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
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Where did I State that?
I suggest you look up affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent.
You fing also look up false attribution.
It was Morbert who stated all Totalitarian regimes do not believe in a higher power not me.
I don't know who suggested it originally ISAW but in some of your recent posts you seem to be saying that as atheistic/totalitarian regimes don't belive in a higher power they are prone (like the sun rising) to atrocities.
And than Christians - because they do believe- do not.
I am in a rush now , but I will try and get the posts numbers later.
While I am looking up those terms you listed can I suggest you look up pompous/condescending/ tunnel vision/the right man syndrome
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Why?
In the case ofDo crimes against humanity need to be approved or initiated by Vatican in order to be associated with Catholicism?
"...the regimes of Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, Pinochet and a host more were as a consequence of their Catholicism." Yes.
Maybe you have a point but I fail to see it.
Not sure what's the point of that either. Leave it as the "consequence of", I see no difference to be honest.Why don't you give me a definiition of "associated with Catholicism" and we can apply the SAME standard to "associated with atheism or atheistic regimes"?
For example, the genocide of Serbs by Ustaše was the consequence of their Catholicism. At the same time genocide of Jews by the same Ustaše was not the consequence of their Catholicism but the consequence of their anti-Semitism and political needs to serve their big brother.
Same, the persecution of religious leaders in the early days of Soviet Russia can be counted as the consequence of their Atheism. At the same time the persecution of independent farmers by the same people was not the consequence of Atheism.
Again your reasoning remained hidden from me...
Yes .What about other faiths which are unfortunate enough not to have a Pope - are they completely immune to any acquisitions with the connections to atrocities for that matter?
When discussing "...the regimes of Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, Pinochet and a host more were as a consequence of their Catholicism."
And again I have difficulties understanding you. Why and how do I argue against myself?
Assuming your stats to be true and without dismissing that it was wrong, you already argue against yourself ( in bold above) by putting the numbers into context.Ustaša anyone? About every forth or even third Serb in Croatia was killed or forcibly converted to Catholicism. Plus thousands of Jews and Roma. Maybe it's a tiny scale looking at the things from today's Ireland
but I guess the scale was not that tiny for Serbs.
Please consider me mentally challenged: I need the full logical chain in order to try to comprehend what you are saying. Conclusions alone are apparently not enough for me to get the point.
Regarding the stats: the number of Ustaše victims are estimated to be between 300,000 and 800,000 by different sources. If we take wikipedia figures as a starting point it states 330,000-390,000 killed, 200,000 force-converted and another 250,000 expelled. The vast majority of that are Serbs with the second largest group being Jews (37,000). The Serb population of Croatia in 1941 as reported by Germans was 1,925,000 (or 30% of the total population). If we take the lower figures and don't count expelled then it would make every forth Serb killed or force-converted.0 -
-
Because the original question actually asked "as a consequence of their Catholicism" ?Why?
Maybe you have a point but I fail to see it.
Now either it is Catholicism as in the Roman Catholic Church or it is their Catholiciam which is either
1. Not Catholicism at all i.e. not Roman Catholic Church
or
2. the exact same as Roman Catholic Church Catholicism.
Are you claiming Pinochet etc. was 1 or 2?
If 2 how come Roman Catholic teaching and authorities agreed with some aspects of their regimes but broadly rejected the atrocities . ( Don't forget it is the atrocities by these regime which the OP raised and not the things with which the RCC would be in agreement.)Do crimes against humanity need to be approved or initiated by Vatican in order to be associated with Catholicism?
Yes in the case of 2 above. Although there is no necessity for the Vatican per se. One can argue about the necessity of a pope. But certainly that is the current manifestation of the hirearchy. Certainly the bishops ( or the Vatican in this case Or Latern in the Past or a council) worldwide acting as a "widespread organisation of authority" would be easily construed as "associated with catholicism"
I mean if yuou want to press the issue Marxism could be "associated with Catholicism" just as much as Right wing dictators since much of the "good" in Marxism is to be found in Catholic social teaching. does that mean The Vatican or the church is responsible for atheistic Stalinist atrocities too?Not sure what's the point of that either. Leave it as the "consequence of", I see no difference to be honest.
Look again.For example, the genocide of Serbs by Ustaše was the consequence of their Catholicism.
To the extent that to some of the IRA killing "Protestants" was a consequent of them being from a "Catholic" area.
While they were doing this clergy were preaching against such actions. Was the pope supporting the IRA or Loyalists too? And don't forget priests and brothers did join Irish revolutionary movements in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usta%C5%A1eAt the same time genocide of Jews by the same Ustaše was not the consequence of their Catholicism but the consequence of their anti-Semitism and political needs to serve their big brother.
Fiercely nationalistic, the Ustaše were also fanatically Catholic
Does that mean they represented the will of the Church
Put it this way:
Fiercely nationalistic, the IRA were also fanatically Catholic
does that mean the IRA were acting for local bishop or the church as a whole?Same, the persecution of religious leaders in the early days of Soviet Russia can be counted as the consequence of their Atheism. At the same time the persecution of independent farmers by the same people was not the consequence of Atheism.
And the Maoists may have had some good things and some bad things to their regime.
How many of the bad things were a consequence of the Catholic church?And again I have difficulties understanding you. Why and how do I argue against myself?
Please consider me mentally challenged: I need the full logical chain in order to try to comprehend what you are saying. Conclusions alone are apparently not enough for me to get the point.
I put it in bold for you already if as you suggested it is it's a tiny scale looking at the things from today's Ireland. If you already suggest it is a tiny scale then the idea of it being large scale or widespread is not a runner is it?Regarding the stats: the number of Ustaše victims are estimated to be between 300,000 and 800,000 by different sources. If we take wikipedia figures as a starting point it states 330,000-390,000 killed, 200,000 force-converted and another 250,000 expelled. The vast majority of that are Serbs with the second largest group being Jews (37,000). The Serb population of Croatia in 1941 as reported by Germans was 1,925,000 (or 30% of the total population). If we take the lower figures and don't count expelled then it would make every forth Serb killed or force-converted.
Not by the Catholic church!
your source begins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_persecution_of_SerbsThe Serbian Genocide refers to the attempt in extermination made towards ethnic Serbs in 1939-1945 by predominantly ethnic Croat Fascists and Nazi (Axis) occupational forces.
the RCC didn't support the nazis in WWII!
Pavelić's regime was not officially recognized by the Vatican.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I am assuming that I represent the voice of reason because ISAW has stopped reading my posts
None the less;
The US, Ireland GB France all had humanist values as their core values. Whether the members were humanist atheist or Christian isn't relevant. We are talking about values that inform the actions. A secular state rather than a theocracy is the discussion. Yes I conceder anti theism just as much a theocracy as a Muslim state under Sharia law.Marien can you list the number of humanist centered governments that brought great things to society wher all or the vast majority of the people involved were humanists?0 -
I am assuming that I represent the voice of reason because ISAW has stopped reading my posts
HAve I?
Consider yourself proved wrong again.
And don't presume to speak for me.
And if you claim to represent reason then well...The US, Ireland GB France all had humanist values as their core values.
Oh did they? But they didn't have "Christian " values?In spite of the fact that ALL were founded by Christians and atheists and humanists represented a tiny minority of the people framing these core values?
Indeed it isn't ! I agree. They were Christian as it happens.Whether the members were humanist atheist or Christian isn't relevant.We are talking about values that inform the actions. A secular state rather than a theocracy is the discussion.
Nope. the discussion is who framed their constitutions. Not atheists. Christians. The "secularists" in the Us for example were predominantly Christians who didn't want inter denominational rows which they knew of based on the European experience of that time.Yes I conceder anti theism just as much a theocracy as a Muslim state under Sharia law.
And you are aware the anti-theist atheistic States killed much more than even the Muslim fundies?0 -
-
-
-
So are we keeping score? Will god, big or small g, judge on a tally?
What exactly is your point?
All bad but Catholics are the least bad? only bad once a certain number of casualties are reached? Atheism is inherently bad because theirs no evidence of it ever doing anything good?
All those claims have been answered, yet you continue to repeat the same whataboutery.
Tommy, ISAW has some kind of thing that allows him to remember points, facts etc. made by all sorts of writers, historical, and indeed contemporary too, it translates itself to boards too in his own way - in detail - point, by point - everything from many years, everything he ever read, every description, name and comprehension of same, he seems to absorb and talk about - he is not your average poster. He's like a super poster I don't think it's fair to assume he is tiresome, when so many want to debate him tirelessly? 
no?
I like reading through anyways.
It's not 'whataboutary' - it's fact! People may argue that times move on, etc, Stalin, Mao had the means of wiping out millions -
It doesn't matter about the 'cause' it's the lesson that is most important, every person with any kind of sense of freedom agrees.
All human beings are made in the image of God, everybody gets a fair chance - God is both Mercy and Justice - he's the one who nags our conscience and seeks to rule it.0 -
There are few problems with this approach. First, for this purpose it's nearly impossible to clearly define true Scotsman true Roman Catholic Church Catholicism. Second, it's not as black and white: there is whole spectrum of greys between 1 and 2 and that's where all the Catholics actually fall into I believe. Third, who in practice can be a judge to decide who's true and who's not?Because the original question actually asked "as a consequence of their Catholicism" ?
Now either it is Catholicism as in the Roman Catholic Church or it is their Catholiciam which is either
1. Not Catholicism at all i.e. not Roman Catholic Church
or
2. the exact same as Roman Catholic Church Catholicism.
This is actually a very important observation. Christianity does not teach about acceptance of atrocities. But neither does Atheism. It would be fair to say, if we are trying to be consistent and apply equal standards to both of them, that neither Christianity nor Atheism itself can sparkle atrocities. Or both of them can depending on you interpretation of historical events and motivation behind each particular atrocity.If 2 how come Roman Catholic teaching and authorities agreed with some aspects of their regimes but broadly rejected the atrocities . ( Don't forget it is the atrocities by these regime which the OP raised and not the things with which the RCC would be in agreement.)
No, you cannot mix the two. Marxists don't usually identify themselves as Catholics. If they do and then they get themselves involved in sectarian crusades against, say Protestants, then this is the consequence of their Catholicism and not their Marxism because Marxism and Marxists don't give crap about sectarian differences. Similarly, it's Marxism and not Catholicism accountable for those Catholic Marxists crusading against their right wing opponents because Catholicism does not give crap about left and right in politics.I mean if yuou want to press the issue Marxism could be "associated with Catholicism" just as much as Right wing dictators since much of the "good" in Marxism is to be found in Catholic social teaching. does that mean The Vatican or the church is responsible for atheistic Stalinist atrocities too?
You are substituting faith with organisation. I'm not too comfortable comparing Ustaša and IRA but if solely for the purpose of this discussion we assume that some IRA actions were driven by anti-Protestant stance to the same extent as some Ustaše actions were driven by anti-Orthodox stance then indeed IRA actions were criticised by most of the local clergy and the Pope while Ustaše actions were supported by most of local clergy and the by the silence of the Pope. It does not make huge difference really: in both cases their sectarian violence would be the consequence of their self-identification with Catholicism. The only thing that would be different between Ireland and Balkans (or rather, be incomparable) is the scale of the problem.To the extent that to some of the IRA killing "Protestants" was a consequent of them being from a "Catholic" area.
While they were doing this clergy were preaching against such actions. Was the pope supporting the IRA or Loyalists too? And don't forget priests and brothers did join Irish revolutionary movements in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usta%C5%A1e
Fiercely nationalistic, the Ustaše were also fanatically Catholic
Does that mean they represented the will of the Church
Put it this way:
Fiercely nationalistic, the IRA were also fanatically Catholic
does that mean the IRA were acting for local bishop or the church as a whole?
Do you realise that by following your logic you will never be able to clam any atrocities to be the consequence of Atheism simply because there is no Atheistic Pope and there is no global Atheistic organisation in charge of guarding true Atheism? Also there it would not be right to say that, for example, Communists atrocities in Russia in 1918-1938 are the consequences of Communism because in fact Comintern did not sanction them.
I don't see what's the connection between this and my example but don't we compare Atheism and Christianity (or Catholicism), and not Maoists and the Catholic Church?
And the Maoists may have had some good things and some bad things to their regime.Same, the persecution of religious leaders in the early days of Soviet Russia can be counted as the consequence of their Atheism. At the same time the persecution of independent farmers by the same people was not the consequence of Atheism.
How many of the bad things were a consequence of the Catholic church?
It's just a sad irony. The genocide of Serbs is largely forgotten or even unknown - see how this thread did not even mention NDH together with Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri and Pinochet even though it overshadows them all combined. Historically it was not in anybody interests to make a big buzz out of it: new Yugoslav authorities were obviously interested in good relations between Serbs and Croats (and it worked pretty well for almost 50 years while they were in power); Vatican was also not interested in any publicity for obvious reasons. These days the clear message of the mass media is that the Serbs are the bad guys of Balkans: they occupied half of Croatia and Bosnia in 1990ies, they are accountable for Srebrenica massacre and other war crimes there, they oppresses Kosovars, etc. This way it's easier to justify in the eyes of public opinion any actions against Serbia as it was already the case with the NATO Belgrade bombings in 1999. By no means I see the scale as tiny - in fact it's one of the largest and cruelest genocide in the human history.I put it in bold for you already if as you suggested it is it's a tiny scale looking at the things from today's Ireland. If you already suggest it is a tiny scale then the idea of it being large scale or widespread is not a runner is it?
Look at the number of force conversions alone. You need priests for that, a lot of them. A project of that scale cannot be accomplished without careful planning and organising it on all levels starting from the head of the Croatian Church, through the bishops, and down to monks and parish priests.
Not by the Catholic church!...If we take the lower figures and don't count expelled then it would make every forth Serb killed or force-converted.
Then a lot of Catholic clergy were involved not just in force-conversions but in mass slaughtering of civilians. Many of them were Ustaša officers. With the extremely rare exceptions no action were taken by their bishops. Qui tacet consentire videtur.
Also let's not forget that the Catholic press and pulpits were widely used to spread fascist, anti-Semitic and ant-Serbian propaganda.
The question is not whether RCC supported Nazis or not. It's sad but in WWII Croatia largely RCC were the Nazis.the RCC didn't support the nazis in WWII!
Even if Vatican were in total opposition to Ustaše (and in reality they were far from it) but the Croatian Catholic Church maintained the same level of involvement into the genocide then it would make absolutely no difference to the matter of "atrocities as the consequences of Catholicism".Pavelić's regime was not officially recognized by the Vatican.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement