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)

16667697172327

Comments

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


    marienbad wrote: »
    Again I must correct you ISAW - your statement that the ''principle that neither atheism nor Christianity caused atrocities '' is not a statement you proposed is not the issue . It is a statement just now introduced by you and was never proposed by anyone and bears no relation to the proposition under discussion , which is

    neither atheism nor theism causes atrocities- it is your insistance in conflating the meaning of words that is causing the confusion- atheism/atheistic state/ totalitarianism on the one side and theism/christianity on the other. The opposite to atheism is theism.

    And since when is it for you to decide what are we concerned with here ?
    hard atheism, soft atheism, new terms to me, What are their opposite might I ask - Hard theism ? lukewarm theism perhaps. More shifting the goalposts methinks.

    It is a bit late now to be confining the conversation to monotheistic Christianity as I have already asked you to defend your thesis as it gives a free pass to those other belief systems to do as they please. I am still waiting for an answer on that one by the way .

    Furthermore there was a ruling far back in the mists of time on this thread that it is not just monotheistic belief systems that can be included here. belief and unbelief in all their glorious varieties are allowed up for discussion.

    .

    ISAW , when you are ready can I have an answer to this please.

    A further issue I would like to raise is the constant variety of comments you make in the mode of ''I have no problem with atheists so long as....
    You do realize the consequences of lumping loads of people in to catagories based on one commonality. Take out atheists for example and substitute Jews, Blacks ,Women, Red heads . Your attitude joins the ''so long as'' list of actual examples listed below, and these are only the milder ones

    ''I have no problem with Black people so long as they don't intermarry with white women''

    '' I have no problem with Jews so long as they don't go about in that funny dress and hairstyle''

    ''I have no problem with women so long as they realize their place is in the home''

    And now we can add ISAW's Law !

    '' I have no problem with atheists so long as they keep it to themselves and not try to proselytize or get into government''

    The logical consequence of the ''so long as'' line of argument is - what would you do to prevent that possibility. So what would you do ?


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


    Morbert wrote: »
    I mean small enough to look at in more detail. If there had been, say, 1,000 atheist regimes over history, and they had all committed atrocities, then there might be something to the claim.

    So given there was only ONE Nazi regime you thing the Holocaust didn't have anything to do with Naziism?
    Using population as metric is completely irrelevant.

    So why did you bring it up then? your words " Do you believe the great leap forward would have killed on the order of 50 million if there were only, say 1 million people living in China?"
    Why use a fictional population of 1 million as a metric to judge anything especially if it is as you claim "irrelevant" ? By the way the metric i was using is the sample as a percentage of the overall numbers. One country in fifteen ; one person in fifteen.
    You would have took at a "regime population" throughout history. We see that the number of such regimes are small enough to analyse in more detail.

    There are enough to d the analysis and enough to determine what governments were atheistic ( i.e. with "There is no god" as a central principle) . Im not aware of any "There is no God" administrations over countries that were not regimes. I know plenty of christian administrations that were not.
    We can indeed look at these regimes. That is what I am asking you to do. What is the argument, based on these regimes, that atheism will lead to atrocities, as opposed to, say Totalitarianism, anti-clericalism coupled with anti-pluralism?

    I didn't make the claim. the claim is that belief ( in specific in Christianity) causes atrocities.
    My counter claim is "not in any way as much as atheism"
    I happy to let atheists go their own way until they start attacking religion and making smug jokes about Christianity as if it is unreasonable.
    All the atheistic regimes caused mayhem and left nothing for posterity but piles of skulls.
    Only few christian regimes did.
    Modern Japan has a largely atheist population.

    Who was it stated that they were not referring to post WWII Japan accusing me of dishonesty?...
    A deliberately dishonest tactic. Emperor divinity only collapsed after WWII. Modern Japan is not religious. Japan during WWII was not only religious, but theistic,
    and now you want to refer to "modern" Japan

    Modern Japan produced Aum Shriya do you know of any other country who used SARIN gas in a terrorist attack? No doubt you might claim christian influence.
    In fact, it is an example of a secular pluralist society, where Christianity et al are in the minority, but free to practise their religion without persecution. Do you believe they are on the road to another massacre?

    I hope not. But i dont think "ther is no god" is a central tenet of the Japanese constitution.
    Which was influenced by the US and their constitution. Which was written to avoid religious division. The irish constitution as it happenms acts in a diffferent way to support religion in schools. If only the US example existed people would never realise that "freedom of belief" or "rights of the family" can mean the State supports such things as religion.
    I am not insisting they are different. I have said before that I want neither. I want secular pluralism.

    Im happy for you to want it. I wont be voting for 50% of schools losing their ethos.
    Sure, I would be pleased if atheists were in the majority, but only if this came through discourse and not oppression.

    I dont think the Church of Ireland or Catholic church are oppressive regimes.
    I am specifically addressing the claim that atheism causes atrocities: That if a society becomes atheist, through whatever means, they will start killing people.

    Whenever they got in control in the past they did. But Im happy to leave you alone if you accept that they are not in charge and that Christian people when in power using Christian principles did not oppress and actually built society.
    Does this mean you are now changing your position from "Atheism causes atrocities." To "state-enforced Christianity is comparatively benign"?

    It means as always if you state "neither atheism or Christianity caused atrocities " I am willing to let that go because it means your claim ( I only make counter claims) means you won't criticise the past of Christianity in the future.

    Stop trying to change the claimn to ME claiming "Atheism causes atrocities." when the original claim was yours "neither atheism or Christianity caused atrocities "
    You are the one who brought them into it when you said history shows that atheism causes atrocities. It is perfectly appropriate that theist atrocities are up there as well, implying other causes.

    Christian theist atrocities (and indeed no doubt other mainstream religions - i gave you the stats) are in no way "up there" compared to atheistic Mao Stalin etc.


    They are all regimes but
    1. atheistic regimes dwarf the others.
    2. Atheistic regimes always murder
    3. christian regimes dont always kill everyone
    4. There are non regime Christian governments.

    I have made it perfectly clear what I mean by population density (not just population). From my post #1830 (A post I assumed you missed, as you did not respond to it) :

    I probably did. But instead of stating that I missed it you instead accused me of dishonesty.
    "And I refer you to my earlier remark about not imposing other discussions onto this one. I have never made the "Leopold of Belgium is evidence of Christianity causing regimes in the Congo" argument (as I have pointed out numerous times),

    So you can leave Leopold out of your repertoire of Christian regimes then.
    Mind you the Congo can re enter as another atheistic nightmare.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marien_Ngouabi
    Africa's first Marxist Leninist state - i.e. atheist
    and I am well aware that high population does not automatically result in famine. Mao's famine was entirely state-sponsored. It was a repulsive socio-economic experiment in rapid industrialisation that cost millions of lives. But the number of deaths is directly linked to the high population. Is it an excuse? Of course not, but you are acting like atheism was the contingency, when it was clearly a number of factors, none of which being atheism."
    If atheism is equally as bad as Christianity how come there are few christian caused famines and atrocities which killed few people and so many killed by atheists . Especially since atheists are ain tiny numbers and christians are the largest group on the planet.? and how come if you look at famines it is the Christians who are first on the scene and the atheists are nowhere to be found?
    Bingo. Atheism is not the reason the death toll was so high.

    So how come the atheistic regimes have all the high totals and the Christians even after 2000 years don't?
    Do you really think naziism and the nazi philosophy had nothing to do with the Holocaust and it was just coincidence that they killed so many people at the same time they had an anti Jew and anti Gypsy philosophy?
    And I am not saying it was Christianity.

    You are not saying it wasn't are you?


    Do you mean:
    "I no longer believe atheism is a root cause."

    or

    "I still believe atheism is a root cause, but I will not supply an argument for why I think this."

    I have supplied you with the stats. It is completely plausible when most slaughter do insides with "there is no god" regimes and a tiny proportion with "christian God" regimes to consider that the philosophy might have something to do with it. Do you really think naziism and the nazi philosophy had nothing to do with the Holocaust? But apparently atheism of the Stalinist and Maoist regimes had nothing at all to do with their killing of non committed atheists?

    WWII Japan was not an atheist regimes.

    Nor was it christian.
    While North Korea and Stalinist Russia can be called atheist (North Korea came close to theism when it was suggested Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il were the same, transcendant being), the Emperor of Japan was a God. Again, I do not tender examples to argue that they committed atrocities because they were theists. I do it to show that atrocities stem from something other than atheism.

    But not from Christianity. I admit Nazis and other non atheists who also were not christian committed atrocities.
    Do you see, for example, similarities between atheist regimes like Stalin's russia, and "non atheist" regimes like Nazi Germany, or WWII Japan, or a variety of examples in Africa?

    Yes . they were all non Christian. :)
    North Korea is definitely atheist (Though WWII Japan wasn't).

    It had only recently become nationalist just as Germany had.
    You specifically said atheist religions all cause atrocities.

    Yes i did. all atheist regimes i.e. any givernment with "ther is no god" as a central tenet.
    Jainism is an example of a peaceful atheist religion, as are atheist branches of Unitarianism

    As Is Buddhism sometimes. But what examples have you of them actually controlling the government or constitution of a country?
    I admit Jainism has positives. Im sure there are positive atheists like yourself as well. I don't think running the world based on jainism or Falun Gong or Bhuddism would be ideal but it would be a far sight better than basing it on atheism.


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


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    No I'm pointing out the possibility that you confuse coincidence with causality.

    I'm well aware that just because it happened at the same time does not mean atheism taking over government caused atrocities.
    Im also aware while it does not logically prove it, if every time atheism is in command people die in droves and if everytime christianity is in charge people do not die in droves that after 2000 years of this it is reasonable to suspect a causal connection.

    Similarly statistical incidence of cholera correlating with where sewers discharge doesn't
    mean cholera is spread by water contamination . ( especially when microbiology was unknown to the person who found out the correlation)


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


    This board needs a 'banging your head against a brick wall' smiley just for this thread.



    868.png


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


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    This board needs a 'banging your head against a brick wall' smiley just for this thread.



    868.png

    smiley-bangheadonwall-yellow.gif


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


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    This board needs a 'banging your head against a brick wall' smiley just for this thread.
    http://www.criticalthinking.com/company/articles/inductive-deductive-reasoning.jsp
    Most arguments are mainly inductive. In fact, inductive reasoning usually comes much more naturally to us than deductive reasoning.

    Inductive reasoning moves from specific details and observations (typically of nature) to the more general underlying principles or process that explains them (e.g., Newton's Law of Gravity).
    http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php

    I observe that atheistic regimes killed people en masse. It isn't invalid reasoning having looked at such a pattern to arrive at a hypothesis that atheism when used as a central tenet of society resluts in destruction and christianity when adopted as a central tenet doesn't! No amount of "correlation is not causality" or "you can't logically deduce atheism causes atrocities" will dismiss that.


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


    No amount of "correlation is not causality" or "you can't logically deduce atheism causes atrocities" will dismiss that.
    No but it don't mean its right.
    You have to also show the method or means of cause. Evolution demonstrates that having looked at such a pattern to arrive at a hypothesis isn't enough we needed knowledge of genetics to prove it. Up till then Lamarckism seemed valid. (of course the irony here is Dawkins reusing Lamarck for his meme theory)


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


    marienbad wrote: »
    ISAW , when you are ready can I have an answer to this please.
    I already addressed it but :
    You asked two questions

    1. since when is it for you to decide what are we concerned with here ?

    It is a matter of definition. I you claim "god ordered rape" or "Christianity caused atrocities but atheism didn't" then ift is for you to provide evidence.

    2. hard atheism, soft atheism, new terms to me, What are their opposite might I ask - Hard theism ?


    Actaull if you do a search you will not i have been uasing them for years and have referred to the Triniuty college "nones" survey several times before. If you never heard the term before your ignorance is not my problem. I clearly stated exactly what I meant by atheism , i.e. "There is/are no God(s)" I have clearly stated this umpteen times. Ther is no fudging or muddying waters or any other unclear definition as you seem to want others to believe.
    Not alone that you asked for a definition. Having supplied one you asked for a definition from a reference work. You now have one. Feel free to consult ARIS whenever you need to look up what "nones" are.
    http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/
    A further issue I would like to raise is the constant variety of comments you make in the mode of ''I have no problem with atheists so long as....
    You do realize the consequences of lumping loads of people in to catagories based on one commonality.

    If you are not interested in saying anything about atheists as a group then fine. I am referring to hardline evangelising atheists who attack religious belief as silly and attempt to degrade it. I have no problem putting all such people into a group. If you think that putting nazis , Islamofacists, revolutionary communists or religious fundamentalists into groups is segregating them unfairly or insensitive to them well that's tough. WEhatever next putting "criminals" is insensitive to people who commit crime?
    Take out atheists for example and substitute Jews, Blacks ,Women, Red heads .

    Nice work on the type selection. :) take out Jews, Blacks ,Women and Red heads and put in nazis , Islamofacists, or revolutionary communists. How does htat grab you?
    Your attitude joins the ''so long as'' list of actual examples listed below, and these are only the milder ones
    ''I have no problem with Black people so long as they don't intermarry with white women''

    '' I have no problem with Jews so long as they don't go about in that funny dress and hairstyle''

    ''I have no problem with women so long as they realize their place is in the home''

    And now we can add ISAW's Law !

    '' I have no problem with atheists so long as they keep it to themselves and not try to proselytize or get into government''

    Or fascists, or Islamofacists, or Marxist Leninists, or Bolsheviks, or Nazis.
    The logical consequence of the ''so long as'' line of argument is - what would you do to prevent that possibility. So what would you do ?

    Well the Germans banned Nazism. I would not go that far. Indeed I have supported the right of such people to speak. I would support laws which prevent them form damaging society. I don't think the Church of Ireland or RCC have a damaging influence on society.


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


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    No but it don't mean its right.

    If right = "Logically proven" I agree.

    so how many times must the sun come up before you believe it will do so tomorrow?
    You have to also show the method or means of cause. Evolution demonstrates that having looked at such a pattern to arrive at a hypothesis isn't enough we needed knowledge of genetics to prove it. Up till then Lamarckism seemed valid. (of course the irony here is Dawkins reusing Lamarck for his meme theory)

    The meme theory fell flat on its fact. While developing solar physics and gravitiation is a worthwhile pursuit, not having such knowledge does not invalidate the belief that the Sun will rise tomorrow doe sit? Ironically here is a genetic fallacy of mixing upi cause and origin. Suppose Galileo was first to suggest that the Earth went round the Sun and the earth rotates . Does that mean the Earth suddenly began to move when Galileo imparted that knowledge to the rest of us. So was it necessary for Galileo to prove the Earth moved for it to move ? Of course it wasn't! He didn't even need to come up with Newtonian gravitation. All he had to do was announce his hypothesis.
    Apparently you think not only should Galileo say "the Earth moves" but he should have shown according to what laws it moves and the method means or cause of motion.

    Yet the Earth still moved in spite of him showing how it did so.


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


    Apparently you think not only should Galileo say "the Earth moves" but he should have shown according to what laws it moves and the method means or cause of motion.
    No, your doing it again. No one is disagreeing that atheistic regimes have caused atrocities, thats not that same as saying that atheism caused atrocities and a long way from saying that atheists will always cause atrocities.
    I know you'll say you never said that but you keep on listing and quoting and turning this thread into a war of attrition. Who gives up first.
    It might behove you to listen to what people say, attempt to engage with them and offer an opinion of where their wrong rather than forensically dissecting every post and this trick of holding everything said in evidence against them? Let the discussion move on, arguments develop and what was said 300 posts ago might be no longer the position held or it might be just a badly expressed version of a position.
    I'v disagreed with you, Marien and several others here without having to repeat the same thing over and over.
    I could be wronging you and their is some subtle point we are missing but it seems that you see any grasp of someone else's position as a lessening of yours. It isn't. You can say ISeeWhatYouMean and add IfYouSseeWhatIMean.
    Hell I agree with you autocratic dictatorships do bad things and they all seem to have atheism as a common factor, it's possible their is some flaw in atheism that causes this.
    But it's also possible that the same could have happened if Hitler was a pope or mullah or POTUS It could be a combination of factors or it could be nothing to do with atheism or theism and everything to do with unrestrained power.
    I suspect that it's the latter, totalitarian dictators accept no master, and once in power seek to replace all authority be that secular or religious. I don't think atheism of itself leads to dictators but dictators do tend to atheism once totalitarianism becomes their goal.


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


    I have to say that I find ISAW's arguments on this to be utterly unconvincing.

    I think it is legitimate to point out the atrocities caused by atheist regimes, if you are responding to the oft-repeated canard that "religion is the cause of all the wars and suffering in history". It makes sense, in that particular context, to point out that those who got rid of religion still proved to just as capable of causing wars and suffering as anyone else.

    (Of course, you'll still get the occasional moron who will try to argue that such atheistic regimes are actually a form of religion, but there probably isn't much point in even trying to discuss the issue with someone if they are that dishonest and that willing to twist language).

    However, outside of that limited context, I think there is little point to go on banging about 'atheist atrocities' all the time. Given the horrible things done in the name of religion over the years, it is a classic example of people in glass houses throwing stones.

    The simple truth is that human nature, while occasionally capable of great nobility, has a very nasty bestial streak running through it that makes us capable of exploiting any ideology or philosophy in order to grab power and, in seeking to maintain that power, in oppressing and torturing our fellow human beings. (The biblical, and more concise, way of saying that is that we are all sinners. And, given the right circumstances and opportunities, we can sin big time.)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,267 ✭✭✭gimmebroadband


    The fallen nature of mankind has more to do with atrocities caused than religion has. If mankind would adhere to the teachings of Christ, then the world would be a better place. ;)
    I like your Christ but I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ! (Ghandi)


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


    ISAW wrote: »
    So given there was only ONE Nazi regime you thing the Holocaust didn't have anything to do with Naziism?

    Perfect example: If the only pieces of data we had were "There was one Nazi regime" and "An atrocity happened under the Nazi regime", then we would not be justified in declaring the Nazi's were responsible for the atrocity. We would have to look at the incident in detail. Perhaps there was a civil war. Perhaps the Nazis were a peace-loving democracy that suffered a military coup. When we did look, we would note the anti-Semitism, the Nazi-run death camps, and the Megalomania of Hitler. We would then be justified in declaring the Nazis responsible.
    So why did you bring it up then? your words " Do you believe the great leap forward would have killed on the order of 50 million if there were only, say 1 million people living in China?"
    Why use a fictional population of 1 million as a metric to judge anything especially if it is as you claim "irrelevant" ? By the way the metric i was using is the sample as a percentage of the overall numbers. One country in fifteen ; one person in fifteen.

    You are swapping contexts back and forth. You brought up number of deaths caused by Mao's famine, and I pointed out that a high population density, not atheism, was why the death toll was as high as it was.
    There are enough to d the analysis and enough to determine what governments were atheistic ( i.e. with "There is no god" as a central principle) . Im not aware of any "There is no God" administrations over countries that were not regimes. I know plenty of christian administrations that were not.

    Ok I'll do the analysing for you. Were any of these governments democracies? Were any of them secular pluralists? What leads you to believe that a democratic government of atheist secular pluralists will cause atrocities?
    I didn't make the claim. the claim is that belief ( in specific in Christianity) causes atrocities.
    My counter claim is "not in any way as much as atheism"
    I happy to let atheists go their own way until they start attacking religion and making smug jokes about Christianity as if it is unreasonable.
    All the atheistic regimes caused mayhem and left nothing for posterity but piles of skulls.
    Only few christian regimes did.

    Stop trying to change the claimn to ME claiming "Atheism causes atrocities." when the original claim was yours "neither atheism or Christianity caused atrocities

    Yes you did claim atheism causes atrocities. I specifically asked you if you genuinely believed atheism causes atrocities, or if, instead, you were using it as a rhetorical device to highlight the absurdity of the claim "Christianity causes atrocities". You said you genuinely believed it.

    Who was it stated that they were not referring to post WWII Japan accusing me of dishonesty?...

    and now you want to refer to "modern" Japan

    Yes. Modern Japan is an example of a predominantly atheist, but still secular pluralist, society. It falsifies your inference.
    Modern Japan produced Aum Shriya do you know of any other country who used SARIN gas in a terrorist attack? No doubt you might claim christian influence.

    Are you serious? Really? Really?!? You are arguing that a terrorist attack against Japanese society, perpetrated by religious nut jobs who believe in a mish-mash theology, run by a guy who draws similarities between himself and the Lamb of God, is an instrument of atheism? Seriously??? This places modern Japan on the same list as Mao and Stalin?
    I hope not. But i dont think "ther is no god" is a central tenet of the Japanese constitution.
    Which was influenced by the US and their constitution. Which was written to avoid religious division. The irish constitution as it happenms acts in a diffferent way to support religion in schools. If only the US example existed people would never realise that "freedom of belief" or "rights of the family" can mean the State supports such things as religion.

    And nobody is arguing for placing "there is no God" as a central tenet of the constitution. We are arguing for a secular pluralism, where atheists and theists are free to be as plentiful as they like, and to hold as many governmental positions as society wishes.

    <snip>

    The rest of the post is a repetition of points we have been over before.


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


    Morbert wrote: »
    Perfect example: If the only pieces of data we had were "There was one Nazi regime" and "An atrocity happened under the Nazi regime", then we would not be justified in declaring the Nazi's were responsible for the atrocity. We would have to look at the incident in detail. Perhaps there was a civil war. Perhaps the Nazis were a peace-loving democracy that suffered a military coup. When we did look, we would note the anti-Semitism, the Nazi-run death camps, and the Megalomania of Hitler. We would then be justified in declaring the Nazis responsible.
    Let us take the example of the Jews who are central to the WWII Holocaust.
    But you are then saying it isn't meglomania of Hitler because he would have killed anyone ( and maybe he would have eventually if given the chance so i would thin dont give him the chance to go any further based on what he did in the past)
    but his particular anti-Jew policy as outlined in the Nazi philosophy which led to Jews being singled out.

    You don't have to go looking for other reasons. "our superiour way is better than the Jews" was enough to lead to the persecution of Jews. The philosophy of their way being better and the promotion of that philosophy. A bit like promoting "there is no God" ?
    You are swapping contexts back and forth. You brought up number of deaths caused by Mao's famine, and I pointed out that a high population density, not atheism, was why the death toll was as high as it was.

    I brought up the deaths caused by people with atheism central to their system. They may have had other things as well . But if you look at other varioboles e.g. communism; totalitarianism; authoritarianism; freedom to do what you want; having moustaches; religious zealots etc. you can always find exceptions . Only atheistic regimes don't have exceptions when we have to look at the incidents in detail.
    Ok I'll do the analysing for you. Were any of these governments democracies?

    very few. More importantly there were democracies which did not commit atrocities
    Were any of them secular pluralists? What leads you to believe that a democratic government of atheist secular pluralists will cause atrocities?

    Democracies do sometimes. They don't ALL THE TIME that is the point!
    What atheistic regime didn't commit atrocities?
    Yes you did claim atheism causes atrocities. I specifically asked you if you genuinely believed atheism causes atrocities, or if, instead, you were using it as a rhetorical device to highlight the absurdity of the claim "Christianity causes atrocities". You said you genuinely believed it.

    If adopted as a central tenet of a government which is why I call it an "atheistic" system. Is use "regime" because i dont know of atheistic government systems that were not regimes.

    On the other hand Christianity has a record of NOT causing atrocities when in charge of the country.
    Yes. Modern Japan is an example of a predominantly atheist, but still secular pluralist, society. It falsifies your inference.

    Not atheistic = government with "ther is no god" as a central tenet.
    On the other hand government with "there is a God" were not all terror regimes.

    Ther can be a majority of atheists in Ireland. so long as parents can have religion on schools protected by the constitution the Christians don't have a problem with their majority. It is when they start oppressing others the problems start. and this is when they have a tiny percentage of militants egging them on.
    Are you serious? Really? Really?!? You are arguing that a terrorist attack against Japanese society, perpetrated by religious nut jobs who believe in a mish-mash theology, run by a guy who draws similarities between himself and the Lamb of God, is an instrument of atheism? Seriously??? This places modern Japan on the same list as Mao and Stalin?

    It is symptomatic of a society that allows such fundamentalists to come about. By "allow" I dont mean "gives freedom to " but creates a philosophical tableau whereby the subjective norm dominates. relativism and absence of values prevail. they the of society that has no moral values but relativism like the atheists want or that makes out that morals or "meaningless" a philosophy which nihilists like you promote. It places a moral burden for similar atrocities ion the shoulders of those that deny moral values. The whole central issue of "there is a God" is not that God exists but that we assume it is a benevolent caring God depicting moral decency.
    And nobody is arguing for placing "there is no God" as a central tenet of the constitution.

    Plenty argued it! Maoists, Stalinists. The league of the Godless.
    When you say "morality is meaningless" you make a similar argument!
    You are basically saying "we don't need God"
    We are arguing for a secular pluralism, where atheists and theists are free to be as plentiful as they like, and to hold as many governmental positions as society wishes.

    So long as they don't impinge on Christians ( and others) rights to school their kids in ethos schools - fine by the Chrtistians.


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


    ISAW wrote: »
    I already addressed it but :
    You asked two questions

    1. since when is it for you to decide what are we concerned with here ?

    It is a matter of definition. I you claim "god ordered rape" or "Christianity caused atrocities but atheism didn't" then ift is for you to provide evidence.

    2. hard atheism, soft atheism, new terms to me, What are their opposite might I ask - Hard theism ?


    Actaull if you do a search you will not i have been uasing them for years and have referred to the Triniuty college "nones" survey several times before. If you never heard the term before your ignorance is not my problem. I clearly stated exactly what I meant by atheism , i.e. "There is/are no God(s)" I have clearly stated this umpteen times. Ther is no fudging or muddying waters or any other unclear definition as you seem to want others to believe.
    Not alone that you asked for a definition. Having supplied one you asked for a definition from a reference work. You now have one. Feel free to consult ARIS whenever you need to look up what "nones" are.
    http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/



    If you are not interested in saying anything about atheists as a group then fine. I am referring to hardline evangelising atheists who attack religious belief as silly and attempt to degrade it. I have no problem putting all such people into a group. If you think that putting nazis , Islamofacists, revolutionary communists or religious fundamentalists into groups is segregating them unfairly or insensitive to them well that's tough. WEhatever next putting "criminals" is insensitive to people who commit crime?



    Nice work on the type selection. :) take out Jews, Blacks ,Women and Red heads and put in nazis , Islamofacists, or revolutionary communists. How does htat grab you?

    ''I have no problem with Black people so long as they don't intermarry with white women''

    '' I have no problem with Jews so long as they don't go about in that funny dress and hairstyle''

    ''I have no problem with women so long as they realize their place is in the home''

    And now we can add ISAW's Law !

    '' I have no problem with atheists so long as they keep it to themselves and not try to proselytize or get into government''

    Or fascists, or Islamofacists, or Marxist Leninists, or Bolsheviks, or Nazis.



    Well the Germans banned Nazism. I would not go that far. Indeed I have supported the right of such people to speak. I would support laws which prevent them form damaging society. I don't think the Church of Ireland or RCC have a damaging influence on society.


    Absolutely correct ISAW , fine by me if you want to make those substitutions, fascists islamofascists marxists nazis - the lot , let them all have at it- provided they stay within the law as regards slander/libel,/children etc that we all have to abide by . Other than that let them have at it Dawkins,Nick Griffin,Abu Hamsa,David Irving, Tutu and in the free competition of ideas lets see who wins . Speaking for my self I have no doubt who will will win.

    You then say you would not go so far as banning them,but would prefer laws preventing them damageing society, can I ask you .

    What do you define as damaging society ?

    what are those laws that you would bring in to prevent that damage limititation.

    Would those laws be by statute or constitutional ?

    Would you support the current blasphemy laws for example, the position of the Catholic Church in the constitution ?

    But then that chimes with the fundamentally anti-democratic nature of the Catholic Church.


    I presume you must be aware of the irony of your position whereby you spend pages and pages of texts railing against regimes persecuting people for their beliefs and seemingly are willing to go down that road yourself, and please before you go off at the deep end I am not saying that you or the church are the same as x or y , just pointing out the anomaly at the heart of your argument.


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


    Speaking for my self I have no doubt who will win.
    We elected Bertie, I wouldn't be all that certain who of your lot wouldn't get elected.


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


    ISAW wrote: »
    Let us take the example of the Jews who are central to the WWII Holocaust.
    But you are then saying it isn't meglomania of Hitler because he would have killed anyone ( and maybe he would have eventually if given the chance so i would thin dont give him the chance to go any further based on what he did in the past)
    but his particular anti-Jew policy as outlined in the Nazi philosophy which led to Jews being singled out.

    Exactly. the Nazi policy that the Jews were inferior people, who do not deserve human rights, lead to atrocities.
    You don't have to go looking for other reasons. "our superiour way is better than the Jews" was enough to lead to the persecution of Jews. The philosophy of their way being better and the promotion of that philosophy. A bit like promoting "there is no God" ?

    Of course it isn't. One is hateful and violent anti-Semitism. The other is a statement about God.
    I brought up the deaths caused by people with atheism central to their system. They may have had other things as well . But if you look at other varioboles e.g. communism; totalitarianism; authoritarianism; freedom to do what you want; having moustaches; religious zealots etc. you can always find exceptions . Only atheistic regimes don't have exceptions when we have to look at the incidents in detail.

    So let's look at the incidents in detail. Pick an atheist regime. Any atheist regime, and we will look at it in detail.
    very few. More importantly there were democracies which did not commit atrocities

    Democracies do sometimes. They don't ALL THE TIME that is the point!
    What atheistic regime didn't commit atrocities?

    I cannot find reference to any? What are the atheist democracies that committed atrocities?
    If adopted as a central tenet of a government which is why I call it an "atheistic" system. Is use "regime" because i dont know of atheistic government systems that were not regimes.

    On the other hand Christianity has a record of NOT causing atrocities when in charge of the country.

    Not atheistic = government with "ther is no god" as a central tenet.
    On the other hand government with "there is a God" were not all terror regimes.

    Ther can be a majority of atheists in Ireland. so long as parents can have religion on schools protected by the constitution the Christians don't have a problem with their majority. It is when they start oppressing others the problems start. and this is when they have a tiny percentage of militants egging them on.

    So it's not "atheism" that causes atrocities? It is state-enforced suppression? Do you retract the claim that "atheism" causes atrocities?
    It is symptomatic of a society that allows such fundamentalists to come about. By "allow" I dont mean "gives freedom to " but creates a philosophical tableau whereby the subjective norm dominates. relativism and absence of values prevail. they the of society that has no moral values but relativism like the atheists want or that makes out that morals or "meaningless" a philosophy which nihilists like you promote. It places a moral burden for similar atrocities ion the shoulders of those that deny moral values. The whole central issue of "there is a God" is not that God exists but that we assume it is a benevolent caring God depicting moral decency.

    I find it hard to believe that you do not see the contrivances and mental gymnastics in the above paragraph. You are trying to present a terrorist attack committed by religious fanatics against an innocent public as a fault of Japan's atheism? You then make a blatantly false statement about Japan having no moral values? What?!? And then some incoherent nonsense about moral burdens and "the whole central issue"... I wouldn't even expect such nonsense from JC! The "whole central issue" is that your opinion of atheism in society is wrong.
    Plenty argued it! Maoists, Stalinists. The league of the Godless.
    When you say "morality is meaningless" you make a similar argument!
    You are basically saying "we don't need God"

    I clearly meant nobody on this forum.
    So long as they don't impinge on Christians ( and others) rights to school their kids in ethos schools - fine by the Chrtistians.

    So you don't believe atheists, if they populated the government, would lead to massacres?


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


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    We elected Bertie, I wouldn't be all that certain who of your lot wouldn't get elected.

    who do you think my lot is ?:) - in a democracy the dawkins and the Tutu's of this world will always come together when necessity demands.


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


    marienbad wrote: »
    Absolutely correct ISAW , fine by me if you want to make those substitutions, fascists islamofascists marxists nazis - the lot , let them all have at it- provided they stay within the law as regards slander/libel,/children etc that we all have to abide by .

    Yep . Including atheist education Ministers saying we should reduce religious ethos schools to 50%. But you get all the atheists trumpeting Ho Chi Quinn's cause. Farr enough. Allow the Marxist atheist Labour party members to spout such things ( while they send their own kids to such schools) just don't expect them to actually do what they say. Mind you it does sound a bit weak as water for a political philosophy doesn't it promising to "get the religious b*** out" but not actually doing anything.
    Other than that let them have at it Dawkins,Nick Griffin,Abu Hamsa,David Irving, Tutu and in the free competition of ideas lets see who wins . Speaking for my self I have no doubt who will will win.

    Ah yes . No doubt? You have faith then.
    You then say you would not go so far as banning them,but would prefer laws preventing them damageing society, can I ask you .

    What do you define as damaging society ?

    Opposing natural Law.
    what are those laws that you would bring in to prevent that damage limititation.

    We don't need any . We already have them. We just don't need a "Stickie" Judge to reinterpret them.
    Would those laws be by statute or constitutional ?

    Given the fundamentality...Probably by case law and interpretation of the constitution.
    Would you support the current blasphemy laws for example, the position of the Catholic Church in the constitution ?

    What position of the Catholic Church in the Constitution? The one we removed in the 1970s?
    But then that chimes with the fundamentally anti-democratic nature of the Catholic Church.

    I already told you I'm a Republican. I don't think "majority rule" is the be all and end all. In a Republic we don't live by that.
    I presume you must be aware of the irony of your position whereby you spend pages and pages of texts railing against regimes persecuting people for their beliefs and seemingly are willing to go down that road yourself, and please before you go off at the deep end I am not saying that you or the church are the same as x or y , just pointing out the anomaly at the heart of your argument.

    There isn't any anomaly! Christianity has been around for 2,000 years and has fairly much run countries ( and Empires) for at least 1700 of those years to a remarkably positive effect. Atheism has also been around and whenever given the chance to run things millions died.


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


    Morbert wrote: »
    Exactly. the Nazi policy that the Jews were inferior people, who do not deserve human rights, lead to atrocities.

    A policy based on their philosophy that the master race are superiour and have a better way.
    Do you believe atheism is a better way?
    Of course it isn't. One is hateful and violent anti-Semitism. The other is a statement about God.


    Anti Semite = anti Jew.
    You think that Judaism has nothing to do with believing in God ? Hint: Consider their first commandment.
    So let's look at the incidents in detail. Pick an atheist regime. Any atheist regime, and we will look at it in detail.

    Pol Pot's
    I cannot find reference to any? What are the atheist democracies that committed atrocities?

    Ther never were any atheist democracies to my knowledge. All governments with "there is no God" as a central tenet were regimes. What atheistic regime didn't commit atrocities?
    So it's not "atheism" that causes atrocities? It is state-enforced suppression? Do you retract the claim that "atheism" causes atrocities?

    So Naziism didn't cause atrocities only state repression?
    I find it hard to believe that you do not see the contrivances and mental gymnastics in the above paragraph. You are trying to present a terrorist attack committed by religious fanatics against an innocent public as a fault of Japan's atheism?

    I am saying the society that allows such movements come about are an enabling culture yes.
    You then make a blatantly false statement about Japan having no moral values? What?!? And then some incoherent nonsense about moral burdens and "the whole central issue"... I wouldn't even expect such nonsense from JC! The "whole central issue" is that your opinion of atheism in society is wrong.


    You carry your own burden! Dint try to give it to me. claiming "morality is a meaningless concept" is the type of thinking that leads to the likes of Aum Shira.
    I clearly meant nobody on this forum.

    I think perhaps you mean you "didn't mean anybody" although being a nihilist I see you might express it in such a different way.
    So you don't believe atheists, if they populated the government, would lead to massacres?

    Not all of them. Only the "we have to think seriously about our atheism and promote atheism and attack religion " atheists. NB non atheists will never say such comments.


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


    I am saying the society that allows such movements come about are an enabling culture yes.
    Well thats every Christian democracy screwed then and Islamic republic. Only totalitarianism can keep this kind of thing at bay, maybe we should elect a dictator to keep us all safe.:rolleyes:


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


    ISAW wrote: »
    A policy based on their philosophy that the master race are superiour and have a better way.
    Do you believe atheism is a better way?

    Anti Semite = anti Jew.
    You think that Judaism has nothing to do with believing in God ? Hint: Consider their first commandment.

    Do you even remember what you are trying to argue any more?
    Pol Pot's

    Excellent example:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

    "During his time in power he imposed a version of agrarian socialism, forcing urban dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labour projects. The combined effects of forced labor, malnutrition, poor medical care, and executions resulted in the deaths of approximately 21 percent of the Cambodian population. In all, an estimated 2,000,000 to 4,000,000 people died under his leadership."

    Why do you believe it was atheism, as opposed to the agrarian socialist policies of Pol Pot, that resulted in so many dead. Do you believe that it was not agrarian socialism, but rather atheism, that caused this atrocity?
    Ther never were any atheist democracies to my knowledge. All governments with "there is no God" as a central tenet were regimes. What atheistic regime didn't commit atrocities?

    So why would you believe an atheist democracy would commit atrocities?
    So Naziism didn't cause atrocities only state repression?

    Oppression is a Nazi policy.
    I am saying the society that allows such movements come about are an enabling culture yes.

    This is idiotic. You claimed atheist societies always committed atrocities, and then when presented with such a society that happens to be perfectly peaceful and tolerant. You say "Well they enabled it." How?! Do you think Japan collectively said "These guys are going to unleash a terrorist attack but we're not going to do anything because we have no morals and are nihilists and morality is meaningless and blah blah blah"? It makes absolutely no sense, and bears absolutely no relation whatsoever to the moral fibre and social integrity of Japan. It is a religious sect committing abhorrent acts against an innocent and secular public. This is glaringly obvious. It's so obvious that again, the only reason you would type such nonsense is you are incapable of admitting that, just maybe, you had said something incorrect.
    You carry your own burden! Dint try to give it to me. claiming "morality is a meaningless concept" is the type of thinking that leads to the likes of Aum Shira.

    You are the one who said morality is a meaningless concept! (See what I did there? See how I accused you of saying something you never said?)
    I think perhaps you mean you "didn't mean anybody" although being a nihilist I see you might express it in such a different way.

    I have a feeling you are trying to change the subject. I clearly meant nobody on this forum was arguing in favour of a new atheist dictatorship. Again, you are hiding behind a mound of nonsense and hysteria to hide your simple error.
    Not all of them. Only the "we have to think seriously about our atheism and promote atheism and attack religion " atheists. NB non atheists will never say such comments.

    Is rational discourse "attacking religion"?


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


    ISAW wrote: »
    Yep . Including atheist education Ministers saying we should reduce religious ethos schools to 50%. But you get all the atheists trumpeting Ho Chi Quinn's cause. Farr enough. Allow the Marxist atheist Labour party members to spout such things ( while they send their own kids to such schools) just don't expect them to actually do what they say. Mind you it does sound a bit weak as water for a political philosophy doesn't it promising to "get the religious b*** out" but not actually doing anything.


    Ah yes . No doubt? You have faith then.



    Opposing natural Law.



    We don't need any . We already have them. We just don't need a "Stickie" Judge to reinterpret them.


    Given the fundamentality...Probably by case law and interpretation of the constitution.



    What position of the Catholic Church in the Constitution? The one we removed in the 1970s?


    I already told you I'm a Republican. I don't think "majority rule" is the be all and end all. In a Republic we don't live by that.



    There isn't any anomaly! Christianity has been around for 2,000 years and has fairly much run countries ( and Empires) for at least 1700 of those years to a remarkably positive effect. Atheism has also been around and whenever given the chance to run things millions died.

    The behaviour of politicians whether because of constrained choice or pure hypocrisy is not the issue. Answer the question please- do you believe in freedom of speech/ assembly etc for all or just for some ?

    And yes indeed I do have faith . Faith that good people of all beliefs and none will always be found in time of of need.

    When you say ''opposing natural law'' is that as formulated by Aristotle/Aquinas ?

    Again I ask do you support the current blasphemy laws ?

    So you don't disagree that the Catholic Church if fundamentally anti- democratic ?

    There is an anomaly at the heart of your argument. Trotting out yet again about the 2000 years history is irrelevant and unproven.


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


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Well thats every Christian democracy screwed then and Islamic republic. Only totalitarianism can keep this kind of thing at bay, maybe we should elect a dictator to keep us all safe.:rolleyes:

    Oddly enough when you compare them, while they made mistakes, religions did actuall build things. Im only discussing Christianity in this group. When compared to atheism running things Christianity under any criterion, even in a Christian dictatorship performs better.


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


    marienbad wrote: »
    The behaviour of politicians whether because of constrained choice or pure hypocrisy is not the issue. Answer the question please- do you believe in freedom of speech/ assembly etc for all or just for some ?

    I have already done so.
    I defended the right for Islamic fundies to spoeak and I defended the right for EU "freedom party" nationalists to speak when atheist Anti-Nazi marxists were banging on the door protesting about such people speaking. "Freedom to speak - except anyone who we don't think should speak" - seemed to be their motto.
    And yes indeed I do have faith . Faith that good people of all beliefs and none will always be found in time of of need.

    Funny how it always seems to be the believers helping those in times of need. The atheist charities are rare on the ground although i admit until recently I didn't know they even existed. Of course when they do charity work we are supposed it is because of atheism being a central tenet but if they do anything bad we are supposed to think atheism has nothing to do with it.
    When you say ''opposing natural law'' is that as formulated by Aristotle/Aquinas ?

    No nor are the laws of physics formed by people. They always existed.
    In this specific instance I think "natural and constitutional justice" might get us out of a long detour into the "Natural Law" thread.
    Again I ask do you support the current blasphemy laws ?

    Don't know enough about them. Do I think someone should be accused of a crime for desecrating communion or a Muslim or Jewish Holy shrine - yes.

    Do I think religions are under attack from relativists and atheists? - yes

    The law defends peoples right to religion and the constitution opposes blasphemy.
    Would i vote to remove that constitutional provision? the more atheists post about it and the more nasty comments I see from smart alec atheists the more i am convinced not to remove such a constitutional provision.
    So you don't disagree that the Catholic Church if fundamentally anti- democratic ?

    What do you mean?
    as opposed to disagreeing it is anti democratic?
    or
    as opposed to not argrring it is anti democratic
    Or as opposed to not agreeing it is democratic
    Or disagreeing it is democratic?

    The Church doesn't oppose democracies ir whatever other secular law people chose to live by.
    Democracy is a flawed concept as de Tocqueville (( democracy in America) and Rand ( Collectivized Rights) pointed out. a republic is a demorcary regulated by law.

    The Church has some democratic processes but no it isn't a democracy. They don't change dogma based on whims of the masses.
    There is an anomaly at the heart of your argument. Trotting out yet again about the 2000 years history is irrelevant and unproven.

    Ther are 2,000 years of records. You can tot up how much harm you think Christianity caused. Atheist Stalin did more harm before breakfast.


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


    Morbert wrote: »

    Why do you believe it was atheism, as opposed to the agrarian socialist policies of Pol Pot, that resulted in so many dead. Do you believe that it was not agrarian socialism, but rather atheism, that caused this atrocity?


    Why do you believe the Nazis or their philosophy didn't kill people - just their gas did?
    http://omgili.com/newsgroups/aus/religion/yXjcl11904cu2919news-serverbigpondnetau.html
    "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.
    ...the government emptied the cities through mass evacuations
    and sent people to the countryside. Cambodians were overworked
    and underfed on collective farms, often succumbing to disease or
    starvation as a result. Spouses were separated and family meals
    prohibited in order to steer loyalties toward the state
    instead of the family.
    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

    The Cambodian Genocide:
    http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/392millones.jpg

    "The country's 40,000 to 60,000 Buddhist monks,
    regarded by the regime as social parasites,
    were defrocked and forced into labor brigades.
    Many monks were executed; temples and pagodas were
    destroyed or turned into storehouses or jails.
    Images of the Buddha were defaced and dumped into
    rivers and lakes. People who were discovered praying
    or expressing religious sentiments in other ways
    were often killed.

    The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most
    persecuted, as well. The Roman Catholic cathedral of
    Phnom Penh was completely razed.

    The Khmer Rouge forced Muslims to eat pork, which they
    regard as an abomination. Many of those who refused were killed.
    Christian clergy and Muslim imams were executed."
    - http://countrystudies.us/cambodia/29.htm

    "Forty-eight percent of Cambodia's Christians were killed
    because of their religion."

    http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/44camboyano.jpg

    "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

    "State atheism has been mostly implemented in communist
    countries, such as the former Soviet Union,[1] China,
    Communist Albania, Communist Afghanistan, North Korea,
    Communist Mongolia and Poland under communist rule also
    promoted state atheism and suppressed religion.
    - Forced out: the fate of Polish Jewry in Communist Poland.
    Wolak, Arthur J. p 104

    In these nations, the governments viewed atheism as an
    intrinsic part of communist ideology.

    So why would you believe an atheist democracy would commit atrocities?

    Message-ID: <f4yLq.972$v14.534@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
    u have a real job explaining the free, open, tolerant,
    progressive secular democratic societies have all been built
    and sustained by MAJORITY RELIGIOUS populations.
    ...
    The difference is religious societies are NOT ALL dogmatic tyrannies,
    whereas EVERY atheist state was!
    ... i guess that's why you
    hypocrites choose to live there rather than in an atheist state, eh?
    Oppression is a Nazi policy.

    So it isnt their gas now it is the policy behind the gas and the principle and beliefs behind that? But of course you say "this can only be applied to believers in God or some anti-Christian forms of theosophy and never applied to atheism" How come that?

    Especially when you judge the actions more significant than the underlying reason for those actions
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68897425&postcount=179
    And as much as I commend anyone who took action against poverty, I don't accept their reasoning or their understanding of why they took action.

    This is idiotic. You claimed atheist societies always committed atrocities, and then when presented with such a society that happens to be perfectly peaceful and tolerant.

    Japan is a secular democracy. It isn't an atheistic state. If and when it was atheistic it committed atrocities.
    You say "Well they enabled it." How?! Do you think Japan collectively said "These guys are going to unleash a terrorist attack but we're not going to do anything because we have no morals and are nihilists and morality is meaningless and blah blah blah"?

    QED. But you might lookup the chomsky reference i supplied before . The system itself can self select and censor. See "What makes the mainstream mainstream"
    http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
    Italics added by me
    They say, quite correctly, "nobody ever tells me what to write. I write anything I like. All this business about pressures and constraints is nonsense because I’m never under any pressure." Which is completely true, but the point is that they wouldn’t be there unless they had already demonstrated that nobody has to tell them what to write because they are going say the right thing. If they had started off at the Metro desk, or something, and had pursued the wrong kind of stories, they never would have made it to the positions where they can now say anything they like. The same is mostly true of university faculty in the more ideological disciplines. They have been through the socialization system.
    It makes absolutely no sense, and bears absolutely no relation whatsoever to the moral fibre and social integrity of Japan. It is a religious sect committing abhorrent acts against an innocent and secular public. This is glaringly obvious. It's so obvious that again, the only reason you would type such nonsense is you are incapable of admitting that, just maybe, you had said something incorrect.

    You are the one who said morality is a meaningless concept! (See what I did there? See how I accused you of saying something you never said?)
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72398117&postcount=295
    Moral nihilism (which is what I would call myself) is the idea that moral systems can be internally consistent, but do not reflect any necessary truths.
    I have a feeling you are trying to change the subject.

    Nope. My mind wanders subject to what I see. I have neurological problems with focus. If you think I intentionally am being dishonest you are entirely wrong.
    I dn't know tho what the above "change" refers but that might also be a reason I reply to the comment sometimes and don't check up the "quote" ( invisible in the reply)
    to which ti refers.
    I clearly meant nobody on this forum was arguing in favour of a new atheist dictatorship. Again, you are hiding behind a mound of nonsense and hysteria to hide your simple error.

    I think you may mean my correction of your reference to "nobody" having an opinion etc.
    Put it this way
    A barman once gad mad at me because instead of ordering Guiness i said i wanted nothing because the day before he told me "nothing was better than a pint of Guinness"
    Is rational discourse "attacking religion"?

    Rationalists did plenty of it in their time.


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


    Democracy is a flawed concept as de Tocqueville (( democracy in America) and Rand ( Collectivized Rights) pointed out
    Your referencing Ayn Rand:eek::eek::eek:
    For Gods sake man, try to keep some creditability.


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


    ISAW your arguments have become a mishmash jumble of retractions contradictions and false comparisons that at this stage I wonder is there any point in going on with the conversation.


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


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Your referencing Ayn Rand:eek::eek::eek:
    For Gods sake man, try to keep some creditability.

    Fasgnadh is an agnostic
    Rand was an objectivist - not subjective like Wicknight/Zombrex

    I'm pointing out the "Natural Law" argument can be secular.


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


    marienbad wrote: »
    ISAW your arguments have become a mishmash jumble of retractions contradictions and false comparisons that at this stage I wonder is there any point in going on with the conversation.

    Feel free to list any
    - retractions
    -contradictions
    -false comparisons

    For your part
    - you have not retracted the "I believe God ordered mass rape in the bible" claim
    -If you accept religion didn't cause atrocities you contradict that claim


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement