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

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

1…3435373940…196

Comments

  • #1802
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    I have answered this. Atheism is a true or false statement. Atheists contribute through science, charity, and citizenry. You gave no rebuttal.

    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 have answered this. Atheists have no interest in Totalitarianism. If an atheist society emerges in the west, it will be through a pluralist, humanist society.

    Except for all the times it did so in the past?
    Catholic states are barbaric when they killed gay people and non-Catholics, using the religion to oppress.

    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.
    Yes. Proponents of Social Darwinism also believe in Darwinism, but this in no way implies Social Darwinism follows from Darwinism.

    straw man. Where did i claim it does imply it?
    Totalitarianism is not atheism. Totalitarians are atheists, but this in no way implies totalitarianism follows from atheism. Do you accept this? Do you accept that all atheists are not Totalitarians?

    No. I dont accept that
    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"
    Again, there were no societies "modelled off" atheism. Just as you can not model a society around superconductivity.

    Atheistic states might. You know ;)
    - Very cold and calculated
    -You must not resist!
    -expulsion and ejection of what was up to then the norm
    -claims to exist for ever with no power source
    -regarded as perfect and ideal

    Were Totalitarian societies "atheistic"? Sure, but it was the Totalitarian model, not the non-existent "atheism model", that causes atrocities.

    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.
    http://www.squidoo.com/Atheist-Charities

    Thanks for that. I didnt know about them. It lists seven I took the oldest the indian one

    Her are its aims
    Objectives:

    To impart & promote scientific, secular, democratic & cosmopolitan outlook among people through various educational processes and to make them better citizens by helping them to realize their responsibilities and to discharge their duties in society.

    To establish educational institutions and training centres at various levels for promoting formal, non-formal and experimental education, adult education & social education, and skills for self reliance.

    To impart training & promote research in academic & practical fields

    To impart & improve skills among people in agriculture, industry, commerce and trade

    To promote health education & establish hospitals & other medical programmes

    To promote fine arts for cultural and moral development

    To help & promote peaceful, nonviolent and constructive activities for social change, and Positive Atheism

    To produce, print and publish literature for disseminating rational and secular approach, scientific outlook and civic consciousness

    To hold exhibitions of science & arts at various places.

    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.

    And again, there are also the Nobel Laureates, and atheist scientists. I am really beginning to wonder if you have a point to convey any more.

    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?


  • #1803
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Morbert wrote: »
    I have answered this. Atheism is a true or false statement. Atheists contribute through science, charity, and citizenry.

    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.


  • #1804
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    An Atheist needs proof, but ignores the common mans proof of any miracle or his account of same.
    Proof isn't subjective 'tho. It requires evidence. Christians take testimony as proof, atheists require more than anecdotes and theories.
    Which makes me wonder if it isn't something inherent in the person themselves. Atheists will take as proof testimony from 'experts', theories that seem improbable to the 'common man' yet seem to baulk at anything that strikes them as unprovable. Theists baulk at things that upset or threaten their world view. Even between themselves.
    As the Jews did with Jesus and countless times since believers have killed and tortured to keep their world view intact.
    Atheists seem more open to the idea that all is not yet revealed. Ironically.


  • #1805
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Proof isn't subjective 'tho. It requires evidence. Christians take testimony as proof, atheists require more than anecdotes and theories.

    Really? Tell that to some of the relativist "subjective morality" atheists that post here.
    And give wormholes are only theory are you saying that they are not scientific as far as atheists would acknowledge - given they have no proof of them.
    Which makes me wonder if it isn't something inherent in the person themselves. Atheists will take as proof testimony from 'experts', theories that seem improbable to the 'common man' yet seem to baulk at anything that strikes them as unprovable.

    so this is your cop out for wormhole theory - Kaku for example knows more about the field so you should just trust him. It does not apply to theologists or philosophers in other fields though. why not?
    Theists baulk at things that upset or threaten their world view.

    As do scientists - whether theist or atheist - so what?
    Even between themselves.
    As the Jews did with Jesus

    As the science fraternity did with Hoyle and Burbidge. In spite of B^2FH anmd giving the world the phrase "big bang"
    and countless times since believers have killed and tortured to keep their world view intact.

    REally? countless? An infinite number of executions by the Church?
    Surely not?

    So why don't you quantify the number of non believers tortured to death or executed and we can compare that to the numbers killed by atheistic regimes ? I think you might be aware of the Spanish Inquisitions 10,000 or so over five centuries ( less than ten a year) but are you also aware of the millions per year by atheistic regimes?
    Atheists seem more open to the idea that all is not yet revealed. Ironically.

    Actually Christians believe that too. they believe they know not the day nor the hour.


  • #1806
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Proof isn't subjective 'tho. It requires evidence. Christians take testimony as proof, atheists require more than anecdotes and theories.
    Christians take testimony as proof with respect to their religion. They generally require more than anecdotes and theories for other subjects.

    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Which makes me wonder if it isn't something inherent in the person themselves. Atheists will take as proof testimony from 'experts', theories that seem improbable to the 'common man' yet seem to baulk at anything that strikes them as unprovable.
    But this seems quite reasonable to me. You cannot take the “testimony” of an “expert” as being the same as someone talking about their belief in gods or why their religion is correct. The expert should be backed up by experimental data and peer review. His assertions can be tested and researched and the views of other experts taken into account. This is very, very different. We don’t baulk at the unprovable. We do have issues, however, with the untestable.

    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Theists baulk at things that upset or threaten their world view. Even between themselves.
    As the Jews did with Jesus and countless times since believers have killed and tortured to keep their world view intact.
    Atheists seem more open to the idea that all is not yet revealed. Ironically.
    I think a lot of theists have a problem with not knowing answers. Atheists seem happy to say “we don’t know that yet, but we are working on it” whereas theists don’t seem keen to do that.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #1807
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Christians take testimony as proof with respect to their religion. They generally require more than anecdotes and theories for other subjects.

    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.


  • #1808
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    If somebody really did live their whole life like that, I've often thought it would make a great subject for a sitcom.
    That'll be Sheldon in The Big Bang Theory.

    Yes PDN people do 'get on with it' most of the time but religion seems to bring out the binary in everyone. Their is or their isn't a God, things are right or wrong, and we have no way to tell the difference. So the Pope or continence or tradition or habit gets used.
    Lets tell the truth, a persons religion is determined by factors outside their control. If their is a God and He's left so much to chance then He's not the God His followers think He is. Unless you adopt a strict Calvinist predestination outlook. Or we are sweating the wrong stuff ;)
    So why don't you quantify the number of non believers tortured to death or executed and we can compare that to the numbers killed by atheistic regimes ? I think you might be aware of the Spanish Inquisitions 10,000 or so over five centuries ( less than ten a year) but are you also aware of the millions per year by atheistic regimes?
    Whats that got to do with the price of beans? Is morality a numbers game? If it is, I have news for you evil is winning, God better get his game on.


  • #1809
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    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.

    :) It already is. Ever seen "The Big Bang Theory"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Cooper
    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).


  • #1810
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Christians take testimony as proof with respect to their religion. They generally require more than anecdotes and theories for other subjects.

    I agree some christians and some [//i] atheists. But it isnt necessarily because of their beliefs. It is more to do with scientific skepticism i would say. For example Irish Skeptics has members who are atheist and also those who are devout religious as founding members e.g. nuns.


  • #1811
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    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?

    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?
    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.

    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.
    straw man. Where did i claim it does imply it?

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #1812
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    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.

    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.
    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.

    Such a Christian would be wrong for at least two reasons.


  • #1813
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Such a Christian would be wrong for at least two reasons.
    OK I can think of one, what are your two?


  • #1814
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    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.

    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!
    Not alone that


    None of the above is in relation to that. It is in relation to a conversation I have never had with you.


    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?

    Do you now accept that totalitarianism causes atrocities?

    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?
    Do you accept that, if atheism becomes the majority in the west (Ireland, for example), it will not result in atrocities?


    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.
    Firstly, there have been far too few "atheist" states for "always" to mean anything.

    And how many totalitarian Christian states have there been?
    "Always" means "name one that was not a murdering regime that regressed the society?
    Secondly, it is only recently that atheism has emerged through discourse, and not political turmoil and revolution.

    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=1739
    Totalitarianism 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!

    so why do you think Im mad to believe a future atheistic state will be a success?
    You are not following the conversation. It is analogous to the Holocaust being blamed on Darwinism.

    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!

    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.


    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.


  • #1815
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    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.

    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 :)


  • #1816
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    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 :)

    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.
    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?

    And?
    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.

    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.
    And how many totalitarian Christian states have there been?
    "Always" means "name one that was not a murdering regime that regressed the society?

    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.
    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=1739
    Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state.

    Unlike Christianity which DOES believe in a higher power

    Again, you are ignoring what I say.

    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.
    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!

    I have tendered no such arguments. You are confusing me with the inane USENET discussion you insisted on quoting.

    I said such atrocities must be understood in the context of Totalitarianism, population density, 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.
    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!

    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.
    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.

    And?


  • #1817
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    OK I can think of one, what are your two?

    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.


  • #1818
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    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
    The point is that he dosn't know if it's because of atheism, in fact it's more probable that their not. The point is atheism dosn't preclude altuism.
    http://wikiality.wikia.com/Bootstrap_theory ?


  • #1819
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    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.

    I was going for the small and limited compared to what?


  • #1820
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    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.

    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.
    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.

    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?
    Also, 3%? Maybe worldwide, but in western nations it is far higher.

    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.
    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.

    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?

    Two premises: a) There have been very few atheistic states.

    So what . There have been 13 or so episodes of Faulty towers. Can you name the one that was not funny?
    b) The few that have existed, existed in totalitarian regimes.

    i.e All of them!
    The conclusion you draw: All atheism will lead to atrocities.

    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 conclusion I draw: Totalitarian regimes have a very very high chance of leading to atrocities.

    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


    [quyoe]
    I said such atrocities must be understood in the context of Totalitarianism, population density,
    [/quote]

    I already dealt with the population density argument -failed!
    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.

    Which it cant be according to you since Totalitarian regimes do not believe in a higher power and Christian ones do!
    But you fail to make the distinction when it comes to Totalitarianism and atheists.

    ALL of the leaders were declared atheists! ALL! Distinct enough for you?
    Darwinists who aren't Social Darwinists will not cause atrocities.

    They might but whether they do because of Darwinism is another issue. Maybe they could be atheist Darwinists and not Social Darwinists?
    Atheists who are not Totalitarians will not cause atrocities. Simple as that.

    Correct and you were asked to give examples of atheist regimes who were not Totalitarian and you came up with a null set!


  • #1821
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Correct and you were asked to give examples of atheist regimes who were not Totalitarian and you came up with a null set!
    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 thats 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.


  • Advertisement
  • #1822
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    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

    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!", as well as your reactionary hysteria, makes any point you thought you had completely ignorable.
    I already dealt with the population density argument -failed!

    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?
    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!

    And?


  • #1823
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    By atheistic you mean that the regime promotes atheism or do yop mean that the members of the regime are professed atheists?.

    Yes to one and it just happens yes to two though how a regime with "There is no God" as a core belief is followed by people who all believe there is a God I would like you to explain.

    Let me clarify.
    I don't believe it is a logically derived consequence that atheists getting in control of society will always have oppressive regimes. Nor do I believe that it is logical to deduce the sun will come up tomorrow just because it always has.
    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?

    Ah. But we were not discussing Islam we were discussing atheism vs Christianity. I suggest you take that to the Islamic group as they seem better versed in the history of Islam. I also expect you will not last very long there with that argument.
    Please don't come back with the my side killed less than your side because that's not the issue.

    With respect it IS partly the issue. You are talking maybe tens of thousands over five centuries executed by the Spanish Inquisition versus hundreds of millions over one or two centuries.

    The Irish Civil War was fairly bloody but you can compare it to WWI or WWII and the scale is hugely different.
    You say that atheism inevitably leads to genocide and theism leads to less genocide or sometimes democracy or monarchy or anything but atrocity.

    I don't think atheism is logically proved to inevitably produce ruin when used as a central pillar on which to build a society. All I know for sure is that is all it ever did. On the other hand I know people who professed to be Christian rarely did.

    If you think "always" and "rarely" are not the issue i can't really help you.


  • #1824
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    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.

    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.
    Atheism does not cause atrocities.

    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?
    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.

    As opposed to Christianity which is based on belief in a higher authority and not control entirely by human leaders?
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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!
    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?

    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
    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!!!


  • #1825
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW , would you think that the regimes of Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, Pinochet and a host more were as a consequence of their Catholicism ?


  • #1826
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    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 ?

    What Catholicism ?
    I take it you mean their pretend Catholicism for political purposes ?


  • #1827
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    What Catholicism ?
    I take it you mean their pretend Catholicism for political purposes ?

    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.


  • #1828
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    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.

    Pretend atheism for political purposes ? Never heard of that.


  • #1829
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    Pretend atheism for political purposes ? Never heard of that.

    "the prime minister doesn't do God"
    Way things are going it's just a matter of time, right now it might not play well but given that keeping it a private matter is now the status quo from needing to be seen as devout to get elected, who knows.


  • #1830
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    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.

    And I maintain that it is paranoid hysteria, stemming from a naive understanding of the regimes responsible for slaughter. The notion that religion is the only thing separating Ireland from Stalinist Russia is self-evidently absurd.
    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.

    And again, all of this relates to Totalitarianism, but in no way permits any reasonable inference about atheism.
    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

    And I refer you to my earlier remark about not imposing other discussions onto this one. I have never made the "Leopold of Belgium is evidence of Christianity causing regimes in the Congo" argument (as I have pointed out numerous times), and I am well aware that high population does not automatically result in famine. Mao's famine was entirely state-sponsored. It was a repulsive socio-economic experiment in rapid industrialisation that cost millions of lives. But the number of deaths is directly linked to the high population. Is it an excuse? Of course not, but you are acting like atheism was the contingency, when it was clearly a number of factors, none of which being atheism.


  • Advertisement
  • #1831
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    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.

    No no . I still have that nopption. I just can't formally prove it using deductive reasoning. My notion relies on the inductive reason that it always happened before. But I freely admit i can't formally prove it.
    I'm also prepared to admit if i claimed it is a logical deduction that I was wrong in stating that. I also believe Totalitarian giovernments will result in great harm but ther just might be a benevolent one. I can't logical;ly prove Totalitarian governments will be bad either but I assume they will based on them always being so in the past. Abd the really bad ones were atheistic ones.
    All you have done above is regurgitate the same, unconvincing, line about atheism and atrocities.

    Correct. All I can say is i expect the sun to rise tomorrow. I can't deduce it certainly will.
    Atheism does not cause atrocities.

    Christianity does not cause atrocities since it believes in a higher power. I CAN logically deduce that based on your premise that no Totalitarian regime believes in a higher power.

    I CANT logically deduce it for atheism since atheism does not believe in a higher power.
    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.
    So they could be atheistic bit can't be Christian. Fine ill run with that then.
    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,

    Slipped the Congo dance back in there then? ;)
    You raised the Congo saying it was due to Christianity. I pointed ou tit wasn't and had more links to godless Marxism. Yes Im prepared to admit that one pope over thirty years encouraged slaver trading and abuse of natives. All popes before and since were against it. The Church had nothing to do with atrocities in WWI and WWII.
    and don't forget the systematic and ubiquitous abuse of human rights that goes on around the world today.

    By Christianity? What systematic abuse? I would think non christian and godless China India and Africa have lots of people dying yes. Id that the fault of Christianity?
    Your refusal to look at the underlying factors in these atrocities, and your repeated bleating of "fail!",

    Your argument was wrong!
    You are the one continually bleating - that doesnt prove all futre atheistic regimes will be atrocious - I'm quite happy to admit i have not formally proved all such future regimes will be like that. But my belief isn't unreasonable.
    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?

    Famine is not caused by population. It is caused by War ecvonomics etc.
    That is a myth! The idea that a country has too many people causes famine.

    Ireland had 8 to 10 million and could feed them.
    Economic and polical factors such as bad infrastructure, poor education, no voting rights, reform of land etc. caused the famiine.

    There were not "TOO MANY IRISH!" for anyne except those in control who didnt want several million Catholics there. They were exporting food from Ireland for Gods sake!

    Ring any bells? Or do you think I am being hysterical?

    I already referred about journeys starting with a single step
    Armstrongs words on the Moon were not created in isolation The failed "great leap" was an economic ? plan dealing with the chinese population
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
    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]

    This would be the "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". godless Mao.

    Don't insult the Chinese people by telling them that they had too many Chinese.
    And how do you explain the population doubled in the last half century if it was a problem?


  • #1832
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW are you saying that unless a state believes in a higher power it will cause atrocities ?


  • #1833
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    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 ?


    ISAW, any chance of an answer to this post ?


  • #1834
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    marienbad wrote: »
    ISAW, any chance of an answer to this post ?
    I am going to go ahead and suggest "No True Scotsman."

    MrP


  • #1835
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    ISAW are you saying that unless a state believes in a higher power it will cause atrocities ?

    Where did I State that?

    I suggest you look up affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent.
    You fing also look up false attribution.

    It was Morbert who stated all Totalitarian regimes do not believe in a higher power not me.


  • #1836
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I am going to go ahead and suggest "No True Scotsman."

    MrP

    Thats "only true Scotsman" I think. No?

    Anyway I 'd have to look at each of these regimes. I can't see how Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, and Pinochet were acting under orders from the Vatican.

    Ill have to go from memory.
    Pinochet was hugely supported by the USA. The CIA were up to their gills in Chile. Actually it was on 9/11 they assisted in deposing Allende. Does that mean Chile was a Capitalist Republican Democracy like the US?

    As for Salizar. Im not aware of the Pope assisting him or him acting on vatican orders. Im prepared to accept some clergy or bishops did the wrong thing in backing fascism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_de_Oliveira_Salazar#Salazar_and_the_Catholic_Church
    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.

    If you look you will find similar I'm sure for Hitler Mussolini etc. The church didn't approve or back terror torture or slaughter by these people. Similarly for the Spanish inquisition ( which was backed by some pope). It was limited in the damage done and the spread of its influence during the Spanish Preponderance within the Church. It is frequently overhyped and compared to atrocities of the Nazis Mao Stalin etc. Yes it was wrong but it was in no way "widespread" and tiny in scale compared to atheistic regimes. That does not dismiss it , it just puts it in context.

    We all make mistakes . Even Peter himself denied Christ. But acceptance of that does not make it a just action. It may however be justified. i don't mean made just.

    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".

    It does not make a sin right when someone pays the fine for it.

    Maybe the judge said "go and don't speed again" ?


  • Advertisement
  • #1837
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,477 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    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".

    ......

    What?


  • #1838
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Penn wrote: »
    ......

    What?

    Like "evolution" bein used in a biological and social context the word "justified" can be associated with the "justified by faith" context as well as a legal one.


  • #1839
    Slav
    Registered Users Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Slav


    ISAW wrote: »
    I can't see how Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, and Pinochet were acting under orders from the Vatican.
    ...
    As for Salizar. Im not aware of the Pope assisting him or him acting on vatican orders. Im prepared to accept some clergy or bishops did the wrong thing in backing fascism.
    ISAW, with all respect, but isn't this ^^ a classic "true Scotsman" example? Do crimes against humanity need to be approved or initiated by Vatican in order to be associated with Catholicism? What about other faiths which are unfortunate enough not to have a Pope - are they completely immune to any acquisitions with the connections to atrocities for that matter?
    tiny in scale compared to atheistic regimes
    Ustaša anyone? About every forth or even third Serb in Croatia was killed or forcibly converted to Catholicism. Plus thousands of Jews and Roma. Maybe it's a tiny scale looking at the things from today's Ireland but I guess the scale was not that tiny for Serbs.
    We all make mistakes . Even Peter himself denied Christ. But acceptance of that does not make it a just action. It may however be justified. i don't mean made just.

    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".

    It does not make a sin right when someone pays the fine for it.

    Maybe the judge said "go and don't speed again" ?
    I'm too puzzled of what was the point of that.


  • #1840
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,477 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Is that story/parable a well known one or did you make it up yourself as an example to prove your point? Because honestly, it's nonsense. It makes no sense. And my intention isn't to troll or insult you, I honestly mean, that story makes no sense. I have no idea how it relates to anything previously discussed


  • #1841
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    Where did I State that?

    I suggest you look up affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent.
    You fing also look up false attribution.

    It was Morbert who stated all Totalitarian regimes do not believe in a higher power not me.


    I don't know who suggested it originally ISAW but in some of your recent posts you seem to be saying that as atheistic/totalitarian regimes don't belive in a higher power they are prone (like the sun rising) to atrocities.

    And than Christians - because they do believe- do not.

    I am in a rush now , but I will try and get the posts numbers later.

    While I am looking up those terms you listed can I suggest you look up pompous/condescending/ tunnel vision/the right man syndrome :)


  • Advertisement
  • #1842
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    Thats "only true Scotsman" I think. No?

    Anyway I 'd have to look at each of these regimes. I can't see how Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, and Pinochet were acting under orders from the Vatican.

    Ill have to go from memory.
    Pinochet was hugely supported by the USA. The CIA were up to their gills in Chile. Actually it was on 9/11 they assisted in deposing Allende. Does that mean Chile was a Capitalist Republican Democracy like the US?

    As for Salizar. Im not aware of the Pope assisting him or him acting on vatican orders. Im prepared to accept some clergy or bishops did the wrong thing in backing fascism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_de_Oliveira_Salazar#Salazar_and_the_Catholic_Church


    If you look you will find similar I'm sure for Hitler Mussolini etc. The church didn't approve or back terror torture or slaughter by these people. Similarly for the Spanish inquisition ( which was backed by some pope). It was limited in the damage done and the spread of its influence during the Spanish Preponderance within the Church. It is frequently overhyped and compared to atrocities of the Nazis Mao Stalin etc. Yes it was wrong but it was in no way "widespread" and tiny in scale compared to atheistic regimes. That does not dismiss it , it just puts it in context.

    We all make mistakes . Even Peter himself denied Christ. But acceptance of that does not make it a just action. It may however be justified. i don't mean made just.

    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".

    It does not make a sin right when someone pays the fine for it.

    Maybe the judge said "go and don't speed again" ?

    Who said anything about the Vatican ? Correct me if I am wrong but you have said either here on on the Child Abuse thread than every Bishop manages an autonomous unit. That it is not centralised like a corporation.

    But even were that so that it not the point I was asking- would you accept that these men infused as they were with the catholic faith and that this was responsible for the regimes the controlled ? I can list lots more but that is not the issue.

    Forget the CIA/Allende - this is well known but has little to do with how Pinochet ran the country thereafter. They were fellow travellers for a period of time- but lets not get sidetracked on that one.

    I am sorry but I just don't understanded your speeding son analogy and its relevance.

    By the way I agree with you on the Inquisition , poorly understood and greatly exagerated- more a product of Elizibethan England propaganda , which by todays standards was little more than a rogue state. Obviously I am not saying it was right though.


  • #1843
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Slav wrote: »
    ISAW, with all respect, but isn't this ^^ a classic "true Scotsman" example? Do crimes against humanity need to be approved or initiated by Vatican in order to be associated with Catholicism?
    In the case of
    "...the regimes of Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, Pinochet and a host more were as a consequence of their Catholicism." Yes.

    Why don't you give me a definiition of "associated with Catholicism" and we can apply the SAME standard to "associated with atheism or atheistic regimes"?
    What about other faiths which are unfortunate enough not to have a Pope - are they completely immune to any acquisitions with the connections to atrocities for that matter?
    Yes .
    When discussing "...the regimes of Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, Pinochet and a host more were as a consequence of their Catholicism."
    Ustaša anyone? About every forth or even third Serb in Croatia was killed or forcibly converted to Catholicism. Plus thousands of Jews and Roma. Maybe it's a tiny scale looking at the things from today's Ireland
    but I guess the scale was not that tiny for Serbs.
    Assuming your stats to be true and without dismissing that it was wrong, you already argue against yourself ( in bold above) by putting the numbers into context.


  • #1844
    Slav
    Registered Users Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Slav


    ISAW wrote: »
    Do crimes against humanity need to be approved or initiated by Vatican in order to be associated with Catholicism?
    In the case of
    "...the regimes of Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, Pinochet and a host more were as a consequence of their Catholicism." Yes.
    Why? :confused:
    Maybe you have a point but I fail to see it.
    Why don't you give me a definiition of "associated with Catholicism" and we can apply the SAME standard to "associated with atheism or atheistic regimes"?
    Not sure what's the point of that either. Leave it as the "consequence of", I see no difference to be honest.

    For example, the genocide of Serbs by Ustaše was the consequence of their Catholicism. At the same time genocide of Jews by the same Ustaše was not the consequence of their Catholicism but the consequence of their anti-Semitism and political needs to serve their big brother.

    Same, the persecution of religious leaders in the early days of Soviet Russia can be counted as the consequence of their Atheism. At the same time the persecution of independent farmers by the same people was not the consequence of Atheism.
    What about other faiths which are unfortunate enough not to have a Pope - are they completely immune to any acquisitions with the connections to atrocities for that matter?
    Yes .
    When discussing "...the regimes of Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, Pinochet and a host more were as a consequence of their Catholicism."
    Again your reasoning remained hidden from me... :confused:
    Ustaša anyone? About every forth or even third Serb in Croatia was killed or forcibly converted to Catholicism. Plus thousands of Jews and Roma. Maybe it's a tiny scale looking at the things from today's Ireland
    but I guess the scale was not that tiny for Serbs.
    Assuming your stats to be true and without dismissing that it was wrong, you already argue against yourself ( in bold above) by putting the numbers into context.
    And again I have difficulties understanding you. Why and how do I argue against myself? :confused:

    Please consider me mentally challenged: I need the full logical chain in order to try to comprehend what you are saying. Conclusions alone are apparently not enough for me to get the point.

    Regarding the stats: the number of Ustaše victims are estimated to be between 300,000 and 800,000 by different sources. If we take wikipedia figures as a starting point it states 330,000-390,000 killed, 200,000 force-converted and another 250,000 expelled. The vast majority of that are Serbs with the second largest group being Jews (37,000). The Serb population of Croatia in 1941 as reported by Germans was 1,925,000 (or 30% of the total population). If we take the lower figures and don't count expelled then it would make every forth Serb killed or force-converted.


  • #1845
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW, you responded to my post #1822 twice, with the exact same silly straw men, unreasonable inferences, and irrelevancies. My latest post was #1830. That is the one you need to respond to.


  • #1846
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Slav wrote: »
    Why? :confused:
    Maybe you have a point but I fail to see it.
    Because the original question actually asked "as a consequence of their Catholicism" ?

    Now either it is Catholicism as in the Roman Catholic Church or it is their Catholiciam which is either
    1. Not Catholicism at all i.e. not Roman Catholic Church
    or
    2. the exact same as Roman Catholic Church Catholicism.

    Are you claiming Pinochet etc. was 1 or 2?
    If 2 how come Roman Catholic teaching and authorities agreed with some aspects of their regimes but broadly rejected the atrocities . ( Don't forget it is the atrocities by these regime which the OP raised and not the things with which the RCC would be in agreement.)
    Do crimes against humanity need to be approved or initiated by Vatican in order to be associated with Catholicism?

    Yes in the case of 2 above. Although there is no necessity for the Vatican per se. One can argue about the necessity of a pope. But certainly that is the current manifestation of the hirearchy. Certainly the bishops ( or the Vatican in this case Or Latern in the Past or a council) worldwide acting as a "widespread organisation of authority" would be easily construed as "associated with catholicism"

    I mean if yuou want to press the issue Marxism could be "associated with Catholicism" just as much as Right wing dictators since much of the "good" in Marxism is to be found in Catholic social teaching. does that mean The Vatican or the church is responsible for atheistic Stalinist atrocities too?
    Not sure what's the point of that either. Leave it as the "consequence of", I see no difference to be honest.

    Look again.
    For example, the genocide of Serbs by Ustaše was the consequence of their Catholicism.

    To the extent that to some of the IRA killing "Protestants" was a consequent of them being from a "Catholic" area.
    While they were doing this clergy were preaching against such actions. Was the pope supporting the IRA or Loyalists too? And don't forget priests and brothers did join Irish revolutionary movements in the past.
    At the same time genocide of Jews by the same Ustaše was not the consequence of their Catholicism but the consequence of their anti-Semitism and political needs to serve their big brother.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usta%C5%A1e
    Fiercely nationalistic, the Ustaše were also fanatically Catholic

    Does that mean they represented the will of the Church
    Put it this way:
    Fiercely nationalistic, the IRA were also fanatically Catholic
    does that mean the IRA were acting for local bishop or the church as a whole?
    Same, the persecution of religious leaders in the early days of Soviet Russia can be counted as the consequence of their Atheism. At the same time the persecution of independent farmers by the same people was not the consequence of Atheism.

    And the Maoists may have had some good things and some bad things to their regime.
    How many of the bad things were a consequence of the Catholic church?

    And again I have difficulties understanding you. Why and how do I argue against myself? :confused:

    Please consider me mentally challenged: I need the full logical chain in order to try to comprehend what you are saying. Conclusions alone are apparently not enough for me to get the point.

    I put it in bold for you already if as you suggested it is it's a tiny scale looking at the things from today's Ireland. If you already suggest it is a tiny scale then the idea of it being large scale or widespread is not a runner is it?
    Regarding the stats: the number of Ustaše victims are estimated to be between 300,000 and 800,000 by different sources. If we take wikipedia figures as a starting point it states 330,000-390,000 killed, 200,000 force-converted and another 250,000 expelled. The vast majority of that are Serbs with the second largest group being Jews (37,000). The Serb population of Croatia in 1941 as reported by Germans was 1,925,000 (or 30% of the total population). If we take the lower figures and don't count expelled then it would make every forth Serb killed or force-converted.

    Not by the Catholic church!
    your source begins:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_persecution_of_Serbs
    The Serbian Genocide refers to the attempt in extermination made towards ethnic Serbs in 1939-1945 by predominantly ethnic Croat Fascists and Nazi (Axis) occupational forces.

    the RCC didn't support the nazis in WWII!
    Pavelić's regime was not officially recognized by the Vatican.


  • #1847
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    ISAW, I think your being pedantic about the extent that something can be attributed to atheism or catholicism. Especially galling when all along everyone has been pointing out that your attributing of atrocities to atheism isn't consistent with any attribute of atheism. Anti theism is the windmill you should be tilting at.
    Everybody condemns genocide and ethnic or sectarian killings, however being unwilling to admit that thees events happen in a context that contributes to both their scale and nature isn't helping define the problem.
    Unfortunately Christianity has in some contexts contributed to appalling acts, as has anti theism which comes from a reaction to theism rather than atheism. Yes you can describe a regime thats anti theistic as atheist but that leads to misatribution of the cause.
    Your as guilty of painting all with one brush as the anti theistic atheists that you disagree with so venomously.


  • #1848
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW, do you see a difference between atheism -humanism-totalitarianism ?


  • #1849
    irishh_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    ISAW wrote: »
    Because the original question actually asked "as a consequence of their Catholicism" ?

    Now either it is Catholicism as in the Roman Catholic Church or it is their Catholiciam which is either
    1. Not Catholicism at all i.e. not Roman Catholic Church
    or
    2. the exact same as Roman Catholic Church Catholicism.

    Are you claiming Pinochet etc. was 1 or 2?
    If 2 how come Roman Catholic teaching and authorities agreed with some aspects of their regimes but broadly rejected the atrocities . ( Don't forget it is the atrocities by these regime which the OP raised and not the things with which the RCC would be in agreement.)



    Yes in the case of 2 above. Although there is no necessity for the Vatican per se. One can argue about the necessity of a pope. But certainly that is the current manifestation of the hirearchy. Certainly the bishops ( or the Vatican in this case Or Latern in the Past or a council) worldwide acting as a "widespread organisation of authority" would be easily construed as "associated with catholicism"

    I mean if yuou want to press the issue Marxism could be "associated with Catholicism" just as much as Right wing dictators since much of the "good" in Marxism is to be found in Catholic social teaching. does that mean The Vatican or the church is responsible for atheistic Stalinist atrocities too?



    Look again.



    To the extent that to some of the IRA killing "Protestants" was a consequent of them being from a "Catholic" area.
    While they were doing this clergy were preaching against such actions. Was the pope supporting the IRA or Loyalists too? And don't forget priests and brothers did join Irish revolutionary movements in the past.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usta%C5%A1e
    Fiercely nationalistic, the Ustaše were also fanatically Catholic

    Does that mean they represented the will of the Church
    Put it this way:
    Fiercely nationalistic, the IRA were also fanatically Catholic
    does that mean the IRA were acting for local bishop or the church as a whole?


    And the Maoists may have had some good things and some bad things to their regime.
    How many of the bad things were a consequence of the Catholic church?




    I put it in bold for you already if as you suggested it is it's a tiny scale looking at the things from today's Ireland. If you already suggest it is a tiny scale then the idea of it being large scale or widespread is not a runner is it?



    Not by the Catholic church!
    your source begins:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_persecution_of_Serbs



    the RCC didn't support the nazis in WWII!
    Pavelić's regime was not officially recognized by the Vatican.


    the ira were not fanatically catholic or anything like it , they followed a marxist philosophy in many ways , grotesque as it was , thier choice of victims was based on thier political leanings , that unionists happened to be protestant was coincidental , the loyalist terrorists on the other hand were fanatically anti catholic


  • #1850
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    ISAW, do you see a difference between atheism -humanism-totalitarianism ?

    Yes.
    Are you suggesting there is none?
    Marien can you list the number of humanist centered governments that brought great things to society wher all or the vast majority of the people involved were humanists?

    Can you list the Totalitarian regimes which were Catholic Church controlled and not atheistic?
    And the ones that were and Totalitarian and atheistic?
    As many as possible please.


  • #1851
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    irishh_bob wrote: »
    the ira were not fanatically catholic or anything like it , they followed a marxist philosophy in many ways , grotesque as it was , thier choice of victims was based on thier political leanings ,

    You are referring to the Official IRA not the Provisional IRA. You know Eamon Gilmore's old pals.
    While I am aware that many Protestants fought for Irish independence it is quite clear that from the 1960 on Republican Areas are readily identified with Catholics. And while the Loyalist para-militarists were more sectarian there are indications that Northern hard line Republicans did look upon themselves as overwhelmingly Catholic.


    They were certainly not Marxist and that is what caused the Official /Provisional split.
    that unionists happened to be protestant was coincidental , the loyalist terrorists on the other hand were fanatically anti catholic

    I agree with that comment. The IRA and provos in particularly were not sectarian in their targets. But it would be common place for hard liners to describe loyalists and Republicans as "protestant" or "Catholic" even though the REpublican Movement as a whole was not so.

    In fact you make my case for me. Croats were nororiously anti-anti-Catholic even though they did not represent nor were recognised by the Catholic Church


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement