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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Hostile Atheist.

2»

Comments

  • #52
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    as his actions are not indicative of the majority of individuals who would assume the same title.

    In fairness, you are dealing with a fairly loose term when you apply 'militant' to anyone or any group. In my experience, the term 'militant Christian' is often used to describe people who feel particularly strongly about their faith - often going against the societal grain in the process - and not those few who happen to blow up abortion clinics.


  • #53
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    In fairness, you are dealing with a fairly loose term when you apply 'militant' to anyone or any group. In my experience, the term 'militant Christian' is often used to describe people who feel particularly strongly about their faith - often going against the societal grain in the process - and not those few who happen to blow up abortion clinics.

    Really? Well then you are the first person I've ever heard say "Militant Christian" in that fashion. Growing up as a Christian I've heard people of strong faith called "strict" or "devout", but I'd imagine calling Mary, the woman that religiously counts her rosary beads and always attends every Church occasion a "militant" would be an insult. Would you call a Nun a militant Christian? She would fit the definition you have given above.


  • #54
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    The more I read your posts PDN, the more I see a very small troll who extols Christian virtues yet consistently makes puerile and sly, acerbic and derisive comments. You tend to take threads off topic by making veiled insults about the individual posting, getting the expected angered reply and then running with it. Quite sad really.
    As compared to your reasoned debating style evidenced in the above quote?
    You know full well the purpose of that quote. For the majority, militant Atheists are known for their writings, not their violence. Can the same be said of the majority of militant Muslims and Christians?
    I realise that I probably angered you by raising facts rather than what 'the majority' believe.
    Quoting the deaths caused by one person you believe to be a Militant Atheist is a logical fallacy, as his actions are not indicative of the majority of individuals who would assume the same title.
    It would be a logical fallacy if Mao was one militant atheist acting on his own, but maybe you are unaware that Mao was not a turbo-charged serial killer? He had a whole Party of accomplices who also happened to be militant atheists.
    If you want to play the game of tarring people with the same brush, and counting up the death tolls of Atheists versus Christians then by all means lets.
    That sounds fun! However, to be statistically accurate we would have to allow for the fact that the number of Christians that have ever lived is many, many times the number of atheists. So a fair comparison would be to add up all the victims of Christian killers and divide them by the number of Christians. Then we could add up all the victims of atheist killers and divide them by the number of atheists. Still want to play?

    Even better - let's add up all the Christian kings, rulers etc and see how many people on average each ruler killed. Then we could add up all the atheist rulers there have ever been (shouldn't take too long) and see how many each of them killed on average. I think those results would be very interesting, wouldn't they? In fact, I wonder why no militant atheist author has bothered to do that yet? Why would they miss such a golden opportunity to convince us all of how benign militant atheism is?
    HA! If you want to witness shameless displays of hypocritical backslappery head back next door.
    Way to go! That kind of intelligent debate really demonstrates your superiority to a very small troll who extols Christian virtues yet consistently makes puerile and sly, acerbic and derisive comments.


  • #55
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    sink wrote: »
    Then I think you misunderstood the point of the quote.

    Militant Christians bomb abortion clinics. (i.e. Christians who bomb abortion clinics are described in the media and popular terminology as 'militant')
    Militant Muslims fly planes into buildings.(i.e. Muslims who fly planes into buildings are described in the media and popular terminology as 'militant')
    Militant atheists write books.(i.e. Authors of books promoting atheism are described in the media and popular terminology as 'militant')

    It depends on what you want to participate in.

    Atheists have lots of different raison d'etre - but some who debate do so practically on how it affects their lives -a lot of atheist scientists have an interest in that area. The debate will be on practical issues often from the ethical issue point of view and none the worse for that.


  • #56
    Schuhart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    sink wrote: »
    Just to be clear, I do agree with you on this point. Mao definitely carried out mass killings of religious believers precisely because they would not give up their faith and can justly be described as a militant atheist.
    I don't know enough about Mao to recognise whether the specific fact you state is valid, but I do want to express a general acceptance that Marxism is an atheist doctrine generally hostile to religion.

    I really think we have to own up to this. I actually cannot see why we feel a need to deny it. I mean, we don't expect PDN or Fanny to take personal responsibility for people who invoke religion as a motivation to engage in terrorism. In the same way, if we state there is no god that's not an expression of support for Mao.

    Just to cover the angles, Marxism has also influenced some Christians. But that's hardly a one-way street, as similarly some atheists will acknowledge that they've internalised some concepts that come from religion.

    But I think the key point is that atheism, in the form of Marxism, did try to construct the Best Society Ever based on what seemed to be objective principles , and it wasn't an unqualified success.


  • #57
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    Why do you ignore the political component of the white supremacists, ignore the political component of Al Quaeda, yet make so much hay (or straw) out of the political component of the Chinese atheists?
    Because, in terms of body count, your original post made 134 times more hay about the actions of the chinese atheists than the actions of the WTC terrorists and 57,000 times more than the abortion clinic bombers. Let's try and sort out the big problems first, then, when these are sorted out, we can move onto understanding the others.

    On the one hand, your post implied that chinese authorities murdered 400,000 christians because the authorities were atheist, or were motivated by atheism. Can you back up this with some documentary evidence? What laws or foundational texts were used to justify this persecution?

    On the other hand, Mao's personal doctor, Li Zhishui, was a christian and Mao didn't seem to have much trouble with that. Also, we know that the current chinese government permits christians to practice freely, as long as it's within the ambit of the above-ground christian churches. This implies fairly clearly that the government's problem is not with christianity per se, but with the way in which some churches -- notably the underground ones -- require loyalty to the church over and above loyalty to the one party in the one-party state.

    Finally, looking through Mao's immensely long and tedious output, the almost complete absence of any mention of religion is really quite striking (in the 2,200 pages of his collected works, he refers to it at most in passing six times, and christianity only three times). Perhaps of most interest is this quote from page 319 of volume 3, especially the bit in bold:
    Mao wrote:
    All religions are permitted in China’s Liberated Areas, in accordance with the principle of freedom of religious belief. All believers in Protestantism, Catholicism, Islamism, Buddhism and other faiths enjoy the protection of the people’s government so long as they are abiding by its laws. Everyone is free to believe or not to believe; neither compulsion nor discrimination is permitted.
    It's clear enough from the above passage that the party running the one-party state demanded loyalty to its intention from its citizens and any deviation from this was treated harshly and irrespective of the reason for disloyalty to the one-party.

    BTW, I recall that the The soviet constitution had a similar phrase that freedom of speech and belief were guaranteed, provided that "such speech and belief were directed in the greater cause of socialism", of which the Soviet Communist Party was the one and only channel.

    To believe that the Chinese Communist Party kills christians simply because they're christian and the government is "officially atheist" is to fail to understand how loyalty works in a one-party state.

    .


  • #58
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    Really? Well then you are the first person I've ever heard say "Militant Christian" in that fashion. Growing up as a Christian I've heard people of strong faith called "strict" or "devout", but I'd imagine calling Mary, the woman that religiously counts her rosary beads and always attends every Church occasion a "militant" would be an insult. Would you call a Nun a militant Christian? She would fit the definition you have given above.

    Well, we obviously read a different internet because countless times I have seen certain types of non-violent Christians referred to as 'militant Christians'.

    It seems perfectly reasonable to try to define a word that can best be applied to those who engage in acts of violence predicated on a particular belief system. As I said, in my experience, the term militant can often be applied to any Christian that holds very strong views and who are often pushy in their opinions (which certainly fits the definition of the word). If you don't believe me then try do a google search under something like 'militant Christians'. Most of the results appear not to be discussing those who blow thing up.


  • #59
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    PDN wrote: »
    As compared to your reasoned debating style evidenced in the above quote?

    I wasn't starting a debate, I was making a statement extraneous to it on my observations about your approach to argument. If you are going to reason, then reason, veiled insults and diversionary impromptu linguistic and literacy lessons are not needed.
    PDN wrote: »
    It would be a logical fallacy if Mao was one militant atheist acting on his own, but maybe you are unaware that Mao was not a turbo-charged serial killer? He had a whole Party of accomplices who also happened to be militant atheists.

    ... and I'm sure none of these "accomplices" where acting without any fear for their own lives should they object :rolleyes:

    Seriously, I think it's about time that you started adding some credence to your claims. Where is it said that Mao killed religious people with the purpose of furthering Atheism? He killed a lot of people that he viewed as threats to his agenda, regardless of their faith or lack of. Pinpointing his Atheism as the source of all his actions is ludicrous.

    It holds about as much weight as the logic in this comic:

    20081103.gif
    PDN wrote: »
    That sounds fun! However, to be statistically accurate...

    To be statistically accurate, we could both make up ways to weight the numbers in our favour, but what would be the point? I doubt the atrocities caused by any of your fellow Christians has any bearing on your faith in Gods existence, in fact it probably strengthens it.


  • #60
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    I wasn't starting a debate, I was making a statement extraneous to it on my observations about your approach to argument. If you are going to reason, then reason, veiled insults and diversionary impromptu linguistic and literacy lessons are not needed.



    ... and I'm sure none of these "accomplices" where acting without any fear for their own lives should they object :rolleyes:

    Seriously, I think it's about time that you started adding some credence to your claims. Where is it said that Mao killed religious people with the purpose of furthering Atheism?


    To be statistically accurate, we could both make up ways to weight the numbers in our favour, but what would be the point? I doubt the atrocities caused by any of your fellow Christians has any bearing on your faith in Gods existence, in fact it probably strengthens it.

    Good to see you post.

    Surely this was part of the political aghenda that Mao espoused as a Marxist. Can anyone say when it became acceptable to kill Christians or was this the plan all along-did Marx or Lenin invisage this.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,357 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    I personally hate this argument and it is one that I do not stock in my own arsenal. My interest is in religion being true or not. People who kill in its name or against its name is irrelevant to whether it is true.

    The fact is that on both sides the killing was done by people who wished to enforce their view on others forcibly. This, for the most part, is not the position of atheist I know, have met, or are present on this forum.

    PDN can talk rightly of Mao killing or even Stalin, and maybe he is even right that one of the groups he wanted to kill were people who would not convert to atheism. I do not think this was because of his atheism but because the theism they were trying to kill was presenting a conflicting dictator (god) with which our dictator (Mao or Stalin) did not wish to compete.

    This is mute however, like I just said, as they are men who not ONLY think they are right, but think it justifiable to kill to enforce that right and this is abhorrent to Atheists and Theists alike which is why both sides scramble over each other to try and get it like grubby handed street urchins scrambling for a dropped fifty.

    So yes, both sides of this debate, theist and atheist contain people who think in this way. People who think that killing to enforce an idea is right. When you run the numbers you will find that the people doing it were atheists and they killed a LOT more people. Mao and Stalin for example.

    This statistic is horribly skewed however as it is painfully relative. The more our technology and knowledge increases the more people are becoming atheist. They are the fastest growing minority worldwide. However our ability to kill is also increasing. Someone needs to rework these numbers to account for not only the increase in atheists but also the increase in their technology and killing ability. I think you will find that having accounted for the difference both sides are closer than you think.

    The question for me therefore does not come down to some pointless navel gazing and looking back into the past creating some “My side is better than your side” self masturbatory lists of “Have atheists or theists killed more”.

    No… the question for me is which of the two positions is more likely to lead a person to think killing in the name of an idea is all ok, regardless of what that idea might be. When I look at the two sides I see a VAST disparity in this light.

    Where in the statement “I see no reason to think there is a god” can you find a mandate or a motive to kill? I do not see it. I really do not. Nor has anyone yet given me one. I can not see why my lack of belief might lead me to kill and I have never in my life had the urge to kill anyone.

    However if you really and truly believe in the tenets of religious discourse then motivations to kill are clearly there. Maybe not all theists are affected by them, but they are there. I could come up with 100 examples but I will use 1 as sufficient for now….

    If you TRULY believe in Hell and that unbelief or false gods risk (or even in some peoples mind guarantee) a passage to its halls then of course you will be moved to kill in its name.

    You would attack and maybe even kill those who harm the people you truly love. Imagine someone doing something as transient as beating up your child or as awful as raping your wife. What would you do? What would you do if you walked in on that man in the act? Hell I have read what people do walking in on the act when the wife is a WILLING partner, let alone being forcibly taken!

    Those around you disseminating the ideas of a false religion or even no religion are not just beating up your child which he will recover from next week or raping your wife which, hopefully, she will recover from with some good counseling and the passage of time. No they are quite literally condemning your child or wife or other loved one to an _eternity_ of the most vile and awful tortures _without end_ from which a good beating up or a nice raping would be a pleasant holiday.

    If I really…. really believed this stuff…. And someone put the girl I love more than anything else in the world at such risk…. I tell you now I would kill them…. I would kill them good…. And I would do it in such a way involving pain and agony beyond compare so as to make an example to any and all who would presume to do the same. The tortures of the inquisition would look pleasant compared to what I could dream up. What is even worse is I wouldn’t feel guilty about it, I would feel perfectly justified in doing it. It is, after all, self defence of me, my family and my loved ones and a righteous act in the protection of them and the Word Of My God.

    Now I am NOT saying that all people who believe this stuff will be lead to this. So any response saying “But I believe it and I don’t go around killing atheists” is mute to me. My point is that I care not for pointless p**sing contests of “Your side have killed more”. MY concern is SOLELY to do with which side is more likely to lead to people reaching a position where they feel justified in committing such acts.

    Try as I might I cannot find anything within the tenets of atheism, humanism and common human solidarity which could lead me to thinking in this way.

    To close I will borrow heavily, in fact completely, from Christopher Hitchens on this one. Stop looking at dictatorships in this fashion when looking back on the killing of the past. If you REALLY want to enter this p**sing contest and you REALLY want a level playing field to do it, then find for me a society that has degenerated into famine, misery, fear, murder or totalitarianism because it has adopted the teachings of Spinoza, Jefferson, Paine, Einstein and Lucricious.


  • #62
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    I wasn't starting a debate, I was making a statement extraneous to it on my observations about your approach to argument. If you are going to reason, then reason, veiled insults and diversionary impromptu linguistic and literacy lessons are not needed.
    A bit of verbal sparring with opponents in a debate is all part and parcel of the fun on internet fora. Most people seem able to participate - but then we get those, like yourself, who seem to prefer being rude or unpleasant.

    Linguistic and literary lessons would not be needed if all parties to a debate were literate, and used language in a consistent and meaningful way. Unfortunately that is not always the case.

    I've noticed that if you point out the inconsistencies in certain poster's arguments that they dismiss it as semantics. It's probably a symptom of postmodernism's influence.
    ... and I'm sure none of these "accomplices" where acting without any fear for their own lives should they object
    Probably no more or less so than the members of right wing militias who bomb abortion clinics or the Muslims who fly planes into buildings.
    Seriously, I think it's about time that you started adding some credence to your claims. Where is it said that Mao killed religious people with the purpose of furthering Atheism? He killed a lot of people that he viewed as threats to his agenda, regardless of their faith or lack of. Pinpointing his Atheism as the source of all his actions is ludicrous.

    Let's try to address what each other actually said, rather than what you imagine I said. I don't think I said that Mao killed "for the purpose of furthering atheism", or, indeed, that atheism was "the source of all his actions". You see, I am treating Mao as a comparison to your chosen subject of Christians who bomb abortion clinics. I hope you're not claiming that they did so for the purpose of furthering Christianity, or that Christianity was the source of all their actions.

    Only two people have ever killed anyone by bombing abortion clinics. One, John Salvi, was a schizophrenic. The other, Eric Robert Rudolph, is a white supremacist who wrote, "Many good people continue to send me money and books. Most of them have, of course, an agenda; mostly born-again Christians looking to save my soul. I suppose the assumption is made that because I'm in here I must be a 'sinner' in need of salvation, and they would be glad to sell me a ticket to heaven, hawking this salvation like peanuts at a ballgame. I do appreciate their charity, but I could really do without the condescension. They have been so nice I would hate to break it to them that I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible."
    To be statistically accurate, we could both make up ways to weight the numbers in our favour, but what would be the point?
    I think an impartial weighing of the numbers would be interesting, but then again, I don't have an axe to grind. I freely admit that both professing atheists and professing Christians have committed terrible atrocities. I'm not the none who was trying to pretend that one group is so much better than the other.
    I doubt the atrocities caused by any of your fellow Christians has any bearing on your faith in Gods existence, in fact it probably strengthens it.
    I certainly don't think that the atrocities committed by those holding a belief has any bearing on whether that belief is true or not (although quite how you think that would strengthen my faith I'm not sure). That would be true of both Christianity and atheism. I'm not arguing as to whether one ideology or another is true - I was simply challenging your rather sanctimonious quote about militant atheists as compared to militant Christians.


  • #63
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

    Who here has called Dawkins 'militant'?

    Nah - a geek:pac:


  • #64
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    People have done and always will kill other people for a variety of reasons. Religion gives us a nice way to categorise the issue but I believe it is solely down to human nature.


Advertisement