Because despite a minority of reprehensible deviants over the years that have infiltrated and misused the Catholic Church to further their own very un Catholic vested interests, not one of them ever managed to change a single line of doctrine.
tommy2bad wrote: » So what?
Because I don't have the prejudiced desire to constantly try and associate Catholicism/Judaism/Black/Asian/White with the actions a very minority of that persuasion.
tommy2bad wrote: » Neither do I. Neither do I accept that no responsibility lies with the culture that produced thees individuals many of whom felt that they did no wrong. But if you're not your brothers keeper.....
Morbert wrote: » Nice try. I have consistently and explicitly said that it is not my position that theism is responsible for atrocities. It is regimes, whether they are totalitarian regimes, or islamofascist regimes, that are responsible for atrocities.
Again, I point out that, in post #1730, I clearly asked you if you were using your absurd argument as a rhetorical device to highlight the absurdity of claims made by some atheists, and you said no, you genuinely believe what you said. You are the one who must admit the claim that atheism caused those atrocities is hysterical nonsense.
It sounds like you are finally acknowledging the nonsense in the position you have been holding, but instead of simply saying "Actually Morbert, you are right, atrocities stem from inhumane social experiments and the oppression of human rights, and not atheism."
you are now trying to imply I held some equivalently nonsensical position, which I explicitly stated I do not hold. Why?
What if they also believe that Christians, as silly as their beliefs are, should be free to exercise their religion? Secular, humanist atheists in other words.
I want a world where everyone is free to believe what they want. I would like to see the number of atheists continue to rise, but through discourse, and not through the restriction of freedoms.
Morbert wrote: » This question can be unpacked a millon different ways.
tommy2bad wrote: » So what? Popes have spoken in favor of slavery, of course you'll claim that they weren't acting in the right doctrinal ... NO not the kilt wearing muppet again. This is a merry go round.
ISAW wrote: » If that is your approach then I don't have a huge problem with it. Fo course if yourself or atheists come along later focusing on clerical abuse or church related atrocities I'll have to pull you up on your own stated principle and lack of balance.
You might as well ask whether or not beliefs, or even "thoughts" have ever been bad influences.
The question needs to be made more specific: Have religious practices ever harmed innocent people?
Should politics be informed by religious codes?
Will religion automatically make you a bad person?
Should religious freedom take priority over human rights?
Is the depiction and role of women under some religious systems morally acceptable?
marienbad wrote: » ISAW is there any point in having a discussion with you at all ? You accept the above and a couple of posts later you you are regurgitating the same old line.
Either atheism/theism cause atrocities or it dos't- we have just agreed that it dos'nt .
You then carry on as if this part of the conversation never happened and we are back to you using atheism and totalitarianism interchangeably ! I may as well start saying catholicism/fascism in the same way.
Are you interested in having a discussion or just holding a line at any cost ?
ISAW wrote: » Yes. I am doing exactly as I stated! Quite consistent. I pointed out I had no problem with atheists who don't want atheism to take over anything and are happy to allow church run operations exist. If they don't want to have a go at the church I have no problem until they do come alone and apply different rules to the church. then a comment referring to the church as " the culture that produced thees individuals" gets mentioned. Basically the attempt is being made to say the church ( calling it a "culture that produced" ) is responsible for the Holocaust ( "these individuals" being the WWII Nazi leadership) Then please DON'T mention things which refer to the Church as " the culture that produced..." where ... is anything negative. If you could establish such a connection but you have failed to do so. Atheistic regimes on the other hand were always Totalist. Not all communist regimes were slaughter regimes Not all Church regimes were. ALL atheistic ones were however. And you will say "that is because they are regimes/totalitarian etc." And I'm happy to accept all totalitarian regimes are repressive. it is after all the definition of totalitarian. But atheistic ones were historically repressive on a greater scale and correlate 100% whereas religious ones don't. But even leaving that aside Im happy no0t to tell you and others about it when you and others are happy not to try to slip in comments describing the Church as a enabling culture for social evil and focusing on the tiny percent of church people who do bad things. I'm not going to let you or anyone else get away with " the culture that produced..." comments with respect to the Church when it applies to a much greater degree to atheistic movements.
ISAW wrote: » So do you therefore accept that religion is not responsible for any atrocities in history? Yes. Religion is not responsible for atrocities. I have been quite clear. those who attack religion and belief in God ( basically these are in most cases atheists) claim religion/belief, god worship etc. is silly or even dangerous ( or a "dangerous meme" or many other similar claims all looking on belief as a negative thing) "anti theists" as you call them ( predominantly atheists) can't accept the sdame argument being applied to themselves. As regards whether i believe atheistic regimes are any way diofferent I have also been quite clear. In the course of human history belief in God did was central to religious regimes Not all religious regimes were bad. some in fact contributed to society. IIt is possibole one may come about in the future which is bad for society but on the whole they are good influences. Atheistic regimes contributed nothing but ruin. I could be wrong but I don't believe any one in the future will contribute anything positive to society. But religious regimes suppressing human rights came nowhere near anything as bad as atheistic ones and Atheistic ones Always were a negative influence whereas religious ones weren't. If it isnt because of belief or because of lack of belief and it is because of oppression of ringts 1. You have to admit Religion was not in any way a negative influence 2. You have to explain how if religion was on the whole positive why ALL atheistic regimes were negative.
Why am I asking. I was also quite clear aboyut that. I dont trust atheistic regimes and I don't trust atheists when they get into power. Just as I don't trust Minister Quinn and what he might do to education based on a "get the Church out of education" views.
Thats funny because in messager 1891 " atheism and atrocities is easily dismissed with a cursory glance at the historical evidence." but now it appears to be more involved.
marienbad wrote: » This is just rubbish, you chop and change just to score points. I never once advanced the agument that belief causes atrocities,
God commanded that these women be taken in marriage and that sexual relations ensue. You can believe that this is all by consent and not forced consent, and that what happened with Galileo when he recanted or Moriscos abjured their faith, or Tosca bowed to Scarpia, were all examples of consent. But in the real world people do not acept an either/or choice as consent .
What I did through a series of posts was to pose the question that what did the christian upbringing of those war criminals say about christianity ( In fact just using a tactic of association you use all the time). Eventually you answered ( correctly) that it proved nothing nada zero zilch about christianity.
Now either be consistent in your reasoning or forget it . The progression based on what we both agreed should be--
women were given the choice of marriage or servitude - are we agreed on that ?
Belief/Theism= everything bar unbelief/atheism -including organised religion/war criminal/carpenter/tailor/ candle-stick maker. Unbelief/atheism= everything bar belief/theism- including organised atheism/war criminal carpenter/tailor/candlestick-maker
Morbert wrote: » You are still tendering a false dichotomy. It is not a case of "Either religion caused atrocities or religion has never had a negative influence".
Religion has had a very negative influence in many different contexts, ranging from the treatment of individuals, to the treatment of women, to the treatment of entire nations.
But this doesn't mean religion therefore "caused atrocities". Religion can have a positive influence too.
If Stalin or Leopold had been a pacifist Hindu, I'm sure lives would have been saved.
There is absolutely no merit in comparing Quinn, who wants entirely reasonable educational reform, with Stanlin, a murderer of millions. The absurdity of that comparison speaks for itself.
You are chopping up the conversation. The above is unrelated to what I said in the previous post. A cursory glance at history is all that's needed to see the absurdity in stating atheism causes atrocities.
ISAW wrote: » Really?http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76220254&postcount=1700 You had already suggested God commanded Rape in the Bible and when you din't prove that the rattle was thrown from the pram.http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76203465&postcount=1580 Sexual abuse or enforced slavery by religious people is the suggestion in that one. So how come the organised religion has a record of contributing to society and atheistic groups when they were ion command only resulted in destruction?
marienbad wrote: » This is just more muddying the waters ISAW- I did'nt prove rape to your satisfaction
ISAW wrote: » I didn't suggest that.
I was quite clear that The Church did make some errors but by and large contributed to the betterment of society. Atheists however when they got in control and promoted atheism never contributed to the betterment of society. i accept the exceptions of the non controlling organisations founded by atheists which have the same social teachings as the church except they they don't promote a God or for that matter don't promote atheism i.e. they are non atheistic atheists. The main point about them however is they are not in command of the society. The above false dichotomy is actually prompted by your insistence that "atheism isn't responsible for any atrocities". If that is true then theism also isnt responsible! If you can insist "it isnt atheism it is totalitarianism" then one must be able to apply the same to theism i.e "it isnt theism it is totalitarianism" The conclusion of "it isn't theism" is therefore "religion never caused anything negative" If you can say "atheism isn't responsible" you have to apply the same sause to the gander and "religion never caused anything negative" It isnt my false dichotomy - it is yours No wither atheism DID cause atrocities or it dint - which its it?
Nice try - trying to slip in the "leopold of Belgium" as evidence of Christian atrocities Funny how the personal beliefs of atheists don;t apply in the same way isnt it? Leopold was not acting for the church or for Christian social teaching.
One might have said the same of a reasonable Stalin before he was expelled from theological college. Indeed nobody seems to question the Maoist or Marxist or Official IRA links of current Labour Party members. I don't htinkl Gerry Adams is a mass murderer either but one can say he has provisional IRA links . Why is the same not true of the Labour Party members who have more in common with Stalinist Russia than Gerry Adams has?
But if atheism doesnt then by the same logic theism also doesn't
So given you accept theism also doesn't, how can you contradict yourself by saying religion has had negative influences on society?
ISAW wrote: 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 [position]. I just can't formally prove it using deductive reasoning.
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.
ISAW wrote: marienbad wrote: ISAW -can we now agree at this stage that neither theism or atheism causes atrocities ? If that is your approach then I don't have a huge problem with it.
marienbad wrote: ISAW -can we now agree at this stage that neither theism or atheism causes atrocities ?
lmaopml wrote: » Yes it can Morbert, as can the reverse? Anybodies thoughts? We're on the Christianity forum, a heck of a lot of our progress, even scientific progress, what we call civilisation in the west, has been built on Christian fundamentals, by Christians. Have they made mistakes, been human, heck yeah! Only where the politicians are part of the human race, and culture (which sometimes I wonder) of the country, and represent the voice of said people in a democracy I guess. Will indulging in anything in particular make you a bad human being if it is at the detriment of others? Yes! Generally speaking the people shape the society and draw that line - just like an artist would in order to create a painting - they collectively define the laws of the state inline with their own higher reasoning. To whom? If it is unnacceptable to the women within their belief system, than obviously there is a problem. If it is unnacceptable to the women outside that belief system with a system of their own - then it's debatable! Look, I know you may consider the whole thing tiresome, but I can't help but sense a vague notion of 'some human people, or method or whatever' knows best, even if it is not as forceful in the person of Morbert, than it is obvious in the person of (insert another person) - and I'm not necessarily saying you think it's you in particular. Nothing personal at all. As far as Christianity is concerned it's really very simple - we only praise one God, it would seem ludicrous and not a little stupid to me to be honest to not bring that with us wherever we go whether it's a ballot box or being part of the free society we live in, or to trade it up for some kind of political humanist idealism ( and there are good things in there too ) where you don't only get one God from generation to generation, but 10 million. Christians are human too, very human and I don't think we're that bad actually for humanity - I see no reason to unsubscribe to the part of me I regard as the very best if you know what I mean Morbert... Sorry, I know I interjected there on the ISAW debate, but something was niggling me...
To whom? If it is unnacceptable to the women within their belief system, than obviously there is a problem. If it is unnacceptable to the women outside that belief system with a system of their own - then it's debatable!
marienbad wrote: » This is just more muddying the waters ISAW- I did'nt prove rape to your satisfaction - but happily this is boards and you don't get to be judge and jury.
To my recollection the ''discussion'' like most discussions here just ground to a halt with little conceded on either side and nothing left to be said .
Those of us that believe it still do ( with if I recollect the exception of Morbert and even then with some caveats) and those that don't don't. No toys and prams at all - boredom possibly .
ISAW wrote: » It is crystal clear. 1. You made statements about believers e.g. God gave a "licence to Rape" http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76202223&postcount=1568 - the onus is on you to prove them. Look up "shifting the burden" 2. you then personally insulted a moderator about that so don't go on about "judges" 3. having failed to prove your claim and tried the "it is my opinion " you later re entered the original rape claimhttp://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76218309&postcount=1692 4. You tried the "it is my interpretation" again when cklearly the burden is on your shoulders to prove your rape claim. 5. You then called a moderator a "disgrace"http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76220641&postcount=1705 6 then on ht last page having done all the above and failed to prove the rape claim you resort to claiming you never made such claims about believers committing mass rapes and similar atrocitieshttp://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76557804&postcount=1932 "I never once advanced the agument that belief causes atrocities" It is crystal clear. Your recollection is fantastic and bizzarre. Clearly you made claims you couldnt support, threw the rattle from the pram when challenged, and came back later making similar claims and when challenged denied you had ever made them before. The evidence is above and clearly referenced. No "muddy waters" are involved. and maybe lack of logic and supporting factual data. Now before I answer your query about the contributions of religion/atheistic groups may I ask are you withdrawing your agreement on the statement that- ..neither theism/atheism causes atrocities ?
Morbert wrote: » Yes you did. I said I don't believe atheism or theism are responsible for atrocities. You then asked "So you accept religion was never a bad influence in history?", implying a dichotomy that doesn't exist.
The above is completely unrelated to what I said. I have explicitly made clear that I consider neither theism nor atheism as causes of atrocities.
You consider atheism as a cause of atrocities. This is a nonsensical position that you have not backed up.
You have instead consistently tried to misrepresent my argument in the hope that nobody will notice the absurdity of your claim. I will highlight this every time you try to dodge the issue.
And again, the hysteria speaks for itself. Marxism causes atrocities now? And the Labour party will lead to the next "Great Leap Forward"? I am not a Marxist, but Marxism is an entirely legitimate position to hold.
False dichotomy: You are trying to muddy the waters. First, admit that you were wrong when you said atheism is responsible for atrocities, and then we can talk about the various interpretations of "Religion can have a good/bad influence."
It seems you have already retracted your statement.
marienbad wrote: » ISAW - your position is just untenable on a number of levels- - surely you can't agree to a proposition and then a few post later retract that consent because it dos'nt suits your agenda ? Particularly something as basic the meaning of a word ?
-If your view in your last post was to be taken as correct then it means that you cannot criticise any religion - be it muslim fundamentalism, suicide bombers , inquisition, reformation, canibalism on belief grounds etc as they are all equally protected by the immunity your position infers.
-you seem to use atheist/atheistic regimes/totalitarianism interchangably and without distinction and theism/belief/organised religion in a similar manner. That cant be correct ?
-Oxford Dictionary definition- atheism -disbelief or lack of belief in the existance of God or gods.
Do you disagree with that definition ? And please lets not descend yet again to the sun rising tomorrow trope if we can.
Morbert wrote: » From post #1831 Then, in post #1919 If that is your approach then I don't have a huge problem with it. Fo course if yourself or atheists come along later focusing on clerical abuse or church related atrocities I'll have to pull you up on your own stated principle and lack of balance. In post 1831 in relation to "if Ireland became an atheist country, it would result in atrocities" 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. It seems you have already retracted your statement.
If that is your approach then I don't have a huge problem with it. Fo course if yourself or atheists come along later focusing on clerical abuse or church related atrocities I'll have to pull you up on your own stated principle and lack of balance.
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.
koth wrote: » Is that not a bit hypocritical? You want atheists to accept christian values if Christians are in power, but you won't stand for the reverse. Although I've no idea what "atheist values" are tbh.
ISAW wrote: » Do you accept that theism is not responsible for atrocities as you stated ? So you accept theism never caused atrocities?
“Down with religion and long live atheism; the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!” - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin) "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism." - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin) "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism." -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin) "How can you make a revolution without firing squads?" - Leninhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion/tree/browse_frm/thread/58c9df7a83bdd7e3/44dc25546d3956cd?rnum=51&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.religion%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F58c9df7a83bdd7e3%2Fdc032fa3152ec639%3F#doc_abf0a2755c8b6a80
<from Usenet>
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander either 1. Atheism is behind the beliefs of the above "There is no God" slaughter regimes or 2. Religion can not be blamed for anything either and theism is not responsible for atrocities.
IOf theism has not been responsible for any atrocities then you can't go on about the potential harm of religion or the dangers of belief or any criticism of believers since their belief is not responsible for anything bad.
Indeed Marxism encompasses many christian social teachings. But the point is I can criticise the Maoist and Russian Marxist ( that would be in the Bolshie run Russia of the Cold War and long after Marx was dead and his grave a communist plot you know the human rights abusing gulag Archipeligo sort of wonderful Marxist Russia?) If we can criticise Gerry Admas for being associated with the Provos we can criticise Gilmore and others for their background with the Officials can we?
I don't think atheists themselves are all bad. But whenever atheism was given authority over society as a central philosophy it resulted in mayhem so I am deeply suspiscious orf fundamentalist atheists. Religious regimes don't always slaughter ( in fact they rarely do) but the atheistic one always do. I admit I can't logically prove it is logically determined by atheism but not can I logically deduce the Sun will rise tomorrow.
that neither theism or atheism causes atrocities I'm happy to go along with tatheists who State this if they admit that it means they can in no way claim after that that theism is harmful to the degree society suffers by atrocities. Ill accept their cop out for atheism even though atheistic regimes caused much more harm if they only leave believers alone and don't pick on belief and try to ridicule it. But they always come back with "God ordered Rape" or "clergy are abusers" or something to attack or ridicule belief. I stand by 1831 and 1919. I don't know where I stated I logically deduced that atheism always leads to atrocities whenever they get into power. I happen to believe it is true but I don't think I ever claimed I logically proved it. I am also happy to leave atheists alone to go about their business so long as 1. They don't have a go at Christians /believers and accept Christians in power who believe christian values should be central for society. 2. they don't get into power with atheism as a central tenet of their plan for society. Hopefully that clarifies any difficulties.
ISAW wrote: » No i don't consider it hypocritical at all. I don't want atheistic regimes or nazis or fascists or whatever in power based on the damage they caused in the past. I am happy that christian regimes or governments were not always bad in fact rarely so. I am also prepared to accept nazis or whatever saying what they think. It is when they act on those beliefs or encourage others or attack believers i get irked. I don't consider that hypocritical.
