Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler*, Mao....

Fanny Cradock

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Actually, persecuting the jews is an age old christian pasttime

Sadly, there is truth to this. Which is more than a little ironic when one considers the religious and ethnic backgrounds of Jesus, Peter, Paul etc., etc. Sadder still is that the charge is not one that exclusive to Christians.

StealthRolex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sadly, there is truth to this. Which is more than a little ironic when one considers the religious and ethnic backgrounds of Jesus, Peter, Paul etc., etc. Sadder still is that the charge is not one that exclusive to Christians.

When one considers that the test for being Jewish is whether or not there is a maternal Jew somewhere in our ancestry how many of us can claim not to be Jewish or to not have Jewish blood somewhere along the way.

Hugo Drax

StealthRolex wrote: »

When one considers that the test for being Jewish is whether or not there is a maternal Jew somewhere in our ancestry how many of us can claim not to be Jewish or to not have Jewish blood somewhere along the way.

:rolleyes: Probably most of the worlds population!

There's an estimated 20 million jews on earth out of 6 billion people.

It's unlikely to say the least.

Hugo Drax

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sadly, there is truth to this. Which is more than a little ironic when one considers the religious and ethnic backgrounds of Jesus, Peter, Paul etc., etc. Sadder still is that the charge is not one that exclusive to Christians.

The great unwashed always need scape goats for their problems and jews have consistently been used since the middle ages by Europes ruling classes as a handy scape goat.

Sadly, antisemitism is alive and well, you only have to look at the amount of hate sites on the internet.

StealthRolex

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Actually, persecuting the jews is an age old christian pasttime

It may have been perpetrated by people calling themselves Christians but it is not and never was a Christian act or had any theological support as it goes against the teachings of Christ to love all your neighbours including your enemies.

As I already said it is by example that you know the true nature of a person. Christ expected us to be persecuted but did not expect us to persecute.

Hugo Drax

StealthRolex wrote: »

It may have been perpetrated by people calling themselves Christians but it is not and never was a Christian act or had any theological support as it goes against the teachings of Christ to love all your neighbours including your enemies.

As I already said it is by example that you know the true nature of a person. Christ expected us to be persecuted but did not expect us to persecute.

Actually throught the Churches history, particularly during medieval times the Church took the view that jews were not to be harmed but the Church didn't exactly exert itself rescuing jews from pogroms either.

And it was a theological position in Medieval Spain after the reconquista that jews had to convert to Christianity or leave Spain.

Jews who converted and then lapsed back to Judaism were burned alive by Church authorities.

So you're way off tbh.

Fanny Cradock

Hugo Drax wrote: »

The great unwashed always need scape goats for their problems and jews have consistently been used since the middle ages by Europes ruling classes as a handy scape goat.

Sadly, antisemitism is alive and well, you only have to look at the amount of hate sites on the internet.

I would say the hatred pre-dates the middle ages by some distance. I personally don't get it. Who doesn't love Jackie Mason?

StealthRolex

Hugo Drax wrote: »

:rolleyes: Probably most of the worlds population!

There's an estimated 20 million jews on earth out of 6 billion people.

It's unlikely to say the least.

Maybe by the same reasoning Hitler was Jewish. It may be urban legend but there is no real conclusive evidence against and much circumstantial evidence for.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/797/was-hitler-part-jewish

Hugo Drax

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would say the hatred pre-dates the middle ages by some distance. I personally don't get it. Who doesn't love Jackie Mason?

Not really, Jews only really came to prominence in Europe during Medieval times.

They were then denounced as those who had murdered Christ, and banned from activity except usury and banking. They excelled at this and became wealthy very often thereby engendering even more jealousy and resentment which occasionally boiled over into pogroms.

Hugo Drax

StealthRolex wrote: »

Maybe by the same reasoning Hitler was Jewish. It may be urban legend but there is no real conclusive evidence against and much circumstantial evidence for.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/797/was-hitler-part-jewish

Hitler was not part jewish.

The sad fact is he used anti semitism as a vehicle to get elected, he tapped into a vast latent well spring of pre existing prejudice.

He didn't invent it.

StealthRolex

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Actually throught the Churches history, particularly during medieval times the Church took the view that jews were not to be harmed but the Church didn't exactly exert itself rescuing jews from pogroms either.

And it was a theological position in Medieval Spain after the reconquista that jews had to convert to Christianity or leave Spain.

Jews who converted and then lapsed back to Judaism were burned alive by Church authorities.

So you're way off tbh.

That's history and with a little selective contextual massage. The Vatican position never supported the position taken by the Spanish.

Christianity does not support antisemitism.

Hugo Drax

StealthRolex wrote: »

That's history and with a little selective contextual massage.

Today Christianity does not support antisemitism.

Hmm, the Pope was in the Hitler Youth and one of his Cardinals recently blamed attacks on the Church as the work of the jews.

Yes, you're right.

StealthRolex

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Hitler was not part jewish.

Very difficult to prove either way as the records are inadequate.

Hugo Drax wrote: »

The sad fact is he used anti semitism as a vehicle to get elected, he tapped into a vast latent well spring of pre existing prejudice.

Not just antisemitism.

Hugo Drax wrote: »

He didn't invent it.

No one said he did. Antisemitism is as old as the Jews themselves.

Exon

Hitler was born and died Catholic!

Pittens

Hitler was born and died Catholic!

he was a non-believer.

StealthRolex

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Hmm, the Pope was in the Hitler Youth

True but it would be better for you to report the truth rather than your misguided attempts at dishonouring the Pope.

n 1939, aged 12, Joseph Ratzinger was enrolled in a minor seminary in Traunstein.[2] This period in minor seminary lasted until the seminary was closed for military use in 1942, and all students were sent home. Ratzinger returned to the Gymnasium in Traunstein.[3] During this period in the seminary, following his 14th birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth, as membership was legally required in effect beginning March 25, 1939. [7] Following the seminary closure he required continued attendance with the Hitler Youth to not receive financial penalties in the Gymnasium tuition fees. The financial penalty, which theoretically required documentation of attendance at Hitler Youth activities was overlooked when [4] a sympathetic mathematics professor allowed him not to attend any meetings. In Ratzinger's book Salt of the Earth, Ratzinger says the following " ... [T]hank goodness, there was a very understanding mathematics teacher. He himself was a Nazi but an honest man, who said to me, 'Just go once and get the document so that we have it ...When he saw that I simply didn't want to, he said, 'I understand, I'll take care of it,' and so I was able to stay free of it." [5]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI

Fanny Cradock

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Not really, Jews only really came to prominence in Europe during Medieval times.

They were then denounced as those who had murdered Christ, and banned from activity except usury and banking. They excelled at this and became wealthy very often thereby engendering even more jealousy and resentment which occasionally boiled over into pogroms.

I wasn't specifying Europe. Rather, I was talk about the animosity that has been directed at the Jews from the latter parts of classical antiquity (Jewish diaspora) and right up to this day.

StealthRolex

Hugo Drax wrote: »

one of his Cardinals recently blamed attacks on the Church as the work of the jews.

I though he blamed the homeopaths.

In so far as much of the news media is run by Jews he may have a point.

Fanny Cradock

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Hmm, the Pope was in the Hitler Youth and one of his Cardinals recently blamed attacks on the Church as the work of the jews.

Yes, you're right.

Every German male between 13 - 18 was in the Hitler Youth. It was compulsory.

Fanny Cradock

StealthRolex wrote: »

In so far as much of the news media is run by Jews he may have a point.

Dear Lord! That sound like the "good anti-Semitism" of the 19th and 20th Cent. that spoke of "Jewish conspiracies to control newspapers, banks, and other institutions, to care only about accumulation of wealth, etc." Back that up or withdraw it.

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Are you saying that those with religious beliefs are more easily swayed into violence or to support violence simply because there is someone "cleverer" than them who can manipulate them more easily? Complete rubbish.

Do you see me saying that? If I meant that I would say that.

What I am saying is that we have to look at atheism and Religion as they are, not by WHO holds those views. We could all play belief bingo and tick off names of people who were religious or not.

We have to see if there is a logical pathway from atheism to the atrocities we are listing or is there a logical pathway from Religion to these things.

I simply see NO logical link between "I see no reason to think there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of the universe" and committing acts of genocide. If you are aware of one then let me know it as that would at least constitute an argument.

However I can see logical pathways between religion and these actions, and ways to influence adherents to those religions of your ways of thinking. Nothing about this has anything to do with “more easily” as you put it.

Is there or is there not concepts in religion which can be used to lead us directly or indirectly to violence? The answer to this is yes, especially in religions which hold as part of their rhetoric the concept of “hell”. One of the most ingenious inventions by those who want to rile the masses into violence without being seen to actually incite violence.

This is why I am saying that the Christianity or Atheism of one man is wholly irrelevant. Those that are saying "Stalin was an Atheist" for example are just tossing in a throw away comment which means nothing and adds nothing as not one of them has shown a single causal link between the two. The Nazi regime used many things to achieve their ends, only some of which you listed and only some of others which was borne from or fueled by religion. The hatred of Jews for example may not be ENTIRELY religiously based, but if anyone on here thinks that Hitler and his posse did not use the religiously motivated parts of it to mould the masses on this issue would be missing a lot.

In short, saying "Hitler was an atheist" is about as relevant and useful to us as saying "Hitler had a moustache". The people saying it will not, or can not, show a single link between the two.

StealthRolex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Dear Lord! That sound like the "good anti-Semitism" of the 19th and 20th Cent. that spoke of "Jewish conspiracies to control newspapers, banks, and other institutions, to care only about accumulation of wealth, etc." Back that up or withdraw it.

See how easy it is to get in to trouble by using only a single source.

point made.

The Cardinal allegedly made reference to the Jews but not in the same context as attacks on the Church however the internet is alight with reports that the Cardinal is blaming paedophilia on the Jews.

However the Cardinal made no such allegation and the Bishop it has been attributed to has denied it.

None of the news reports contain anything concrete to support the reports of what the Cardinal or the Bishop actually said.

So what happens if you go on an internet search? You find this...

http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/six-jewish-companies-own-96-of-the-worlds-media/

and this

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071206232908AAG3IDr

and this

http://www.libreopinion.com/members/standarteslc/jewishquestion03.html

or maybe this

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/07/04/JChron_200407.html


Whether or not the news media is run by the Jews I cannot say as I have nothing to support the allegations made in these websites.

If they are true then there's your back up.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Do you see me saying that? If I meant that I would say that.

What I am saying is that we have to look at atheism and Religion as they are, not by WHO holds those views. We could all play belief bingo and tick off names of people who were religious or not.

We have to see if there is a logical pathway from atheism to the atrocities we are listing or is there a logical pathway from Religion to these things.

I simply see NO logical link between "I see no reason to think there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of the universe" and committing acts of genocide. If you are aware of one then let me know it as that would at least constitute an argument.

However I can see logical pathways between religion and these actions, and ways to influence adherents to those religions of your ways of thinking. Nothing about this has anything to do with “more easily” as you put it.

Is there or is there not concepts in religion which can be used to lead us directly or indirectly to violence? The answer to this is yes, especially in religions which hold as part of their rhetoric the concept of “hell”. One of the most ingenious inventions by those who want to rile the masses into violence without being seen to actually incite violence.

This is why I am saying that the Christianity or Atheism of one man is wholly irrelevant. Those that are saying "Stalin was an Atheist" for example are just tossing in a throw away comment which means nothing and adds nothing as not one of them has shown a single causal link between the two. The Nazi regime used many things to achieve their ends, only some of which you listed and only some of others which was borne from or fueled by religion. The hatred of Jews for example may not be ENTIRELY religiously based, but if anyone on here thinks that Hitler and his posse did not use the religiously motivated parts of it to mould the masses on this issue would be missing a lot.

In short, saying "Hitler was an atheist" is about as relevant and useful to us as saying "Hitler had a moustache". The people saying it will not, or can not, show a single link between the two.

maybe you should read the question again. The OP referred to both the leaders and the regimes.

In the case of Hitler the regime became atheistic and pagan as their fire was fuelled. The religious elements were pagan driven.

The Nazis were very religious atheists for the most part evidenced by their treatment of the Fuhrer as a god.

nozzferrahhtoo

In this at least is something useful. As I said in the first post I made on this thread, the regimes being described match in no way at all what any atheist on these forums would strive for. These were societies of superstition, dictatorship and fear. There is nothing of the democracy and free inquiry called for by atheists and hence nothing in these regimes that reflects anything of atheism.

There simply is not, as I said, a causal link between atheism and dictatorial regimes. Nor has anyone here been able to show one. Show me the link, someone, between “I see no reason to think there is a god entity” and “Therefore I must rule this society with a dictators hand, kill jews, hold my own version of inquisitions….” Or any of the other atrocities being listed on these pages. I am still waiting for one causal link to be shown between the two.

But again as I said, finding a causal link between religions and acts of violence is not hard to do. From the hatred of Jews to the concept of hell, they are rife with very apparent ways to directly link to violence. I said it above and I will say it again, the concept of hell was an ingenious addition by those who came up with it.

“Religious Atheists” is probably a funny way of putting it. These leaders did believe in absolute morality and an absolute moral law giver. Alas that law giver was themselves.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But again as I said, finding a causal link between religions and acts of violence is not hard to do. From the hatred of Jews to the concept of hell, they are rife with very apparent ways to directly link to violence. I said it above and I will say it again, the concept of hell was an ingenious addition by those who came up with it.

I don't see how the existence of Hell or that people believe in a hell can encourage them into acts of violence or hatred.

Surely the belief in a hell would discourage acts of violence.

The Christian belief is that if you die with hatred in your heart you will go to hell - or if not the Christian belief it is ttbomk a Catholic belief

Hugo Drax

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In this at least is something useful. As I said in the first post I made on this thread, the regimes being described match in no way at all what any atheist on these forums would strive for. These were societies of superstition, dictatorship and fear. There is nothing of the democracy and free inquiry called for by atheists and hence nothing in these regimes that reflects anything of atheism.

There simply is not, as I said, a causal link between atheism and dictatorial regimes. Nor has anyone here been able to show one. Show me the link, someone, between “I see no reason to think there is a god entity” and “Therefore I must rule this society with a dictators hand, kill jews, hold my own version of inquisitions….” Or any of the other atrocities being listed on these pages. I am still waiting for one causal link to be shown between the two.

But again as I said, finding a causal link between religions and acts of violence is not hard to do. From the hatred of Jews to the concept of hell, they are rife with very apparent ways to directly link to violence. I said it above and I will say it again, the concept of hell was an ingenious addition by those who came up with it.

“Religious Atheists” is probably a funny way of putting it. These leaders did believe in absolute morality and an absolute moral law giver. Alas that law giver was themselves.

All regimes and Governments, from Hitlers to our own Govt. are filled with people with the same 2 overriding motives, the attainment of personal power and financial gain.

Some, such as the nazis, also have insane ideologies, some such as our own, have no ideology and focus on personal enrichment.

Religion rarely if ever comes into it and when it does, it's simply a means to the end of wealth and power.

The primary motivations in politics are power & wealth.

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

I don't see how the existence of Hell or that people believe in a hell can encourage them into acts of violence or hatred.

Surely the belief in a hell would discourage acts of violence.

The Christian belief is that if you die with hatred in your heart you will go to hell - or if not the Christian belief it is ttbomk a Catholic belief

That is part of why it is so ingenious, its nice and subtle.

But ask yourself what you would do if you walked into a room and saw someone torturing or raping, say, your daughter. How would you react? Most people would react with instant (and very justified in my opinion) violence. A lot of them would not react with only enough violence to stop the act either. Most of them would act with enough violence to ensure the perpetrator can not, or at least will think hard before, doing the same act again.

Yet the concept of hell some people have would make a few hours raping followed by a nice afternoon of serious torturing seem like a welcome holiday. The “unbeliever” or “false believer” in some religions makes the rapist or torturer seem tame in comparison as it is the literal eternal soul of the loved one that is being put at risk by exposure to them. To some, the atheist next door is horribly more dangerous than the child molester down the road. Mere words from such a person could cause damage no molester could ever achieve.

If you can not see how such a concept could be used to rile people into violence against those of false or no religions, then I envy you your innocence.

Also be careful of terms like “The Christian belief”. There is no such thing. There is over 33800* branches and incarnations of Christianity. Some of them are mutually incompatible with each other. There simply is no such thing as THE Christian belief”. At most you can tell us about YOUR Christian belief.

*World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version)

Exon

Pittens wrote: »

he was a non-believer.

Hitler stated COUNTLESS times he was full-communion Catholic.

prinz

Exon wrote: »

Hitler stated COUNTLESS times he was full-communion Catholic.

I presume you could provide a source for this?

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is part of why it is so ingenious, its nice and subtle.

But ask yourself what you would do if you walked into a room and saw someone torturing or raping, say, your daughter. How would you react? Most people would react with instant (and very justified in my opinion) violence. A lot of them would not react with only enough violence to stop the act either. Most of them would act with enough violence to ensure the perpetrator can not, or at least will think hard before, doing the same act again.

Yet the concept of hell some people have would make a few hours raping followed by a nice afternoon of serious torturing seem like a welcome holiday. The “unbeliever” or “false believer” in some religions makes the rapist or torturer seem tame in comparison as it is the literal eternal soul of the loved one that is being put at risk by exposure to them. To some, the atheist next door is horribly more dangerous than the child molester down the road. Mere words from such a person could cause damage no molester could ever achieve.

If you can not see how such a concept could be used to rile people into violence against those of false or no religions, then I envy you your innocence.

Now I understand you - you are the rapist and the torturer, not the person being raped and tortured.

I can see now how those who would want to rape and torture would want to spend eternity in hell where they themselves can be raped and tortured.

No wonder He said " do onto others as you would have done onto you"

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Now I understand you

If that is what you think I was saying then no, no you do not “understand” me.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If that is what you think I was saying then no, no you do not “understand” me.

Nor do I want to.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Sweden?
How are you defining "atheist countries". Do you mean countries with a totalitarian regime forcing atheism on the people? If so it is hardly surprising they oppressed opposition to the official state decree.
If you simply mean countries where most people were atheist then neither Russia nor China can be considered atheist countries. The closest you have is something like Sweden.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Sweden

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Sadly, antisemitism is alive and well, you only have to look at the amount of hate sites on the internet.

Indeed, interestingly enough one of the world's biggest producers of anti-semitic and fascist propaganda/material is Sweden... the same country touted as the closest thing to an 'atheistic' ideal touted on this very thread, as above.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The “unbeliever” or “false believer” in some religions makes the rapist or torturer seem tame in comparison as it is the literal eternal soul of the loved one that is being put at risk by exposure to them.

To a Christian their life may be at risk but their soul is not. Check out St Maria Goretti.

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

nozzferrahhtoo

Your sentence is not making much sense to me, it may be because you have misread the sentence from me which you quoted. I never said their soul was at risk by exposure to the rapist or torturer, but by the unbeliever. Re-read my post and for “them” read “Unbeleiver or false believer” not “rapist or torturer”.

Again there is no such thing as “to a Christian”. There is over 33800 branches of Christianity, much of them mutually incompatible. You can speak for yourself, but you certainly do not speak for “The Christian” or what “The Christian” believes on this matter.

That with mere words an atheist could turn your child atheist and thereby put at risk their eternal soul is, for some, intolerable. That this concept can be used to incite violence in it’s adherents therefore is NO surprise to us.

But again, as I have said, no one on here is able, or willing, to put forward a single causal link between “I lend no credence to the notion that a non-human intelligence created and is subsequently maintaining our universe” and violence of any kind.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Your sentence is not making much sense to me, it may be because you have misread the sentence from me which you quoted. I never said their soul was at risk by exposure to the rapist or torturer, but by the unbeliever. Re-read my post and for “them” read “Unbeleiver or false believer” not “rapist or torturer”.

Again there is no such thing as “to a Christian”. There is over 33800 branches of Christianity, much of them mutually incompatible. You can speak for yourself, but you certainly do not speak for “The Christian” or what “The Christian” believes on this matter.

That with mere words an atheist could turn your child atheist and thereby put at risk their eternal soul is, for some, intolerable. That this concept can be used to incite violence in it’s adherents therefore is NO surprise to us.

But again, as I have said, no one on here is able, or willing, to put forward a single causal link between “I lend no credence to the notion that a non-human intelligence created and is subsequently maintaining our universe” and violence of any kind.

Can you provide examples of how the Nazis used this kind of thinking to progress their regime?

If not the Nazis then any regime that to us appears atheistic in nature and has facilitated crimes against humanity.

I think the reason you are not getting an answer is because except for a few narrow minded individuals the human psyche is far from linear and most actions are not based on single causes.

It is not a case of atheism leads to violence - it is a case that atheism leads to a reduction or removal of moral absolutes that allows violence and hatred to develop and become acceptable as a means to and end.

Fanny Cradock

prinz wrote: »

Indeed, interestingly enough one of the world's biggest producers of anti-semitic and fascist propaganda/material is Sweden... the same country touted as the closest thing to an 'atheistic' ideal touted on this very thread, as above.

Is it? On a purely anecdotal level, I remember striking up a conversation with an Israeli/ Swedish couple and naturally the discussion went the way of life in Ireland/ Israel and Sweden. It was all going fine until they started laying into the immigrants that were apparently ruining the country. Still, I don't presume to think that you can tell much from this.

prinz

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Is it?

Constant undercurrent of far right extremism in Sweden. Steig Larsson was involved in exposing it...

During the last 15 years of his life, he and his life companion Eva Gabrielsson lived under constant threat from right-wing violence. When a labor-union leader was murdered in his home by neo-Nazis in 1999, the police discovered photos of and information about the couple in the murderer's apartment. So it was not without reason that the couple took precautionary measures. They were never seen together outside the house, they moved mirrors in the hall and they always kept the blinds down. Those are just a few examples. Stieg was an expert in the area, and wrote a book of instructions on how journalists should respond to threats for the Swedish Union of Journalists ("Överleva Deadline", 2000).

http://www.stieglarsson.com/Life-and-work


Magazine that Steig worked with http://expo.se/about-expo.html

Apparently, the theft was inspired by a far-right neo-Nazi group in Sweden that planned to sell the sign to a collector of Nazi memorabilia, the proceeds of which would then be used to finance a string of terror attacks in Sweden. The Swedish security service has already been investigating an alleged neo-Nazi plot to blow up the Riksdagen (the parliament building in Stockholm), as well as the foreign ministry and the home of the prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt. The aim of that plot was to create as much disruption as possible ahead of the 2010 parliamentary elections.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/01/auschwitz-sign-theft-linked-to-far-right-terrorist-plot/

http://www.thelocal.se/16180/20081207/

http://www.thelocal.se/26230/20100422/

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again there is no such thing as “to a Christian”. There is over 33800 branches of Christianity, much of them mutually incompatible. You can speak for yourself, but you certainly do not speak for “The Christian” or what “The Christian” believes on this matter

That with mere words an atheist could turn your child atheist and thereby put at risk their eternal soul is, for some, intolerable. That this concept can be used to incite violence in it’s adherents therefore is NO surprise to us.

While there are differences in the various flavours of Christianity all branches do have a couple of mutual compatibilities.

The Bible and Jesus Christ.

In this respect any Christian can say such things as "to a Christian" and speak for Christianity as long as they do not contradict the Bible.

When it comes to atheisim there is no one single source that supports your belief. In this respect you can only speak for yourself and not for atheism or for what any other atheist may believe on any particular matter. So just who is this "us" you speak of?

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But again, as I have said, no one on here is able, or willing, to put forward a single causal link between “I lend no credence to the notion that a non-human intelligence created and is subsequently maintaining our universe” and violence of any kind.

AMDG and with the help of the Holy Spirit

When a person says to themselves "I lend no credence to the notion that a non-human intelligence created and is subsequently maintaining our universe" they commit an act of violence against themselves because they are denying the source and cause of their very existence. They deny their own soul. They do not believe it and do not realize it because they believe what they tell themselves over and above what they know to be true. It is the first of many lies they tell themselves.
They have said to themselves - "there is no God" or "I do not believe in God" or some other fanciful rhetoric like 'I lend no credence to the notion that a non-human intelligence created and is subsequently maintaining our universe'

Unfortunately it does not stop there, with only the internal violence. At some point they have to externalise the thought - first with others, ideally of the same persuasion, so they no longer feel alone and arm themselves with the writings of like minded individuals such as Marx,de Sade, Harris, Nietzsche, Hitchens or whoever tells them what they want to hear. Through this mixing with other atheistic philosophies they become confident enough to tell anyone who will listen what their thoughts are. Unfortunately "I lend no credence to the notion that a non-human intelligence created and is subsequently maintaining our universe" is a bit wordy so they simplify it to "There is no God" or "God does not exist" but by vocalising it to believers, as well as non-believers, they perpetrate an act of violence comparable to the lashing of Jesus Christ with a scourge.
Fortunately for the atheist if they do this with Christians, unlike the Islamists, the other cheek is turned and we say "take another shot" while inwardly forgiving them the violence of their (the atheists) thoughts and words.

It is from this act of vocalised (or written) violence, this desire to offend believers, that the violence of atheism stems.

If you do not understand this then try to understand the hurt felt by Islamists when they see cartoons of their prophet and be thankful that you only hurt Christians.

The Peace of Christ be with you and I pray you find the truth.

strobe

Stealth you do realise that in two sequential posts you just told Nozzferrahhtoo that he can't speak for atheism just himself and then as a non-atheist attempted to apply something to all atheists/atheism in general. Just thought I'd point that out, first of all.

Unfortunately it does not stop there, with only the internal violence. At some point they have to externalise the thought - first with others, ideally of the same persuasion, so they no longer feel alone and arm themselves with the writings of like minded individuals such as Marx,de Sade, Harris, Nietzsche, Hitchens or whoever tells them what they want to hear.

I had no clue who any of the people on that list were when I "externalised" my atheism. Besides that to say that what Marx, De Sade, Nietzche, Hitchens are saying is what I want to here couldn't be farther from reality. I find a lot of what Nietzche and de Sade wrote interesting but I doubt there are many people of any theological position that would claim that thier philosophical views are what anyone would want to hear. There is a lot of very uncomfortable ideas they put forward.

Fortunately for the atheist if they do this with Christians, unlike the Islamists, the other cheek is turned and we say "take another shot" while inwardly forgiving them the violence of their (the atheists) thoughts and words.

Some, Christians. In the past, present and no doubt at some point in the future the whole "turn the other cheek" thing goes right out the window. Similarly plenty of "Islamists" {see: Muslims} do forgive and forget perceived offenses against thier religion. Also, atheists by vocalising thier genuine beliefs when questioned are commiting an act the equivalent of torturing a captive man?? They should lie instead?

But wow, kudos on negatively generalising towards three distinct and varied groups in the one paragraph.

It is from this act of vocalised (or written) violence, this desire to offend believers, that the violence of atheism stems.

Going for the gold medal in self contradicting generalising rubbish I see? Do you really think that the atheists posting here, or atheists saying "I do not believe in God" are doing so from a desire to offend believers? It wouldn't have anything to do with being honest about thier beliefs now would it? Or once again would it be better if they just pretended to believe in God? There are far worse things people could say than, "i don't believe what you do", if a desire to offend was their motivation.

Miracletown

I really don't see how atheism and Christianity could be any different in terms of violence and hatred. Hate crimes and violent acts aren't based on specific beliefs as much as they are based on how someone chooses to view others in light of their personal beliefs. That's why you can get violent acts in the name of God and violent acts against God. They don't reflect the validity of arguments for or against God. They represent extremists who don't know how to function alongside those who disagree with them without turning those people into their enemies.

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

I think the reason you are not getting an answer is because except for a few narrow minded individuals the human psyche is far from linear and most actions are not based on single causes.

I am not saying they did. I am saying that the first step we have to perform in conversations where people are playing belief bingo of the sort by going…

“That person was atheist” then “Oh year well that person was Christian” then “Yeah but that person was atheist”

… is to realise that both parties are entering into a wholly irrelevant and useless discussion as it is irrelevant.

The questions we have to ask instead that are many times more important are:

1) Is there any reason on offer to lend either idea any credence (and in the case of Christianity no one has ever offered me a shred of a scrap of evidence to even suggest the base premise is true that there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of the universe) to the positions in question

And

2) Is there a logical pathway between the ideas being discusses and genocide. And as I said I have yet to be shown by anyone, yourself included, a logical pathway of any sort from “I see no reason to think that there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of the universe” and genocide.

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

In this respect any Christian can say such things as "to a Christian" and speak for Christianity as long as they do not contradict the Bible.

As long as they do not contradict YOUR interpretation of the bible you mean. Again, similar to me saying you can not speak for “The Christian” you also can not speak for “The Bible” because there are many people who think your interpretation contradicts it, and you likely think the same of them.

I am more than happy to talk at length about you as a Christian or your interpretation of the Bible. You have to lose this notion that you are speaking for anyone else on the matter however. You simply aren’t, except for the occasional serendipitous overlap.

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

When a person says to themselves "I lend no credence to the notion that a non-human intelligence created and is subsequently maintaining our universe" they commit an act of violence against themselves because they are denying the source and cause of their very existence.

I am afraid you have committed a fallacy here of assuming the positive. I have said I see no reason to think there is a god… Everything you just said in this post is wholly true… IF you first assume there is a god. Every single thing you just said I could not disagree with if in fact there was a god.

However, given that I have to assume your base claim to be true before lending any credence to the monologue you just made, this helps nobody even a jot.

Essentially:

“There is a god”
“Why do you think that”
“Well to say there is not is to commit a violence against your creator”
“But hang on, I just asked you why you think there IS a creator, now you are going on talking about consequences of that belief, I must ask again, why do you think there is a creator in the first place.”

Or put another way:

I have asked for evidence that a given entity exists and because you have no such evidence you instead have chosen to go on a monolouge to suggest that there is something deficient about me for not just beleiving it outright.

In this you are similar to the Bible which promotes this kind of thinking with comments like the fool has said in their heart there is no god. It is a common practise, which you will find when you turn on advertisements on the television which spend no time at all informing you on why the product might actually be a good choice to make, but instead bandy comments around like "Youd be mad to miss it".

Alarm bells should always go off, and I mean always, if someone present no evidence for a claim and instead moves to make the mark appear somehow deficient for not just accepting the claim outright.

nozzferrahhtoo

Miracletown wrote: »

I really don't see how atheism and Christianity could be any different in terms of violence and hatred. Hate crimes and violent acts aren't based on specific beliefs as much as they are based on how someone chooses to view others in light of their personal beliefs.

Again you have to find the logical pathway link between them.

Is there anything in religions that can cause people to view other people in a negative light? The answer to this is yes. There are many examples, from the Bible claiming homosexuality is an abomination to the not uncommon Christian concept that the Jews killed their god.

Is there however anything in the phrase “I see no reason to lend credence to the notion that a non-human intelligence exists that is responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of our universe” and viewing someone else badly? I am yet to be shown one. How does that statement affect how I "view" anyone else?

ISAW

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Also be careful of terms like “The Christian belief”. There is no such thing. There is over 33800* branches and incarnations of Christianity. Some of them are mutually incompatible with each other. There simply is no such thing as THE Christian belief”. At most you can tell us about YOUR Christian belief.

This is misleading and has been commented on by me before. I usually use the word "mainstream" to denote 80 to 90 per cent of christians. three groups roman, Orthoxox and Anglican make up almost oll of them. You can include Syriac and others as well. They all believe ONE church, apostolic secession and dogma documented in the third century or so.

The relativist idea you are suggesting is about as relevant as saying "there are no laws of physics at moist all you can say is knowledge is socially negotiated" Well you may well believe the "dogma" of gravity isn't true but I'm not going to test it by walking of a cliff with you no matter how strong your faith in no gravity is!

ISAW

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Are people here forgetting that Stalin allowed the church to re-open during the war ? And many people believe he was a secret Orthodox Catholic.

Also Hitler was a Pagan, like Himmler. Not an atheist.

"Some people say" and "many people believe" isn't really a strong argument is it?

ISAW

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This page first quote:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html

Ah yes one of my favourite scientists Gould.

Born a Jew you know? I suppose he or his parents could have said "He was born and always will remain a Jew" . But he didn't did he? Like Hitler he changed his belief! Guld in later life described himself as an agnostic.

It is funny how you trust what Hitler says when he claims to be a Christian. If he stated "I was born and always will remain atheist" Would you also accept that or do you only accept what he said when it agrees with your opinion?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok. I'm not familiar with the event, but obviously these soldiers didn't care too much about the handling of the Union Jack.

Sorry for the pedantry but it is Union flag "Jack" has naval connotations and this was an Army base.