marienbad wrote: » Talking about about asinine, I made a statement as did others, I stand over it. I stated that in my opinion you were moderating unfairly and I reported you ( to which I never got a reply by the way). Your analogy of the offside laws is so ridiculous it not worth muddying the waters even more by replying to it. The fact is that there is nothing either I or anybody else can say to you and others that would change your view and that is fine by me. You could equally say that nothing you can say would change my view and I respect that, but it is pointless dismissing the claim outright as a simple google search would show that is and has been a contentious issue with all types of people. I am happy the claim was substantiated and not just by me ,you are happy it was not, end of so, so forget the trivalising adjectives as they make to difference.
PDN wrote: » You (not me) were the one who chose to raise again the issue of suggesting that we move a discussion to a forum where you might get a more sympathetic hearing. I was flabbergasted that anyone would suggest anything so silly the first time, and I'm flabbergasted that instead of quietly glossing over it you've chosen to mention it again. Let me make this abundantly clear. This is the Christianity Forum The clue is in the name. We discuss Christian issues here. Stuff like Jesus, God, theology and the Bible. Other fora have different subjects - and they discuss other stuff. We don't discuss other stuff here. So we don't have threads about butterflies or FA Cup finals. And what you choose to post in other fora is irrelevant to what we discuss here. If you want to discuss Christian issues here then you are welcome to do so. But if you make claims about what the Bible says then you should be prepared to back them up. Instead you produced no proof, no evidence, and then tried to have us all bounce off to another forum where people might not be so unreasonable as to ask you to substantiate your claims.
ISAW wrote: » "'neither atheism or theism cause atrocities'' means 1. atheism did not cause atrocities AND 2. Theism did not cause atrocities All you are doing now is sayi9ng atheists caused atrovcities but not because they were atheists or because of atheism. In which case I can say Christians caused atrocities but not because of being christian or because of Christianity. Matter of fact using your logic i can claim that since 2. Theism did not cause atrocities not alone can you not claim any atrocities due to christianity but by the very fact that christianity din't support such behaviour such atrocities ( and in fact there are historic records of Christianity opposing atrocities) were Anti - christian Now we are back to the other aRGUMENT. iF YOU ARE GOING TO CLAIM cHRISTIANS KILL EVERY DAY THEN YOU HAVE TO COMPARE THEM TO ATHEISTS. Atheists killed getting up for hundreds of million in two centuries! Christians don't compare to that at all. But go ahead list the numbers killed by "Christians" . And of these numbers how many were sanctioned by any pope or bishop? Hint: Zero will be the figure you arrive at for Meanwhile non communist anti religion supressive regimes in North Korea et. al get on with the oppression.So Christianity is not responsible for any atrocities? Fine Ill accept that. Dont come back later trying to blame the pope or bishops for anything then.
I have been quite clear. Ill accept your principle without believing in it if it means you don't come back later to attack the church. I personally believe some christian regimes claiming to represent Christ did cause some damage Most however actually contributed to society. Atheistic regimes never contributed and always murdered at a rate which is astronomical compared to Christian regimes, Atheistic regimes of "there is no god" have been responsible for far far far more deaths than any Christian ones. I happy to leave that comment there or not even talk about atheistic regimes . But when someone comes along with "The church supported Nazis" - IT DIDNT- I have to bring back the comparison.
that wopuld depend on what is "true" religious instruction. But even bad religions didn't contribute as much damage as atheistic regimes. there is also the semantic problem of atheistic "religions" . In this discussion Im not specifically concerned about all religion per se but christianity compared to atheism.
marienbad wrote: » Funny you seeem to be the one constantly bring up football issues. You are just an individual (just like me) you don't get to decide when an issues is proved or not .
And for the record I did not originally make the claim but came in on and ongoing debate, and those posters making the claim seemed to me to make a convincing case. And I agreed with that case and joined it.
The issue of bringing it to another thread is a red herring,
PDN wrote: » Maybe you should make up your mind about whether I'm just an individual or not? If I am, then it is plainly hypocritical for you to start complaining that I'm a moderator when I say something you don't like. You can't have your cake and eat it, Marien. As an individual, I can express my views as much as anyone else. And my view is that you made statements about the Bible, failed to substantiate them, and then started waffling about other forums when pressed to substantiate your claims. Red herring. You made a claim. It matters not a jot whether you were the first to make the claim. And the fact that you, as an atheist, say you find another atheist's case convincing cuts little ice in this forum (although I can think of other fora where such mutual backslapping is highly appreciated). Well? You were the one who raised that red herring, weren't you?
marienbad wrote: » PDN - i assume you are an individual in this post, so I will reply on that basis. You are both an individual and a moderator. So it is not hypocritical in the slightest, it is not a question of having your cake and eating it. I disagreed with you as an individual and then had a separate dis-agreement with you as a moderator- is that not standard practice ?
All the rest of you post applies as equally to me as to you - I am happy the claim was substantiated , you disagree . What more can be said ?
As an aside might I ask why are we even discussing this at such length as I did'nt reopen these issues ?
Fanny Cradock wrote: » On another note, did somebody mention Zeitgeist: The Movie? If so for shame.
Morbert wrote: » The above is incredibly strange. The bit in blue is arguing against a position I do not hold (Which I made perfectly clear in my last post, and many many many other times). The bit in red as an acknowledgement of such, rendering the bit in blue entirely pointless. It is as if you are trying to fabricate an alternative argument to hide from my very simple and very consistent point: Atheism is does not cause atrocities. Nor is it responsible for atrocities. Also, I am perfectly entitled to blame the Pope or bishops for anything I feel they are responsible for, just as you are entitled to blame Stalin or Mao for anything you feel they are responsible for.
the man who lifted his hand and drew pictures of animals - because something made him different. The only thing left IS his pictures and they tell a story -
PDN wrote: » No, that is not true. I posted in Post 1703 as a poster, and you responded in post 1705 by making the accusation that I was a disgrace as a moderator. You are, therefore, plainly being hypocritical. When I engage in this board as a poster, you want to tell me I'm just another poster when it suits you, and you want to drag in my status as a moderator when it suits you. You are wanting to have your cake and to eat it. As long as you stop making the false claim, there's nothing more that needs to be said. But each time you repeat it, you can expect others to point out your failure to substantiate it. . Who else opened the issue of your challenge to switch a discussion to another forum?
Worztron wrote: » Are you a Catholic? Have you watched the 3 Zeitgeist films? Robert M. Pirsig: "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion."
marienbad wrote: » We are just going round the houses at this stage, but lets have at it. You are picking on one specific issue where I thought your language was injudicious at best, and taking your posting style that is saying a lot. I suspect if we had it to do over you would not have used that language, but 'tis done and can't be undone and we moved on. If you thought I was incorrect why did you not issue the warning then ? It was after all nearly 300 posts ago . Why issue it now ? Similarly on the notion of switching to another thread , why now we we had moved on 300 posts ago. On the the issue of ''a false claim'' - that is your opinion just as the reverse is mine - I did not bring it up again ISAW did.
Similarly on the notion of switching to another thread , why now we we had moved on 300 posts ago.
lmaopml wrote: » Marien, you wanted to bring your case against God to another forum that has no relevance to any particular debate about God on boards - one wonders why that is necessary? That's just plain silly, and a last resort. If you bring it to AH you will be a hero- is that what you would like? For whom the bell tolls on AH's. The ad hominem attacks are not worthy of a person who is apparently quite bright, if a little angry and is interested in talking - when a person resorts to pleading to other forums or that the mod is bad, then really their arguement has resorted to confusion of direction and desperation methinks.
marienbad wrote: » I have no interest in raising these issues on AH or on the atheist forum, after all what is the point of having a conversation with the uninterested and the already converted. I was'nt aware of any ad hominem attacks, at least no more or less than any other poster on this thread , but then we can't be all like Morbert, Philologos and Peregrinus, but if so apologies. I will leave the issue of brightness to the angels but if I come across as angry I would be sorry indeed.
koth wrote: » Must it always go to silly extremes? If a nazi government/pro dictatorship said they could run the country better, then let them see if the people agree with them. I find it very hard to believe that anyone would in Ireland would vote in such a group.
I don't know how to respond to the question about atheistic regimes being let to have their "better way", as the defintion of "atheistic regime" seems to be a contentious point currently.
Nonsense. Otherwise, the currently public primary school system is illegal based on your own definition of how a law is enacted.
I believe in a secular education system.
But if I have kids and want to ensure that they go to a secular school, I've essentially ruled out large areas of the country where I won't be able to live due to only religious schools being available.
People have to work with the resources available to them at the time they need them. And work to change/improve the system if unhappy with it.
That's just dishonest. If you're going to make claims about the "atheist" governments, then all the points against atheism also apply to Christians. And the positives in the Christian list also apply to the "atheist" governments.
Sounds like the tool of a dicatator/ totalitarian government. A government should not promote a religion (or atheism) above other ideologies.
But that's a nation oppressing it's citizens. That's not a free society, it's a dictatorship/totalitarian government. Even the examples you give back me up on this.
Afraid not. There is nothing about atheism that tells a person to kill a Christian, or to stop people from practising their religious belief. That falls into the realm of extreme anti-theism for example.
But that doesn't tell me if you'd support a Jewish majority government here. Unless I'm to take it to mean that you'd be suspicious of a Jewish majority because they might be Zionists?
But you've yet to show what these "atheistic tenets" are. All I've seen so far is the example of trying to reform the public school system. Which has nothing to do with atheism.
A Christian minister could just as easily taken the same steps.
I'm not disputing any deaths that may have occurred throughout history. I'm disputing your claims of governments being atheist while killing their people or people of another country.
If a nations leaders start slaughtering its citizens, then they've crossed over into totalitarism/dictatorship.
Really? Even though the vatican signed a treaty with Hitlers government to give special protections to the Catholic Church?
Soon after Hitler established himself in power, he requested that a Concordat be concluded with the Holy See. This would regulate the legal position of the Catholic Church in Germany, and provide Her with clear legal rights. The Church already had Concordats with several of the state governments, and a draft existed following negotiations with previous Reich administrations. The terms offered by Hitler were extremely good, assuring the Church of complete freedom of expression, education and action. The Pope didn't trust Hitler, but a refusal to sign would have enabled the Nazis to persecute the Church and put the blame for bad relations on the Pope. Many Catholics would reproach the Church for not accepting such a good 'peace treaty'. This would have split and weakened Church resistance to Nazi pressures. To sign might also delay the expected persecution, and when it did come the Church would be clearly seen as the innocent victim. It would provide everyone with a measure against which to judge Hitler's adherence to his promises. Hitler would gain some temporary political prestige, but the Pope decided that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. He confided to Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick, an official at the British Embassy in Rome in 1933, that he was rushed and had to decide quickly. He had chosen between a very good treaty and the virtual elimination of the Church in Germany. He further remarked "They will scarcely break all the articles at the same time" ((MOC 39)). The Pope said later that he didn't regret signing, as it provided a legal, basis to resist Nazism ((MOC 39)). In the 1937 encyclical 'Mit Brennender Sorge', the Pope made known his motive for signing.
tommy2bad wrote: » Why are they perfect already? what do you mean by this, if a bishop or pope dose wrong he is answerable for that wrong. If he dose so because of his Christianity then someone better explain how he squared that circle.
marienbad wrote: » ISAW , there really is no point rebutting your last post point line by line, but just a few issues , you say you accept what it means , but don't agree with what it means ? What an extraordinary thing to say. How is anyone else to know that your definitions differ from standards definitions ?
Do you have other words or phrases that you know what they mean but don't accept what they mean ? Unless you tell us we will continually be at cross purposes .
you insist on using atheism/atheistic regimes/ totalitarianism interchangeably.
Because you are conflating the meaning of those words you then make the leap the if atheism/theism does not cause atrocities then religion does not cause atrocities .
You then say that unless your definition is accepted your are taking your ball and not playing anymore !
Inherent in your argument that theism/religion does not cause atrocities and the way that you intrepret it means you are thus giving a free pass to all religions- not just your own.
For example suicide bombers believing they are carrying out the will of the Prophet, Ultra Orthodox Jews spitting on Christians at the Wall or justifying the taking of Arab land, Christians shooting doctors that perform abortions.
Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5', then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century. Finally, given popular estimates of the dead in a major nuclear war, this total democide is as though such a war did occur, but with its dead spread over a century.
lmaopml wrote: » Well what forum so? You requested to move the discussion a few posts ago? Yes, you are dead right, nobody can be somebody else - they are themselves of course, thank God - that's individuals - not a hive mind. You do come across as angry to be honest Marien, no offense but you do, but at least you are expressing it on the right forum, we're used to angry here, I'm angry myself so you are not alone in that.. It's good to talk though.
Morbert wrote: » The above is incredibly strange. The bit in blue is arguing against a position I do not hold (Which I made perfectly clear in my last post, and many many many other times).
I don't believe atheism or theism are responsible for atrocities.
The bit in red as an acknowledgement of such, rendering the bit in blue entirely pointless. It is as if you are trying to fabricate an alternative argument to hide from my very simple and very consistent point: Atheism is does not cause atrocities. Nor is it responsible for atrocities.
Also, I am perfectly entitled to blame the Pope or bishops for anything I feel they are responsible for, just as you are entitled to blame Stalin or Mao for anything you feel they are responsible for.
, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5', then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century. Finally, given popular estimates of the dead in a major nuclear war, this total democide is as though such a war did occur, but with its dead spread over a century.
Again, we are talking about whether or not atheism causes atrocities.
Atheistic regimes were deeply religious. They were personality cults, demanding the active worship of, and absolute devotion to, dear leaders and ultimate authorities.
In North Korea, people are now being sent to "camps" for not crying enough over the recent death of their dear leader.
marienbad wrote: » I did'nt request the discussion move to another forum Impaopml- I threw out a one liner about 300 posts ago concerning one specific issue and I don't know how I became so entangled in it again.
I will have to think about the anger though, I was'nt aware I came across as such.
ISAW wrote: » You became entangled in it because you attacked the posters or moderators rather than admit you could not prove your case and you then avoided the issue. You became entangled in it again because i pointed out atheists will make a claim they can't support and then just not mention it rather than withdraw it. Later on they will re enter the same unproven claim. The reason to me seems to be that they have these fundamentalist beliefs which they will not change even though there is plenty of counter evidence. they want to believe religion is bad or clergy are abusers so they believe it . Wheh faced with having to support their belief or compare it critically to non religious or to non clergy they withdraw and later re enter with the same claims. I have experienced the same of Holocaust deniers and indeed the recent JW posts in this forum. Good for you. Ill be honest for my part them and state I bear you no ill will and will try to help you in any way I can.
PDN wrote: » Fanny is not a Roman Catholic, but I would have the greatest respect for his patience if he had the fortitude to sit through three doses of fabrication and ahistorical crap. One film of such unadulterated and ignorant drivel was enough for me.
marienbad wrote: » ISAW you really could be talking about yourself here you know and you are, if I may dare to say, indulging in a bit of back seat modding yourself., need less to say I don't agree with you , but that is for another day
But I don't know if I am interested anymore, every topic is derailed with all the bickering and sniping just as they get interesting , so I will have to think if it is worth the bother of contributing any further.
I bear you no ill will at all ISAW even though you are a right pain in the ass, but for the moment I think I will just stick to the opera thread and leave it at that.
Worztron wrote: » The 2nd and 3rd films are very different. I find it hilarious that you would use the word 'fabrication' - the very essence of all religions.
Which only supports my case that you run away and will come back restating this unsupported claim. If and when you do my case is only stronger.
tommy2bad wrote: » What makes you think that. Marien hasn't restated that claim again, PDN resurrected it not Marien.
ISAW wrote: » No because a REpubli is nt a democracy of majority rule. it is a democracy regulated by law. Hitler used the majority to ban communism and bring in laws making him a dictator. In a Republic that would not happen.
Definition "atheistic regime" or "atheistic government" - one with "there is no God" as a/the central belief.
It isn't. The Minister could not make an unconstitutional law. In a Republic if the minister tomorrow disenfranchised "ethos " schools it would become law and it would be challenged in the courts and it would be found to be unconstitutional.
I'm quite happy for you to write the the atheist minister to ask him to put forward an amendment to change the constitution. If it was passed I would not be in favour of it but I would accept it.
As do the Caholics and Church of Ireland. But the oth4ers keep sending there kids to their schools. They are happy for the State to provide for non Christians to go to non christian schools
I expect like the atheist minister that oif you have kids you would want them in the Best schools.
I should let you know at this stage that although i don't argue from authority I jhave several postgraduate qualifications in education. I am particularly fond of Freinet a communisthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A9lestin_Freinet Middle class people rejected him but later come to him because he provided "the best" By the way he was not someone I either studied or was formally taught about. I learned about him outside to formal teaching. I also like Voygotskyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Vygotsky
That is a comment on managerialism and not on educational philosophy
I agree. Negatives Christians killed maybe millions Atheists killed a hundred million. And when it comes to positives Christians - very long list Atheists - zero
but when they did Christians killed maybe millions Atheists killed a hundred million. And when it comes to positives Christians - very long list Atheists - zero
I wont rehearse the "not a true atheist/scotsman" argument if you dont start complaining about religious atrocities.
Ditto for Christians. But the anti-theists did much much much more damage and contributed nothing.
Putting "there is no God" as a central belief is one of them.
So can you explain how atheistic regimes killed in the hundred millions and contribute anything and christian ones didn't kill such numbers and contributed loads to society? The didn't take the same steps. why?
so you are saying the governmnets which killed people in millions and tens of millions were not all committed atheists with atheism as an announced central belief? that the russian Chinese Cambodian regimes did not particularly say they were atheist and promote atheism? That the "League of the Godless" was not about atheism??
And why is it that the worst of these regimes were all Atheist Totalitarian regimes and few of the Christian regimes were Totalitarian and thoise that were didnt do as much slaughtering as the atheist ones?
http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/rise%28n%29-2.htm MOC - Greatness Dishonoured, by Michael O' Carroll, 1980 Chamberlain signed a piece of paper too and announced "Peace in our time" . was he giving special protection and dealing with Nazis too?
PDN wrote: » Actually that is untrue. I believe ISAW resurrected it in post 1970. Marien then repeated her claim in post 1977. I responded to Marien in post 1980. I get enough stick from people about what I actually do, without anyone wrongly accusing me of doing stuff I didn't do.
