Religion is 'Evil'?

[Woolygimp]

There are idiot Christians, and there are idiot atheists who are repeating the same half-assed rhetoric that a child could disprove and there seem to be a lot of them on this forum. What a waste of time posting here as I thought there would be intelligent people here, since it's an off-set of a poker forum, but I'm guessing a lot of you guys busted your rolls at $5 NL.

So you guys feel that religion is evil and has caused nothing but suffering. You quote Hitler and the Crusades as your 'proof'.

I'll start off by saying religion doesn't start wars. Ideologies start wars as they are a peoples strongest beliefs. Conflict is our nature, and it usually arises from things that we oppose the most.

If a protester burned a peice of paper... nobody would care.
If a protester burned an American flag at the funeral of a dead soldier in Iraq... almost everyone would care.

Communism vs Capitalism was just as dangerous as Islam vs Christianity. It just so happens that to most people their religion is their strongest belief.
Can you convince a Christian God doesn't exist?

What if a Christian tried to tell you that God did exist? You'd show the same amount of resistance, because again atheism itself is an ideology albeit with different core aspects.

To get an objective view on religions effects on society we have to go back several thousand years.

The Romans were a great example. Albeit they had their own gods most historians agree that they weren't as religious as say the Greeks, or the Persians.

Now do some research on Roman culture, and compare it to ours. Humans rights were almost non-existent. They conquered a town? They'd have no qualms with killing everyone in it, or enslaving the rest [George Bush wasn't alive so don't even try to blame the mass murder of the Romans on him].

The American Indians didn't have a centralized religion, so are you saying that they never fought with each other? Yeah, I hope by now you are realizing just how dumb those of you that put out this nonsense actually are. Again the Indians would have no problems murdering everyone in a conquered village.

So let's get with the most modern examples, Hitler and the Crusades.

Christianity is evil because they slaughtered the inhabitants of Jerusalem?

[ QUOTE ]
The difference between that and Christianity is that when Christianity was spread by the edge of the sword it was done so in contradistinction to the actually teachings of Christianity. This is when individual people who claim to be Christians actually did things that were inconsistent with their faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitler wasn't a Christian, and was in fact an atheist and a lunatic.

Stalin was an atheist, he murdered twice as many people as Hitler.

Hirohito was an atheist, he murdered three times as many people as Hitler.

There are evil people capable of massive amounts of suffering and harm everywhere, and they aren't limited to a specific group.

Let's do some reasoning. There's a person who's going to die, and his life sucks. He believes that he will be held accountable for his actions in the afterlife.

Would he be more or less likely to go to a school/mall/public place, such as Virginia Tech, and kill dozens of people?

Does anyone wanna actually argue this weak point, or can we all assume posters like 'M Theory' are jackasses?

[Neuge]

Proposing ridiculous strawmans that no one here holds to call some posters "jackasses" is a really endearing quality.

[ QUOTE ]
So you guys feel that religion is evil and has caused nothing but suffering. You quote Hitler and the Crusades as your 'proof'.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone says religion is inherently evil and has never anything but suffering. There are many positive aspects of religion, and many people use it to better their lives and help others. But you cannot say that religion hasn't inspired abominable actions by its followers. Saying that Christians who perpetrate such things are not following Christian doctrine, and therefore are not being motivated by their faith is wrong. No matter what the teachings of Christianity and how much their actions were opposed to it, they were still inspired by and fighting for their religion.

Also, citing the atheist who have committed horrible atrocities does not imply they were undertaken because of atheism like the picture you are trying to paint. There are several issues that humans war over, and religion happens to be one of them. It's not always the main reason for a conflict, or even a reason at all, but humans do and have warred over it.

[Woolygimp]

Well this post wasn't directed towards you, but at those who believe that religion was the single great detriment to the human race.

[ QUOTE ]
I've had some people that have told me when I've brought this up, "That's not a fair defense. You can't simply say that those people who committed the Crusades or the Inquisition or the witch burnings weren't real Christians. That's illegitimate." My response is, why? We know what a real Christian is. A real Christian is someone who believes particular things and lives a particular kind of lifestyle. John makes it clear that those who consistently live unrighteously are ipso facto by definition not part of the faith. So why is it illegitimate for me to look at people who claim to be Christians, yet live unrighteous lives, and promote genocide to say that these people aren't living consistently with the text, therefore you can't really call them Christians. I think that's legitimate.



For example, no one would fault the Hippocratic Oath, which is a very rigid standard of conduct for physicians, just because there are doctors who don't keep it. We wouldn't say there's something wrong with the oath, the code that they allegedly follow. We'd say there was something wrong with the individuals who don't live up to the ideals of that code. That is the case frequently where people waving the Bible in one hand are also waving a bloody sword in the other. The two are inconsistent. So it's not fair or reasonable to fault the Bible when the person who's waving the sword is doing things that are contradictory to what the Bible teaches ought to be done

[/ QUOTE ]

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Well this post wasn't directed towards you, but at those who believe that religion was the single great detriment to the human race.

[ QUOTE ]
I've had some people that have told me when I've brought this up, "That's not a fair defense. You can't simply say that those people who committed the Crusades or the Inquisition or the witch burnings weren't real Christians. That's illegitimate." My response is, why? We know what a real Christian is. A real Christian is someone who believes particular things and lives a particular kind of lifestyle. John makes it clear that those who consistently live unrighteously are ipso facto by definition not part of the faith. So why is it illegitimate for me to look at people who claim to be Christians, yet live unrighteous lives, and promote genocide to say that these people aren't living consistently with the text, therefore you can't really call them Christians. I think that's legitimate.



For example, no one would fault the Hippocratic Oath, which is a very rigid standard of conduct for physicians, just because there are doctors who don't keep it. We wouldn't say there's something wrong with the oath, the code that they allegedly follow. We'd say there was something wrong with the individuals who don't live up to the ideals of that code. That is the case frequently where people waving the Bible in one hand are also waving a bloody sword in the other. The two are inconsistent. So it's not fair or reasonable to fault the Bible when the person who's waving the sword is doing things that are contradictory to what the Bible teaches ought to be done

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's so much that people think that the actual tenets of a particular religion are evil.

I think the "religion is evil" idea stems from the fact that religion often encourages people to do as they are told and to not question things. Basically, religion requires you to take certain things on faith and can lead to a mindset where you don't think critically about things. This can lead to people to really crazy things, including evil acts, without ever taking a step back to understand what they are doing.

I personally don't believe it's a very good argument against religion as a whole. I just don't agree that religion necessarily leads to fundamentalism. It is a danger that should be guarded against, but I think you're right when you say that almost any ideology can lead to fundamentalism.

[arahant]

It's unfortunate that the facts aren't on your side here. You can say things like "I reason that religious people are less likely to do such and such", but that doesn't make it true - it just highlights a flaw in your reasoning.

After all, I would reason that religious people are less likely to get divorced, but the opposite is true.

I would reason that there would be more atheists per capita in prison, since we have no fear of hell, but the opposite is true.

And before you make an ass of yourself any further, you should probably recognize that the people you are arguing with aren't just irreligious...they're also a lot smarter than you, and groundless ad hominen attacks aren't going to help your argument.

But thanks for stopping by and raising this interesting point. We hadn't seen it before here.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
It's unfortunate that the facts aren't on your side here. You can say things like "I reason that religious people are less likely to do such and such", but that doesn't make it true - it just highlights a flaw in your reasoning.

After all, I would reason that religious people are less likely to get divorced, but the opposite is true.

I would reason that there would be more atheists per capita in prison, since we have no fear of hell, but the opposite is true.

And before you make an ass of yourself any further, you should probably recognize that the people you are arguing with aren't just irreligious...they're also a lot smarter than you, and groundless ad hominen attacks aren't going to help your argument.

But thanks for stopping by and raising this interesting point. We hadn't seen it before here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm so impressed that you have a level of intelligence to replace simple English phrases with those a Latin background. Do you speak Latin as well?

Impoverished people are more likely to commit crime, but it's also a lot more likely these same people are more likely to turn to religion.

The majority of people who are in prison are there for simple narcotic crimes, not murder. Again the facts are on my side Prima Facie, because the mass murderers of the 20th century are almost all unilaterally atheist.

How are my conclusions more flawed than the assumption you just made regarding my intelligence level. I'm sure that you are able to grasp the level of my intelligence by reading one post, and then assume that all 'irreligious' are automatically of a higher capacity of thought. It's these absolutes that prove that you are not of Ne Plus Ultra, and your post was far from Magnuum Opus.

You're entire statement is Ipse Dixit, and it makes me Ad Nauseam because your ignorance is Ad Infinitum. Increase your skills relating to A Priori, because your A posteriori is flawed due to Res Ipsa Loquitur.

Wait. This is an english forum, but I guess using latin makes me appear smarter than I actually am.

Thanks, buddy.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
What a waste of time posting here as I thought there would be intelligent people here, since it's an off-set of a poker forum, but I'm guessing a lot of you guys busted your rolls at $5 NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

now that you know...

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you convince a Christian God doesn't exist?


[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, yeah, believe it or not a lot of atheists were raised as Christians.

[KreellKeiser]

[ QUOTE ]
Hitler wasn't a Christian, and was in fact an atheist and a lunatic.

[/ QUOTE ]

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Adolf Hitler wrote that in Mein Kampf. Get your facts straight before you make an absurd argument.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
Was Hitler a Christian?
By John Baskette - but the information came from Marty Helgesen in a soc.religion.christian post.

The claim is sometimes made that Hitler was a Christian - a Roman Catholic until the day he died. In fact, Hitler rejected Christianity.

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, [censored]? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:

There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your next absurd claim? That Stalin and Hirohito were secretly Christian as well?

The Hirohito killed the tens of millions of Chinese so he could get to the Jews to exterminate them as well?


The capacity of thought in this forum is lower than that of BB4Life but at least they don't pretend that they know what they are talking about w/ exception to Taraz. I think your reply had a lot of merit, and made a valid point.

[KreellKeiser]

[ QUOTE ]
Stalin was an atheist, he murdered twice as many people as Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he was. But keep in mind that Soviet Communism (especially under Stalin) functioend essentiaally the same way religions do. It was taken on faith that Stalin was always right, that communism was the best system, etc. This caused people to fail to reasonably examine their situation and, much like religions, caused much suffering as a result.

It's not necessarily "religion" that is the problem, but rather "faith" in an ideology with no basis in reality.

And as a point of clarification, an atheist is merely someone who does not believe in god or gods. Nothing more. If you want to criticize Secular Humanists, or some other philosophical view of the world, go ahead.

Your ignorance is astounding.

[KreellKeiser]

EVEN IF you "prove" that Hitler was not a Christian, National Socialism functioned in the same way that Soviet Communism did (see my previous post). The function and result is the same as a religion.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
EVEN IF you "prove" that Hitler was not a Christian, National Socialism functioned in the same way that Soviet Communism did (see my previous post). The function and result is the same as a religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I have little faith in the human race. There will always be people of varying intelligence, and the ones at the lowest tier (the majority of us) will always take what is given to them without much reasoning as long as it is presented in certain fashion.

Then there are the lunatics, murderers without compassion.
Today these people have the capacity to inflict far more damage than ever before, with larger and more deadly weapons.

Imagine if we tried to colonize space and produce space stations. One person could set an explosive and kill everyone on board, it's just disheartening as there will always be people who are capable of such actions.

Saying that atheism doesn't have these classes of people [people without the capacity for reasoning/lunatics/murderers] while Christianity does (which you are implying) then you are very, very wrong.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
This is an english forum, but I guess using latin makes me appear smarter than I actually am.

[/ QUOTE ]
Heh. No. But your posting gives a pretty good idea of how smart you are. Regarding your general view of the posters in this forum, you seem to be highly ignorant -- to say the least.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
Saying that atheism doesn't have these classes of people [people without the capacity for reasoning/lunatics/murderers] while Christianity does (which you are implying) then you are very, very wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely no one said or even implied that.

[KreellKeiser]

[ QUOTE ]
This is why I have little faith in the human race. There will always be people of varying intelligence, and the ones at the lowest tier (the majority of us) will always take what is given to them without much reasoning as long as it is presented in certain fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can agree with you there.

[ QUOTE ]
Saying that atheism doesn't have these classes of people [people without the capacity for reasoning/lunatics/murderers] while Christianity does (which you are implying) then you are very, very wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never implied such a thing. And again you are confusing the term atheist. The point that I am trying to make is that religion (by way of the faith it requires) allows such simple-minded people as you mentioned above to think that it's OK to never think critically about the world around them. When billions of people are brought up to believe that it's just fine to believe something with no rational basis, there will inevitably be problem.

If everyone was an atheist, of course there would still be many problems in the world. But at least it would compel more people to thiink critically about those problems.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Well this post wasn't directed towards you, but at those who believe that religion was the single great detriment to the human race.

[ QUOTE ]
I've had some people that have told me when I've brought this up, "That's not a fair defense. You can't simply say that those people who committed the Crusades or the Inquisition or the witch burnings weren't real Christians. That's illegitimate." My response is, why? We know what a real Christian is. A real Christian is someone who believes particular things and lives a particular kind of lifestyle. John makes it clear that those who consistently live unrighteously are ipso facto by definition not part of the faith. So why is it illegitimate for me to look at people who claim to be Christians, yet live unrighteous lives, and promote genocide to say that these people aren't living consistently with the text, therefore you can't really call them Christians. I think that's legitimate.



For example, no one would fault the Hippocratic Oath, which is a very rigid standard of conduct for physicians, just because there are doctors who don't keep it. We wouldn't say there's something wrong with the oath, the code that they allegedly follow. We'd say there was something wrong with the individuals who don't live up to the ideals of that code. That is the case frequently where people waving the Bible in one hand are also waving a bloody sword in the other. The two are inconsistent. So it's not fair or reasonable to fault the Bible when the person who's waving the sword is doing things that are contradictory to what the Bible teaches ought to be done

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

So there are no Christians. Good to know.

[Neuge]

Also, are you really taking exception to the use of "ad hominem" as some sort of intellectually high-brow insult?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Was Hitler a Christian?
By John Baskette - but the information came from Marty Helgesen in a soc.religion.christian post.

The claim is sometimes made that Hitler was a Christian - a Roman Catholic until the day he died. In fact, Hitler rejected Christianity.

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, [censored]? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:

There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your next absurd claim? That Stalin and Hirohito were secretly Christian as well?

The Hirohito killed the tens of millions of Chinese so he could get to the Jews to exterminate them as well?


The capacity of thought in this forum is lower than that of BB4Life but at least they don't pretend that they know what they are talking about w/ exception to Taraz. I think your reply had a lot of merit, and made a valid point.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, the only options are Christian or Atheist, huh? He couldn't have been some other kind of theist?

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]


So, the only options are Christian or Atheist, huh? He couldn't have been some other kind of theist?

[/ QUOTE ]

The only option is atheist. I'm a history buff, both Hirohito and Stalin were very, very against religion.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


So, the only options are Christian or Atheist, huh? He couldn't have been some other kind of theist?

[/ QUOTE ]

The only option is atheist. I'm a history buff, both Hirohito and Stalin were very, very against religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to be much more clear in your terms, at least in your posts and probably in your own mind. Many, many theists are very against religion.

But again, why do you speak of Stalin as an atheist but only speak of Hitler as "non-Christian?" Was Hitler an atheist, or just non-Christian? If he was a theist, you are in some trouble...and I think you know that.

[Ben K]

Your definition of Christianity is exactly that - yours. The fact that some evil people do things that they believe are consistent with their faith shows that your version of christianity is not universal. I acknowledge you do probably the majority view though.

Dominionist christians openly talk about getting into power in the states, making homosexuality illegal and then trying and executing every one they find.
Rabbi's still practice the habit of performing a circumcision, and removing it from the boy by sucking it off.
Islam still promotes the practice of female circumcision which is basically mutilation because there is no medical need where there maybe for boys.
The Catholic church still tries to restrict the use of condoms in Africa despite the high level of aids and the research (you know, where people don't fffing make it up) that says promoting condom use and educating women always reduces aids prevalence.
Evangelical christians actively teach children that the world is only 6,000 years old. Children who have no idea how to critically analyse the information they're given are brainwashed into believing lies.

Perhaps these are isolated incidents of idiot religious types that you speak of. But then, perhaps not. In Entrea (state in Africa), 94% (est from New Scientist) of women are circumcised. A Rabbi in Canada who killed one boy and brain damaged another by passing on herpes (or whatever that virus is that most of us carry - gives cold sores) and he still does it because the court didn't have the balls to ban him. I've seen pictures of road side signs promoting evolution as evil and the work of the devil.

[ QUOTE ]

I'll start off by saying religion doesn't start wars. Ideologies start wars as they are a peoples strongest beliefs. ....... It just so happens that to most people their religion is their strongest belief.


[/ QUOTE ]

Eh? Religion is an ideology as "it is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things", therefore religion starts wars - by your own reasoning. Yet you start that paragraph by saying religions don't start wars. Hmm....

Of course, atheism might fall into the ideology bracket but, unlike religion, it does not have a doctrine. It does not set out right or wrong. It does not give justification for any particular behaviour. In fact Wiki further offers "the purpose of an ideology is to offer change in society through a normative thought process (what the world ought to be)" but atheism doesn't offer that so it is less of an ideology than religion is, if it is at all. You're confusing the behaviour of a bunch of people who want to rid the world of religion with atheists which is simply the superset that contains that group.

Many christians have attempted to argue god's existence and the atheists on this site generally give a good listen. But they're not convincing and the logic is often circular. We almost always stalemate at, can you have truth that is subjective and without evidence? One side says no, the other yes. PairTheBoard calls it the central issue gap or something like that and he includes lots of capitals to make it look important too.

You are of course right that lots of people do evil things and it's not really isolated to one specific group. But how many instances of ongoing daily evil can you find that are done because atheism tells them to do it and supports them in their actions???? None, because there isn't an atheism doctrine. Christianity's counterpart in these discussions is not atheism, the closest you can get is humanism. Given my 5 examples of daily evil at the top of this thread, see if you can find 5 examples of daily evil committed by humanists, which are supported by humanism. Good luck.

Of course, for every bible quote like the one you mention from John, people can find others like the one where Jesus said he did not come in peace but with a sword. You can get anything you want out of the bible. There's no guide to interpretation and people who want to good can find just as much supportive information as people who want to do evil. It's just a frickin' book.

As for you reasoning example. His action would be entirely consistent with what he's taught about the best way to get into the afterlife. If that means killing a bunch of people then he'd do it. If that meant giving away all your possessions and serving the poor then he'd do that. What exactly is your point here?

Sorry for the grumpy response.

As for my view on it.. Well, I think we'd be better off without those daily evils that are perpetuated by religion. I support the media hype against religion not because it will end with a world with no religion but because, hopefully, it will end with people more wary of accepting stupid and idiotic ideas in the name of religion. Just a bit of conciousness raising. In any war of words, you end up with compromise. Let's call for the end of religion and the compromise of people being more wary, a bit more educated and able to speak out against people pushing made up ideas as 'truth' will be enough.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
Your definition of Christianity is exactly that - yours. The fact that some evil people do things that they believe are consistent with their faith shows that your version of christianity is not universal. I acknowledge you do probably the majority view though.

Dominionist christians openly talk about getting into power in the states, making homosexuality illegal and then trying and executing every one they find.
Rabbi's still practice the habit of performing a circumcision, and removing it from the boy by sucking it off.
Islam still promotes the practice of female circumcision which is basically mutilation because there is no medical need where there maybe for boys.
The Catholic church still tries to restrict the use of condoms in Africa despite the high level of aids and the research (you know, where people don't fffing make it up) that says promoting condom use and educating women always reduces aids prevalence.
Evangelical christians actively teach children that the world is only 6,000 years old. Children who have no idea how to critically analyse the information they're given are brainwashed into believing lies.

Perhaps these are isolated incidents of idiot religious types that you speak of. But then, perhaps not. In Entrea (state in Africa), 94% (est from New Scientist) of women are circumcised. A Rabbi in Canada who killed one boy and brain damaged another by passing on herpes (or whatever that virus is that most of us carry - gives cold sores) and he still does it because the court didn't have the balls to ban him. I've seen pictures of road side signs promoting evolution as evil and the work of the devil.

[ QUOTE ]

I'll start off by saying religion doesn't start wars. Ideologies start wars as they are a peoples strongest beliefs. ....... It just so happens that to most people their religion is their strongest belief.


[/ QUOTE ]

Eh? Religion is an ideology as "it is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things", therefore religion starts wars - by your own reasoning. Yet you start that paragraph by saying religions don't start wars. Hmm....

Of course, atheism might fall into the ideology bracket but, unlike religion, it does not have a doctrine. It does not set out right or wrong. It does not give justification for any particular behaviour. In fact Wiki further offers "the purpose of an ideology is to offer change in society through a normative thought process (what the world ought to be)" but atheism doesn't offer that so it is less of an ideology than religion is, if it is at all. You're confusing the behaviour of a bunch of people who want to rid the world of religion with atheists which is simply the superset that contains that group.

Many christians have attempted to argue god's existence and the atheists on this site generally give a good listen. But they're not convincing and the logic is often circular. We almost always stalemate at, can you have truth that is subjective and without evidence? One side says no, the other yes. PairTheBoard calls it the central issue gap or something like that and he includes lots of capitals to make it look important too.

You are of course right that lots of people do evil things and it's not really isolated to one specific group. But how many instances of ongoing daily evil can you find that are done because atheism tells them to do it and supports them in their actions???? None, because there isn't an atheism doctrine. Christianity's counterpart in these discussions is not atheism, the closest you can get is humanism. Given my 5 examples of daily evil at the top of this thread, see if you can find 5 examples of daily evil committed by humanists, which are supported by humanism. Good luck.

Of course, for every bible quote like the one you mention from John, people can find others like the one where Jesus said he did not come in peace but with a sword. You can get anything you want out of the bible. There's no guide to interpretation and people who want to good can find just as much supportive information as people who want to do evil. It's just a frickin' book.

As for you reasoning example. His action would be entirely consistent with what he's taught about the best way to get into the afterlife. If that means killing a bunch of people then he'd do it. If that meant giving away all your possessions and serving the poor then he'd do that. What exactly is your point here?

Sorry for the grumpy response.

As for my view on it.. Well, I think we'd be better off without those daily evils that are perpetuated by religion. I support the media hype against religion not because it will end with a world with no religion but because, hopefully, it will end with people more wary of accepting stupid and idiotic ideas in the name of religion. Just a bit of conciousness raising. In any war of words, you end up with compromise. Let's call for the end of religion and the compromise of people being more wary, a bit more educated and able to speak out against people pushing made up ideas as 'truth' will be enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good response, and I misworded that statement you quoted me on. Religion is definitely an ideology and is capable of starting wars, but I'm against people with some idea of Christianity as some great evil.

See, Is I've said in my other post I don't know what to believe at the moment and I'm trying to figure that out. The only reason I'm arguing for the sake of religion is because I feel that it's wrong for people to assume that it's some evil enterprise when so many other things can be lumped in the same category.

However, a lot of what you said is what I've been asking in other posts. People accepting mindless doctrine? Anything, and everything can be taught to a child, and that child will grow up and live the rest of his life with those beliefs the majority of the time.

You should read the other post I have on this forum, as it deals with free choice etc., and I'm looking for viewpoints from both the atheists here, and the Christians. It's a shame that that thread got de-railed for the most part because someone wants to go on about how Christianity is responsible for Hitler and what not.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your definition of Christianity is exactly that - yours. The fact that some evil people do things that they believe are consistent with their faith shows that your version of christianity is not universal. I acknowledge you do probably the majority view though.

Dominionist christians openly talk about getting into power in the states, making homosexuality illegal and then trying and executing every one they find.
Rabbi's still practice the habit of performing a circumcision, and removing it from the boy by sucking it off.
Islam still promotes the practice of female circumcision which is basically mutilation because there is no medical need where there maybe for boys.
The Catholic church still tries to restrict the use of condoms in Africa despite the high level of aids and the research (you know, where people don't fffing make it up) that says promoting condom use and educating women always reduces aids prevalence.
Evangelical christians actively teach children that the world is only 6,000 years old. Children who have no idea how to critically analyse the information they're given are brainwashed into believing lies.

Perhaps these are isolated incidents of idiot religious types that you speak of. But then, perhaps not. In Entrea (state in Africa), 94% (est from New Scientist) of women are circumcised. A Rabbi in Canada who killed one boy and brain damaged another by passing on herpes (or whatever that virus is that most of us carry - gives cold sores) and he still does it because the court didn't have the balls to ban him. I've seen pictures of road side signs promoting evolution as evil and the work of the devil.

[ QUOTE ]

I'll start off by saying religion doesn't start wars. Ideologies start wars as they are a peoples strongest beliefs. ....... It just so happens that to most people their religion is their strongest belief.


[/ QUOTE ]

Eh? Religion is an ideology as "it is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things", therefore religion starts wars - by your own reasoning. Yet you start that paragraph by saying religions don't start wars. Hmm....

Of course, atheism might fall into the ideology bracket but, unlike religion, it does not have a doctrine. It does not set out right or wrong. It does not give justification for any particular behaviour. In fact Wiki further offers "the purpose of an ideology is to offer change in society through a normative thought process (what the world ought to be)" but atheism doesn't offer that so it is less of an ideology than religion is, if it is at all. You're confusing the behaviour of a bunch of people who want to rid the world of religion with atheists which is simply the superset that contains that group.

Many christians have attempted to argue god's existence and the atheists on this site generally give a good listen. But they're not convincing and the logic is often circular. We almost always stalemate at, can you have truth that is subjective and without evidence? One side says no, the other yes. PairTheBoard calls it the central issue gap or something like that and he includes lots of capitals to make it look important too.

You are of course right that lots of people do evil things and it's not really isolated to one specific group. But how many instances of ongoing daily evil can you find that are done because atheism tells them to do it and supports them in their actions???? None, because there isn't an atheism doctrine. Christianity's counterpart in these discussions is not atheism, the closest you can get is humanism. Given my 5 examples of daily evil at the top of this thread, see if you can find 5 examples of daily evil committed by humanists, which are supported by humanism. Good luck.

Of course, for every bible quote like the one you mention from John, people can find others like the one where Jesus said he did not come in peace but with a sword. You can get anything you want out of the bible. There's no guide to interpretation and people who want to good can find just as much supportive information as people who want to do evil. It's just a frickin' book.

As for you reasoning example. His action would be entirely consistent with what he's taught about the best way to get into the afterlife. If that means killing a bunch of people then he'd do it. If that meant giving away all your possessions and serving the poor then he'd do that. What exactly is your point here?

Sorry for the grumpy response.

As for my view on it.. Well, I think we'd be better off without those daily evils that are perpetuated by religion. I support the media hype against religion not because it will end with a world with no religion but because, hopefully, it will end with people more wary of accepting stupid and idiotic ideas in the name of religion. Just a bit of conciousness raising. In any war of words, you end up with compromise. Let's call for the end of religion and the compromise of people being more wary, a bit more educated and able to speak out against people pushing made up ideas as 'truth' will be enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good response, and I misworded that statement you quoted me on. Religion is definitely an ideology and is capable of starting wars, but I'm against people with some idea of Christianity as some great evil.

See, Is I've said in my other post I don't know what to believe at the moment and I'm trying to figure that out. The only reason I'm arguing for the sake of religion is because I feel that it's wrong for people to assume that it's some evil enterprise when so many other things can be lumped in the same category.

However, a lot of what you said is what I've been asking in other posts. People accepting mindless doctrine? Anything, and everything can be taught to a child, and that child will grow up and live the rest of his life with those beliefs the majority of the time.

You should read the other post I have on this forum, as it deals with free choice etc., and I'm looking for viewpoints from both the atheists here, and the Christians. It's a shame that that thread got de-railed for the most part because someone wants to go on about how Christianity is responsible for Hitler and what not.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if I think Christianity is evil, completely irrespective of the actions of any Christians? Am I still an idiot? I'm not falling for any more of your No True Scotsman bs.

Hint: I do.

Also, YOU are the one who brought up Hitler, Stalin et al (oops, Latin), lets not forget that. You brought them up to refute my guess that atheists and theists would act in a similar fashion on certain morality tests. Lets not kid ourselves and lay blame where it doesn't belong.

[Woolygimp]

Vhawk, do you like de-railing threads by making weak argumentative statements with little to no bearing on where the conversation is headed?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Vhawk, do you like de-railing threads by making weak argumentative statements with little to no bearing on where the conversation is headed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm....the thread topic is 'Religion is 'Evil?'' and my post was talking about how I think Christianity is evil. Sorry if thats off-topic?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
What if a Christian tried to tell you that God did exist? You'd show the same amount of resistance

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong, although a rational person might want some evidence first.

[Lestat]

*You are correct that conflict is in our nature and that religion is just another such conflict. But it's a most ridiculous conflict, since it involves an invisible being and imaginary fantasies. So even if what you say is true, why not try and eliminate such a senseless need for conflict?

** I'd be willing to bet that the V.Tech shooter was in some way religious and not an atheist. I can say this, because people who commit such crimes are much more likely to be delusional. Atheists are less likely to be delusional. I realize that's a pretty bold statement and if you can prove me wrong, please do so.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
*You are correct that conflict is in our nature and that religion is just another such conflict. But it's a most ridiculous conflict, since it involves an invisible being and imaginary fantasies. So even if what you say is true, why not try and eliminate such a senseless need for conflict?

** I'd be willing to bet that the V.Tech shooter was in some way religious and not an atheist. I can say this, because people who commit such crimes are much more likely to be delusional. Atheists are less likely to be delusional. I realize that's a pretty bold statement and if you can prove me wrong, please do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of that is why the shooter was an overwhelming favorite to not be an atheist.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a shame that that thread got de-railed for the most part because someone wants to go on about how Christianity is responsible for Hitler and what not.

[/ QUOTE ]

An OP usually sets the tone for a thread, and you opened up yours with this rant:

[ QUOTE ]
There are idiot Christians, and there are idiot atheists who are repeating the same half-assed rhetoric that a child could disprove and there seem to be a lot of them on this forum. What a waste of time posting here as I thought there would be intelligent people here, since it's an off-set of a poker forum, but I'm guessing a lot of you guys busted your rolls at $5 NL.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good luck with that.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a shame that that thread got de-railed for the most part because someone wants to go on about how Christianity is responsible for Hitler and what not.

[/ QUOTE ]

An OP usually sets the tone for a thread, and you opened up yours with this rant:

[ QUOTE ]
There are idiot Christians, and there are idiot atheists who are repeating the same half-assed rhetoric that a child could disprove and there seem to be a lot of them on this forum. What a waste of time posting here as I thought there would be intelligent people here, since it's an off-set of a poker forum, but I'm guessing a lot of you guys busted your rolls at $5 NL.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good luck with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its kind of awesome, actually, because it puts your thread in a little perspective. I'm not making fun of you, but you started a thread here not long ago and did some of the same things the OP is doing, e.g. being snippy and combative with people who offered replies. You realized your error as the thread went along, and you weren't nearly as ridiculous as this guy, but its a little comical, to me anyhow. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Lestat]

So are you implying that the reason there is such a disproportionate prison population who are theists, is just sample size? I'd argue that. I'm sure there are studies to show that it's out of proportion even to what would be expected given the ratio of atheists to theists in society. I'm talking serious crimes like murder.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a shame that that thread got de-railed for the most part because someone wants to go on about how Christianity is responsible for Hitler and what not.

[/ QUOTE ]

An OP usually sets the tone for a thread, and you opened up yours with this rant:

[ QUOTE ]
There are idiot Christians, and there are idiot atheists who are repeating the same half-assed rhetoric that a child could disprove and there seem to be a lot of them on this forum. What a waste of time posting here as I thought there would be intelligent people here, since it's an off-set of a poker forum, but I'm guessing a lot of you guys busted your rolls at $5 NL.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good luck with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its kind of awesome, actually, because it puts your thread in a little perspective. I'm not making fun of you, but you started a thread here not long ago and did some of the same things the OP is doing, e.g. being snippy and combative with people who offered replies. You realized your error as the thread went along, and you weren't nearly as ridiculous as this guy, but its a little comical, to me anyhow. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread arose because of M-Theories ridiculous claims, and the other one was going completely off-topic. I was singling him out, because there's no you could possibly be logical and agree with his statement, the statement that this thread was posted to refute.

[Lestat]

I'm not aware of anyone here who says religion is the "single great detriment to the human race". Religion has it's upside. But it is a detriment here in the year 2007, to rely on books and statements from superstistious people who lived thousands of years ago.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
So are you implying that the reason there is such a disproportionate prison population who are theists, is just sample size? I'd argue that. I'm sure there are studies to show that it's out of proportion even to what would be expected given the ratio of atheists to theists in society. I'm talking serious crimes like murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, thats a difference question entirely. I mean, your points probably have SOME bearing on this specific case, but by far the most salient factor is the small % of the population who are atheists. Even if atheists were ten times as likely to go on shooting sprees, he would still be a favorite to be a theist.

[BPA234]

Most of the people in prison claim to be religious. Almost all of them believe in a God. Therefore, religious people are way more likely to commit crimes than atheists.

Obviously.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's unfortunate that the facts aren't on your side here. You can say things like "I reason that religious people are less likely to do such and such", but that doesn't make it true - it just highlights a flaw in your reasoning.

After all, I would reason that religious people are less likely to get divorced, but the opposite is true.

I would reason that there would be more atheists per capita in prison, since we have no fear of hell, but the opposite is true.

And before you make an ass of yourself any further, you should probably recognize that the people you are arguing with aren't just irreligious...they're also a lot smarter than you, and groundless ad hominen attacks aren't going to help your argument.

But thanks for stopping by and raising this interesting point. We hadn't seen it before here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm so impressed that you have a level of intelligence to replace simple English phrases with those a Latin background. Do you speak Latin as well?

Impoverished people are more likely to commit crime, but it's also a lot more likely these same people are more likely to turn to religion.

The majority of people who are in prison are there for simple narcotic crimes, not murder. Again the facts are on my side Prima Facie, because the mass murderers of the 20th century are almost all unilaterally atheist.

How are my conclusions more flawed than the assumption you just made regarding my intelligence level. I'm sure that you are able to grasp the level of my intelligence by reading one post, and then assume that all 'irreligious' are automatically of a higher capacity of thought. It's these absolutes that prove that you are not of Ne Plus Ultra, and your post was far from Magnuum Opus.

You're entire statement is Ipse Dixit, and it makes me Ad Nauseam because your ignorance is Ad Infinitum. Increase your skills relating to A Priori, because your A posteriori is flawed due to Res Ipsa Loquitur.

Wait. This is an english forum, but I guess using latin makes me appear smarter than I actually am.

Thanks, buddy.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's funny is that you probably think this is a witty response.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's unfortunate that the facts aren't on your side here. You can say things like "I reason that religious people are less likely to do such and such", but that doesn't make it true - it just highlights a flaw in your reasoning.

After all, I would reason that religious people are less likely to get divorced, but the opposite is true.

I would reason that there would be more atheists per capita in prison, since we have no fear of hell, but the opposite is true.

And before you make an ass of yourself any further, you should probably recognize that the people you are arguing with aren't just irreligious...they're also a lot smarter than you, and groundless ad hominen attacks aren't going to help your argument.

But thanks for stopping by and raising this interesting point. We hadn't seen it before here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm so impressed that you have a level of intelligence to replace simple English phrases with those a Latin background. Do you speak Latin as well?

Impoverished people are more likely to commit crime, but it's also a lot more likely these same people are more likely to turn to religion.

The majority of people who are in prison are there for simple narcotic crimes, not murder. Again the facts are on my side Prima Facie, because the mass murderers of the 20th century are almost all unilaterally atheist.

How are my conclusions more flawed than the assumption you just made regarding my intelligence level. I'm sure that you are able to grasp the level of my intelligence by reading one post, and then assume that all 'irreligious' are automatically of a higher capacity of thought. It's these absolutes that prove that you are not of Ne Plus Ultra, and your post was far from Magnuum Opus.

You're entire statement is Ipse Dixit, and it makes me Ad Nauseam because your ignorance is Ad Infinitum. Increase your skills relating to A Priori, because your A posteriori is flawed due to Res Ipsa Loquitur.

Wait. This is an english forum, but I guess using latin makes me appear smarter than I actually am.

Thanks, buddy.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's funny is that you probably think this is a witty response.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's funnier is that you probably think this is a witty response.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not making fun of you,

[/ QUOTE ]
Liar

[ QUOTE ]
but you started a thread here not long ago and did some of the same things the OP is doing, e.g. being snippy and combative with people who offered replies.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't the OP, just a first-responder who go a little carried away.

[ QUOTE ]
You realized your error as the thread went along

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I learned my lesson. But rest assured, if an obnoxious, caustic, or silly response is needed -- I'll be there. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's unfortunate that the facts aren't on your side here. You can say things like "I reason that religious people are less likely to do such and such", but that doesn't make it true - it just highlights a flaw in your reasoning.

After all, I would reason that religious people are less likely to get divorced, but the opposite is true.

I would reason that there would be more atheists per capita in prison, since we have no fear of hell, but the opposite is true.

And before you make an ass of yourself any further, you should probably recognize that the people you are arguing with aren't just irreligious...they're also a lot smarter than you, and groundless ad hominen attacks aren't going to help your argument.

But thanks for stopping by and raising this interesting point. We hadn't seen it before here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm so impressed that you have a level of intelligence to replace simple English phrases with those a Latin background. Do you speak Latin as well?

Impoverished people are more likely to commit crime, but it's also a lot more likely these same people are more likely to turn to religion.

The majority of people who are in prison are there for simple narcotic crimes, not murder. Again the facts are on my side Prima Facie, because the mass murderers of the 20th century are almost all unilaterally atheist.

How are my conclusions more flawed than the assumption you just made regarding my intelligence level. I'm sure that you are able to grasp the level of my intelligence by reading one post, and then assume that all 'irreligious' are automatically of a higher capacity of thought. It's these absolutes that prove that you are not of Ne Plus Ultra, and your post was far from Magnuum Opus.

You're entire statement is Ipse Dixit, and it makes me Ad Nauseam because your ignorance is Ad Infinitum. Increase your skills relating to A Priori, because your A posteriori is flawed due to Res Ipsa Loquitur.

Wait. This is an english forum, but I guess using latin makes me appear smarter than I actually am.

Thanks, buddy.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's funny is that you probably think this is a witty response.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's funnier is that you probably think this is a witty response.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah...anyway...

So your new argument is: Yes, religious people are immoral, but only because:
1) Religion is associated with drug use, and
2) Religion is associated with poverty

Is that about right?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's unfortunate that the facts aren't on your side here. You can say things like "I reason that religious people are less likely to do such and such", but that doesn't make it true - it just highlights a flaw in your reasoning.

After all, I would reason that religious people are less likely to get divorced, but the opposite is true.

I would reason that there would be more atheists per capita in prison, since we have no fear of hell, but the opposite is true.

And before you make an ass of yourself any further, you should probably recognize that the people you are arguing with aren't just irreligious...they're also a lot smarter than you, and groundless ad hominen attacks aren't going to help your argument.

But thanks for stopping by and raising this interesting point. We hadn't seen it before here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm so impressed that you have a level of intelligence to replace simple English phrases with those a Latin background. Do you speak Latin as well?

Impoverished people are more likely to commit crime, but it's also a lot more likely these same people are more likely to turn to religion.

The majority of people who are in prison are there for simple narcotic crimes, not murder. Again the facts are on my side Prima Facie, because the mass murderers of the 20th century are almost all unilaterally atheist.

How are my conclusions more flawed than the assumption you just made regarding my intelligence level. I'm sure that you are able to grasp the level of my intelligence by reading one post, and then assume that all 'irreligious' are automatically of a higher capacity of thought. It's these absolutes that prove that you are not of Ne Plus Ultra, and your post was far from Magnuum Opus.

You're entire statement is Ipse Dixit, and it makes me Ad Nauseam because your ignorance is Ad Infinitum. Increase your skills relating to A Priori, because your A posteriori is flawed due to Res Ipsa Loquitur.

Wait. This is an english forum, but I guess using latin makes me appear smarter than I actually am.

Thanks, buddy.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's funny is that you probably think this is a witty response.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's funnier is that you probably think this is a witty response.

[/ QUOTE ]

what's funniest is... nah...

[vhawk01]

For real, though, Wooly, aren't you interested in arguments about the evil of Christianty that AREN'T complete strawmen?

[Woolygimp]

I think I've made it abundantly clear that I've taken the middle ground, and only made this post in response to:

A) a stupid statement made in my other thread.
B) my other thread getting completely de-railed.
C) I really don't see how people can say that religion has had a net negative influence on humanity, even if you don't believe the doctrine.

There are obviously some other factors to consider, such as prison being a place of duress, and that people are maybe more likely to alter their beliefs there?

[Ben K]

For the most part, I want to forget the details of the past and learn the lessons. This is why I quoted 5 evils committed by the religious, that are happening today, tomorrow and will continue to happen until society turns on them enough.

I will reply to your other post when I get some time. The thread got a bit huge and I'm not a fan of repeating things others have said.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So are you implying that the reason there is such a disproportionate prison population who are theists, is just sample size? I'd argue that. I'm sure there are studies to show that it's out of proportion even to what would be expected given the ratio of atheists to theists in society. I'm talking serious crimes like murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, thats a difference question entirely. I mean, your points probably have SOME bearing on this specific case, but by far the most salient factor is the small % of the population who are atheists. Even if atheists were ten times as likely to go on shooting sprees, he would still be a favorite to be a theist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. It might be interesting to look up (I wish I was more resourceful on the internet). Someone help me out...

Who are some other infamous killers? What categories could be included? Could we include Mark Chapman for example (John Lennon's killer), even though he only killed one person? Or the guy who shot the pope or killed JFK? If we're going to include people like Stalin, then we have to include people like Hussein.


I'm still willing to bet that almost 100% of these people were NOT atheists. At least, I'd be very surprised if even one (non-political leader), were. I think political leaders are a little different, since they have other agendas.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
There are obviously some other factors to consider, such as prison being a place of duress, and that people are maybe more likely to alter their beliefs there?

[/ QUOTE ]

religion and going to prison are both highly correlated with being poor and black, for a start.

[Woolygimp]

Lestat, Stalin was against the very idea of religion. He despised it, and viewed it as a tool of the usurpers against his Marxist state.

He was an atheist.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Lestat, Stalin was against the very idea of religion. He despised it, and viewed it as a tool of the usurpers against his Marxist state.

He was an atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand that these two statements have nothing to do with each other? The first does nothing to support the second. They may both be true, but you aren't supporting them.

[Woolygimp]

Communism isn't a religion. Are you arguing that communism and atheism are mutually exclusive?

I don't see what you're saying...

Stalin was against the very idea of religion.
Stalin was an atheist.

How do these not support each other?

Pol Pot, and Mao Zedong were also atheists.

Name one world leader of the 20th century that was a Christian that committed mass murder, as there are several examples of atheists ordering mass murder.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Lestat, Stalin was against the very idea of religion. He despised it, and viewed it as a tool of the usurpers against his Marxist state.

He was an atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a history buff like you, but I'll take your word on it. But why are compelled to mention Stalin in the first place? No one (at least I don't), denies that atheists are capable of evil too. While the magnitude of his evil was significant, it is still but one example of massacre. If we take ALL examples, many more have had a religious connection.

Again, I feel your point stands and it is a good one... Conflict is in our nature and does not necessarily NEED to have religious connotations. Yet, religion is an underlying theme to more of history's massacres than it is not. I'm not sure it's fair to even bring up religion when there is other political motivation involved.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Name one world leader of the 20th century that was a Christian that committed mass murder </font>

Aren't we discussing "religion" in general as the title of your post suggests? Why are you singling out Christianity? Saddam Hussein was a very recent mass murderer (and a non-atheist), was he not?

Edit: Also, have you heard of a place called, Ireland? I hear there's been a lot of killing there in the 20th century between Protestants and other Christians.

[Woolygimp]

Sorry if I'm using Christianity as the default as I don't know all that much about Islam.

Are the Irish groups killing people because of their differing views of faith, or are they killing people for primarily political purposes?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if I'm using Christianity as the default as I don't know all that much about Islam.

Are the Irish groups killing people because of their differing views of faith, or are they killing people for primarily political purposes?

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest, I'm not that familiar with it either and perhaps I should be if I'm going to bring it up. However, from what I do understand it is a Protestant Vs. Catholic war. It's been going on for some time.

Interestingly, I think most wars are political and the religious issues just add fuel to the fire. They are just another reason to hate, segragate, and kill. I'm sure you are aware that there are radical Mulsims who would like nothing more than to literally saw off your head, for no other reason than you are an infidel Christian and not Islamic. This is the type of thinking I speak of, when I say the world would be better off without religion.

[Woolygimp]

I'd like to think that I'm tolerant of the beliefs of others, meaning you can believe whatever you want to believe as that is a basic human right as a human being.

You're right. Most of these 'religious' conflicts do have strong political roots such as power. As far as the people who would love to saw off my head? People can be indoctrinated to hate regardless of the medium. For instance the link in the other post concerning the 'Christian' family that pickets the funerals of dead soldiers, calling them [censored] lovers or whatever.

People like that exist, and we have to understand that and deal with it, but I think as a whole Christianity has done a lot to further basic human rights and lead us to where we are today regardless of how credible and authentic their doctrine is.

The intolerance is what irks me. Why would a Muslim care what someone else believes, and vice versa? Why would a Christian care if someone is a homosexual?

If you can't tolerate someone else, it leads to hate and against the very idea of religion. So I really do find it funny when I find someone to proclaim to be of a certain faith, yet make proclamations of who or who isn't going to hell.

Proclaiming that their faith is the one true faith...that's my problem with organized religion.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Communism isn't a religion. Are you arguing that communism and atheism are mutually exclusive?

I don't see what you're saying...

Stalin was against the very idea of religion.
Stalin was an atheist.

How do these not support each other?

Pol Pot, and Mao Zedong were also atheists.

Name one world leader of the 20th century that was a Christian that committed mass murder, as there are several examples of atheists ordering mass murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theism has nothing to do with religion. Now do you get my point? The fact that he hated RELIGION has nothing to do with whether he was a theist or not. Many theists hate religion.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if I'm using Christianity as the default as I don't know all that much about Islam.

Are the Irish groups killing people because of their differing views of faith, or are they killing people for primarily political purposes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whats the difference, in this case?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">but I think as a whole Christianity has done a lot to further basic human rights and lead us to where we are today regardless of how credible and authentic their doctrine is.</font>

I think you'll find many who would give you quite an argument here. Subjects like stem cell research, women's rights, gay rights, and abortion come to mind. I can only see how Christianity hampers the advancement of these issues. I'd be more than happy to listen if you can point out the opposite.

<font color="blue"> The intolerance is what irks me. Why would a Muslim care what someone else believes, and vice versa? Why would a Christian care if someone is a homosexual? </font>

You're obviously intelligent and that's why it irks you. But realize many Christians DO in fact care a great deal about whether someone is a homosexual or not. Again, this lends to Christianity being a bane, not an asset to where we are with human rights today.

[Woolygimp]

You can't tell the difference between a person killing another because they aren't Protestant and a person killing another because they don't want to be under the rule of a specific government (i.e. the UK)?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">but I think as a whole Christianity has done a lot to further basic human rights and lead us to where we are today regardless of how credible and authentic their doctrine is.</font>

I think you'll find many who would give you quite an argument here. Subjects like stem cell research, women's rights, gay rights, and abortion come to mind. I can only see how Christianity hampers the advancement of these issues. I'd be more than happy to listen if you can point out the opposite.

<font color="blue"> The intolerance is what irks me. Why would a Muslim care what someone else believes, and vice versa? Why would a Christian care if someone is a homosexual? </font>

You're obviously intelligent and that's why it irks you. But realize many Christians DO in fact care a great deal about whether someone is a homosexual or not. Again, this lends to Christianity being a bane, not an asset to where we are with human rights today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. The problem isn't with the religion, its with the culture of acceptance of faith. This other person wants to be intimately involved in all the details of other peoples lives, he desperately cares about what homosexuals do, and he really wants to restrict it or outlaw it. Well, who cares what he wants, he has no logical basis for thinking he can tell anyone what to do. But wait, he doesn't NEED a logical basis, he simply has faith that it is so. Whether Christianity actually preaches this or not (it does) is irrelevant. If Christianity doesn't, I need only find a faith that does.

This is why we fight this type of thing. Who cares what the specific religion teaches? If its good, then it should be justifiable by other means. If it is wrong, it shouldn't be. But when you accept faith, the entire system is thrown out. Now we are able to justify anything. This is the truly amazing part of the absolute morality debates. I'm not claiming that an absolute morality exists, but that a common one does, or at least can. But with faith, ANY morality is justifiable, we just need to postulate the right God or book.

The Christian can believe whatever he wants. But his ideas, in order to be accepted by the public, need be rationally defensible. Thats all we ask. Faith cannot be used as supporting evidence, because it supports all positions equally.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Name one world leader of the 20th century that was a Christian that committed mass murder, as there are several examples of atheists ordering mass murder.

[/ QUOTE ]
Didnt the united states drop nuclear weapons on civilian populations? Plus some of the events that occurred during the vietnam war could be classified as mass murder no? I dont know who the presidents responsible for these decisions was but I'd make a guess they were christians.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Name one world leader of the 20th century that was a Christian that committed mass murder, as there are several examples of atheists ordering mass murder.

[/ QUOTE ]
Didnt the united states drop nuclear weapons on civilian populations? Plus some of the events that occurred during the vietnam war could be classified as mass murder no? I dont know who the presidents responsible for these decisions was but I'd make a guess they were christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Classic. Last time I checked we did not start World War II, nor did we enter it willingly.

I'm taking a gamble, but I'm going to assume that you are one of the types that call George Bush a child murderer, because we invaded Iraq?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Name one world leader of the 20th century that was a Christian that committed mass murder, as there are several examples of atheists ordering mass murder.

[/ QUOTE ]
Didnt the united states drop nuclear weapons on civilian populations? Plus some of the events that occurred during the vietnam war could be classified as mass murder no? I dont know who the presidents responsible for these decisions was but I'd make a guess they were christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Classic. Last time I checked we did not start World War II, nor did we enter it willingly.

I'm taking a gamble, but I'm going to assume that you are one of the types that call George Bush a child murderer, because we invaded Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's an incorrect assumption and you seem rather defensive. If it's ok for the United States to commit mass murder because it didnt start world war two cant Stalin fall back on a similar defense? (Positing some "reason" for his actions).

Also, the united states was a willing participant in Vietnam - how would you respond to that example?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">but I think as a whole Christianity has done a lot to further basic human rights and lead us to where we are today regardless of how credible and authentic their doctrine is.</font>

I think you'll find many who would give you quite an argument here. Subjects like stem cell research, women's rights, gay rights, and abortion come to mind. I can only see how Christianity hampers the advancement of these issues. I'd be more than happy to listen if you can point out the opposite.

<font color="blue"> The intolerance is what irks me. Why would a Muslim care what someone else believes, and vice versa? Why would a Christian care if someone is a homosexual? </font>

You're obviously intelligent and that's why it irks you. But realize many Christians DO in fact care a great deal about whether someone is a homosexual or not. Again, this lends to Christianity being a bane, not an asset to where we are with human rights today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. The problem isn't with the religion, its with the culture of acceptance of faith. This other person wants to be intimately involved in all the details of other peoples lives, he desperately cares about what homosexuals do, and he really wants to restrict it or outlaw it. Well, who cares what he wants, he has no logical basis for thinking he can tell anyone what to do. But wait, he doesn't NEED a logical basis, he simply has faith that it is so. Whether Christianity actually preaches this or not (it does) is irrelevant. If Christianity doesn't, I need only find a faith that does.

This is why we fight this type of thing. Who cares what the specific religion teaches? If its good, then it should be justifiable by other means. If it is wrong, it shouldn't be. But when you accept faith, the entire system is thrown out. Now we are able to justify anything. This is the truly amazing part of the absolute morality debates. I'm not claiming that an absolute morality exists, but that a common one does, or at least can. But with faith, ANY morality is justifiable, we just need to postulate the right God or book.

The Christian can believe whatever he wants. But his ideas, in order to be accepted by the public, need be rationally defensible. Thats all we ask. Faith cannot be used as supporting evidence, because it supports all positions equally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post vhawk!

[godBoy]

An ok post vhawk!

You make many good points - my irk with the post is where you talk about faith. The sort of faith you are describing I have never ever heard encouraged in a Christian church. I know you are talking about 'religion' in general - but you really are talking about Christianity here.

[ QUOTE ]
But when you accept faith, the entire system is thrown out.

[/ QUOTE ]
A straw man - I agree with you that this flavour of faith is indeed dangerous and needs to be fought - But it's discouraged in the bible and all churches I have ever been in.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
The Chicago Sun-Times reported Monday night that authorities are investigating whether the gunman was a 24-year-old Chinese man who arrived in the U.S. last year on a student visa issued in Shanghai. Police believe three bomb threats on the campus last week may have been attempts by the man to test the campus' security response, the newspaper reported.

[/ QUOTE ]

And since the Chinese are overwhelmingly atheist, it's starting to look like I might be right.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
An ok post vhawk!

You make many good points - my irk with the post is where you talk about faith. The sort of faith you are describing I have never ever heard encouraged in a Christian church. I know you are talking about 'religion' in general - but you really are talking about Christianity here.

[ QUOTE ]
But when you accept faith, the entire system is thrown out.

[/ QUOTE ]
A straw man - I agree with you that this flavour of faith is indeed dangerous and needs to be fought - But it's discouraged in the bible and all churches I have ever been in.

[/ QUOTE ]

The main point is, that we don't need religion to morally guide us in the 21st century. Certainly, 2000 year old books have little to do with today's issues. I can re-hash all the silly things contained in the bible that no person in his right mind would believe or do today (such as killing a wife-to-be for not being a virgin, the condoning of lavery, and so on), but I won't bother because it's been done to death and I'm sure you get the point.

The bottom line is: We don't need religion for morality.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Chicago Sun-Times reported Monday night that authorities are investigating whether the gunman was a 24-year-old Chinese man who arrived in the U.S. last year on a student visa issued in Shanghai. Police believe three bomb threats on the campus last week may have been attempts by the man to test the campus' security response, the newspaper reported.

[/ QUOTE ]

And since the Chinese are overwhelmingly atheist, it's starting to look like I might be right.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whether you are right or not has no impact on the validity of your assumption.

At the time of the University of Texas massacre, would you have made the same assumption about Charles Whitman (it's an all but identical situation)? You would have been wrong.

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Chicago Sun-Times reported Monday night that authorities are investigating whether the gunman was a 24-year-old Chinese man who arrived in the U.S. last year on a student visa issued in Shanghai. Police believe three bomb threats on the campus last week may have been attempts by the man to test the campus' security response, the newspaper reported.

[/ QUOTE ]

And since the Chinese are overwhelmingly atheist, it's starting to look like I might be right.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off thats is extremly false. The Chinese are overwhelmingly non-christian but not athiest. Youve made this mistake many many times in this thread.

Only because of Stalin and Hitler might you be able to claim that more people have died at the hands of athiests. But it should also be pointed out that were it not for the religious enviroment of Europe in the early 20th century Hitler would not have been able to murder so many. So an athiest killed alot of people but religion was certainly complicit.

This is a pretty worthless point im making here because of the small number of athiests but what the hell. There have been more murders by sincerly devout religious people in the middle east in the past 5 years than there have been athiest murderers in the history of the world.

[Woolygimp]

We're going to play a little game. I list mass murderers that are atheists, and then you list mass murderers who are Christian. Since it's had a negative effect on mankind your list, and the number killed, should outpace mine. So shall we begin?

Lenin/Stalin/Krushkev [1917-1959] - &gt; 66,700,000.

The worst murdering government was that of the Soviet Union, where Lenin, Stalin, and their successor may have killed around 62 million citizens and foreigners.
"Likewise, the hostility of the Soviet regime towards all religion made no exception for Judaism, and the 1921 campaign against religion saw the seizure of many synagogues (whether this should be regarded as anti-Semitism is a matter of definition)."


Pol Pot [1975-1979] - &gt; 2,397,000 (8% of the Cambodian population).

The Khmer Rouge also classified by religion and ethnic group. They abolished all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practise their customs. These policies had been implemented in less severe forms for many years previous to the Khmer Rouge taking power.


Adolph Hitler [1933-1945] - &gt; 20,946,000.

Hitler denounced Christianity as an 'invention of the Jew' and vowed that the 'organized lie (of Christianity) must be smashed' so that the state would 'remain the absolute master.

Josip Broz Tito [1941-1987] - &gt; 1,172,000.

Mao Zedong [1949-1965] - &gt; 32,000,000 - 63,700,000.

He exhibited his taste for killing from the early 1930's, when, historians now estimate, he had thousands of his political adversaries slaughtered. Ten years later, still before the Communist victory, more were executed at his guerrilla headquarters at Yan'an. Hundreds of thousands of landlords were exterminated in the early 1950's. From 1959 to 1961 probably 30 million people died of hunger — the party admits 16 million — when Mao's economic fantasies were causing peasants to starve and he purged those who warned him of the scale of the disaster. Many more perished during the Cultural Revolution, when Mao established a special unit, supervised by Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, to report to him in detail the sufferings of hundreds of imprisoned leaders who had incurred the chairman's displeasure. One of the chairman's secretaries, Li Rui, wrote recently, "Mao was a person who did not fear death, and he did not care how many were killed."

Karl Marx - &gt; Founder of communism. Not directly responsible for any deaths.

Two hundred-million dead by seven leaders. You guys have a promising track record, please keep it up, as the world would be so much better without religion.

Bunny, the Vietnam war came about because we were 'defending' a country from an assailing offensive force. The President of the United States did not order soldiers to commit atrocities, even though they do happen in a time of war. You can criticize American troops all you want, but you can bet your ass that if it came to light that they were in violation of their orders or guilty of murder that they would be facing charges.

In any case those individual infantrymen were the ones responsible. Was the President also responsible for any French civilian killed during World War II while we were trying to drive ZEE GERMANS back?

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
We're going to play a little game. I list mass murderers that are atheists, and then you list mass murderers who are Christian. Since it's had a negative effect on mankind your list, and the number killed, should outpace mine.

[/ QUOTE ]
You do realize this is not a logical conclusion, right?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Bunny, the Vietnam war came about because we were 'defending' a country from an assailing offensive force. The President of the United States did not order soldiers to commit atrocities, even though they do happen in a time of war. You can criticize American troops all you want, but you can bet your ass that if it came to light that they were in violation of their orders or guilty of murder that they would be facing charges.

In any case those individual infantrymen were the ones responsible. Was the President also responsible for any French civilian killed during World War II while we were trying to drive ZEE GERMANS back?

[/ QUOTE ]
Two points:

One you provide reasons for why america dropped nuclear weapons on civilians and committed troops in vietnam (in both cases you claim it was in response to someone else's aggression). You dont extend the same courtesy to the atheist mass murderers you list - I bet they would have a reason for their actions too.

EDIT: Also if you are going to absolve US leadership for responsibility on the grounds that it was the individual soldiers who committed the acts. Shouldnt you also absolve stalin and lay the blame at his underlings feet?

Second - would you think the US individuals who bombed civilians in vietnam were christian or atheist?

[Woolygimp]

As far as the nuclear weapons being discharged, it's tragic but I would've probably made the same decision.

You're fighting an enemy that refuses to surrender, they believe they will be tortured relentlessly by advancing U.S. forces if captured.

When a Japanese position was going to be overrun they'd commit mass suicide.
There have been many cases in which the captured Japanese were amazed at how well they were treated, and commented that they had been lied to. They did not extend this courtesy to captured Americans, Americans which were tortured, executed, starved, and mistreated.

So you are President of the United States. You are in a war that you did not choose to enter, a war that was started by a deceitful attack that killed several thousand people (including civilians), a war that has raged for several years and had already cost the country 350,000 soldiers. There is no chance that the Japanese will surrender, and you face the prospect of 500,000 more Americans dead. No telling how many more Japanese would die in a direct attack, and a lot of the Japanese conscripts at that time were children.

So theres two evils.

Death, and more Death.

The lesser of two evils? Right? The bomb had to be dropped.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">but I think as a whole Christianity has done a lot to further basic human rights and lead us to where we are today regardless of how credible and authentic their doctrine is.</font>

I think you'll find many who would give you quite an argument here. Subjects like stem cell research, women's rights, gay rights, and abortion come to mind. I can only see how Christianity hampers the advancement of these issues. I'd be more than happy to listen if you can point out the opposite.

<font color="blue"> The intolerance is what irks me. Why would a Muslim care what someone else believes, and vice versa? Why would a Christian care if someone is a homosexual? </font>

You're obviously intelligent and that's why it irks you. But realize many Christians DO in fact care a great deal about whether someone is a homosexual or not. Again, this lends to Christianity being a bane, not an asset to where we are with human rights today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. The problem isn't with the religion, its with the culture of acceptance of faith. This other person wants to be intimately involved in all the details of other peoples lives, he desperately cares about what homosexuals do, and he really wants to restrict it or outlaw it. Well, who cares what he wants, he has no logical basis for thinking he can tell anyone what to do. But wait, he doesn't NEED a logical basis, he simply has faith that it is so. Whether Christianity actually preaches this or not (it does) is irrelevant. If Christianity doesn't, I need only find a faith that does.

This is why we fight this type of thing. Who cares what the specific religion teaches? If its good, then it should be justifiable by other means. If it is wrong, it shouldn't be. But when you accept faith, the entire system is thrown out. Now we are able to justify anything. This is the truly amazing part of the absolute morality debates. I'm not claiming that an absolute morality exists, but that a common one does, or at least can. But with faith, ANY morality is justifiable, we just need to postulate the right God or book.

The Christian can believe whatever he wants. But his ideas, in order to be accepted by the public, need be rationally defensible. Thats all we ask. Faith cannot be used as supporting evidence, because it supports all positions equally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post vhawk!

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, this is crap. I posted the same idea as the 2nd or 3rd response to the OP. How come no love for me!!!! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's so much that people think that the actual tenets of a particular religion are evil.


I think the "religion is evil" idea stems from the fact that religion often encourages people to do as they are told and to not question things. Basically, religion requires you to take certain things on faith and can lead to a mindset where you don't think critically about things. This can lead to people to really crazy things, including evil acts, without ever taking a step back to understand what they are doing.


I personally don't believe it's a very good argument against religion as a whole. I just don't agree that religion necessarily leads to fundamentalism. It is a danger that should be guarded against, but I think you're right when you say that almost any ideology can lead to fundamentalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The lesser of two evils? Right? The bomb had to be dropped.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. On a civilian target?

Also, you are going into motivations again when considering the christian atrocity which you havent done with the atheists. I dont think stalin was right but I bet he wouldnt say "I just killed them because I felt like it." He would probably have come up with all sorts of reasons. To meaningfully analyse and compare the two cases, you would have to look at the justifications as well.

[Woolygimp]

Bunny, cmon.

These deaths were not a result of a nation in a time of war. These figures don't count the deaths of soldiers and wartime personnel. These were a result of these leaders ordering their opposition, whether it be ethnic or political, rounded up and executed.

An example being Pol Pot, he ordered his troops to kill people to satisfy his own taste for bloodshed. A person could be killed for things as simple as sleeping during the day.

There is a very clear difference, these leaders murdered their own civilians.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
An ok post vhawk!

You make many good points - my irk with the post is where you talk about faith. The sort of faith you are describing I have never ever heard encouraged in a Christian church. I know you are talking about 'religion' in general - but you really are talking about Christianity here.

[ QUOTE ]
But when you accept faith, the entire system is thrown out.

[/ QUOTE ]
A straw man - I agree with you that this flavour of faith is indeed dangerous and needs to be fought - But it's discouraged in the bible and all churches I have ever been in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of agree with you, but I think vhawk and others would argue that when Christians say, "because it's in the bible" they are essentially saying, "don't think about it." I would have to agree with them somewhat.

I think it's fine and good to say that the Bible says X. But then you have to also explain why X is good for society today. Unfortunately many Christians (and other religious folk) stop at that first step.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Bunny, cmon.

These deaths were not a result of a nation in a time of war. These figures don't count the deaths of soldiers and wartime personnel. These were a result of these leaders ordering their opposition, whether it be ethnic or political, rounded up and executed.

An example being Pol Pot, he ordered his troops to kill people to satisfy his own taste for bloodshed. A person could be killed for things as simple as sleeping during the day.

There is a very clear difference, these leaders murdered their own civilians.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand and am in no way suggesting they are "the same". I am just making the point that your initial question "Name a christian...etc" was answered and you then looked into motivations and the specific situations surrounding those examples. You havent done the same with the atheists you've listed so this exercise isnt the simple comparison that "post-a-list" would make it appear.

Also, you didnt respond to the question about the civilian target of the nuclear weapons. Shouldnt the US president have targetted the military command (at least first)? Presuming that mass-murder of civilians was the only way seems a big step.

[Lestat]

Sorry Taraz, I missed your reply to Neuge. Your point is the same and exellent as well!

[Woolygimp]

Bunny, I really haven't researched so I don't know for sure.

If I had to take a guess, I'd guess it's because the planes which were required to carry the massive bomb the long distances required, were unable to do so with a fighter escort. So bombing a military target may be dangerous, because you don't want 50% of your nuclear arsenal shot out of the sky, and maybe even discovered by the Japanese military without being discharged.

We didn't have cruise missiles, guided munitions, and satellites back then. Maybe even location an effective military target in itself was difficult? I also remember it being said that Hiroshima was home of several military production plants in use by the military.

Who knows, but anyway those are my guesses.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry Taraz, I missed your reply to Neuge. Your point is the same and exellent as well!

[/ QUOTE ]
C'mon, I don't want the reply woolygimp he actually responded to attributed to me. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Bunny, I really haven't researched so I don't know for sure.

If I had to take a guess, I'd guess it's because the planes which were required to carry the massive bomb the long distances required, were unable to do so with a fighter escort. So bombing a military target may be dangerous, because you don't want 50% of your nuclear arsenal shot out of the sky, and maybe even discovered by the Japanese military without being discharged.

We didn't have cruise missiles, guided munitions, and satellites back then. Maybe even location an effective military target in itself was difficult? I also remember it being said that Hiroshima was home of several military production plants in use by the military.

Who knows, but anyway those are my guesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think those are very good guesses.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


So, the only options are Christian or Atheist, huh? He couldn't have been some other kind of theist?

[/ QUOTE ]

The only option is atheist. I'm a history buff, both Hirohito and Stalin were very, very against religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're both forgetting that the point is moot. There is good evidence to suggest that if he was a Christian, he was doing what he did for, in some part, religious reasons. It is highly unlikely that, if he was an atheist, he did what he did because he lacked a belief in God. It is arguable that he had less fear of punishment and thus was more likely to commit the badness he did because of that, but the relevant effects of that possibility are significantly less than the relevance of his religious reasoning IF he was Christian.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
So you guys feel that religion is evil and has caused nothing but suffering. You quote Hitler and the Crusades as your 'proof'.

[/ QUOTE ]

We do? I must have missed that thread.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll start off by saying religion doesn't start wars. Ideologies start wars as they are a peoples strongest beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Religion isn't an ideology?

[ QUOTE ]
Communism vs Capitalism was just as dangerous as Islam vs Christianity. It just so happens that to most people their religion is their strongest belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you convince a Christian God doesn't exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=eldiablo&amp;Number=9973947&amp;p age=0&amp;fpart=all).

[ QUOTE ]
What if a Christian tried to tell you that God did exist? You'd show the same amount of resistance, because again atheism itself is an ideology albeit with different core aspects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not this again. Skeptical positions are not ideologies. My belief that there isn't a giant pink hippopotamus orbiting Jupiter is not an ideological belief. It's a belief that I simply hold until shown otherwise. If you think most atheists have an ideological opposition to the idea of God, you're wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
The American Indians didn't have a centralized religion, so are you saying that they never fought with each other? Yeah, I hope by now you are realizing just how dumb those of you that put out this nonsense actually are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blah blah, strawman strawman. The claim is that religion has often been a cause of evil in the past, not that it has caused every act of evil ever committed.

[ QUOTE ]
Hitler wasn't a Christian, and was in fact an atheist and a lunatic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The religious beliefs of Hitler are not that clear cut, though I agree he wasn't a Christian in the traditional sense.

[ QUOTE ]
Hirohito was an atheist, he murdered three times as many people as Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hirohito was a what now? As emperor, he was the head of the Shinto religion! Unless there are private writings of his I don't know about, I'm pretty sure he was Shinto. Not that it really matters.

[ QUOTE ]
There are evil people capable of massive amounts of suffering and harm everywhere, and they aren't limited to a specific group.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody is arguing that this is not true. But given, as you said, that people's ideologies are what cause them to start wars and so forth, wouldn't it be smart to limit our ideologies to things that are necessary for the running of society (political ideologies, for instance) and eliminate from the world ideological systems which concern whose Big Invisible Pal in the Sky is better?

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Name one world leader of the 20th century that was a Christian that committed mass murder, as there are several examples of atheists ordering mass murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that it really matters, but I would nominate Francisco Franco.

You don't seem to get that that whole debate is entirely moot. As you said in the OP, it is usually ideology that motivates people to do great evil. To the extent atheism is ever an ideology, it is not one that generally motivates people to kill. I suppose you could make an exception for Communist repression of the Church, but that's pretty weak sauce compared to everything else.Religion is not only an ideology, but is an exceptionally powerful one because believers often will not countenance the possibility that they are wrong. That religion has motivated people to do evil in the past and continues to do so today is beyond question. Religion is always potentially evil because it is irrational. Go here (http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/ltn01.html) and scroll down to the section "Moral Fallout" for an example of nascent religious evil in Israel. Dawkins spends some time on this in The God Delusion. Wherever there is religion, there is a great danger of an in-group morality developing.

The most evil ideologies of the 20th century were unquestionably communism and fascism, not religion. But those ideologies are in decline and religion is in ascendancy. Religious nuts are in control of most of the Middle East, as well as the United States. I certainly wouldn't call most of Christianity today evil, but it still gives me a chill that President Bush claims to be in direct contact with the Almighty. What if the Almighty instructs him to do something insane? How could he be persuaded by rational argument to do otherwise?

[BPA234]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Name one world leader of the 20th century that was a Christian that committed mass murder, as there are several examples of atheists ordering mass murder.

[/ QUOTE ]
Didnt the united states drop nuclear weapons on civilian populations? Plus some of the events that occurred during the vietnam war could be classified as mass murder no? I dont know who the presidents responsible for these decisions was but I'd make a guess they were christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Classic. Last time I checked we did not start World War II, nor did we enter it willingly.

I'm taking a gamble, but I'm going to assume that you are one of the types that call George Bush a child murderer, because we invaded Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

According to Robert Macnamara, who, during WWII worked for General LeMay, the man responsible for the fire bombing of Japan, they both considered their actions to be war crimes. Further, they believed that should the US lose, their actions would be judged as such, and they would be prosecuted.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
An ok post vhawk!

You make many good points - my irk with the post is where you talk about faith. The sort of faith you are describing I have never ever heard encouraged in a Christian church. I know you are talking about 'religion' in general - but you really are talking about Christianity here.

[ QUOTE ]
But when you accept faith, the entire system is thrown out.

[/ QUOTE ]
A straw man - I agree with you that this flavour of faith is indeed dangerous and needs to be fought - But it's discouraged in the bible and all churches I have ever been in.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the ever-so-subtle distinction that is clear to theists and totally unclear to me. What allows you to discern the things it is valid to have faith in from the things it is not? And isn't this very process of discernment anathema to 'faith?' Oh well, you probably shouldn't answer this, we've done this a million times and the answers never satisfy me. Also not exactly on-topic, although not wholly off.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">but I think as a whole Christianity has done a lot to further basic human rights and lead us to where we are today regardless of how credible and authentic their doctrine is.</font>

I think you'll find many who would give you quite an argument here. Subjects like stem cell research, women's rights, gay rights, and abortion come to mind. I can only see how Christianity hampers the advancement of these issues. I'd be more than happy to listen if you can point out the opposite.

<font color="blue"> The intolerance is what irks me. Why would a Muslim care what someone else believes, and vice versa? Why would a Christian care if someone is a homosexual? </font>

You're obviously intelligent and that's why it irks you. But realize many Christians DO in fact care a great deal about whether someone is a homosexual or not. Again, this lends to Christianity being a bane, not an asset to where we are with human rights today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. The problem isn't with the religion, its with the culture of acceptance of faith. This other person wants to be intimately involved in all the details of other peoples lives, he desperately cares about what homosexuals do, and he really wants to restrict it or outlaw it. Well, who cares what he wants, he has no logical basis for thinking he can tell anyone what to do. But wait, he doesn't NEED a logical basis, he simply has faith that it is so. Whether Christianity actually preaches this or not (it does) is irrelevant. If Christianity doesn't, I need only find a faith that does.

This is why we fight this type of thing. Who cares what the specific religion teaches? If its good, then it should be justifiable by other means. If it is wrong, it shouldn't be. But when you accept faith, the entire system is thrown out. Now we are able to justify anything. This is the truly amazing part of the absolute morality debates. I'm not claiming that an absolute morality exists, but that a common one does, or at least can. But with faith, ANY morality is justifiable, we just need to postulate the right God or book.

The Christian can believe whatever he wants. But his ideas, in order to be accepted by the public, need be rationally defensible. Thats all we ask. Faith cannot be used as supporting evidence, because it supports all positions equally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post vhawk!

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, this is crap. I posted the same idea as the 2nd or 3rd response to the OP. How come no love for me!!!! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's so much that people think that the actual tenets of a particular religion are evil.


I think the "religion is evil" idea stems from the fact that religion often encourages people to do as they are told and to not question things. Basically, religion requires you to take certain things on faith and can lead to a mindset where you don't think critically about things. This can lead to people to really crazy things, including evil acts, without ever taking a step back to understand what they are doing.


I personally don't believe it's a very good argument against religion as a whole. I just don't agree that religion necessarily leads to fundamentalism. It is a danger that should be guarded against, but I think you're right when you say that almost any ideology can lead to fundamentalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Taraz, you should know by now that my MO is to argue as strongly as I can with the posters who are smarter than me in an effort to polish out, from their arguments, the parts I can agree with and use(steal?) in future posts. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
We're going to play a little game. I list mass murderers that are atheists, and then you list mass murderers who are Christian. Since it's had a negative effect on mankind your list, and the number killed, should outpace mine. So shall we begin?

Lenin/Stalin/Krushkev [1917-1959] - &gt; 66,700,000.

The worst murdering government was that of the Soviet Union, where Lenin, Stalin, and their successor may have killed around 62 million citizens and foreigners.
"Likewise, the hostility of the Soviet regime towards all religion made no exception for Judaism, and the 1921 campaign against religion saw the seizure of many synagogues (whether this should be regarded as anti-Semitism is a matter of definition)."


Pol Pot [1975-1979] - &gt; 2,397,000 (8% of the Cambodian population).

The Khmer Rouge also classified by religion and ethnic group. They abolished all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practise their customs. These policies had been implemented in less severe forms for many years previous to the Khmer Rouge taking power.


Adolph Hitler [1933-1945] - &gt; 20,946,000.

Hitler denounced Christianity as an 'invention of the Jew' and vowed that the 'organized lie (of Christianity) must be smashed' so that the state would 'remain the absolute master.

Josip Broz Tito [1941-1987] - &gt; 1,172,000.

Mao Zedong [1949-1965] - &gt; 32,000,000 - 63,700,000.

He exhibited his taste for killing from the early 1930's, when, historians now estimate, he had thousands of his political adversaries slaughtered. Ten years later, still before the Communist victory, more were executed at his guerrilla headquarters at Yan'an. Hundreds of thousands of landlords were exterminated in the early 1950's. From 1959 to 1961 probably 30 million people died of hunger — the party admits 16 million — when Mao's economic fantasies were causing peasants to starve and he purged those who warned him of the scale of the disaster. Many more perished during the Cultural Revolution, when Mao established a special unit, supervised by Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, to report to him in detail the sufferings of hundreds of imprisoned leaders who had incurred the chairman's displeasure. One of the chairman's secretaries, Li Rui, wrote recently, "Mao was a person who did not fear death, and he did not care how many were killed."

Karl Marx - &gt; Founder of communism. Not directly responsible for any deaths.

Two hundred-million dead by seven leaders. You guys have a promising track record, please keep it up, as the world would be so much better without religion.

Bunny, the Vietnam war came about because we were 'defending' a country from an assailing offensive force. The President of the United States did not order soldiers to commit atrocities, even though they do happen in a time of war. You can criticize American troops all you want, but you can bet your ass that if it came to light that they were in violation of their orders or guilty of murder that they would be facing charges.

In any case those individual infantrymen were the ones responsible. Was the President also responsible for any French civilian killed during World War II while we were trying to drive ZEE GERMANS back?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an extremely valid point, I think you are really figuring things out.

Except Hitler wasn't an atheist.

Except mass murderers are not the only source of suffering, nor are they anywhere CLOSE to the majority of it.

Except you make no sense.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't tell the difference between a person killing another because they aren't Protestant and a person killing another because they don't want to be under the rule of a specific government (i.e. the UK)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure can. Those two phrases use different words and everything. Now, how are politics and religion not inextricably intertwined?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An ok post vhawk!

You make many good points - my irk with the post is where you talk about faith. The sort of faith you are describing I have never ever heard encouraged in a Christian church. I know you are talking about 'religion' in general - but you really are talking about Christianity here.

[ QUOTE ]
But when you accept faith, the entire system is thrown out.

[/ QUOTE ]
A straw man - I agree with you that this flavour of faith is indeed dangerous and needs to be fought - But it's discouraged in the bible and all churches I have ever been in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of agree with you, but I think vhawk and others would argue that when Christians say, "because it's in the bible" they are essentially saying, "don't think about it." I would have to agree with them somewhat.

I think it's fine and good to say that the Bible says X. But then you have to also explain why X is good for society today. Unfortunately many Christians (and other religious folk) stop at that first step.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. And if you can do the last step, the first step isn't really all that necessary. Honestly, I don't think most atheists would care at all if people STARTED from the first step, i.e. that it says so in the Bible. The problem is with starting and ending there.

Of course, SOME atheists would care regardless, since they hate the Bible, Christ, and anyone who says Bless you! /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Bunny, cmon.

These deaths were not a result of a nation in a time of war. These figures don't count the deaths of soldiers and wartime personnel. These were a result of these leaders ordering their opposition, whether it be ethnic or political, rounded up and executed.

An example being Pol Pot, he ordered his troops to kill people to satisfy his own taste for bloodshed. A person could be killed for things as simple as sleeping during the day.

There is a very clear difference, these leaders murdered their own civilians.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


So, the only options are Christian or Atheist, huh? He couldn't have been some other kind of theist?

[/ QUOTE ]

The only option is atheist. I'm a history buff, both Hirohito and Stalin were very, very against religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're both forgetting that the point is moot. There is good evidence to suggest that if he was a Christian, he was doing what he did for, in some part, religious reasons. It is highly unlikely that, if he was an atheist, he did what he did because he lacked a belief in God. It is arguable that he had less fear of punishment and thus was more likely to commit the badness he did because of that, but the relevant effects of that possibility are significantly less than the relevance of his religious reasoning IF he was Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously though, the dichotomy isn't 'Christian or atheist.' He may very well not have been a Christian, but I'm not sure what possible evidence there is to support him being an atheist. Don't make the same mistake Wooly is making, i.e. that hatred and rejection of the church, religion, or Christianity in any way makes you an atheist. It just makes you mystical, or any other version of theism you happen to switch to.

Agreed its a useless point, but I like arguing it because its such an easy victory and I am egotistical.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Name one world leader of the 20th century that was a Christian that committed mass murder, as there are several examples of atheists ordering mass murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that it really matters, but I would nominate Francisco Franco.

You don't seem to get that that whole debate is entirely moot. As you said in the OP, it is usually ideology that motivates people to do great evil. To the extent atheism is ever an ideology, it is not one that generally motivates people to kill. I suppose you could make an exception for Communist repression of the Church, but that's pretty weak sauce compared to everything else.Religion is not only an ideology, but is an exceptionally powerful one because believers often will not countenance the possibility that they are wrong. That religion has motivated people to do evil in the past and continues to do so today is beyond question. Religion is always potentially evil because it is irrational. Go here (http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/ltn01.html) and scroll down to the section "Moral Fallout" for an example of nascent religious evil in Israel. Dawkins spends some time on this in The God Delusion. Wherever there is religion, there is a great danger of an in-group morality developing.

The most evil ideologies of the 20th century were unquestionably communism and fascism, not religion. But those ideologies are in decline and religion is in ascendancy. Religious nuts are in control of most of the Middle East, as well as the United States. I certainly wouldn't call most of Christianity today evil, but it still gives me a chill that President Bush claims to be in direct contact with the Almighty. What if the Almighty instructs him to do something insane? How could he be persuaded by rational argument to do otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's time for me to stop posting for a while. There are too many people who do a much better job explaining what I want to say, than I can. Great post!

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bunny, cmon.

These deaths were not a result of a nation in a time of war. These figures don't count the deaths of soldiers and wartime personnel. These were a result of these leaders ordering their opposition, whether it be ethnic or political, rounded up and executed.

An example being Pol Pot, he ordered his troops to kill people to satisfy his own taste for bloodshed. A person could be killed for things as simple as sleeping during the day.

There is a very clear difference, these leaders murdered their own civilians.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

[/ QUOTE ] A word one response that attempts to refute my statement but delivers no argument, no proof yet we are suppose to take your word for it? Sorry, do some research on Pol Pot. He personally executed a LOT of people, make no mistake about it this guy was a stone cold murderer. Hirohito was a Shinto, and it was my mistake. However the guy responsible for Japan's Imperial Army/Aggression and the decisions to attack China and the United States were not.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bunny, cmon.

These deaths were not a result of a nation in a time of war. These figures don't count the deaths of soldiers and wartime personnel. These were a result of these leaders ordering their opposition, whether it be ethnic or political, rounded up and executed.

An example being Pol Pot, he ordered his troops to kill people to satisfy his own taste for bloodshed. A person could be killed for things as simple as sleeping during the day.

There is a very clear difference, these leaders murdered their own civilians.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

[/ QUOTE ] A word one response that attempts to refute my statement but delivers no argument, no proof yet we are suppose to take your word for it? Sorry, do some research on Pol Pot. He personally executed a LOT of people, make no mistake about it this guy was a stone cold murderer. Hirohito was a Shinto, and it was my mistake. However the guy responsible for Japan's Imperial Army/Aggression and the decisions to attack China and the United States were not.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a history book that says Pol Pot killed people to satisfy his own bloodlust? I'd be interested in a citation. Do you do citations, or just conjecture? Are you going to support any of your outlandish claims? Do you still assert Hitler was an atheist, and more importantly, do you know the difference between an atheist and a non-Christian?

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no doubt that Pol Pot must rank as the world's greatest murderer. This is a man at whose hands--nearly a million people--perhaps more--died in Cambodia, almost a fifth of the total population.

[/ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]
Many were executed for just being able to read. Countless people starved or were murdered by the Khmer Rouge.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
One to three million (or between a quarter and a third of the country's population).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Pol Pot is very charming. ... His face, his behaviour is very polite, but he is very, very cruel."

Others who knew him have elaborated on this description, calling Pol Pot calm, cold-blooded, extremely secretive, and above all paranoid - traits that allowed him to oversee the genocide of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

The last word here goes again to Sihanouk.

"Pol Pot does not believe in God.

[/ QUOTE ]



The Time Magazine article on Pol Pot



The Butcher Of Cambodia
By TERRY MCCARTHY/SIEM REAP
Article Tools
Print
Email
Reprints
Click here to find out more!

Now we will never know why. Yet who can ever fathom the evil that men do. We stand disbelieving before genocide, when women's throats are slit with sharp palm leaves, when children's heads are smashed against tree trunks, when men are slaughtered with the crack of a hoe. These things happened every day in Cambodia for 3 1/2 terrible years, and when the world learned of it, people could only respond with dumb horror.

All Pol Pot ever said was that he was creating a "pure" communist society and whatever he did was done for his country. "My conscience is clear," he told journalist Nate Thayer in a rare interview last October, never admitting his appalling conduct, never regretting the countless executions, the million more dead of starvation and overwork, the living population maimed in body or mind, the entire country reduced to Stone Age survival. Nineteen years after the hated Vietnamese drove him back into the jungle, the evil that he did lives on in Cambodia's traumatized society, poisoned politics, governmental misrule and pitiful piles of bleached-white skulls. When Pol Pot died last week, alone in a small, thatched hut, his passing left only outrage that this man had cheated earthly justice.

Elusive and mysterious throughout his life, Pol Pot slipped just as stealthily into death, guarding his secrets to the end. The teenage guerrillas of the Khmer Rouge who had kept him under "house arrest" since a show trial last year blandly informed reporters that one of the world's most notorious mass murderers had died peacefully Wednesday night of a heart attack, discovered when his wife came to tuck in his mosquito net.

The timing of his demise was almost too uncanny, coming just as the beleaguered remnants of his once terrifying movement prepared to hand him over to Western justice in exchange for some kind of amnesty for themselves. Two weeks ago the Clinton Administration began drawing up plans for Pol Pot's capture and trial in an international court. Many who had trafficked with him--the Chinese, the Thais, the former Khmer Rouge cadres now running the government in Phnom Penh--had good reason to prefer his death to a revealing trial. But the 73-year-old's health had been failing. A stroke in 1995 paralyzed much of his left side, he was taking medicine for a heart complaint, and he suffered from chronic malaria. For the past three weeks he had been hustled between safe houses near the Thai border to avoid shelling. As government forces aided by growing legions of Khmer Rouge defectors closed in, Pol Pot must have realized the end was near.

When the communist guerrilla, then known only as Brother No. 1, took power in April 1975, he vowed to turn back the clock to "Year Zero." In the name of a bizarre blend of peasant romanticism and radical Maoism, the Khmer Rouge conducted a reign of terror intended to give birth to an agrarian utopia. At the point of their guns, they emptied Cambodia's cities, abolished money and markets, shut down schools and Buddhist monasteries and forced the entire country to wear black pajamas as a sign of "instant communism." Inspired by China's Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot carried its practices to the extreme. Anyone who questioned the system, anyone who spoke a foreign language, anyone who wore glasses, was executed. Thousands upon thousands perished from starvation and disease in the slave camps of the countryside, as the fatally isolated economy ceased to function.

Pol Pot ignored the disaster he was inflicting on his people. Living in a deserted Phnom Penh, he was obsessed with his own safety, regularly changing houses in paranoid addiction to secrecy. He trusted very few comrades for long: he had 16,000 Khmer Rouge cadres tortured to death in the infamous Tuol Sleng interrogation center--"strings of traitors," as he saw them, who had to be "burned out." Yet when confronted with this by Thayer, Pol Pot claimed he had never heard of Tuol Sleng and showed no sign of remorse. "I came to carry out the struggle, not to kill people. Even now, and you can look at me, am I a savage person?"

The conundrum of the man is that he did not seem savage at all. Before fleeing into the jungle in 1963, the French-educated son of prosperous landowners, born Saloth Sar, taught school in Phnom Penh, and his former students remember him as a soft-spoken, even-tempered man who loved to recite his favorite poet, Verlaine. Francois Ponchaud, a French priest who first moved to Cambodia in 1965, says that when he heard the leader who called himself Pol Pot give a speech on the radio in 1977, "I remember saying to myself, this man knows how to speak. Not angry shouting, but with a gentle, well-modulated voice."

Even after his record of genocide was known the world over, Pol Pot inspired affection among the countryfolk who harbored him for nearly 20 years. "The people found him very kind--I mean the poor people," said Mit Sim, head of Pol Pot's bodyguards in northwestern Cambodia until 1994. During a visit to the area last fall, Sim led the way uphill to the remains of Pol Pot's house and pointed out a large rock at the edge of a nearby cliff. "This is where he would come and sit in the evening," said Sim. "When he was depressed he would call me, and I would come sit with him. He drank expensive ginseng tea, and he kept a bottle of Thai whisky, and he would talk about developing the country for the poor people."

In the end, Pol Pot's equanimity in the face of the unaccountable brutality he unleashed defies analysis. When writing his biography, Brother Number One, historian David Chandler says he often had the uneasy feeling that Pol Pot "was just outside my line of vision observing me." The dictator's legacy is equally disturbing, says Chandler, pointing to the bloody coup staged by one-time Khmer Rouge lieutenant Hun Sen last year and the continuing political assassinations as the country prepares for elections in July that Hun Sen hopes will legitimize his regime. "In Cambodia you simply get rid of people who are in the way."

Those who sought to bring Pol Pot to justice hoped to help break the cycle of violence. With his untimely death, Pol Pot performed one last disservice to his people: his specter will continue to haunt the Cambodian psyche for years to come.

[Woolygimp]

That took about 45 seconds of googling. I believe an apology is in order, unless you want to offer another convincing rebuttal as your last which was, "LOL".

[PairTheBoard]

I see the argument repeatedly made that Atheists who commit mass murder don't do so because of any Atheist Ideology, so therefore you can't blame their actions on their Atheism. I think this misses the point. What the examples are proposed to illustrate is the idea that "If God is dead, anything is permissible" - (Dostoevsky). How could Stalin starve millions of his people to death? Stalin's response to this criticism? "Oh well. People die". For him, anything was permissible in achieving his goals. You have to ask yourself, would he have been as likely to have that attitude if he had valued human dignity and human rights via Religious beliefs? That's the real issue to be discussed.

PairTheBoard

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
I see the argument repeatedly made that Atheists who commit mass murder don't do so because of any Atheist Ideology, so therefore you can't blame their actions on their Atheism. I think this misses the point. What the examples are proposed to illustrate is the idea that "If God is dead, anything is permissible" - (Dostoevsky). How could Stalin starve millions of his people to death? Stalin's response to this criticism? "Oh well. People die". For him, anything was permissible in achieving his goals. You have to ask yourself, would he have been as likely to have that attitude if he had valued human dignity and human rights via Religious beliefs? That's the real issue to be discussed.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what IS being discussed, but their rebuttal is that atheists value human life just as much as those with religious beliefs.

The evidence does not back up their claims, and one only has to look in the past whether it be 25 years, or 2500 years [Atheism is NOT new].

Life has less meaning to those that think that life has no purpose.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
That took about 45 seconds of googling. I believe an apology is in order, unless you want to offer another convincing rebuttal as your last which was, "LOL".

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't my last, it was my second to last. And of course, brutality is not the same as implying that Pol Pot killed for absolutely no reason save for his own 'taste for bloodshed.' He did horrible things, yes. I'm really not even sure what this is supposed to be showing. I thought your particular phrasing was hilarious, that the whole purpose of the Pol Pot regime was to satisfy Pol Pot's bloodlust, and not to accomplish some other goals through extremely brutal means. Regardless of whether its true or not its irrelevant.

Apology? For laughing at you? Hardly warranted. Still waiting on you to demonstrate Hitler was an atheist, which seems to be a pretty pivotal piece of your argument.

[Woolygimp]

Why is the burden of proof on me? I linked a book citing Hitler's views on religion in general. Based on what was said, he doesn't seem very religious to me.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I see the argument repeatedly made that Atheists who commit mass murder don't do so because of any Atheist Ideology, so therefore you can't blame their actions on their Atheism. I think this misses the point. What the examples are proposed to illustrate is the idea that "If God is dead, anything is permissible" - (Dostoevsky). How could Stalin starve millions of his people to death? Stalin's response to this criticism? "Oh well. People die". For him, anything was permissible in achieving his goals. You have to ask yourself, would he have been as likely to have that attitude if he had valued human dignity and human rights via Religious beliefs? That's the real issue to be discussed.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely no reason to think that religious beliefs would help in this in the least, thats the main problem. Just because most of the current popular religions HAPPEN to make killing wrong and to value life doesn't mean that its some feature of religion. Religion could say ANYTHING. Would it have made any difference if, instead of him saying "Oh well, people die," he had said "God told me to kill these people."

This seems to be the central problem, at least from my end. Christians claim that the people who do horrible things while claiming to be a Christian aren't true Christians. So what? Why is there religion any less valid, whatever you want to call it? When we accept the premise that you don't need to validate your actions in light of any common, human innate sense of morality, what makes 'Thou shall not kill' any more valid than 'Eat babies?' We are then left to fight out which religion has the better message, a battle that cannot be won since there is no objective standard. This is the true 'everything is permissable.'

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the burden of proof on me? I linked a book citing Hitler's views on religion in general. Based on what was said, he doesn't seem very religious to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, seriously, for the last time, reply to this and acknowledge that you understand what I am trying to tell you: Religion has nothing to do with theism. The vast majority of people who hate religion are theists. The default assumption is that everyone is a theist, simply from a statistical standpoint.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see the argument repeatedly made that Atheists who commit mass murder don't do so because of any Atheist Ideology, so therefore you can't blame their actions on their Atheism. I think this misses the point. What the examples are proposed to illustrate is the idea that "If God is dead, anything is permissible" - (Dostoevsky). How could Stalin starve millions of his people to death? Stalin's response to this criticism? "Oh well. People die". For him, anything was permissible in achieving his goals. You have to ask yourself, would he have been as likely to have that attitude if he had valued human dignity and human rights via Religious beliefs? That's the real issue to be discussed.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what IS being discussed, but their rebuttal is that atheists value human life just as much as those with religious beliefs.

The evidence does not back up their claims, and one only has to look in the past whether it be 25 years, or 2500 years [Atheism is NOT new].

Life has less meaning to those that think that life has no purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say there are many atheists who value human life as much as anybody. Also, there have been many religious people who have shown little regard for human life in some of their actions. So I don't see how pointing out examples on each side can really prove anything unless you can apply some kind of statistical analysis to them.

Something to consider here though is an application of Baye's Theorem. In the last century the vast majority of people on the planet have been religious. So you would expect the vast majority of people responsible for crimes against humanity to have been religious. Yet that does not appear to be the case. The most glaring and extreme examples appear to be just the opposite. It seems to me that Woolygimp has a point there, irrespective of his *.

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see the argument repeatedly made that Atheists who commit mass murder don't do so because of any Atheist Ideology, so therefore you can't blame their actions on their Atheism. I think this misses the point. What the examples are proposed to illustrate is the idea that "If God is dead, anything is permissible" - (Dostoevsky). How could Stalin starve millions of his people to death? Stalin's response to this criticism? "Oh well. People die". For him, anything was permissible in achieving his goals. You have to ask yourself, would he have been as likely to have that attitude if he had valued human dignity and human rights via Religious beliefs? That's the real issue to be discussed.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what IS being discussed, but their rebuttal is that atheists value human life just as much as those with religious beliefs.

The evidence does not back up their claims, and one only has to look in the past whether it be 25 years, or 2500 years [Atheism is NOT new].

Life has less meaning to those that think that life has no purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say there are many atheists who value human life as much as anybody. Also, there have been many religious people who have shown little regard for human life in some of their actions. So I don't see how pointing out examples on each side can really prove anything unless you can apply some kind of statistical analysis to them.

Something to consider here though is an application of Baye's Theorum. In the last century the vast majority of people on the planet have been religious. So you would expect the vast majority of people responsible for crimes against humanity to have been religious. Yet that does not appear to be the case. The most glaring and extreme examples appear to be just the opposite. It seems to me that Woolygimp has a point there, irrespective of his *.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. You are surprised that atheists (being generous and calling any of these atheists, when all thats been demonstrated so far is that most of them hate religion, something many of my Christian friends would agree with) are overrepresented in this ridiculously small sample? Why isn't it even more convincing that theists are overrepresented among criminals, at least in the US? Why is 'mass murderer' the only metric for judging morality? Its a TERRIBLE metric, for the simple fact that there are so very few of them. Clearly the overrepresentation among the prisoner population is far better support, right? Neither of them mean much, if anything, but one is clearly superior to the other.

[Woolygimp]

Some more Hitler quotes:

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 &amp; 7)

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....
"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
"Christianity &lt;is&gt; the liar....
"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer....
"The decisive falsification of Jesus' &lt;who he asserts many times was never a Jew&gt; doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....
"Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, [censored]? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." (p 63-65)

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... &lt;here insults people who believe transubstantiation&gt;....
"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119)

"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....
"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 &amp; 120)


"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339)

"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold &lt;its demise&gt;." (p 278)

[Woolygimp]

Ok. Even if I can't prove Hitler was an atheist by the most strict definition of the word, it can easily be proven that he was against religion. I don't see how you can say that this was a man who believed in God, read those quotes. He believed in the state above all else...

Mass Murder can NOT be compared to selling drugs as far as morality goes. They aren't even alike, saying everyone who sells drugs is just as evil as someone responsible for the murder of millions, that's just ludicrous.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Some more Hitler quotes:

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 &amp; 7)

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....
"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
"Christianity &lt;is&gt; the liar....
"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer....
"The decisive falsification of Jesus' &lt;who he asserts many times was never a Jew&gt; doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....
"Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, [censored]? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." (p 63-65)

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... &lt;here insults people who believe transubstantiation&gt;....
"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119)

"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....
"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 &amp; 120)


"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339)

"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold &lt;its demise&gt;." (p 278)

[/ QUOTE ]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Some more Hitler quotes:

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 &amp; 7)

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....
"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
"Christianity &lt;is&gt; the liar....
"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer....
"The decisive falsification of Jesus' &lt;who he asserts many times was never a Jew&gt; doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....
"Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, [censored]? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." (p 63-65)

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... &lt;here insults people who believe transubstantiation&gt;....
"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119)

"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....
"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 &amp; 120)


"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339)

"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold &lt;its demise&gt;." (p 278)

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif You just aren't going to get it, are you? Don't you think a lot of Muslims would agree with what Hitler had to say about Christianity? A lot of Satanists? I asked you a straightforward question: do you understand the fundamental difference between religion and theism? I'll add another...do you think Christianity is the only religion in the world? Are people really Christians or atheists in your world?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see the argument repeatedly made that Atheists who commit mass murder don't do so because of any Atheist Ideology, so therefore you can't blame their actions on their Atheism. I think this misses the point. What the examples are proposed to illustrate is the idea that "If God is dead, anything is permissible" - (Dostoevsky). How could Stalin starve millions of his people to death? Stalin's response to this criticism? "Oh well. People die". For him, anything was permissible in achieving his goals. You have to ask yourself, would he have been as likely to have that attitude if he had valued human dignity and human rights via Religious beliefs? That's the real issue to be discussed.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what IS being discussed, but their rebuttal is that atheists value human life just as much as those with religious beliefs.

The evidence does not back up their claims, and one only has to look in the past whether it be 25 years, or 2500 years [Atheism is NOT new].

Life has less meaning to those that think that life has no purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say there are many atheists who value human life as much as anybody. Also, there have been many religious people who have shown little regard for human life in some of their actions. So I don't see how pointing out examples on each side can really prove anything unless you can apply some kind of statistical analysis to them.

Something to consider here though is an application of Baye's Theorum. In the last century the vast majority of people on the planet have been religious. So you would expect the vast majority of people responsible for crimes against humanity to have been religious. Yet that does not appear to be the case. The most glaring and extreme examples appear to be just the opposite. It seems to me that Woolygimp has a point there, irrespective of his *.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. You are surprised that atheists (being generous and calling any of these atheists, when all thats been demonstrated so far is that most of them hate religion, something many of my Christian friends would agree with) are overrepresented in this ridiculously small sample? Why isn't it even more convincing that theists are overrepresented among criminals, at least in the US? Why is 'mass murderer' the only metric for judging morality? Its a TERRIBLE metric, for the simple fact that there are so very few of them. Clearly the overrepresentation among the prisoner population is far better support, right? Neither of them mean much, if anything, but one is clearly superior to the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mass murder is a far greater crime against humanity than selling drugs, or simple burglary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some Christian you are. I'd like to see you support that claim Biblically, especially since a sin is a sin is a sin, and human suffering is entirely unrelated to the basis of morality.

[Woolygimp]

Read my reply above yours for your response. I edited it to include what you were asking (hopefully).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok. Even if I can't prove Hitler was an atheist by the most strict definition of the word, it can easily be proven that he was against religion. I don't see how you can say that this was a man who believed in God, read those quotes. He believed in the state above all else...

Mass Murder can NOT be compared to selling drugs as far as morality goes. They aren't even alike, saying everyone who sells drugs is just as evil as someone responsible for the murder of millions, that's just ludicrous.



[/ QUOTE ]

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

He may very well be talking about some different Lord, but he was clearly a theist, based on this quote. Unless you think this quote is a trick and his other quotes are real? Only the ones that support your point?

I'm not being nitpicky here. It seems absolutely insane to claim Hitler was an atheist. You have a strong argument that he was not a Christian...who cares? That doesn't support your point in the least.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see the argument repeatedly made that Atheists who commit mass murder don't do so because of any Atheist Ideology, so therefore you can't blame their actions on their Atheism. I think this misses the point. What the examples are proposed to illustrate is the idea that "If God is dead, anything is permissible" - (Dostoevsky). How could Stalin starve millions of his people to death? Stalin's response to this criticism? "Oh well. People die". For him, anything was permissible in achieving his goals. You have to ask yourself, would he have been as likely to have that attitude if he had valued human dignity and human rights via Religious beliefs? That's the real issue to be discussed.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what IS being discussed, but their rebuttal is that atheists value human life just as much as those with religious beliefs.

The evidence does not back up their claims, and one only has to look in the past whether it be 25 years, or 2500 years [Atheism is NOT new].

Life has less meaning to those that think that life has no purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the evidence does back up the atheists. All you have to do is look at murders in the US. Or the prevalence of anti-social behavior across countries as a function of religiousity.

The reason the vast majority of mass slaughters by leaders are committed by people who denounce religion has nothing to do with the effect of religion on those individuals. Rather, it is a combination of location (being from a place where religion isn't prevalent) and control (dictators want to be viewed as the supreme ruler, and people worshipping gods gets in the way of that). The latter is the primary problem with using mass civilian deaths to gauge the impact of religion.

You need to quit arguing and start thinking about the question. I take it you are a humanities student?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see the argument repeatedly made that Atheists who commit mass murder don't do so because of any Atheist Ideology, so therefore you can't blame their actions on their Atheism. I think this misses the point. What the examples are proposed to illustrate is the idea that "If God is dead, anything is permissible" - (Dostoevsky). How could Stalin starve millions of his people to death? Stalin's response to this criticism? "Oh well. People die". For him, anything was permissible in achieving his goals. You have to ask yourself, would he have been as likely to have that attitude if he had valued human dignity and human rights via Religious beliefs? That's the real issue to be discussed.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what IS being discussed, but their rebuttal is that atheists value human life just as much as those with religious beliefs.

The evidence does not back up their claims, and one only has to look in the past whether it be 25 years, or 2500 years [Atheism is NOT new].

Life has less meaning to those that think that life has no purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say there are many atheists who value human life as much as anybody. Also, there have been many religious people who have shown little regard for human life in some of their actions. So I don't see how pointing out examples on each side can really prove anything unless you can apply some kind of statistical analysis to them.

Something to consider here though is an application of Baye's Theorum. In the last century the vast majority of people on the planet have been religious. So you would expect the vast majority of people responsible for crimes against humanity to have been religious. Yet that does not appear to be the case. The most glaring and extreme examples appear to be just the opposite. It seems to me that Woolygimp has a point there, irrespective of his *.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. You are surprised that atheists (being generous and calling any of these atheists, when all thats been demonstrated so far is that most of them hate religion, something many of my Christian friends would agree with) are overrepresented in this ridiculously small sample? Why isn't it even more convincing that theists are overrepresented among criminals, at least in the US? Why is 'mass murderer' the only metric for judging morality? Its a TERRIBLE metric, for the simple fact that there are so very few of them. Clearly the overrepresentation among the prisoner population is far better support, right? Neither of them mean much, if anything, but one is clearly superior to the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mass murder is a far greater crime against humanity than selling drugs, or simple burglary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some Christian you are. I'd like to see you support that claim Biblically, especially since a sin is a sin is a sin, and human suffering is entirely unrelated to the basis of morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that is SO beside the point. The point is, these horrible people are INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE. The scope of their actions are irrelevant. Your point wasn't that atheists are more powerful, your point was that atheists value life less. Well, the guy who robs someone at gunpoint and then shoots them values life every bit as little as Hitler, he just has different goals. So, you don't get to multiply Hitler by 6 million.

[Woolygimp]

If life has no purpose to an atheist, how can I expect them to hold value for it?

I'm not saying all atheists are heartless murderers, but I can see this as justification for their acts.

If you disagree with that statement, tell me which part you disagree with. How CAN life have a meaning to an atheist?

Existence will eventually end, and all will be for nought.

[Woolygimp]

You keep saying that Christians are more likely to commit murder than an atheist, but please post those statistics.

Don't say that X amount of Christians in this country are in prison, while only X amount of atheists. There are obviously far more Christians in the United States; I wanted a weighted percentage and the studies to back it up.

I've posted links, and quotes to every piece of information I've offered in this thread. You guys have not.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
If life has no purpose to an atheist, how can I expect them to hold value for it?

I'm not saying all atheists are heartless murderers, but I can see this as justification for their acts.

If you disagree with that statement, tell me which part you disagree with. How CAN life have a meaning to an atheist?

Existence will eventually end, and all will be for nought.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to request you do a search for this. There are probably a dozen threads in the past 6 months on this forum that deal with the 'how can life have meaning for the atheist?'

Short version: What possible reason do you have to think that eternity is essential for meaning? Does your relationship with your wife or parents or children have meaning? Why? It lasts for only a blink and then you have heaven. Everything you have and love is meaningless. Do you feel that way? Your friends and family mean nothing to you?

[Woolygimp]

You know less about the religion you speak of than you think.

I'm still waiting on these studies to show that Christians are more likely to capable of violent crimes than atheists.

If I knew that everything was meaningless, I'd be more likely to be a hitman or something. Why would killing someone matter? It wouldn't.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
You keep saying that Christians are more likely to commit murder than an atheist, but please post those statistics.

Don't say that X amount of Christians in this country are in prison, while only X amount of atheists. There are obviously far more Christians in the United States; I wanted a weighted percentage and the studies to back it up.

I've posted links, and quotes to every piece of information I've offered in this thread. You guys have not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was a quick google search:

Link (http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm)

Atheists make up 0.2% of the prison population, and slightly over 8% of the general population.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
You know less about the religion you speak of than you think.

I'm still waiting on these studies to show that Christians are more likely to capable of violent crimes than atheists.

If I knew that everything was meaningless, I'd be more likely to be a hitman or something. Why would killing someone matter? It wouldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, yer the kind of guy that terrifies the rest of us, and makes us a little glad that there are religions. No doubt about that.

And which religion is that? The particular version of Christianity that you happen to believe in? Nope, I know exactly as much about that as I think I do.

Also, do you feel that repeatedly stating your unsupported assertions lends them more weight? You've said you think life is meaningless without God. I've tried to show you why it isn't. Can you back up your assertion that it is, or are you just going to keep saying its meaningless and argue from there?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see the argument repeatedly made that Atheists who commit mass murder don't do so because of any Atheist Ideology, so therefore you can't blame their actions on their Atheism. I think this misses the point. What the examples are proposed to illustrate is the idea that "If God is dead, anything is permissible" - (Dostoevsky). How could Stalin starve millions of his people to death? Stalin's response to this criticism? "Oh well. People die". For him, anything was permissible in achieving his goals. You have to ask yourself, would he have been as likely to have that attitude if he had valued human dignity and human rights via Religious beliefs? That's the real issue to be discussed.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what IS being discussed, but their rebuttal is that atheists value human life just as much as those with religious beliefs.

The evidence does not back up their claims, and one only has to look in the past whether it be 25 years, or 2500 years [Atheism is NOT new].

Life has less meaning to those that think that life has no purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say there are many atheists who value human life as much as anybody. Also, there have been many religious people who have shown little regard for human life in some of their actions. So I don't see how pointing out examples on each side can really prove anything unless you can apply some kind of statistical analysis to them.

Something to consider here though is an application of Baye's Theorum. In the last century the vast majority of people on the planet have been religious. So you would expect the vast majority of people responsible for crimes against humanity to have been religious. Yet that does not appear to be the case. The most glaring and extreme examples appear to be just the opposite. It seems to me that Woolygimp has a point there, irrespective of his *.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. You are surprised that atheists (being generous and calling any of these atheists, when all thats been demonstrated so far is that most of them hate religion, something many of my Christian friends would agree with) are overrepresented in this ridiculously small sample? Why isn't it even more convincing that theists are overrepresented among criminals, at least in the US? Why is 'mass murderer' the only metric for judging morality? Its a TERRIBLE metric, for the simple fact that there are so very few of them. Clearly the overrepresentation among the prisoner population is far better support, right? Neither of them mean much, if anything, but one is clearly superior to the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I said there was anything convincing about it. I do feel it's something that's got to make you stop and think. The question it raises in my mind is the one I posed here:

[ QUOTE ]
Stalin's response to this criticism? "Oh well. People die". For him, anything was permissible in achieving his goals. You have to ask yourself, would he have been as likely to have that attitude if he had valued human dignity and human rights via Religious beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't offer anything conclusive, but I can't help but have the hunch that Stalin would have been less likely to commit those attrocities had he valued human life and human dignity via religious beliefs. Applying this same question to your example of religious prison inmates. Would they have been less likely to be drawn to the criminal life had they been Atheists? My hunch here is No. This leads me to think there might be other corrolative factors involved.

I don't think see any of this as conclusive. Your best judgement and my best judgement on the implications may differ. It is possible for reasonable people to disagree.

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see the argument repeatedly made that Atheists who commit mass murder don't do so because of any Atheist Ideology, so therefore you can't blame their actions on their Atheism. I think this misses the point. What the examples are proposed to illustrate is the idea that "If God is dead, anything is permissible" - (Dostoevsky). How could Stalin starve millions of his people to death? Stalin's response to this criticism? "Oh well. People die". For him, anything was permissible in achieving his goals. You have to ask yourself, would he have been as likely to have that attitude if he had valued human dignity and human rights via Religious beliefs? That's the real issue to be discussed.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what IS being discussed, but their rebuttal is that atheists value human life just as much as those with religious beliefs.

The evidence does not back up their claims, and one only has to look in the past whether it be 25 years, or 2500 years [Atheism is NOT new].

Life has less meaning to those that think that life has no purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say there are many atheists who value human life as much as anybody. Also, there have been many religious people who have shown little regard for human life in some of their actions. So I don't see how pointing out examples on each side can really prove anything unless you can apply some kind of statistical analysis to them.

Something to consider here though is an application of Baye's Theorum. In the last century the vast majority of people on the planet have been religious. So you would expect the vast majority of people responsible for crimes against humanity to have been religious. Yet that does not appear to be the case. The most glaring and extreme examples appear to be just the opposite. It seems to me that Woolygimp has a point there, irrespective of his *.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. You are surprised that atheists (being generous and calling any of these atheists, when all thats been demonstrated so far is that most of them hate religion, something many of my Christian friends would agree with) are overrepresented in this ridiculously small sample? Why isn't it even more convincing that theists are overrepresented among criminals, at least in the US? Why is 'mass murderer' the only metric for judging morality? Its a TERRIBLE metric, for the simple fact that there are so very few of them. Clearly the overrepresentation among the prisoner population is far better support, right? Neither of them mean much, if anything, but one is clearly superior to the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I said there was anything convincing about it. I do feel it's something that's got to make you stop and think. The question it raises in my mind is the one I posed here:

[ QUOTE ]
Stalin's response to this criticism? "Oh well. People die". For him, anything was permissible in achieving his goals. You have to ask yourself, would he have been as likely to have that attitude if he had valued human dignity and human rights via Religious beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't offer anything conclusive, but I can't help but have the hunch that Stalin would have been less likely to commit those attrocities had he valued human life and human dignity via religious beliefs. Applying this same question to your example of religious prison inmates. Would they have been less likely to be drawn to the criminal life had they been Atheists? My hunch here is No. This leads me to think there might be other corrolative factors involved.

I don't think see any of this as conclusive. Your best judgement and my best judgement on the implications may disagree. It is possible for reasonable people to disagree.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

It really makes you stop and think? How many evil dictators are we talking about here? What is the grand total? 10? 5? Lets say 10. Whats the global % of atheists? 5%? 10%? So, how many would we expect to be atheists based on chance? 1? Ok, so instead its 8. Or 6. Or 2. I guess it depends on how we classify them. Since Hitler is clearly a theist, although not a Christian, he doesn't count. I'll give you Stalin. Pol Pot. Ok. Lets say its 6 out of 10? So, we'd expect 1 out of ten, and we get 6. What are the chances that we'd get 6 based purely on chance?

I hope you see where this is going. This is hardly 'really make you stop and think' territory here.

I agree on the Stalin point. Of course he would have been less likely. He would have been less likely had he valued life for secular reasons as well. That was my point.

I agree with your main point, which is why OUR discussion has a chance of being productive, where the one with Woolly is bound to be futile. There certainly seem to be far more important factors involved.

[Woolygimp]

If I polled people walking down a street in New York City about their religious views, then I stuck those same people in a Jet Liner with blown out engines 30,000 feet above the earth in a downward spiral that will inevitably lead to their deaths.

Do you think that the amount that would be praying on that plane would be proportionate to their responses given previously?

It is proven that people turn to religion under duress. Period. This obviously alters the prison statistics.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
If I knew that everything was meaningless, I'd be more likely to be a hitman or something. Why would killing someone matter? It wouldn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we should be thankful that you believe in an invisible man in the sky. Apparently that's the only thing keeping you from going on a killing spree.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
If I polled people walking down a street in New York City about their religious views, then I stuck those same people in a Jet Liner with blown out engines 30,000 feet above the earth in a downward spiral that will inevitably lead to their deaths.

Do you think that the amount that would be praying on that plane would be proportionate to their responses given previously?

It is proven that people turn to religion under duress. Period. This obviously alters the prison statistics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahahaha. Ok, well, we sure seem to have some strong data that people turn away from religion when they become evil dictators. This obviously alters your mass murderer 'statistics.'

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I knew that everything was meaningless, I'd be more likely to be a hitman or something. Why would killing someone matter? It wouldn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we should be thankful that you believe in an invisible man in the sky. Apparently that's the only thing keeping you from going on a killing spree.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was an analogy that you weren't mean to take literally, but you are still completing dodging the question I'm trying to ask.

HOW can an atheist value human life as much as a Christian.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I knew that everything was meaningless, I'd be more likely to be a hitman or something. Why would killing someone matter? It wouldn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we should be thankful that you believe in an invisible man in the sky. Apparently that's the only thing keeping you from going on a killing spree.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was an analogy that you weren't mean to take literally, but you are still completing dodging the question I'm trying to ask.

HOW can an atheist value human life as much as a Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its all we have. Also, you haven't answered MY question. Do you value the love of your friends and family? Obviously not, if you are logically consistent.

What is it about meaning that requires eternity?

[Woolygimp]

If you are an atheist you HAVE to believe that none of your actions will have any effect on ANYTHING in the long run. None. Nothing.

When you die, when other people die, when the human race dies out, when the universe ends it's over. There's nothing more to it, it's just over.

So if you are a true atheist you should be indifferent to whether or not you donate $1300 to charity this morning, or go blow of someones head. Everything is an illusion, compassion, guilt, etc. You should know this.

The only thing preventing you from committing such actions are these illusionary responses such as self-preservation.


Nothing matters.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are an atheist you HAVE to believe that none of your actions will have any effect on ANYTHING in the long run. None. Nothing.

When you die, when other people die, when the human race dies out, when the universe ends it's over. There's nothing more to it, it's just over.

So if you are a true atheist you should be indifferent to whether or not you donate $1300 to charity this morning, or go blow of someones head. Everything is an illusion, compassion, guilt, etc. You should know this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you honestly wonder why I respond to you with laughing faces, 'hahahaha's' and 'LOL's'? Why does any of this follow?

[Woolygimp]

If you want me to keep taking you seriously, you should start offering well thought out rebuttals and opinions to my replies, instead of saying, "lol, hahhaha", or "this is why i reply with lols and hahahahs."

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want me to keep taking you seriously, you should start offering well thought out rebuttals and opinions to my replies, instead of saying, "lol, hahhaha", or "this is why i reply with lols and hahahahs."

[/ QUOTE ]
Why can't I do both?

I've answered your last question at least twice. Why do you ignore them? I'm addressing all your points.

I get a little tired of responding and having you ignore what I am saying and just keep repeating your assertions. I get it, you think nothing matters to an atheist. WHY? You've said a bunch of words, and from none of that follows the conclusion that NOTHING matters, in bold face or otherwise.

[Woolygimp]

Start here;

[ QUOTE ]

If you are an atheist you HAVE to believe that none of your actions will have any effect on ANYTHING in the long run. None. Nothing.

When you die, when other people die, when the human race dies out, when the universe ends it's over. There's nothing more to it, it's just over.

So if you are a true atheist you should be indifferent to whether or not you donate $1300 to charity this morning, or go blow of someones head. Everything is an illusion, compassion, guilt, etc. You should know this.

The only thing preventing you from committing such actions are these illusionary responses such as self-preservation.


Nothing matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Start here;

[ QUOTE ]

If you are an atheist you HAVE to believe that none of your actions will have any effect on ANYTHING in the long run. None. Nothing.

When you die, when other people die, when the human race dies out, when the universe ends it's over. There's nothing more to it, it's just over.

So if you are a true atheist you should be indifferent to whether or not you donate $1300 to charity this morning, or go blow of someones head. Everything is an illusion, compassion, guilt, etc. You should know this.

The only thing preventing you from committing such actions are these illusionary responses such as self-preservation.


Nothing matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. There is no reason to think something must last forever for it to matter. It isn't in the defintion of 'matter,' and it isn't implied in the usage. Please try to support your conjecture, and I will see if I can be of more help.

[Woolygimp]

You wake up this morning in a ditch in a foreign land. Everything about your memory and past experiences have just been permanently erased. You have effectively lost your identity.

Let's rewind to yesterday, why did it matter in the slightest whether you ate eggs or waffles for breakfast?

That's on a small scale, if things cease to exist then it doesn't how events unfolded. Mosquito #12932490824921841092482 was a mosquito that died 1283 years ago. Do you know anything about it? Do I know how anything about it? Does it have any effect on anything, does it matter?

So let's assume one day everything is wiped clean, that guy that shot up that school yesterday? He doesn't matter. Nothing did. It's gone.

That's what I'm saying, and if I were an atheist that'd be my objective view on reality. I don't see how you think differently, and I'd like to explain to me how you do, assuming that you do.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Give me a second, and I'll try to explain it more professionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm giddy with anticipation.

[Woolygimp]

^

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]


You wake up this morning in a ditch in a foreign land. Everything about your memory and past experiences have just been permanently erased. You have effectively lost your identity.

Let's rewind to yesterday, why did it matter in the slightest whether you ate eggs or waffles for breakfast?

That's on a small scale, if things cease to exist then it doesn't how events unfolded. Mosquito #12932490824921841092482 was a mosquito that died 1283 years ago. Do you know anything about it? Do I know how anything about it? Does it have any effect on anything, does it matter?

So let's assume one day everything is wiped clean, that guy that shot up that school yesterday? He doesn't matter. Nothing did. It's gone.

That's what I'm saying, and if I were an atheist that'd be my objective view on reality. I don't see how you think differently, and I'd like to explain to me how you do, assuming that you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

It mattered to me then. You seem to be operating under the misconception that there is some priviledged eternal vantagepoint from which the meaning of all things is judged. Thats begging the question. Everything I do matters to me right now. Some things will matter to me in a couple weeks, a couple years, some things will matter to my kids and grandkids, and so on. The fact that it won't matter in a billion years doesn't mean it doesn't matter now.

What is so special about your bizarre kind of 'mattering?' Why would I want that, and why should I miss it?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
When we accept the premise that you don't need to validate your actions in light of any common, human innate sense of morality, what makes 'Thou shall not kill' any more valid than 'Eat babies?'. We are then left to fight out which religion has the better message, a battle that cannot be won since there is no objective standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you've just given a valid standard which people may use to judge the merits of different religions. If the religion violates the "common, human innate sense of morality" you refer to, good judgement rejects it in part or in whole if necessary. The Vatican in recent years has come to recognize this necessity in its placing of Primacy on the individual human conscience.

Just because tenets of Faith lie beyond objective evidence does not mean there is no basis on which to judge the relative merits of different Religions. Reasonable people may differ on their judgements. But such lack of uniformity does not imply absence of value.

PairTheBoard

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone wanna actually argue this weak point, or can we all assume posters like 'M Theory' are jackasses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to my ignore list, m_the0ry is easily one of the ten smartest posters on this board.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


You wake up this morning in a ditch in a foreign land. Everything about your memory and past experiences have just been permanently erased. You have effectively lost your identity.

Let's rewind to yesterday, why did it matter in the slightest whether you ate eggs or waffles for breakfast?

That's on a small scale, if things cease to exist then it doesn't how events unfolded. Mosquito #12932490824921841092482 was a mosquito that died 1283 years ago. Do you know anything about it? Do I know how anything about it? Does it have any effect on anything, does it matter?

So let's assume one day everything is wiped clean, that guy that shot up that school yesterday? He doesn't matter. Nothing did. It's gone.

That's what I'm saying, and if I were an atheist that'd be my objective view on reality. I don't see how you think differently, and I'd like to explain to me how you do, assuming that you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

It mattered to me then. You seem to be operating under the misconception that there is some priviledged eternal vantagepoint from which the meaning of all things is judged. Thats begging the question. Everything I do matters to me right now. Some things will matter to me in a couple weeks, a couple years, some things will matter to my kids and grandkids, and so on. The fact that it won't matter in a billion years doesn't mean it doesn't matter now.

What is so special about your bizarre kind of 'mattering?' Why would I want that, and why should I miss it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you accept the fact that the love you feel for your kids, and family are nothing but an illusion? It's an instinct hardwired into your brain by evolution to prevent you from killing your offspring?

You thinking that things actually have meaning is just your brain betraying logic. You have to think about this objectively, which you aren't doing at the moment.

Being an atheist, and your life having any meaning are mutually exclusive concepts.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When we accept the premise that you don't need to validate your actions in light of any common, human innate sense of morality, what makes 'Thou shall not kill' any more valid than 'Eat babies?'. We are then left to fight out which religion has the better message, a battle that cannot be won since there is no objective standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you've just given a valid standard which people may use to judge the merits of different religions. If the religion violates the "common, human innate sense of morality" you refer to, good judgement rejects it in part or in whole if necessary. The Vatican in recent years has come to recognize this necessity in its placing of Primacy on the individual human conscience.

Just because tenets of Faith lie beyond objective evidence does not mean there is no basis on which to judge the relative merits of different Religions. Reasonable people may differ on their judgements. But such lack of uniformity does not imply absence of value.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand where you are going with this and many of your other points. It seems to me that your optimistic vision for religion is a slow melding or refinement (I'm purposely trying not to disparage this or call it a 'regression' or anything like that) towards secular humanism. Its a reasonable goal. I am still a little confused as to the merits or necessity of subjective experience (as you've defined it) but at least I understand. I don't have anything AGAINST subjective experience, I have subjective experiences all the time, I just see no real reason to accept it as valid, and I know my own subjective experience is flawed in predictable ways. IOW, subjective experience may very well be a valid method of ascertaining Truth, but I don't see how its necessary. Why do I need it (or religion) to get to where we both want to get to?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


You wake up this morning in a ditch in a foreign land. Everything about your memory and past experiences have just been permanently erased. You have effectively lost your identity.

Let's rewind to yesterday, why did it matter in the slightest whether you ate eggs or waffles for breakfast?

That's on a small scale, if things cease to exist then it doesn't how events unfolded. Mosquito #12932490824921841092482 was a mosquito that died 1283 years ago. Do you know anything about it? Do I know how anything about it? Does it have any effect on anything, does it matter?

So let's assume one day everything is wiped clean, that guy that shot up that school yesterday? He doesn't matter. Nothing did. It's gone.

That's what I'm saying, and if I were an atheist that'd be my objective view on reality. I don't see how you think differently, and I'd like to explain to me how you do, assuming that you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

It mattered to me then. You seem to be operating under the misconception that there is some priviledged eternal vantagepoint from which the meaning of all things is judged. Thats begging the question. Everything I do matters to me right now. Some things will matter to me in a couple weeks, a couple years, some things will matter to my kids and grandkids, and so on. The fact that it won't matter in a billion years doesn't mean it doesn't matter now.

What is so special about your bizarre kind of 'mattering?' Why would I want that, and why should I miss it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you accept the fact that the love you feel for your kids, and family are nothing but an illusion? It's an instinct hardwired into your brain by evolution to prevent you from killing your offspring?

You thinking that things actually matter is just your brain betraying logic. You have to think about this objectively, which you aren't doing at the moment.

Being an atheist, and your life having any meaning are mutually exclusive concepts.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by illusion? Of course its not an illusion. It exists. The evolutionary explanation for it does nothing to make it an illusion. Do you feel that illusion really is the correct term, or do you just feel its an emotional, loaded term that allows you to make a more forceful point?

Or are you a brain-in-a-vat kind of guy?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone wanna actually argue this weak point, or can we all assume posters like 'M Theory' are jackasses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to my ignore list, m_the0ry is easily one of the ten smartest posters on this board.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Woolygimp]

By your own admission, love is not a permanent bond. In fact I'd go as far as saying that you believe that there's nothing spiritual to it. It's a completely physical bond because of how your brain was formed due to your DNA.

So in the future when the technology comes about to alter brain wave patterns, you would be indifferent to someone going into your brain and effectively 'turning off' your love for your children.

[Ben K]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are an atheist you HAVE to believe that none of your actions will have any effect on ANYTHING in the long run. None. Nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh for christ's sake!! This is wrong.

I am an atheist. I make my decisions about my actions based on my experiences, what I've been taught and what I think is best to do next. Exactly the same as you. The only difference is that you factor in the what you think is the word of god into your decision, I don't.

You state that I have to believe none of my actions will have any effect in the long run. No I don't. [censored] you! All of my actions have an effect. It's simple physics. Do you think I'm going to deny simple obvious physical processes because I'm an atheist??? Or, let's focus on the long run. We'll die and then cease to have an effect on the physical universe. That applies to you and me equally even if you go to heaven. The effect you can have on ANYTHING is exactly the same for both of us in the long run because once you bugger off to heaven (if it exists) you won't be able to effect anything.


[ QUOTE ]

When you die, when other people die, when the human race dies out, when the universe ends it's over. There's nothing more to it, it's just over.

So if you are a true atheist you should be indifferent to whether or not you donate $1300 to charity this morning, or go blow of someones head. Everything is an illusion, compassion, guilt, etc. You should know this.

The only thing preventing you from committing such actions are these illusionary responses such as self-preservation.


Nothing matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

This, on the other hand, is just [censored]. It's not even a debatable point. You're just stating it and it's not evidential, it's not logical and it's not reasonable. You've simply not considered that by denying that god created the world, there may be another explanation. To you, it's either god or nothing and that is stupid.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
By your own admission, love is not a permanent bond. In fact I'd go as far as saying that you believe that there's nothing spiritual to it. It's a completely physical bond because of how your brain was formed due to your DNA.

So in the future when the technology comes about to alter brain wave patterns, you would be indifferent to someone going into your brain and effectively 'turning off' your love for your children.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course its a completely physical bond. So? You really have to work on arguing from your premises, not your conclusions. I get it, you want the answer to be that my life has no meaning, but you have to start making sense. Why would I be ok with them switching it off? I enjoy it. I wouldn't be indifferent to it in the least.

[Woolygimp]

There are different versions of God than the Christian definition. If you believed that there is any form of higher power that has influenced the universe, or that you have any sort of permanent resounding anchorage either in the spiritual or physical realm then you are by definition most certainly not an Atheist.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are an atheist you HAVE to believe that none of your actions will have any effect on ANYTHING in the long run. None. Nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh for christ's sake!! This is wrong.

I am an atheist. I make my decisions about my actions based on my experiences, what I've been taught and what I think is best to do next. Exactly the same as you. The only difference is that you factor in the what you think is the word of god into your decision, I don't.

You state that I have to believe none of my actions will have any effect in the long run. No I don't. [censored] you! All of my actions have an effect. It's simple physics. Do you think I'm going to deny simple obvious physical processes because I'm an atheist??? Or, let's focus on the long run. We'll die and then cease to have an effect on the physical universe. That applies to you and me equally even if you go to heaven. The effect you can have on ANYTHING is exactly the same for both of us in the long run because once you bugger off to heaven (if it exists) you won't be able to effect anything.


[ QUOTE ]

When you die, when other people die, when the human race dies out, when the universe ends it's over. There's nothing more to it, it's just over.

So if you are a true atheist you should be indifferent to whether or not you donate $1300 to charity this morning, or go blow of someones head. Everything is an illusion, compassion, guilt, etc. You should know this.

The only thing preventing you from committing such actions are these illusionary responses such as self-preservation.


Nothing matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

This, on the other hand, is just [censored]. It's not even a debatable point. You're just stating it and it's not evidential, it's not logical and it's not reasonable. You've simply not considered that by denying that god created the world, there may be another explanation. To you, it's either god or nothing and that is stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be clear, it says you are quoting me, but you are actually quoting Woolly. Not sure if it is a mistake with the software or what, but I didn't say those things.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
There are different versions of God than the Christian definition. If you believed that there is any form of higher power that has influenced the universe, or that you have any sort of permanent resounding anchorage either in the spiritual or physical realm then you are by definition most certainly not an Atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

And then you make the unsupported leap that 'permanent anchorage' = meaning.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By your own admission, love is not a permanent bond. In fact I'd go as far as saying that you believe that there's nothing spiritual to it. It's a completely physical bond because of how your brain was formed due to your DNA.

So in the future when the technology comes about to alter brain wave patterns, you would be indifferent to someone going into your brain and effectively 'turning off' your love for your children.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course its a completely physical bond. So? You really have to work on arguing from your premises, not your conclusions. I get it, you want the answer to be that my life has no meaning, but you have to start making sense. Why would I be ok with them switching it off? I enjoy it. I wouldn't be indifferent to it in the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you enjoy it?

Here's an analogy. Sex is great, right? What if testosterone was removed from your system, I guarantee you that you wouldn't continue to think that sex is great. It only appears great because these chemicals/hard-wiring make them appear-so to follow the evolutionary pattern, and to ensure the race progresses instead of dying out.

So if that's true then them removing the part of your brain responsible for love, then you'd find it just as enjoyable with out it as with it.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By your own admission, love is not a permanent bond. In fact I'd go as far as saying that you believe that there's nothing spiritual to it. It's a completely physical bond because of how your brain was formed due to your DNA.

So in the future when the technology comes about to alter brain wave patterns, you would be indifferent to someone going into your brain and effectively 'turning off' your love for your children.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course its a completely physical bond. So? You really have to work on arguing from your premises, not your conclusions. I get it, you want the answer to be that my life has no meaning, but you have to start making sense. Why would I be ok with them switching it off? I enjoy it. I wouldn't be indifferent to it in the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you enjoy it?

Here's an analogy. Sex is great, right? What if testosterone was removed from your system, I guarantee you that you wouldn't continue to think that sex is great. It only appears great because these chemicals/hard-wiring make them appear-so to follow the evolutionary pattern, and to ensure the race progresses instead of dying out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. And?

So wait, are you saying you DON'T enjoy it?

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By your own admission, love is not a permanent bond. In fact I'd go as far as saying that you believe that there's nothing spiritual to it. It's a completely physical bond because of how your brain was formed due to your DNA.

So in the future when the technology comes about to alter brain wave patterns, you would be indifferent to someone going into your brain and effectively 'turning off' your love for your children.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course its a completely physical bond. So? You really have to work on arguing from your premises, not your conclusions. I get it, you want the answer to be that my life has no meaning, but you have to start making sense. Why would I be ok with them switching it off? I enjoy it. I wouldn't be indifferent to it in the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you enjoy it?

Here's an analogy. Sex is great, right? What if testosterone was removed from your system, I guarantee you that you wouldn't continue to think that sex is great. It only appears great because these chemicals/hard-wiring make them appear-so to follow the evolutionary pattern, and to ensure the race progresses instead of dying out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. And?

So wait, are you saying you DON'T enjoy it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe any of this, but I'm showing you my perspective if hypothetically I was an atheist.

Maybe I'm thinking far too deep, but It's like these following two events end up being exactly the same in the long term.

The universe never existing.
The universe coming into existance, humans live out their lives for several thousand years, and the universe ceases to exist again 10^7 years from now.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By your own admission, love is not a permanent bond. In fact I'd go as far as saying that you believe that there's nothing spiritual to it. It's a completely physical bond because of how your brain was formed due to your DNA.

So in the future when the technology comes about to alter brain wave patterns, you would be indifferent to someone going into your brain and effectively 'turning off' your love for your children.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course its a completely physical bond. So? You really have to work on arguing from your premises, not your conclusions. I get it, you want the answer to be that my life has no meaning, but you have to start making sense. Why would I be ok with them switching it off? I enjoy it. I wouldn't be indifferent to it in the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you enjoy it?

Here's an analogy. Sex is great, right? What if testosterone was removed from your system, I guarantee you that you wouldn't continue to think that sex is great. It only appears great because these chemicals/hard-wiring make them appear-so to follow the evolutionary pattern, and to ensure the race progresses instead of dying out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. And?

So wait, are you saying you DON'T enjoy it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe any of this, but I'm showing you my perspective if hypothetically I was an atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would be the worst atheist ever. Why do YOU think you enjoy sex?

Really quickly, removing all the testosterone from my system wouldn't make sex any less pleasurable. I won't make fun of you for that, since you are clearly not studying much science, and I have a bit of a leg-up on you. If you remove all my testosterone from birth, you might have a point.

But lets stick with your hypothetical. Do you think YOU would enjoy sex without any 'testosterone?' Are you magically different from the rest of us, or do you think there is some other mechanism that gives the pleasure?

[Woolygimp]

Really quickly? Hormones usually don't work quickly, and most have an effect over several weeks. Cortisol is exactly the same way, but I imagine removing your testosterone over several weeks would reduce your sex drive noticeably.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
If life has no purpose to an atheist, how can I expect them to hold value for it?

I'm not saying all atheists are heartless murderers, but I can see this as justification for their acts.

If you disagree with that statement, tell me which part you disagree with. How CAN life have a meaning to an atheist?

Existence will eventually end, and all will be for nought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Morals and ethics are genetically and socially determined. Nobody acts in this cold, calculated, rational way that you suppose. Proclivities to act in a social manner evolved as the best way to spread our genes.

Monkeys exhibit the same sorts of altruistic and cooperative behavior as humans, and I'm pretty sure they aren't big on the whole theism thing.

I don't have any clue where you got this idea that without religion we would be running around raping and killing each other, but it truly is silly.

It's beginning to look, though, like you have no interest in understanding that. But then, if you really think that without god you would kill everyone else before killing yourself, then I guess that's probably for the best.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When we accept the premise that you don't need to validate your actions in light of any common, human innate sense of morality, what makes 'Thou shall not kill' any more valid than 'Eat babies?'. We are then left to fight out which religion has the better message, a battle that cannot be won since there is no objective standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you've just given a valid standard which people may use to judge the merits of different religions. If the religion violates the "common, human innate sense of morality" you refer to, good judgement rejects it in part or in whole if necessary. The Vatican in recent years has come to recognize this necessity in its placing of Primacy on the individual human conscience.

Just because tenets of Faith lie beyond objective evidence does not mean there is no basis on which to judge the relative merits of different Religions. Reasonable people may differ on their judgements. But such lack of uniformity does not imply absence of value.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand where you are going with this and many of your other points. It seems to me that your optimistic vision for religion is a slow melding or refinement (I'm purposely trying not to disparage this or call it a 'regression' or anything like that) towards secular humanism. Its a reasonable goal. I am still a little confused as to the merits or necessity of subjective experience (as you've defined it) but at least I understand. I don't have anything AGAINST subjective experience, I have subjective experiences all the time, I just see no real reason to accept it as valid, and I know my own subjective experience is flawed in predictable ways. IOW, subjective experience may very well be a valid method of ascertaining Truth, but I don't see how its necessary. Why do I need it (or religion) to get to where we both want to get to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post vhawk. It points to exactly the kind of ecumenical (from the Theist's viewpoint) discussion I was encouraging in my "To know God" thread. So if you don't mind, I'm going to transfer your post to that thread and reply there. I'm afraid this thread is just too chaotic.

There's a reason why Woolygimp has a * under his name.

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Really quickly? Hormones usually don't work quickly, and most have an effect over several weeks. Cortisol is exactly the same way, but I imagine removing your testosterone over several weeks would reduce your sex drive noticeably.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really want to get into this? I had an endocrinology exam in medical school this morning at 10 am. I probably failed it, but I'm pretty sure I still know a decent amount about it. The vast majority of hormones are very short-acting. Exceptions are hormones that are strongly bound to hormone-binding proteins in the plasma, and some peptide hormones which are stored in secretory granules before release.

Testosterone is a steroid hormone, and only weakly binds to Testosterone-binding Protein. Its action is fairly quick, and its half-life in the body is a few days.

None of this matters. The pleasure I get from sex is carried on afferent sensory fibers, mostly in the glans penis, and testosterone isn't required. It is required for normal development of male anatomy, thus my point about depriving me of testosterone for my whole life.

And of course, this makes no difference. You get pleasure from sex the exact same way as I do. Where are you going with this? If I removed your penis, you probably wouldn't enjoy sex. Does that mean you don't currently enjoy it?

In short, WTF are you talking about?

[Woolygimp]

I'm sure monkeys don't have the intelligence level to comprehend existence. When you die, you cease to exist?
That guy that went on a killing spree, his fate? He has also ceased to exist. Everything will cease to exist.

If that's the worst, why not act in an indiscriminate selfish manner, and make your life the best possible at the expense to others? Why donate to charity?

Vhawk, I read another study. It shows that 84% of the American population is Christian, and 1% is atheist. If that's correct, then the prison statistics have an entirely different meaning.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
If that's the worst, why not act in an indiscriminate selfish manner, and make your life the best possible at the expense to others?

[/ QUOTE ]

that's what people do.

we donate to charity because it makes us feel good.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure monkeys don't have the intelligence level to comprehend existence. When you die, you cease to exist?
That guy that went on a killing spree, his fate? He has also ceased to exist. Everything will cease to exist.

If that's the worst, why not act in an indiscriminate selfish manner, and make your life the best possible at the expense to others? Why donate to charity?

Vhawk, I read another study. It shows that 84% of the American population is Christian, and 1% is atheist. If that's correct, then the prison statistics have an entirely different meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Post your study. I think your numbers are way off, and I haven't seen anything remotely close to 1%. Of course, that would mean that atheists are only underrepresented 5-fold, but I think I'll hold off on your "I read a study one time" until you produce it.

Also, I do act in an indiscriminate(well, not indiscriminate) selfish manner. I also donate to charity. DUCY?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure monkeys don't have the intelligence level to comprehend existence. When you die, you cease to exist?
That guy that went on a killing spree, his fate? He has also ceased to exist. Everything will cease to exist.

If that's the worst, why not act in an indiscriminate selfish manner, and make your life the best possible at the expense to others? Why donate to charity?

Vhawk, I read another study. It shows that 84% of the American population is Christian, and 1% is atheist. If that's correct, then the prison statistics have an entirely different meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I was pretty hopeful when you made your first post, but it turns out that you're a [censored] idiot. Ah well...live and let live and all...yet another person for the ignore list.

As an aside, SURELY there is a christian out there who can maintain his/her attention, address arguments, and offer a coherent worldview...right?

[Woolygimp]

Post deleted by Woolygimp

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really quickly? Hormones usually don't work quickly, and most have an effect over several weeks. Cortisol is exactly the same way, but I imagine removing your testosterone over several weeks would reduce your sex drive noticeably.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really want to get into this? I had an endocrinology exam in medical school this morning at 10 am. I probably failed it, but I'm pretty sure I still know a decent amount about it. The vast majority of hormones are very short-acting. Exceptions are hormones that are strongly bound to hormone-binding proteins in the plasma, and some peptide hormones which are stored in secretory granules before release.

Testosterone is a steroid hormone, and only weakly binds to Testosterone-binding Protein. Its action is fairly quick, and its half-life in the body is a few days.

None of this matters. The pleasure I get from sex is carried on afferent sensory fibers, mostly in the glans penis, and testosterone isn't required. It is required for normal development of male anatomy, thus my point about depriving me of testosterone for my whole life.

And of course, this makes no difference. You get pleasure from sex the exact same way as I do. Where are you going with this? If I removed your penis, you probably wouldn't enjoy sex. Does that mean you don't currently enjoy it?

In short, WTF are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cortisol (hydrocortisone) is another steroid hormone and it's produced by the adrenal system. It's produced by your body when reacting to stress, and it performs various functions such as increased BP, blood sugar dd/l concentrations, and supresses the immune system.

Cushing's patients who are suffering from a long term elevated level of hydrocortisone do not notice any immediate effect from having their pituitary tumors removed. It takes several months to notice any effect, due to the long lasting imprints this steroid leaves on the system.

The normal amount of cortisol in the blood undergoes diurnal variation, with highest levels present in early morning and levels decreasing until the early morning. Short-term exposure does have some beneficial effects such as flash bulb memories, but long-term exposure is severely detrimental to the patient.

Thyroxine (t4) is a protein bound hormone transported in the blood, and is converted by deiondinase to the active form triiodthyronine. Graves and Hashimoto's are autoimmune diseases which respectively infer long term increased or decreased level of serum Thyroxine, or the hampered conversion process due to specific ANA antibodies.

Although short term effects included increased heart rate, and raised blood pressure most effects kick in at around 3 weeks.

Admittedly I know very little about sex hormones, but I do know quite a bit about the primary endocrine system including the pituitary and it's hormones [GH, TSH] both peptide hormones, and it's and supporting systems (adrenal/thyroid glands).

I'm not studying to become an endocrinologist, but I'm still taking basic courses in college and I'm split between that and business. I've studied both using teh internetz, so I'm not completely ignorant, and stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

crap. didn't put you on ignore fast enough.
did you just try and explain hormones to a med student taking a graduate level endocrinology class?

time for you to crawl back too oot, paco.

[Woolygimp]

I never said I knew as much as him about endocrinology, I was just explaining that I was completely ignorant on the subject.

This thread really isn't going anywhere, anyways.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]

time for you to crawl back too oot, paco.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can also start by explaining the English language to you.

Start here:
http://www.quia.com/pop/1000.html
[The difference between to/too/two]

[Woolygimp]

U.S. Religious Affiliation, 2002


Religious Preference % June 1996 % March 2001 March 2002
Christian 84 82 82
Jewish 1 1 1
Muslim * 1 *
Other non-Christian 3 2 1
Atheist * 1 1
Agnostic * 2 2
Something else (SPECIFY) * 1 2
No preference 11 8 10
Don't know/Refused 1 2 1
TOTAL 100 100 100

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
U.S. Religious Affiliation, 2002


Religious Preference % June 1996 % March 2001 March 2002
Christian 84 82 82
Jewish 1 1 1
Muslim * 1 *
Other non-Christian 3 2 1
Atheist * 1 1
Agnostic * 2 2
Something else (SPECIFY) * 1 2
No preference 11 8 10
Don't know/Refused 1 2 1
TOTAL 100 100 100

[/ QUOTE ]

US Religious Affiliation 2007

Atheists 100
Christians 0

Well, that was fun.

[vhawk01]

For a more substantive data set: try here. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/)

9% have no religion, 6% don't believe in God, and 3% are willing to admit they are atheists.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
For a more substantive data set: try here. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/)

9% have no religion, 6% don't believe in God, and 3% are willing to admit they are atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest that's a lot lower than I thought. At first I had thought it was 50% Christian, 25% atheist, 25% minority religions.

Polls aren't always incredibly accurate, but I'd say those numbers look about right given the information already present in the thread.

[ChrisV]

Woolygimp,

You say that atheists will be led towards a life of crime by their beliefs. Is the only reason you personally don't rape, murder and steal that you are afraid God is watching? Would you do those things if you knew there wasn't a God and life ended at death?

I don't want to argue about prison populations and so on, because I have seen conflicting statistics. What I will say is that in general you have the chain of causation between psychopathy and atheist beliefs the wrong way around. For instance, here's Hitler on the subject of his religious beliefs. Yes, he privately did have some:

[ QUOTE ]
Hitler did not believe in a "remote, rationalist divinity" but in an "active deity," which he frequently referred to as "Creator" or "Providence". In Hitler's belief God created a world in which different races fought each other for survival as depicted by Arthur de Gobineau. The "Aryan race", supposedly the bearer of civilization, is allocated a special place:

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race ... so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. ... Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence."

The Jews he viewed as enemies of all civilization and as materialistic, unspiritual beings, writing in Mein Kampf: "His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine." Hitler described his supposedly divine mandate for his anti-Semitism: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

[/ QUOTE ]

So here's the question. Do you think it's more likely that Hitler formed this conception of God and THEN began his campaign against the Jews? Or did he simply hate Jews for other reasons and then form a conception of God which matched up with his other beliefs?

If someone is a psychopathic killer, often they either disavow God, or form a delusional belief that they are "doing God's work". In neither case could their religious beliefs be said to be responsible for their actions.

[Woolygimp]

I definitely have some trouble conveying my thoughts, and I don't always mean what I say or say what I mean.

I'm not trying to convince atheists out there that they are evil because they don't believe in a God, I'm more or less trying to illustrate that the door swings both ways.

Does organized religion have flaws? You bet your ass is does, but then again what doesn't.

There will always be psychopaths, and it doesn't matter whether they are atheist/religious/eskimo's.

I made the point earlier that ideologies have the potential for harm, and yes organized religion can be considered an ideology. In the case of atheism though, does something replace religion such as communism or belief in the state coming before all things moral and immoral?

So in closing, there are bad people anyway you cut it. When I made this thread it was in response to M Theories claim that Christianity is f***ing up the world so to speak, and I'm sure any logical person knows that it just isn't true.

Maybe I was a little offensive in my previous posts, but you guys have to understand you were doing the same thing in the other post: saying religion is the cause of all evil.

As for the one poster that said, "religious nuts rule the country, and it worries me...no telling what they are capable of."

84% of this country consists of Christians, and in a democracy the majority rules.
Every single major presidential candidate also happens to be a Christian.
In our 230 years of being a country, we've got one hell of a track record but even if you don't like what's going on it'd be a hell of a lot easier to pack up your bags and move instead of convincing 84% of the population that their strongest beliefs are 'fairytales'.

Maybe one day that'll change, but it won't be in our lifetimes. So suck it, or ship off to one of the dozen agnostic countries out there. You can start with North Korea, I hear religion is banned over there. You'd fit right in.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I definitely have some trouble conveying my thoughts, and I don't always mean what I say or say what I mean.

I'm not trying to convince atheists out there that they are evil because they don't believe in a God, I'm more or less trying to illustrate that the door swings both ways.

Does organized religion have flaws? You bet your ass is does, but then again what doesn't.

There will always be psychopaths, and it doesn't matter whether they are atheist/religious/eskimo's.

I made the point earlier that ideologies have the potential for harm, and yes organized religion can be considered an ideology. In the case of atheism though, does something replace religion such as communism or belief in the state coming before all things moral and immoral?

So in closing, there are bad people anyway you cut it. When I made this thread it was in response to M Theories claim that Christianity is f***ing up the world so to speak, and I'm sure any logical person knows that it just isn't true.

Maybe I was a little offensive in my previous posts, but you guys have to understand you were doing the same thing in the other post: saying religion is the cause of all evil.

As for the one poster that said, "religious nuts rule the country, and it worries me...no telling what they are capable of."

84% of this country consists of Christians, and in a democracy the majority rules.
Every single major presidential candidate also happens to be a Christian.
In our 230 years of being a country, we've got one hell of a track record but even if you don't like what's going on it'd be a hell of a lot easier to pack up your bags and move instead of convincing 84% of the population that their strongest beliefs are 'fairytales'.

Maybe one day that'll change, but it won't be in our lifetimes. So suck it, or ship off to one of the dozen agnostic countries out there. You can start with North Korea, I hear religion is banned over there. You'd fit right in.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure are an idiot. Its funny, you started off this post trying to make up for all the insane, pointless crap you've been posting in this and other threads. Then you just couldn't help yourself, and ended it in typical fashion. I'm fairly certain you haven't made one cogent argument in this entire thread. You speak about how terrible ideologies are, and then you admit religion is an ideology. So, why are you in favor of it? Shouldn't we be trying to eliminate all ideologies that aren't absolutely necessary?

Secondly, do you care at all about the actual truth of your ideology? I know its slightly off-topic from this thread, but it is the more important point. Even if Christianity makes everyone awesome and atheism makes everyone a mass murderer, it makes no difference to the truth of Christianity. It doesn't make it a single percentage point more likely to be true.

You have no idea what American democracy is about. We are majority Christian, and majority rules? You think thats how this country works? Forget that whole Constitution thing, right? If you don't like Christianity running your life, go to North Korea. Wow. I'm starting to envy those with enough sense to ignore you about 20 posts ago.

Most of us don't care about convincing you your beliefs are fairytales. Of course they are, but you are welcome to them. What we WOULD like to do is convince everyone that passing laws and controlling peoples lives because YOUR fairy said so is unacceptable.

[Woolygimp]

Don't lecture me on American democracy, if 84% of the population thought slavery was moral do you think there'd be anti-slavery laws?

Negative.

I'm just saying that it'd be easier to move to North Korea, than changing the majority opinion because if you stay in the United States then religion will inevitably play some part in politics. The country has been this way for the past 230 years...

North Korea would be a great country to move to if you do DO not want religion running anything. How is that not a fair assessment.

It doesn't matter what I say, or how I say it you're going to interpret it the way that you want to. So I'm done with this thread.

[Prodigy54321]

alright, this thread is pissing me off...

-atheism itself can cause no action..why? because it demands no action..there is no book, no rules, no doctrine, no committee...an argument can be made however, that an action may be less likely to happen if the person taking the action held a certain belief...I believe that is where you want to go, Wooly...but your target in this case is not atheism, it is all people who do not hold a specific belief which you believe would deter certain actions...in this case, murders (mass murderers perhaps..although I'm not sure why mass murderers are the main focus in this thread..what are we trying to prove again?)...

so instead of making some general claims about theism vs atheism..you would be better served (and would get more respect IMO) making a claim such as... people who hold the belief that there is an infinite afterlife where they will be held responsible (via punishment or reward..the severity of these may also be important) for their actions on earth by some standard..are less likely than those who do not believe that to be true...to take actions that they believe they would be punished for.

the people who fall into this category of lacking this belief are not all atheists..maybe not even mostly atheists.

this is a most reasonable assumption IMO....it may not be true, but it wouldn't shock most people if it were.

now we got to the evidence..

Wooly, why not admit that some of the people you mentioned were theists?...(as a side note, a little while back in the thread you switched your statements to admit that hitler was probably (or may have been at least)a theist..and then you went on to say that he most definitely hated religion..while I agree that this is true, it does not support your original argument..(it doesn't happen to support mine either)...as others have mentioned...it's likely that most people who oppose religion are theists..my parents are two such examples)

again, I'm not sure why there is so much focus on mass murderers..what are we supporting with this?, either way?

on to your odd statement that you didn't want prison statistics brought up...

[ QUOTE ]
Don't say that X amount of Christians in this country are in prison, while only X amount of atheists. There are obviously far more Christians in the United States; I wanted a weighted percentage and the studies to back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

the statistics that were provided to you did indeed account for the fact that there are far more theists than atheists in the US...the % of atheists in the prison population is a vast under-representation of the % of atheists in the general population..I'm not sure of what you were expecting...a statistic that didn't account for the %s in the general population?..if you did, you give SMP way too little credit...we'd be swift to verbally slap a person in the face for doing something like that...

the statistics are certainly relevent in this case..you offered reasonable thoughts on why this statistics might be skewed..but they are still relevent to our discussion..your thoughts however are not obviously true just because you said that they are...there are probably no studies done on prison populations that would give us info either way (if you can find some, I'd like to see it)...and that doesn't mean that it is not a possible reason for the differences in %s of the prison population vs %s in the general population...but to assume that there is a reason for it is absurd..at least admit that the statistics, as they stand indicate that atheists are less likely to commit crimes (well, actually, certian crimes...and be caught, convicted, and sent to jail for them)...than theists.

on to the only actual problem that I have with you in this thread...

[ QUOTE ]
HOW can an atheist value human life as much as a Christian.


[/ QUOTE ]

you have offered no reason to think otherwise..

we have had similar discusssion in this forum many times..I would suggest doing a search..but I'll give my own thoughts and questions..

-what is it about the Christian religion that makes you think that Christians would value human life more than atheists?

-Christians' belief that there is an eternal afterlife certainly doesn't support your arguement...if someone is going to stay alive after they have died..wouldn't that make their life on earth less valuable...on the other hand..if life on earth is the only one that we get..doesn't it make sense that we would value it highly?..more highly that christians at least?

[ QUOTE ]
If you are an atheist you HAVE to believe that none of your actions will have any effect on ANYTHING in the long run. None. Nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

what is this supposed to argue?..

I suppose you wouldn't mind if I punched you in the face right now..after all, after a while, you won't feel a thing.

REAL, ACTUAL, consequences are what matter..if you are an atheist..you suddenly don't get punished for murdering random people?

even if we don't consider the conseqences or chance of consequences...there is still that thing inside of most of us that tell us that we don't like seing other people or ourselves in emotional pr physical pain...

Dawking often responds to questions like this..something to the effect of..."You mean that the only reason that you don't go around raping and murdering random people is that you believe that you will be punished for it after you die?"

I guess I wouldn't be surprised if many christians said, Yes..but that is their problem..and I highly doubt that they would be telling the truth anyway.

then there is that whole little fact that you can be forgiven for the bad things that you do...REAL, ACTUAL consequences don't so easily wipe away.

[ QUOTE ]
So if you are a true atheist you should be indifferent to whether or not you donate $1300 to charity this morning, or go blow of someones head.

[/ QUOTE ]

see above..and again..my mind doesn't like it when I do things like..blow people's heads off..you might as well as why I don't decide to kick myself in the balls rather than have sex with a beautiful woman..

[ QUOTE ]
Everything is an illusion, compassion, guilt, etc. You should know this.


[/ QUOTE ]

lol, now this is just absurd..I don't even understand what you are talking about here..why do these things suddenly become illusions when there is not god?

[ QUOTE ]
Then you accept the fact that the love you feel for your kids, and family are nothing but an illusion? It's an instinct hardwired into your brain by evolution to prevent you from killing your offspring?

You thinking that things actually have meaning is just your brain betraying logic. You have to think about this objectively, which you aren't doing at the moment.

Being an atheist, and your life having any meaning are mutually exclusive concepts.

[/ QUOTE ]

again, this is absurd...the first point to be made is that the means by which we feel something doesn't change the fact that we do indeed feel it.

the second is that the existence of a god or gods does not change whether or not evolution occurred?..unless of course you don't believe in evolution..but you seem at least reasonable enough that you would admit that evolution is overwhelmingly likely to be true (by true, I mean, accounts for what we see today..and that includes humans..you would have to offer a reason why it wouldn't at the very least)

If I come off as combative..I apologize..I haven't conversed with you at all..and I don't want to just to any unwarranted conclusions..but as I have expressed in this post, I think that you are not making clear arguments..which is a shame because I think that you are actually making decent points..but they don't actually support your apparent conclusion..

I would suggest starting a new thread with a clear hypothesis if you want to get anywhere with these arguments..

*as always, I apologize for spelling, punctuation, and excessive elipses... I'm simply too lazy to look over what I've read..if it is incoherent rambling..so be it.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't lecture me on American democracy, if 84% of the population thought slavery was moral do you think there'd be anti-slavery laws?

Negative.

I'm just saying that it'd be easier to move to North Korea, than changing the majority opinion because if you stay in the United States then religion will inevitably play some part in politics. The country has been this way for the past 230 years...

North Korea would be a great country to move to if you do DO not want religion running anything. How is that not a fair assessment.

It doesn't matter what I say, or how I say it you're going to interpret it the way that you want to. So I'm done with this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then amend the Constitution or STFU.

[Ben K]

[ QUOTE ]
There are different versions of God than the Christian definition. If you believed that there is any form of higher power that has influenced the universe, or that you have any sort of permanent resounding anchorage either in the spiritual or physical realm then you are by definition most certainly not an Atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are an atheist you HAVE to believe that none of your actions will have any effect on ANYTHING in the long run. None. Nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh for christ's sake!! This is wrong.

I am an atheist. I make my decisions about my actions based on my experiences, what I've been taught and what I think is best to do next. Exactly the same as you. The only difference is that you factor in the what you think is the word of god, any frickin' god (Not a single definition is worthy of adding into decision making) into your decision, I don't.

You state that I have to believe none of my actions will have any effect in the long run. No I don't. [censored] you! All of my actions have an effect. It's simple physics. Do you think I'm going to deny simple obvious physical processes because I'm an atheist??? Or, let's focus on the long run. We'll die and then cease to have an effect on the physical universe. That applies to you and me equally even if you go to heaven. The effect you can have on ANYTHING is exactly the same for both of us in the long run because once you bugger off to heaven (if it exists) you won't be able to effect anything.


[ QUOTE ]

When you die, when other people die, when the human race dies out, when the universe ends it's over. There's nothing more to it, it's just over.

So if you are a true atheist you should be indifferent to whether or not you donate $1300 to charity this morning, or go blow of someones head. Everything is an illusion, compassion, guilt, etc. You should know this.

The only thing preventing you from committing such actions are these illusionary responses such as self-preservation.


Nothing matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

This, on the other hand, is just [censored]. It's not even a debatable point. You're just stating it and it's not evidential, it's not logical and it's not reasonable. You've simply not considered that by denying that god created the world, there is another explanation. To you, it's either god, any of the buggers or there's no point to life and that is stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed my post. Sorry if it confused you. you seem totally unable to think through, for yourself, how your actions would differ if god didn't exist. If you would go kill people then you are a [censored] nutcase.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


So, the only options are Christian or Atheist, huh? He couldn't have been some other kind of theist?

[/ QUOTE ]

The only option is atheist. I'm a history buff, both Hirohito and Stalin were very, very against religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that Stalin and his beliefs were his god and religion. Athiests for the most part, reject any higher power, supernatural or earthly (state, polital theory etc)
This is where Stalin looks religious to me. He and his beliefs were godly and for the greater good in his opinion.

Hitler was bent on destroying another religion...which leads me to believe he thought his religion was superior. Even if he was athiest in his final years...his deeds were carried out by a large majority of christians. So blind faith in god or blind faith in hitler...makes no difference to me...it still means "I refuse to use MY brain"

[TheFaucet]

The only thing I gleaned from this thread is that Woolygimp is an antagonistic and inflexible idiot who can only think in absolutes. I guess he is probably just reacting to the VA massacre in the only way he knows how, by spouting a series of polemics on the internet.

[Woolygimp]

The guy two threads above mine is the one that cannot speak in anything but absolutes. Inflexible? You've offered no information for me to be flexible, I mean am I suppose to take your word for it?

Sorry, you must be immensely smarter than me by nature since you an atheist. How do I miss that?

Stalin WAS an atheist, and he did not believe in any god so don't fool yourself. Check Wikipedia as it says Religion: Atheist, however if you want to take the 'evil' parts of religion and leave out all the good, then so be it.

You could do the same for ANY institution in the world, without exception such as calling every US soldier a child rapist. It just simply isn't true, there are bad apples everywhere.

However as McGrath brought up, you leave out the good. Jesus teaches forgiveness, and compassion and after the Amish shooting then unequivocally forgave the shooter and forwent any reprocussionary measures. Religion brings about more good than bad, and it's silly think otherwise.

So, I'm not the one speaking in absolutes. Not anymore absolute than Richard Dawkins when he wrote the Root of all Evil.

Science is obviously the root of all evil because it built the atomic bomb. /Sarcasm, but you get the point, and if you don't YOU are the inflexible bastard in this conversation.

"You can not blame the game of football for the violence of the hooligans that follow it."

More so, how do you guys feel on the topic of state sanctioned torture, since Sam Harris is using Dawkins view to support it.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
More so, how do you guys feel on the topic of state sanctioned torture, since Sam Harris is using Dawkins view to support it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Instigator? (insert Woody Woodpecker laugh here).

[Woolygimp]

Your woody woodpecker laugh makes it no less a valid question, how do you feel about state sanctioned torture?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Your woody woodpecker laugh makes it no less a valid question, how do you feel about state sanctioned torture?

[/ QUOTE ]

How could he make it a LESS valid question?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Your woody woodpecker laugh makes it no less a valid question, how do you feel about state sanctioned torture?

[/ QUOTE ]

As an atheist, I fully support state sanctioned torture. It rocks.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your woody woodpecker laugh makes it no less a valid question, how do you feel about state sanctioned torture?

[/ QUOTE ]

As an atheist, I fully support state sanctioned torture. It rocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an atheist, I generally do not support it. Clearly you are misinterpreting atheism. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif