Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

ISAW · 18-01-2012 9:03pm

koth wrote: »

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.

I already stated i have atheist friends. I also know fundamentlist christians and bear them no ill will. I am as likely to disagree with a fundamentalist nazi, Muslim or whatever as I am of a fundamentalist atheist.

I would apply the not affording fundamentalist atheists a place iin government just as readily to fundamentalist nazis or Islamofacism or fundamentalist Christians who insist Pi=3 or whatever.

Im happy to accept that if people elect atheists then the election is valid. Im not happy when the atheist gets to become Prime Minister and starts bringing in laws based on his opposition to religion , in schools for example.

To clarify, you wouldn't be in favour of a government where the majority was made of people who didn't believe in God?

I wouldn't trust such a government. Especially if and when they begin to complain about religion having to much influence and how they plan to legislate to remove that religious influence. But my mistrust is not reserved only for atheists.
By the way Hitler was elected chancellor of Germany by a majority . Majority is not necessarily just. that is why a Republic has laws regulating majorities. The current government in Ireland has a two thirds majority in parliament and one might well consider they are awarding senior civil servants with 299k lump sums and 108k severance for early retirement plus 105k a year until they die. EACH! Meanwhile single mums get their child allowance cut. Is that just? But it is a majority.

tommy2bad · 18-01-2012 9:14pm

The current government in Ireland has a two thirds majority in parliament and one might well consider they are awarding senior civil servants with 299k lump sums and 108k severance for early retirement plus 105k a year until they die. EACH! Meanwhile single mums get their child allowance cut. Is that just?

And thats from a Christian gov. Or puppet gov ?

Delirium · 18-01-2012 9:17pm

ISAW wrote: »

I already stated i have atheist friends. I also know fundamentlist christians and bear them no ill will. I am as likely to disagree with a fundamentalist nazi, Muslim or whatever as I am of a fundamentalist atheist.

I would apply the not affording fundamentalist atheists a place iin government just as readily to fundamentalist nazis or Islamofacism or fundamentalist Christians who insist Pi=3 or whatever.

So it's a problem with fundamentalists not atheists. I'd be the same with regards to fundamentalists, be they religious or atheist.

Im happy to accept that if people elect atheists then the election is valid. Im not happy when the atheist gets to become Prime Minister and starts bringing in laws based on his opposition to religion , in schools for example.

Well I'm not aware of anyone supporting such a thing, so I guess we're still on the same page.

I wouldn't trust such a government. Especially if and when they begin to complain about religion having to much influence and how they plan to legislate to remove that religious influence. But my mistrust is not reserved only for atheists.

Yes, but you've just made a sweeping statement, i.e that you would not trust a government purely on the basis that the majority is atheist.

With regards to "complaining that religion has too much influence" argument. There are plenty of religious and atheist folk that would hold that view, yet you only have a problem with atheists expressing that view.

By the way Hitler was elected chancellor of Germany by a majority . Majority is not necessarily just. that is why a Republic has laws regulating majorities. The current government in Ireland has a two thirds majority in parliament and one might well consider they are awarding senior civil servants with 299k lump sums and 108k severance for early retirement plus 105k a year until they die. EACH! Meanwhile single mums get their child allowance cut. Is that just? But it is a majority.

I never said that a majority is just. I asked if you would be ok with a government if an atheist majority made up the government, since you're ok with a Christian majority.

Interesting that you had to divert discussion back to Hitler though.

ISAW · 19-01-2012 1:44am

koth wrote: »

So it's a problem with fundamentalists not atheists. I'd be the same with regards to fundamentalists, be they religious or atheist.

Now you are making the same scotsman argument as Morbert with "it is just because they were all Totalitarian" or Marienbad with the "if they all had mustaches would that make them not eligible for government " type argument.

To which i quote Fasgnadh
KkKNm.56392$ze1.17003@news-server.bigpond.net.au
[qopte]
> >> By arbitrarily selecting ANY OTHER ATTRIBUTE, (gender, moustaches,
> >> brand name chosen), the claim that 'no true atheist' regime would
> >> be a tyranny is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an
> >> approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible
> >> refutation of it.
> >>
> >> The logical flaw is that not all atheist regimes were 100% male,
> >> or had moustaches and the Chinese Communists now allow religion,
> >> have declared it a social positive, and have prospered and
> >> progressed, unlike EVERY atheist communist state which has been a
> >> catastrophic failure!!!
Not all
> >> COMMUNIST governments have been catastrophic failures, (China
> >> reformed its constitution, permitting religions to function, and
> >> has progressed phenomenally) ..but all ATHEIST ones have been!!!
> >> B^]
> >>
> >> The common feature is that those tyrannies were ALL ATHEIST
> >> REGIMES, and in fact were the ONLY atheist regimes in history.
> >> 100% of atheist regimes, without exception, have been murderous
> >> tyrannies!
> >>
> >>
> >> Q.E.D. They *are* the historical REALITY of atheism.
> >>
> >> The only benign atheists are the hypocrites who CHOOSE to live in
> >> majority religious societies
[/quote]

Well I'm not aware of anyone supporting such a thing, so I guess we're still on the same page.

Well now you are.
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/there-more-ruairi-quinns-school-call

It begs the question as to whether Mr Quinn may have another altogether different agenda in linking the issue of Ryan redress to school patronage. The Minister has already proposed that some 50pc of schools should no longer have a Catholic ethos and be managed by a Catholic Board of Management

Yes, but you've just made a sweeping statement, i.e that you would not trust a government purely on the basis that the majority is atheist.

In atheistic regimes ALL of them were atheist!
I assume a majority would have to vote for an atheist Taoiseach. If he then chose an atheist cabinet I would be suspicious yes.

With regards to "complaining that religion has too much influence" argument. There are plenty of religious and atheist folk that would hold that view, yet you only have a problem with atheists expressing that view.

No confusion necessary.
History show us that while some minority of christian governments were totalitarian ALL atheist ones were.

I never said that a majority is just. I asked if you would be ok with a government if an atheist majority made up the government, since you're ok with a Christian majority.

Im okay with t christian government because they have contributed to society in the past. What atheist government with members committed to atheism ever did anything?

Interesting that you had to divert discussion back to Hitler though.

No I was discussing ALL atheist or ALL religious governments. I just pointed out that the "democracy" or "majority rule" idea isn't just. Thatcher also got into power with about 30% of the vote as did Hitler. But he secured a voting majority in parliament as did she.

marienbad · 19-01-2012 2:05am

ISAW can we take then you are withdrawing your agreement to the proposition that ''neither atheism or theism cause atrocities'' ?

Delirium · 19-01-2012 9:30am

ISAW wrote: »

Now you are making the same scotsman argument as Morbert with "it is just because they were all Totalitarian" or Marienbad with the "if they all had mustaches would that make them not eligible for government " type argument.

To which i quote Fasgnadh
KkKNm.56392$ze1.17003@news-server.bigpond.net.au

> >> By arbitrarily selecting ANY OTHER ATTRIBUTE, (gender, moustaches,
> >> brand name chosen), the claim that 'no true atheist' regime would
> >> be a tyranny is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an
> >> approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible
> >> refutation of it.
> >>
> >> The logical flaw is that not all atheist regimes were 100% male,
> >> or had moustaches and the Chinese Communists now allow religion,
> >> have declared it a social positive, and have prospered and
> >> progressed, unlike EVERY atheist communist state which has been a
> >> catastrophic failure!!!
Not all
> >> COMMUNIST governments have been catastrophic failures, (China
> >> reformed its constitution, permitting religions to function, and
> >> has progressed phenomenally) ..but all ATHEIST ones have been!!!
> >> B^]
> >>
> >> The common feature is that those tyrannies were ALL ATHEIST
> >> REGIMES, and in fact were the ONLY atheist regimes in history.
> >> 100% of atheist regimes, without exception, have been murderous
> >> tyrannies!
> >>
> >>
> >> Q.E.D. They *are* the historical REALITY of atheism.
> >>
> >> The only benign atheists are the hypocrites who CHOOSE to live in
> >> majority religious societies

I'm guessing you don't understand what the term 'fundamentalist' means, it's the only way your claim of the "no true scotsman" makes any sense.

Your copy pasta is daft btw. The poster is essentially saying that non-Christians should leave Ireland :rolleyes:

Well now you are.
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/there-more-ruairi-quinns-school-call

What laws has Quinn brought in that are anti-religion? And having mr.Quinn reform the public school system is only reflecting the demands of society.

In atheistic regimes ALL of them were atheist!
I assume a majority would have to vote for an atheist Taoiseach. If he then chose an atheist cabinet I would be suspicious yes.

So, I presume you're equally suspicious of the current government as they are almost entirely comprised of Christians.

No confusion necessary.
History show us that while some minority of christian governments were totalitarian ALL atheist ones were.

You've yet to prove that.

Im okay with t christian government because they have contributed to society in the past. What atheist government with members committed to atheism ever did anything?

At least you're beginning to be honest and state clearly that you oppose atheists making up the majority of the government. Is it only a Christian government that you approve of? would you approve of say, a Jewish majority in the government, or Buddhist?

No I was discussing ALL atheist or ALL religious governments. I just pointed out that the "democracy" or "majority rule" idea isn't just. Thatcher also got into power with about 30% of the vote as did Hitler. But he secured a voting majority in parliament as did she.

But the Nazi government wasn't an atheist government.

ISAW · 19-01-2012 10:26am

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW can we take then you are withdrawing your agreement to the proposition that ''neither atheism or theism cause atrocities'' ?

It is not MY proposition!
It is Morbert's proposition!
What I am saying is:
assume it is true.
It then means theism does not cause atrocities.
So whoever proposed it is saying "theism does not and has not caused atrocities"

I'm also prepared to go along with it in that if anyone accepts theism has run society in the past and has contributed to society and has nothing against theism doing so and is not going to propose an atheistic regime then I have no problem with that.

ISAW · 19-01-2012 10:48am

koth wrote: »

I'm guessing you don't understand what the term 'fundamentalist' means, it's the only way your claim of the "no true scotsman" makes any sense.

Your copy pasta is daft btw. The poster is essentially saying that non-Christians should leave Ireland :rolleyes:

He is sayiong atheists who propose atheism as a "better way" should go off to whatever mess of a regime atheists set up elsewhere and see how they get on.

What laws has Quinn brought in that are anti-religion? And having mr.Quinn reform the public school system is only reflecting the demands of society.

You asked what Minister stated they wanted 50% of schools out of religious ethos.
I showed you.
He also happens to be atheist.
Mind you he sends his own children to religious ethos schools and went to one himself.

So, I presume you're equally suspicious of the current government as they are almost entirely comprised of Christians.

I don't hink you are getting the point about NOT applying the same rule to Christians as of that is hypocritical or wrong.

Mr A believes white people are superior to black people
Mr A believes governments and societies run with "no blacks allowed " in certain pl;aces are better societies.

Ms B say is "I think that is racist. I don't know what white and black means and Im not against all white or all black people getting into government. I have a problem when people who state "whites are better than blacks" get into government however. I accept some of these people will get elected and even get into government but i am deeply suspicious of them. Every time in the past such people got inmto power only bad things happened when they started pushing their agenda based on whites being better than blacks "

Ms B believes that everyone should have equal opportunity and access whatever white or black means.

Now you may think I am a hypocrite but i am happy to accept a government of Ms B's who have successfully run things in the past and oppose a government of Mr A who caused problems every time they got into government in the past. I certainly would not be equally suspicious of a government of Ms B's as i would of Mr A's.

You've yet to prove that.

Verification is not a useful tool as one gets into scotsmen.
Falsification is far better because a single example can show the claim is wrong for ALL atheistic regimes.
Care to show me the atheistic governments with "There is no God" as a central tenet which were NOT repressive regimes?
In the absence of that evidence I assume it to be true.

At least you're beginning to be honest and state clearly that you oppose atheists making up the majority of the government.

Not really. I oppose atheistic notions being supported by a giovernment. Even if by believers. I'm happy to allow atheists into government ( and they don't need my permission) so long as they don't start pushing atheistic policies. I am however suspicious of them . Just as Ms b would be suspiscious if a group of white suprecemicists got elested but said that white supremacy had nothing to do with what they wanted to do in government.

Is it only a Christian government that you approve of? would you approve of say, a Jewish majority in the government, or Buddhist?

I think to varying degrees over the last 10,000 years or so governments or dictators or Kings which had belief in God or gods did contribute to society. Even Pagan ones. Im not aware of any "there is no god " government which contributed anything but ruin. Are you?

Anyway this is a Christianity forum so i was mainly confining the discussion to that. Usually because atheists attack the Church usually with non issues like Creationism , Galileo, the Nazis etc.

But the Nazi government wasn't an atheist government.

No it was theosophist. And you can claim Buddhists are atheists but religious and Stalinist and Maoists are atheists but religious. I'm speaking specifically of "there is no god" as a central tenet.

The Nazis came into this because of Claims about the Catholic church supporting them - the Church didn't support Nazis it opposed them!

ISAW · 19-01-2012 10:53am

tommy2bad wrote: »

And thats from a Christian gov. Or puppet gov ?

IOt is from a massive majority government.
I would not think the Christian Churches are necessarily supportive of the widening gap between rich and poor these so called "socialists" are making even wider by upholding the massive high pay and pensions of bankers and senior civil servants.

If they had a better way why didn't they take more from the rich and give more to the poor?
That is what Christian social teaching would suggest.

Delirium · 19-01-2012 11:20am

ISAW wrote: »

He is sayiong atheists who propose atheism as a "better way" should go off to whatever mess of a regime atheists set up elsewhere and see how they get on.

Exactly why I consider it to be more than a bit daft.

You asked what Minister stated they wanted 50% of schools out of religious ethos.
I showed you.
He also happens to be atheist.
Mind you he sends his own children to religious ethos schools and went to one himself.

No, I didn't. I asked who has proposed bringing in laws that are based on opposition to religion. You gave Mr.Quinn as an example.

Considering that at least 95% of schools are Christian, it's a choice of education or not in a lot of places. So I don't see what the relevance is that his kids go to a Christian school.

I don't hink you are getting the point about NOT applying the same rule to Christians as of that is hypocritical or wrong.

Mr A believes white people are superior to black people
Mr A believes governments and societies run with "no blacks allowed " in certain pl;aces are better societies.

Ms B say is "I think that is racist. I don't know what white and black means and Im not against all white or all black people getting into government. I have a problem when people who state "whites are better than blacks" get into government however. I accept some of these people will get elected and even get into government but i am deeply suspicious of them. Every time in the past such people got inmto power only bad things happened when they started pushing their agenda based on whites being better than blacks "

Ms B believes that everyone should have equal opportunity and access whatever white or black means.

Now you may think I am a hypocrite but i am happy to accept a government of Ms B's who have successfully run things in the past and oppose a government of Mr A who caused problems every time they got into government in the past. I certainly would not be equally suspicious of a government of Ms B's as i would of Mr A's.

That's a distortion (to suit your side of this discussion) of what I have posted. I've never said that atheists are superior to Christians. If anything, it's you who is saying that Christians are superior to atheists, at least when it comes to being members of a government.

So, it does make you a hypocrite.

Verification is not a useful tool as one gets into scotsmen.
Falsification is far better because a single example can show the claim is wrong for ALL atheistic regimes.
Care to show me the atheistic governments with "There is no God" as a central tenet which were NOT repressive regimes?
In the absence of that evidence I assume it to be true.

I can't find any atheistic governments, be they good or bad. So I don't see how prove anything one way or the other.

Not really. I oppose atheistic notions being supported by a giovernment. Even if by believers. I'm happy to allow atheists into government ( and they don't need my permission) so long as they don't start pushing atheistic policies. I am however suspicious of them . Just as Ms b would be suspiscious if a group of white suprecemicists got elested but said that white supremacy had nothing to do with what they wanted to do in government.

Well, as already said, no one is calling for "there is no God" to be supported by a government. It seems that you have some level of paranoia with regards to atheists.

I think to varying degrees over the last 10,000 years or so governments or dictators or Kings which had belief in God or gods did contribute to society. Even Pagan ones. Im not aware of any "there is no god " government which contributed anything but ruin. Are you?

I've yet to see any examples of atheist governments to be provided on this thread. I don't see how atheism can be a good or bad government as it doesnt' inform how to treat people in your day to day life.

Anyway this is a Christianity forum so i was mainly confining the discussion to that. Usually because atheists attack the Church usually with non issues like Creationism , Galileo, the Nazis etc.

That's a dodge btw with regards to my question about being ok with a government that has a Jewish majority.

No it was theosophist. And you can claim Buddhists are atheists but religious and Stalinist and Maoists are atheists but religious. I'm speaking specifically of "there is no god" as a central tenet.

Then the governments you mentioned so far wouldn't be atheist governments.

The Nazis came into this because of Claims about the Catholic church supporting them - the Church didn't support Nazis it opposed them!

I wouldn't agree that they opposed the Nazis.

marienbad · 19-01-2012 12:07pm

ISAW wrote: »

It is not MY proposition!
It is Morbert's proposition!
What I am saying is:
assume it is true.
It then means theism does not cause atrocities.
So whoever proposed it is saying "theism does not and has not caused atrocities"

I'm also prepared to go along with it in that if anyone accepts theism has run society in the past and has contributed to society and has nothing against theism doing so and is not going to propose an atheistic regime then I have no problem with that.

This is just meaningless ISAW- conversation is pointless if one party can gives and withdraw assent at will. Understanding of a word is not contingent on how others understand it. Words and definitions have meaning or they don't other wise it is Tower Of Babel stuff.

As it happens neither theism/atheism causes atrocities- that is all we can say. you want to make the leap on to the next levels without setting an argument , because at this stage as Morbert said you are just agenda driven.

ISAW · 19-01-2012 2:15pm

koth wrote: »

Exactly why I consider it to be more than a bit daft.

So if a nazi or a pro dictatorship group said they were better off running the government and they were told to go off to North Korea and tell them that you would consider that daft. Instead we should let athiestic regimes have their "better way"?

No, I didn't. I asked who has proposed bringing in laws that are based on opposition to religion. You gave Mr.Quinn as an example.

And he proposed removing the church management/ethos from 50% of schools.
One does not need an act of the Oireachtas
Laws are also made by constitutional Reform and by statute i.e. Ministerial declaration.

Considering that at least 95% of schools are Christian, it's a choice of education or not in a lot of places.

considering 90% or so of people are religious it is a fair correlation.
Considering the Church has stated that they are prepared to give schools to non religious if the non religious are prepared to manage them . they have done so in the past. But it appears people only want to get their kids minded for six years and then do a bunk on the community.
Considering the number of religious families is in no way 50% of the population making 5% of schools non religious might be a more accurate number. And it is a number they are about at at the moment.

So I don't see what the relevance is that his kids go to a Christian school.

See above the comments made to me about wanting one thing for Christians and another for atheists. If he believed in "secular" education why did he send his kids to religious schools? One which is in Bray several "catchment areas " away from where he lives? Does it not remind you of the Labour MPs who complain about private schools and privilege and how all schools should be state schools and then you find out they send their own kids rto Harrow or Rugby or Eton?

That's a distortion (to suit your side of this discussion) of what I have posted. I've never said that atheists are superior to Christians. If anything, it's you who is saying that Christians are superior to atheists, at least when it comes to being members of a government.

Their philosophy is - as has been demonstrated by history.
Contribition of Christian values to running society - art, culture, science , technology, music
Contribution of godless atheist governments - ruin , famine, genocide.

I can't find any atheistic governments, be they good or bad. So I don't see how prove anything one way or the other.

Look up "state atheism" in Wikipedia.

State promotion of atheism as a public norm was first practised during a brief period in Revolutionary France. Since then, such a policy was repeated only in Revolutionary Mexico and some communist states. The Soviet Union had a long history of state atheism,[10] in which social success largely required individuals to profess atheism, stay away from churches and even vandalize them; this attitude was especially militant during the middle Stalinist era from 1929-1939.[11][12][13] The Soviet Union attempted to suppress religion over wide areas of its influence, including places such as central Asia.[14] The Socialist People's Republic of Albania under Enver Hoxha went so far as to officially ban the practice of every religion.[15]

In China the Religious Affairs Bureau and the Patriotic Association run their own version of the Catholic church. Run by atheists - preposterous!

Well, as already said, no one is calling for "there is no God" to be supported by a government. It seems that you have some level of paranoia with regards to atheists.

China is officialy atheist but has relaxed it's surpression of religion.
Cambodia was under Pol Pot.
North Korea executed all the clerics there.

China, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea and Cuba, despite some economic liberalization, continued to persecute the religious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Godless
"A struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism", was meant to tie in their atheist views with economy, politics, and culture.

Not paranoia - these people existed.

I've yet to see any examples of atheist governments to be provided on this thread. I don't see how atheism can be a good or bad government as it doesnt' inform how to treat people in your day to day life.

Your "no true atheist" /scotsman line has already been shown up before you tried it.
It is clearly stated by several regimes in hiostory that atheism was central to their philosophy.

That's a dodge btw with regards to my question about being ok with a government that has a Jewish majority.

Nope.
For example the Israeli government is Jewish.
I might not support Israeli policy.
I might not do so because it is Zionist and not because they are all Jews.
It would be difficult to find a zionist who is not a jew however.
But, it would be simple to find Jews who are not zionist.

This does not mean the common belief in Judaism makes the Israelu government wrong, nor if they all wear scarves or head caps or mustache. But they all DO advocate Zionism and there are plenty of scarf wearers or cap wearers or mustache wearers who don't advocate Zionism.

It does not just happen that the oppressive regimes all happened to advocate state atheism. Yes there were agnostics who didn't believe in Atheistic governments but Im not talking about the individuals here but the philosophy of a "christian goivernment" as opposed to a "atheist government". As I said, though suspicious, Im happy for atheists to get elected. It is when they act in any way supporting atheistic tenets that I get more concerned.

Then the governments you mentioned so far wouldn't be atheist governments.

Look up State Atheism would you? do you actually claim it never existed? Hundreds of millions dead and you think it never happened?

I wouldn't agree that they opposed the Nazis.

And you evidence is?
the Church OPPOSED the Nazis.
Successive popes opposed naxiism.
Catholics protected and helped people persecuted by nazis.
Catholic clerics took the place of people being sent to the death camps.
They church preached against naziism in germany.
They excommunicated nazis.

It has been extensively covered in this and other threads.
But you want to believe otherwise and not look father than anti Catholic propaganda.

ISAW · 19-01-2012 2:30pm

marienbad wrote: »

This is just meaningless ISAW- conversation is pointless if one party can gives and withdraw assent at will. Understanding of a word is not contingent on how others understand it. Words and definitions have meaning or they don't other wise it is Tower Of Babel stuff.

Please don't waffle!
I was quite clear.
Morbert advanced a principle.
I was prepared to accept HIS principle - I never said I agreed with it or believed it.
I pointed out that his principle asserts that Christians have not caused any problems in history.
I'm prepared to accept atheists saying that they in no way want to implement "ther is no God" or state atheism.

I am suspicious of that but Ill accept it so long as they don't try to attack religion or religious people in government.Ill even not refer to the hundreds of millions of dead caused by godless atheism getting in control of states. Just so long as they don't try it again and
don't attack believers.
But as soon as I look away there they are again having a go at the influence of religion, and peoples belief and making claims about all the harm it caused.

As it happens neither theism/atheism causes atrocities- that is all we can say.

So theism never caused atrocities? - That is your statement.

you want to make the leap on to the next levels without setting an argument , because at this stage as Morbert said you are just aganda driven.

It is no leap. All deduction is already contained in the original statement.
Apparently it is you don't want to stand by that statement.

Ill rehearse your problem

Atheistic regimes slaughtered of the order of hundreds of millions in history and built nothing..
Christian regimes in comparison did kill people but of the order of 1% compared to the Atheists. Christians also contributed to society.

When faced with the hporrific deaths and persecution due to state Atheism one atheist response is to claim "that was not atheistic it was totalitarian/ [insert any other scotsman here ]" . It was not because of atheism being a central belief.

To which i ask - "how do you know then the other 1% is because of Christianity?"

and in order to co- out the 99% atheistic they say "well we dont1 neither the atheists or christians are to blame for these deaths"

the logical conclusion is that Christians are not to blame.

I point this out and say im prepared to accept their conclusion if they dont preach atheism and dont criticise religion for running things.

Faced with this cognitive conflict they move off only to return later with some attack on the church or clerics or whatever.

Is it any wonder I'm suspicious?

Delirium · 19-01-2012 3:14pm

ISAW wrote: »

So if a nazi or a pro dictatorship group said they were better off running the government and they were told to go off to North Korea and tell them that you would consider that daft. Instead we should let athiestic regimes have their "better way"?

Must it always go to silly extremes?

If a nazi government/pro dictatorship said they could run the country better, then let them see if the people agree with them. I find it very hard to believe that anyone would in Ireland would vote in such a group.

I don't know how to respond to the question about atheistic regimes being let to have their "better way", as the defintion of "atheistic regime" seems to be a contentious point currently.

And he proposed removing the church management/ethos from 50% of schools.
One does not need an act of the Oireachtas
Laws are also made by constitutional Reform and by statute i.e. Ministerial declaration.

Nonsense. Otherwise, the currently public primary school system is illegal based on your own definition of how a law is enacted.

considering 90% or so of people are religious it is a fair correlation.
Considering the Church has stated that they are prepared to give schools to non religious if the non religious are prepared to manage them . they have done so in the past. But it appears people only want to get their kids minded for six years and then do a bunk on the community.
Considering the number of religious families is in no way 50% of the population making 5% of schools non religious might be a more accurate number. And it is a number they are about at at the moment.

How do you know it isn't 50% that are in favour of secular schools? you're presuming to speak for all religious people. I've seen plenty of poster here speak in favour of a secular system.

See above the comments made to me about wanting one thing for Christians and another for atheists. If he believed in "secular" education why did he send his kids to religious schools? One which is in Bray several "catchment areas " away from where he lives? Does it not remind you of the Labour MPs who complain about private schools and privilege and how all schools should be state schools and then you find out they send their own kids rto Harrow or Rugby or Eton?

I believe in a secular education system. But if I have kids and want to ensure that they go to a secular school, I've essentially ruled out large areas of the country where I won't be able to live due to only religious schools being available.

People have to work with the resources available to them at the time they need them. And work to change/improve the system if unhappy with it.

Their philosophy is - as has been demonstrated by history.
Contribition of Christian values to running society - art, culture, science , technology, music
Contribution of godless atheist governments - ruin , famine, genocide.

That's just dishonest. If you're going to make claims about the "atheist" governments, then all the points against atheism also apply to Christians. And the positives in the Christian list also apply to the "atheist" governments.

Look up "state atheism" in Wikipedia.

Sounds like the tool of a dicatator/ totalitarian government. A government should not promote a religion (or atheism) above other ideologies.

In China the Religious Affairs Bureau and the Patriotic Association run their own version of the Catholic church. Run by atheists - preposterous!

China is officialy atheist but has relaxed it's surpression of religion.
Cambodia was under Pol Pot.
North Korea executed all the clerics there.

China, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea and Cuba, despite some economic liberalization, continued to persecute the religious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Godless
"A struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism", was meant to tie in their atheist views with economy, politics, and culture.

Not paranoia - these people existed.

But that's a nation oppressing it's citizens. That's not a free society, it's a dictatorship/totalitarian government. Even the examples you give back me up on this.

Your "no true atheist" /scotsman line has already been shown up before you tried it.
It is clearly stated by several regimes in hiostory that atheism was central to their philosophy.

Afraid not. There is nothing about atheism that tells a person to kill a Christian, or to stop people from practising their religious belief. That falls into the realm of extreme anti-theism for example.

Nope.
For example the Israeli government is Jewish.
I might not support Israeli policy.
I might not do so because it is Zionist and not because they are all Jews.
It would be difficult to find a zionist who is not a jew however.
But, it would be simple to find Jews who are not zionist.

This does not mean the common belief in Judaism makes the Israelu government wrong, nor if they all wear scarves or head caps or mustache. But they all DO advocate Zionism and there are plenty of scarf wearers or cap wearers or mustache wearers who don't advocate Zionism.

But that doesn't tell me if you'd support a Jewish majority government here. Unless I'm to take it to mean that you'd be suspicious of a Jewish majority because they might be Zionists?

It does not just happen that the oppressive regimes all happened to advocate state atheism. Yes there were agnostics who didn't believe in Atheistic governments but Im not talking about the individuals here but the philosophy of a "christian goivernment" as opposed to a "atheist government". As I said, though suspicious, Im happy for atheists to get elected. It is when they act in any way supporting atheistic tenets that I get more concerned.

But you've yet to show what these "atheistic tenets" are. All I've seen so far is the example of trying to reform the public school system. Which has nothing to do with atheism. A Christian minister could just as easily taken the same steps.

Look up State Atheism would you? do you actually claim it never existed? Hundreds of millions dead and you think it never happened?

I'm not disputing any deaths that may have occurred throughout history. I'm disputing your claims of governments being atheist while killing their people or people of another country.

If a nations leaders start slaughtering its citizens, then they've crossed over into totalitarism/dictatorship.

And you evidence is?
the Church OPPOSED the Nazis.
Successive popes opposed naxiism.
Catholics protected and helped people persecuted by nazis.
Catholic clerics took the place of people being sent to the death camps.
They church preached against naziism in germany.
They excommunicated nazis.

It has been extensively covered in this and other threads.
But you want to believe otherwise and not look father than anti Catholic propaganda.

Really? Even though the vatican signed a treaty with Hitlers government to give special protections to the Catholic Church?

marienbad · 19-01-2012 3:33pm

ISAW wrote: »

Please don't waffle!
I was quite clear.
Morbert advanced a principle.
I was prepared to accept HIS principle - I never said I agreed with it or believed it.
I pointed out that his principle asserts that Christians have not caused any problems in history.
I'm prepared to accept atheists saying that they in no way want to implement "ther is no God" or state atheism.

I am suspicious of that but Ill accept it so long as they don't try to attack religion or religious people in government.Ill even not refer to the hundreds of millions of dead caused by godless atheism getting in control of states. Just so long as they don't try it again and
don't attack believers.
But as soon as I look away there they are again having a go at the influence of religion, and peoples belief and making claims about all the harm it caused.

So theism never caused atrocities? - That is your statement.

It is no leap. All deduction is already contained in the original statement.
Apparently it is you don't want to stand by that statement.

Ill rehearse your problem

Atheistic regimes slaughtered of the order of hundreds of millions in history and built nothing..
Christian regimes in comparison did kill people but of the order of 1% compared to the Atheists. Christians also contributed to society.

When faced with the hporrific deaths and persecution due to state Atheism one atheist response is to claim "that was not atheistic it was totalitarian/ [insert any other scotsman here ]" . It was not because of atheism being a central belief.

To which i ask - "how do you know then the other 1% is because of Christianity?"

and in order to co- out the 99% atheistic they say "well we dont1 neither the atheists or christians are to blame for these deaths"

the logical conclusion is that Christians are not to blame.

I point this out and say im prepared to accept their conclusion if they dont preach atheism and dont criticise religion for running things.

Faced with this cognitive conflict they move off only to return later with some attack on the church or clerics or whatever.

Is it any wonder I'm suspicious?

Coming from the king of waffle that is rich !

Do you accept that atheism/theism do not cause atrocities ?

Do you accept the oxford dictionary definition of Atheism-disbelief or lack of belief in the existance of God or gods.

For once can you answer yes or no and lets us get on with the discussion ?

Morbert · 19-01-2012 5:16pm

ISAW wrote: »

Please don't waffle!
I was quite clear.
Morbert advanced a principle.
I was prepared to accept HIS principle - I never said I agreed with it or believed it.
I pointed out that his principle asserts that Christians have not caused any problems in history.
I'm prepared to accept atheists saying that they in no way want to implement "ther is no God" or state atheism.

How on earth did my "principle" imply Christians have not caused any atrocities? Christians kill people every day. Just look at the shambles that is Africa. What I did imply was that Christianity, the belief that God exists, and is willing to receive the wages of our sin, is not responsible.

None of this, of course, addresses you rejecting, then accepting, then rejecting again the idea that atrocities cannot be blamed on atheism or theism/Christianity. It is stifling an interesting debate about whether or not religious instruction has ever been a bad influence.

marienbad · 19-01-2012 6:19pm

Morbert wrote: »

How on earth did my "principle" imply Christians have not caused any atrocities? Christians kill people every day. Just look at the shambles that is Africa. What I did imply was that Christianity, the belief that God exists, and is willing to receive the wages of our sin, is not responsible.

None of this, of course, addresses you rejecting, then accepting, then rejecting again the idea that atrocities cannot be blamed on atheism or theism/Christianity. It is stifling an interesting debate about whether or not religious instruction has ever been a bad influence.

But at this stage I now realize ISAW this is what you do , you stifle or derail any thread that does not fit your agenda. You did it on the child abuse thread and you are doing it here.

ISAW · 20-01-2012 1:13pm

Morbert wrote: »

How on earth did my "principle" imply Christians have not caused any atrocities?

"'neither atheism or theism cause atrocities''

means
1. atheism did not cause atrocities
AND
2. Theism did not cause atrocities

All you are doing now is sayi9ng atheists caused atrovcities but not because they were atheists or because of atheism. In which case I can say Christians caused atrocities but not because of being christian or because of Christianity. Matter of fact using your logic i can claim that since
2. Theism did not cause atrocities not alone can you not claim any atrocities due to christianity but by the very fact that christianity din't support such behaviour such atrocities ( and in fact there are historic records of Christianity opposing atrocities) were Anti - christian

Christians kill people every day. Just look at the shambles that is Africa.

Now we are back to the other aRGUMENT.
iF YOU ARE GOING TO CLAIM cHRISTIANS KILL EVERY DAY THEN YOU HAVE TO COMPARE THEM TO ATHEISTS.
Atheists killed getting up for hundreds of million in two centuries!
Christians don't compare to that at all.
But go ahead list the numbers killed by "Christians" . And of these numbers how many were sanctioned by any pope or bishop?
Hint: Zero will be the figure you arrive at for
Meanwhile non communist anti religion supressive regimes in North Korea et. al get on with the oppression.

What I did imply was that Christianity, the belief that God exists, and is willing to receive the wages of our sin, is not responsible.

So Christianity is not responsible for any atrocities?
Fine Ill accept that.
Dont come back later trying to blame the pope or bishops for anything then.

None of this, of course, addresses you rejecting, then accepting, then rejecting again the idea that atrocities cannot be blamed on atheism or theism/Christianity.

I have been quite clear. Ill accept your principle without believing in it if it means you don't come back later to attack the church.
I personally believe some christian regimes claiming to represent Christ did cause some damage Most however actually contributed to society. Atheistic regimes never contributed and always murdered at a rate which is astronomical compared to Christian regimes,
Atheistic regimes of "there is no god" have been responsible for far far far more deaths than any Christian ones. I happy to leave that comment there or not even talk about atheistic regimes . But when someone comes along with "The church supported Nazis" - IT DIDNT- I have to bring back the comparison.

It is stifling an interesting debate about whether or not religious instruction has ever been a bad influence.

that wopuld depend on what is "true" religious instruction. But even bad religions didn't contribute as much damage as atheistic regimes. there is also the semantic problem of atheistic "religions" .
In this discussion Im not specifically concerned about all religion per se but christianity compared to atheism.

ISAW · 20-01-2012 1:21pm

marienbad wrote: »

Coming from the king of waffle that is rich !

Do you accept that atheism/theism do not cause atrocities ?

Im willing to accept it on the conditions mentioned.
Do I personally believe it? - No.

Do you accept the oxford dictionary definition of Atheism-disbelief or lack of belief in the existance of God or gods.

I dont know I haven't look it up there but yes I accept it is a fair definition of "atheism"

And "Atheistic regime" has disbelief on God as a central tenet.

For once can you answer yes or no and lets us get on with the discussion ?

A bit rich coming from you
1. You made statements about believers
e.g. God gave a "licence to Rape" - message 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 -message 1692
4. You tried the "it is my interpretation" again when clearly the burden is on your shoulders to prove your rape claim.
5. You then called a moderator a "disgrace"
message 1705
6 then 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
message 1932
"I never once advanced the agument that belief causes atrocities"

Now you are asking me to accept a principle that it doesn't cause atrocities?
How do I know you won't return later with "God commanded rape" or "The Pope supported Nazis" ?

No wonder you want to move on.

tommy2bad · 20-01-2012 1:34pm

So Christianity is not responsible for any atrocities?
Fine Ill accept that.
Dont come back later trying to blame the pope or bishops for anything then.

Why are they perfect already? what do you mean by this, if a bishop or pope dose wrong he is answerable for that wrong. If he dose so because of his Christianity then someone better explain how he squared that circle.

Worztron · 20-01-2012 1:38pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Why are they perfect already? what do you mean by this, if a bishop or pope dose wrong he is answerable for that wrong. If he dose so because of his Christianity then someone better explain how he squared that circle.

Christians see the pope as being infallible. :eek:

Now that is warped thinking.

tommy2bad · 20-01-2012 2:03pm

Worztron wrote: »

Christians see the pope as being infallible. :eek:

Now that is warped thinking.

YeahI would explain that but explaining anything to someone who links to Zeitgeist the movie? I'll keep my breath to cool my porridge.

Worztron · 20-01-2012 2:04pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

YeahI would explain that but explaining anything to someone who links to Zeitgeist the movie? I'll keep my breath to cool my porridge.

Go back to sleep and keep bailing out the banks so.

Fanny Cradock · 20-01-2012 2:41pm

Worztron wrote: »

Christians see the pope as being infallible. :eek:

Now that is warped thinking.

No, Christians don't think that the pope is infallible. You seem to be getting confused between the concept of infallibility and the doctrine of papal infallibility. The latter implies that while the pope remains fallible he can also make certain dogmatic proclamations that are infallible because he is directed by the Holy Spirit. Additionally, not all Christians are Catholic and so don't recognise the RC doctrine of papal infallibility.

On another note, did somebody mention Zeitgeist: The Movie? If so for shame.

PDN · 20-01-2012 2:44pm

Worztron wrote: »

Christians see the pope as being infallible. :eek:

Now that is warped thinking.

No, one particular denomination of Christians sees the pope as being infallible under very limited circumstances.

Which IMHO is still warped thinking, but is very different from what you just claimed.

marienbad · 20-01-2012 2:49pm

ISAW wrote: »

Im willing to accept it on the conditions mentioned.
Do I personally believe it? - No.

I dont know I haven't look it up there but yes I accept it is a fair definition of "atheism"

And "Atheistic regime" has disbelief on God as a central tenet.

A bit rich coming from you
1. You made statements about believers
e.g. God gave a "licence to Rape" - message 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 -message 1692
4. You tried the "it is my interpretation" again when clearly the burden is on your shoulders to prove your rape claim.
5. You then called a moderator a "disgrace"
message 1705
6 then 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
message 1932
"I never once advanced the agument that belief causes atrocities"

Now you are asking me to accept a principle that it doesn't cause atrocities?
How do I know you won't return later with "God commanded rape" or "The Pope supported Nazis" ?

No wonder you want to move on.

ISAW it is nonsensical to I say I will accept a definition or meaning on the condition that.... you either accept meanings or we are speaking a different language.

1-And to come back to the rape issue - that is my reading of the bible - yes, and I am prepared to stand over it .Now we can rehash the whole thing all over again without either changing their position or we can move on.

2 I insulted a moderator as you say in the context of using the word pedophile in what I considered and still do an outrageous manner, (and I suspect not without a hint of agreement from you) .But he seemed to take it on the chin and we moved on- why can't you, after all he is the moderator not you.

3/4/5/ ''having failed to prove my opinion'' who says ? you ? who decides that ? I am happy enough the issue was more that carried. If I recall i even offered to take it to an other forum- but I notice there were no takers.

6 Let me restate that for you ISAW - yes I believe the Bible gave a license to rape- but at the same I believe that belief/theism never causes atrocities, how is that for you ?

And then you pose the '' and now you want me to accept a principle...'', I have news for you - you already accepted and rejected it an re-accepted and now you are offering to accept it with conditions ! Are you for real ? you either accept a definition or set out why you don't . What you cannot do ( if you want to maintain any credibility that is) is accept it with conditions that enable you to withdraw it when it suits.

- You next sentence is quite extraordinary , the ''How do I know you you won't return later ....'' , that one . As if saying if I agree now I might regret it later when it dos'nt suit my argument. You either agree or you don't .

I don't recall saying the Pope supported the Nazis but it is certainly an issue ( with many others) I would like to discuss if we ever get to move on, that is.

ISAW · 20-01-2012 2:56pm

Worztron wrote: »

Christians see the pope as being infallible. :eek:

Now that is warped thinking.

No they don't!
Roman Catholics under certain limited conditions with respect to theological dogma may. It has only been used once by a pope in the entire 2,000 of Roman church history.

Christians would view anyone who speaks the truth as being infallible! The truth by definition is infallible.

ISAW · 20-01-2012 3:22pm

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW it is nonsensical to I say I will accept a definition or meaning on the condition that.... you either accept meanings or we are speaking a different language.

I accept what it means and we both agree as to what it means.
I don't believe it is true but I'm prepared to live with it and tolerate it as long as it results in atheists not attacking believers.

1-And to come back to the rape issue - that is my reading of the bible - yes, and I am prepared to stand over it.

In other words you believe god ordered rape but you just can't prove it. that is fair enough. But what you are saying is not the same as me. why?
Because while the statement
P:"rape [caused by a religion or religious belief] is only my belief"
is acceptable

and given rape is an atrocity
The later statement that you never claimed religion or belief caused any atrocities and in fact religion does not lead to atrocities is incompatible and contradicts you stated belief.

Now we can rehash the whole thing all over again without either changing their position or we can move on.

It isn't the same. I believe that atheism put in power is a threat. I cant prove it . Im prepared to leave it alone so long as atheists don't start making statements or doing things to restrict religion. I have never stated that I believe atheism in power does not lead to atrocities. I am prepared to accept their claim that they don't until they begin to restrict religion. It would be analogus to you accepting rape does not occur due to church influence until such a time in the future that the pope or a bishop advocates or defends rape.

2 I insulted a moderator as you say in the context of using the word pedophile in what I considered and still do an outrageous manner, (and I suspect not without a hint of agreement from you) .But he seemed to take it on the chin and we moved on- why can't you, after all he is the moderator not you.

What the moderator does about being insulted or not is his own business. I was only stating it because of the "rattle from the pram" behavior when you couldn't prove god ordered rape.

3/4/5/ ''having failed to prove my opinion'' who says ? you ? who decides that ?

And here you go again. Claiming your unsupported opinion is FACT!
It isn't!
You have no evidence at all to support the "God ordered rape" claim but you reenter it!

If you can't be trusted on that how am I to know you wont later start "atheism should be a principle of government" or "religion must be restricted" ? I mean the very suggestion that a religion causes rape is a ground for restricting that religion.

I am happy enough the issue was more that carried. If I recall i even offered to take it to an other forum- but I notice there were no takers.

That is more "rattle from the pram" nonsense and you were shown why. If you can't accept you were unsupported blaming the moderator or the forum won't make your claim true!

6 Let me restate that for you ISAW - yes I believe the Bible gave a license to rape- but at the same I believe that belief/theism never causes atrocities, how is that for you ?

It is contradictory. It is also contrafactual.

1. where did God in the Bible order rape?
2. If The is Bible as a "book from God" according to a religion and it orders an atrocity then that religion iof it acts out such an atrocity is doing so because of their religious belief in following such an order. The order by the way does not exist and you have not shown it does.

And then you pose the '' and now you want me to accept a principle...'', I have news for you - you already accepted and rejected it an re-accepted and now you are offering to accept it with conditions ! Are you for real ? you either accept a definition or set out why you don't .

I accept the definition that nazis hate Jews. That does not mean because I accept that I personally hate Jews does it?

What you cannot do ( if you want to maintain any credibility that is) is accept it with conditions that enable you to withdraw it when it suits.

Im prepared to go along with atheists claiming neither atheism or religio caused atrocities in history. I dont actually believe it but Ill go along with it . It is basically sidestepping the argument that atheists killed hundreds of millions. The reason the argument conmes up is because atheists claim nazis the church etc. committed terrible atrocities. I point out thatatheists did much much much worse! So they claim "that was not atheism" To which I say "if you can say that was not atheism you must say -that was not Christianity- as well"

So they say " fair enough it was not atheism or christianity" and even though atheism was much much much worse - of the order of hundreds of millions of dead - Im prepared to move on.

But then back they come with
God ordered rape
Religion is a bad thing causing atriocities
Pope supported Nazis
Pope is a Totalitarian etc.

Go figure.

- You next sentence is quite extraordinary , the ''How do I know you you won't return later ....'' , that one . As if saying if I agree now I might regret it later when it dos'nt suit my argument. You either agree or you don't .

I agree to accept the past ( in spite of the much worse record of atheism) if you don't keep coming back with how bad religion is. Because if you do I have to point out atheism is much worse! got it?

I don't recall saying the Pope supported the Nazis but it is certainly an issue ( with many others) I would like to discuss if we ever get to move on, that is.

But you can't move on to accusing a pope if you accept popes didn't commit atrocities!

It has been amply covered anyway. popes did not support nazism the opposed it!

PDN · 20-01-2012 3:54pm

marienbad wrote: »

''having failed to prove my opinion'' who says ? you ? who decides that ? I am happy enough the issue was more that carried. If I recall i even offered to take it to an other forum- but I notice there were no takers.

You got fed up with being asked to substantiate your unfounded claims and made the rather asinine challenge that we take discussion to another forum where you appeared to think you would be allowed to make silly claims and remain unchallenged.

I pointed out at the time what a dumb idea that was.

It would be like getting nowhere discussing the offside law in the Soccer forum so challenging the Soccer guys to discuss it in the Buddhist Forum instead. :rolleyes:

marienbad · 20-01-2012 4:53pm

PDN wrote: »

You got fed up with being asked to substantiate your unfounded claims and made the rather asinine challenge that we take discussion to another forum where you appeared to think you would be allowed to make silly claims and remain unchallenged.

I pointed out at the time what a dumb idea that was.

It would be like getting nowhere discussing the offside law in the Soccer forum so challenging the Soccer guys to discuss it in the Buddhist Forum instead. :rolleyes:

Talking about about asinine, I made a statement as did others, I stand over it. I stated that in my opinion you were moderating unfairly and I reported you ( to which I never got a reply by the way). Your analogy of the offside laws is so ridiculous it not worth muddying the waters even more by replying to it.

The fact is that there is nothing either I or anybody else can say to you and others that would change your view and that is fine by me. You could equally say that nothing you can say would change my view and I respect that, but it is pointless dismissing the claim outright as a simple google search would show that is and has been a contentious issue with all types of people.

I am happy the claim was substantiated and not just by me ,you are happy it was not, end of so, so forget the trivalising adjectives as they make to difference.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments