Penn wrote: » ...... What?
ISAW wrote: » A youth once sped through his home town at 120 m.p.h. Since everything was horse-drawn in his country town, there was no laws against speeding. So the council passed a law saying that 60 m.p.h. was the maximum speed, and that any transgressors would be fined $10 for every m.p.h. over the speed limit. On his way back through the town, the speedster decided to pull the same prank. He was apprehended, tried, and found guilty by his father, who was the town's only judge. He was fined $600. He had no money and no words of defense. The judge came down from the bench walked over to the court clark reached into his pocket and proffered $600 saying "Justified".
MrPudding wrote: » I am going to go ahead and suggest "No True Scotsman." MrP
The relationship of Salazar with some sectors of the Catholic Church, more in accordance with the social doctrine of the Holy See, worsened after World War II. Some prominent oppositionist priests, like Abel Varzim and Joaquim Alves Correia, openly supported the MUD in 1945 and the granting of more social rights to the workers. Abel Varzim, who had been a supporter of the regime, had his newspaper closed, while Joaquim Alves Correia was forced into exile in the United States, where he died in 1951. The Democratic Opposition main candidate in the 1958 Presidential Elections, General Humberto Delgado was a Roman Catholic and a dissident of the regime, who quoted Pope Pius XII to show how the social policies of the regime were against the social teachings of the Church. The same year, Salazar suffered a severe blow from the bishop of Porto, Dom António Ferreira Gomes, who wrote a critical letter to the Council President in July 1958 being forced to exile for 10 years. After the Second Vatican Council, a large number of Catholics became active in the Democratic Opposition.
marienbad wrote: » ISAW are you saying that unless a state believes in a higher power it will cause atrocities ?
marienbad wrote: » ISAW, any chance of an answer to this post ?
marienbad wrote: » ISAW , would you think that the regimes of Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, Pinochet and a host more were as a consequence of their Catholicism ?
Morbert wrote: » So you retract your earlier conclusion? You retract your silly, childish notion that atheism causes atrocities. You retract your silly, childish notion that, if Ireland became an atheist country, it would result in atrocities.
All you have done above is regurgitate the same, unconvincing, line about atheism and atrocities.
Atheism does not cause atrocities.
The doctrine that the rights of human beings are controlled entirely by dear leaders and state-run socio-economic experiments is what leads to atrocities.
The millions lost in WWI and WWII, the Congo massacres, and the Native American massacres alone show that atrocities are not at all contingent on atheism,
and don't forget the systematic and ubiquitous abuse of human rights that goes on around the world today.
Your refusal to look at the underlying factors in these atrocities, and your repeated bleating of "fail!",
No you haven't. Not in the slightest. You think the repercussions of Mao's famine were not in any way related to the population?
the Great Leap Forward."[1] The Great Leap ended in catastrophe, resulting in tens of millions of excess deaths.[2] Estimates of the death toll range from 18[3] to at least 45 million,[4] with estimates by demographic specialists ranging from 18 to 32.5 million.[3] Historian Frank Dikötter asserts that "coercion, terror, and systematic violence were the very foundation of the Great Leap Forward" and it "motivated one of the most deadly mass killings of human history."[5]
ISAW wrote: » I can't say it would as a logical consequence. All i can say is that every time it happened before it did and i am suspicious. Just as i believe the Sun will rise tomorrow but can't logically prove it will. "Once ( and ever other time since) bitten by atheistic slaughter , twice shy " one might say.
As opposed to Christianity which is based on belief in a higher authority when you already stated Totalitarian regimes do not believe in a higher authority? As opposed to Christianity which is based on belief in a higher authority and not control entirely by human leaders? Wher did i say ONLY atheistic regimes resulted in atrocities? I clearly admitted not all regimes were atheistic. Only the most murdering and destructive ones were.
You made an issue of population density - is is a failed issue! You have been shown why! You made an issue of Leopold of Belgium being linked to the Congo and how that is somehow meant to be evidence of christianity overseeing a murder regime. It isn't! It is a failed attempt to blame Christianity for the Congo! By the Way the Belgian congo was only part of the congo. The non Belgian People's Republic of the Congo was a Marxist-Leninist single-party state from 1970 to 1991. That would be the non Belgian Atheistic Leninists would it not? Marxist-Leninist society seeks to purge anything considered bourgeois, idealist, or religious from it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist The "Leopold of Belgium is evidence of Christianity causing regimes in the Congo" is a failed argument! You should know by now famine are caused by politics and economics and not by population. We have enough food to feed the world five times over! I refer you to the Fasnagh quote back in message 1741
The Quadratic Equation wrote: » Pretend atheism for political purposes ? Never heard of that.
tommy2bad wrote: » Thats exactly what the point was. just because some regime or other calls itself catholic or atheist or Hindu or left wing or right wing doesn't mean that they are that. Especially when theirs no correlation between what they profess and what they do. Atheism doesn't imply dictatorship anymore than catholicism dose.
