above is completely different to what you were accusing us of.
    Yes to the last question. Regimes with "there is no God" = atheism as a central tenet.

    "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
    -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

    "We must combat religion"
    -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

    “Down with religion and long live atheism;
    the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
    - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

    "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
    - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

    https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source

    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/58c9df7a83bdd7e3/075891ef8abd879d#075891ef8abd879d

    And it is a cop out to suggest that, since atheism was a core tenet, atheism was responsible. Even the smallest investigation into such atrocities reveals that state-sponsored atheism is clearly a symptom (not a cause) of such regimes. Totalitarianism requires complete devotion to the state. Controlling religion, either through a small state church, or the absence of any church at all, keeps the masses subordinate. The state adopts the role of religion. It is this fanaticism, coupled with economic and reform pressures in areas of high-population density, that sparks such atrocities. Look at China today. Do you really believe their human rights abuses were caused by atheism as opposed to, say, a nervous Oligarch that emerged from a country disfigured by war crimes.
    Nice try at the reverse!:) But you have it backwards. You are the one on the side claiming religion and Christianity is a negative thing and that atheism is a superiour belief system. I am the one who pointed out that you or your side can't claim some thing about atheism is absurd and then not apply the same reasoning to Christianity!

    This is complete and utter nonsense, and has nothing to do with what I said. There are no "sides". I believe atheism is superior insofar as I believe atheism is true and theism is false. It goes without saying that, even if what you say about atheism and atrocities were true, that would simply mean societies need some "supernaturally approved" collective belief in the common good, and would not mean atheism is false.
    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/58c9df7a83bdd7e3/075891ef8abd879d#075891ef8abd879d

    I'm quite happy to apply the same criteria to Christianity as to atheism. Show me all these Christian "slaughter regimes" and we can compare them to the ones that had "ther is no god" as a principle. Furthermore show me all the atheist regimes who did anything usefull for society at all. Or even the non regimes! Even single small groups of atheists who organised and came together as atheists and did something for society based on their atheism! What Vincent De Paul like organisation did they form? what work did they do for the homeless or poor? What artworks did they make? All I see is groups of militant atheists hell bent on having a go at believers and putting them down!

    I have friends who are atheists and who I go out of my way to help. But they don't promote atheism are have it as anything people should subscribe to or society should be run by and they respect and admire priests or believers and don't try to ridicule them. if you are that type of atheist I don't really have a big problem with your philosophy.

    Leopold II of Belgium slaughtered millions. European settlers slaughtered hundreds of millions of native Americans. The Lord's Army of Africa reguraly commits atrocities. Islam has a long history of atrocities. Japan, under state Shintoism, murdered millions and committed some of the most horrendous and Barbaric war crimes in the history of mankind.

    As for atheism inspiring great works. Atheism is as inspiring as jam making. It does not birth civilizations. It is a statement about the existence of God. *shrug*

    But even with that said, it certainly doesn't hinder our humanity. The majority of the scientific community are atheists, and it doesn't stop them from researching everything from cancer prevention to immunology, to climate preservation, to the fundamental behaviour and patterns of the universe. As for an example of atheists forming charities. Foundations beyond belief is an obvious example, along with collective efforts among the atheist community in donating money to organizations like Doctors without Borders, and the American Cancer Society.

    So I will promote atheism, and by that I mean I will continue to argue that it is true.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Ciaran0 wrote: »
    I know what you mean I suppose but certainly not always true. Look at cars for instance. More and more thought is being put into the look and design of cars these days, simply so that they'll look(and maybe sell) better. I have seen some beautiful looking cars, which certainly didn't have a greater ideal or higher purpose to their design. They're beautiful simply for the sake of being beautiful.

    Also I've been in some rather lovely shopping centres too. :P

    This is a complete tangent but a good one :)
    I have never seen an inspiring shopping center but I suppose that isn't their purpose, nonetheless I aways feel most uncomfortable in ones designed to increase volume of sales. Might be my anti consumerist bias.
    As to cars, well when some thing is designed to unite form and function you get Aga's, Zippos, Bugatti EB 16.4 Veyron, objects that are intrinsically attractive. It's called 'getting it right'
    I think thats as interventionist a God as I'll accept ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    .....and the American Cancer Society.
    Says here that they turned down funding on the grounds of the donor being atheist;
    Declines donations from atheist organization

    The American Cancer Society turned down participation from the Foundation Beyond Belief in its Relay For Life "National Team" program,


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    We don't believe we can make up our own conscience. But regardless, the above is completely different to what you were accusing us of.

    Not really. Relaitivists say it is all up to themselves. People who are not moral relativists acknowledge that there are absolute standards outside of themselves.
    And it is a cop out to suggest that, since atheism was a core tenet, atheism was responsible. Even the smallest investigation into such atrocities reveals that state-sponsored atheism is clearly a symptom (not a cause) of such regimes. Totalitarianism requires complete devotion to the state. Controlling religion, either through a small state church, or the absence of any church at all, keeps the masses subordinate.

    Nonsense! People believe or they don't! You can't claim the State is the deciding factor in whether people believe or not.
    The state adopts the role of religion. It is this fanaticism, coupled with economic and reform pressures in areas of high-population density, that sparks such atrocities.

    Yep! the old atheist cop out. "It isn't atheism it is belief and religion that causes this"
    People with belief in Christianity professing their regime to be rules by Christianity . 2000 years maybe a million dead
    People professing atheism as a core belief for society hundreds of millions of dead in a couple of centuries.

    "it isn'tatheism it is just systems where people all profees to believe in atheism as a core belief "
    Nonsense!
    Look at China today. Do you really believe their human rights abuses were caused by atheism as opposed to, say, a nervous Oligarch that emerged from a country disfigured by war crimes.


    Look at China when they had oppression of religion. Where were they then?

    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.agnosticism/msg/b855fbee4e6b18da
    the current communist government in China has reformed it's
    constitution to allow greater religious freedoms (it is a farce
    in Tibet, there the Chinese want to retain political control,
    exploit resources and maintain a buffer state, but that is
    not primarily a religious persecution, they just want political
    dominance and that means reducing the influence of the Dalia Llama.

    (Frankly I think it is one area in which they are crazy, an
    autonomous Tibet could be the Shangri La of spiritual tourist
    destinations and a bustling centre of Buddhist thought
    (after all it's a good fit.. no emphasis on God))

    But the trend is clear, religion is here to stay, even
    in 'Communist' but no longer atheist, China;

    "With the gradual liberalisation that developed with
    Deng Xiaoping's open door reforms, religion was no
    longer proscribed. In 1982, the constitution was
    amended to allow Chinese people considerable freedom
    of religion."

    http://cbbc.org/china_guide/religion.html

    "At the first world Buddhism forum in East China's Zhejiang
    Province last year, the Chinese government acknowledged
    the active role religion plays in building a harmonious society."

    "For example, religious beliefs have helped cut down crime
    to a large extent,"

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-02/07/content_802994.htm

    "religion has been enjoying a resurgence in China over the
    past 20 years, as Communist Party disapproval has eased"

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6337627.stm

    "Religious believers thrice the estimate
    By Wu Jiao (China Daily)

    "A survey has found that the number of religious believers
    is three times bigger than the official estimate.

    The poll of about 4,500 people, conducted by professors Tong
    Shijun and Liu Zhongyu of Shanghai-based East China Normal
    University from 2005 till recently, found that 31.4 percent
    of Chinese aged 16 and above or about 300 million are religious."

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-02/07/content_802994.htm

    Incredible! in just a few short years the new converts from
    atheism In JUST ONE COUNTRY, far outnumber the slow increase
    in tiny atheist numbers in the rest of the WORLD! B^D
    I believe atheism is superior insofar as I believe atheism is true and theism is false.

    And if you ever get into power what will you do with that belief?
    If nothing and you will just shut up about it if in power then why oppress others with it here?

    It goes without saying that, even if what you say about atheism and atrocities were true, that would simply mean societies need some "supernaturally approved" collective belief in the common good, and would not mean atheism is false.

    Fair enough. AS long as you can accept christian people making the decisions for society and can accept no atheistic principles shoulpd be allowed in running a country we can all get along fine and millions wont have to be slaughtered by your lot getting into power.
    Leopold II of Belgium slaughtered millions. European settlers slaughtered hundreds of millions of native Americans. The Lord's Army of Africa reguraly commits atrocities. Islam has a long history of atrocities.

    Islam isn't Christianity is it? As for the others, we have been over them before.
    Japan, under state Shintoism, murdered millions and committed some of the most horrendous and Barbaric war crimes in the history of mankind.

    Not christian1 And Japan is Shinto Buddhist. That would be atheistic. You can't compare shamanism, or emperor worship to Christianity and expect Christians to say they think they are the same!
    As for atheism inspiring great works. Atheism is as inspiring as jam making. It does not birth civilizations. It is a statement about the existence of God. *shrug*

    So thats nothing great from atheism then. Thanks for your hionest answer.
    But even with that said, it certainly doesn't hinder our humanity. The majority of the scientific community are atheists, and it doesn't stop them from researching everything from cancer prevention to immunology, to climate preservation, to the fundamental behaviour and patterns of the universe.
    I was wondering when you might ressurect the "£scientists are atheists" gem. whr doi yo get that one from? By the way ever hears of "argument from authority" ? This "maJOIRITY"
    ( WHICH I DO NOT ACCEPT AS PROVEN AT ALL) some how means atheistic science si "better" or "superiour" does it? What absolute poppycock! "the majority of scientists are atheists " as if science is somehow better for that?
    As for an example of atheists forming charities. Foundations beyond belief is an obvious example, along with collective efforts among the atheist community in donating money to organizations like Doctors without Borders, and the American Cancer Society.

    MSF treat people regardless of race, religion , creed or political affiliation, and that the needs of these people outweigh respect for national borders. Christian groups do the same. 80% of MCF funding comes from Private donors who provide about 80% of the organization's funding, while governmental and corporate donations provide the rest, giving MSF an annual budget of approximately US$400 million. The priovater doners are not all or even 1% atheist. MSF has no atheist agenda.


    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.agnosticism/msg/b855fbee4e6b18da
    you have a real job explaining the free, open, tolerant,
    progressive secular democratic societies have all been built
    and sustained by MAJORITY RELIGIOUS populations.

    Clearly you should reconsider your position as an atheist,
    or stop being a hypocrite and migrate to some atheist utopia..
    ...

    Maybe among atheists, you can't mention last centuries Atheist
    regime Holocausts without them burrowing back in ancient history
    to find a frequently chanted list of crimes by others..

    It's like "Sure we atheists murdered 60,000,00 people but what
    about the 20,000 witches burnt by religion.. don't ask us
    to apologise for mass murder, they did bad stuff too!"
    ...
    The difference is religious societies are NOT ALL dogmatic tyrannies,
    whereas EVERY atheist state was!
    The USA, Australia, European Nations, Canada, Japan, Indonesia et al are
    all Majority Religious nations, but uphold the rule of law, human
    rights, and freedom of thought and belief.. i guess that's why you
    hypocrites choose to live there rather than in an atheist state, eh?
    ...

    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/0b884ddde3b71b15?dmode=source
    > Prof. R.J. Berry , FRS
    > Prof. Sir Brian Heap FRS
    > Professor Sir Martin Evans FRS
    > Prof. Bob White, FRS, FGS
    > Prof. Sir John Houghton FRS
    > Prof. Colin Humphreys
    > Revd Dr John Polkinghorne KBE FRS
    > Prof. Eric Priest FRS

    > to only name people active in the 21 century, and who take their
    > belief serious enough to have published about it

    "Then we shall be able to take part in the discussion
    of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist.
    If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph
    of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."
    - Stephen Hawking

    "As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner
    by which the All-Wise God perceives and understands all things."
    - Sir Isaac Newton 1642-1727

    "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
    with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use
    and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can obtain by
    them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical
    matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or
    necessary demonstrations."

    - Galileo Galilei 1615.

    Each of these brilliant men has something profound to say
    about God, something which clearly is of interest to the vast
    bulk of modern mankind, who remain overwhelmingly open
    to the concept of God, and spiritual evolution.. and which falls
    on the DEAF ears and BLIND eyes of the ignorant and unreasoning
    hate filled anti-theists, Virgil the post forging cyberstalker and Seon
    the dimwitted windsock who plays monkey to Virgil's Organ-grinder!

    The glory and greatness of the Almighty God are marvellously discerned
    in all His works and divinely read in the open book of heaven

    - Galileo Galilei 1564-1642


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    Not really. Relaitivists say it is all up to themselves. People who are not moral relativists acknowledge that there are absolute standards outside of themselves.

    Which is completely different to what you were accusing us of.
    Nonsense! People believe or they don't! You can't claim the State is the deciding factor in whether people believe or not.

    I can't believe you are even arguing against this. Do you seriously believe atheism was enforced for reasons other than state control? Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state.
    Yep! the old atheist cop out. "It isn't atheism it is belief and religion that causes this"
    People with belief in Christianity professing their regime to be rules by Christianity . 2000 years maybe a million dead
    People professing atheism as a core belief for society hundreds of millions of dead in a couple of centuries.

    "it isn'tatheism it is just systems where people all profees to believe in atheism as a core belief "
    Nonsense!

    I point out that atrocities can only be understood if we look at all factors and contingencies, and you call this a cop-out? That makes no sense, and will not stop me from responding to your naive interpretations of history.

    Firstly, "atheist" regimes existed in areas of high population densities. Early Christianity could not have killed millions because millions did not exist, nor did the capacity to kill them.

    Secondly, Christians have killed countless millions. The United States killed 200-300 million native Americans over the past 2 centuries. Leopold of Belgium killed over 20 million in the Congo. France and Germany committed atrocities in Africa.
    Look at China when they had oppression of religion. Where were they then?

    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.agnosticism/msg/b855fbee4e6b18da

    You are ignoring things that I say. Look at the Oligarch responsible for oppressing religion.
    And if you ever get into power what will you do with that belief?
    If nothing and you will just shut up about it if in power then why oppress others with it here?

    Seriously? I'm "oppressing" others with it here?
    Fair enough. AS long as you can accept christian people making the decisions for society and can accept no atheistic principles shoulpd be allowed in running a country we can all get along fine and millions wont have to be slaughtered by your lot getting into power.

    Atheism has no principles.

    I will promote humanist principles, and have no issue with Christian politicians unless they try and push exclusively Christian beliefs into law.
    Islam isn't Christianity is it? As for the others, we have been over them before.

    So now you are saying it's not atheism that causes atrocities, but instead "non-Christianity"?
    Not christian1 And Japan is Shinto Buddhist. That would be atheistic. You can't compare shamanism, or emperor worship to Christianity and expect Christians to say they think they are the same!

    Shintoism is not atheistic. And I can certainly compare it to theism. Unless now you have no interest in singling out atheism and want to claim that only "non-Christianity" causes atrocities.
    So thats nothing great from atheism then. Thanks for your hionest answer.

    Truth is a great thing. If atheism is true, then it is great by itself.
    I was wondering when you might ressurect the "£scientists are atheists" gem. whr doi yo get that one from? By the way ever hears of "argument from authority" ? This "maJOIRITY"
    ( WHICH I DO NOT ACCEPT AS PROVEN AT ALL) some how means atheistic science si "better" or "superiour" does it? What absolute poppycock! "the majority of scientists are atheists " as if science is somehow better for that?

    This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. So it will be dismissed out of hand. I will instead reiterate the fact that the work of scientists refutes your claim that atheists cannot contribute great things to society.
    MSF treat people regardless of race, religion , creed or political affiliation, and that the needs of these people outweigh respect for national borders. Christian groups do the same. 80% of MCF funding comes from Private donors who provide about 80% of the organization's funding, while governmental and corporate donations provide the rest, giving MSF an annual budget of approximately US$400 million. The priovater doners are not all or even 1% atheist. MSF has no atheist agenda.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. So it will be dismissed out of hand. I will instead reiterate the fact that the work of charity groups like Foundations Beyond Belief refutes your claim that atheists cannot contribute great things to society.
    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.agnosticism/msg/b855fbee4e6b18da


    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/0b884ddde3b71b15?dmode=source


    "Then we shall be able to take part in the discussion
    of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist.
    If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph
    of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."
    - Stephen Hawking

    "As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner
    by which the All-Wise God perceives and understands all things."
    - Sir Isaac Newton 1642-1727

    "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
    with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use
    and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can obtain by
    them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical
    matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or
    necessary demonstrations."

    - Galileo Galilei 1615.

    Each of these brilliant men has something profound to say
    about God, something which clearly is of interest to the vast
    bulk of modern mankind, who remain overwhelmingly open
    to the concept of God, and spiritual evolution.. and which falls
    on the DEAF ears and BLIND eyes of the ignorant and unreasoning
    hate filled anti-theists, Virgil the post forging cyberstalker and Seon
    the dimwitted windsock who plays monkey to Virgil's Organ-grinder!

    The glory and greatness of the Almighty God are marvellously discerned
    in all His works and divinely read in the open book of heaven

    - Galileo Galilei 1564-1642

    Do you even check what you are quoting? Stephen Hawking a theist? Even without pointing out the problems with the above, what does it have to do with atheism?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state.


    I assume you will admit God if God exists or if people believe God exists is a higher authority than the State?
    The belief God doesn't exist is called atheism. You agree to that?
    Given what you just stated
    Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state.
    then
    Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no God.
    then
    Totalitarianism only works if people in charge are atheists.
    Firstly, "atheist" regimes existed in areas of high population densities. Early Christianity could not have killed millions because millions did not exist, nor did the capacity to kill them.

    Already dealt with . the "technology argument" and the "population density " argument
    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.agnosticism/browse_thread/thread/48afe334c786a01f
    now you want to
    claim 70,000,000 victims of crimes against humanity by atheist regimes
    is to be ignored because there was so many people for them to kill it's
    somehow acceptable in PERCENTAGE terms... 8^o 8^o
    .. a vile, heartless, inhuman and FALSE claim as it is MASSIVE, even
    in PERCENTAGE terms per capita, per year of atheist rule..
    ...what kind on moral maggot tries to excuse SEVENTY MILLION DEAD like
    this.. pure, pointless, FABRICATION.. not a single jot of evidenc
    ...
    no theocracies DID achieve 1.6 billion
    deaths, even though theists VASTLY outnumber athiests, (i.e. they
    are more numerous, and always have been OVER MILLENNIA.. though I
    am happy to agree with you that the atheist regimes, like you,
    are MORE DENSE!
    ...
    He now accepts the horrific death toll of the atheist regimes, but now
    he wants to pretend that the MASSIVE SLAUGHTER in the USSR, Mao's
    Great Leap Backward and Cultural Devolution, Pol Pot's genocide and
    other atheist tyrannies..is all because of "population density" and
    "the power of technology".
    ...
    Sheer BALDERDASH. THE USA HAS THE MOST POWERFUL MILITARY TECHNOLOGY
    ON EARTH, and it is a majority religious society, but it has never,
    in absolute numbers or in percentage of population, killed the
    equivalent of 40,000,000 people as the atheist regimes, USSR and
    Maoist China, each did!

    Q.E.D.

    China has always had massive population, but only under atheist tyranny
    did it's death toll achieve such record proportions.

    China, the USSR and Cambodia had ALMOST IDENTICAL POPULATION DENSITY and
    TECHNOLOGICAL LEVELS, IMMEDIATELY PRIOR to the atheist regimes being
    imposed on them.. but not the massive death toll.. that only occurred
    ONCE THE ATHEIST TYRANNY WAS IN PLACE!

    And it occurred when free, open, tolerant, and progressive MAJORITY
    RELIGIOUS societies were evolving secular democratic government,
    expanding human rights and civil society, firmly establishing the
    freedom to THINK, BELIEVE and SPEAK as you will, and ..FEEDING THEIR
    PEOPLE... none of which the CATASTROPHICALLY FAILED ATHEIST REGIMES
    COULD MANAGE!

    Your 'population density' and 'technology' arguments are easily
    demolished by observing that BOTH were DIMINISHED under the atheist
    regimes from what they were under previous, better, times!!!
    Secondly, Christians have killed countless millions. The United States killed 200-300 million native Americans over the past 2 centuries. Leopold of Belgium killed over 20 million in the Congo. France and Germany committed atrocities in Africa.

    Countless? then you try to count them?

    Where is you evidence the United States killed 200-300 million native americans?

    200-300 million? LOL.
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Native_Americans_were_killed_by_the_US_government
    Native Americans killed in service for the United States and killed defending their Indian country is listed below in rough estimated numbers. A likely total of 100,000-500,000 Native Americans in the U.S. have died since 1776. The high end would be around a million. Native Americans are the have the highest mortality rate of any U.S. minority because of U.S. action and policy.
    Indians Conflicts & Removals 1776-1973
    (1973) Wounded Knee II - 2
    (1890) Wounded Knee - 178
    (1864) Sand Creek Massacre - 200
    (1862) Dakota War of 1862 - 38 prisoners executed
    (1876) Battle of Little Big Horn - 136 (high estimate)
    (1838) Cherokee Removal - 4,000
    (1817-58) Seminole Wars I,II, & III - 1475 (likely high as 10,000)
    (1831) Choctaw Removal - 2,500
    (1812) Red Stick War of the Muscogee or Creek- 3,000
    (1791) Battle of the Wabash - 21
    (1830) Indian Removal Act

    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Native_Americans_were_killed_by_the_US_government#ixzz1iQiv5Bb2

    [/quote]

    While the US kiling of native americans is woefull ther is no way by any stretch 200-300 million native americans were killed on the orders of the Us givernment that organised such a Holocaust!

    Various statistics have been developed concerning the devastation of the American Indian Wars on the peoples involved. One notable study by Gregory Michno used records dealing with figures "as a direct result of" engagements and concluded that "of the 21,586 total casualties tabulated in this survey, military personnel and civilians accounted for 6,596 (31%), while Indian casualties totaled about 14,990 (69%)." for the period of 1850–90.

    n God, Greed, and Genocide: The Holocaust Through the Centuries, Grenke quotes Chalk and Jonassohn with regards to the Cherokee Trail of Tears that "an act like the Cherokee deportation would almost certainly be considered an act of genocide today".[49] The Indian Removal Act of 1830 led to the Trail of Tears. About 17,000 Cherokees — along with approximately 2,000 black slaves owned by Cherokees — were removed from their homes.[50] The number of people who died as a result of the Trail of Tears has been variously estimated. American doctor and missionary Elizur Butler, who made the journey with one party, estimated 4,000 deaths.[51]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#United_States_of_America

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65963003&postcount=490
    I went through Rummel's entire list! I did it some time ago on usenet! I can go through it again here. IT is about a thousand lines long. I picked out those democides particularly associated with Christianity.

    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP2.HTM
    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB2.1A.GIF
    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB2.1B.GIF
    750 lines
    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIF
    220 lines more.

    I didn't hide the sources! Feel free to quote for any line

    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM

    You will have some problems terming any BC dated regimes as "Christian"
    I have already dealt with the roman empire and rummel gives figures in Chapter 2

    "the state established atheism as the only scientific truth."
    - Daniel Peris,
    "Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless"
    Cornell University Press 1998 ISBN 9780801434853

    The facts of State atheism are well documented, all committed by
    Atheist leaders of a totalitarian tyranny in which PARTY MEMBERS were
    all ATHEISTS.

    If Christianity as a policy led directly to deaths as atheists persecuting believers did!

    Pol Pot and Stalin and Mao surpressed religion = killed adherents to spread a policy of the state being atheistic and to spread atheism. It was NOT A CASE OF cHINA TAKING OVER TIBET AND just happening to bring disease. China specifically set out to destroy religion there! Christians did NOT set out to bring disease to America as part of a plan to introduce religion!

    i dint bother showing links to christians being crucified. I posted links to the policy doccuments and letters from Lenin Stalin etc. Pogronms of Jews etc. I posted references to Pol Pot forcing Muslims to eat pork and slaughtering monks! and you want people to believe he slaughterhd priests and monks because of an "economic plan" or something ? It was done BECAUSE they were Jews or Priests!

    He opposed religion and promoted atheism! that is what we are looking at! The stats show surpression of religion. Look Im not claiming that religious regimes who killed people were doing it for political reasons. clearly I can claim they were ouot for themselves and not supporting christianity. The point is that the held positions of seniority on the church and over saw or ordered the death of people - just as stalin did! Whether they personally did this because they were atheist or not is aside from the policy of state religion or state atheism. Maybe some evil Popes were atheist? the point is that the Church they were over perpetrated terrible things.


    By erols I mean Matthew White
    http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1900.htm

    While they "trust in God" the US government are not led by a religion. The constitution separates religion and government. It is a secular state. The famines were not caused to spread Christianity!

    Secular oir Christian countries don't as a rule persecute non Christians . They have done it in history but the occurrences are minor in comparison to atheistic states. And the ones that did do it contributed in other ways. What did Stalin and Mao give us? State atheism The great leap backward cultural devolution and death.

    Atheism has no principles.

    Couldn't have put it better myself.
    I will promote humanist principles, and have no issue with Christian politicians unless they try and push exclusively Christian beliefs into law.

    Humanist being = atheist principles? Which above apparently don't exist?
    When Christians were in control some people from time to time did suffer yes. Nothing in comparison to when atheists were in control with their "humanist" principles of "there is no God"

    So now you are saying it's not atheism that causes atrocities, but instead "non-Christianity"?

    Clearly some christian regimes caused death. But atheistic ones make them look vanishingly small in comparison!
    Shintoism is not atheistic. And I can certainly compare it to theism. Unless now you have no interest in singling out atheism and want to claim that only "non-Christianity" causes atrocities.

    There are only 3 million Shinto adherents in the world.Assuming that all of them are Japanese living in Japan, that only comprises 2% of the population. So no, Shinto is not the predominant religion in Japan. A large percentage of Japanese are both Buddhist and atheist. Atheist/agnostic/no-religion comprises 64-65% of the population in Japan.
    http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

    Total country
    population (2004) 127,333,000
    Number of Atheists/
    Agnostics
    Nonbelievers in God
    (minimum - maximum) 81,493,120 - 82,766,450
    Source:
    Zuckerman, Phil. "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns", chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (2005).

    Of course I add in agnostic to atheist here. Suffice it to say they are not "believers".

    Truth is a great thing. If atheism is true, then it is great by itself.

    The Holocaust and atheistic Stalinist and Maoist genocides were true. do you also think that they were great things?

    I will instead reiterate the fact that the work of scientists refutes your claim that atheists cannot contribute great things to society.

    I never claimed every atheist is useless. all i pointed out is whenever atheists come together to proclaim atheism like religious people do top proclaim belief then nothing usefull ever came of it and usually only death resulted in them trying to spread their atheism.
    the work of charity groups like Foundations Beyond Belief refutes your claim that atheists cannot contribute great things to society.

    It isn't an atheist group promoting atheism!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW Are you opposed to a secular constitution then ?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    ISAW Are you opposed to a secular constitution then ?

    An interesting question. Philosophically speaking, many questions actually turn on what is meant by the question . what for example is a "secular" constitution?
    If you read my comments on the plains by the atheist education Minister Quinn to remove religious institutions form 50% of schools for starters my views might be clearer.

    I support the Irish constitution if that is what you mean. The Irish Supreme courts under that constitution interpret the constitution. They have found that the people are paramount in a Republic. In Ireland the constitution grants rights to mothers, to families and for freedom of religion and belief ( which also includes atheism I would reckon). To that end the constitution does not ban religion in schools. Instead it supports the right to an "ethos" of a school by funding the salaries of the teachers . If 30 Muslims come together and want a schools the State will fund them. Same if 30 atheists want a school. But people accept that religious ethos schools give the best of education. Even the Atheist Minister went to one and sent his own children to several of them.

    If that is what you mean by "secular constitution" I support it.

    I also don't follow the fascist "blueshirt" idea of people being better than other sorts of people . I don't see any reason why ( other than some obvious examples such a citizens or children being able to vote or have bank accounts) the constitution should differenciate between people. Catholics should not have more rights then atheists or blacks have more rights than Jews. In Ireland they don't. If that is a "secular constitution" then yes I am all for it. I don't like to single out groups like priests, blacks, homosexuals etc. and attack them. Again with the obvious exceptions such as those groups putting themselves up as better than others or demanding a superior position or casting disparaging remarks on others. It is rare you will witness me going to an atheist forum to tell atheists how bitter they are unless of course it is in defence of some attack they already made on how stupid believers are for example. Likewise I have debated Islam, holocaust revision etc. In other fora i have supported Islamic people and revisionist history ( although not strict Holocaust revision) . Nothing wrong with revision if some facts actually support it. I fact I would consider myself a revisionist of "pedophile priests" mythology.
    If that is "secular" then I'm all for it.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wonderfull how people say Christians ccommitted genocide so chalk that up to christianity butnot "Atheistic regimes with atheism as a central pillar committed genocide butthat has nothing to do with atheism"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II_of_Belgium#Private_colonialism
    Leopold fervently believed that overseas colonies were the key to a country's greatness, and he worked tirelessly to acquire colonial territory for Belgium. Neither the Belgian people nor the Belgian government was interested, however, and Leopold eventually began trying to acquire a colony in his private capacity as an ordinary citizen. The Belgian government lent him money for this venture.

    I fail to see where Leopold was acting with "Christianity" as a central tenet or under instructions from the Pope or Archbishop of Cantebury.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65963071&postcount=492
    =Fasgnadh on Only true Scotsman

    An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to
    defend the historical reality of atheism. For example

    EVERY atheist regime in history, (i.e. The USSR, Maoist China,
    Pol Pots Genocide, North Korea, those states which are led
    by atheists, with the entire ruling Central Committee atheist,
    implementing explicit atheist policies) has been a totalitarian
    tyranny.
    They committed the systematic persecution of religion, forcible
    indoctrination of children and adults with atheism, expropriation
    and destruction of religious property, and the terror, torture
    and murder of believers. >70,000,000 died in the atheist holocausts.

    Atheists argue that 'No True Atheist would create tyranny' despite the
    clear evidence of atheists Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Ill Suk and
    his psychotic offspring Kim ill Fuk doing PRECISELY THAT!

    In fact they can find NO EXAMPLE of an atheist state, in all of human
    history, which was NOT a totalitarian tyranny!

    Sometimes the argument is accompanied by hypocritical attempts at
    diversion such as "Those regimes were all 'male'", an easily falsifiable
    lie, (Madame Mao and other female members of the Central Committees) or
    but they were 'Communist in name' .. sure.. just like the "Democratic
    People's Republic of Korea" is a Democracy in name?!???

    Priceless! The argument has been conclusively resolved by those
    atheist tyrants themselves, e.g.:

    "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
    -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

    "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
    - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

    By arbitrarily selecting ANY OTHER ATTRIBUTE, (gender, moustaches,
    brand name chosen), the claim that 'no true atheist' regime would
    be a tyranny is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach,
    this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.

    The logical flaw is that not all atheist regimes were 100% male, or had
    moustaches and the Chinese Communists now allow religion, have declared
    it a social positive, and have prospered and progressed, unlike EVERY
    atheist communist state which has been a catastrophic failure!!!

    Lets clarify that point for the dull witted atheists: Not all COMMUNIST
    governments have been catastrophic failures, (China reformed its
    constitution, permitting religions to function, and has progressed
    phenomenally) ..but all ATHEIST ones have been!!! B^]

    The common feature is that those tyrannies were ALL ATHEIST REGIMES, and
    in fact were the ONLY atheist regimes in history. 100% of atheist
    regimes, without exception, have been murderous tyrannies!

    Q.E.D. They *are* the historical REALITY of atheism.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Firstly, ISAW, I would ask you to stop linking to alt.atheism. I stopped using USENET groups because of the juvenile mindlessness expressed in them, particularly on the theist side. They have absolutely nothing to do with what I am saying. I, for example, have no interest in excusing genocide or "no true atheist" arguments. I am only interested in highlighting your incorrect statements about the relation between atheism and genocide. This is an incredibly obvious point that your reactionary posting style prevents you from grasping.

    Regarding the slaughter of Native Americans: I meant to type 20-30 million by the U.S. (I don't think there was even 200 million native Americans ever in America.) However, the over 100 million by European settlers (I am including North and South America) is a reasonable estimate even by the sources you supply. It is undeniably a catastrophic number either way. But still you are entirely missing the point, as evidenced by the following statements made by you.
    I assume you will admit God if God exists or if people believe God exists is a higher authority than the State?
    The belief God doesn't exist is called atheism. You agree to that?
    Given what you just stated
    Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state.
    then
    Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no God.
    then
    Totalitarianism only works if people in charge are atheists.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Wonderfull how people say Christians ccommitted genocide so chalk that up to christianity butnot "Atheistic regimes with atheism as a central pillar committed genocide butthat has nothing to do with atheism"

    I fail to see where Leopold was acting with "Christianity" as a central tenet or under instructions from the Pope or Archbishop of Cantebury.

    Atheism is a statement about the existence of God. It is either true or false. Atheism is not a set of moral principles. You cannot say Totalitarian regimes were adopting atheist principles, and then turn around and say Leopold was not adopting Christian principles. Instead, you should consistently say that Leopold was not adopting Christian principles, and Mao was not adopting atheist principles because they don't exist. The oppression of religion is not an atheist principle.

    Did they use atheism as a tool? Sure, just as they used metallurgy as a tool. But it is totalitarianism and fascism that informed their moral and political decisions. Do you think if I, or any average atheist, had my way, I would unveil some set of atheist principles and start oppressing religion? Of course not. Unless we use your own custom definition of oppression, which includes the propagation of ideas through rational discourse. Then I would certainly be oppressive. But that aside, no, I would not. My moral decisions are informed by humanist principles. They cannot be informed by atheist principles. What's strange is you accept this yourself. You "couldn't agree more". But you still try and pin atrocities on non-existent atheist principles.
    When Christians were in control some people from time to time did suffer yes. Nothing in comparison to when atheists were in control with their "humanist" principles of "there is no God"

    Totalitarian regimes did not adopt humanist principles. They adopted fascist, totalitarian principles. Similarly, Japan during WWII (not contemporary Japan) adopted anti-humanist principles.
    The Holocaust and atheistic Stalinist and Maoist genocides were true. do you also think that they were great things?

    I can't believe I have to explain this. "The Holocaust" was a terrible thing. "The Holocaust happened." is a true statement, and is a great statement. "The Holocaust never happened" is a false statement, and a vile statement.

    Similarly, "The non-existence of God" might be a terrible thing. But "God does not exist" is a statement about that terrible thing.
    I never claimed every atheist is useless. all i pointed out is whenever atheists come together to proclaim atheism like religious people do top proclaim belief then nothing usefull ever came of it and usually only death resulted in them trying to spread their atheism.

    You asked for examples of atheists coming together and contributing to society.
    It isn't an atheist group promoting atheism!

    Of course it's not! If an organisation promoted atheism or Christianity, and masqueraded as a charity, that would be a vile thing indeed! Instead, these groups only promote the welfare of people. But they exhibit examples of atheists coming together and contributing to society.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    I, for example, have no interest in excusing genocide or "no true atheist" arguments.

    while at the same time you will claim that atheistic regimes were not "true atheists" but"regimes" or " totalist" or "power hungry" or maybe "scottish" even :) anything but atheistic.
    I am only interested in highlighting your incorrect statements about the relation between atheism and genocide. This is an incredibly obvious point that your reactionary posting style prevents you from grasping.

    Quite simply

    Exhibit A : All the regimes/governments/control groups/ dictarors claiming to be "Christian" ( and Ill argue not all of them were butlet us juatadd all theones claiming to do whatthey were doing with Christianity as a central tenet) - maybe millions of dead but plenty of buildings, artworks, libaries management systems etc. built

    Exhibit B: all the groups working for atheism claiming "there is no God" is a principle by which we should run society. Result : piles of skulls and scorched Earth, famine etc.

    When Exhibit B decided to be ( or destroyed itself and was replaced by it) more like Exhibit A i.e. by allowing religion and allowing religious standards into theior soiciety and not persecuting people who didnt subscribe to "there is no God" Result: Improvement
    [/quote]

    [/quote]
    Regarding the slaughter of Native Americans: I meant to type 20-30 million by the U.S. (I don't think there was even 200 million native Americans ever in America.) However, the over 100 million by European settlers (I am including North and South America) is a reasonable estimate even by the sources you supply. It is undeniably a catastrophic number either way.
    [/quote]

    I don't accept Christianity resulted in the deaths of 100 million Americans even adding in South America. I don't believe any widespread Christian regime called for and organised the deaths of millions of Americans. I don't believe the deaths in Iraq of US troops and of a million citizens was because of Christianity or because of Islam.
    Atheism is a statement about the existence of God. It is either true or false.

    Let us assume it is false. Then the moral standards of God should be followed as a higher authority then the State no?

    Let us assume people believe it is true. AS you already said "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."then Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no God. No?
    Your proposal not mine.
    Atheism is not a set of moral principles. You cannot say Totalitarian regimes were adopting atheist principles, and then turn around and say Leopold was not adopting Christian principles.

    And regime holding "there is no god" as a central principle is not acting under any belief of a higher authority than themselves. Given your own definition "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state," atheistic regimes can be totalist. Given your definition religious regimes can not.

    Leopold of Belgium was NOT acting even for the Belgian State. He acted in a private capacity as a private individual. He proposed no Christian principles for the acqusition of an African country. Like Cecil Rhodes he did not claim nor was he not doing this because God told him to or because he regarded it as God's work. atheistic regimes specifically State they are spreading godlessness and specifically go about dismantling religious belief.
    you should consistently say that Leopold was not adopting Christian principles, and Mao was not adopting atheist principles because they don't exist. The oppression of religion is not an atheist principle.

    your words:
    "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."

    QED
    Atheists do not believe in a higher authority like God do they?

    Did Leopold announce "Atheism is the opium of the masses?" and specifically target any atheists or promote any religious belief?
    Did Mao say "religion is the opium of the people" and did he not specifically promote atheism and the destruction of religion?
    Did they use atheism as a tool? Sure, just as they used metallurgy as a tool. But it is totalitarianism and fascism that informed their moral and political decisions.

    This would be the sort of totalitarianism and fascism which only works if only works if people believe there is no higher authority would it?
    Do you think if I, or any average atheist, had my way, I would unveil some set of atheist principles and start oppressing religion?

    I really don't know. I don't suspect so since you seem quite fair. When atheist Minister Quinn got education however he went about announcing that half the schools would have to be taken out of religious ethos. Atheist senator Bacik attends Church of Ireland services in Trinity where she gets her votes but the atheist Ireland organisation whose meetings she also attends have distinct anti Church leanings ( and probably more senate votes:) .

    I have heard cabinet ministers say "I leave my personal beliefs at the cabinet door" Do you believe them?
    Of course not. Unless we use your own custom definition of oppression, which includes the propagation of ideas through rational discourse. Then I would certainly be oppressive. But that aside, no, I would not. My moral decisions are informed by humanist principles.

    These would be universal principles of natural law would they? Just as believers have?
    So you believe in natural law.
    They cannot be informed by atheist principles.

    I agree. Societies informed by atheistic systems are doomed to fail.
    What's strange is you accept this yourself. You "couldn't agree more". But you still try and pin atrocities on non-existent atheist principles.

    I agree. Societies informed by atheistic systems are doomed to fail.
    Totalitarian regimes did not adopt humanist principles. They adopted fascist, totalitarian principles.

    Facist totalitarian principles like "there is no God" i.e. Atheistic ones?
    Similarly, Japan during WWII (not contemporary Japan) adopted anti-humanist principles.

    And atheist country. Ironic that isn't it?

    This is an example of christianiy/religion persecuting people ?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Massacre_of_De_La_Salle_Brothers#The_February_12.2C_1945_Massacre
    This
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
    was because of christianity?
    Or these:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

    All the fault of Christians?

    Are you saying
    1. Because man has used religion as a cause for war, it should be dispensed with.
    I'm saying the lack of belief has been much more a cause of war. so maybe
    Well
    2. because Atheists start wars and commit atrocities Atheism that should be dispensed with? Or at least maybe prevented from running society?

    Im just saying 2 has a much better case than 1.


    One of the first targets of many evils in the world is the Roman Catholic Church. Christians are often the first to be persecuted .
    I can't believe I have to explain this. "The Holocaust" was a terrible thing. "The Holocaust happened." is a true statement, and is a great statement. "The Holocaust never happened" is a false statement, and a vile statement.

    Similarly, "The non-existence of God" might be a terrible thing. But "God does not exist" is a statement about that terrible thing.

    You asked for examples of atheists coming together and contributing to society.

    Ill accept some atheists can come together and do good for society even oif they do not do it based on the belief that there is no God just as some Christians can cause harm even though it is not based on following a true belief in a God.
    Of course it's not! If an organisation promoted atheism or Christianity, and masqueraded as a charity, that would be a vile thing indeed!

    REally Vincent De Paul is a Charity promoting Christianity. It was specifically set up in Paris to do something about the poor and downtrodden when coffee house atheists were preaching against belief and calling for destruction of religion and doing little else. Are the Vincent De Paul members or their society a charity promoting christian values vile?
    Instead, these groups only promote the welfare of people. But they exhibit examples of atheists coming together and contributing to society.

    Not really. They may have been founded by an atheist or two not acting in any way from their lack of belief. Maybe some influence from God found it's way to them through "humanist principles" Just as Karl Marx could have got his more acceptable principles in socialism from Christian Social teaching.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    while at the same time you will claim that atheistic regimes were not "true atheists" but"regimes" or " totalist" or "power hungry" or maybe "scottish" even :) anything but atheistic.

    I have said no such thing. I said their principles do not stem from atheism. The oppression of religion doesn't stem from atheism. Genocide doesn't stem from atheism. That is like saying the Holocaust stemmed from Darwinism.
    Quite simply

    Exhibit A : All the regimes/governments/control groups/ dictarors claiming to be "Christian" ( and Ill argue not all of them were butlet us juatadd all theones claiming to do whatthey were doing with Christianity as a central tenet) - maybe millions of dead but plenty of buildings, artworks, libaries management systems etc. built

    Exhibit B: all the groups working for atheism claiming "there is no God" is a principle by which we should run society. Result : piles of skulls and scorched Earth, famine etc.

    When Exhibit B decided to be ( or destroyed itself and was replaced by it) more like Exhibit A i.e. by allowing religion and allowing religious standards into theior soiciety and not persecuting people who didnt subscribe to "there is no God" Result: Improvement

    Which shows that amoral statements like "there is no God" or "natural selection occurs" should not be tendered as a code of ethics or principle of governance which includes persecution of people.
    I don't accept Christianity resulted in the deaths of 100 million Americans even adding in South America. I don't believe any widespread Christian regime called for and organised the deaths of millions of Americans. I don't believe the deaths in Iraq of US troops and of a million citizens was because of Christianity or because of Islam.

    And I agree. Instead, such people took Christianity and Islam, and contrived a set of principles that resulted in persecution, poverty, and death. But what I can't understand is why you believe persecution and death are an innate part of atheism?
    Let us assume it is false. Then the moral standards of God should be followed as a higher authority then the State no?

    Yes.
    Let us assume people believe it is true. AS you already said "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."then Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no God. No?
    Your proposal not mine.

    And regime holding "there is no god" as a central principle is not acting under any belief of a higher authority than themselves. Given your own definition "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state," atheistic regimes can be totalist. Given your definition religious regimes can not.

    Leopold of Belgium was NOT acting even for the Belgian State. He acted in a private capacity as a private individual. He proposed no Christian principles for the acqusition of an African country. Like Cecil Rhodes he did not claim nor was he not doing this because God told him to or because he regarded it as God's work. atheistic regimes specifically State they are spreading godlessness and specifically go about dismantling religious belief

    your words:
    "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."

    QED
    Atheists do not believe in a higher authority like God do they?

    Did Leopold announce "Atheism is the opium of the masses?" and specifically target any atheists or promote any religious belief?
    Did Mao say "religion is the opium of the people" and did he not specifically promote atheism and the destruction of religion?

    This would be the sort of totalitarianism and fascism which only works if only works if people believe there is no higher authority would it?

    The conclusion from all of the above: Totalitarianism is bad.
    I really don't know. I don't suspect so since you seem quite fair. When atheist Minister Quinn got education however he went about announcing that half the schools would have to be taken out of religious ethos. Atheist senator Bacik attends Church of Ireland services in Trinity where she gets her votes but the atheist Ireland organisation whose meetings she also attends have distinct anti Church leanings ( and probably more senate votes:) .

    I have heard cabinet ministers say "I leave my personal beliefs at the cabinet door" Do you believe them?

    Then does that not contradict your conclusion about atheism and bloodshed?
    These would be universal principles of natural law would they? Just as believers have?
    So you believe in natural law.

    No. They are a constructed set of principles that do not come from nature, but rather an ethical study of what it means to value compassion, fairness and equality.
    I agree. Societies informed by atheistic systems are doomed to fail.

    Facist totalitarian principles like "there is no God" i.e. Atheistic ones?

    Totalitarian, fascist societies are doomed to fail. Why would a government comprised of secular, humanist atheists be doomed to fail?
    And atheist country. Ironic that isn't it?

    This is an example of christianiy/religion persecuting people ?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Massacre_of_De_La_Salle_Brothers#The_February_12.2C_1945_Massacre
    This
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
    was because of christianity?
    Or these:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

    All the fault of Christians?

    Are you saying
    1. Because man has used religion as a cause for war, it should be dispensed with.
    I'm saying the lack of belief has been much more a cause of war. so maybe
    Well
    2. because Atheists start wars and commit atrocities Atheism that should be dispensed with? Or at least maybe prevented from running society?

    Im just saying 2 has a much better case than 1.

    I am saying both 1 and 2 are wrong.
    Really Vincent De Paul is a Charity promoting Christianity. It was specifically set up in Paris to do something about the poor and downtrodden when coffee house atheists were preaching against belief and calling for destruction of religion and doing little else. Are the Vincent De Paul members or their society a charity promoting christian values vile?

    This has nothing to do with what I said. Some Christian values are fine, and shared by many. Does Vincent De Paul use money to convert people to Christianity? Is that a tenet?
    Not really. They may have been founded by an atheist or two not acting in any way from their lack of belief. Maybe some influence from God found it's way to them through "humanist principles" Just as Karl Marx could have got his more acceptable principles in socialism from Christian Social teaching.

    Again, you seem to be completely missing the point. Of course a lack of belief will not inspire charity. Your entire argument, apart from a naive interpretation of the totalitarianism, consists of the observation that a lack of belief does not directly inspire charity. Darwinism doesn't inspire charity either. So what?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW , you are showing a fundamental lack of understanding of totalitarianism in these discussions, you are adopting a definition that suits your argument. You can just as easily substitute trade unions,political parties, sports organisations in place of religion.. A good place to start is to really look at the name -totalitarianism.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    I have said no such thing.
    you said "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."
    I said their principles do not stem from atheism.

    God is a higher authoriuty
    Atheists don't believe in God
    Atheists don't believe in a higher authority
    "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."
    The oppression of religion doesn't stem from atheism.


    "Communism is incompatible with religious faith",
    I suppose we are all to believe that instead it stems from Christianity?
    So you deny the anti-theistism (Gosateizm) of the Soviets?
    http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/11.htm

    Two-thirds of the Soviet population, however, were irreligious. About half the people, including members of the ruling Communist Party and high-level government officials, professed atheism. For the majority of Soviet citizens, therefore, religion seemed irrelevant.

    Just like the modern atheists claim.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
    State atheism is the official "promotion of atheism" by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice.
    Source: Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR: Characteristics and Consequences, David Kowalewski, Russian Review, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 426–441, Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review
    ...
    State promotion of atheism as a public norm was first practised during a brief period in Revolutionary France. Since then, such a policy was repeated only in Revolutionary Mexico and some communist states. The Soviet Union had a long history of state atheism

    The ABC of Communism, Nikolai Bukharin and Evgenii Preobrazhensky
    Chapter 11: Communism and Religion. ISBN 0472061127, 9780472061129.
    Genocide doesn't stem from atheism. That is like saying the Holocaust stemmed from Darwinism.

    do you believe belief in God and religion is a bad thing for society?
    Do you think if everyone was atheist things would be better?

    Do you still believe "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."?
    Which shows that amoral statements like "there is no God" or "natural selection occurs" should not be tendered as a code of ethics or principle of governance which includes persecution of people.

    so fair enough atheist statements like "therr is no god" should never be al;lowed to influence the running of society but moral statements like that of Christianity should. We don't have any argument then.
    people took Christianity and Islam, and contrived a set of principles that resulted in persecution, poverty, and death.

    Iraq did not happen because of Christianity!
    But what I can't understand is why you believe persecution and death are an innate part of atheism?

    Not only atheistic regimes murder but atheistic ones far surpass the totals of others and while the others do contribute something from time to time atheistic regimes build nothing.

    The conclusion from all of the above: Totalitarianism is bad.

    Indeed this would be "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."?
    No. They are a constructed set of principles that do not come from nature, but rather an ethical study of what it means to value compassion, fairness and equality.

    You can prove universal morals are social constructs ? Nextyou will be telling us all knowledge is a social construct.
    Totalitarian, fascist societies are doomed to fail. Why would a government comprised of secular, humanist atheists be doomed to fail?

    Can you list the great atheist civilizations? Or any that had and atheist principle atthe core which did anything useful?
    This has nothing to do with what I said. Some Christian values are fine, and shared by many. Does Vincent De Paul use money to convert people to Christianity? Is that a tenet?

    It isn't an evangelical society. But it has the Christian view at it's core.
    http://svp.ie/About-Us/Who-we-are.aspx
    We draw our inspiration and energy from the Gospels and Catholic social teaching and attempt to live the core values (Love of God and Love of our neighbour) through an action oriented programme, working directly with people in need.

    Where is the group which draw their inspiration and energy from atheism which attempt to live the core value (God does not exist) through an action oriented programme, working directly with people in need?

    What Frederic Ozanam said

    "The question which is agitating the world today is a social one. It is a struggle between those who have nothing and those who have too much. It is a violent clash of opulence and poverty which is shaking the ground under our feet. Our duty as Christians is to throw ourselves between these two camps in order to accomplish by love what justice alone cannot do."

    What atheist organisation says " Our duty as atheists is to throw ourselves between these two camps in order to accomplish by love what justice alone cannot do."?
    http://svp.ie/about-us/spirituality.aspx


    Again, you seem to be completely missing the point. Of course a lack of belief will not inspire charity. Your entire argument, apart from a naive interpretation of the totalitarianism, consists of the observation that a lack of belief does not directly inspire charity. Darwinism doesn't inspire charity either. So what?

    A lack of belief does not inspire anything! that Is the point! And a proselyting of that atheism and demeaning and ridiculing those that do belief leads to cruelty and persecution of believers.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    ISAW , you are showing a fundamental lack of understanding of totalitarianism in these discussions, you are adopting a definition that suits your argument.

    this would be Morberts definition ? "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."?
    You can just as easily substitute trade unions,political parties, sports organisations in place of religion.. A good place to start is to really look at the name -totalitarianism.

    Butpolitical parties trade unions and churches have all controlled societies to some degree and very rarely did it result in mass murder. Those who said "there is no god" and got in control always resulted in murder and at much higher rates.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    this would be Morberts definition ? "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."?



    Butpolitical parties trade unions and churches have all controlled societies to some degree and very rarely did it result in mass murder. Those who said "there is no god" and got in control always resulted in murder and at much higher rates.

    you continue to use ''all cretans are liars'' reasoning ISAW , your constant need to create an artificial either/or dilemma shows you either have no understanding of history or no interest in understanding history unless you can mould it to your point of view.

    History is a continuum and western history is part of that. A rough outline would be that Christianity just followed on from the Greeks and Aquinas completed that synthesis then reformation/Enlightment/Renaissance/Industrial Revolution/Darwinism and I suppose now we are into the age of secularism.


    If you want to have a discussion - lets have one , but why not use your own reasoning and observations instead of this constant cut and paste ****e. You never know - you might learn something and I might learn something.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    you continue to use ''all cretans are liars'' reasoning ISAW , your constant need to create an artificial either/or dilemma shows you either have no understanding of history or no interest in understanding history unless you can mould it to your point of view.


    Not my definition: "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."

    If
    all Cretans are liars
    and
    Marian is a from Crete
    then
    Marian is a liar is logically consistent.
    EDIT: no it isn't!

    all Cretans are liars
    and
    Marian is a a from Crete
    then
    Marian is a liar
    is logically consistent.


    If you don't agree with that then your problem is with logic not with me.
    History is a continuum and western history is part of that.

    History is an interpretation.
    A rough outline would be that Christianity just followed on from the Greeks and Aquinas completed that synthesis then reformation/Enlightment/Renaissance/Industrial Revolution/Darwinism and I suppose now we are into the age of secularism.

    Whether it is cutting edge mathematics or philosophy 101 they are using the same underlying logic. Western society and I would argue all science is rooted in Greek logic and philosophy. I'm quite happy to discuss the history and philosophy of science. ~I should tell you in advance (although I do not argue from authority) it is one of my academic pursuits.
    If you want to have a discussion - lets have one , but why not use your own reasoning and observations instead of this constant cut and paste ****e.

    I paste it because I refer to the original source.
    If you think it is crap then care to show how it is?
    You never know - you might learn something and I might learn something.
    Teach us all then. What is wrong about the statistical and historical data I posted?


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement