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

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Options
1…6465676970…327

Comments

  • Options
    #1982
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    Talking about about asinine, I made a statement as did others, I stand over it. I stated that in my opinion you were moderating unfairly and I reported you ( to which I never got a reply by the way). Your analogy of the offside laws is so ridiculous it not worth muddying the waters even more by replying to it.

    The fact is that there is nothing either I or anybody else can say to you and others that would change your view and that is fine by me. You could equally say that nothing you can say would change my view and I respect that, but it is pointless dismissing the claim outright as a simple google search would show that is and has been a contentious issue with all types of people.


    I am happy the claim was substantiated and not just by me ,you are happy it was not, end of so, so forget the trivalising adjectives as they make to difference.

    You (not me) were the one who chose to raise again the issue of suggesting that we move a discussion to a forum where you might get a more sympathetic hearing.

    I was flabbergasted that anyone would suggest anything so silly the first time, and I'm flabbergasted that instead of quietly glossing over it you've chosen to mention it again.

    Let me make this abundantly clear. This is the Christianity Forum The clue is in the name. We discuss Christian issues here. Stuff like Jesus, God, theology and the Bible. Other fora have different subjects - and they discuss other stuff.

    We don't discuss other stuff here. So we don't have threads about butterflies or FA Cup finals. And what you choose to post in other fora is irrelevant to what we discuss here.

    If you want to discuss Christian issues here then you are welcome to do so. But if you make claims about what the Bible says then you should be prepared to back them up. Instead you produced no proof, no evidence, and then tried to have us all bounce off to another forum where people might not be so unreasonable as to ask you to substantiate your claims.


  • Options
    #1983
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW , there really is no point rebutting your last post point line by line, but just a few issues , you say you accept what it means , but don't agree with what it means ? What an extraordinary thing to say. How is anyone else to know that your definitions differ from standards definitions ? Do you have other words or phrases that you know what they mean but don't accept what they mean ? Unless you tell us we will continually be at cross purposes .

    But at this stage the real nub of the issue is the point I asked you so far back I can barely remember, namely

    That you insist on using atheism/atheistic regimes/ totalitarianism interchangeably.

    You insist on using theism/christianity /catholicism/ organised religion interchangeably.

    Because you are conflating the meaning of those words you then make the leap the if atheism/theism does not cause atrocities then religion does not cause atrocities .

    You then say that unless your definition is accepted your are taking your ball and not playing anymore !

    They are loads of issues with that train of thought , but for the mo let me raise just one-

    Inherent in your argument that theism/religion does not cause atrocities and the way that you intrepret it means you are thus giving a free pass to all religions- not just your own. For example suicide bombers believing they are carrying out the will of the Prophet, Ultra Orthodox Jews spitting on Christians at the Wall or justifying the taking of Arab land, Christians shooting doctors that perform abortions.


  • Options
    #1984
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    You (not me) were the one who chose to raise again the issue of suggesting that we move a discussion to a forum where you might get a more sympathetic hearing.

    I was flabbergasted that anyone would suggest anything so silly the first time, and I'm flabbergasted that instead of quietly glossing over it you've chosen to mention it again.

    Let me make this abundantly clear. This is the Christianity Forum The clue is in the name. We discuss Christian issues here. Stuff like Jesus, God, theology and the Bible. Other fora have different subjects - and they discuss other stuff.

    We don't discuss other stuff here. So we don't have threads about butterflies or FA Cup finals. And what you choose to post in other fora is irrelevant to what we discuss here.

    If you want to discuss Christian issues here then you are welcome to do so. But if you make claims about what the Bible says then you should be prepared to back them up. Instead you produced no proof, no evidence, and then tried to have us all bounce off to another forum where people might not be so unreasonable as to ask you to substantiate your claims.

    Funny you seeem to be the one constantly bring up football issues. You are just an individual (just like me) you don't get to decide when an issues is proved or not .

    And for the record I did not originally make the claim but came in on and ongoing debate, and those posters making the claim seemed to me to make a convincing case. And I agreed with that case and joined it.

    You say no proof ,no evidence was produced, I and others disagree but happily for fora such as this you do not get to be judge and jury- we all make up own own minds on the evidence presented. I am happy the case was proven , you are happy case was not proven .

    The issue of bringing it to another thread is a red herring, I believe on this issue you were moderating unfairly and some of your posts were quite outrageous and as I say I reported that then and I repeat I never got a reply or acknowledgent from you then or now even though you raised evey other item in my last posts.


  • Options
    #1985
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    "'neither atheism or theism cause atrocities''

    means
    1. atheism did not cause atrocities
    AND
    2. Theism did not cause atrocities

    All you are doing now is sayi9ng atheists caused atrovcities but not because they were atheists or because of atheism. In which case I can say Christians caused atrocities but not because of being christian or because of Christianity. Matter of fact using your logic i can claim that since
    2. Theism did not cause atrocities not alone can you not claim any atrocities due to christianity but by the very fact that christianity din't support such behaviour such atrocities ( and in fact there are historic records of Christianity opposing atrocities) were Anti - christian



    Now we are back to the other aRGUMENT.
    iF YOU ARE GOING TO CLAIM cHRISTIANS KILL EVERY DAY THEN YOU HAVE TO COMPARE THEM TO ATHEISTS.
    Atheists killed getting up for hundreds of million in two centuries!
    Christians don't compare to that at all.
    But go ahead list the numbers killed by "Christians" . And of these numbers how many were sanctioned by any pope or bishop?
    Hint: Zero will be the figure you arrive at for
    Meanwhile non communist anti religion supressive regimes in North Korea et. al get on with the oppression.