The Quadratic Equation wrote: » What Catholicism ? I take it you mean their pretend Catholicism for political purposes ?
The millions lost in WWI and WWII, the Congo massacres, and the Native American massacres alone show that atrocities are not at all contingent on atheism, and don't forget the systematic and ubiquitous abuse of human rights that goes on around the world today.
Your refusal to look at the underlying factors in these atrocities, and your repeated bleating of "fail!", as well as your reactionary hysteria, makes any point you thought you had completely ignorable.
China has always had massive population, but only under atheist tyranny did it's death toll achieve such record proportions. China, the USSR and Cambodia had ALMOST IDENTICAL POPULATION DENSITY and TECHNOLOGICAL LEVELS, IMMEDIATELY PRIOR to the atheist regimes being imposed on them.. but not the massive death toll.. that only occurred ONCE THE ATHEIST TYRANNY WAS IN PLACE! And it occurred when free, open, tolerant, and progressive MAJORITY RELIGIOUS societies were evolving secular democratic government, expanding human rights and civil society, firmly establishing the freedom to THINK, BELIEVE and SPEAK as you will, and ..FEEDING THEIR PEOPLE... none of which the CATASTROPHICALLY FAILED ATHEIST REGIMES COULD MANAGE! Your 'population density' and 'technology' arguments are easily demolished by observing that BOTH were DIMINISHED under the atheist regimes from what they were under previous, better, times!!!
tommy2bad wrote: » By atheistic you mean that the regime promotes atheism or do yop mean that the members of the regime are professed atheists?.
Because any regime that promotes one ideal to the exclusion of another will be 'a bad thing' no matter how popular it is. Saudi comes to mind or do you consider them atheist too?
Please don't come back with the my side killed less than your side because that's not the issue.
You say that atheism inevitably leads to genocide and theism leads to less genocide or sometimes democracy or monarchy or anything but atrocity.
ISAW wrote: » and i specifically agreedwith that. And i also stated not all christians will either . In fact a tiny minority of people professing Christianity ( a fraction of a fraction of a percent) cause atrocities. And when you compare them with the atheistic regimes they are miniscule. I didn't say "therefore" It is inductive not deductive reasoning. a bit like saying if the IRA or loony left got into government we might expect mad governments. But it just might happen they all change. It never happened before. Nor can I logically conclude that if the sun came up every day since I was born that it will do so tomorrow. But is it reasonable for me to assume it will based on past experience? I would not think so. By atheist i mean a belief that "there is no God" The highest I have seem is in the single digits. But there are more than three episodes! What do you mean by "too few" . Just how many do you think? and can you give even ONE example of an atheistic regime that was good for society? Just ONE? So what . There have been 13 or so episodes of Faulty towers. Can you name the one that was not funny? i.e All of them! No! all that ever existed did. they did more damage and carnage than all the christian governments for 2000 years. Why do you think it is unreasonable for me to be suspicious? how many fascist governments have there been? If it is "few" would you criticise anyone for saying they are suspiscious of fascist dictators and facism ( a belief) might have something to do with it.? The conclusions I draw: 1. Atheistic regimes Always led to atrocities. always. Fact. 2. Given Totalitarian regimes do not believe in a higher power they can't be christian who DO believe in a higher power
I already dealt with the population density argument -failed!
Which it cant be according to you since Totalitarian regimes do not believe in a higher power and Christian ones do! They might but whether they do because of Darwinism is another issue. Maybe they could be atheist Darwinists and not Social Darwinists? Correct and you were asked to give examples of atheist regimes who were not Totalitarian and you came up with a null set!
Correct and you were asked to give examples of atheist regimes who were not Totalitarian and you came up with a null set!
Morbert wrote: » I have explicitly said it is not because of their atheism. I have explicitly said it is humanism that motivates them. I.e Not all atheists are totalitarians, so not all atheists will cause atrocities.
This is where your entire argument falls apart. Totalitarian regimes arose and caused atrocities, therefore if Ireland becomes atheist it will cause atrocities. This is a great big non-sequitur.
Also, 3%? Maybe worldwide, but in western nations it is far higher.
I see you completely ignored my point. There have been far too few "atheist" regimes to give "always" any weight. I have always enjoyed Monty Python. I have seen three episodes.
Two premises: a) There have been very few atheistic states.
b) The few that have existed, existed in totalitarian regimes.
The conclusion you draw: All atheism will lead to atrocities.
The conclusion I draw: Totalitarian regimes have a very very high chance of leading to atrocities.
socioeconomic conditions, religious leader worship, and capabilities. And that saying atheism is responsible for such atrocities fails as hard as saying Christianity is responsible for the Belgian slaughter in the Congo.
But you fail to make the distinction when it comes to Totalitarianism and atheists.
Darwinists who aren't Social Darwinists will not cause atrocities.
Atheists who are not Totalitarians will not cause atrocities. Simple as that.
Morbert wrote: » Atheists don't ignore the evidence tendered by the common man. The emphasis atheists place on evidence does not make their world-view small and limiting.
How do you know that these atheist groups are doing what they are doing because of atheism? Could they not be doing it because of some other reason. Carefull with the answer becuse you also can see where it might lead you. regreession into Turtles all the way down. Im surte you know what "bootstrap theory " is
tommy2bad wrote: » OK I can think of one, what are your two?
ISAW wrote: » Your example(s) surprised me. good for them. But with your permission (and I think you will expect this) I'll use your own argument about totalitarians against you here. How do you know that these atheist groups are doing what they are doing because of atheism? Could they not be doing it because of some other reason. Carefull with the answer becuse you also can see where it might lead you. regreession into Turtles all the way down. Im surte you know what "bootstrap theory " is
ISAW wrote: » i.e. "it isn't atheism it is just all political systems where people all profess to believe in atheism as a core belief ". Where they do not believe in a higher power. You yourself said totalitarians dont believe in a higher power didn't you? So they can't be christian by your own definition since Christians DO believe in a higher power! It very much has something to do with it since you claimed totalitarian regimes do not believe in a higher power. Believers do believe in a higher power atheists don't believe in a higher power. Given the Christians believe in higher power how many regimes of not believing in higher powers could they in all reason be controlling? I never said it didn't! But it was you who stated totalitarianism 9 unlike christianity) does not believe in a higher power was it not?
Honestly? No i don't accept it. Where has a majority atheism country not had atrocities at anmy time in history? But given atheists are maybe 3% I don't fear it happening. But we muct always be on the lookouot.
And how many totalitarian Christian states have there been? "Always" means "name one that was not a murdering regime that regressed the society?
It never has emreged! That is my point! With which you now agree. In the past all atheistic movements were in turmoil and revolution. ALL of them. Now I know you will try the "chicken and egg" but that wasn't the atheism argument it was totalism! Look every single one all of them not one exception If that does not convince you. try your own definition. ALL the atheistic States did not believe in a higher power! ALL of them. All Christian regimes did believe in a higher power. You stated:http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76294055&postcount=1739Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state. Unlike Christianity which DOES believe in a higher power
You tried the Leopold of Belgium as a totalitarian Christian regime argument - failed! You tried the "population density " argument - failed! Just like every atheist state ever - failed!
On social darwinism. and you are back to the same point i made about memetics and Dawkings and evolution. Misuse of the word "evolution" Darwinism or biological evolution is science Social Darwinism or "evolution of society" /memetics isn't. I AM the one that pointed out this distinction first!
Not from all atheists. But you are ignoring the other premise.Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state. It follows that Totalitarians are atheists and Christians are not totalitarians. Societies which are Totalitarians are therefore not christian but atheistic ( given of course they are one or the other. they might well be secular but that is a different issue in which case they still are NOT atheist. ) by your own reasoning.
Morbert wrote: » My examples were directly requested by ISAW. He was under the impression that atheists, or even "small groups" of atheists, could not do great things.
Morbert wrote: » In post # 1730, I said the following to you: "So are you admitting that, when you say "Atheism causes atrocities", you are simply making an absurd statement and using it as a rhetorical device to highlight the absurdity of the claim "Christianity causes atrocities". Or do you actually believe atheism was responsible for atrocities?" You said you were asserting that atheism was responsible for atrocities. I have been patiently pointing out that it is not atheism, but totalitarianism that was responsible for atrocities.
None of the above is in relation to that. It is in relation to a conversation I have never had with you.
Do you now accept that totalitarianism causes atrocities?
Do you accept that, if atheism becomes the majority in the west (Ireland, for example), it will not result in atrocities?
Firstly, there have been far too few "atheist" states for "always" to mean anything.
Secondly, it is only recently that atheism has emerged through discourse, and not political turmoil and revolution.
You are not following the conversation. It is analogous to the Holocaust being blamed on Darwinism.
Proponents of Social Darwinism also believe in Darwinism, but this in no way implies Social Darwinism follows from Darwinism. Totalitarians are atheists, but this in no way implies totalitarianism follows from atheism.
Such a Christian would be wrong for at least two reasons.
lmaopml wrote: » Atheists have been around for a long time; absolutely no doubt they contribute, and still do of course in many and varied ways, one as a carpenter, one as a journalist, one as a writer or organiser of a charitable organisation - one would expect the Hindu does the same or the Islamist or the Christian, or indeed the Jew - this is certainly not alien or an unnacceptable notion as a believing Christian. It's perfectly in tune with a Christian worldview to see people doing good for the sake of goodness. However, Atheists do not own a monopoly on wonder, awe, and questioning, or indeed, science, intellect, search for truth etc, neither are they - as a disembodied movement - not subject to the same scrutiny as any system that derives or posits or debunks moral values of people in any age of revolution or thought revolution - not that I think that is what you are actually saying, but it must be said that they don't have a monopoly and never have - they're just people with a totally different worldview that by extension lends itself to a philosophy to live by, it's derived from materialism and naturalism at the root.
A Christian would argue that the worldview is small and limiting. An Atheist needs proof, but ignores the common mans proof of any miracle or his account of same.
ISAW wrote: » AS do Christians. But Christians do it because of Christianity and the philosophy associated with Christianity and atheists attack that philosophy. But when asked what is their better philosophy all you can supply "we have none". The fact that you claim atheism does no leads to them doing anything for society is rebuttal! I do accept that not all atheists are Totalitarians which is what I think you meant. So what not all christians are , In fact a miniscule percentage may be. But the claim of "totalitarian christianity" is leveled at the belief in christ not at the few totalists. However if anyone dare level "atheistic" totalism as having anything to do with atheism ( in spite of "There is not God" front and center in banner headlines and the entire leadership professing atheism as the true alternative for the future ) then they are told they cant talk about "atheistic" the same way as atheists talk about "Christianity" So the same applies to Christianity and you disavow yourself from any atheist claiming otherwise? Fair enough then we have no problems there. Sorry if i though you thought differently. Thanks for that. I didnt know about them. It lists seven I took the oldest the indian one It seems the Franciscans and Jesuits beat them to this by about 500 years. Other than 7 the aims are identical with Christian charities. I have no idea what they mean by "positive atheism" . I'm sure Christians or Muslims would quite happily work for them and also pray and practice their faith in other ways while there in India but I don't know if they might allow religious people to work for them. Im wondering if you actually believe atheism was the cause of them winning the Nobel Prize. you are also aware that the majority of great scientists were religious? Atheists aren't "brighter" than other people are they?
I asked you if they are ALWAYS barbaric. They aren't! Atheistic states always were. How many homosexual people in history were killed by Catholic States for being homosexual? Religion rarely caused oppression in comparison to surpression of religion ans atheistic regimes.
straw man. Where did i claim it does imply it?
MrPudding wrote: » Christians take testimony as proof with respect to their religion. They generally require more than anecdotes and theories for other subjects.
PDN wrote: » I don't think that's true. In most areas of life I find Christians and atheists alike are quite happy to make judgements, and to take courses of action, based on testimony and anecdotes. That's the basis on which most people will try out a new restaurant, check out a quote from a different insurance company, or even ask someone out on a date. That's how life works for most people. But, for some reason, when they start posting on an internet discussion forum, they have this tendency to start insisting that they're so rational that they never make any decision unless it's based on compelling proof backed by peer-reviewed articles in journals. If somebody really did live their whole life like that, I've often thought it would make a great subject for a sitcom.
Sheldon is also noted for his dislike of the science of geology (referring to them as "the dirt people" in "The Benefactor Factor", remarking that he has no respect for the field whatsoever, and stating that he doesn't consider it a real science).
