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
-
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.
So what? Popes have spoken in favor of slavery, of course you'll claim that they weren't acting in the right doctrinal ... NO not the kilt wearing muppet again.
This is a merry go round.0 -
Quad, I guess you missed my last post but I tried to clarify that I wasn't talking about dogma. If you consider the words teachings and dogma to be the same thing then that's fine for you. But many thousands of times roman catholic priests have written and preached views that are crazy.
I guess your position is that these aren't church teachings, such as the ones on Jews, unbabtised babies, slaves, evolution (19thc) are just the opinions of individuals but as I mentioned with the link, even the RCC sees the difference between Teachings and infallible dogmata. If you go to the wiki page I linked there's a sentence there that says 'yet not all teachings are dogma'. If you disagree with their definition, no problem.
I apologised for the confusion in using the word teachings when the Pope actually used the word crimes. However I was kind of only trying to meet you half way as there is a technical difference between the words teaching and infallible dogma, according to the RCC, as the link shows.
Are we on the same page or am I still missing something?0 -
So what?
Because I don't have the prejudiced desire to constantly try and associate Catholicism/Judaism/Black/Asian/White with the actions a very minority of that persuasion.
But that would never suit the prejudiced agenda would it ?
Christ himself taught us that for every 12 apostles there will be at least one Judas.0 -
Neither do I. Neither do I accept that no responsibility lies with the culture that produced thees individuals many of whom felt that they did no wrong.Because I don't have the prejudiced desire to constantly try and associate Catholicism/Judaism/Black/Asian/White with the actions a very minority of that persuasion.
But if you're not your brothers keeper.....0 -
Neither do I. Neither do I accept that no responsibility lies with the culture that produced thees individuals many of whom felt that they did no wrong.
But if you're not your brothers keeper.....
Lol, nice attempt but :Mark you this, Bassanio,
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart:
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
So do you therefore accept that religion is not responsible for any atrocities in history?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.
I have been quite clear. those who attack religion and belief in God ( basically these are in most cases atheists) claim religion/belief, god worship etc. is silly or even dangerous ( or a "dangerous meme" or many other similar claims all looking on belief as a negative thing)
"anti theists" as you call them ( predominantly atheists) can't accept the sdame argument being applied to themselves.
As regards whether i believe atheistic regimes are any way diofferent I have also been quite clear. In the course of human history belief in God did was central to religious regimes
Not all religious regimes were bad. some in fact contributed to society. IIt is possibole one may come about in the future which is bad for society but on the whole they are good influences.
Atheistic regimes contributed nothing but ruin. I could be wrong but I don't believe any one in the future will contribute anything positive to society.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."
But religious regimes suppressing human rights came nowhere near anything as bad as atheistic ones and Atheistic ones Always were a negative influence whereas religious ones weren't.
If it isnt because of belief or because of lack of belief and it is because of oppression of ringts
1. You have to admit Religion was not in any way a negative influence
2. You have to explain how if religion was on the whole positive why ALL atheistic regimes were negative.you are now trying to imply I held some equivalently nonsensical position, which I explicitly stated I do not hold. Why?
So you are saying religion was niever a negative influence.
Why am I asking. I was also quite clear aboyut that. I dont trust atheistic regimes and I don't trust atheists when they get into power. Just as I don't trust Minister Quinn and what he might do to education based on a "get the Church out of education" views.
I believe that atheists will return here in the future and comment on what they see as the silliness or danger of religions.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.
If they believe that then I have no problem with them. All I will do is poiint out that atheism has contributed nothing to history asd the Church has.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.
I have no probem with that either. I don't think it will come about though.This question can be unpacked a millon different ways.
Thats funny because in messager 1891 " atheism and atrocities is easily dismissed with a cursory glance at the historical evidence." but now it appears to be more involved.So what? Popes have spoken in favor of slavery, of course you'll claim that they weren't acting in the right doctrinal ... NO not the kilt wearing muppet again.
This is a merry go round.
Id have to correct you here.
A single Pope did a Borgia Pope to my knowledge. Other popes actually did the opposite and spoke against slavery.0 -
Neither do I. Neither do I accept that no responsibility lies with the culture that produced thees individuals many of whom felt that they did no wrong.
But if you're not your brothers keeper.....
LOL. And we are back to
culture that produces atrocities = Catholic church and their beliefs
BUT
Culture that produces atrocities can never = atheistic groups and their beliefs0 -
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.
ISAW is there any point in having a discussion with you at all ? You accept the above and a couple of posts later you you are regurgitating the same old line.
Either atheism/theism cause atrocities or it dos't- we have just agreed that it dos'nt .
You then carry on as if this part of the conversation never happened and we are back to you using atheism and totalitarianism interchangeably !
I may as well start saying catholicism/fascism in the same way.
Are you interested in having a discussion or just holding a line at any cost ?0 -
Yes it can Morbert, as can the reverse?This question can be unpacked a millon different ways.
Anybodies thoughts?You might as well ask whether or not beliefs, or even "thoughts" have ever been bad influences.
