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

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, that is a pretty good reason not subscribe to Leninist/Stalinist Communism. Which I don't.

What you presonally do ir dont is beside the point! The point is that in the past agressive fundamentalist atheists like those regimes caused untold damage. If someone subscribes to aggressive fundamentalist atheism then how are they any different?

True. But for your "problems" to actually be problems for me they require me to think it does. Which I don't, so these are not problems.

You can believe child abuse is not wrong if you wish but that won't stop it being wrong.

It is like saying it is a problem for your marriage that your wife is so ugly. If you don't think your wife is ugly then that isn't a problem.

So if a load of people believe child abuse is acceptable or that blacks ot Jews or Gypsies are of less importance and have public meeting announcing all these beliefs and asking people to spread the word then that isn't a problem for you?

Also there is no point throwing a whole lot of irrelevant wikipedia links to me simply to cover up that you can't actually articulate what the problem actual is (cause it doesn't exist)

If you don't want to educate or inform yourself that isn't my problem. You may indulge yourself in willful ignorance that fundamentalist atheists do not exist. They do!

Sometimes acceptable to whom? Me? I never claimed such a thing.

If something is not a problem to someone and they fail to recognise it and if they say "nothing is totally wrong it is only base on relative opinion of the day" then they are making a claim for relativism which rejects anything being totally wrong!

Be quite clear about this Do you claim Stalin could ever be ;looked upon are right?
Do you believe child abuse can ever be right?
I am aware you will say it is just your opinion but in saying that you are saying that ther are things that in your opinion are always true and unchanging. that is a contradiction.
You begin with "nothing is absolute" but the statement "nothing is absolute" when subjected to itself suggests in order to not be absolute that "some things are absolute"

Of course it is "just" your opinion,

Now you are back peddaling again! You are saying that child abuse was not always wrong it is only my opinion and your opinion that it was always wrong. Stones don't fall down either I suppose ? It is just our opinions that they do!

they obviously felt different otherwise they wouldn't have done it. Your view it was wrong obviously didn't stop them.

and my opinion that atheistic regimes did untold evil won't change history either. But it was still wrong whether or not I can change it. Saying "Stalin felt differently" or suggesting that the ability to stop Stalin was relevant to whether what he did was wrong wont change the fact that he did wrong.

Of course I can. My claim is that I think my opinion is better. By stating that my opinion is better I've demonstrated as such. There, supported.

that is circular argument! What actual evidence do yu have to support your claim. Objective evidence and not subjective opinion!

Better than everything else in it's category. The best movie is better than all other movies. I don't have to tell you why you think one film is best, that is up to you.

AS I outlined for example the "best" movie at collecting box office reciepts under this definition is Avatar. It wil remain the "best" box office ticket seller until such a time as another movie makes more money at the box office.

If you create such a scale then by definition it isn't the universal scale, the fact of nature. It is your relativistic scale

Nope! Box office receipes are an objective measure and not an opinion.

And since you seem to reject the idea that someone can have opinions because you reject relativism as having no meaning by your logic you cannot have the opinion any film the best film or any film better than any other film.
Correct?

Nope. False premise! I didn't reject the idea that people can have opinions.

Nonsense. I have my own scale but you reject it as meaningless because it isn't the universal scale.

WRONG! Read my comment. Your opinion on what a wrong act is is not informed. If you think all actions are only personal opinion then you can't say "child abuse is always wrong for everyone"

The scale is "just" my opinion, which I have no issue with but you seem to think makes it meaningless.

"seem to"?

Same with morality. I'm perfectly happy with my opinion of where different things fall on my scale of morality. It is just my opinion, but that doesn't make it meaningless to me.

But you contrarily believe this is true for all people! that all people have their own opinions and their own scales! that relativism is true for all people?

But you seem to think because I don't have a god given universal scale to measure my morality against this is meaningless.

Aain I didn't state that! I actually stated one could be agnostic or humanist for exampole and still believe in as natural law position. God is not required.

Interestingly you seem not to apply such logic to anything else.

I am not discussing "anything else" I am discussing relativism in relation to morality.

Show me one Christian other than yourself who thinks that pedophiles should not be physically stopped from raping children.

Show me where i claimed I was a Christian! did I ? I don't think so. Please leave what I believe out of it! And what I said was "oppression even of pedophiles is wrong." I did not state that anyone should not be prevented from abusing children.

You do realize that arresting a pedophile trying to rape a child is a form of oppression, correct?

Incorrect! Following the law or enforcing it isn't oppression!

Really? You seem to be doing an awful lot of that here.

It may seem that way to you but as usual it is your unsupported opinion.
i didn't beingmy personal beliefs into it and I do not intend to. I have related in my view what moral theologians and philosophers have said on the matter and how laws evolve.

So you are saying you don't know how you would deal with child rapists

How to deal wiuth them and saying they are always wrong are two different things.

but you think it would be unChristian of you to oppress them from doing what they want to do (ie rape your kids).

you seem to think the law is ther to oppress people! It isnt! Nor is prevention oppression! If I put a lock on my front door or an alarm in my car am I oppressing a thief?

Brilliant, lets put you in charge :rolleyes:

Although it has been done in the past. I don't think that would be suitable.

Why can't I say that? It is "just" my opinion, but then the first one is "just" your opinion.

You can't say something is universally true if you maintain everything is just relative opinion. the two are mutually exclusive!

I "accept" the moral opinion of the rest of society when I agree with the moral opinion of the rest of society, as I already said.

And as I already said if the rest are nazis atheistics regimes or child abusers you accept that? and don't hop back onto "what could I do about it" . what I ask is "is it right" not "what are you going to do?"

I assume by "jackboot enforces" you mean the police?

Nope i mean the atheistic thugs used by Stalin or the Gastapo. Police aren't always "oppressors".

You apparently don't watch the news since fundamentalists plant bombs all the time because they don't agree with the moral opinion of the rest of society.

They don't. Very few do! And of the ones that do it is a non religious secular group that holds the world record in human bombs! Far far more bombs are dropped from non fundameatalist so called democratic peace keepers.

By your logic this should never happen because universal morality exists so everyone should know it is wrong, rather than just some people such as myself thinking it is wrong.

the theology on this is quite clear and quite old. Just because people can do wrong does not mean they have to.

Doesn't the fact that these things happen demonstrate then that universal morality doesn't actually exist, that there are just the different opinions of people. I think it is wrong for anyone to blow up a school bus. The terrorist thinks it is ok for him to blow up a school bus.

It demonstrates quite the opposite. That fact that you believe something and the terrorist soemthing else does not change blowing up school buses as wrong even if anyone thinks it is right.

Where is your precious universal morality when terrorists are blowing up buses? How is it solving the problem?

It is there saying such an act is wrong! Solving the problem is another different issue. but the solution would depend on accpeting the peoblem as that people are not following the way of nature.

All opinions are meaningless to those who disagree with them. My opinion is that no one should ever blow up a bus. You think the terrorist cares?

You are continually trying to drag the issue into "what can I do about it". Until you accept that there are things that are always wrong for everyone and morality isnt just all made up by the individual there is no indication that you can even begin to do anything or are interested in acting in any way.

Again universal morality doesn't change that. Saying "It is a universal fact of nature that blowing up buses is wrong" doesn't stop terrorism if the terrorist disagrees with you.

There you go again! If you accept a universal morality then you can accept ther is a personal responsibility to act in accordance with it. The fact that some people don't do this is beside tohe point. But if you claim that are as entitled to their opinion about blowing up buses as you are in opining it wrong then ...

Say them where? Where can I go to hear or read the universal laws of nature?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#In_contemporary_jurisprudence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#Contemporary_Catholic_understanding

Im struck in this discussion by the synchronicity with of John Locke in "Lost" the TV series.

Contrary to who's notions of reason? Yours? The Pope's? Societies?

Like so many things in religion all this is simply an exercise in comfort, the comfort of feeling you don't have to justify your own opinions/views/judgments, that some other authority be it God or nature or what ever is making the decision for you.

Of course we reject such an idea as soon as the possibility that said authority might decide

Quite the opposite and as i have shown does not require religion or god.

something that we disagree with. Robin has posted about this before, people always align themselves with notions of objective morality that already fit with their own concepts of morality.

No more than poeople align themselves with the "Big Bang" or the stanbdard Model of particle theory so to fit their model of reality. Bu it is still estable and the model and the universe is there that is the case!

We believe the universe reflects our own beliefs, and this provides us with comfort. So you reject automatically the idea that this universal morality might actually say something that you strongly disagree with.

Thats the whole point! Like democracy it is about accept what you dislike and not just about doing what you like

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

What you presonally do ir dont is beside the point! The point is that in the past agressive fundamentalist atheists like those regimes caused untold damage. If someone subscribes to aggressive fundamentalist atheism then how are they any different?

They weren't fundamentalist atheists. They were communists who were atheist. They would have been christian or hindu or scientologists and it still wouldn't change the fact that what they did, they did because of their politics.

Its the equivalent of saying, Christianity is the main religion in the US, the US has committed terrible crimes during its history, therefore christianity has committed (those) crimes. Its nonsense.

Its not even as ignorant as saying that because Christianity can be and has been used in the past to justify all sorts of things. e.g. treatment of mexicans during the American-Mexican war where catholics were seen as 'lower' people, treatment of Japanese prisoners during WW2, some american soldiers considered them less then human because of their religion.

The crimes Christianity is accused of being responsible for are crimes where Christianity has been one of, or the main reason for the crimes.

Look at the (later) Roman Empire. Christianity was an 'integral' part of it. Is christianity responsible for all of the Empires wrongdoings ?

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

So you have problems with freedom of thought as well as speech.

Strawman much? How is saying we have the right to disagree with ideas the same as saying I have a problem with freedom of speech? I cant wait to see this one explained.

nozzferrahhtoo

ISAW wrote: »

Above you have a belief in atheism ( disbelief in non human creative intelligence), a regime which has central to its motivation that spreading atheism is of supreme importance ( just like the fundamentalist aggressive atheist today) and a claim that in this revolution they will kill lots of people.

Again all you have done is shown one person who holds atheist beliefs AND communist beliefs. I already k now both can exist in one person. This is obvious.

What you did not show is how one is actually responsible for the other. Simply having them both exist in the one mind does not mean they have anything to do with each other.

The issue in your quotes is with someone who thinks violence is the way to spread ANY belief system, regardless of what that system is. If someone wants to spread an idea using violence then the problem is not with the idea that the person wishes to spread, but his method of choosing to spread it.

The attempt therefore to make the idea itself guilty by proxy is a bit weak and far from fair.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

What you presonally do ir dont is beside the point! The point is that in the past agressive fundamentalist atheists like those regimes caused untold damage. If someone subscribes to aggressive fundamentalist atheism then how are they any different?

How does someone not believe in God "aggressively"? I assume instead of atheist you mean anti-theist, and an aggressive anti-theist someone who by force suppresses theism. In which case they aren't any different. Which is why you, I and everyone for the shared moral opinion that people have the right to religious freedom should be very critical of aggressive anti-theism such as militant Stalinist Communism.

I'm not a Communist, militant or otherwise, so that is pretty easy for me.

ISAW wrote: »

You can believe child abuse is not wrong if you wish but that won't stop it being wrong.

I've told you a number of times I think child abuse is wrong and I've gone to far as to say that I would use the powers of the state to oppress child abusers from having sex with kids, something you have consistently refused to say that you yourself would do.

