Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

marienbad wrote: »

-retractions -your whole acceptance/retraction/acceptance/ retraction /acceptance /retraction with conditions attached of ''neither theism/atheism causes atrocities'

That was Morbert's statement not mine.

-contradictions- your whole atheist state/Japan/Sarin gas analogy

It isn't a religious state today. It has a high number of atheists and atheism has huge influences on national mores. It is not atheistic however.

- false comparision - your constant default position when all else fails,i.e our side killed less than the otherside, our side invented more/ produced more art,/ did whatever more and better than the other side . None of which is relevant and all of it unproven.

Not unproven. I supplied the references. If you dispute them care to show me where they are wrong?

On top of all that I might add your constant changing of the subject to muddy the waters- i.e the rape issue

1. You brought up the "God ordered rape"
2. You ran away when challenged on it.
3. You then later reentered it.No muddying involved by me.

or your segue on your position as it suits- initially we are discussing theism viv a vis theism, then you say you are only concerned with christianity vis a vis atheism,

1. Look at the thread title.
2. Look at the group name.

I haven't changed anything on that
Both you and Morbert are alleging Im dishonest.
Im not and I wont accept that from you.

Im snipping the rest and complaining

marienbad wrote: »

This is all pointless, you just evade answering anything with more scattergun posts and irrelevancies. Your point boils down to ''atheism causes atrocities, theism/ christianity does not'' - if you agree with that summation of your position- I challenge you to lay out a clear logical argument in support of it.

I have NEVER claimed 'atheism causes atrocities, theism/ christianity does not'!
Atheists are quick to point out and over hype the Inquisition and the crusades.
I have accepted that Christianity ( of which there were billions of members) was in charge when these atrocities happened.
But in doing so they entirely ignore the numbers pale to insignificance in terms of the hundreds of millions slaughtered by "there is no God" atheistic regimes (when atheists usually make up a tiny per cent of the developed Societies ( developed not by atheists but by christians and other non atheists) in which they were doing this slaughtering).

The clear argument is there in the history.

christianity around 2000 years. cities and civilizations built.
Atheism when it got in control - piles of skulls and economic ruin.

marienbad wrote: »

There you are doing it again -theism builds civilisations - atheism builds mountains of skulls ! Care to revisit that first sentence and as you are at it how about a logical argument to prove your premise ?.

Yes.
I refer to Christianity in particular.
In 2000 years several entire civilizations were steeped in christianity.
From about 300 Ad the roman Empire was effectively christian and run by christians with the idea of Christ being god.
From about 400 till about 1500 the Eastern Roman Empire was linked to the Christian Church . the government law etc. were all heavily influenced or linked to the Orthodox christian church.
The feudal system in the rest of Europe was heavily influenced or controlled byt the church i.e. the Pope in Rome the local Bishop or Abbot.

Monks (who did what they did because of their Christian faith) throughout Europe but expecially at the finiges both in Byzantium and Britain and Ireland preserved the classical knowledge of antiquity. Some such as Roger Bacon developed science metallurgy etc. In fact Church education was the only education. Atheist schools were not developing anything. The REformation and counter Reformation was a movement brought about by basically "Christian" values being adopted into democracy and trade and fulled the Renaissance which would not have come about without the aforementioned Christian preservation of knowledge.

Western science and civilization was built on the "logos" of ancient Greece which was preserved in the Christian church.

What did the atheists do all this time? What did they build? Who did they help?
Atheism as a philosophy when put in charge or made central to any state led to nothing but decay,

marienbad wrote: »

This is just more repetition but now expanded to take credit for the Greeks and Romans !

I have quite clearly demonstrated how Hellinisation led to the roman Empire and that became enshrined as "logos" in Christianity which coupled it with "theos" and how the Eastern Roman empire was inextricable linked with the church and remained there until Constantinople fell fifteen centuries later. Athesim as an influence on this history had not part to play in building civilization at all. Clearly the Church was establkished and involved in running society since at least the third century.

It is onl;;y after the collapse of The Orthodox Empire that atheism becomes widespread in Europe as a philosophy to underpin running domains. Even since then in europe whenever it was tried society suffered. I don't claim all suffering was exclusive to atheism being adopted as a principle, but the worst run societies were atheistic.

You are just constantly repeating your premise- i.e Christianity builds civilisations - atheism equals decay. Would you care to lay out a logical proof ?

My reasoning is inductive. I freely admit it is not logically deduced. Nor was Newton's law of gravitation. Nor can I logically deduce the Sun will rise tomorrow.

tommy2bad wrote: »

This is nonsense. You can demonstrate the mechanism that causes the sun to rise and fall and logical deduce that the sun will rise tomorrow. You cant demonstrate any mechanism that causes atheism to inevitable end in atrocities.

Saying "there is no god" is an invitation to throw away natural Law.
It is reasonable to assume a society that rejects morality and preaches that absolute moral standards do not exist we result in deaths. also if you have no ideals for which to live by why bother building anything?
http://books.google.ie/books?id=gj114JLCEwQC&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=posterity+in+secularism&source=bl&ots=18ydEY7jqh&sig=OALyBCD-cbpk1PtisplktZFGVM4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e4giT8mRCIy3hAf4veDjBA&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=posterity%20in%20secularism&f=false

Posterity lost: progress, ideology, and the decline of the American family
By Richard T. Gill
Chapter 9 Page 184

But where then would all the values come from...

marienbad wrote: »

Inductive is it ? Well lets forget about the sun as that is patently untrue

Let's not! Can you logically deduce the sun will come up tomorrow?

http://www.ssr.org/Induction.shtml
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
"the process of inferring a general law or principle from observation of particular instances"
and ...
deduction thus is “inference by reasoning from generals to particulars,” or “the process of deducing from something known or assumed…”

and come to Newton - ''there is a distance between a truth that is glimpsed and a truth that is demonstrated''. However Newton may have glimpsed his laws he sets out the proofs in clear demonstrable terms.

some of this mathematical proofs. Mathematics is a deductive process.

Care to do the same for your theory ? If not it is just your opinion.

I have already supplied the historical evidence of "particular instances" of atheistic regimes and inferred that in general they were atrocious

irishh_bob wrote: »

agree that morality is a barrier to personal success , selfishness and a willingless to sacrafice personal integrity is often required in order to achieve great success

Achieve it for whom? For the individual making the sacrifice? How is self interest justified as the main principle of societal progress? Clearly history shows that selflessness is what made all the great societies. With the exception of the few who held almost all the wealth and power how were all the others being selfish?