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

A post for Soul Winner

245

Comments

  • #32
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Dades wrote: »
    In short one's belief or not in a supernatural being doesn't necessarily guide you in your actions. People do what they will do, regardless of what they believe, not because of it.
    Quite false.

    People certainly will do what they do because of what they believe (for certain meanings of the word 'believe'). The open question is how beliefs lead to actions, how the beliefs are learned or deduced, the balance between beliefs derived from desires and beliefs derived from evidence, the role of self-justification, self-legitimization, the desire for self-respect, status and many, many other things.

    There may indeed be plenty of religious who will do or won't do certain things because they think that their deity is watching them/deity will burn them etc. But equally well, there's plenty of religious people who'll do openly antisocial things that they otherwise wouldn't do simply because they think that the creator of the universe approves of what they're doing. And discussions like the one from a while back on corporal punishment of children (quite popular with christians, not at all popular here) leads me to suspect that the bad done because of this assumed deity approval far outweighs any good done, or bad not done, simply because of religious beliefs. To godwin myself, the SS didn't put "Gott mit Uns" on their buckles just because they liked the typeface.


  • #33
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Elijah didn't do anything like what Stalin did. David killed in self defense and in battle, he did not kill millions of people arbitrarily just so he could stay in control. Plus all these guys lived in a time when it was kill or be killed.

    It was not by any stretch of the imagination in the heat of battle against enemy soldiers or in self defense. I'm sure you know the bible better than I do. You know very well that isn't the case. Do I really need to point out specific examples to you?


  • #34
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    Quite false.....

    To godwin myself, the SS didn't put "Gott mit Uns" on their buckles just because they liked the typeface.

    The SS didn't put Gott mit Uns on their belt buckles at all. Their belt buckles carried the slogan Meine Ehre heißt Treue ('My honour is loyalty').

    The Wehrmacht had Gott mit Uns on their belt buckles, but you can hardly blame the Nazis for that since it went back to 1701 when Frederick I of Prussia used the slogan on his coat of arms.


  • #35
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    The Wehrmacht had Gott mit Uns on their belt buckles
    You are, of course, quite correct. Please accept my apologies for mixing up one murderous branch of the Nazi regime with another one.
    PDN wrote: »
    you can hardly blame the Nazis for that since it went back to 1701 when Frederick I of Prussia used the slogan on his coat of arms.
    I'm not blaming them at all, nor did I claim that they were the first to put them there. On the contrary, my point was that religion is used to legitimize people's antisocial feelings and that's been going on for a long, long time before Freddie Der First figured it out.

    Actually, now that Freddie Der Großvater has come up, and being reminded that Bach did earlier in the week, I have to recommend this excellent book:

    http://www.amazon.com/Evening-Palace-Reason-Frederick-Enlightenment/dp/0007156588


  • #36
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,603 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    robindch wrote:
    People certainly will do what they do because of what they believe (for certain meanings of the word 'believe'). The open question is how beliefs lead to actions, how the beliefs are learned or deduced, the balance between beliefs derived from desires and beliefs derived from evidence, the role of self-justification, self-legitimization, the desire for self-respect, status and many, many other things.
    robindch wrote: »
    On the contrary, my point was that religion is used to legitimize people's antisocial feelings and that's been going on for a long, long time before Freddie Der First figured it out.
    Isn't that a separate point to whether people act contrary to their supposed beliefs?

    My point was that saying you're a "Christian" does not mean you adhere wholesale to Christian 'values'. People's are ultimately true to their nature, and will also act despite their religion. How many of Ireland's nominal catholics ignore half of their church's teachings?

    What you are referring to are the cases where people can find justification for their actions within their religion. Both valid notions - and not at all contradictory - but separate nonetheless.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Like I said guys. Genuine God fearing leaders would not do what Stalin did for the reasons Stalin did them. A person can be God fearing even if it turns out that God does not exist.

    How can you tell who's God fearing and doing, as they imagine, the work of their God out of a Godly reverance, and someone who isn't God fearing?

    Take Charlemagne for example, you pretty much owe your Christianity to him. Was he God fearing? I mean he spread the name of your lord right, even if it was by force and intimidation.


  • #38
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    How can you tell who's God fearing and doing, as they imagine, the work of their God out of a Godly reverance, and someone who isn't God fearing?

    I can't but their actions can be very telling. By their fruits ye shall know them etc etc...
    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    Take Charlemagne for example, you pretty much owe your Christianity to him.

    Not so. We owe our Christianity to Jesus and the Apostle Paul. Without them there would be no Christianity and without whom we would probably never have heard of Charlemagne.
    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    Was he God fearing? I mean he spread the name of your lord right, even if it was by force and intimidation.

    The Gospel is not something that is to be enforced on people. It is to be preached to people who will either receive it or reject it. Charlemagne forgot to listen to what Jesus said:

    "And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them." Mark 6:11


  • #39
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Christian, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Atheist Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Christian would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about a Protestant man whose brutal actions make the atheist sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Christian would do such a thing."

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

    If China or the old Soviet Union had been model examples of how a modern society should be like then ye would be very quick to point to them and say; see, these nations are atheist in their ideology and look how great they are. But when the tables are turned, you'd never ever blame their atrocities and their abuses of human rights on their atheism, you'd just say; no, they just happen to be atheist. Tut tut.. Your little story above works both ways Sam.


  • #40
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Your little story above works both ways Sam.
    Yes, but if you understood the point properly, you would see it only works one way.

    Hint -- have a read of the wiki article on totalitarianism.


  • #41
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    I can't but their actions can be very telling. By their fruits ye shall know them etc etc...

    So to sum this up.

    "God fearing people don't commit genocide"
    "What about [insert religious person who committed genocide]"
    "They weren't really god fearing"
    "How do you know if someone is god fearing?"
    "By their actions"
    "So people who commit genocide say wouldn't be god fearing based on their actions?"
    "Correct."
    "And amazingly god fearing people don't commit genocide?"
    "Correct."
    "Hmm. Out of curiosity have you a favourite shape?"
    "Well I am partial to circles."
    "Indeed."


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    mikhail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,862 ✭✭✭mikhail


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    If China or the old Soviet Union had been model examples of how a modern society should be like then ye would be very quick to point to them and say; see, these nations are atheist in their ideology and look how great they are. But when the tables are turned, you'd never ever blame their atrocities and their abuses of human rights on their atheism, you'd just say; no, they just happen to be atheist. Tut tut.. Your little story above works both ways Sam.
    No he wouldn't. That's what's called a straw man argument.

    For instance, atheism is extremely common in Norway, which is a very pleasant country which hasn't attempted to slaughter the jews or sent tanks into Czachoslovakia in aaaages (and has a low crime rate, excellent healthcare and education statistics and so on), and I've never heard anyone hold it up as an example of why atheism is great.


  • #43
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    If China or the old Soviet Union had been model examples of how a modern society should be like then ye would be very quick to point to them and say; see, these nations are atheist in their ideology and look how great they are. But when the tables are turned, you'd never ever blame their atrocities and their abuses of human rights on their atheism, you'd just say; no, they just happen to be atheist. Tut tut.. Your little story above works both ways Sam.

    How about, instead of "atheist nations" we refer to "nations where the people do not abdicate their moral responsibility to a higher power". This would rule out nations like Stalin's USSR and nations where the people are hugely under the sway of religious influences, like the USA or Saudi Arabia.

    Now, let us compare some of these two groups. Say, Finland, Norway and Sweden versus USA, China, Saudi Arabia. We'll compare things like education, crime rates, political freedoms etc. How do you think that would work out?


  • #44
    mikhail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,862 ✭✭✭mikhail


    Damn it Zillah, why did you have to go and do what I just wrote I'd never seen anyone do? :)


  • #45
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    robindch wrote: »
    Yes, but if you understood the point properly, you would see it only works one way.

    Hint -- have a read of the wiki article on totalitarianism.

    I understand the point very well and do accept it and I can also see that it does actually work both ways. Thanks for the irrelevant link.


  • #46
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    mikhail wrote: »
    ...and I've never heard anyone hold it up as an example of why atheism is great.

    It sort of happened here


  • #47
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    mikhail wrote: »
    Damn it Zillah, why did you have to go and do what I just wrote I'd never seen anyone do? :)

    What I did was very different. It think I explained it quite succinctly too.


  • #48
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Zillah wrote: »
    How about, instead of "atheist nations" we refer to "nations where the people do not abdicate their moral responsibility to a higher power". This would rule out nations like Stalin's USSR and nations where the people are hugely under the sway of religious influences, like the USA or Saudi Arabia.

    Now, let us compare some of these two groups. Say, Finland, Norway and Sweden versus USA, China, Saudi Arabia. We'll compare things like education, crime rates, political freedoms etc. How do you think that would work out?

    You just proved my point. If the nations which are atheistic in their ideology and practice can be held up as model nations you have no problem suggesting that their atheism has something to do with it. But when similar type nations commit atrocities then its not because of their atheist ideals, its always because of something else. You can't have it both ways. No hold on, I forgot, I'm in the A&A forum now, where it is always possible to have it both ways. :rolleyes:


  • #49
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,603 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    It sort of happened here
    Much as I like the cut of atmo's jib, I don't think he presumes to speak for all of us.

    Look, I'll try and bullet point the Stalin thing:
    • Stalin wanted total power.
    • Who has lots of power that Stalin wants?
    • The church (as always).
    • How does Stalin wrestle that power from the church?
    • Enforce State atheism. Genius!

    That is why Stalins Russia was an enforced atheistic state. Not because Stalin loved atheism and worshiped at it's imaginary altar - but because it was a means to stripping another historical powerhouse - and threat to his supreme power - of it's influence.


  • #50
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    You just proved my point. If the nations which are atheistic in their ideology and practice can be held up as model nations you have no problem suggesting that their atheism has something to do with it. But when similar type nations commit atrocities then its not because of their atheist ideals, its always because of something else. You can't have it both ways. No hold on, I forgot, I'm in the A&A forum now, where it is always possible to have it both ways. :rolleyes:

    You abjectly and utterly failed to understand what I just said. It wasn't even a long post. The very first fucking line is where I state that the key quality for a healthy nation is one where people do not abdicate their moral responsibility to a higher power. In which case nations like the USSR, where people absolutely abdicated their moral responsibility to the state and to the party, do not qualify.

    To claim Norway and the USSR are "similar type nations" as I have just described is pure stupidity.


  • #51
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Dades wrote: »
    Much as I like the cut of atmo's jib, I don't think he presumes to speak for all of us.

    Look, I'll try and bullet point the Stalin thing:
    • Stalin wanted total power.
    • Who has lots of power that Stalin wants?
    • The church (as always).
    • How does Stalin wrestle that power from the church?
    • Enforce State atheism. Genius!
    That is why Stalins Russia was an enforced atheistic state. Not because Stalin loved atheism and worshiped at it's imaginary altar - but because it was a means to stripping another historical powerhouse - and threat to his supreme power - of it's influence.

    So you wouldn't agree with Christopher Hitchens that the Russian Orthodox Church stood side by side with the Stalinist regime and that there was never a moment in Russian history where the powers that be did not find that Church convenient?

    The Hitch was responding to a question asked by his brother Peter: "Why can't you just accept that the Soviet Regime was an atheist regime which hated God?"

    From 4:03 onwards...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCrXb7UyX3M


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Zillah wrote: »
    You abjectly and utterly failed to understand what I just said. It wasn't even a long post. The very first fucking line is where I state that the key quality for a healthy nation is one where people do not abdicate their moral responsibility to a higher power. In which case nations like the USSR, where people absolutely abdicated their moral responsibility to the state and to the party, do not qualify.

    To claim Norway and the USSR are "similar type nations" as I have just described is pure stupidity.

    Yes I'm quite slow when it comes to bad grammar. Suggestion: Word your posts better.


  • #53
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Yes I'm quite slow when it comes to bad grammar. Suggestion: Word your posts better.

    I literally could not have phrased it in a more clear or succinct manner:
    Me wrote:
    How about, instead of "atheist nations" we refer to "nations where the people do not abdicate their moral responsibility to a higher power". This would rule out nations like Stalin's USSR


  • #54
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    robindch wrote: »
    Yes, but if you understood the point properly, you would see it only works one way.

    Hint -- have a read of the wiki article on totalitarianism.

    ^
    |
    |
    What he said


  • #55
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    So you wouldn't agree with Christopher Hitchens that the Russian Orthodox Church stood side by side with the Stalinist regime and that there was never a moment in Russian history where the powers that be did not find that Church convenient?
    As Christopher Hitchens says, Stalinist Russia was a pseudo-religious state -- I wouldn't have used the word "pseudo" here -- which borrowed extensively from christianity. These borrowings included its servile modes of hero-worship, its persecution of independent scientific and ethical thinkers, its ugly totalitarianism, its pretense that it's perfect, its inflexibility, its total commitment to itself as an end rather than the ends to which it pretends it aspires, its self-professed ambition to control the world. And so on.

    This is to be expected from a political movement lead by a man who spent several years studying to be a christian priest. And who sought to control the church by whatever murderous means he could, because he understood from his own personal experience, the corrupting power of a competing, and only slightly less unpleasant, totalitarianism.

    To suggest that he assaulted the church in Russia because he was an atheist and "didn't like god" (how can you dislike something you don't think exists? :confused:) is not only evidentially false, it's naive to the point of foolishness.


  • #56
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    robindch wrote: »
    To suggest that he assaulted the church in Russia because he was an atheist and "didn't like god" (how can you dislike something you don't think exists? :confused:) is not only evidentially false, it's naive to the point of foolishness.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDIB8YnocsU


  • #57
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    robindch wrote:

    To suggest that he assaulted the church in Russia because he was an atheist and "didn't like god" (how can you dislike something you don't think exists? ) is not only evidentially false, it's naive to the point of foolishness.


    I think soulwinnner meant the 'idea' of god but he just couldn't bring himself to say that!


  • #58
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Yes I'm quite slow when it comes to bad grammar. Suggestion: Word your posts better.
    I think you're the only one who didn't get it tbh.


  • #59
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Zillah wrote: »
    You abjectly and utterly failed to understand what I just said. It wasn't even a long post. The very first fucking line is where I state that the key quality for a healthy nation is one where people do not abdicate their moral responsibility to a higher power.

    No, here's what your very first ****ing line says: (Hey how come mine gets starred out??? :mad: )
    Zillah wrote: »
    How about, instead of "atheist nations" we refer to "nations where the people do not abdicate their moral responsibility to a higher power".

    So as well as wording your sentences badly you then make up stuff that you didn't say in the first place and then say that you said it. I believe that these words were probably going around in your head at the time of typing but try better next time to convey your thoughts to 0s and 1s. Cheers...
    Zillah wrote: »
    This would rule out nations like Stalin's USSR and nations where the people are hugely under the sway of religious influences, like the USA or Saudi Arabia.

    Which is another way of saying that Stalin's Russia was not in fact an atheist regime. What a clever thing you just did. Instead of calling a spade a spade you've decided (all by yourself) that a spade is actually a club in order to support your argument. To you a regime who massacres priests, and destroys churches did it because it was the thing to do back then and it had nothing to do with their ideology. Thats what some people would call intellectual prostitution. The point I make is that if a religious organization did similar things you guys would blamed it on their religion and not on their greed for money and power. If religious ideologies can cause an institution or regime to commit atrocities then other ideologies are equally capable to committing them. Stalin's ideology was rooted, bolted, and cemented in atheistic ideals and hence was the cause of his atrocities. Get over it. Either that or religion is not as responsible for most of the evil that atheists would like to beleive its responsible for.
    Zillah wrote: »
    Now, let us compare some of these two groups. Say, Finland, Norway and Sweden versus USA, China, Saudi Arabia. We'll compare things like education, crime rates, political freedoms etc. How do you think that would work out?

    Finland - Christian Nation
    Norway - Christian Nation
    Sweden - Christian Nation
    USA - Christian Nation
    China - Communist Nation
    Saudi Arabia - Muslim Nation

    Why do you have Norway Sweden and Finland on one side and USA, China and Saudia Arabia on the other? The only non religious state is China, one of the worst abusers of human rights in the world. Congratulations.
    Zillah wrote: »
    To claim Norway and the USSR are "similar type nations" as I have just described is pure stupidity.

    I didn't do that in the first place. You are the one who decided to change all reality of the situation into an illusion that happens to suit you. Real life doesn't work that way buddy.


  • #60
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    I think soulwinnner meant the 'idea' of god but he just couldn't bring himself to say that!

    I often use the phrase 'If God exists' in my posts which is not a million miles away from the idea of God,. I have no problem with using the phrase 'the idea of God' at all. Hey feel free to go back and overlay idea of God where I said God in any of my posts.

    In any case I was quoting Peter Hitchens. Read it again. It has these little things ---> "" <--- before and after what was said. They're called quotation marks, they are used when quoting other people. What you see in between these marks are what the quoted person is saying, not what I'm saying. Clear? He asked his brother "Why can't you just accept that the Soviet Regime was an atheist regime which hated God?"

     Sorry for quoting him verbatim. Tell you what, I'll put in atheist friendly meanings to all sentences the next time I quote somebody. Will that make you all feel better?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    liah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    I don't even get the point of this argument at all.

    "We" "have" Stalin and I guess China. You "have" Hitler, the Inquisition, hundreds of religious-driven atrocities from the bible and history, etc.

    Why are you turning into a competition? To bring athiesm "down" to the level of Christianity in the opinions of atheists? To make us realize that all people are the same regardless of religion or belief system? To convince us that atheism is a belief system at all?

    What the hell is the point of this at all?

    Atheism isn't a belief system, ideology, religion, etc. It, therefore, cannot really be compared with a religion with a set structure, philosophy, belief system and user manual.

    However, I get your argument-- look at any large enough group and regardless of their beliefs there's bound to be a few members who turn out to be bad seeds. That can't be helped. The point where your argument kind of doesn't work is that the majority of large-scale atrocities under the name of religion were built on the back of that good ol' user manual and many found valid reasons within that user manual to reinforce what they believed they were right in doing (which, in hindsight, was obviously very wrong).
    Atheism doesn't have that user manual. It has no rules, no guidelines, no specifics, no ideals, nothing. Nothing at all. Whatsoever. It is simply-- oh so simply-- not believing in a god, the same way you don't believe in orcs. That. Is. IT. Why is this always such an issue of contention?!


    When we "blame" Christianity for things like the Inquisition, we're "blaming" the belief system that led that to be justified in the eyes of so many at the time. Not the people who actually believe in a god (I hate Christianity, but I get on fine with Christians). When you guys attack atheists, you tend to just blame people who don't believe in god. Regardless of their philosophies.

    Get it now?

    (Regarding the quotation marks, I hope you get them in context. Just picture a person doing the quotations symbols with their fingers with an exaggerated tone of voice for proper perspective.)


Advertisement