That you will notice doesn't stop some people thinking it is right. Universal morality no where to be seen. Just differing opinions.

ISAW wrote: »

So if a load of people believe child abuse is acceptable or that blacks ot Jews or Gypsies are of less importance and have public meeting announcing all these beliefs and asking people to spread the word then that isn't a problem for you?

What?

Since I believe abusing children is wrong people abusing children will obviously be a problem for me, but it isn't a problem of relative morality. I don't have to say what they are doing is ok by me simply because they think it is.

So again where is this problem of relative morality? And how is it solved by this mystical universal morality that you can't seem to show exists at all? All I see is different opinions. Universal morality no where to be seen.

ISAW wrote: »

If something is not a problem to someone and they fail to recognise it and if they say "nothing is totally wrong it is only base on relative opinion of the day" then they are making a claim for relativism which rejects anything being totally wrong!

No they aren't. They are rejecting that something can be totally wrong as a fact of nature independently of any one's judgement.

They can of course still think themselves that something is totally wrong. I can think of no instance where I would consider child abuse morally correct so I consider it always wrong in all circumstances. "Just" my opinion, but then this universal morality doesn't seem to exist, so that is all we have.

ISAW wrote: »

Be quite clear about this Do you claim Stalin could ever be ;looked upon are right?
Do you believe child abuse can ever be right?

No I could never imagine what Stalin did as moral or ethical what ever the justification given.

I can think of no instances or justification where I would ever think that abusing a child is morally justified, so I believe it is never right.

"just" my opinion of course. But isn't that all we have. If I say this is the universal morality that is still just my opinion. I've no idea if I'm right or not because none of us can measure this mythical universal morality.

ISAW wrote: »

You begin with "nothing is absolute" but the statement "nothing is absolute" when subjected to itself suggests in order to not be absolute that "some things are absolute"

I've never said "nothing is absolute"

ISAW wrote: »

Saying "Stalin felt differently" or suggesting that the ability to stop Stalin was relevant to whether what he did was wrong wont change the fact that he did wrong.

No, it is irrelevant to whether you think he did wrong. It is still "just" your opinion.

Unless you want to show me how you read this mythical universal standard of morality and compared your judgement that he did wrong to it?

ISAW wrote: »

Nope! Box office receipes are an objective measure and not an opinion.

And it is completely subjective to equate "best" with box office receipts. You could have equated it with direction, or artistic merit, or acting. There is no objective standard as to what is the best movie. It is just opinion.

And as you demonstrate lack of said objective standard doesn't stop you making these statements or judgement as what is the best movie, nor does the fact that others disagree with you (I doubt many people think Avatar is the best movie of all time :rolleyes:)

QED as it where. Your point that there is a problem with relative judgment is null and void. You are the only one who has a problem with it, presumably because you are uncomfortable justifying your own judgments in area of morality.

ISAW wrote: »

WRONG! Read my comment. Your opinion on what a wrong act is is not informed If you think all actions are only personal opinion then you can't say "child abuse is always wrong for everyone"

I've never said that everyone thinks child abuse is wrong. Such as statement would be silly in the extreme since child abuse happens all the time so obviously some people don't think it is wrong. I think it is wrong for anyone to abuse a child for any reason, but I wouldn't be so foolish as to think that by itself is going to stop people doing this.

ISAW wrote: »

Incorrect! Following the law or enforcing it isn't oppression!

Yes it is. The only difference between a moral law and an immoral law is opinion. The act of law is the same, you break it you end up in jail

Throwing someone is in jail because they are raping children and throwing something in jail because they are criticizing the government has the same effect on the person in jail. The difference is the justification, not the act.

You only justify it for the case of the child rapist because you believe (as I do) that this is morally wrong and worthy of prison. You don't think criticizing the government is something people should be put in jail for (neither do I).

You should be under no illusions, the act is the same.

ISAW wrote: »

You can't say something is universally true if you maintain everything is just relative opinion. the two are mutually exclusive!

I've never in this entire discussion said that a moral opinion is universally true. All morals are opinion dependent on the person making the judgement.

That doesn't mean I cannot apply my moral opinion to every case. I do not think, in my opinion, that anyone anywhere should rape children. That is "just" my opinion, others disagree, but given the ability I would stop everyone from raping children.

ISAW wrote: »

Nope i mean the atheistic thugs used by Stalin or the Gastapo. Police aren't always "oppressors".

Yes they are. The only difference is what they oppress and why. No one mentioned "thugs" but you.

ISAW wrote: »

the theology on this is quite clear and quite old. Just because people can do wrong does not mean they have to.

Theology? What the heck does theology have to do with anything?

ISAW wrote: »

It demonstrates quite the opposite. That fact that you believe something and the terrorist soemthing else does not change blowing up school buses as wrong even if anyone thinks it is right.

I demonstrates that morality is just opinion. They think it is right. You and I think it is wrong. The only thing here is opinions and personal judgments.

ISAW wrote: »

It is there saying such an act is wrong!

No it isn't. There is just you and the bombers. You say it is wrong. They say it is right. Your universal morality is no where to be seen.

Show me where this universal morality is and where I can read it please. Show me where you read it and knew that your opinion that the terrorists was wrong was the "right" judgment.

ISAW wrote: »

There you go again! If you accept a universal morality then you can accept ther is a personal responsibility to act in accordance with it. The fact that some people don't do this is beside tohe point.

It isn't beside the point, it demonstrates such universal morality doesn't exists or is invisible, with both possibilities basically meaning the same thing. People can measure thing about the physical world and thus come to the conclusion that they exist. You can't do this with your universal morality, and as such saying it exists is just an uneducated guess, contradicted by the little evidence we do have.

All we have is opinion but there is nothing stopping someone from acting in accordance with their own moral compass. People can claim that their opinion is the mythical universal morality, as religions have for millennium, but that doesn't make it so.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

They weren't fundamentalist atheists. They were communists who were atheist.

But whenever the Church committed atrocities they were christian presecutors and not just regimes who happened to be Christian?

They would have been christian or hindu or scientologists and it still wouldn't change the fact that what they did, they did because of their politics.

Politics which held atheism as a central tenet?

Its the equivalent of saying, Christianity is the main religion in the US, the US has committed terrible crimes during its history, therefore christianity has committed (those) crimes. Its nonsense.

Not if a christian fundamentalist took over the US! So you are saying that the Inquisition and anything else the christian church did in history was nothing to do with a belief in Christ but was instead something to do with the authoritarian structure or hierarchy of these regimes.

How then is atheism a preferable or better way then Christianity for example?
How is it better for the world to be atheist?

Its not even as ignorant as saying that because Christianity can be and has been used in the past to justify all sorts of things. e.g. treatment of mexicans during the American-Mexican war where catholics were seen as 'lower' people, treatment of Japanese prisoners during WW2, some american soldiers considered them less then human because of their religion.

Using Christianity as an excuse is different to saying a belief in Christ or in spreading Christianity caused those things. But a policy of spreading atheism DID cause the oppression of believers!

The crimes Christianity is accused of being responsible for are crimes where Christianity has been one of, or the main reason for the crimes.

And adding them ALL up for Christianity over five centuries comes to about a tenth of the deaths caused by atheistic regimes over 50 years.

Look at the (later) Roman Empire. Christianity was an 'integral' part of it. Is christianity responsible for all of the Empires wrongdoings ?

You mean the Byzantine empire? The Orthodox Eastern Christians. The Western Empire collapsed. Christianity was not an integral part of Imperial Rome in that way though it did survive the collapse. The Byzantine empire lasted for 1200 years longer.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

But whenever the Church committed atrocities they were christian presecutors and not just regimes who happened to be Christian?

No one has ever claimed that you should blame Christianity for all regimes that happened to be Christian. No one with any basis in history blames a conflict like WWI on Christianity simply because the countries involved where largely Christian.

Blame religious belief only for conflicts where religious belief played in important role in motivating soldiers to go fight. The Crusades for example.

Can you name a single regime or conflict where atheism (specifically atheism, not anti-theism) motivated anyone to do anything?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

How does someone not believe in God "aggressively"?

Ask the person who posted that title into the atheist group. The mods ther saw fit to leave it.

I and everyone for the shared moral opinion that people have the right to religious freedom should be very critical of aggressive anti-theism such as militant Stalinist Communism.

Especially when it promotes atheism and persecutes anyone not agreeing with the atheistic ruler and his thugs.

I've told you a number of times I think child abuse is wrong and I've gone to far as to say that I would use the powers of the state to oppress child abusers from having sex with kids, something you have consistently refused to say that you yourself would do.

I would not get myself into the position of being an authoritian bully with boot boys to oppress all those I think according to my personal opinion are wrong.

That you will notice doesn't stop some people thinking it is right. Universal morality no where to be seen. Just differing opinions.

Which leaves you back with if you are going to say their are people that support child abuse your way of dealing with their equal opinion is to round them all up and oppress them because your opinion which you admit isn't objectivly shown to be better in any way
is that you should oppress them. So because you judge them you would get your mob together and persecute child abusers or anything else that opposes what YOU think is right!

Since I believe abusing children is wrong people abusing children will obviously be a problem for me,

But only because YOU believe it. If someone else believes child abuse or atheism or whatever should be spread then according to you your opinion has no authority over them.

but it isn't a problem of relative morality. I don't have to say what they are doing is ok by me simply because they think it is.

If they think it is and you think it isn't you have already stated that given the opportunity you and your comrades of the revolution would take them out in order to spread what you want. How does that make you any better than them?

So again where is this problem of relative morality?

The problem is that since you claim everyone is entitled to and opinion and none is paramount you can't show your OPINION should be enforced and another vile opinion be rejected.

And how is it solved by this mystical universal morality that you can't seem to show exists at all? All I see is different opinions. Universal morality no where to be seen.

i have already shown the problem of equating all opinions as equal. The universal morality is the idea that "child abuse is always wrong." You are suggesting (with no moral basis) some people should be oppressed if they do not abided by that opinion (even if you don't say there is any paramount opinion so yours therefore is not better in any way.
If you accept "no universal wrong" then you must also accept your opinion is not better than a child abusers.

No they aren't. They are rejecting that something can be totally wrong as a fact of nature independently of any one's judgment.

something can be totally wrong independent of personal judgment! Yo may judge pigs might fly if you wish but nature teachers us otherwise.

They can of course still think themselves that something is totally wrong. I can think of no instance where I would consider child abuse morally correct so I consider it always wrong in all circumstances. "Just" my opinion, but then this universal morality doesn't seem to exist, so that is all we have.

so based n that you can conclude that someone else's opinion that child abuse is acceptable has equal weight with your opinion that it isn't acceptable?

No I could never imagine what Stalin did as moral or ethical what ever the justification given.

But if someone else did then that is as valid a position as yours?

I can think of no instances or justification where I would ever think that abusing a child is morally justified, so I believe it is never right.

But someoine else saying it is right is just as valid and opinion as yours. so how do you know your opinion is right. some people have the opinion the Sun goes round the Earth. WE can see and measure what atheistic regimes did and how child abuse causes bad things for society just as we can see and measure the Sun.

"just" my opinion of course. But isn't that all we have. If I say this is the universal morality that is still just my opinion. I've no idea if I'm right or not because none of us can measure this mythical universal morality.

Yes we can! You did it yourself when you decided child abuse was wrong. On what is your opinion based?
ill do the rest later if i can

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Ask the person who posted that title into the atheist group. The mods ther saw fit to leave it.

I'm asking you since you are asserting such a concept.

I've no issue with someone who is aggressive and is also an atheist. But someone who is aggressively atheist seems nonsensical.

ISAW wrote: »

Especially when it promotes atheism and persecutes anyone not agreeing with the atheistic ruler and his thugs.

Yes

ISAW wrote: »

I would not get myself into the position of being an authoritian bully with boot boys to oppress all those I think according to my personal opinion are wrong.

So you would let child abusers rape children?

ISAW wrote: »

So because you judge them you would get your mob together and persecute child abusers or anything else that opposes what YOU think is right!

Yes. I would get my "mob" (ie the legal system of the State) to stop child abusers from raping children because I have judged raping children to be morally wrong in my opinion.

You have yet to explain how you would do things differently.

ISAW wrote: »

But only because YOU believe it. If someone else believes child abuse or atheism or whatever should be spread then according to you your opinion has no authority over them.

I and the rest of society can force them, through the police, to not do what I think is wrong. But I can't make them change their mind if they disagree with me. Authority is irrelevant in this regard.

Explain to me how this mythical universal morality works any differently?

ISAW wrote: »

If they think it is and you think it isn't you have already stated that given the opportunity you and your comrades of the revolution would take them out in order to spread what you want. How does that make you any better than them?

Better according to who?

I think it is better to police child abusers than not police child abusers because I believe that harming children is wrong. It is better according to me. You may disagree, there is little I can do about that.

ISAW wrote: »

The problem is that since you claim everyone is entitled to and opinion and none is paramount

I most certainly do not claim this, nor have I ever claimed that. Stop making up my position please.

I've already said that my moral opinion is paramount, in fact you have spent a lot of time criticizing me for this, so how you thought I was claiming that everyone's opinion is paramount I've no idea.

ISAW wrote: »

i have already shown the problem of equating all opinions as equal.

I don't equate all opinions as equal. I think my moral opinions are better, in my opinion.

ISAW wrote: »

You are suggesting (with no moral basis) some people should be oppressed if If you accept "no universal wrong" then you must also accept your opinion is not better than a child abusers.

No I don't. I must accept that they can hold an opinion contrary to mine, but I don't have to think it is just as moral as my opinion, nor do I have to respect it. Any more than you have to accept that highest budget equates to "best" movie instead of box office receipts just because someone else thinks so.

ISAW wrote: »

something can be totally wrong independent of personal judgment!

You have yet to demonstrate this. You simply claim that with no support.

We can measure if pigs can fly. You have not yet put forward a way to measure universal moral standards.

ISAW wrote: »

But someoine else saying it is right is just as valid and opinion as yours.

If you say so. I disagree. I feel no need to respect their opinion. I recognise it exists, that is all.

ISAW wrote: »

so how do you know your opinion is right.

Right according to who exactly?

Once again you demonstrate your inability to think about relative morality without appealing to universal morality.

ISAW wrote: »

WE can see and measure what atheistic regimes did and how child abuse causes bad things for society just as we can see and measure the Sun.

We can't (or at least you have yet to show how we could) measure what is or isn't universal morality.

I already asked you what would you do if we did some how do this and the universal morality contradicted one of your moral opinions. The concept seemed so alien to you you couldn't even answer the question. This suggests to me that you think universal morality will be simply what you think morality is. This seems to suggest that you are simply looking to have your own beliefs confirmed for you by something you consider to have higher authority than yourself. That is your problem, not mine.

ISAW wrote: »

Yes we can! You did it yourself when you decided child abuse was wrong.

No.

I made the moral judgement that child abuse was wrong. That is "just" my opinion, I've no idea if this correlates to your mythical universal morality or not, nor can you show me a way to confirm it does or not, nor do I particularly care. I don't need something else telling me I'm "right", I am not that insecure of my own beliefs.

Once again your universal morality seems to be simply a cognitive invention to make you feel better about your own moral judgments.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm asking you since you are asserting such a concept.

not originally.

I've no issue with someone who is aggressive and is also an atheist. But someone who is aggressively atheist seems nonsensical.

Yes they spread their nonsense throughout Russia and China and killed tens of millions because of it.

I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.
Bertrand Russel

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
Richard Dawkins

So you would let child abusers rape children?

What I think does not matter I should not oppress a child or a child abuser and if I did
it would be against a moral code.

Yes. I would get my "mob" (ie the legal system of the State) to stop child abusers from raping children because I have judged raping children to be morally wrong in my opinion.

That's where it begins. And then since you decide what is wrong for yourself the corruption continues. I'm sure people thought Mugabe was doing ok when he first got into power. People tried similar in the past with their autos de fe. Two wrongs don't make a right. Abusing an abuser isn't a morally correct thing.

You have yet to explain how you would do things differently.

You have yet to show how it is connected to the act being wrong. But I would begin with preventing rather than reacting to the damage afterwards. A child abuser cant abuse children if he is never in contact with them.

I and the rest of society can force them, through the police, to not do what I think is wrong. But I can't make them change their mind if they disagree with me. Authority is irrelevant in this regard.

People can change their mind. and people can also force them in cruel and unusual ways. Have you ever read A Clockwork Orange? Who was the victim?

Explain to me how this mythical universal morality works any differently?

You may have a code of natural and constitutional justice just as you have a theory of the Universe. It disallows certain things such as slavery or child abuse for example. Just as the ever developing so called "laws" of physics disallow some things but are something we can base how the natural world works on. Science however is not sufficient to supply a source for values.

Better according to who?

Well if you say better is meaningless then how can you say your opinion is in any way preferable than that of an abuser? And on what evidence is your opinion that child abuse is wrong based?

I think it is better to police child abusers than not police child abusers because I believe that harming children is wrong.

But what evidence do you have that it is wrong?

It is better according to me. You may disagree, there is little I can do about that.

I disagree. Form your relativist point of view ther is nothing you can do. From my objective point of view we can both refer to an established universal common standard.

I most certainly do not claim this, nor have I ever claimed that. Stop making up my position please.

You don't claim there isn't a single opinion which is to be considered the one to follow? Except your own? Yes everyone is entitled to an opinion - as long as it agrees with you!

I've already said that my moral opinion is paramount, in fact you have spent a lot of time criticizing me for this, so how you thought I was claiming that everyone's opinion is paramount I've no idea.

Yes everyone is entitled to an opinion - as long as it agrees with you!
You opinion is paramount. Even if you happen to agree with abuse or something against the law.

I don't equate all opinions as equal. I think my moral opinions are better, in my opinion.

I'm not surprised there. You are happy for the jackbooted police state to oppress people then as long as you are in charge of it?

No I don't. I must accept that they can hold an opinion contrary to mine, but I don't have to think it is just as moral as my opinion, nor do I have to respect it.

Nor did Stalin Mao or Pol pot.

Any more than you have to accept that highest budget equates to "best" movie instead of box office receipts just because someone else thinks so.

It isnt because someone else thinks so! If it is the highest earner it IS the highest earner.

You have yet to demonstrate this. You simply claim that with no support.

Either
1. You are always right.
OR
2. Like the professors who subscribed to the heliocentric theory you are sometimes wrong.
but think you are always right.

something can be totally wrong independent of personal judgment!

We can measure if pigs can fly. You have not yet put forward a way to measure universal moral standards.

You measure if pigs fly by observing them. You measure moral behavior by observing it.

I already asked you what would you do if we did some how do this and the universal morality contradicted one of your moral opinions. The concept seemed so alien to you you couldn't even answer the question.

Where?

This suggests to me that you think universal morality will be simply what you think morality is.

It may but you would be wrong! Unlike you i don't think I am always right or think was I believe is right for me and damn everyone else.

This seems to suggest that you are simply looking to have your own beliefs confirmed for you by something you consider to have higher authority than yourself. That is your problem, not mine.

I don't know how many times now I have told you MY beliefs don't come into this,. i am representing a view of what I think natural law philosophers would hold.

I don't need something else telling me I'm "right", I am not that insecure of my own beliefs.

And a pedophile could say the same. On WHAT evidence do you base your opinion that child abuse is wrong?

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

But whenever the Church committed atrocities they were christian presecutors and not just regimes who happened to be Christian?

The church specifically ?

The church specifically, probably most of what it has done. The church is a religious institution who is motivated by religion. I will quite happily admit that many things the church has done has been more politically motivated then religiously, but I'd say that most of what its done it has done specifically for religious reasons.

Politics which held atheism as a central tenet?

Which had no bearing whatsoever on their policies. Atheism has no policies, atheism says nothing about anything except that it is a label applied to people who don't believe in deities or the supernatural.

If you want to say that they were atheist and anti-theist then fair enough, many religious people were killed by communist regimes because they were anti-theist/anti-religious. But that is not atheism.

Not if a christian fundamentalist took over the US!

No, even if a christian fundamentalist took over the US.

If a christian fundamentalist took over the US and started a war against Iran where the US killed thousands of people, the reasoning behind the war was political (Israel, WMD's etc) then it would not be because of religion. It would not be because of christianity.

If a christian fundamentalist took over the US and started a war against Iran where the US killed thousands of people, the reasoning behind the war was religious, destroying the enemies of 'the chosen people' because it was part of his faith then yes it would be because of religion. It would be because of christianity.

So you are saying that the Inquisition and anything else the christian church did in history was nothing to do with a belief in Christ but was instead something to do with the authoritarian structure or hierarchy of these regimes.

Nope.

I'm saying that crimes committed where religion was the motivating factor (Inquisition) are because of Christianity.
Crimes that were committed where power/wealth/politics was the motivating factor (Roman Empire vs various tribes) are because of power/wealth/politics.

How then is atheism a preferable or better way then Christianity for example?

In what respect ?

Religion can led to fundamentalism which can led to terrible crimes. In that way atheism is 'better'.

On the other hand many religious people live 'better' lives because of their religion. In that way religion makes them live 'better lives'.

Atheism is a 'better' way then christianity because I view religion to be a lie and atheism to be acceptance of reality alone. I view it as 'better' because people don't waste their time with superstition.

Using Christianity as an excuse is different to saying a belief in Christ or in spreading Christianity caused those things.

But a policy of spreading atheism DID cause the oppression of believers!

Which is anti-theism, not atheism.

Remember your atheist too. I just go one god more then you do.

The bible, your religion says spread it out to everyone. Atheism says nothing.

And adding them ALL up for Christianity over five centuries comes to about a tenth of the deaths caused by atheistic regimes over 50 years.

You've already been corrected. Repeating a defeated argument over and over is not an argument.

You mean the Byzantine empire? The Orthodox Eastern Christians. The Western Empire collapsed. Christianity was not an integral part of Imperial Rome in that way though it did survive the collapse. The Byzantine empire lasted for 1200 years longer.

Christianity was not an integral part of (later) Imperial Rome ? You sure you want to make that argument ?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

not originally.

What does that have to do with anything? You can either justify your assertions or you can't.

ISAW wrote: »

Yes they spread their nonsense throughout Russia and China and killed tens of millions because of it.

No, militant anti-theistic Communists did. You still haven't explained how you get from that to "aggressive atheism"

You appear to mean aggressive anti-theism. If so it would be helpful if you used that term.

ISAW wrote: »

What I think does not matter

It does if you are asserting that what I think has problems compared to what you think.

All the problems you have asserted exist with relative morality either don't exist on close examination or apply to universal morality as well.

ISAW wrote: »

That's where it begins. And then since you decide what is wrong for yourself the corruption continues. I'm sure people thought Mugabe was doing ok when he first got into power. People tried similar in the past with their autos de fe. Two wrongs don't make a right. Abusing an abuser isn't a morally correct thing.

Who said anything about abusing the abuser? I think child abusers should be treated humanely. But they should be still oppressed (ie put in prison) I would not allow them to continue to do what they wish to do.

ISAW wrote: »

You may have a code of natural and constitutional justice just as you have a theory of the Universe.

I may have lots of things if I'm prepared to just make things up. I could make up my own version of String Theory and assert that this is reality. Doesn't make is to.

Simply because you think your beliefs match this mythical universal standard doesn't make that so and you have so far been at a loss to demonstrate any way to actually measure this standard and see if they do.

ISAW wrote: »

It disallows certain things such as slavery or child abuse for example.

It does? And you measured this how exactly?

What if someone said (as they have in the past) that slavery is in line with natural law. How would you show differently? Or would you just assert that it doesn't (ie expression your opinion of what you think it should say)

ISAW wrote: »

But what evidence do you have that it is wrong?

Evidence in what context?

You seem to be asking me for evidence that my opinion matches the universal standard. Since the universal standard doesn't exist this is irrelevant.

ISAW wrote: »

I disagree. Form your relativist point of view ther is nothing you can do. From my objective point of view we can both refer to an established universal common standard.

"Established"? "Common"? Common to who and established by who?

Finally we get to the heart of this nosense :rolleyes:

You mean what people say the universal standard probably is. So we have gone from a universal standard (which you know you can't actually measure) to what everyone thinks the universal standard is.

Which is as subjective and relative as anything I've been saying. The only difference between you and me is I recognize this. I don't pretend that my subjective opinion matches some mythical fact of nature.

ISAW wrote: »

I'm not surprised there. You are happy for the jackbooted police state to oppress people then as long as you are in charge of it?

I never said anything about jackbooteds. I wasn't aware our police wear jackboots, but if you say they do. What I am very happy about is the police oppressing criminals who wish to do me and the rest of society harm so long as they do so in accordance to what I consider moral.

ISAW wrote: »

It isnt because someone else thinks so! If it is the highest earner it IS the highest earner.

Yes but you equated "best" with "highest earner". The latter is a measurable fact, the former a subjective opinion.

QED

ISAW wrote: »

You measure if pigs fly by observing them. You measure moral behavior by observing it.

I've no problem measuring behavior, but what do you measure the morality against? Your own moral opinion? The subjective opinion of those who agree with you? I thought so.

ISAW wrote: »

And a pedophile could say the same. On WHAT evidence do you base your opinion that child abuse is wrong?

On the evidence that child abuse mentally harms the child and on my own subjective opinion that harming children is morally wrong. "Just" my opinion of course, but since that is all we have (as you seem to be realizing) that will have to do.

On what "evidence" do you base your opinion that the concept that child abuse is wrong matches this mythical universal morality? Explain how you measure this please.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

No one has ever claimed that you should blame Christianity for all regimes that happened to be Christian.

Nor atheism for regimes that happened to be run by atheists. However, ALL atheistic regimes specifically promoted atheism over belief and persecuted believers. They contributed nothing to civilization and ultimately in a short time failed. All Christian (or other believers) regimes didn't promote Christianity over atheism let alone over other religions. They built cities and not Gulags and the Church lasted 2000 years.

No one with any basis in history blames a conflict like WWI on Christianity simply because the countries involved where largely Christian.

countries which didn't say "We are going to war with those who reject Christianity" unlike atheistic regimes who specifically opposed belief in God.

Blame religious belief only for conflicts where religious belief played in important role in motivating soldiers to go fight. The Crusades for example.

Blame atheistic regimes for conflicts where atheism played a central role in their political philosophy.

"[Dawkins] wants to make respect for belief in God socially unacceptable ... ." "I'm quite keen on the politics of persuading people of the virtues of atheism ... ." "Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists."--Richard Dawkins

Gary Wolf in the November 2006 issue of WIRED magazine writes "Religion is not only wrong; it is evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking." Wolf goes on to say that "Bad ideas foisted on children are moral wrongs." Wolf maintains that evangelism by atheists "is a moral imperative."

The Crusades were in diametric opposition to the teachings of Christ.

Can you name a single regime or conflict where atheism (specifically atheism, not anti-theism) motivated anyone to do anything?

Religion does not have a problem with people being atheist. It is when they promote atheism in the above manned they become a problem. Can you name a single anti theist who wasn't atheist and didn't support the spreading of atheism?

ISAW

QUOTE=Wicknight;65814292]What does that have to do with anything? You can either justify your assertions or you can't.
[/quote]

If someone originally made the assertion they defined it as that. I am only going along with the definition as given. You are asking me to define what it means. I can tell you what I believe they meant by it if that is what you want but you can't blame me for using what they introduced.

Given I have been banned from AA for something I didn't do in that thread I suggest you toddle over there and look at whoever posted the "aggressive atheists" thread and ask them.

No, militant anti-theistic Communists did. You still haven't explained how you get from that to "aggressive atheism"

Again see whoever first used the term in AA and ask them. The thread ther is about the same people as here. Mao, Stalin Pol Pot etc. It is about people like Dawkins who promulgate atheism and see belief as bad for society.

You appear to mean aggressive anti-theism. If so it would be helpful if you used that term.

I'm only using a term used in the atheism forum. As I stated the moderators there didn't see fit to change the title. AS I aleady stated I don't have a problem with atheists just with those who attack religious belief like Mao Stalin and others. If you want to be an atheist and are prepared to leave believers alone then fair enough.

You mean what people say the universal standard probably is. So we have gone from a universal standard (which you know you can't actually measure) to what everyone thinks the universal standard is.

So the laws of physics and expanding universe and quarks don't exist? It is only that everyone thinks they do?

Which is as subjective and relative as anything I've been saying.

Just as science is subjective and relative?

The only difference between you and me is I recognize this. I don't pretend that my subjective opinion matches some mythical fact of nature.

so anyone's subjective opinion about what matter is doesn't match what is actually there?
Or can they go and actually look at the effect matter has and say "well maybe there is an underlying universal order which we can express as the Unified field theory " Just as they can look at the unioverse and observe societies over the entire history of civilization and say "well maybe there is an underlying order which we can express as natural and constitutional justice "

Yes but you equated "best" with "highest earner". The latter is a measurable fact, the former a subjective opinion.

What is a "fact"?
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein

If you are saying "child abuse is always wrong" is not a fact and it is only an opinion then ther are problems with that position.

If you are going to load the argument and rule out all absolute terms and only allow relative scales of course it is then impossible to use relative terminology to define objective facts. When you ask "what is best?" and I say "best as measured in units of money"? You immediately rule out any objective scale by saying "No you are only allowed to use the word "best" in relative terms!" It seems because special relativity suggests "there is no privileged observer" you extend this "principle" to everything else.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0407/0407078v2.pdf

p.10
These examples of the ontologically autonomous structure of space which completely
determines the inertial properties of test masses show the logical independence
of Mach’s principle from general relativity.

"the relativity of all motion, i.e. the relativity of inertial accelerations, cannot be maintained in general relativity"

I've no problem measuring behavior, but what do you measure the morality against? Your own moral opinion? The subjective opinion of those who agree with you? I thought so.

What do we measure "inertia" against? what is charge or colour or charm except a property which we say a particle has or or has a congruent form of? We can map the universe and say we think it behaves in certain ways because even though the theory is not perfect it does explain what we observe. We can also map society and say we don't maybe know everything but there seems to be an underlying order.

On the evidence that child abuse mentally harms the child and on my own subjective opinion that harming children is morally wrong. "Just" my opinion of course, but since that is all we have (as you seem to be realizing) that will have to do.

But you are playing with words again! WE really don't know what a photon "really" is but we can see what effect waves or particles or whatever have and we can predict what might happen if... Likewise harming children can theoretically be measured as to whether it causes harm to the next generation. And we can discover that the sins of one generation are visited on the next. But you seem to propose that though we can look at the evidence of history and view the holocaust that the idea it was wrong is just a meaningless personal interpretation, that everyone is going around with different maps and that based on this there is no actual single territory. Reality isn't "out there" it is constructed in out head.

On what "evidence" do you base your opinion that the concept that child abuse is wrong matches this mythical universal morality? Explain how you measure this please.

In almost every society in history families composed of a male a female and children existed. Any change on this is not normal in history. This standard model is expressed in the oldest myths. In every society evolving independently of each other these basic rules were followed. It didn't begin as an idea and spread to another culture.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

Nor atheism for regimes that happened to be run by atheists. However, ALL atheistic regimes specifically promoted atheism over belief and persecuted believers.

You haven't answered any of the points put to you in the last 2 pages of this thread yet your arguments continue to be composed of the same tripe that has already been debunked.

What you are referring to are communist regimes which were anti-a lot of things. They were anti-religion, anti-homosexual, anti-western culture, anti-monrachy, anti-the old ways.

Communism, especially under Stalin, sought to completely change society from what it was. Religion was just one small part of it.

Communism was anti-theist for political reasons. It was not anti-theist because it was atheist. Atheism is not anti-theism.

wikipedia wrote:

Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society.

How do you not understand that is because of political reasons ?

They contributed nothing to civilization and ultimately in a short time failed.

What did ? Stalinism ? Communism ? Atheism ?

How are you defining contribution ?

All Christian (or other believers) regimes didn't promote Christianity over atheism let alone over other religions. They built cities and not Gulags and the Church lasted 2000 years.

Persecution of pagans by Constantius II. In fact, persecution of pagans and other religions by the later Roman Empire as a whole, give or take an emperor here and there.
Persecution of traditional African religions by the Catholic Church/British Empire/Western Countries in Africa.
Persecution of Catholics in the UK etc
Persecution of South Americans because of their religion.
Etc.

countries which didn't say "We are going to war with those who reject Christianity" unlike atheistic regimes who specifically opposed belief in God.

So your trying to suggest no country has ever gone to war because of Christianity ?

Blame atheistic regimes for conflicts where atheism played a central role in their political philosophy.

Atheism is not anti-theism.

"[Dawkins] wants to make respect for belief in God socially unacceptable ... ." "I'm quite keen on the politics of persuading people of the virtues of atheism ... ." "Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists."--Richard Dawkins

So ? Dawkins can start worshipping leprechauns for all I care.

See as we continuously need to remind you, atheism is not a religion. We have no beliefs, we share no goal, no doctrine. Every other atheist in the world could believe in X and it wouldn't matter in the slightest to me.

Atheism is not a group, atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is a label applied to those who have no belief.

Gary Wolf in the November 2006 issue of WIRED magazine writes "Religion is not only wrong; it is evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking." Wolf goes on to say that "Bad ideas foisted on children are moral wrongs." Wolf maintains that evangelism by atheists "is a moral imperative."

See above.

The Crusades were in diametric opposition to the teachings of Christ.

Not according to the crusaders.

Are you suggesting that they weren't Christians ? That they didn't do what they did in the name of Christianity ?

Is your interpretation the only correct interpretation of Christianity ?

Religion does not have a problem with people being atheist.

Please see any history book ever written.

It is when they promote atheism in the above manned they become a problem. Can you name a single anti theist who wasn't atheist and didn't support the spreading of atheism?

Ah, so your logic is that all anti-theists are also atheists therefore all atheists want to spread atheism ? :rolleyes:

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Nor atheism for regimes that happened to be run by atheists. However, ALL atheistic regimes specifically promoted atheism over belief and persecuted believers.

That is because there have been 5 of them and they were all Communist.

I'm pretty sure there have been more than 5 Christian regimes who brutally oppressed the native population and lead ideological wars.

So again if you want to play the numbers game you lose, quite badly.

Of course the numbers game is silly, but if you insist

ISAW wrote: »

Blame atheistic regimes for conflicts where atheism played a central role in their political philosophy.

Again you mean anti-theism. Atheism isn't a philosophy, it can't play a central role in anything.

ISAW wrote: »

The Crusades were in diametric opposition to the teachings of Christ.

According to you. And just like your mythical universal morality this "fact" did nothing to stop thousands of soldiers joining up under the belief that it was a righteous God sanctioned war. And why not, the Bible is full of righteous God sanctioned wars.

ISAW wrote: »

Religion does not have a problem with people being atheist.

History begs to differ. In fact the present begs to differ. You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about some religious person having a rant about atheists in America and Europe.

ISAW wrote: »

Can you name a single anti theist who wasn't atheist and didn't support the spreading of atheism?

Can I name a single anti-theist who was a theist? You might want to think about that question again.

Again I've no problem with you giving out about militant anti-theists. I'm no more found of Communism than you are.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

If someone originally made the assertion they defined it as that. I am only going along with the definition as given.

Yes but you obviously agree with the phrase "aggressive atheism" since you keep using it. If you agree with the phrase you should be able to explain what it means.

Or are you saying you are just repeating something you don't actually understand?

You attribute ideology to atheism that is found instead in anti-theism. You appear to be confusing the two terms, believing that atheism means a distaste for theism. It doesn't.

If you are confusing the two because you are blindly following what someone else on the A&A forum said, fair enough. But defending your continued usage of this seems silly since you appear to be asserting you didn't even understand what you were doing.

ISAW wrote: »

So the laws of physics and expanding universe and quarks don't exist? It is only that everyone thinks they do?

I've no idea if they actually exist or not. They appear to exist, and can be measured as such. These measurements may be wrong but they build up to a workable model.

If you can explain how you measure this mythical universal natural morality of yours I'm all ears.

ISAW wrote: »

Or can they go and actually look at the effect matter has and say "well maybe there is an underlying universal order which we can express as the Unified field theory"

No one says that. You are simply demonstrating your ignorance of science now.

ISAW wrote: »

" Just as they can look at the unioverse and observe societies over the entire history of civilization and say "well maybe there is an underlying order which we can express as natural and constitutional justice "

No, they say maybe we have evolved biological instincts that help form evolutionary advantageous social interactions. And they then test this and come to the conclusion that we have.

If you want to call our evolved instincts for social interaction "universal morality" go ahead, but that would seem a bit silly (see below).

ISAW wrote: »

When you ask "what is best?" and I say "best as measured in units of money"? You immediately rule out any objective scale by saying "No you are only allowed to use the word "best" in relative terms!"

No I didn't. I asked you what is the best movie of all time.

You (probably realizing I'd snookered you) then introduced "as measured in units of money" because that is an objective determination that you don't have to personally justify. But you will notice though I didn't ask you anything about units of money. I asked you what is the "best" movie. You introduced units of money so as to have an objective measurement

The onus is on you to decide what criteria for what is "best" How you do that is up to you but of course any decision you make will be subjective upon your own judgment. Which you don't like so you tried to sneak in gross ticket sales as if that was a common agreed criteria for "best"

QED as it where.

So, what is the best movie of all time?

ISAW wrote: »

But you seem to propose that though we can look at the evidence of history and view the holocaust that the idea it was wrong is just a meaningless personal interpretation, that everyone is going around with different maps and that based on this there is no actual single territory.

Pretty much.

We have two forms of morality, those based on pure evolved instinct and those based on rational determination. The latter is build upon the former.

Neither of these are universal facts of reality independent of humans. One is simply what evolution decided to give us because it helps our genes reproduce most efficiently and the other is subjective opinion. You seem to be looking at humans and seeing that lots and lots of people share similar moral opinions and for some reason concluding that there must be some universal law that is feeding all of them this information. You then proclaim such a universal standard exists.

Welcome to 150 years ago. :rolleyes:

You seem utterly ignorant of evolution and how this effects evolved instincts and emotions. The reason so many people share similar moral instincts is because we are all humans and evolved from a small set of humans who evolved this moral instincts because they provided the most likelihood of reproduction. And like so much in evolution these instincts are not hard rules, people ignore them or just done have them or are manipulated based on them.

Seriously for someone who likes to go on about the science so much how can you not be aware of this?

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Strawman much? How is saying we have the right to disagree with ideas the same as saying I have a problem with freedom of speech? I cant wait to see this one explained.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We all are part of a society and we all have the right to disagree with, and work against, ideas that exist in that society. We all do it every day. It just so happens that for some, like me, the idea that there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of our universe is one of the ones we work against and will continue to do so until someone gets around to providing even a shred of a scrap of evidence to lend it any credence.

Disagreeing with ideas is one thing. Working against ideas is something else entirely.

You are free to express your opinions but working against the ideas of others is active oppression.

We don't go knocking on your door trying to persuade you to see the errors of your ways so you should not be demanding proof of a higher authority here.

You want our evidence? Show us yours first.

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex,

It appears you are merely reading to much into my choice of words as by „work against“ the meaning I intended is merely the expression of ideas against other ideas, which we ALL have the right to do.

We do this with all ideas. If, for example, I campaign, educate, debate, raise awareness and just generally vocalise against the illegality of abortion by choice in Ireland, I am “working against” the idea that it should be illegal in the first place. I do all these things until the next time it comes to a vote and I see you down the voting booths on voting day.

When the opposition go into the Dail and argue down the government they are “working against” the ideas expressed by those in power. And vice versa.

Or in short, what I mean by “working against” is the expression of and ideas that stand in contradiction to any other ideas.

No more. No less.

It appears to me that you have somehow read into my words that by “working against” an idea I am suggesting “working against” any form of expression or exploration of that idea. Suffice to say this is not even CLOSE to the meaning I intended.

I hope this makes my meaning and intentions more clear.

As for your last statement about people “knocking on my door” I am afraid you are entirely wrong on that… both on AND off this forum. The A&A forum is awash with people from this forum and vice versa. In the real world my door is often visited by people expressing religious ideas. And in the areas of my life where I DO actually have an active interest (areas such as politics, science, sexuality, morality, education, medicine and so on) I am rarely able to partake in work or interest groups on a single one of those subjects without someone basing second level premises based on the totally evidence devoid first level premise that there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of this universe.

Where ELSE should I go to investigate the basis of those claims other than forums full of the very people making them?

As for asking me for my evidence... sure... find something I have said in this thread that you want back up for and I will do my best for you.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

StealthRolex,

It appears you are merely reading to much into my choice of words as by „work against“ the meaning I intended is merely the expression of ideas against other ideas, which we ALL have the right to do.

We do this with all ideas. If, for example, I campaign, educate, debate, raise awareness and just generally vocalise against the illegality of abortion by choice in Ireland, I am “working against” the idea that it should be illegal in the first place. I do all these things until the next time it comes to a vote and I see you down the voting booths on voting day.

When the opposition go into the Dail and argue down the government they are “working against” the ideas expressed by those in power. And vice versa.

Or in short, what I mean by “working against” is the expression of and ideas that stand in contradiction to any other ideas.

No more. No less.

It appears to me that you have somehow read into my words that by “working against” an idea I am suggesting “working against” any form of expression or exploration of that idea. Suffice to say this is not even CLOSE to the meaning I intended.

I hope this makes my meaning and intentions more clear.

As for your last statement about people “knocking on my door” I am afraid you are entirely wrong on that… both on AND off this forum. The A&A forum is awash with people from this forum and vice versa. In the real world my door is often visited by people expressing religious ideas. And in the areas of my life where I DO actually have an active interest (areas such as politics, science, sexuality, morality, education, medicine and so on) I am rarely able to partake in work or interest groups on a single one of those subjects without someone basing second level premises based on the totally evidence devoid first level premise that there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of this universe.

Where ELSE should I go to investigate the basis of those claims other than forums full of the very people making them?

As for asking me for my evidence... sure... find something I have said in this thread that you want back up for and I will do my best for you.

Well Nozz, for a start I don't believe you. I believe you have an agenda against Christian belief in particular and theism in general. Why, because you persistently seek what cannot be understood without the assistance of God and assume that because it cannot be provided you have no case to answer when in fact the opposite is true.

to quote you :"...I am rarely able to partake in work or interest groups on a single one of those subjects without someone basing second level premises based on the totally evidence devoid first level premise that there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of this universe"

Yet you have presented not one scrap of evidence yourself in any of your postings for the non-existence of God. Why? Because no such evidence exists.

Not only that but you now appear to be in the process of hi-jacking a thread that proposes to discuss links between atheism and violence by voicing your assertion repeatedly that until God is proven to exist you give Him no credence in your obtuse rhetorical manner. If I was interested in pursuing that discussion I would head over to A&A but the sight of that much MM is a little disturbing.

I suggest you either prove your assertion or get back on topic.

Now I'll get back on topic. By repeatedly expressing your demands for evidence of Gods existence and stating that you are actively working against ideas you disagree with from an atheistic perspective as you are doing so now within a forum that is ostensibly Christian while indirectly violating Charter code 5 and admitting that you think that violence against unborn children should be legalized is getting pretty close to demonstrating that there are atheists who by their nature are intolerant and oppressive with violent tendencies, or at least tacitly support some forms of murder for "sub-humans".

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

Now I'll get back on topic. By repeatedly expressing your demands for evidence of Gods existence and stating that you are actively working against ideas you disagree with from an atheistic perspective as you are doing so now within a forum that is ostensibly Christian while indirectly violating Charter code 5 and admitting that you think that violence against unborn children should be legalized is getting pretty close to demonstrating that there are atheists who by their nature are intolerant and oppressive with violent tendencies, or at least tacitly support some forms of murder for "sub-humans".

I'm not saying that nozzferrahhtoo is intolerant and oppressive, but who ever said there weren't intolerant and oppressive atheist?

That doesn't seem to be something that would require demonstration. There are violent and oppressive vegetarians as well.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not saying that nozzferrahhtoo is intolerant and oppressive, but who ever said there weren't intolerant and oppressive atheist?

That doesn't seem to be something that would require demonstration. There are violent and oppressive vegetarians as well.

I prefer to let the vegetables fight their own battles in their own forum :pac:

StealthRolex

The point is atheists tend to think they are omniscient, for only the omniscient can prove God does not exist, and are free to give themselves over to the darker side of their human nature if they so wish. For them nothing is wrong because evil does not exist. Some then develop notions of omnipotence from which stems an attitude that they can do what they like and from there the step to oppression and violence is easier.

That is not to say there are no "good" or altruistic atheists but IMO there is support for the notion that atheism facilitates oppressive dictatorial violent totalitarian regimes.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

The point is atheists tend to think they are omniscient, for only the omniscient can prove God does not exist

I've yet to meet an atheist who thinks he can prove God doesn't exist, so this seems a bit of a theist straw man.

I've met plenty of atheists who weigh up the large amount of evidence on one side that humans invent supernatural agents in nature for various evolutionary reasons.

On the other side the the evidence (or lack of) for theist claims.

They then conclude that in all likelihood theist claims are wrong at explaining the phenomena they claim are explained by their religion.

It is really that simply. Theism doesn't add up. So I reject it. Why wouldn't I reject it?

Theists in general seem a bit at a loss to respond to this, which is why New Atheism has been so popular in recent years. They prefer ad hominem attacks rather than dealing with the central points behind this form of atheism.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

I've yet to meet an atheist who thinks he can prove God doesn't exist, so this seems a bit of a theist straw man.

I've met plenty of atheists who weigh up the large amount of evidence on one side that humans invent supernatural agents in nature for various evolutionary reasons.

On the other side the the evidence (or lack of) for theist claims.

They then conclude that in all likelihood theist claims are wrong at explaining the phenomena they claim are explained by their religion.

It is really that simply. Theism doesn't add up. So I reject it. Why wouldn't I reject it?

Theists in general seem a bit at a loss to respond to this, which is why New Atheism has been so popular in recent years. They prefer ad hominem attacks rather than dealing with the central points behind this form of atheism.

If you cannot prove God does not exist then God exists.

Do you wish to make a point about atheism and violence or are you only interested in discussing the existence of God?

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

You haven't answered any of the points put to you in the last 2 pages of this thread yet your arguments continue to be composed of the same tripe that has already been debunked.

that's waffle!
claiming I havent answered arguments isn't proff of not answering.
Care to list ten arguments made and we will see if I replied to them?

What you are referring to are communist regimes which were anti-a lot of things. They were anti-religion, anti-homosexual, anti-western culture, anti-monrachy, anti-the old ways.

Promoting atheism and persecuting believers was central to their plan. If they were also anti vegetarian or anti German it has nothing to do with the issue of a central plan of being opposed to belief and pro spreading atheism.

Communism, especially under Stalin, sought to completely change society from what it was. Religion was just one small part of it.

so what? Two wrongs do not make a right. if their were other bad things as well such as persecuting vegetarians that isn't at issue! They opposed belief and had atheism as a central part of their plan.

Communism was anti-theist for political reasons. It was not anti-theist because it was atheist. Atheism is not anti-theism.

Religions persecuted much less people than atheistic regimes but for political reasons and not because of belief in Christ for example. this does not stop fundamentalist atheists saying all religion is a great evil for society or atheistic regimes persecuting believers.

How do you not understand that is because of political reasons ?

How do you not understand that when someone says "religion is evil and belief should be wiped out by us Godless more knowledgeable atheistic people" that it makes no difference if you call that a political reason or not?

How are you defining contribution ?

Well they contributed 100,000,000 deaths if you want to stretch the definition but I am referring to architecture culture etc. You know positive things.

Persecution of pagans by Constantius II. In fact, persecution of pagans and other religions by the later Roman Empire as a whole, give or take an emperor here and there.

http://www.mega.nu/ampp/rummel/sod.chap2.htm
Statistics Of
Pre-20th Century Democide
Estimates, Calculations, And Sources

Then for the reign of Roman emperors this would add up to a democide of over 5,000,000 people--just for this one empire.

that is Imperial Rome from (Augustus Octavian) in 27 B.C to the last (Romulus Augustulus) who ruled until 476 A.D.

How many of them were under christianity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity#Christianity_legalized_and_endorsed_by_Constantine_I

Constantine thus established a precedent for the emperor as responsible to God for the spiritual health of their subjects, and thus with a duty to maintain orthodoxy.

Of course he established The precursor to the Byzantine empire in Constantinople. so what about Rome? On February 27, 380, the Roman Empire officially adopted Trinitarian Christianity as its state religion.The central mainstream christian creed became adopted.
so you have about ONE century of christian Rome till 476. And only rome and not Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria who split with the Eastern Empire.

so how many dead because of that? Well look at
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/romestat.htm

Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire lists about 390,000 after 390AD but most of these are military engagements and not persecutions or massacres. I think it would be reasonable to assume that if you look at similar figure for persecution of Christians then the actual numbers are matybe in the thousands.
e.g. in gibbons
Constantinople: Riot between Arians and Catholics: 3,150 trampled. But again this is a doctrinal conflict and not Christians persecuting non Christians. the really nasty persecutions only come later when the Franks and not Rome is involved.

Persecution of traditional African religions by the Catholic Church/British Empire/Western Countries in Africa.

This was not Imperial Roman and the slavery was only supported by a Borgia Pope for about 50 years. This is a time of vast corruption in the Papacy. Yes it was wrong but the whole Church was not rotten just some of the hierarchy. While this was going on the church was also teaching and educating Africans and American natives. Rome didn't trade slaves or own ships they just allowed the trade as being acceptable.

Persecution of Catholics in the UK etc

In Ireland more so. By Cromwell against Catholics. At one stage Irish white slaves outnumbered black slaves and indeed outnumbered any other population in the Americas outside the natives!

The persecution by "Rome" would refer to english Monarchs who introduces regimes which terrorised Protestants . And it was for a very short period This isn't Christians attacking others it is so called Christians attacking Christians. Also the Pope of the day didn't tell "Bloody Mary " to kill Protestants. In fact Catholic Church elements supported Protestants. Cardinal Richelieu for example supported Gustavo Adolphus and bankrolled his Army. Catholic Italy or Spain supported Protestant William III because they weakened Catholic
France. Indeed there was a Papal unit in William of Orange's Army. So these factions can not be considered as "spreading Christianity and persecuting all who oppose it" like "spreading atheism and persecuting all who oppose it"

Persecution of South Americans because of their religion.
Etc.

Again this was low in numbers and not perpretrated by Rome but mainly by Spanish and Portuguese interests. In fact The ten years spend in the east by Francis Xavier win him the title 'apostle of the Indies', and cause him to be named by the Vatican (in 1927) as the patron saint of all missions.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab30

Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab30#ixzz0nbsZZ97k
Between 1759 and 1761 Portugal arrests all the Jesuits in its territories and ships them to the papal states. In 1761-3 the Jesuit colleges in France are closed. In 1767 Jesuits are expelled from Spain and its colonies.

Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab30#ixzz0nbtJE7CK

So your trying to suggest no country has ever gone to war because of Christianity ?

No!
First Im suggesting your examples were not Christians attacking non Christians.
Second, I'm showing that ROME isn't the bloody butcher you make it out to be. In 2000 Years of Christianity The Roman church has been based in Rome and in Southern France. Over that period there was corruption and there were periods when the Orthodox church was far more advanced and civilized but on the whole even taking in five centuries of the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions 9 and not the much milder Italian one) and the Crusades and slavery you would be pushed to get into the million mark in terms of dead bodies. Stalin got through that before lunchtime. And it isn't only 20th century. If you call Chinese beliefs atheistic they also massacred tens of millions!

Atheism is not anti-theism.

Not all atheism is anti theism. I'm only addressing the Stalin and Mao types and those who regard believers as lesser "unenlightened" people. they are in thinking the same as any other fundamentalists and in practice 100 times worse.

So ? Dawkins can start worshipping leprechauns for all I care.

If you don't support fundamentalism I don't have a problem with that.
If you don't care about fundamentalism I think it is you have the problem.

See as we continuously need to remind you, atheism is not a religion. We have no beliefs, we share no goal, no doctrine. Every other atheist in the world could believe in X and it wouldn't matter in the slightest to me.

Even if a sub group of them want to persecute Christians? Islam is a large religion and most of them also believe in two mainstream strands. However when a fundamentalist blows themselves up even though it is a tiny minority and almost all people claiming to be Muslim condemn it, it does matter to people. and this goes for the world leaders in suicide bombing too - a SECULAR group the Tamil Tigers

Atheism is not a group, atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is a label applied to those who have no belief.

the group of people who have no belief? By the way it isnt even that. If you look at the AA forum thread you will see the reference to "nones" which in the Us are about 15 per cent . atheists OTOH are about 1 per cent!
I cant access that thread because I have been banned for sock puppeting something I didn't sock puppet.

And fundamentalist atheism to those who want to promote the spread of atheism to the detriment of and by attacking religious belief.

Are you suggesting that they weren't Christians ? That they didn't do what they did in the name of Christianity ?

No Im sure they did believe they were fighting for God. But when Saladin took Jerusalem he expelled the viscous uncultured Frankish thugs but he allowed the Orthodox Byzantine Christians to stay. so he didn't perceive ALL Christianity as a threat but just one political cadre who were on the make. and he was the guy being attacked by them!

Is your interpretation the only correct interpretation of Christianity ?

My opinion is informed by my knowledge but if you mean does it have an Imprimatur or is it nihil obstat then I must say I don't represent the Roman Church in that sense.

Ah, so your logic is that all anti-theists are also atheists therefore all atheists want to spread atheism ? :rolleyes:

Nope.
People who are not atheist are not interested in spreading atheism.
Some people who are atheist are interested in spreading atheism.
Some of them do it with pride as if it is a great thing to attack religion or believers.
The regards themselves as elite and superiour.
Such thinking has caused untold damage in the past.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

If you cannot prove God does not exist then God exists.

Really? I can't prove the Flying Spagetti Monster doesn't exist. Or Zeus. Or Loki. Or Russell's Tea Point.

It is this sort of nonsense logic used to justify theism which keeps me firmly rooted in the atheist camp. If this is the best you guys can do it is hardly surprising atheism is on the rise.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Do you wish to make a point about atheism and violence or are you only interested in discussing the existence of God?

I'm making a point about you misrepresenting arguments used by some atheists. You guys seem to fear a rise in atheism. Well if that is the case you better come up with some better arguments for theism that if you can't prove God doesn't exist then he exists :rolleyes:

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

That is because there have been 5 of them and they were all Communist.

More than five. Chinese regimes were atheist it could be claimed. and given this is a christian forum one can go into Pagan and shaministic and polytheistic regimes. Im mainly referring to monotheism and Christianity in particular.

If yu are going to make "atheist" (1 per ent of the US) into "nones" ( 15 per cent) I can refine believers in to "christians or monotheists! Indeed "mainstream Christians" is the term I prefer.

I'm pretty sure there have been more than 5 Christian regimes who brutally oppressed the native population and lead ideological wars.

I would agree. maybe more than five. Say 100 chritian leaders (not loopy fringe ones but say mainstream ones like Medieval Lords) who used christianity as an excuse or maybe believed they were doing Gods work. And when you combine them with the Crusades and slavery you come to about one or two million deaths of non Christians. In 20 Centuries! Atheistic regimes and non christian ones (china pre 20th Century) killed hundreds of millions outside of war!

Again you mean anti-theism. Atheism isn't a philosophy, it can't play a central role in anything.

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)


"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

According to you. And just like your mythical universal morality this "fact" did nothing to stop thousands of soldiers joining up under the belief that it was a righteous God sanctioned war. And why not, the Bible is full of righteous God sanctioned wars.

Add up all the Holy wars against non Christians by Christian regimes and how many dead were ther over 20 centuries? Yes probably a couple of million. As opposed to 100 million in fifty years. Atheistic regimes killed more in a year than Christianity in a millennium or two!

History begs to differ. In fact the present begs to differ. You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about some religious person having a rant about atheists in America and Europe.

But you can say you don't care about what fundamentalist Dawkings says? at the same time some religious fundamentalist is evil and dangerous according to you? double standard!

Can I name a single anti-theist who was a theist? You might want to think about that question again.

You just said atheism is NOT anti-theism. But i am pointing out to you that no theist is anti-theist i.e. anti-theists ARE atheists.

Again I've no problem with you giving out about militant anti-theists. I'm no more found of Communism than you are.

Atheistic communism! Monastic living is communist but not atheistic. Im talking about the "No God" version of communism. A lot of Marxism can be found mirrored in Christian Social teaching. Indeed Christians said it long before Marx did.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

Really? I can't prove the Flying Spagetti Monster doesn't exist. Or Zeus. Or Loki. Or Russell's Tea Point.

It is this sort of nonsense logic used to justify theism which keeps me firmly rooted in the atheist camp. If this is the best you guys can do it is hardly surprising atheism is on the rise.



I'm making a point about you misrepresenting arguments used by some atheists. You guys seem to fear a rise in atheism. Well if that is the case you better come up with some better arguments for theism that if you can't prove God doesn't exist then he exists :rolleyes:

You still miss the point. We do not need to prove God exists and we have no fear of you or how many you number. What are you now - somewhere between 2% and 3 % of the worlds population? You have a long way to go before you can make a democratic impact.

As for arguments for "theism" all you have to do is look around you. Would you be where you are if you lived in an atheistic society that never knew God?

Try imagining a world without God. When you're good with that tell us what it's like. Is it better than a world with God and if so how and why?
How would you expect the dark side of human nature to be contained?

ISAW

StealthRolex wrote: »

You still miss the point. We do not need to prove God exists.

As for arguments for "theism" all you have to do is look around you. Would you be where you are if you lived in an atheistic society that never knew God?

Try imagining a world without God. When your good with that tell us what it's like.

With all the attention/flak/ barbs I'm getting in certain fora I going to have to take a break from these discussions. It isn't doing me any good. I'm reminded of Orr the pilot in Catch 22 who drew flak like a magnet. See ya all .

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

You still miss the point. We do not need to prove God exists

Of course you don't. And I don't need to prove he doesn't.

But if you want to convince me he does (which you may not) you will have to come up with better answers than those.

StealthRolex wrote: »

What are you now - somewhere between 2% and 3 % of the worlds population? You have a long way to go before you can make a democratic impact.

8%, but sure who's counting :pac:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

StealthRolex wrote: »

Try imagining a world without God. When you're good with that tell us what it's like. Is it better than a world with God and if so how and why?

No religion? Umm... Well for a start we would probably be about 3,000 years ahead scientifically, which would be nice if I was living in this exact moment.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

that's waffle!
claiming I havent answered arguments isn't proff of not answering.
Care to list ten arguments made and we will see if I replied to them?

Look back a page of this thread.

Promoting atheism and persecuting believers was central to their plan.

Because of the political and social ramifications of believing in a religion. They also promoted collectivism, loyalty to the state, anti-western culture, racial superiority (to an extent) and cults of personality.

Before the revolution in Russia the tzar was basically a demi-god, after the revolution in Russia lenin (and stalin) were the demigods.

Religion was persecuted because of its political ramifications, not for religions or lack of religions, sake.

If they were also anti vegetarian or anti German it has nothing to do with the issue of a central plan of being opposed to belief and pro spreading atheism.

They weren't opposed to belief, they were opposed to belief/loyalty to anything foreign, anything outside of the state. This was all for political reasons. Atheism was not promoted for atheisms sake, anti-theism was promoted for political sake.

so what? Two wrongs do not make a right. if their were other bad things as well such as persecuting vegetarians that isn't at issue! They opposed belief and had atheism as a central part of their plan.

Because of the political ramifications.

This has been explained to you numerous times and you have ignored it. You just continue to repeat the same tripe argument from 4 pages ago.

What your suggesting is the same as me suggesting that the Conquistadores genocide committed in South America was because of Christianity since Christianity was an integral part of their plan. Christianity was promoted and their own native religions were persecuted.

Its the same as suggesting that the American genocide committed against the native Americans was because of Christianity since Christianity was an integral part of their plan. Christianity was promoted and their own native religions were persecuted.

Yet no one to my knowledge has ever claimed such nonsense because it is nonsense. Everyone knows the reasons for the above were political and/or financial not religious.

Religions persecuted much less people than atheistic regimes but for political reasons and not because of belief in Christ for example. this does not stop fundamentalist atheists saying all religion is a great evil for society or atheistic regimes persecuting believers.

I'm persecuted every morning on my way to work because of some ones belief in Christ. I get shouted at "Jesus! Only Jesus!" and get pamphlets shoved/thrown at me.

How do you not understand that when someone says "religion is evil and belief should be wiped out by us Godless more knowledgeable atheistic people" that it makes no difference if you call that a political reason or not?

1. Because that is anti-theism, not atheism. Atheism says nothing about wiping out religion, atheism says nothing about religion being evil.

2. It makes all the difference. The motivation behind something is the cause of it.

Well they contributed 100,000,000 deaths if you want to stretch the definition but I am referring to architecture culture etc. You know positive things.

I think you'll find they contributed greatly to civilisation and continue to do so.

http://www.mega.nu/ampp/rummel/sod.chap2.htm
Statistics Of
Pre-20th Century Democide
Estimates, Calculations, And Sources

Which has what exactly to do with what I said ?

Also I'm not reading through all that, please give the link but also quote the relevant part. I don't have time to trawl through it.

How many of them were under christianity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity#Christianity_legalized_and_endorsed_by_Constantine_I

Pagans were persecuted out of Roman life, first by the other citizens and later by the state itself.

so how many dead because of that? Well look at
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/romestat.htm

I am, are you ?

This was not Imperial Roman and the slavery was only supported by a Borgia Pope for about 50 years. This is a time of vast corruption in the Papacy. Yes it was wrong but the whole Church was not rotten just some of the hierarchy. While this was going on the church was also teaching and educating Africans and American natives. Rome didn't trade slaves or own ships they just allowed the trade as being acceptable.

Teaching them what ? Oh right, promoting Christianity and persecuting the native religions.

Stalin got through that before lunchtime. And it isn't only 20th century. If you call Chinese beliefs atheistic they also massacred tens of millions!

Well good for Stalin. That was because of political reasons.

Not all atheism is anti theism. I'm only addressing the Stalin and Mao types and those who regard believers as lesser "unenlightened" people. they are in thinking the same as any other fundamentalists and in practice 100 times worse.

Then why do you continue to try to associate atheism with communism/Stalinism ?

I'm an atheist, I'm also an anti-theist and I can accept you saying that many bad things have been done by anti-theists in history but its quite incorrect to suggest they were done in the name of atheism. No one does anything in the name of atheism.

If you don't support fundamentalism I don't have a problem with that.
If you don't care about fundamentalism I think it is you have the problem.

What ?

Even if a sub group of them want to persecute Christians?

But anti-theism is not a subgroup of atheism. Atheism is belief in nothing, anti-theism is belief that religion is wrong and should be opposed.

Very different things.

Islam is a large religion and most of them also believe in two mainstream strands. However when a fundamentalist blows themselves up even though it is a tiny minority and almost all people claiming to be Muslim condemn it, it does matter to people.

Because they believe in the same god and in the same book. They just interpret it differently.
Atheists have no belief. Anti-theists believe theism is wrong and needs to be opposed.

and this goes for the world leaders in suicide bombing too - a SECULAR group the Tamil Tigers

wikipedia wrote:

About 88% of the population of Tamil Nadu are Hindus. Muslims and Christians account for 5.5% and 6% respectively.[/QUOTE

And fundamentalist atheism to those who want to promote the spread of atheism to the detriment of and by attacking religious belief.

Thats not atheism, thats anti-theism.

Nope.
People who are not atheist are not interested in spreading atheism.

Neither are atheists. When they are interested in spreading it that's called anti-theism.

Some people who are atheist are interested in spreading atheism.

See above.

Some of them do it with pride as if it is a great thing to attack religion or believers.

Anti-theists. Yes they do.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

Lenin wrote:

Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism

Political.

Lenin wrote:

Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.

Political reason. How is that not obvious ? He was anti-theist for political reasons, for political motivation. Not because of religion or atheism.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course you don't. And I don't need to prove he doesn't.

But if you want to convince me he does (which you may not) you will have to come up with better answers than those.

Wicknight wrote: »

No religion? Umm... Well for a start we would probably be about 3,000 years ahead scientifically, which would be nice if I was living in this exact moment.

Again this is not the thread but it has already been discussed elsewhere that without Christianity science would be not as advanced as it currently is.
There have also been significant contributions from Islam including the scientific method.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

Again this is not the thread but it has already been discussed elsewhere that without Christianity science would be not as advanced as it currently is.

That is a world where Christianity exists. You asked me to imagine a world where it didn't. I see no reason to think that science would have been slower without religion, humans are naturally curious and seek understanding and without the dogma of religion the scientific method would have probably developed far quicker than it did.

Of course we can never know for sure, but you asked a hypothetical and I answered it.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a world where Christianity exists. You asked me to imagine a world where it didn't. I see no reason to think that science would have been slower without religion, humans are naturally curious and seek understanding and without the dogma of religion the scientific method would have probably developed far quicker than it did.

Of course we can never know for sure, but you asked a hypothetical and I answered it.

If you understood evolutionary theory and the nature of human curiosity you would understand that in a world without religion, religion would evolve as it did for the Greeks, Romans, Mayans and Egyptians therefore a world without religion is naturally impossible.

The difference is that we have a religion that is not man made and because it is not man made but made by God it drives scientific discovery faster than any pagan religion could.

But I don't expect you to understand that.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

If you understood evolutionary theory and the nature of human curiosity you would understand that in a world without religion, religion would evolve as it did for the Greeks, Romans, Mayans and Egyptians therefore a world without religion is naturally impossible.

Hey, it was your hypothetical. :rolleyes:

StealthRolex wrote: »

The difference is that we have a religion that is not man made and because it is not man made but made by God it drives scientific discovery faster than any pagan religion could.

You might want to tell that to the Greeks.

monosharp

StealthRolex wrote: »

Again this is not the thread but it has already been discussed elsewhere that without Christianity science would be not as advanced as it currently is.
There have also been significant contributions from Islam including the scientific method.

Yes, it would would be far more advanced without Christianity.

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Well Nozz, for a start I don't believe you. I believe you have an agenda against Christian belief in particular and theism in general.

Thankfully what you believe or do not believe is irrelevant, as you just saying you believe something does not make it true. What is relevant is what you can show to be true, not what you believe to be true.

However if you chose to engage in ad hominem and address my intentions rather than my points then so be it. Suffice to say that what I say is either correct, or incorrect. Whether I say it as a matter of enquiry or as a wholly imagined crusade against you and yours is irrelevant. The fact you need to address WHY I say something instead of WHAT I am saying is more telling about your ability to answer my questions than anything else anyone could say about you.

Again however what assertion have I made that you require evidence for? I have made no assertion as yet that requires back up. Where, for example, have I said "there is no god"? I never said this once. What I HAVE said is that *I* have never been shown a single shred of a scrap of evidence ever to lend credence to the notion. That is all.

So please, rather than just say over and over I need to provide evidence for my assertions, please quote which assertion I have made that you require evidence FOR?`

StealthRolex wrote: »

If you cannot prove God does not exist then God exists.

By this rationale I guess you have to believe in Santa, Poseidon, Thor and the FSM too huh? Or have you proven somewhere they do not exist?

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Now I'll get back on topic. By repeatedly expressing your demands for evidence of Gods existence and stating that you are actively working against ideas you disagree with from an atheistic perspective as you are doing so now within a forum that is ostensibly Christian while indirectly violating Charter code 5

Alas I am breaking no such charter code as I never said there is no god, which is the quote in the charter. In fact my points that I started this thread with were nothing to do with whether there is a god or not. So since you do in fact seem to go back on topic let me adumbrate where I am coming from in this thread once again:

My basic point is that it is too easy to play "name bingo" against a group of people. Citing names like Stalin as if his being an atheist somehow indicts all atheists is about as useful as me citing "The Ten commandments of God" sect and indicting all Christianity by this.

I challenge you to find ANY comprehensive detailed belief system where you can not cite some "name bingo" style attack against them. Even the Jains, a religion almost entirely devoted to the prevention of harm to life (extremist Jainists even sweep the floor before them as they walk in order to minimise the risk of standing on bugs) has people within it that have descended into violence.

What one has to do therefore instead is forget about the WHO subscribes to a belief and ask yourself is there anything within their belief that leads to violence. If there is then what is there we can do about this?

In this particular thread Atheism and Christianity are the main examples. Is there anything you can cite to show a logical pathway from "I see no reason to think there is a god" to violence? So far no one has shown one, except for the "name bingo" we did before where one user kept looking for violent people who were ALSO atheists (about as useful as finding violent people who are ALSO mustache wearers and presuming to suggest this says something about mustache wearers).

However so far with the theism side in this thread I have given many examples of logical pathways from one to violence... from the idea that Jews killed a living god, to the even more subtle idea of hell.

The question is what can we do about such pathways, and what can the atheist and the religious moderate alike do to address people who not only find those pathways, but follow them. What do the atheist and the moderate alike say, for example, to the parents who were convicted of watching their beloved child die of a treatable variant of diabetes solely because their Bible seemed to suggest to them to avoid certain types of medical intervention?

StealthRolex

monosharp wrote: »

Yes, it would would be far more advanced without Christianity.

Maybe a little difficult to prove if you and possibly other atheists would be of the opinion that science unfettered by Christianity is a good thing.

Something like the science performed unfettered by Christian morals or morals of any description by scientists say for example in Nazi Germany.

Thank you for getting us back on the thread of atheism and violence

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What one has to do therefore instead is forget about the WHO subscribes to a belief and ask yourself is there anything within their belief that leads to violence. If there is then what is there we can do about this?

In this particular thread Atheism and Christianity are the main examples. Is there anything you can cite to show a logical pathway from "I see no reason to think there is a god" to violence?

The belief system of the atheists contains no moral barriers to anything other than what they decide for themselves arbitrarily. Such a belief system naturally allows for the development of concepts that allows the strong to oppress the weak. It contains no concept of self sacrifice or of protection of the weak or the vulnerable with the potential for violence to be visited upon those deemed by the elite to have no right to protection.
While this is a philosophical argument that avoids "name Bingo" it is supported in history by the actions of notionally atheistic states.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Where, for example, have I said "there is no god"?

That would be a direct violation and I think you'll find I said "indirect" due to the language used.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I never said this once. What I HAVE said is that *I* have never been shown a single shred of a scrap of evidence ever to lend credence to the notion. That is all.

Demands for evidence work both ways. Show me your evidence to the contrary.

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

The belief system of the atheists contains no moral barriers to anything other than what they decide for themselves arbitrarily.

This I wholly agree on! Mainly because atheism is a term without any actual content and so can not hold any moral position on its own, any more than a-astrology could have any opinions on causality on its own.

However you have answered my question backwards and therefore not answered what I asked at all. I am asking for a logical pathway FROM atheism TO violence.

What you have answered is getting from something else X, TO violence and then Atheism failing to be a barrier to that violence once you get there. This is entirely not what I am asking.

Take my moustache analogy again. We could find many people with moustaches who commit violence and somehow attempt to indict moustache wearers in this. They would then ask “Well what is the causal link between moustaches and violence then or do you just want to play "name bingo" all the time?” to which you could quite rightfully answer “Well moustache wearing contains no moral barriers to anything and hence allows the natural evolution of....."

Although you have told the truth in both the case of this thread AND in my analogy, you have not answered what you were asked in either case. I am not asking if atheism can prevent violence, I am asking is there anything within it that logically LEADS to violence.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Show me your evidence to the contrary.

Why should I? There is no onus on people to provide evidence for assertions they have not made. I have not claimed there is no god, but merely informed you that in 20 years of asking for any evidence, argument, data, or reasons to lend the idea ANY credence at all, I have not been given an iota. Once. Ever.

Again however you are committing the fallacy of attempting to prove a negative and if you continue on this vein it must be noted you have avoided answering me on why you therefore do not believe in Thor, Poseidon or Santa given the entire lack of evidence they do NOT exist. Why is it that the requirement to prove the contrary only applies to you when it suits and not to you when it does not?

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This I wholly agree on! Mainly because atheism is a term without any actual content and so can not hold any moral position on its own, any more than a-astrology could have any opinions on causality on its own.

However you have answered my question backwards and therefore not answered what I asked at all. I am asking for a logical pathway FROM atheism TO violence.

No. I have answered your question logically.
Maybe just for the sake of argument you choose not to understand.
You then proceeded to develop your own straw man.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What you have answered is getting from something else X, TO violence and then Atheism failing to be a barrier to that violence once you get there. This is entirely not what I am asking.

No. I started with atheism and ended with violence. Just as you asked. I started with Atheism not being a barrier. I did not put atheism after violence.
Can I suggest you read what I wrote again.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Take my moustache analogy again. We could find many people with moustaches who commit violence and somehow attempt to indict moustache wearers in this. They would then ask “Well what is the causal link between moustaches and violence then or do you just want to play "name bingo" all the time?” to which you could quite rightfully answer “Well moustache wearing contains no moral barriers to anything and hence allows the natural evolution of....."

A collection of Aryans, with and without mustaches and the Jews, Romanies, gays, prostitutes, mentally handicapped, twins and anyone else not Aryan would be a better analogy.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Although you have told the truth in both the case of this thread AND in my analogy, you have not answered what you were asked in either case. I am not asking if atheism can prevent violence, I am asking is there anything within it that logically LEADS to violence.

Read my post. It was a logical adumberation as you asked.

You do understand what it is to adumbrate? You do know it involves no detail and is nothing more than a shadowy outline.

atheism > no moral values > selfish nature > strong better than weak > oppression >violence

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

Maybe a little difficult to prove if you and possibly other atheists would be of the opinion that science unfettered by Christianity is a good thing.

Something like the science performed unfettered by Christian morals or morals of any description by scientists say for example in Nazi Germany.

The vast vast vast majority of Nazi's in Germany were proclaimed Christians deeply versed in Christianity, so sorry if we aren't bowled over by the effect of Christian morality to constrain harm and persecution.

But you seem to have added the assumption that if Christian morality doesn't exist in this hypothetical then neither does morality.

That seems some what of an odd assertion, since you have merely asked us to imagine a world without God or religion, not a world without morality.

StealthRolex wrote: »

The belief system of the atheists contains no moral barriers to anything other than what they decide for themselves arbitrarily. Such a belief system naturally allows for the development of concepts that allows the strong to oppress the weak. It contains no concept of self sacrifice or of protection of the weak or the vulnerable with the potential for violence to be visited upon those deemed by the elite to have no right to protection.

Correct, atheism contains none of these things. But plenty of atheists have belief systems that contain concepts of self sacrifice and the protection of the weak. Humanism for example. Can you name me one humanist state that carried out systematic persecution of the population? I can name you plenty of Christian ones.

There is nothing intrinsically in atheism that means you will subscribe to such a belief system, but then atheism is not in itself a belief system and provides little to no indication of what the person does believe, only what they reject.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Read my post. It was a logical adumberation as you asked.

atheism > no moral values > selfish nature > strong better than weak > oppression >violence

Not particularly logical because you have not demonstrated why "atheism > no moral values" and in fact you have contradicted this in your own posts by describing atheist moral values as arbitrary.

So atheists either have moral values or they don't, you can't link atheism to violence through a lack of moral values and then criticize atheist moral values for being arbrary, at least not without this being a logical contradiction.

A lot of atheists are humanists. You can say that humanism is morally arbitrary, but you can't then say they have no moral values.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again however you are committing the fallacy of attempting to prove a negative and if you continue on this vein it must be noted you have avoided answering me on why you therefore do not believe in Thor, Poseidon or Santa given the entire lack of evidence they do NOT exist. Why is it that the requirement to prove the contrary only applies to you when it suits and not to you when it does not?

I have not attempted to prove anything. If we could prove God exists what would be the purpose of Faith? The Apostles saw the Risen Lord and even still they required Faith - the Faith to believe that Jesus is God.

That said the evidence for what we Christians call God is all around us for those that choose to see it. Unfortunately some are blind to it and cannot see it but this also is their choice.

Why is it that IYO the requirement to prove God does not exist does not fall on you or other atheists. Surely this is an atheistic fallacy.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

I have not attempted to prove anything. If we could prove God exists what would be the purpose of Faith? The Apostles saw the Risen Lord and even still they required Faith - the Faith to believe that Jesus is God.

And the faith to believe the guy claiming to be the resurrected Jesus but who to them didn't look like Jesus was actually Jesus. Lucky they found this "faith" :eek:

But that is a different matter for a different thread.

StealthRolex wrote: »

That said the evidence for what we Christians call God is all around us for those that choose to see it.

As is the evidence for Odin and Thor if you define them as being responsible for what we see around us. Odin created everything around us. Everything around us exists. Therefore Odin exists.

But then what would be just silly circular reasoning now wouldn't it.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Why is it that IYO the requirement to prove God does not exist does not fall on you or other atheists. Surely this is an atheistic fallacy.

Few atheists try and prove God doesn't exist.

The merely point out you can't show he does and then put forward scientifically backed alternative explanations for why despite this you continue to believe he does.

Pretty simple really.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

The vast vast vast majority of Nazi's in Germany were proclaimed Christians deeply versed in Christianity, so sorry if we aren't bowled over by the effect of Christian morality to constrain harm and persecution.

But you seem to have added the assumption that if Christian morality doesn't exist in this hypothetical then neither does morality.

That seems some what of an odd assertion, since you have merely asked us to imagine a world without God or religion, not a world without morality.



Correct, atheism contains none of these things. But plenty of atheists have belief systems that contain concepts of self sacrifice and the protection of the weak. Humanism for example. Can you name me one humanist state that carried out systematic persecution of the population? I can name you plenty of Christian ones.

There is nothing intrinsically in atheism that means you will subscribe to such a belief system, but then atheism is not in itself a belief system and provides little to no indication of what the person does believe, only what they reject.



Not particularly logical because you have not demonstrated why "atheism > no moral values" and in fact you have contradicted this in your own posts by describing atheist moral values as arbitrary.

So atheists either have moral values or they don't, you can't link atheism to violence through a lack of moral values and then criticize atheist moral values for being arbrary, at least not without this being a logical contradiction.

A lot of atheists are humanists. You can say that humanism is morally arbitrary, but you can't then say they have no moral values.

You appear to have assumed that the OP was referring to all atheists. In reading the OP that does not appear to be the case and certainly did not make any case against humanists. The OP was looking for evidence that atheism influenced the violence of certain regimes. I have suggested that it probably did and if it didn't it facilitated it.

To me atheism is not only a belief system but a religion demonstrated by the passion of its followers who arbitrarily swing with the wind and choose or reject certain moral values as it suits them.

When the immorality of murder is diluted and the right to life is denied to certain humans violence follows. Atheism is the only belief system that can support murder for arbitrary reasons.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

The merely point out you can't show he does and then put forward scientifically backed alternative explanations for why despite this you continue to believe he does.

Pretty simple really.

Scientific reasons developed by practicing Christians usually.

Pretty absurd for atheists really.