    So Christianity is not responsible for any atrocities?
    Fine Ill accept that.
    Dont come back later trying to blame the pope or bishops for anything then.

    The above is incredibly strange. The bit in blue is arguing against a position I do not hold (Which I made perfectly clear in my last post, and many many many other times). The bit in red as an acknowledgement of such, rendering the bit in blue entirely pointless. It is as if you are trying to fabricate an alternative argument to hide from my very simple and very consistent point: Atheism is does not cause atrocities. Nor is it responsible for atrocities.

    Also, I am perfectly entitled to blame the Pope or bishops for anything I feel they are responsible for, just as you are entitled to blame Stalin or Mao for anything you feel they are responsible for.

    I have been quite clear. Ill accept your principle without believing in it if it means you don't come back later to attack the church.
    I personally believe some christian regimes claiming to represent Christ did cause some damage Most however actually contributed to society. Atheistic regimes never contributed and always murdered at a rate which is astronomical compared to Christian regimes,
    Atheistic regimes of "there is no god" have been responsible for far far far more deaths than any Christian ones. I happy to leave that comment there or not even talk about atheistic regimes . But when someone comes along with "The church supported Nazis" - IT DIDNT- I have to bring back the comparison.

    Again, we are talking about whether or not atheism causes atrocities.
    that wopuld depend on what is "true" religious instruction. But even bad religions didn't contribute as much damage as atheistic regimes. there is also the semantic problem of atheistic "religions" .
    In this discussion Im not specifically concerned about all religion per se but christianity compared to atheism.

    Atheistic regimes were deeply religious. They were personality cults, demanding the active worship of, and absolute devotion to, dear leaders and ultimate authorities. In North Korea, people are now being sent to "camps" for not crying enough over the recent death of their dear leader.


  • Options
    #1986
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    Funny you seeem to be the one constantly bring up football issues. You are just an individual (just like me) you don't get to decide when an issues is proved or not .

    Maybe you should make up your mind about whether I'm just an individual or not? If I am, then it is plainly hypocritical for you to start complaining that I'm a moderator when I say something you don't like. You can't have your cake and eat it, Marien.

    As an individual, I can express my views as much as anyone else. And my view is that you made statements about the Bible, failed to substantiate them, and then started waffling about other forums when pressed to substantiate your claims.
    And for the record I did not originally make the claim but came in on and ongoing debate, and those posters making the claim seemed to me to make a convincing case. And I agreed with that case and joined it.
    Red herring. You made a claim. It matters not a jot whether you were the first to make the claim.

    And the fact that you, as an atheist, say you find another atheist's case convincing cuts little ice in this forum (although I can think of other fora where such mutual backslapping is highly appreciated).
    The issue of bringing it to another thread is a red herring,
    Well? You were the one who raised that red herring, weren't you?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1987
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    Maybe you should make up your mind about whether I'm just an individual or not? If I am, then it is plainly hypocritical for you to start complaining that I'm a moderator when I say something you don't like. You can't have your cake and eat it, Marien.

    As an individual, I can express my views as much as anyone else. And my view is that you made statements about the Bible, failed to substantiate them, and then started waffling about other forums when pressed to substantiate your claims.


    Red herring. You made a claim. It matters not a jot whether you were the first to make the claim.

    And the fact that you, as an atheist, say you find another atheist's case convincing cuts little ice in this forum (although I can think of other fora where such mutual backslapping is highly appreciated).


    Well? You were the one who raised that red herring, weren't you?


    PDN - i assume you are an individual in this post, so I will reply on that basis. You are both an individual and a moderator. So it is not hypocritical in the slightest, it is not a question of having your cake and eating it. I disagreed with you as an individual and then had a separate dis-agreement with you as a moderator- is that not standard practice ?

    All the rest of you post applies as equally to me as to you - I am happy the claim was substantiated , you disagree . What more can be said ?

    As an aside might I ask why are we even discussing this at such length as I did'nt reopen these issues ?


  • Options
    #1988
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    PDN - i assume you are an individual in this post, so I will reply on that basis. You are both an individual and a moderator. So it is not hypocritical in the slightest, it is not a question of having your cake and eating it. I disagreed with you as an individual and then had a separate dis-agreement with you as a moderator- is that not standard practice ?
    No, that is not true. I posted in Post 1703 as a poster, and you responded in post 1705 by making the accusation that I was a disgrace as a moderator.

    You are, therefore, plainly being hypocritical. When I engage in this board as a poster, you want to tell me I'm just another poster when it suits you, and you want to drag in my status as a moderator when it suits you. You are wanting to have your cake and to eat it.
    All the rest of you post applies as equally to me as to you - I am happy the claim was substantiated , you disagree . What more can be said ?
    As long as you stop making the false claim, there's nothing more that needs to be said. But each time you repeat it, you can expect others to point out your failure to substantiate it.
    As an aside might I ask why are we even discussing this at such length as I did'nt reopen these issues ?
    Who else opened the issue of your challenge to switch a discussion to another forum?


  • Options
    #1989
    Worztron
    Registered Users Posts: 8,667 ✭✭✭Worztron


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    On another note, did somebody mention Zeitgeist: The Movie? If so for shame.

    Are you a Catholic? Have you watched the 3 Zeitgeist films?

    Robert M. Pirsig: "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion."

    Mitch Hedberg: "Rice is great if you're really hungry and want to eat two thousand of something."



  • Options
    #1990
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Morbert wrote: »
    The above is incredibly strange. The bit in blue is arguing against a position I do not hold (Which I made perfectly clear in my last post, and many many many other times). The bit in red as an acknowledgement of such, rendering the bit in blue entirely pointless. It is as if you are trying to fabricate an alternative argument to hide from my very simple and very consistent point: Atheism is does not cause atrocities. Nor is it responsible for atrocities.

    Also, I am perfectly entitled to blame the Pope or bishops for anything I feel they are responsible for, just as you are entitled to blame Stalin or Mao for anything you feel they are responsible for.

    I agree with you Morbert that atheism can be hijacked by a fundamental religious type fanaticism. I think that's the crux! Modern Atheists may believe that all this is just common sense etc. without even beginning to actually delve a little deeper, they are happy to be told they are clever because they understand naturalism, evolution etc. ( Catholics call that a plead to Vanity by the way) but they don't get history; they see man as an evolved animal - the Caveman with a club in his hand that was barely human etc. it's misinformation - they don't see the Caveman, they see him in light of modern media - they don't look at the man who perhaps never even lived in a cave, nobody actually knows, it's guessing, conjecture - the man who lifted his hand and drew pictures of animals - because something made him different. The only thing left IS his pictures and they tell a story - THIS is the most startling thing, and it's not appreciated enough.

    I think that people are perfectly entitled to see atheism/religion for what it is too - no problem there, that's just the beginning of any persons life in these times or any other...

    The problem is, the lack of trust - you champion an atheistic ideal that is based on humanism etc. etc. and scientific understanding that grows and enlightens choices...but not everybody is Morbert, who is apparently an honest soul - and equally, not everybody will believe that all athiests are like Morbert - that's like piddling on someone and telling them it's raining.

    You see, that is where the fundamental difference is; you place your trust in your understanding of what it should be to be Atheist, even if it's a so called disjointed thing, with nobody in particular about except any would be atheist ( who happens to be Godless ); but peoples experience is different - just like Christianity. You hold that there is something 'noble' about your worldview, and Christians would say the same - both recognise ( some individuals more than others ) that there is a 'noble' thing to strive for...

    and THAT...is they mystery of life.

    We only get one go at it - and the beauty of it is astounding, and the total deafness, mystery, and (chance V directed) life we live on the tiny blue beautiful planet we inhabit collectively...I still can't fathom the beauty of colour and existence, I'm not vaccinated against it quiet yet, by being part of it all. It's unfathomable - the only way to 'kill' God, is to say there are other universes that go on to infinity that exist - Imo, that's pushing it, even the Caveman, who is vastly misrepresented in Hollywood, I'm sure would disagree...


  • Options
    #1991
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    the man who lifted his hand and drew pictures of animals - because something made him different. The only thing left IS his pictures and they tell a story -
    So true, we see the hunched, hairy, animal skin wearing, club wielding cave man and forget that what matters is the picture he drew. A first Sistine Chapel or facebook?
    But evidence of something that set him apart from the rest....
    god_creates_adam.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1992
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    No, that is not true. I posted in Post 1703 as a poster, and you responded in post 1705 by making the accusation that I was a disgrace as a moderator.

    You are, therefore, plainly being hypocritical. When I engage in this board as a poster, you want to tell me I'm just another poster when it suits you, and you want to drag in my status as a moderator when it suits you. You are wanting to have your cake and to eat it.


    As long as you stop making the false claim, there's nothing more that needs to be said. But each time you repeat it, you can expect others to point out your failure to substantiate it.
    .

    Who else opened the issue of your challenge to switch a discussion to another forum?

    We are just going round the houses at this stage, but lets have at it.
    You are picking on one specific issue where I thought your language was injudicious at best, and taking your posting style that is saying a lot.

    I suspect if we had it to do over you would not have used that language, but 'tis done and can't be undone and we moved on.

    If you thought I was incorrect why did you not issue the warning then ? It was after all nearly 300 posts ago . Why issue it now ?

    Similarly on the notion of switching to another thread , why now we we had moved on 300 posts ago.

    On the the issue of ''a false claim'' - that is your opinion just as the reverse is mine - I did not bring it up again ISAW did.


  • Options
    #1993
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Marien, you wanted to bring your case against God to another forum that has no relevance to any particular debate about God on boards - one wonders why that is necessary? That's just plain silly, and a last resort. If you bring it to AH you will be a hero- is that what you would like?

    For whom the bell tolls on AH's.

    The ad hominem attacks are not worthy of a person who is apparently quite bright, if a little angry and is interested in talking - when a person resorts to pleading to other forums or that the mod is bad, then really their arguement has resorted to confusion of direction and desperation methinks.


  • Options
    #1994
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Worztron wrote: »
    Are you a Catholic? Have you watched the 3 Zeitgeist films?

    Robert M. Pirsig: "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion."

    Fanny is not a Roman Catholic, but I would have the greatest respect for his patience if he had the fortitude to sit through three doses of fabrication and ahistorical crap. One film of such unadulterated and ignorant drivel was enough for me.


  • Options
    #1995
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    We are just going round the houses at this stage, but lets have at it.
    You are picking on one specific issue where I thought your language was injudicious at best, and taking your posting style that is saying a lot.

    I suspect if we had it to do over you would not have used that language, but 'tis done and can't be undone and we moved on.

    If you thought I was incorrect why did you not issue the warning then ? It was after all nearly 300 posts ago . Why issue it now ?

    Similarly on the notion of switching to another thread , why now we we had moved on 300 posts ago.

    On the the issue of ''a false claim'' - that is your opinion just as the reverse is mine - I did not bring it up again ISAW did.

    PDN puts Mod Hat on
    Marien, I am not discussing moderating decisions with you inthread. You know that is not on. But you seem to be highly confused.

    PDN takes Mod Hat off
    As another poster, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of your position. On the one hand you drag my role as a mod into a post where I am simply acting as a poster. Then, on the other hand, you make a fuss about how I can't judge because I'm posting as just another poster (which I was)
    Similarly on the notion of switching to another thread , why now we we had moved on 300 posts ago.
    You brought up the issue, today, of swapping to another forum.


  • Options
    #1996
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Marien, you wanted to bring your case against God to another forum that has no relevance to any particular debate about God on boards - one wonders why that is necessary? That's just plain silly, and a last resort. If you bring it to AH you will be a hero- is that what you would like?

    For whom the bell tolls on AH's.

    The ad hominem attacks are not worthy of a person who is apparently quite bright, if a little angry and is interested in talking - when a person resorts to pleading to other forums or that the mod is bad, then really their arguement has resorted to confusion of direction and desperation methinks.

    I have no interest in raising these issues on AH or on the atheist forum, after all what is the point of having a conversation with the uninterested and the already converted.

    I was'nt aware of any ad hominem attacks, at least no more or less than any other poster on this thread , but then we can't be all like Morbert, Philologos and Peregrinus, but if so apologies.

    I will leave the issue of brightness to the angels but if I come across as angry I would be sorry indeed.


  • Options
    #1997
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    marienbad wrote: »
    I have no interest in raising these issues on AH or on the atheist forum, after all what is the point of having a conversation with the uninterested and the already converted.

    I was'nt aware of any ad hominem attacks, at least no more or less than any other poster on this thread , but then we can't be all like Morbert, Philologos and Peregrinus, but if so apologies.

    I will leave the issue of brightness to the angels but if I come across as angry I would be sorry indeed.

    Well what forum so? You requested to move the discussion a few posts ago?

    Yes, you are dead right, nobody can be somebody else - they are themselves of course, thank God - that's individuals - not a hive mind.

    You do come across as angry to be honest Marien, no offense but you do, but at least you are expressing it on the right forum, we're used to angry here, I'm angry myself so you are not alone in that..

    It's good to talk though.


  • Options
    #1998
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    I think the other forum reference wasn't to move the topic as such but rather that if the same question was expressed on a forum other than Christianity it would be seen differently. Implying a bias on the part of the posters here that would be absent elsewhere.
    Marien doesn't come across as angry to me, exasperated maybe but not angry.
    Meself, I gave up trying to analyze God to a definite point long ago.
    I think thats the point of a trinity, it makes it dazzle and sparkle like a cut stone; designed to illuminate not direct. Is that a bit new agey? Oh God I'm loosing it.
    :)


  • Options
    #1999
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    koth wrote: »
    Must it always go to silly extremes?

    If a nazi government/pro dictatorship said they could run the country better, then let them see if the people agree with them. I find it very hard to believe that anyone would in Ireland would vote in such a group.

    No because a REpubli is nt a democracy of majority rule. it is a democracy regulated by law. Hitler used the majority to ban communism and bring in laws making him a dictator. In a Republic that would not happen.
    I don't know how to respond to the question about atheistic regimes being let to have their "better way", as the defintion of "atheistic regime" seems to be a contentious point currently.

    Definition "atheistic regime" or "atheistic government" - one with "there is no God" as a/the central belief.
    Nonsense. Otherwise, the currently public primary school system is illegal based on your own definition of how a law is enacted.

    It isn't. The Minister could not make an unconstitutional law. In a Republic if the minister tomorrow disenfranchised "ethos " schools it would become law and it would be challenged in the courts and it would be found to be unconstitutional.

    [quoe]
    How do you know it isn't 50% that are in favour of secular schools? you're presuming to speak for all religious people. I've seen plenty of poster here speak in favour of a secular system
    [/quote]

    I'm quite happy for you to write the the atheist minister to ask him to put forward an amendment to change the constitution. If it was passed I would not be in favour of it but I would accept it.
    I believe in a secular education system.

    As do the Caholics and Church of Ireland. But the oth4ers keep sending there kids to their schools. They are happy for the State to provide for non Christians to go to non christian schools
    But if I have kids and want to ensure that they go to a secular school, I've essentially ruled out large areas of the country where I won't be able to live due to only religious schools being available.

    I expect like the atheist minister that oif you have kids you would want them in the Best schools.

    I should let you know at this stage that although i don't argue from authority I jhave several postgraduate qualifications in education.

    I am particularly fond of Freinet a communist
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A9lestin_Freinet
    Middle class people rejected him but later come to him because he provided "the best"

    By the way he was not someone I either studied or was formally taught about. I learned about him outside to formal teaching. I also like Voygotsky
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Vygotsky
    People have to work with the resources available to them at the time they need them. And work to change/improve the system if unhappy with it.

    That is a comment on managerialism and not on educational philosophy
    That's just dishonest. If you're going to make claims about the "atheist" governments, then all the points against atheism also apply to Christians. And the positives in the Christian list also apply to the "atheist" governments.


    I agree.

    Negatives
    Christians killed maybe millions
    Atheists killed a hundred million.
    And when it comes to positives
    Christians - very long list
    Atheists - zero
    Sounds like the tool of a dicatator/ totalitarian government. A government should not promote a religion (or atheism) above other ideologies.

    but when they did
    Christians killed maybe millions
    Atheists killed a hundred million.
    And when it comes to positives
    Christians - very long list
    Atheists - zero
    But that's a nation oppressing it's citizens. That's not a free society, it's a dictatorship/totalitarian government. Even the examples you give back me up on this.

    I wont rehearse the "not a true atheist/scotsman" argument if you dont start complaining about religious atrocities.

    Afraid not. There is nothing about atheism that tells a person to kill a Christian, or to stop people from practising their religious belief. That falls into the realm of extreme anti-theism for example.

    Ditto for Christians. But the anti-theists did much much much more damage and contributed nothing.
    But that doesn't tell me if you'd support a Jewish majority government here. Unless I'm to take it to mean that you'd be suspicious of a Jewish majority because they might be Zionists?

    There are Jews in the government. I don't think the justice Minister is closing down a Garda Station in his own constituency because he is a Jew. I would be concerned what his personal stance is if he started making statements about Isreal or Palestine. If himself and Jews from other parties controlled the foreign affairs committee and silenced motions on Palestine for example yes I might well think it is because of Zionist tendencies. Of course many non Jewish US politicians are Zionists.
    But you've yet to show what these "atheistic tenets" are. All I've seen so far is the example of trying to reform the public school system. Which has nothing to do with atheism.

    Putting "there is no God" as a central belief is one of them.
    A Christian minister could just as easily taken the same steps.

    So can you explain how atheistic regimes killed in the hundred millions and contribute anything and christian ones didn't kill such numbers and contributed loads to society?
    The didn't take the same steps. why?
    I'm not disputing any deaths that may have occurred throughout history. I'm disputing your claims of governments being atheist while killing their people or people of another country.

    so you are saying the governmnets which killed people in millions and tens of millions were not all committed atheists with atheism as an announced central belief? that the russian Chinese Cambodian regimes did not particularly say they were atheist and promote atheism? That the "League of the Godless" was not about atheism??
    If a nations leaders start slaughtering its citizens, then they've crossed over into totalitarism/dictatorship.

    And why is it that the worst of these regimes were all Atheist Totalitarian regimes and few of the Christian regimes were Totalitarian and thoise that were didnt do as much slaughtering as the atheist ones?
    Really? Even though the vatican signed a treaty with Hitlers government to give special protections to the Catholic Church?

    http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/rise%28n%29-2.htm
    Soon after Hitler established himself in power, he requested that a Concordat be concluded with the Holy See. This would regulate the legal position of the Catholic Church in Germany, and provide Her with clear legal rights. The Church already had Concordats with several of the state governments, and a draft existed following negotiations with previous Reich administrations. The terms offered by Hitler were extremely good, assuring the Church of complete freedom of expression, education and action. The Pope didn't trust Hitler, but a refusal to sign would have enabled the Nazis to persecute the Church and put the blame for bad relations on the Pope. Many Catholics would reproach the Church for not accepting such a good 'peace treaty'. This would have split and weakened Church resistance to Nazi pressures.

    To sign might also delay the expected persecution, and when it did come the Church would be clearly seen as the innocent victim. It would provide everyone with a measure against which to judge Hitler's adherence to his promises. Hitler would gain some temporary political prestige, but the Pope decided that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. He confided to Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick, an official at the British Embassy in Rome in 1933, that he was rushed and had to decide quickly. He had chosen between a very good treaty and the virtual elimination of the Church in Germany. He further remarked "They will scarcely break all the articles at the same time" ((MOC 39)). The Pope said later that he didn't regret signing, as it provided a legal, basis to resist Nazism ((MOC 39)). In the 1937 encyclical 'Mit Brennender Sorge', the Pope made known his motive for signing.
    MOC - Greatness Dishonoured, by Michael O' Carroll, 1980

    Chamberlain signed a piece of paper too and announced "Peace in our time" . was he giving special protection and dealing with Nazis too?


  • Options
    #2000
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Why are they perfect already? what do you mean by this, if a bishop or pope dose wrong he is answerable for that wrong. If he dose so because of his Christianity then someone better explain how he squared that circle.

    Im happy to critique the pope or bishops myself. Im only pointing out that, when confronted with the 100 million plus dead by atheistic regimes ,if atheists hide behind the
    excuse of "that was not atheism" they have to apply the same to christianity or religion and say "that was not atheism or belief either". This ruling out criticisism of atheism in turn
    means they can't criticism religion which removes their whole basis for posting here. Im quite happy for the atheists who are not anti Catholic to post here but most of them are clearly interested in attacking Christianity. When if ever do you witness them saying something positive about clergy for example.

    marienbad wrote: »
    ISAW , there really is no point rebutting your last post point line by line, but just a few issues , you say you accept what it means , but don't agree with what it means ? What an extraordinary thing to say. How is anyone else to know that your definitions differ from standards definitions ?

    My definitions don't differ and I have agreed to the definition.
    The strength of a democracy is not just in allowing people think as they like but in tolerating what one does not like.

    Do you have other words or phrases that you know what they mean but don't accept what they mean ? Unless you tell us we will continually be at cross purposes .

    One i constantly cite. I met Salman Rushdie and graised just this issue. He was pictured as an Islamic version of the Antichrist in a movie and the movie was banned. He wrote to the censor to get it unbanned. why - he knew whaty they meant he didnt accept it but he supported their right to say it. Similarly "The Satanic Verses" or offensive cartoons should be accepted by Muslims even if they don't agree with them.
    you insist on using atheism/atheistic regimes/ totalitarianism interchangeably.

    Yup.

    "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)
    Because you are conflating the meaning of those words you then make the leap the if atheism/theism does not cause atrocities then religion does not cause atrocities .

    Nope because others state
    "Neither A nor T cause atrocities"
    i point out a logical conclusion ( if you accept the premise) is
    "T does not cause atrocities"

    I accept the premise. I don't however believe it.
    You then say that unless your definition is accepted your are taking your ball and not playing anymore !

    One can accept a false premise and arrive at a valid conclusion based on that false premise. The conclusion is valid but false because the premise is false . But it being accepted as false rests on the premise being accepted as false. In other words the atheists have to reject "atheism does not cause atrocities" if they claim "christianity does not cause atrocities" is wrong. And they don't want to do that because the levels of deaths are hundreds of times greater for atheistic regimes. You get a similar picture with clerical abuse. They don't want to talk about the 99% plus of abusers who are not clerics. I wonder why?
    Inherent in your argument that theism/religion does not cause atrocities and the way that you intrepret it means you are thus giving a free pass to all religions- not just your own.

    Yes inherent to atheists argument this is true. You argue against yourself. that you for admitting the flaws in the premise that atheism is not a cause of atrocities.
    For example suicide bombers believing they are carrying out the will of the Prophet, Ultra Orthodox Jews spitting on Christians at the Wall or justifying the taking of Arab land, Christians shooting doctors that perform abortions.

    Or Stalin killing 50 million of his own people ?
    Or Mao doing the same - tens of millions dead?
    Or atheistic Chinese regimes?
    Or Pol Pot killing all the clergy in the country?

    Which of these were caused by the pope?
    http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm


    http://hawaii.edu/powerkills/NH.HTM
    Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5', then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century. Finally, given popular estimates of the dead in a major nuclear war, this total democide is as though such a war did occur, but with its dead spread over a century.

    Now as Stalin said "The Pope? How many Tank Divisions has he?"


  • Options
    #2001
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Well what forum so? You requested to move the discussion a few posts ago?

    Yes, you are dead right, nobody can be somebody else - they are themselves of course, thank God - that's individuals - not a hive mind.

    You do come across as angry to be honest Marien, no offense but you do, but at least you are expressing it on the right forum, we're used to angry here, I'm angry myself so you are not alone in that..

    It's good to talk though.

    I did'nt request the discussion move to another forum Impaopml- I threw out a one liner about 300 posts ago concerning one specific issue and I don't know how I became so entangled in it again.

    I will have to think about the anger though, I was'nt aware I came across as such.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2002
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    The above is incredibly strange. The bit in blue is arguing against a position I do not hold (Which I made perfectly clear in my last post, and many many many other times).

    In message 1938 you stated
    I don't believe atheism or theism are responsible for atrocities.

    The bit in blue is an argument based on a premise you do hold and you stated in 1938
    The bit in red as an acknowledgement of such, rendering the bit in blue entirely pointless. It is as if you are trying to fabricate an alternative argument to hide from my very simple and very consistent point: Atheism is does not cause atrocities. Nor is it responsible for atrocities.

    And you added "Christianity doesn't either" because if you didn't you would be applying double standards. I'm prepared to accept your false premise since it means you can't ever claim her that Christianity caused or is responsible for atrocities.
    Also, I am perfectly entitled to blame the Pope or bishops for anything I feel they are responsible for, just as you are entitled to blame Stalin or Mao for anything you feel they are responsible for.

    Indeed an then we are back to abandoning the false premise and comparing them on the same standards. Reslut - christianity a million maybe several millions dead; atheism - tens maybe hundreds of millions dead.

    The church was not involved in the murder regimes of democide . I give you rummels figures again .
    , if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5', then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century. Finally, given popular estimates of the dead in a major nuclear war, this total democide is as though such a war did occur, but with its dead spread over a century.
    Again, we are talking about whether or not atheism causes atrocities.

    Using the same objective standards as we would to "Christianity causes atrocities"
    Atheistic regimes were deeply religious. They were personality cults, demanding the active worship of, and absolute devotion to, dear leaders and ultimate authorities.

    This is the "it was not atheism it was religion" excuse.
    I'm even happy to accept fundamentalist atheism to be called the fundamentalist atheist religion if you wish.
    The think is when compared to Christianity atheist states killed people in the hundreds of millions.
    Pagans did it too and Muslims and animists and indeed even Christians but even adding then all together they came nowhere near the atheist total!

    But here I'm specifically concerned with Christians versus atheists since it is a Christianity forum.
    In North Korea, people are now being sent to "camps" for not crying enough over the recent death of their dear leader.

    LOL! You want us to believe North Korea is Christian or just that it is not atheist?
    We have been over that before here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64807603&postcount=141
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58487877&postcount=38


  • Options
    #2003
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    I did'nt request the discussion move to another forum Impaopml- I threw out a one liner about 300 posts ago concerning one specific issue and I don't know how I became so entangled in it again.

    You became entangled in it because you attacked the posters or moderators rather than admit you could not prove your case and you then avoided the issue. You became entangled in it again because i pointed out atheists will make a claim they can't support and then just not mention it rather than withdraw it. Later on they will re enter the same unproven claim. The reason to me seems to be that they have these fundamentalist beliefs which they will not change even though there is plenty of counter evidence. they want to believe religion is bad or clergy are abusers so they believe it . Wheh faced with having to support their belief or compare it critically to non religious or to non clergy they withdraw and later re enter with the same claims. I have experienced the same of Holocaust deniers and indeed the recent JW posts in this forum.

    I will have to think about the anger though, I was'nt aware I came across as such.

    Good for you. Ill be honest for my part them and state I bear you no ill will and will try to help you in any way I can.


  • Options
    #2004
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    You became entangled in it because you attacked the posters or moderators rather than admit you could not prove your case and you then avoided the issue. You became entangled in it again because i pointed out atheists will make a claim they can't support and then just not mention it rather than withdraw it. Later on they will re enter the same unproven claim. The reason to me seems to be that they have these fundamentalist beliefs which they will not change even though there is plenty of counter evidence. they want to believe religion is bad or clergy are abusers so they believe it . Wheh faced with having to support their belief or compare it critically to non religious or to non clergy they withdraw and later re enter with the same claims. I have experienced the same of Holocaust deniers and indeed the recent JW posts in this forum.




    Good for you. Ill be honest for my part them and state I bear you no ill will and will try to help you in any way I can.

    ISAW you really could be talking about yourself here you know and you are, if I may dare to say, indulging in a bit of back seat modding yourself.
    :), need less to say I don't agree with you , but that is for another day

    But I don't know if I am interested anymore, every topic is derailed with all the bickering and sniping just as they get interesting , so I will have to think if it is worth the bother of contributing any further.

    I bear you no ill will at all ISAW even though you are a right pain in the ass, but for the moment I think I will just stick to the opera thread and leave it at that.


  • Options
    #2005
    Worztron
    Registered Users Posts: 8,667 ✭✭✭Worztron


    PDN wrote: »
    Fanny is not a Roman Catholic, but I would have the greatest respect for his patience if he had the fortitude to sit through three doses of fabrication and ahistorical crap. One film of such unadulterated and ignorant drivel was enough for me.

    The 2nd and 3rd films are very different to the first one. I find it hilarious that you would use the word 'fabrication' - the very essence of all religions.

    Mitch Hedberg: "Rice is great if you're really hungry and want to eat two thousand of something."



  • Options
    #2006
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    ISAW you really could be talking about yourself here you know and you are, if I may dare to say, indulging in a bit of back seat modding yourself.
    :), need less to say I don't agree with you , but that is for another day

    Please stick with the topic. God ordered rape in the Bible did he? Where is your evidence?
    But I don't know if I am interested anymore, every topic is derailed with all the bickering and sniping just as they get interesting , so I will have to think if it is worth the bother of contributing any further.
    Whether you are interested or not or whether you run away or not won't change the claim! You claimed God ordered rape in the Bible . It remains unsupported and you will no doubt come back later and restate it.
    I bear you no ill will at all ISAW even though you are a right pain in the ass, but for the moment I think I will just stick to the opera thread and leave it at that.

    Which only supports my case that you run away and will come back restating this unsupported claim. If and when you do my case is only stronger.


  • Options
    #2007
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Worztron wrote: »
    The 2nd and 3rd films are very different. I find it hilarious that you would use the word 'fabrication' - the very essence of all religions.

    What do you mean all religion is constructed like art like mathematics or like science?


  • Options
    #2008
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Which only supports my case that you run away and will come back restating this unsupported claim. If and when you do my case is only stronger.
    What makes you think that. Marien hasn't restated that claim again, PDN resurrected it not Marien.

    ISAW, you have me confused, I thought you were saying that if Atheism dosn't cause X then Christianity dosnt cause X. Now it appears that all you are sayin is that that's the conclusion our logic reaches. So what are you saying?


  • Options
    #2009
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    What makes you think that. Marien hasn't restated that claim again, PDN resurrected it not Marien.

    Actually that is untrue. I believe ISAW resurrected it in post 1970. Marien then repeated her claim in post 1977. I responded to Marien in post 1980.

    I get enough stick from people about what I actually do, without anyone wrongly accusing me of doing stuff I didn't do. :(


  • Options
    #2010
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    ISAW wrote: »
    No because a REpubli is nt a democracy of majority rule. it is a democracy regulated by law. Hitler used the majority to ban communism and bring in laws making him a dictator. In a Republic that would not happen.
    My point was that I don't see the Irish public voting in a government that would be a parallel to the Nazi party.
    Definition "atheistic regime" or "atheistic government" - one with "there is no God" as a/the central belief.
    That doesn't give me any information as to what policies the government would implement.
    It isn't. The Minister could not make an unconstitutional law. In a Republic if the minister tomorrow disenfranchised "ethos " schools it would become law and it would be challenged in the courts and it would be found to be unconstitutional.
    That doesn't sound right to me, but I'm no legal expert. But AFAIK the president must sign any bill before it becomes a law, so Mr.Quinn can't just announce a new law tomorrow morning if the mood takes him.

    I'm quite happy for you to write the the atheist minister to ask him to put forward an amendment to change the constitution. If it was passed I would not be in favour of it but I would accept it.
    Why do we need an amendment for a secular school to be opened? Educate Together currently operate, and we haven't changed the constitution.:confused:
    As do the Caholics and Church of Ireland. But the oth4ers keep sending there kids to their schools. They are happy for the State to provide for non Christians to go to non christian schools
    Because the RCC have a monopoly on the primary school system.
    I expect like the atheist minister that oif you have kids you would want them in the Best schools.
    of course. who wouldn't? my point was that many places only have Christian schools in the area.
    I should let you know at this stage that although i don't argue from authority I jhave several postgraduate qualifications in education.

    I am particularly fond of Freinet a communist
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A9lestin_Freinet
    Middle class people rejected him but later come to him because he provided "the best"

    By the way he was not someone I either studied or was formally taught about. I learned about him outside to formal teaching. I also like Voygotsky
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Vygotsky
    Apologies, ISAW, but I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to say with the text above.
    That is a comment on managerialism and not on educational philosophy
    the point was that you can't deny your child an education purely because the only local school is an RCC school.

    I agree.

    Negatives
    Christians killed maybe millions
    Atheists killed a hundred million.
    And when it comes to positives
    Christians - very long list
    Atheists - zero
    The opening part of this quote directly contradicts the list that follows.
    but when they did
    Christians killed maybe millions
    Atheists killed a hundred million.
    And when it comes to positives
    Christians - very long list
    Atheists - zero
    So you're trying to excuse Christian dictators? really? Why is it so hard for you to say that both theist and atheist dictators are bad?

    I wont rehearse the "not a true atheist/scotsman" argument if you dont start complaining about religious atrocities.
    I'm not aware of complaining about religious atrocities. And I never said that anyone was not a "true atheist". I'm disputing you saying that because a person is an atheist that they are going more likely to kill than a religious person.

    Ditto for Christians. But the anti-theists did much much much more damage and contributed nothing.
    At least you're starting to get that it was anti-theists.

    Putting "there is no God" as a central belief is one of them.
    Doesn't tell me whether the government is a good or bad government though.
    So can you explain how atheistic regimes killed in the hundred millions and contribute anything and christian ones didn't kill such numbers and contributed loads to society?
    The didn't take the same steps. why?
    No, because so far only dictators and totalitarian governments have been mentioned on thread. Which is no reflection on atheism.

    so you are saying the governmnets which killed people in millions and tens of millions were not all committed atheists with atheism as an announced central belief? that the russian Chinese Cambodian regimes did not particularly say they were atheist and promote atheism? That the "League of the Godless" was not about atheism??
    But the murders were done as part of suppressing other groups that might speak out against the government. That's nothing to do with atheism.

    And why is it that the worst of these regimes were all Atheist Totalitarian regimes and few of the Christian regimes were Totalitarian and thoise that were didnt do as much slaughtering as the atheist ones?
    You haven't shown anything to back that up.
    http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/rise%28n%29-2.htm

    MOC - Greatness Dishonoured, by Michael O' Carroll, 1980

    Chamberlain signed a piece of paper too and announced "Peace in our time" . was he giving special protection and dealing with Nazis too?

    I'll have to see what Chamberlain did or didn't sign before I can comment.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2011
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    PDN wrote: »
    Actually that is untrue. I believe ISAW resurrected it in post 1970. Marien then repeated her claim in post 1977. I responded to Marien in post 1980.

    I get enough stick from people about what I actually do, without anyone wrongly accusing me of doing stuff I didn't do. :(

    The stick was for ISAW, sorry I mis-attributed the resurrection to you.
    I think theirs a glitch in the Matrix, we seem to have done all this before.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement