Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Morbert wrote: »

This old chestnut again? I invite anyone to slog through my conversation with ISAW to note the numerous times I have explored why the totalitarian regimes in question were so barbaric, and why they chose to adopt atheism.

Furthermore, it is not true that Non atheistic regimes didn't kill at the same level. Leopold of Belgium, Nazi Germany, Muslim-Hindu atrocities, the war in Vietnam, the colonisation of the new world Etc. were all in the millions or tens of millions.

War mongers have played what ever card they need to get the result they want. It is silly to get into this "my willie was bigger than yours" scenario. For sure those who used the religious card were not were not much worried about living a blameless religious life and the only good thing you could say about the athiests was that they were somewhat less hypocritical.

PDN

Zorbas wrote: »

the only good thing you could say about the athiests was that they were somewhat less hypocritical.

At least they were until they began claiming that all the world's wars are caused by religion. :pac:

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW, those examples you quoted from the USSR are incorrect and I suspect you are aware of that- when there is only one ''political party'' there are no politival parties ( contradictory as that seems). The communist party were the totalitarian vehicle in the USSR and pravda was their mouthpiece.

Yes i am aware of that. but the oint was you are making an issue of semantic definitions! when you ask if parties or newspapers or other organisations were support ...they were! The ones which supported their atheistic regime.
Just mike in chjina an "official" Chinese version of the church is supported which supported the ironically atheist government.

you say ''non atheistic totalitarian regimes did not kill at the level of atheistic one'' ! That is a bit of a stretch don't you think ? What regimes do you have in mind ?

All given before atheist Russia and atheist china -20th century Middle ages and ancient . whether Japan being bhudhist was atheist in the past is disputable. since WWII it is secular.

Anyway in the hundreds of millions killed by their regimes.

[/quote]
You misunderstand my point about one organisation being privileged over another. That was made it reference to the definition of totalitarianism , why do you privelege religion over say- trade unions of political entities in your analysis of totalitarianism ?[/QUOTE]

If a trade union want a trade union ethos school and parents want to send their kids to it they will be supported by the state. Mondragon in spain was set up by a Jesuit Priest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Arizmendiarrieta

http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/language/en-US/ENG.aspx

Morbert wrote: »

17% are materialists. Atheists are not materialists, and can believe in spirits, souls, and life-forces. Similarly, atheists, like myself, can be agnostic, or "not entirely certain". The only demarcation is whether or not you believe "God/gods exist" is true.

Again, at least FOR TWO YEARS now in exchanges YOU have had with me on in discussions on which you have replied on the same page as me I have been consistent as to what the definition og atheist and agnostic were.

I gave a reference to the US survey and quoted several people from the A&a forum.
atheism is a belief there is no God or Gods or supernatural.

Agnostics say there might be a god or they just dont know.
I have been quite clear about these definitions here and everywhere else where you were party to the discussion.
I have clearly defined it from the very momlent you stated Norway was 70% atheist.
I have clearly stated it and supported it.

You stood by your claim and used your interpretation of a single Eurobarometer poll to claim all those saying No to "there is a god" are atheists.

they are NOT!
It is NOT supported by other findings which you have been shown!

Norway is not 70% atheist or anything near that!

Do you believe I am an atheist?

What you are or are not has no bearing on the issue. Your claim was Norway is 70% atheist. It is only so in your cartoon imagination.
You are well aware that several peer reviewed research findings do NOT support this but you continue to claim it!
I have no doubt that as time goes on more and more research will emerge which shows Norway is not 70% atheist and in fact belief is growing in Norway.

I cant formally prove this until the facts arrive but like my suspictions about atheism i have good grounds for suspcting it is true. Bt "this" i mean the trend in the future and NOT the FACT that Norway is not 70% atheist.

Yes I am. The other 70% have described themselves as not believing in a God.

No they dont!

You have been shown non belief in a christian God does not necessarily maan you must be atheist!

Assuming all Celtic supporters do NOT support rangers do you immediately suppose that if someone does not support Celtic then they must support Rangers?

This old chestnut again? I invite anyone to slog through my conversation with ISAW to note the numerous times I have explored why the totalitarian regimes in question were so barbaric, and why they chose to adopt atheism.

Would it be as old as being definitively shown fro, peer reviewed research the published definition of "atheist" "hard agnostic" and "soft agnostic"? Seems you forgot all that.

Furthermore, it is not true that Non atheistic regimes didn't kill at the same level. Leopold of Belgium, Nazi Germany, Muslim-Hindu atrocities, the war in Vietnam, the colonisation of the new world Etc. were all in the millions or tens of millions.

You are making the same logical error as above!
Nobody claimed non atheistic regimes nrever killed
Whzat i claimed was Christian regiumes RARELY killed at the same level

Nazi Muslim and vietnam were not christian church led atrocities.

Leopold of Belgium was christian but not doing it in the name of or to promote christianity like atheistic regimes were doing it to promote "there is no god"

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

ISAW, in my mind you either believe a god exists or you don't. It's a yes/no answer, you can not be sure but still believe, but you still believe.

You are contradicting yourself! Obviously Lee Harvey Oswald either shot JFK or he didnt. It is a yes no answer. If you ask people if he did then some will believe he did some will believer he didnt. Some however will not believe either and say "i dont know" or "i cant make up my mind" While it is true he did or didnt you can not say "i dont know" is the same as "he did not"

So if someone says that if a group of people were asked a question like "Do you believe in a god/diety?" and 30% of the answers were "Yes" then, necessarily, the rest of the answer are "No".

Based on that Ireland never approved the Nice treaty since the majority of the people who could vote did not vote yes.

And if you answer : "Do you believe in a god/diety?" with No, then you are atheist.

LOL! nice try. But sorry you just cant take the results of peer review research and turn a 28% yes answer into a 70% no answer! Not only that but people wh would answer "no " to the question still are not all necessarily atheist!

PDN wrote: »

While I think this whole thread is going down the toilet fast, that isn't necessarily so.

For example, if you ask people "Do you believe in a God?" Then a Pantheist, an Agnostic or even a Polytheist might well answer 'No'.

The same survey showed a majority believe in some form of God, lifeforce or spirit. That would mean only a minority of the population are monotheists, but it certainly doesn't mean that a majority are atheists.

QED PDN

tommy2bad

ISAW;
Not only that but people wh would answer "no " to the question still are not all necessarily atheist!

Well then they need to clarify their thinking. If they say "No" when asked if they believe in a God or Deity, they are atheist.
What other possibilities are their? Don't want to admit it? Lying to look cool? Not native speakers of the language the question is asked in?

marienbad

ISAW , you are going into evasive mode again- it is not semantics I am talking about- can you name any political entities, unions ,etc that were allowed to function under totalitarian regimes that were opposed to those regimes ?

Can you give specific examples of those regimes you refered before the 20th century , middle ages , ancient?

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Again, at least FOR TWO YEARS now in exchanges YOU have had with me on in discussions on which you have replied on the same page as me I have been consistent as to what the definition og atheist and agnostic were.

I gave a reference to the US survey and quoted several people from the A&a forum.
atheism is a belief there is no God or Gods or supernatural.

Agnostics say there might be a god or they just dont know.
I have been quite clear about these definitions here and everywhere else where you were party to the discussion.
I have clearly defined it from the very momlent you stated Norway was 70% atheist.
I have clearly stated it and supported it.

I cant formally prove this until the facts arrive but like my suspicions about atheism i have good grounds for suspcting it is true. Bt "this" i mean the trend in the future and NOT the FACT that Norway is not 70% atheist.

You have defined atheism as gnostic materialism. You then contradict yourself by claiming atheism is a lack of belief in a God or gods. Which type of atheists commits atrocities? I, for example, am an agnostic materialist. Which definition of atheism do I fall under?

What you are or are not has no bearing on the issue. Your claim was Norway is 70% atheist. It is only so in your cartoon imagination.
You are well aware that several peer reviewed research findings do NOT support this but you continue to claim it!
I have no doubt that as time goes on more and more research will emerge which shows Norway is not 70% atheist and in fact belief is growing in Norway.

It has everything to do with the issue. If you use a specific definition of a word, it is important that everybody is aware of that definition. I could claim Christians cause atrocities if I define "Christian" as a specific member of Belgian royalty. So if you define atheism as gnostic totalitarian anti-clericalist anti-theist despotism then you would be right when you say atheism causes atrocities. But it would be a boring and uncontroversial statement, and would be an atheism utterly unrelated to the atheism professed by the majority of atheists around the world.

You have been shown non belief in a christian God does not necessarily maan you must be atheist!

Not non-belief in just a Christian God, non-belief in a God altogether.

Assuming all Celtic supporters do NOT support rangers do you immediately suppose that if someone does not support Celtic then they must support Rangers?

No, I assume they are aCeltic.

Would it be as old as being definitively shown fro, peer reviewed research the published definition of "atheist" "hard agnostic" and "soft agnostic"? Seems you forgot all that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

That is atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

That is not atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

That is not atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism

That is not atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche

That is not atheism.

Some of the above might be atheistic, but they are not atheism.

Similarly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

That is theism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

That is not theism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_monarchy

That is not theism. They might be theistic, but they are not theism.

You are making the same logical error as above!
Nobody claimed non atheistic regimes nrever killed
Whzat i claimed was Christian regiumes RARELY killed at the same level

Nazi Muslim and vietnam were not christian church led atrocities.

Leopold of Belgium was christian but not doing it in the name of or to promote christianity like atheistic regimes were doing it to promote "there is no god"

This is why a conversation with you is impossible. You forget everything you say. You specifically said atheist regimes were much worse than "Non atheistic" regimes. I answered. Why not accept it and move on, instead of trying to make some deflective counterpoint in your polemical randori.

PDN wrote:

For example, if you ask people "Do you believe in a God?" Then a Pantheist, an Agnostic or even a Polytheist might well answer 'No'.

The same survey showed a majority believe in some form of God, lifeforce or spirit. That would mean only a minority of the population are monotheists, but it certainly doesn't mean that a majority are atheists.

QED PDN

Let us suppose a polytheist would say no (I would contest this, but anyway). Unless the neo-pagan Åsatrufellesskapet Bifrost and Foreningen Forn Sed (around 400 members between them), and the fraction of a percentage of Hindus, and the few thousand Buddhists (the majority of which are immigrants) (defining Buddhism as theist to be generous) have gone through an explosion in the past month, it is a moot point.

Pantheism is something I have asked people to define. What differentiates it from sexed up atheism, especially the kind whose proponents answer "no" to "Does a God exist?".

Agnosticism is exactly that:Agnosticism. If an agnostic believes a God exists, they are a theist. If an agnostic (like me) does not believe a God exists, they are an atheist.

Northclare

Would it be easier if Atheists and Believers integrated their contradictions rather than be in collision with their contradictions.

Can we settle for "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." I know such simplicity will upset academics but would save a lot of hot air and be acceptable to the vast majority of believers and non-believers as we commonly use the term.

Morbert

Zorbas wrote: »

Can we settle for "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." I know such simplicity will upset academics but would save a lot of hot air and be acceptable to the vast majority of believers and non-believers as we commonly use the term.

It all boils down to what ISAW is specifically saying when he claims "Atheism causes atrocities.".

Morbert wrote: »

It all boils down to what ISAW is specifically saying when he claims "Atheism causes atrocities.".

Cant see agreement then - not much interest in consensus there on such "complicated terms"

lmaopml

Zorbas wrote: »

Can we settle for "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." I know such simplicity will upset academics but would save a lot of hot air and be acceptable to the vast majority of believers and non-believers as we commonly use the term.

pml :pac: Why in heck is anybody even discussing Norway? It's clear that it's not a top heavy Atheist Nation - neither is it a top heavy Christian Nation - neither is it a top heavy 'Believe in Something out there' Nation - It's a cool nation, with pretty cool people, a crap climate but lots of natural resources like oil - they're happy out!

Morbert wrote: »

It all boils down to what ISAW is specifically saying when he claims "Atheism causes atrocities.".

Interestingly, despite many posters including myself asking him to clarify that, ISAW seems very reluctant to go into detail.

Odd that

PDN wrote: »

While I think this whole thread is going down the toilet fast, that isn't necessarily so.

For example, if you ask people "Do you believe in a God?" Then a Pantheist, an Agnostic or even a Polytheist might well answer 'No'.

The same survey showed a majority believe in some form of God, lifeforce or spirit. That would mean only a minority of the population are monotheists, but it certainly doesn't mean that a majority are atheists.

While I agree with the sentiment of your post (by golly we have some whopper threads on A&A over what "atheism" exactly means), in the context of ISAW's argument that a rejection of the principles of an organized religion such as Christianity will eventually lead to atrocities I think it can be taken that the majority of people in Norway fall squarely into the category of people ISAW is claiming should be currently on the slippery slope to totalitarianism and anti-theistic atrocities.

And perhaps it is too early to tell, but they don't seem to be.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

in the context of ISAW's argument that a rejection of the principles of an organized religion such as Christianity will eventually lead to atrocities

Is that his claim? Are those his goalposts, or did someone else move them? I understood his argument (which I don't agree with btw) was that an atheist society causes atrocities.

tommy2bad

PDN wrote: »

Is that his claim? Are those his goalposts, or did someone else move them? I understood his argument (which I don't agree with btw) was that an atheist society causes atrocities.

I thought it was that a society that promotes atheism caused atrocities ?

PDN wrote: »

Is that his claim? Are those his goalposts, or did someone else move them? I understood his argument (which I don't agree with btw) was that an atheist society causes atrocities.

Because atheist societies have rejected the principles of etc etc

tommy2bad wrote: »

I thought it was that a society that promotes atheism caused atrocities ?

Well actually when you press ISAW on it his actual object is to totalitarian regimes that mandate state enforced anti-theism.

The problem is getting him to admit that this is what he really objects to, not simply atheism in society or societies rejecting organized religion.

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW , you are going into evasive mode again- it is not semantics I am talking about- can you name any political entities, unions ,etc that were allowed to function under totalitarian regimes that were opposed to those regimes ?

you added in the bit in bold! Canb you show wher you had that bit in before and i will admit i misquoted you?

Can you give specific examples of those regimes you refered before the 20th century , middle ages , ancient?

Yes.

Well non christian as well
From the pre-publisher edited manuscript of Chapter 3 in R.J. Rummel, Death By Government, 1994

in revenge for an arrow from Nishapur's walls that killed Jinghiz Khan's son-in-law in 1221, when the city was finally captured the Mongol Tolui massacred its unarmed inhabitants
an utterly fantastic 1,747,000 human beings reportedly were slaughtered, a number exceeding the contemporary population of Hawaii, Rhode Island, or New Hampshire; a number that is around a third of the total Jews murdered by Hitler

. From the banks of the Oxus to Asterabad every town of any importance was reduced to ruins, and its inhabitants slaughtered by the Mongols
Howorth (1965, p. 92)

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide

in the 12th and 13th centuries the Sultan of Delhi, Kutb-d Din Aibak, slaughtered his subjects by the hundreds of thousands

In 1219 Jinghiz Kahn's army captured Bokhara and allegedly murdered 30,000; and another 30,000 people in capturing Samarkand

n 1221 a Mongol army seized Merv and reportedly took 13 days to slaughter 1,300,000 inhabitants

in 1220 the Mongols killed 50,000 in Kazvin after it was captured;70,000 in Nessa, and a similar number in Sebzevar.

1221, the Mongol Tului slew 700,000 to 1,300,000 people in Meru Chahjan, one of the four main cities of Khorassan in the Northern borderland of Persia. Upon capture the inhabitants were made to evacuate the city, a four-day task. Then they were distributed among the Mongols and massacred. It took 13 days to count corpses. Among those who hid from the massacre, 5,000 were killed by Mongol detachments when they later emerge

The entire population of Rayy, a city with 3,000 mosques, was slaughtered
Herat was recaptured and it took a whole week to burn it down and murder its estimated 1,600,000 people.
Mongol khans and their successors and pretenders possibly slaughtered around 30,000,000 Persian, Arab, Hindu, Russian, Chinese, European, and other men, women, and children

While the Mongol Khans may have established an historical record for individual massacres, surely various Chinese Emperors were in their league. Observe the bacchanalia of blood by Chang Hsien-chung when, near the end of the Ming Dynasty in 1644, he conquered Szechwan province and in Chengtu declared himself emperor of the Great Western Kingdom. The Chinese chronicles say that when the scholars rejected his imperial claim he immediately had them all massacred. Then he set about destroying all the merchants, then all the women and all the officials

As one Chinese dynasty was taken over from another their was a tremendous loss of life from war, mass murder, and associated hardship, famine, and disease. This can be seen from the resulting steep declines in population--really demographic catastrophes, proportionally akin to that which took place in Cambodia in 1975-1979 with the takeover by the bloody Khmer Rouge

n the eight years that the Han Dynasty was being replaced by the Qin Dynasty 221-207B.C., the population of China decreased from 20 million to 10 million.
. . . .
In the Dong (Eastern) Han Dynasty 206B.C.-220A.D., the population of China was 50 million. After the transition of power to the Three Kingdom period 222-589, the population decreased to 7 million.
. . . .
In the Sui Dynasty 581-618, the population of China was 50 million. After the transfer of power to the Tang Dynasty 618-907, only one third was left.
. . . .
At the peak of the Song Dynasty 960-1279 the population was about 100 million. But in the beginning of the Qing Dynasty in 1655, the population was 14,033,900. During the 20 year period from 1626 to 1655, the population decreased from 51,655,459 to 14,033,900

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB3.1.GIF

while you can chalk up half the Crusades, the thirty years war Inquisitions and witch hunts to Christianity Ill argue the toss on witch hunts and numbers killed by the inquisitions.

Chinese regimes were atheistic and Mongol ones were "non god animist spiritualist" closer to Morbert,s definition of atheism. certainly not for a religion or a God and certainly not a christian god!

30Bc-19the century 625 Million less than ten million of which can be attributed to the Church! Like the less than one percent of child abusere who were clergy we still hear about the crusafes witch hunts and inquisitions which are also about one percent of the deaths by non christian and godless regimes.

Manach

Very minor quibble re witch hunts - AFAIR from a Standford podcast about medieval European history, these hunts were not only unique to Europe and the Church and as well one of the driving forces behind it was a proto-nationalism trend by local authorities targeting differing social groups from the perceived norm.

Very impressive work isaw but would it not be reasonable to expect that Christians would not have been war mongers in the same way as it would be reasonable to expect that priests were not child rapists on the scale so far exposed?

Zorbas wrote: »

Very impressive work isaw but would it not be reasonable to expect that Christians would not have been war mongers in the same way

But that is the whole point!
christianity is around for 2000 years and coulda shoulda woulda but DIDNT do as you expect them to have done over the last 2000 years to any degree even approaching the godless atheistic regimes.

How come? As you suggested they had millennia to really go to town in slaughtering populations but the atheistic russians chinese Cambodians French Mexicans Mongols etc all surpassed the 2000 years of the church in less than a decade.

as it would be reasonable to expect that priests were not child rapists on the scale so far exposed?

what do yu mean? what scale? Over the last ten years how many rapes in the world? How many by priests? a scale of one in a million or less?

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

But that is the whole point!
christianity is around for 2000 years and coulda shoulda woulda but DIDNT do as you expect them to have done over the last 2000 years to any degree even approaching the godless atheistic regimes.

*cough* Leopold of Belgium *cough*
*cough* Nazis *cough*
*cough* New World Colonisation *cough*
*cough* USA *cough*

Sorry, I'm feeling a bit chesty today.

Morbert wrote: »

*cough* Leopold of Belgium *cough*

Not q christian regime done in any way for the spreading of christianity. You of course refer to the Leopold of the Belgian Congo who was not about spreading Chrtistianity like the Marxist ATHEISTIC congo revolutionaries?

*cough* Nazis *cough*

Theosophy is NOT christianity and successive pope OPPOSED the Nazis!

*cough* New World Colonisation *cough*

Yes SOME of which was done to spread christianity. Particularly in the Early days of the spanish Preponderance. this was not the Us but Carribean and in the very early days Irish slacves outnumbered African ones. But you can add several (by which i mean one or maybe a little mlore i.e; two million NOT eight or nine) million to the numbers of dead for which Christian rules doing political deals involving the church or spread of christianity
Not insignificant but still not near 100 or 200 million!
Indeed I would partly dispute it (on the basis not all were to do with christianity) but the source i gave above Rummel suggests 13 million deaths of American natives from the 16th to 19th century. Not all christainity related and over 400 years. Still not anyway near Mao or stalin woith tens of millions eaqch oin a few decades or the godless Mongols or atheitic chinese of the Middle ages. and I didnt even cite ancient regimes.

*cough* USA *cough*

Little or nothing to do with the church in europe. Yes some natives were killed to spread the US system but if you are going to argue this you cant call the US a "secular" country after that! As you are wont to. then again you believe Norway is 70% atheist dont you?

Sorry, I'm feeling a bit chesty today.

Hope i softened your cough for you.

Northclare

I was out with an atheist this eve and he is struggling within himself, but he used to believe in God but after he lost a loved one he walked away from his faith.

But he told me he doesn't believe in God but knows God believes in him.

Manach

Morbert wrote: »

*cough* Leopold of Belgium *cough*
*cough* Nazis *cough*
*cough* New World Colonisation *cough*
*cough* USA *cough*

Sorry, I'm feeling a bit chesty today.

Have you tried Saint Quentin?

marienbad

ISAW- it seems to me that your contention at this stage just boils down to ''atheistic regimes'' '' there is no god regimes'' etc kill more that theistic regimes .

marienbad

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW, the oxford dictionary gives us the following definition for totalitarian

''relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state''

and that subservience applies to churches, political parties, trade unions, newspapers, sports organisations , everything and anything that could engender dissent.

One could use your arguments just as easily to make a separate case for the supression of political parties or unions etc . Particularly with political parties as such parties are usually eliminated first and in their entirety whereas religion is allowed to continue but under terrible difficulties.

The key issue is the supression of dissent is it not ?

Why privilege one organisation over another ? In all those ''atheistic regimes'' ''there is no God regimes'' you are so fond of listing can you name one that tolerated political parties as we know them ? trade unions ? Newspapers ?

The question I was asking here ISAW was why extract religion from that mix as opposed to trade unions or politicals parties etc. One could argue that political parties have been targeted much more than religion in all of those regimes you quote . Is that not correct ?

Northclare wrote: »

I was out with an atheist this eve and he is struggling within himself, but he used to believe in God but after he lost a loved one he walked away from his faith.

But he told me he doesn't believe in God but knows God believes in him.

If he believes in the existence of the Christian god but believes that he does not act in a kind and just way towards him he is still not really an atheist. Atheism is the rejection of the claim of existence, not a rejection of the claim of benevolence.

Northclare

Maybe your right Zombrex but you may also be wrong.

If he wants to call himself an atheist so be it, he is a good friend of mine and if he is content feeling that way that's ok.