The Quadratic Equation wrote: » Not if they get on top first, and never ever confuse state law and security of the state, with morality.
It's not hard to technically avoid breaking state law (to avoid the consequences) and still be extremely so called 'immoral' by other peoples weak, self imposed, restrictive standards.
As Margaret Thatcher said "There is no society"
'Morality' is a bar to personal 'success', it always has been. Survival of the fittest works. That's evolution and natural selection.
Leaving your strawman / ad homiem attempt aside for now ;
Do you really think I am totally unique, rather than just being totally honest ? Moral normality ? There is none. What is considered totally moral by one person is totally imoral for another.
All is fair in love and war. The strong survive. Winner takes all.
Virgil° wrote: » State law is based on our collective morality.
Virgil° wrote: » This is the grey area within morals that is actually desirable. A ruthless businessman who makes a lot of money on the backs of people losing their jobs is walking a fine line. But we can discuss it and debate it and readjust laws around this discourse. An option not found in the bible. A Margaret Thatcher quote to back up a huge sweeping statement? At least i know what I'm dealing with.
Virgil° wrote: » Again with the short sightedness. What is good for one person is not necessarily good for the whole and by association that one person within the whole. If everyone acted like one morally corrupt person, who thought it was fine to ,lets say, kill for personal success, humans would be extinct.
Virgil° wrote: » The majority of the human race believe that taking anothers life(in normal circumstances) is not moral. This is a moral norm. We call people who think its morally normal to kill people, psychopaths and murders. This is one example of a moral norm. There are many. Yes, they change from culture to culture. But most civilised peoples agree on the major ones.
Virgil° wrote: » You reap what you sow. Be careful what you wish for. I like this game!
marienbad wrote: » Concerning the sun - of course we can prove it
- the question is why bother- you are the one introducing these outlandish analogies .
As for your your Oxford dictionary quotes quotes- lets read them again shall we - inferring general law from the particulars, - you have not done so, you have created a set of particulars which no-one else agrees with, either here or on academia and inferred a general law from those flawed premises.
and from the particular to the general- you have just skipped over the known and just stuck with your own version of what can be assumed.
A start would be showing that atheism =equals atheistic regime/totalitarian regime, otherwise your argument is a house of cards.
A ruthless businessman who makes a lot of money on the backs of people losing their jobs is walking a fine line.
But we can discuss it and debate it and readjust laws around this discourse. An option not found in the bible.
A Margaret Thatcher quote to back up a huge sweeping statement? At least i know what I'm dealing with.
Again with the short sightedness. What is good for one person is not necessarily good for the whole and by association that one person within the whole. If everyone acted like one morally corrupt person, who thought it was fine to ,lets say, kill for personal success, humans would be extinct.
In this case the lack of ability to rationalise morals outside religion
The majority of the human race believe that taking anothers life(in normal circumstances) is not moral. This is a moral norm. We call people who think its morally normal to kill people, psychopaths and murders. This is one example of a moral norm. There are many. Yes, they change from culture to culture. But most civilised peoples agree on the major ones.
ISAW wrote: » Logically by deduction. Okay. Care do so then? The question is are you paying attention. Morbert claimed i can't logically prove atheism caused atrocities in the past. I freely admit i can't deduce God or Christianity is tryue. It might all be a complete co incidence that Christian rulers were benevolent and atheistic regimes slaughtered people. I was asked tfor apaarticular case. I cited Pol Pot. Pol Pot slaughtered clergy and believers. Atheism was central to his regime. There are loads of particular examples - pick any atheistic regime. No - it is fairly much established in the literature what Pol Pot's regime did. the retort is "Well maybe it was not done because of atheism. But in this case I'm not using atheism as a premise and deducing what happens! What I am doing is showing an atheistic regime and showing it slaughtered people. Which is what I have been asked to cite as an example. Only if one is trying to deduce logically from that premise. I'm using induction not deduction here. That is the point being made above.
ISAW wrote: » Care to define collective morality without using a "natural law" argument? You are aware of the pitfalls that you might pander to fascism or the Borg mentality? The important word in that is "ruthless" . You are suggesting ruthlessness is acceptable, But not always! So what decides when it isn't acceptable? You would not be correct there. The Bible does not claim to discuss every thing eg. nuclear weapons are not mentioned. But discussing the morality of such things is left in the hands of the church. That is mentioned in the Bible several times. I think the quote was "there is no society only individuals" We are going into holism versus reductionism but the argument you raise is similar to the tragedy of the commons Natural law can be secular. And what if miost agreed that persecuting Jews or depriving blacks a vote or sex with children was acceptable. Would that "moral norm" be acceptable. Or is it always wrong even if a majority think it is acceptable?
ISAW wrote: » Logically by deduction. Okay. Care do so then? The question is are you paying attention. Morbert claimed i can't logically prove atheism caused atrocities in the past. I freely admit i can't deduce God or Christianity is tryue. It might all be a complete co incidence that Christian rulers were benevolent and atheistic regimes slaughtered people. I was asked tfor apaarticular case. I cited Pol Pot. Pol Pot slaughtered clergy and believers. Atheism was central to his regime. There are loads of particular examples - pick any atheistic regime.
And what if miost agreed that persecuting Jews or depriving blacks a vote or sex with children was acceptable. Would that "moral norm" be acceptable. Or is it always wrong even if a majority think it is acceptable?
The only relevant point in the above post is your final question and the answers will be the same for theists and atheists. The only thing open to question really is the source of those laws.
tommy2bad wrote: » ISAW: marienbad; Would it? to an extent yes but consider that if the moral norm was..lets say, stoning adulterers, tax evasion, slavery or same sex marriage. Would we even be able to tell otherwise?. The source of those laws is the moral norm and until it is challenged then the idea that it is right or wrong doesn't come up. Even Jesus didn't regard slavery an evil to speak out against.
Doc Farrell wrote: » I see there's a new sofa shop in town called S.O.U.L which stands for spirit of ultimate lifestyle. If I buy a few cushions there does that make me more or less spiritual?
Morbert wrote: » Firstly, I claimed you could not make a reasonable inductive inference. You are the one who brought up the straw-man argument about logical deduction.
Atheistic regimes were deeply religious.
Secondly, I clearly explained why your Pol Pot example did not support your inference, in a post you have yet to respond to.
fasgnadh 03/04/2011 But what about Stalin (although NOT Mao, Lenin and Pol Pot) who was also brought up in a religious school (because the church was the only provider of schools) who abandoned his education in a religious school to pursue a career as an atheist thug, and psychopathic killer? But the interesting questions is why out of all those kids raised by Christians how come only the atheists and Nazis abandoned religion and became tyrants? Something connects them and it isn't religion because the majority of Christian societies built free open secular democracies, and didn't build atheist or Nazi tyrannies as Lenin Mao Stalin Pol Pot and Hitler did!
The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most persecuted, as well. The Roman Catholic cathedral of Phnom Penh was completely razed. The Khmer Rouge forced Muslims to eat pork, which they regard as an abomination. Many of those who refused were killed. Christian clergy and Muslim imams were executed." - http://countrystudies.us/cambodia/29.htm "Forty-eight percent of Cambodia's Christians were killed because of their religion."http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/44camboyano.jpg "the state established atheism as the only scientific truth." - Daniel Peris, "Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless" Cornell University Press 1998 ISBN 9780801434853 "State atheism has been mostly implemented in communist countries, such as the former Soviet Union,[1] China, Communist Albania, Communist Afghanistan, North Korea, Communist Mongolia and Poland under communist rule also promoted state atheism and suppressed religion. - Forced out: the fate of Polish Jewry in Communist Poland. Wolak, Arthur J. p 104 In these nations, the governments viewed atheism as an intrinsic part of communist ideology.
ISAW wrote: » I explained my position i9n message 1969 It is entirely reasonable Secondly i can make a reasonable inductive inference We can look at hgistory and see all governments with Christianity ( Christ is God and we should live like Christ) at the centre were not atrocious ( in fact very few were) All governments with "there is no god" as a central principle were atrocious. One can quite easily infer atheism used as a principle to rule over people leads to atrocities.
But in message 1985 you try the cop out. In other words "religion is to blame" and atheistic regimes you redefine as a religion. which is very similar to saying belief in God is to blame and it is preferable to believe "there is no God". Which puts you right in there with all the "there is no God " people in history.
Where did you explain Pol Pot was not a leader of an atheistic regime? Or are you trying to cop out by redefining "There is no God" not as atheism but as religion?
Fair enough let us go with you on that one too. Let us say i agree. Why is atheism as a religion so more damaging to society that Christianity as a religion?
And I have responded on Pol Pot - again from Fasgnadh <Pol Pot references>
shauneym wrote: » I watched 'The Life of Brian' on Sky Art's 1. last nigh . Says it all really !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)
Morbert wrote: » So I will ask again. Are you changing your position from "atheism causes atrocities", to "atheist societies can be perfectly healthy, but state-enforced atheism, due to the nature of the regimes imposing atheism, will more than likely lead to atrocities."
No. Not in other words. I do not consider Pol Pot's regime, for example, to be a religious regime.
A regime like North Korea, on the other hand is deeply religious. It is an example of a secular religion, with its own mythology and worship.
It is an example of a bad religion, and hence an example of a religious instruction being a bad influence. This was entirely beside the point, and was part of a tangent you brought up.
Instead, what I brought up as a counter-point was a) An example of a predominantly atheist society that is perfectly functional, culturally rich, and does not commit atrocities.
Atheist regimes (not religions), unlike Christian regimes, have always emerged as a symptom of anti-democratic "revolutionary" totalitarianism, like the "socialism" practised by Pol Pot. Their entire philosophy is to blame.
You are making the mistake of assuming atheism is the offending component of their philosophy, and I have pointed out that plenty of atheists abhor the philosophies of people like Stalin and Pol Pot.
Again, I see the blame lying squarely on the policies of Pol Pot.
Perhaps you are claiming that, if Pol Pot was not an atheist, he wouldn't have committed atrocities?
A claim as baseless as the claim that, if King Leopold was an atheist, he would not have committed atrocities. As you said yourself, we know what we know, and there is no point in conted speculation.
Nominal religion in Norway is mostly Protestant (Evangelical-Lutheran) with 78.9% belonging to the state Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway.
Church of Norway 85.7%, Pentecostal 1%, Roman Catholic 1%, other Christian 2.4%, Muslim 1.8%, other 8.1% (2004)
There is continuous discussion about separating church and state in Norway, and after a decision in Parliament in 2008, it appears a considerable relaxation of the ties will take place, even if state control is still evident
ISAW wrote: » You can go back years and you will find that whenever I have entered ionto this discussion my phrasing has always been "atheistic regimes". It isn't a question of "more than likely" .every single one i.e. ALL atheistic regimes have been atrocious! I can't logically formally prove Christianity does not cause atrocities or atheism does cause them. All I can say is if we look at history ALL atheistic regimes were atrocious and almost all Christian regimes were not atrocious. I happen to believe that this has somethingto do with people believing in christianity and something to do with atheists not believing in God. I think that belief is reasonable and can be supported with reference to history.
Really? In http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76630118&postcount=1985 you stated Atheistic regimes were deeply religious.
Back to the cop out of defining all "there is no god" regimes as religions. Atheism = "there is no God" Atheistic regimes have atheism " There is no god" as a central tenet Christian governments ( few are regimes) have "Christ is God live like Christ," as a central tenet. So...how come the atheistic ones are all murder regimes and the christian ones aren't?
I still don't accept your redefinition of atheism as a religion but how come then that atheism as a religion is always bad and Christianity isn't bad?
When atheism was a core principle of the society did! And Japan isn't an atheistic society it is not run by an atheistic government. If and when they reintroduce a "there is no God" I suspect dead bodies will soon follow as they did everywhere else. If however they made Christianity a State religion and gave Christianity or say the Pope or local bishops some political power in Japan I suspect it would not result in piles of dead.
Yep including "there is no God" as a central principle. <snip quotes from totalitarian nut jobs>
I accept that some atheists abhor violence. To turn your own reasoning back on you are you seriously claiming <snip stuff I didn't claim>
Aha! But he WAS an atheist. All the mega murdering regimes were atheist and promoted atheism. Of all the non atheist Christian/Catholic regimes few oif any murdered people en masse and none to the extent of the atheistic ones. Leopold did NOT commit atrocities on behalf of Christianity. He didn't say anything about making the Congo christian as part of his central plan. And the atheist Marxists in the Congo who were explicitly atheistic did murder people.
I like it too. Except over 70% of the Norwegian population is not Atheist!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Norway
The CIA world fact book lists over 90% as religious in 2004.https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/no.html And the Norwegian State was constitutionally bound to the Lutheran Church until very recently and still is to some extent.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_of_Norway
Nor do they have the Second highest GDP per capita. They have the 4th or 5th highest depending on the source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita In 2011 it is listed 7th by CIA WFB In fact ther is no majority atheist country in the top 100 as far as I know. The CIA world fact book lists them not 1st but 25th in life expectancy There Literacy is Ill admit outstanding 100% - Must be all those Priests teaching the Sumi eh?
Morbert wrote: » I specifically asked you if you believed "atheism causes atrocities". Are you now "refining" that claim and modifying it to "Atheist societies can be perfectly functional, but state-enforced, atheist regimes that suppress religion and deny basic human rights will more than likely result in atrocities."?
In short, do you accept that a predominantly atheist society can be perfectly healthy and functional?
Do you believe the belief in God is necessary to prevent atrocities?
"Not all dictatorships foster personality cults, not all personality cults are dictatorships (some are nominally democratic), and some leaders may actively seek to minimize their own public adulation. For example, during the Cambodian Khmer Rouge regime, images of dictator Pol Pot (Saloth Sar) were rarely seen in public, and his identity was under dispute abroad until after his fall from power. The same applied to numerous Eastern European Communist regimes following World War II (although not those of Enver Hoxha and Nicolae Ceaușescu, mentioned below)."
Firstly, read what I write. Not all state atheism was religious.
Only those that demanded unwavering worship to supreme leaders, with their own myths and doctrine. Secondly, I have already answered your question. Atheist regimes (not religions), unlike Christian regimes, have always emerged as a symptom of anti-democratic "revolutionary" totalitarianism, like the "socialism" practised by Pol Pot. Their entire philosophy is to blame.
I still don't accept your definition of theism as a type of hamster food.
Again, I answered this in the post you missed. "Atheist society" and "State-enforced atheism" are not synonymous.
Japan is a predominantly atheist, secular pluralist society. They are an example of cultural atheism arising naturally, and not through some emerging extremist regime.
Incidentally, they were not a predominantly atheist society in WWII, when they committed horrible acts.
So now do you see that it was not atheism, but totalitarian, political philosophies and the neglect of human rights that are to blame?
Some? The vast majority.
Leopold was not an atheist. He committed atrocities. It is evidence of atrocities stemming from other factors.
Claiming he committed atrocities because he was Christian would be as baseless as claiming Pol Pot committed atrocities because he was atheist, as opposed to, say, because of his opinion of forced labour, social experiments, and human life.
Only 30% believe in God. The rest are atheist. Unless you want to use some obscure and misleading Scotsman "only gnostic atheist materialists are true atheists" definition. In which case not even I am an atheist.
"Norwegians are automatically registered as members at birth, so this number includes anyone except members of other communities, and those few who take action to unregister."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_demographics
Only 30% believe in God. How come they haven't been slaughtered yet by the Pol Pot-loving Godless hoard?
You are nit-picking. GDP obviously changes from year to year, and whether they have the second highest or the 7th
doesn't change the fact that they are a predominantly atheist,
but remarkably successful society. (The "CIA" book clearly has its numbers wrong, which is not surprising for the CIA).
"Atheistic society" and "State-enforced atheism" are!(synonymous.)
tommy2bad wrote: » No they are not.
Your conflagration of the two terms despite being clearly shown their is no correlation is stubborn to the point of annoying.
I'll repeat; Atheistic society, a society where the majority of the population dose not believe in god God or gods.
State-enforced atheism, a system of opposition to theism. The key word being 'enforced'.
where atheism ( the principle of "there is no God") was central to society
tommy2bad wrote: » Appologies for sniping you here but this is the crux of it. ( the principle of "there is no God") Atheistic societies don't have a principal of their is no god, it maybe a working assumption but their is no such principal. Atheism is a belief not a principal.
your coming close to equating secularism with anti theistic atheism.
Theism has a self regulation built in that atheists can't see,(they seem to assume that because you claim to have god on your side that you can then claim that anything is justifies, theists seem to assume that without god anything is justified) but you cant see that both are equal ridiculous.
What leads to atrocities isn't opposition to God and what limits atrocities isn't subservience to God.
Something else is going on and to continue to blame or credit God is at this stage stupid. This is my and others objection to Dawkins but it is also my objection to Islam and fundi xianity. A plague on both your houses, kinda thing.
ISAW wrote: » I note how you take up a belief and turn it into a claim I have been quite clear while I am suspicious of atheists in power but I do not claim all atheists are bent on atrocity. I don't claim it because I can't logically formally prove it. I don't distrust Christians in power as much. However I am suspicious of anyone in power. I have frequently stated I am anti authoritarian. If they are not allowed get into power and bring their atheism to bear on policy I'm sure a majority atheist society could function. so long as it does not function based on atheism.
But the point is that state enforced atheism resulted in HUGH genocide on a scale that State enforced Christianity NEVER approached.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality#Past_examples I have to laugh at the Turkmen Guy Saparmurat Atayevich Niyazov Niyazov banned the use of lip syncing at public concerts in 2005. He also got rid of the death penalty. Yes he was a despot but had some redeeming features. But not an atheist. Perons Argentina also not atheist was a despotic regime but again not anywhere approaching the death regimes of atheistic states. Saddam Hussain similar. He was probably a muslim and not atheist but probably pretended to be devout. He certainly was not so bad or a big a threat as the US claimed although he did use Chemical weapons in Iranians ( probably from chemicals and delivery systems he got from the US when they were pals with Saddam and much worse people). He certainly wasn't Christian. Unlike ALL atheistic regimes which were murder regimes - ALL of them. But all State Atheism was murderous.Okay I agree. The philosophy of atheistic regimes is to blame. And they did much more damage than non atheistic regimes I agree that non atheists and even christians can commit atrocities. However compared to atheistic regimes they almost never do. Leopold did not act on behalf of the Church. No. I accept that some christian regimes did bad things and also some Buddhist ones and Muslim ones. But the worst damage ever was by atheistic regimes. You are claiming "It doesnt matter whether they believed or not what mattered was respect" but how is it that in religious societies people mostly respected others people but in atheistic societies they slaughtered people. They were in Buddhist times of the Shogun. But again such animism or Paganism even though not atheism is philosophically miles away from Christianity . No it wouldnt! Because Leopold did not order things with a specific goal of promoting Christianity but Pol Pot DID order things to promote atheism
My definition of theism was "belief in God or gods"
"Atheistic society" and "State-enforced atheism" are! Which is whay i usually use the term "Atheistic "
Do yuo claim the vast majority of atheists abhor violence because they are atheists?
If you don't claim that then why mention the vast majority of atheists subscribe to anything if their atheism is not a contributing factor?
over 90 per cent of the Norwegian population do not claim to be atheist! Church of Norway 85.7%, Pentecostal 1%, Roman Catholic 1%, other Christian 2.4%, Muslim 1.8%, other 8.1% (2004) You are no doubt going by the oft quoted Phil Zukerman estimate ( which is in fact onle ONE of his estimates - which range from 31 to 72%. You picked the 72 no surprises there. SAme source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005 17% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force". Approximately 9-10% are probably not members of any religious or philosophical communities, while 8.6 % of the population are members of other religious or philosophical communities outside the Church of Norway.http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/07/02/10/trosamf_en/ Norways own statistics Religious and life stance communities, 1 January 2011http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/07/02/10/trosamf_en/tab-2011-12-06-01-en.html Members1 of religious and life stance communities outside the Church of Norway, by religion/life stance. Per 1 January. 2005-2011. Numbers and per cent As of 1 January 2011, 484 500 persons in Norway were members of religious and life stance communities; an increase of 37 700 compared with the previous year. More than half of the members, 266 800, were members of Christian communities. The non Lutheran believer communities are growing in Norway. This represents an increase of about 8 per cent compared to the previous year. The Christian communities had the largest increase. There is no Indication of atheism taking over as a belief. In 2005, a survey conducted by Gallup International in sixty-five countries indicated that Norway was the least religious country in Western Europe, with 29% counting themselves as believing in a church or deity, 26% as being atheists, and 45% not being entirely certain. That's about a quarter atheist not a majority and not 70% and it is the most atheist country in Europe. 1.7% are Humanist 13% are nones. 1. About 25 % ast most are atheist. 2. Up to 90% believe in a God or gods or spirits. 3. The Church is still linked to the State Don't blame me - YOU posted the cartoon claiming 1st! Wrong! you awere wrong about GDP and you are wrong about atheism in Norway. It isnt 70% - a figure trotted out by the cambridge companion to Atheism which they cherry picked from the highest of several levels quoted by Zukerman which has been contradicted by several other surveys before and since. And the Norwegian central stats office?http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/07/02/10/trosamf_en/arkiv/ And Gallup? And Eurobarometer? And Zukerman's other surveys? Almost 86 per cent of the population in Norway are members of the Church of Norway. About 8 per cent are members in religious and philosophical communities outside the Church of Norway, and the number is increasing. -- My definition of theism was "belief in God or gods"
