Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

tommy2bad

"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there"

Cant think of the word myself but more to the point, do you think that thats whats happening here?
If it is I can understand it because we are discussing Christianity as we live it not history.
Distinguishing between how we live now and how people in the past lived is a difficult thing, so many differences that we cant ever really put ourselves in their shoes.
All that being true we must consider the claim the church makes to universality. If the teachings of the church led to wrong in the past then its teachings were misunderstood or wrong. If it claims to be unchanging then, well its past is up for debate as relevant to its present.
ISAW claims that the church hasn't changed but the culture it exists in changes leading to misuse of it teachings or misrepresentation of it intentions. Truth in what he says.
Others, myself included, claim that whatever about the church teaching the fact that wrong happened tells us that Christianity, catholic or other seems to fail to deliver its promise. Comparing stats on murder is fine for ranking serial killers but useless for a debate on morality.

Doc Farrell

Sorry tommy, no, I just posted in this thread because the average poster is more educated than in some other threads. It's just a word that is on the tip of my tongue and i'll locate it in the next few hours.
The word defines the inevitable ethical understanding I bring as a 21st century westerner to understanding historical events, in particular ancient historical events. It's an inevitable emotional baggage/perspective that each person brings whether they like it or not. The word isn't emotivism. Ahhhhhh!
It's quite often used as a criticism of someone else's viewpoint but is not in itself a morally critical term. Gahhhhhhh!
When I think of it I'll post it.

Edit: sorry tommy I think the word I'm looking for is eisegesis, which a couple of people have used in relation to the study of historical events but is normally just used for biblical studies. Hermeneutics is probably a more useful term but eisegesis has a more critical tone, it means I'm 'pouring' my own bias or bigotries or misunderstandings onto an historical event. I've only seen it used a couple of times which is probably why it was driving me nuts. I'm not sure if it's technically correct to use that word on an historical event rather than just a text.
Anyway I shall be accusing people of historical eisegesis very soon! Just as soon as I learn how to use the phrase properly!

Doc Farrell

tommy2bad wrote: »

Cant think of the word myself but more to the point, do you think that thats whats happening here?
If it is I can understand it because we are discussing Christianity as we live it not history.
Distinguishing between how we live now and how people in the past lived is a difficult thing, so many differences that we cant ever really put ourselves in their shoes.
All that being true we must consider the claim the church makes to universality. If the teachings of the church led to wrong in the past then its teachings were misunderstood or wrong. If it claims to be unchanging then, well its past is up for debate as relevant to its present.
ISAW claims that the church hasn't changed but the culture it exists in changes leading to misuse of it teachings or misrepresentation of it intentions. Truth in what he says.
Others, myself included, claim that whatever about the church teaching the fact that wrong happened tells us that Christianity, catholic or other seems to fail to deliver its promise. Comparing stats on murder is fine for ranking serial killers but useless for a debate on morality.

Many of the church's teachings in the past were wrong. There's a section on the Wikipedia page for John Paul II that lists the various mistakes that the church has made over the last 2000 years which he apologized for. However isn't this the old baby and the bath water argument. Basically I don't think any of Jesus's teachings are going to get somebody killed but my violent behavior based on my ignorant interpretation of those teachings might.
I tend to avoid this thread because of the emotive polarization of views, generally Wikipedia has the general historical truth.

tommy2bad

Many of the church's teachings in the past were wrong.

Ahh, you missed the whole 'rape' debate then.

I tend to avoid this thread because of the emotive polarization of views

And as someone who finds my faith a surprise, I like the polarization, it helps me think things through better for myself. Duno if I'mm helping anyone else tho. No point talking to people you agree with if you want to learn.

Doc Farrell

True, but some people want to learn and some just want see it burn. When I want to learn I ask my teachers. And then I double check! Many here just want to hone their argumentative skills, it's an adolescent obsession that has little value. There comes a time when one has to move on, investigate further, look deeper. For that one needs very learned and compassionate guides.

Edit: howeve it's good to talk! Especially if you are stuck out in the countryside!

tommy2bad

Especially if you are stuck out in the countryside!

You too !
Off to take the gran kid home now, more adolescent banter latter.

The Quadratic Equation

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Many of the church's teachings in the past were wrong.

? Unless you're reffering to stances outside the realm of religion, I'm not sure what you mean here

Dogma never changes.

tommy2bad

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

? Unless you're reffering to stances outside the realm of religion, I'm not sure what you mean here

Dogma never changes.

Hes referring to this.

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

lmaopml

''An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie; for an excuse is a lie guarded'' Pope JPII

How very true, both on the large scale; and also in a personal way. Never moreso then than it is now those words are important. Yes, this Pope was all about reconciliation and outreach, he humbled himself, he was the servant of the servants... and I will never forget seeing him doing so, I was so glad in my heart!

He apologised for the behaviour of Catholics throughout the ages, all the bad things that Catholics did - he never changed the faith though, I think this is what The Quadratic Equation was referring to. I must say, it took me some time to get used to Pope Benedict, as I only ever knew Pope John Paul in my lifetime - but I think he is cut out of the same stuff, he's a good man.

Doc Farrell

I seem to be suffering from permanent foot in mouth disease these days. I meant the crimes and sins performed by the church or in the name of the church rather than her teachings.
However I could be pedantic and suggest that there is a difference between teachings and dogma!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_dogma
Also one could argue that one teaches as much by ones actions as by ones words. Unfortunately I have personal experience of the failure of Catholics to practice what they preach.
However I would never be that Pedantic!

lmaopml

Doc Farrell wrote: »

I seem to be suffering from permanent foot in mouth disease these days. I meant the crimes and sins performed by the church or in the name of the church rather than her teachings.
However I could be pedantic and suggest that there is a difference between teachings and dogma!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_dogma
Also one could argue that one teaches as much by ones actions as by ones words. Unfortunately I have personal experience of the failure of Catholics to practice what they preach.
However I would never be that Pedantic!

Doc, don't be shy about the truth, there have, and always will be bad people, bad examples, we're littered with them, it's a pilgrimage of sinners...The Catholic Church is brimming over with them, thank God.

As a Catholic, let me just say for the record that people who behave badly have not gone away, and they won't anytime soon - Humanity plays a balancing act, always has, the teachings of the Church for a Catholic who hears them and sees both the good and bad simply point the way for the journey - she can't save all her people, she can't even judge them saved, it's not her job, only those who find themselves in Christ and goodness we look to as examples, every person is unique, every person has choices - The Church directs and instructs both the choices and conscience of her faithful, with the teachings of Christ.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Show me any attempt where I have tried to make such a claim ??

Your use of an artifice called Rhetorical questioning . for example you list off groups of xenophobic holocaust enabling nazis and then ask " Well what can you conclude about all these christians?
Basically in doing this, you are identifying Christianity with Nazism.

Now stop dodging and tell me what does the fact that these toads had a staunch christian ubringing say about christianity ?

It says people are called to believe in certain things and to behave in certain ways and that they have the free will to reject all of that if they wish.
the existence of sin or Satan is not an argument against the validity of Christianity.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

No ad hominem at all ,

Claimes like "deliberate tactic as if he was engaged in some holy war and to give an inch or actualy participate in a discussion where we may even learn from each other is anathema to him " IS ad hominem.

ISAW

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Sorry, you can ignore this post, I'll leave it up but the word I was looking for was eisegesis.


Can somebody help me out here, my brain isn't working for some reason. I'm looking for the word that defines when someone in the present day interprets historical events according to their current philosophical outlook.
For example if a child says that Christopher Columbus was a very naughty man because he never stopped slave trading after the discovery of America.
Its not hermeneutics, exegesis, teleology, historiology.
There's another word for it.

I think I used a similar idea recently
Maybe parachronism or prochronism might be more accurate.

Another example would be condemning a scientist for investigating nuclear energy at the turn of the previous century because that knowledge was later used to create a bomb.
I'm not trying to derail the thread, u can pm me if you like. Another example would be that the roman empire before Christ was somehow wrong because it wasn't Christian, a kind of naive ultra critical revisionism, what's the word please?

Do you mean the concept of "judging the past based on standards and knowledge of today" ?

http://www.law.utk.edu/faculty/davies/DaviesBareProbCause.pdf

A “prochronism” is a specific form of anachronism in which aspects of a later period in time
are erroneously imposed on an earlier period.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Your use of an artifice called Rhetorical questioning . for example you list off groups of xenophobic holocaust enabling nazis and then ask " Well what can you conclude about all these christians?
Basically in doing this, you are identifying Christianity with Nazism.



It says people are called to believe in certain things and to behave in certain ways and that they have the free will to reject all of that if they wish.
the existence of sin or Satan is not an argument against the validity of Christianity.

Are you seriously advancing the proposition that the fact that these scum were raised in staunchly Christians households says nothing about the validity of Christianity !!!

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

The only reason I engage in extended debate is because others might be reading the argument. Debating with ISAW is very tedious. His thesis on atheism and atrocities is easily dismissed with a cursory glance at the historical evidence.

REally? What historical evidence.
Rather than just "glance" whay dont you actually look?

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

How many were Church related?
How many were atheistic?
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1900.htm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Though he has now retreated to the position of "non-Catholics" and "anti-theists". He is still wrong, but he is at least leaving atheism alone.

i never changed my position at all! You can easily find me admitting I had atheist friends in posts from years ago and pointing out about "fundamentalist/proselytizing atheists" in various posts from years ago as well. And I got the phrase from a fundamentalist atheist I met at an Irish skeptics meeting on science and religion.

I happen to be posting in a Christianity forum and UI would venture that my views on anti Catholic posts are quite well known and understood.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Are you seriously advancing the proposition that the fact that these scum were raised in staunchly Christians households says nothing about the validity of Christianity !!!

NO! I'm seriously advancing the proposition that the fact that they were raised in staunchly Christians households ( weel some of them maybe) says nothing AGAINST the validity of Christianity !!!

As I stated the existence of sin or of does not invalidate Christianity.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

NO! I'm seriously advancing the proposition that the fact that they were raised in staunchly Christians households ( weel some of them maybe) says nothing AGAINST the validity of Christianity !!!

As I stated the existence of sin or of does not invalidate Christianity.

At Last ! then please apply the same reasoning to atheism.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

REally? What historical evidence.
Rather than just "glance" whay dont you actually look?

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

How many were Church related?
How many were atheistic?
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1900.htm

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

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

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

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

And now, instead of glancing at such statements, actually look at the historical evidence. We see regimes demanding complete authority over the rights of others, inducing state-sponsored famines in high-population areas, and mass genocide. It is this ideology of the state, holding ultimate authority over even basic human rights, that is responsible for atrocities. They enforce atheism because they want to quash any subversive counter-cultural elements entirely.

So state-enforced atheism is a symptom of these brutal regimes, but atheism is not the cause of these brutal regimes. This is the key point that you ignore every time. Atheism in the west has no totalitarian agenda, so there is absolutely no reason to believe the growing number of atheists will bring forth a new Mao or Stalin. Such a belief is based only on hysteria, and not historical evidence. The responsibility for such atrocities only lies with those who committed such atrocities.

What's strange is this very point is made in the google groups post you linked to:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/58c9df7a83bdd7e3/075891ef8abd879d#075891ef8abd879d
"I would give them the Bloody History of Atheist Tyrannies, and when they accused me of 'attacking atheists' because of the actions of a few, explaining, NO, that is what YOU do, declaring Christians evil fools because of the Crusades, or the Inquisition, or the Borgia Popes, I hold only those who COMMITTED those acts responsible, AND (because they always avoided the truth and attacked the messenger) THOSE COMPLICIT"

If you had looked, instead of just glancing, you would have seen this. And again, I point out that, in post #1730, I clearly asked you if you were using your absurd argument as a rhetorical device to highlight the absurdity of claims made by some atheists, and you said no, you genuinely believe what you said. You are guilty of the very thing the above poster is criticising.

i never changed my position at all! You can easily find me admitting I had atheist friends in posts from years ago and pointing out about "fundamentalist/proselytizing atheists" in various posts from years ago as well. And I got the phrase from a fundamentalist atheist I met at an Irish skeptics meeting on science and religion.

I happen to be posting in a Christianity forum and UI would venture that my views on anti Catholic posts are quite well known and understood.

Define "fundamentalist/proselytizing" atheist. I am against any form of enforced atheism, but I am certainly not against atheists being vocal in public, arguing why they think theism is false.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

And now, instead of glancing at such statements, actually look at the historical evidence. We see regimes demanding complete authority over the rights of others, inducing state-sponsored famines in high-population areas, and mass genocide.

Of which how many were related to the Roman Catholic Church?
Of which how many were related to a regime with "There is no God" as a central belief?

Hi9nt: I have given y0u some example of quotations from people who were central to the philosophies of "There is no God" regimes.

It is this ideology of the state, holding ultimate authority over even basic human rights, that is responsible for atrocities.

But you are back to the old cop out of "it isn't atheism it is Totalitarianism"
As i stated if you apply that to atheism you have to apply it equally to REligion.
In other woirds you totally agree that whenever an atrocity happened because of a religion that "it isnt the religion or belief in God it is the Totalitarianism" that caused the atrocity"?

So you admit that religions are not responsible for any atrocities in history?

They enforce atheism because they want to quash any subversive counter-cultural elements entirely.

So you admit - religion is not responsible for any atrocities in history?

So state-enforced atheism is a symptom of these brutal regimes, but atheism is not the cause of these brutal regimes.

So you admit - religion is not responsible for any atrocities in history enforced religion is a symptom and not a cause of these brutal regimes?

This is the key point that you ignore every time. Atheism in the west has no totalitarian agenda, so there is absolutely no reason to believe the growing number of atheists will bring forth a new Mao or Stalin.

Russia isn't "West" according to you?How about Albania? Czechoslovakia and all the Cold War buffer States?

But all you are doing is changing the context. One could just as easliy apply your criterion to relgions ... Religion in the west has no totalitarian agenda, so there is absolutely no reason to believe the growing number of religious will bring forth a new Borgia or Spanisgh Inquisition. See what happens when you apply standards to "atheism" ?

Such a belief is based only on hysteria, and not historical evidence. The responsibility for such atrocities only lies with those who committed such atrocities.

What's strange is this very point is made in the google groups post you linked to:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/58c9df7a83bdd7e3/075891ef8abd879d#075891ef8abd879d
"I would give them the Bloody History of Atheist Tyrannies, and when they accused me of 'attacking atheists' because of the actions of a few, explaining, NO, that is what YOU do, declaring Christians evil fools because of the Crusades, or the Inquisition, or the Borgia Popes, I hold only those who COMMITTED those acts responsible, AND (because they always avoided the truth and attacked the messenger) THOSE COMPLICIT"

So you admit - religion is not responsible for any atrocities in history?
So you admit there is absolutely no reason to believe the growing number of religious will bring forth a new Borgia or Spanish Inquisition?

and you said no, you genuinely believe what you said. You are guilty of the very thing the above poster is criticising.

To restate what my position is. I am deeply suspicious of any atheist group ( or group of atheists) been given control of society.

Define "fundamentalist/proselytizing" atheist.

That believe "there is no God"
That belief that "There is no god" should be spread throughout society.
That believe any belief in God is inferior and to be ridiculed.

I am against any form of enforced atheism, but I am certainly not against atheists being vocal in public, arguing why they think theism is false.

Nor am I against people believing in unicorns. Your point being?
the point is do you want a world in which everyone is atheist?
Or do you think a world with believers would be better than that?

marienbad

ISAW -can we now agree at this stage that neither theism or atheism causes atrocities ?

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Of which how many were related to the Roman Catholic Church?
Of which how many were related to a regime with "There is no God" as a central belief?

Hi9nt: I have given y0u some example of quotations from people who were central to the philosophies of "There is no God" regimes.

But you are back to the old cop out of "it isn't atheism it is Totalitarianism"
As i stated if you apply that to atheism you have to apply it equally to REligion.
In other woirds you totally agree that whenever an atrocity happened because of a religion that "it isnt the religion or belief in God it is the Totalitarianism" that caused the atrocity"?

So you admit that religions are not responsible for any atrocities in history?

So you admit - religion is not responsible for any atrocities in history?

So you admit - religion is not responsible for any atrocities in history enforced religion is a symptom and not a cause of these brutal regimes?

Russia isn't "West" according to you?How about Albania? Czechoslovakia and all the Cold War buffer States?

But all you are doing is changing the context. One could just as easliy apply your criterion to relgions ... Religion in the west has no totalitarian agenda, so there is absolutely no reason to believe the growing number of religious will bring forth a new Borgia or Spanisgh Inquisition. See what happens when you apply standards to "atheism" ?

So you admit - religion is not responsible for any atrocities in history?
So you admit there is absolutely no reason to believe the growing number of religious will bring forth a new Borgia or Spanish Inquisition?

Nice try. I have consistently and explicitly said that it is not my position that theism is responsible for atrocities. It is regimes, whether they are totalitarian regimes, or islamofascist regimes, that are responsible for atrocities. Again, I point out that, in post #1730, I clearly asked you if you were using your absurd argument as a rhetorical device to highlight the absurdity of claims made by some atheists, and you said no, you genuinely believe what you said. You are the one who must admit the claim that atheism caused those atrocities is hysterical nonsense.

It sounds like you are finally acknowledging the nonsense in the position you have been holding, but instead of simply saying "Actually Morbert, you are right, atrocities stem from inhumane social experiments and the oppression of human rights, and not atheism." you are now trying to imply I held some equivalently nonsensical position, which I explicitly stated I do not hold. Why?

To restate what my position is. I am deeply suspicious of any atheist group ( or group of atheists) been given control of society.

That believe "there is no God"
That belief that "There is no god" should be spread throughout society.
That believe any belief in God is inferior and to be ridiculed.

What if they also believe that Christians, as silly as their beliefs are, should be free to exercise their religion? Secular, humanist atheists in other words.

Nor am I against people believing in unicorns. Your point being?
the point is do you want a world in which everyone is atheist?
Or do you think a world with believers would be better than that?

I want a world where everyone is free to believe what they want. I would like to see the number of atheists continue to rise, but through discourse, and not through the restriction of freedoms.

Morbert

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW -can we now agree at this stage that neither theism or atheism causes atrocities ?

I have been trying to hammer home this point forever.

The Quadratic Equation

tommy2bad wrote: »

Hes referring to this.

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

His claim was "Many of the church's teachings in the past were wrong."

Instead you've provided a link to actions carried out by people who ignored the teachings of Catholicism.

tommy2bad

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

His claim was "Many of the church's teachings in the past were wrong."

Instead you've provided a link to actions carried out by people who ignored the teachings of Catholicism.

Or acted in the name of ? enough for the Pope to apologizes.
And I was just pointing out the article that Doc Farell referenced in the original post you picked your quote from.

Sort of helping you see what you missed is all.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

At Last ! then please apply the same reasoning to atheism.

Where have I not done so?

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

I have been trying to hammer home this point forever.

So you accept religion was never a bad influence in history?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW -can we now agree at this stage that neither theism or atheism causes atrocities ?

If that is your approach then I don't have a huge problem with it. Fo course if yourself or atheists come along later focusing on clerical abuse or church related atrocities I'll have to pull you up on your own stated principle and lack of balance.

The Quadratic Equation

tommy2bad wrote: »

Or acted in the name of ? enough for the Pope to apologizes.
And I was just pointing out the article that Doc Farell referenced in the original post you picked your quote from.

Sort of helping you see what you missed is all.

"Many of the church's teachings in the past were wrong."

What I'm still missing, and so are you, are the teachings he was referring to.

Because despite a minority of reprehensible deviants over the years that have infiltrated and misused the Catholic Church to further their own very un Catholic vested interests, not one of them ever managed to change a single line of doctrine.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

So you accept religion was never a bad influence in history?

This question can be unpacked a millon different ways. You might as well ask whether or not beliefs, or even "thoughts" have ever been bad influences. The question needs to be made more specific: Have religious practices ever harmed innocent people? Should politics be informed by religious codes? Will religion automatically make you a bad person? Should religious freedom take priority over human rights? Is the depiction and role of women under some religious systems morally acceptable?

ISAW wrote:

marienbad wrote:

ISAW -can we now agree at this stage that neither theism or atheism causes atrocities ?

If that is your approach then I don't have a huge problem with it.

Hallelujah!