We're on the Christianity forum, a heck of a lot of our progress, even scientific progress, what we call civilisation in the west, has been built on Christian fundamentals, by Christians. Have they made mistakes, been human, heck yeah!The question needs to be made more specific: Have religious practices ever harmed innocent people?
Only where the politicians are part of the human race, and culture (which sometimes I wonder) of the country, and represent the voice of said people in a democracy I guess.Should politics be informed by religious codes?
Will indulging in anything in particular make you a bad human being if it is at the detriment of others? Yes!Will religion automatically make you a bad person?
Generally speaking the people shape the society and draw that line - just like an artist would in order to create a painting - they collectively define the laws of the state inline with their own higher reasoning.Should religious freedom take priority over human rights?Is the depiction and role of women under some religious systems morally acceptable?
To whom? If it is unnacceptable to the women within their belief system, than obviously there is a problem. If it is unnacceptable to the women outside that belief system with a system of their own - then it's debatable!
Look, I know you may consider the whole thing tiresome, but I can't help but sense a vague notion of 'some human people, or method or whatever' knows best, even if it is not as forceful in the person of Morbert, than it is obvious in the person of (insert another person) - and I'm not necessarily saying you think it's you in particular. Nothing personal at all.
As far as Christianity is concerned it's really very simple - we only praise one God, it would seem ludicrous and not a little stupid to me to be honest to not bring that with us wherever we go whether it's a ballot box or being part of the free society we live in, or to trade it up for some kind of political humanist idealism ( and there are good things in there too ) where you don't only get one God from generation to generation, but 10 million. Christians are human too, very human and I don't think we're that bad actually for humanity - I see no reason to unsubscribe to the part of me I regard as the very best if you know what I mean Morbert...
Sorry, I know I interjected there on the ISAW debate, but something was niggling me...0 -
ISAW is there any point in having a discussion with you at all ? You accept the above and a couple of posts later you you are regurgitating the same old line.
Yes. I am doing exactly as I stated! Quite consistent.
I pointed out I had no problem with atheists who don't want atheism to take over anything and are happy to allow church run operations exist. If they don't want to have a go at the church I have no problem until they do come alone and apply different rules to the church.
then a comment referring to the church as " the culture that produced thees individuals" gets mentioned. Basically the attempt is being made to say the church ( calling it a "culture that produced" ) is responsible for the Holocaust ( "these individuals" being the WWII Nazi leadership)Either atheism/theism cause atrocities or it dos't- we have just agreed that it dos'nt .
Then please DON'T mention things which refer to the Church as " the culture that produced..." where ... is anything negative.You then carry on as if this part of the conversation never happened and we are back to you using atheism and totalitarianism interchangeably !
I may as well start saying catholicism/fascism in the same way.
If you could establish such a connection but you have failed to do so.
Atheistic regimes on the other hand were always Totalist.
Not all communist regimes were slaughter regimes
Not all Church regimes were.
ALL atheistic ones were however.
And you will say "that is because they are regimes/totalitarian etc."
And I'm happy to accept all totalitarian regimes are repressive. it is after all the definition of totalitarian. But atheistic ones were historically repressive on a greater scale and correlate 100% whereas religious ones don't.
But even leaving that aside Im happy no0t to tell you and others about it when you and others are happy not to try to slip in comments describing the Church as a enabling culture for social evil and focusing on the tiny percent of church people who do bad things.Are you interested in having a discussion or just holding a line at any cost ?
I'm not going to let you or anyone else get away with " the culture that produced..." comments with respect to the Church when it applies to a much greater degree to atheistic movements.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes. I am doing exactly as I stated! Quite consistent.
I pointed out I had no problem with atheists who don't want atheism to take over anything and are happy to allow church run operations exist. If they don't want to have a go at the church I have no problem until they do come alone and apply different rules to the church.
then a comment referring to the church as " the culture that produced thees individuals" gets mentioned. Basically the attempt is being made to say the church ( calling it a "culture that produced" ) is responsible for the Holocaust ( "these individuals" being the WWII Nazi leadership)
Then please DON'T mention things which refer to the Church as " the culture that produced..." where ... is anything negative.
If you could establish such a connection but you have failed to do so.
Atheistic regimes on the other hand were always Totalist.
Not all communist regimes were slaughter regimes
Not all Church regimes were.
ALL atheistic ones were however.
And you will say "that is because they are regimes/totalitarian etc."
And I'm happy to accept all totalitarian regimes are repressive. it is after all the definition of totalitarian. But atheistic ones were historically repressive on a greater scale and correlate 100% whereas religious ones don't.
But even leaving that aside Im happy no0t to tell you and others about it when you and others are happy not to try to slip in comments describing the Church as a enabling culture for social evil and focusing on the tiny percent of church people who do bad things.
I'm not going to let you or anyone else get away with " the culture that produced..." comments with respect to the Church when it applies to a much greater degree to atheistic movements.
This is just rubbish, you chop and change just to score points. I never once advanced the agument that belief causes atrocities, What I did through a series of posts was to pose the question that what did the christian upbringing of those war criminals say about christianity ( In fact just using a tactic of association you use all the time). Eventually you answered ( correctly) that it proved nothing nada zero zilch about christianity.
Now either be consistent in your reasoning or forget it . The progression based on what we both agreed should be--
Belief/Theism= everything bar unbelief/atheism -including organised religion/war criminal/carpenter/tailor/ candle-stick maker.
Unbelief/atheism= everything bar belief/theism- including organised atheism/war criminal carpenter/tailor/candlestick-maker0 -
So do you therefore accept that religion is not responsible for any atrocities in history?
Yes. Religion is not responsible for atrocities.
I have been quite clear. those who attack religion and belief in God ( basically these are in most cases atheists) claim religion/belief, god worship etc. is silly or even dangerous ( or a "dangerous meme" or many other similar claims all looking on belief as a negative thing)
"anti theists" as you call them ( predominantly atheists) can't accept the sdame argument being applied to themselves.
As regards whether i believe atheistic regimes are any way diofferent I have also been quite clear. In the course of human history belief in God did was central to religious regimes
Not all religious regimes were bad. some in fact contributed to society. IIt is possibole one may come about in the future which is bad for society but on the whole they are good influences.
Atheistic regimes contributed nothing but ruin. I could be wrong but I don't believe any one in the future will contribute anything positive to society.
But religious regimes suppressing human rights came nowhere near anything as bad as atheistic ones and Atheistic ones Always were a negative influence whereas religious ones weren't.
If it isnt because of belief or because of lack of belief and it is because of oppression of ringts
1. You have to admit Religion was not in any way a negative influence
2. You have to explain how if religion was on the whole positive why ALL atheistic regimes were negative.
You are still tendering a false dichotomy. It is not a case of "Either religion caused atrocities or religion has never had a negative influence". Religion has had a very negative influence in many different contexts, ranging from the treatment of individuals, to the treatment of women, to the treatment of entire nations. But this doesn't mean religion therefore "caused atrocities". Religion can have a positive influence too. If Stalin or Leopold had been a pacifist Hindu, I'm sure lives would have been saved.
What is also ridiculous is the conclusions you are trying to draw from all of the above, evidenced belowWhy am I asking. I was also quite clear aboyut that. I dont trust atheistic regimes and I don't trust atheists when they get into power. Just as I don't trust Minister Quinn and what he might do to education based on a "get the Church out of education" views.
This is where the hysteria really shines, and where your conclusion breaks down. There is absolutely no merit in comparing Quinn, who wants entirely reasonable educational reform, with Stanlin, a murderer of millions. The absurdity of that comparison speaks for itself.Thats funny because in messager 1891 " atheism and atrocities is easily dismissed with a cursory glance at the historical evidence." but now it appears to be more involved.
You are chopping up the conversation. The above is unrelated to what I said in the previous post. A cursory glance at history is all that's needed to see the absurdity in stating atheism causes atrocities.0 -
This is just rubbish, you chop and change just to score points. I never once advanced the agument that belief causes atrocities,
Really?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76220254&postcount=1700God commanded that these women be taken in marriage and that sexual relations ensue.
You can believe that this is all by consent and not forced consent, and that what happened with Galileo when he recanted or Moriscos abjured their faith, or Tosca bowed to Scarpia, were all examples of consent. But in the real world people do not acept an either/or choice as consent .What I did through a series of posts was to pose the question that what did the christian upbringing of those war criminals say about christianity ( In fact just using a tactic of association you use all the time). Eventually you answered ( correctly) that it proved nothing nada zero zilch about christianity.
You had already suggested God commanded Rape in the Bible and when you din't prove that the rattle was thrown from the pram.Now either be consistent in your reasoning or forget it . The progression based on what we both agreed should be--
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76203465&postcount=1580women were given the choice of marriage or servitude - are we agreed on that ?
Sexual abuse or enforced slavery by religious people is the suggestion in that one.Belief/Theism= everything bar unbelief/atheism -including organised religion/war criminal/carpenter/tailor/ candle-stick maker.
Unbelief/atheism= everything bar belief/theism- including organised atheism/war criminal carpenter/tailor/candlestick-maker
So how come the organised religion has a record of contributing to society and atheistic groups when they were ion command only resulted in destruction?0 -
You are still tendering a false dichotomy. It is not a case of "Either religion caused atrocities or religion has never had a negative influence".
I didn't suggest that.
I was quite clear that The Church did make some errors but by and large contributed to the betterment of society. Atheists however when they got in control and promoted atheism never contributed to the betterment of society. i accept the exceptions of the non controlling organisations founded by atheists which have the same social teachings as the church except they they don't promote a God or for that matter don't promote atheism i.e. they are non atheistic atheists. The main point about them however is they are not in command of the society.
The above false dichotomy is actually prompted by your insistence that "atheism isn't responsible for any atrocities". If that is true then theism also isnt responsible!
If you can insist "it isnt atheism it is totalitarianism" then one must be able to apply the same to theism i.e "it isnt theism it is totalitarianism"
The conclusion of "it isn't theism" is therefore "religion never caused anything negative"
If you can say "atheism isn't responsible" you have to apply the same sause to the gander and "religion never caused anything negative"
It isnt my false dichotomy - it is yours
No wither atheism DID cause atrocities or it dint - which its it?Religion has had a very negative influence in many different contexts, ranging from the treatment of individuals, to the treatment of women, to the treatment of entire nations.
As has atheism. But in this group we are referring to chruistianity in particular which has had a positive social teaching on treatment of individuals, to the treatment of women, to the treatment of entire nations. Especially when compared to the atheist context of them in charge of societies record on the same issues.But this doesn't mean religion therefore "caused atrocities". Religion can have a positive influence too.
Indeed - as Christianity has shown in history.If Stalin or Leopold had been a pacifist Hindu, I'm sure lives would have been saved.
Nice try - trying to slip in the "leopold of Belgium" as evidence of Christian atrocities
Funny how the personal beliefs of atheists don;t apply in the same way isnt it?
Leopold was not acting for the church or for Christian social teaching.There is absolutely no merit in comparing Quinn, who wants entirely reasonable educational reform, with Stanlin, a murderer of millions. The absurdity of that comparison speaks for itself.
One might have said the same of a reasonable Stalin before he was expelled from theological college. Indeed nobody seems to question the Maoist or Marxist or Official IRA links of current Labour Party members. I don't htinkl Gerry Adams is a mass murderer either but one can say he has provisional IRA links . Why is the same not true of the Labour Party members who have more in common with Stalinist Russia than Gerry Adams has?You are chopping up the conversation. The above is unrelated to what I said in the previous post. A cursory glance at history is all that's needed to see the absurdity in stating atheism causes atrocities.
But if atheism doesnt then by the same logic theism also doesn't
So given you accept theism also doesn't, how can you contradict yourself by saying religion has had negative influences on society?0 -
Really?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76220254&postcount=1700
You had already suggested God commanded Rape in the Bible and when you din't prove that the rattle was thrown from the pram.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76203465&postcount=1580
Sexual abuse or enforced slavery by religious people is the suggestion in that one.
So how come the organised religion has a record of contributing to society and atheistic groups when they were ion command only resulted in
destruction?
This is just more muddying the waters ISAW- I did'nt prove rape to your satisfaction - but happily this is boards and you don't get to be judge and jury.To my recollection the ''discussion'' like most discussions here just ground to a halt with little conceded on either side and nothing left to be said . Those of us that believe it still do ( with if I recollect the exception of Morbert and even then with some caveats) and those that don't don't. No toys and prams at all - boredom possibly .
Now before I answer your query about the contributions of religion/atheistic groups may I ask are you withdrawing your agreement on the statement that-
..neither theism/atheism causes atrocities ?0 -
-
I didn't suggest that.
Yes you did. I said I don't believe atheism or theism are responsible for atrocities. You then asked "So you accept religion was never a bad influence in history?", implying a dichotomy that doesn't exist.I was quite clear that The Church did make some errors but by and large contributed to the betterment of society. Atheists however when they got in control and promoted atheism never contributed to the betterment of society. i accept the exceptions of the non controlling organisations founded by atheists which have the same social teachings as the church except they they don't promote a God or for that matter don't promote atheism i.e. they are non atheistic atheists. The main point about them however is they are not in command of the society.
The above false dichotomy is actually prompted by your insistence that "atheism isn't responsible for any atrocities". If that is true then theism also isnt responsible!
If you can insist "it isnt atheism it is totalitarianism" then one must be able to apply the same to theism i.e "it isnt theism it is totalitarianism"
The conclusion of "it isn't theism" is therefore "religion never caused anything negative"
If you can say "atheism isn't responsible" you have to apply the same sause to the gander and "religion never caused anything negative"
It isnt my false dichotomy - it is yours
No wither atheism DID cause atrocities or it dint - which its it?
The above is completely unrelated to what I said. I have explicitly made clear that I consider neither theism nor atheism as causes of atrocities. You consider atheism as a cause of atrocities. This is a nonsensical position that you have not backed up. You have instead consistently tried to misrepresent my argument in the hope that nobody will notice the absurdity of your claim. I will highlight this every time you try to dodge the issue.Nice try - trying to slip in the "leopold of Belgium" as evidence of Christian atrocities
Funny how the personal beliefs of atheists don;t apply in the same way isnt it?
Leopold was not acting for the church or for Christian social teaching.
This is unrelated to anything I said. It is, again, a complete misrepresentation, suggesting you are either being genuinely dishonest, or not taking the time to respond appropriately.One might have said the same of a reasonable Stalin before he was expelled from theological college. Indeed nobody seems to question the Maoist or Marxist or Official IRA links of current Labour Party members. I don't htinkl Gerry Adams is a mass murderer either but one can say he has provisional IRA links . Why is the same not true of the Labour Party members who have more in common with Stalinist Russia than Gerry Adams has?
And again, the hysteria speaks for itself. Marxism causes atrocities now? And the Labour party will lead to the next "Great Leap Forward"? I am not a Marxist, but Marxism is an entirely legitimate position to hold.But if atheism doesnt then by the same logic theism also doesn't
Yes, congratulations.So given you accept theism also doesn't, how can you contradict yourself by saying religion has had negative influences on society?
False dichotomy: You are trying to muddy the waters. First, admit that you were wrong when you said atheism is responsible for atrocities, and then we can talk about the various interpretations of "Religion can have a good/bad influence."
---
To streamline this tedious discussion, in future I will ignore all false accusations you make about my position, and only respond to your claims that atheism is responsible for atrocities. Incidentally, and confusingly: From post #1831ISAW wrote:
No no . I still have that [position]. I just can't formally prove it using deductive reasoning.Morbert wrote:So you retract your earlier conclusion? You retract your silly, childish notion that atheism causes atrocities. You retract your silly, childish notion that, if Ireland became an atheist country, it would result in atrocities.
Then, in post #1919ISAW wrote:
If that is your approach then I don't have a huge problem with it.marienbad wrote:ISAW -can we now agree at this stage that neither theism or atheism causes atrocities ?
It seems you have already retracted your statement.0 -
Yes it can Morbert, as can the reverse?
Anybodies thoughts?
We're on the Christianity forum, a heck of a lot of our progress, even scientific progress, what we call civilisation in the west, has been built on Christian fundamentals, by Christians. Have they made mistakes, been human, heck yeah!
Only where the politicians are part of the human race, and culture (which sometimes I wonder) of the country, and represent the voice of said people in a democracy I guess.
Will indulging in anything in particular make you a bad human being if it is at the detriment of others? Yes!
Generally speaking the people shape the society and draw that line - just like an artist would in order to create a painting - they collectively define the laws of the state inline with their own higher reasoning.
To whom? If it is unnacceptable to the women within their belief system, than obviously there is a problem. If it is unnacceptable to the women outside that belief system with a system of their own - then it's debatable!
Look, I know you may consider the whole thing tiresome, but I can't help but sense a vague notion of 'some human people, or method or whatever' knows best, even if it is not as forceful in the person of Morbert, than it is obvious in the person of (insert another person) - and I'm not necessarily saying you think it's you in particular. Nothing personal at all.
As far as Christianity is concerned it's really very simple - we only praise one God, it would seem ludicrous and not a little stupid to me to be honest to not bring that with us wherever we go whether it's a ballot box or being part of the free society we live in, or to trade it up for some kind of political humanist idealism ( and there are good things in there too ) where you don't only get one God from generation to generation, but 10 million. Christians are human too, very human and I don't think we're that bad actually for humanity - I see no reason to unsubscribe to the part of me I regard as the very best if you know what I mean Morbert...
Sorry, I know I interjected there on the ISAW debate, but something was niggling me...
While I would enjoy discussing concepts you've mentioned further. At the moment I am too busy playing a game of whack-a-mole with ISAW.0 -
lmaopml, I think this is down to inalienable rights versus majority opinion.To whom? If it is unnacceptable to the women within their belief system, than obviously there is a problem. If it is unnacceptable to the women outside that belief system with a system of their own - then it's debatable!0 -
This is just more muddying the waters ISAW- I did'nt prove rape to your satisfaction - but happily this is boards and you don't get to be judge and jury.
It is crystal clear.
1. You made statements about believers
e.g. God gave a "licence to Rape" http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76202223&postcount=1568
- the onus is on you to prove them. Look up "shifting the burden"
2. you then personally insulted a moderator about that so don't go on about "judges"
3. having failed to prove your claim and tried the "it is my opinion " you later re entered the original rape claim
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76218309&postcount=1692
4. You tried the "it is my interpretation" again when cklearly the burden is on your shoulders to prove your rape claim.
5. You then called a moderator a "disgrace"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76220641&postcount=1705
6 then on ht last page having done all the above and failed to prove the rape claim you resort to claiming you never made such claims about believers committing mass rapes and similar atrocities
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76557804&postcount=1932
"I never once advanced the agument that belief causes atrocities"
It is crystal clear.To my recollection the ''discussion'' like most discussions here just ground to a halt with little conceded on either side and nothing left to be said .
Your recollection is fantastic and bizzarre. Clearly you made claims you couldnt support, threw the rattle from the pram when challenged, and came back later making similar claims and when challenged denied you had ever made them before.
The evidence is above and clearly referenced. No "muddy waters" are involved.Those of us that believe it still do ( with if I recollect the exception of Morbert and even then with some caveats) and those that don't don't. No toys and prams at all - boredom possibly .
and maybe lack of logic and supporting factual data.
Now before I answer your query about the contributions of religion/atheistic groups may I ask are you withdrawing your agreement on the statement that-
..neither theism/atheism causes atrocities ?[/QUOTE]
It isn't my statement
All I am pointing out if it it true one has to agree it means theism does not cause atrocities. If belief causes no harm you can never suggest it does. Suggesting God ordered rape is suggesting theism causes harm.
Isn't it?0 -
Advertisement
-
It is crystal clear.
1. You made statements about believers
e.g. God gave a "licence to Rape" http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76202223&postcount=1568
- the onus is on you to prove them. Look up "shifting the burden"
2. you then personally insulted a moderator about that so don't go on about "judges"
3. having failed to prove your claim and tried the "it is my opinion " you later re entered the original rape claim
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76218309&postcount=1692
4. You tried the "it is my interpretation" again when cklearly the burden is on your shoulders to prove your rape claim.
5. You then called a moderator a "disgrace"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76220641&postcount=1705
6 then on ht last page having done all the above and failed to prove the rape claim you resort to claiming you never made such claims about believers committing mass rapes and similar atrocities
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76557804&postcount=1932
"I never once advanced the agument that belief causes atrocities"
It is crystal clear.
Your recollection is fantastic and bizzarre. Clearly you made claims you couldnt support, threw the rattle from the pram when challenged, and came back later making similar claims and when challenged denied you had ever made them before.
The evidence is above and clearly referenced. No "muddy waters" are involved.
and maybe lack of logic and supporting factual data.
Now before I answer your query about the contributions of religion/atheistic groups may I ask are you withdrawing your agreement on the statement that-
..neither theism/atheism causes atrocities ?
It isn't my statement
All I am pointing out if it it true one has to agree it means theism does not cause atrocities. If belief causes no harm you can never suggest it does. Suggesting God ordered rape is suggesting theism causes harm.
Isn't it?[/QUOTE]
ISAW your reasoning is fundamentally flawed, let me try and explain it to you again
atheism/nonbelief = everything bar theism/belief ie organised religion/ totalitarians/fascists/war criminals /criminals/ workers/ pensioners/ad nauseum.
Theism/belief= everything bar atheism/non-belief ie organised atheism/totalitarians/fascists/war criminals/workers/pensioners/as nauseum
Vegetarianism= everything bar carnivorous/ ie organised veggies/totalitarians/fascist/war criminals/workers/pensioners/ad nauseum.
and ould hairy one
people with moustaches= everything bar cleanshaven , ah fcuk it , whats the point.0 -
Yes you did. I said I don't believe atheism or theism are responsible for atrocities. You then asked "So you accept religion was never a bad influence in history?", implying a dichotomy that doesn't exist.
Do you accept that theism is not responsible for atrocities as you stated ?The above is completely unrelated to what I said. I have explicitly made clear that I consider neither theism nor atheism as causes of atrocities.
So you accept theism never caused atrocities?You consider atheism as a cause of atrocities. This is a nonsensical position that you have not backed up.
“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)
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion/tree/browse_frm/thread/58c9df7a83bdd7e3/44dc25546d3956cd?rnum=51&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.religion%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F58c9df7a83bdd7e3%2Fdc032fa3152ec639%3F#doc_abf0a2755c8b6a80
>>>> We all know the examples where people CLAIMING to be followers of a
>>>> religion ignore it's laws and principles and do harm to others.
>>>> Sensible people note that the vast majority of people in those faiths
>>>> condemn and repudiate acts of criminal violence, wars of aggression,
>>>> acts of terror, which are forbidden by every religion.
>>>> Better to have the laws, occasionally breached by wrongdoers, than
>>>> atheism, which has no moral or philosophical restraints on violence,
>>>> as the world has witnessed in EVERY atheist state, where brutality,
>>>> oppression, persecution, fear and despair ruled.
>>>> That's why the religions produced great and enduring civilisations,
>>>> with occasional aberrations, while EVERY atheist state was a horrific
>>>> aberration, and no civilisations were ever produced.
>>>> But while you attribute every wrongdoing thing done 'in the name
>>>> of religion', even if by an atypical minority, to ALL religions.
>>>> while you won't acknowledge any crimes committed by atheists,
>>>> even though EVERY atheist state was a totalitarian tyranny, EVERY
>>>> member of the ruling coven of tyrants was an atheist, more were killed
>>>> than by any religion in history, and atheist states have never produced
>>>> a single decent democracy to offset the horrors.
>>>> Everyone can see how prejudiced your views are, you damn others
>>>> for acts committed by anyone claiming to be part of a religious
>>>> community, and make excuses for the only kind of states atheism
>>>> has ever produced; murderous tyrannies.
Every member of the Politburo and
>>>> Central Committee of the USSR and Maoist China, which together
>>>> killed over 60,000,000 people, (far more than any religion) was
>>>> an ATHEIST.You have instead consistently tried to misrepresent my argument in the hope that nobody will notice the absurdity of your claim. I will highlight this every time you try to dodge the issue.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
either
1. Atheism is behind the beliefs of the above "There is no God" slaughter regimes
or
2. Religion can not be blamed for anything either and theism is not responsible for atrocities.
IOf theism has not been responsible for any atrocities then you can't go on about the potential harm of religion or the dangers of belief or any criticism of believers since their belief is not responsible for anything bad.And again, the hysteria speaks for itself. Marxism causes atrocities now? And the Labour party will lead to the next "Great Leap Forward"? I am not a Marxist, but Marxism is an entirely legitimate position to hold.
Indeed Marxism encompasses many christian social teachings. But the point is I can criticise the Maoist and Russian Marxist ( that would be in the Bolshie run Russia of the Cold War and long after Marx was dead and his grave a communist plot you know the human rights abusing gulag Archipeligo sort of wonderful Marxist Russia?)
If we can criticise Gerry Admas for being associated with the Provos we can criticise Gilmore and others for their background with the Officials can we?False dichotomy: You are trying to muddy the waters. First, admit that you were wrong when you said atheism is responsible for atrocities, and then we can talk about the various interpretations of "Religion can have a good/bad influence."
I don't think atheists themselves are all bad. But whenever atheism was given authority over society as a central philosophy it resulted in mayhem so I am deeply suspiscious orf fundamentalist atheists. Religious regimes don't always slaughter ( in fact they rarely do)
but the atheistic one always do.
I admit I can't logically prove it is logically determined by atheism but not can I logically deduce the Sun will rise tomorrow.It seems you have already retracted your statement.
that neither theism or atheism causes atrocities
I'm happy to go along with tatheists who State this if they admit that it means they can in no way claim after that that theism is harmful to the degree society suffers by atrocities.
Ill accept their cop out for atheism even though atheistic regimes caused much more harm if they only leave believers alone and don't pick on belief and try to ridicule it.
But they always come back with "God ordered Rape" or "clergy are abusers" or something to attack or ridicule belief.0 -
ISAW - your position is just untenable on a number of levels-
- surely you can't agree to a proposition and then a few post later retract that consent because it dos'nt suits your agenda ? Particularly something as basic the meaning of a word ?
-If your view in your last post was to be taken as correct then it means that you cannot criticise any religion - be it muslim fundamentalism, suicide bombers , inquisition, reformation, canibalism on belief grounds etc as they are all equally protected by the immunity your position infers.
-you seem to use atheist/atheistic regimes/totalitarianism interchangably and without distinction and theism/belief/organised religion in a similar manner. That cant be correct ?
-Oxford Dictionary definition- atheism -disbelief or lack of belief in the existance of God or gods.
Do you disagree with that definition ? And please lets not descend yet again to the sun rising tomorrow trope if we can.0 -
ISAW - your position is just untenable on a number of levels-
- surely you can't agree to a proposition and then a few post later retract that consent because it dos'nt suits your agenda ? Particularly something as basic the meaning of a word ?
I don't believe I can logically prove atheism causes atrocities. I think there is evidence but I'm prepared to leave iot go and not press the issue of atheists don't make claims about belief. When atheists make claims about believers and they are put under the same criteria their side always looks worse in terms of who committed the worst atrocities in history.
But I won't initiate cuch an accack and I will leave them alone.
But then people like you come back with your unsupported claims and claim you didn't make them.
I on the other hand didnt make claims. I made counter claims and I pointed out the logical consequences of the claims made.-If your view in your last post was to be taken as correct then it means that you cannot criticise any religion - be it muslim fundamentalism, suicide bombers , inquisition, reformation, canibalism on belief grounds etc as they are all equally protected by the immunity your position infers.
It isnt MY position. It is Morberts stated position. He stated neither atheism or theism causes atrocities. Im happy to accept this means theism does not cause atrocities.
But then you come bak in with Muslims the Inquisition the Reformation etc. claim belief DOES cause atrocities.
If you claim that is true then the "neither atheism or theism causes atrocities" is a false claim.-you seem to use atheist/atheistic regimes/totalitarianism interchangably and without distinction and theism/belief/organised religion in a similar manner. That cant be correct ?
Already defined "atheistic regime" You seem to forget what came before including you claim god ordered rape and your inability to prove it and your subsequent denial that you ever stated it.
Yes And atheistic regime = Government with "there is no GOd" as a central tenet.-Oxford Dictionary definition- atheism -disbelief or lack of belief in the existance of God or gods.Do you disagree with that definition ? And please lets not descend yet again to the sun rising tomorrow trope if we can.
I disagree with you avoidance of proof and then claiming you never made the claim.0 -
From post #1831
Then, in post #1919If 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.
In post 1831 in relation to "if Ireland became an atheist country, it would result in atrocities"I still have that nopption. I just can't formally prove it using deductive reasoning. My notion relies on the inductive reason that it always happened before. But I freely admit i can't formally prove it.
I'm also prepared to admit if i claimed it is a logical deduction that I was wrong in stating that.
It seems you have already retracted your statement.
I stand by 1831 and 1919.
I don't know where I stated I logically deduced that atheism always leads to atrocities whenever they get into power. I happen to believe it is true but I don't think I ever claimed I logically proved it.
I am also happy to leave atheists alone to go about their business so long as
1. They don't have a go at Christians /believers and accept Christians in power who believe christian values should be central for society.
2. they don't get into power with atheism as a central tenet of their plan for society.
Hopefully that clarifies any difficulties.0 -
Is that not a bit hypocritical?
You want atheists to accept christian values if Christians are in power, but you won't stand for the reverse. Although I've no idea what "atheist values" are tbh.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Is that not a bit hypocritical?
You want atheists to accept christian values if Christians are in power, but you won't stand for the reverse. Although I've no idea what "atheist values" are tbh.
Thats the point, atheism doesn't produce values.
No god so what? now what do we do?
Theism always produces values.
God exists now what?
We must please him, how?
Anti thiesm (what ISAW is on about) produces values
Their is no god, why religion?
We must stop it.0 -
Do you accept that theism is not responsible for atrocities as you stated ?
So you accept theism never caused atrocities?
Yes. I have never said otherwise.“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)
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion/tree/browse_frm/thread/58c9df7a83bdd7e3/44dc25546d3956cd?rnum=51&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.religion%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F58c9df7a83bdd7e3%2Fdc032fa3152ec639%3F#doc_abf0a2755c8b6a80
"We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
- Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933
See how silly it is quoting political leaders in a flimsy attempt to make an argument exposed as false after a cursory glance at the historical evidence?<from Usenet>
Nothing to do with what I said. I have made it clear that atheism alone does not have a set of values. Most Atheists derive their values from humanist ideals, the antithesis of totalitarian states and Communist oligarchs.What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
either
1. Atheism is behind the beliefs of the above "There is no God" slaughter regimes
or
2. Religion can not be blamed for anything either and theism is not responsible for atrocities.
False dichotomy. You should have said either
1. Atheism is behind the beliefs of the above "There is no God" slaughter regimes
or
2. Religion is not behind the beliefs of "There is a God" slaughter regimes.
The answer is 2.IOf theism has not been responsible for any atrocities then you can't go on about the potential harm of religion or the dangers of belief or any criticism of believers since their belief is not responsible for anything bad.
False dichotomy: I can't go on about religion causing atrocities, which I never did.Indeed Marxism encompasses many christian social teachings. But the point is I can criticise the Maoist and Russian Marxist ( that would be in the Bolshie run Russia of the Cold War and long after Marx was dead and his grave a communist plot you know the human rights abusing gulag Archipeligo sort of wonderful Marxist Russia?)
If we can criticise Gerry Admas for being associated with the Provos we can criticise Gilmore and others for their background with the Officials can we?
I don't care in the slightest. What you can't do, with any integrity at least, is criticise them for being atheist, or imply that all atheists are Mao sympathisers.I don't think atheists themselves are all bad. But whenever atheism was given authority over society as a central philosophy it resulted in mayhem so I am deeply suspiscious orf fundamentalist atheists. Religious regimes don't always slaughter ( in fact they rarely do)
but the atheistic one always do.
I admit I can't logically prove it is logically determined by atheism but not can I logically deduce the Sun will rise tomorrow.
And that is a ridiculous inference. A cursory glance at the history behind the atrocities is enough to show that atheism was not the cause of such atrocities.that neither theism or atheism causes atrocities
I'm happy to go along with tatheists who State this if they admit that it means they can in no way claim after that that theism is harmful to the degree society suffers by atrocities.
Ill accept their cop out for atheism even though atheistic regimes caused much more harm if they only leave believers alone and don't pick on belief and try to ridicule it.
But they always come back with "God ordered Rape" or "clergy are abusers" or something to attack or ridicule belief.
I stand by 1831 and 1919.
I don't know where I stated I logically deduced that atheism always leads to atrocities whenever they get into power. I happen to believe it is true but I don't think I ever claimed I logically proved it.
I am also happy to leave atheists alone to go about their business so long as
1. They don't have a go at Christians /believers and accept Christians in power who believe christian values should be central for society.
2. they don't get into power with atheism as a central tenet of their plan for society.
Hopefully that clarifies any difficulties.
Are you serious? You made a statement, you retracted it. Then, when this was pointed out, you retracted your retraction. This categorically shows that you have no interest in an honest exploration of the issue, and instead are completely agenda driven.
Nobody has said anything about logically proving atheism causes atrocities. You are trying to make it an issue to muddy the water. We are talking about whether or not your inductive inference is in any way reasonable.
As for your two criteria for "leaving atheists alone": Again, you are using deliberately vague phrases. What does "have a go" mean? The majority of Atheists (and, to be fair, many Christians) are in favour of civil unions and/or civil marriage. Is this "having a go"? Is this subverting "Christian values" as a central tenet? I have made it clear in the past that I have no problem with Christian values if that category is restricted to those also shared by the secular public.0 -
Is that not a bit hypocritical?
You want atheists to accept christian values if Christians are in power, but you won't stand for the reverse. Although I've no idea what "atheist values" are tbh.
No i don't consider it hypocritical at all.
I don't want atheistic regimes or nazis or fascists or whatever in power based on the damage they caused in the past. I am happy that christian regimes or governments were not always bad in fact rarely so. I am also prepared to accept nazis or whatever saying what they think. It is when they act on those beliefs or encourage others or attack believers i get irked.
I don't consider that hypocritical.0 -
Advertisement
-
No i don't consider it hypocritical at all.
I don't want atheistic regimes or nazis or fascists or whatever in power based on the damage they caused in the past. I am happy that christian regimes or governments were not always bad in fact rarely so. I am also prepared to accept nazis or whatever saying what they think. It is when they act on those beliefs or encourage others or attack believers i get irked.
I don't consider that hypocritical.
you didn't answer the question I asked. I asked is it not hypocritical to not afford atheists the place in society as Christians. I'm talking about atheists, not anti-theists or totalitarian regimes.
To clarify, you wouldn't be in favour of a government where the majority was made of people who didn't believe in God?If you can read this, you're too close!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement