Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler*, Mao....
Comments
-
I hope you're taking into consideration that people were more likely to challenge religion in the 20th century, and that killing loads of people became a lot easier too. I wonder how many would have been killed in the crusades had the armies been equipped with 20th century weaponry.
I also give no credence to the idea that 20th century dictators killed because they were atheists.0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »Why do you do this? Not all Christians are creationists and even so creationism is as much a hindrance to science as atheism is.
1. I said nothing about all christians been creationists.
2. Atheism is not a hinderence to science in any possible way whatsoever.I don't know if Creationism is a philosophy or a belief but I do know it is not a science and has nothing to do with science.
Its a literal interpretation of the bible glued togeather with dinosaurs and magic.
.Nonsensical comments like "Creationism. -> hindererence" could be viewed as supporting the hypothesis under discussion due to its antagonistic nature
Its not nonsensical. Creationism is a hinderence to science. Creationism. -> hindererence.Darwin was a Creationist and quite possibly a supporter of intelligent design too. Or vice versa
Almost everyone in the world was a creationist (of whatever religion) back then.
Darwin also left his religion and creationist behind.“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selections, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Darwin. C
Ok, that is really dishonest and highly insulting. Quote mining is the lowest form of argument.
Heres what Darwin said directly after this sentence;When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people is the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
Darwin then goes on for several more pages describing how the eye could have formed in successive small steps from a small light-sensitive cell to the fully developed human eye, documenting many examples of animals with eyes in these successive states.
http://www.carm.org/charles-darwin-on-the-human-eyeChristians don't protest against stem cells
Don't Christian protest against stem cell research in the USA ?
http://www.thelabrat.com/review/geron120399.shtml0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »Found this interesting set of statistics and thought it might help with the discussion.
Murders by Atheists\Atheistic regimes (20th Century)
Country Dates Murders
China/PRC 1923–2007 76,702,000
U.S.S.R. 1917–1987 61,911,000
North Korea 1948–2007 3,163,000
................
Total: 153,368,610*
And these people were all killed because of atheism yes ? The motivating factor was atheism ?by comparison with "Christian" killings
Christian Crusades 1095-1272 1,000,000
Spanish Inquisition 16 C-18 C 350,000
Albigensian Crusade 1208-1249 200,000
Witch Hunts 15 C-17 C 100,000
Total: 1,650,000
Oh wow you gave 4 examples, nice. Heres one I just randomly happened to be reading;A court in Rwanda has sentenced two Roman Catholic priests to death for their role in the genocide of 1994, in which up to a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed. Pope John Paul said the priests must be made to account for their actions. Different sections of the Rwandan church have been widely accused of playing an active role in the genocide of 1994
So thats + 1,000,000 just by accident of me browsing.
Lets see what else is there ...
Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]
Howabout the destruction of Catharism ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism#Massacre
Ah here why don't you just read this.
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2002/10/how-many-people-have-been-killed-by.php
And also according to you any country which was atheist and killed people were deaths in the name of atheism so shouldn't we be including the deaths caused by countries who happened to be Christian and killed people ?
Howabout Rome, Byzantine Empire, British Empire, France, Spain, Germany, USA, etc.This is not a suggestion that atheists are automatically violent, merely a cold scientific analysis of how many have been killed in the name of one particular religion against none.
No its not, its an attempt to try and label atheism as the factor behind these deaths. Atheism was not the motivating factor anymore then Christianity was the motivating factor behind WW2 but if you want to go down that street a much better case can be made for christianity been 'integral' to the participants of major conflicts then atheism.While the numbers are approximate 153million v 1.6million is significant.
Utter dishonest nonsense.0 -
To throw your own objection back at you monosharp: Were these acts really motivated by the Gospel, or by selfish human aims?
On stem cells monosharp, you seem to be conveniently ignoring that research has been done in Japan and in the USA to confirm that adult stem cells when altered can perform in exactly the same way as embryonic stem cells. Hence there is no need to use embryos. Look up pluripotent stem cell technology.
This lecture on the subject might interest you also.
Of course check out the Wikipedia article too.0 -
To throw your own objection back at you monosharp: Were these acts really motivated by the Gospel, or by selfish human aims?
Jakkass, my own personal opinions about religion and religious issues and yours are probably 99% at odds but I personally am not a fan of the 'religion caused X amounts of deaths' argument which might surprise you.
There are genuine cases where religion, or at least peoples interpretation of it, are indeed responsible for deaths but I don't think its a particularly good argument against religion nor do I think that religion (Christianity) is anywhere near as responsible as some people like to claim.
For example, the conquistadors in South America were Christian and committed terrible crimes against the local populace, conversions were forced on these people.
So which part is because of Christianity ?
The genocide against the local populace ? No. That was plain utter greed/power.
The forced conversions ? Yes. That is Christianity fault. The motivation was religious and these people believed in it.
But to answer your earlier question, no these acts were most certainly not because of the gospels, rather peoples interpretation of their religion which I am going to assume contained more then the gospels.
What is annoying me is that people here are claiming that atheism is responsible for the crimes committed by communist etc states simply because atheism was a part of their philosophy. That is like saying that Christianity is responsible for the genocide against the Native Americans because Christianity was an integral part of the Spanish/Portuguese invaders.
Its nonsense.
Christianity says we're all sinners and the only way to heaven/god is through jesus christ and christians should spread the good news.
Here its at least understandable how some people interpret the bible in such ways that they believe forced conversions/killing the heathens is a good thing.
Atheism says nothing. Atheism doesn't say theres no god, atheism doesn't say spread the word, atheism doesn't say anything. Atheism says "we don't believe in a deity", it doesn't even say there are no deities, it just says 'we don't believe'.
What Stalin etc did was motivated by political reasons, it was anti-theism, not atheism.On stem cells monosharp, you seem to be conveniently ignoring that research has been done in Japan and in the USA to confirm that adult stem cells when altered can perform in exactly the same way as embryonic stem cells. Hence there is no need to use embryos. Look up pluripotent stem cell technology.
No I'm quite aware of that, but thats not my point. My point was for many years Christians halted or tried to halt research into this area because these cells used to come only from embryos.
Also, I thought (but open to correction) that pluripotent stem cells are not suitable for some kinds of research and that embryonic stem cells are still required for certain types of research ?0 -
Jakkass, my own personal opinions about religion and religious issues and yours are probably 99% at odds but I personally am not a fan of the 'religion caused X amounts of deaths' argument which might surprise you.
Because it is fallacious?
Christianity caused no death in and of itself, but rather how people have used it selfishly to justify hatred.
Pretty much in the same way that atheism caused no death in and of itself, but it was incorporated into communist ideology, and used selfishly to justify hatred.
That's all we need to do. Human beings have an unfortunate propensity to look for excuses or warp things to make excuses, to hate one another. More often than not the root cause is in something else.
If we look at the Northern Ireland conflict in particular this is strikingly obvious. Protestantism doesn't argue for the hatred of the other in pretty much the same way that Catholicism doesn't. However, they served as relevant badges that were attached to each culture, and they became the reason why hatred was justified.
It isn't rocket science.The genocide against the local populace ? No. That was plain utter greed/power.
The forced conversions ? Yes. That is Christianity fault. The motivation was religious and these people believed in it.But to answer your earlier question, no these acts were most certainly not because of the gospels, rather peoples interpretation of their religion which I am going to assume contained more then the gospels.
The blame rests with mankind then surely? The latter quote is a contradiction of the former.What is annoying me is that people here are claiming that atheism is responsible for the crimes committed by communist etc states simply because atheism was a part of their philosophy. That is like saying that Christianity is responsible for the genocide against the Native Americans because Christianity was an integral part of the Spanish/Portuguese invaders.
Read the start of my post. You'll find I'm largely in agreement. Atheism was used as a justification to promote communism. Surprisingly on the A&A forum they didn't find this to be a reasonable explanation following a contribution I made recently to the Irish Independent on this very subject.Christianity says we're all sinners and the only way to heaven/god is through jesus christ and christians should spread the good news.
Again, I fail to see how this is God's fault. I somehow find it difficult to find harmony between killing someone, and fulfilling my duty to love my neighbour as myself.What Stalin etc did was motivated by political reasons, it was anti-theism, not atheism.
Atheism was used as a tool in the education system and so on.No I'm quite aware of that, but thats not my point. My point was for many years Christians halted or tried to halt research into this area because these cells used to come only from embryos.
If an embryo indeed is a fertilized human life, it is understandable why people in the pro-life camp (not exclusively Christian) would oppose this.Also, I thought (but open to correction) that pluripotent stem cells are not suitable for some kinds of research and that embryonic stem cells are still required for certain types of research ?
Interesting. If you can provide anything to say such I'd be interested to read it.0 -
Don't Christian protest against stem cell research in the USA ?
http://www.thelabrat.com/review/geron120399.shtml
So I do data mining and you don't?
You keep harping on about "stem cell" research for which there is no Christian opposition.
In addition to what Jackkass has presented similar work has been performed in Irish universities in support of adult stem cells.
I know my quotation from Darwin was out of context and it was a deliberate use of a popular atheist tactic.
As for embryonic stem cell research for which there is Christian opposition it also servers as another example of atheistic genocide in the name of "science".0 -
No I'm quite aware of that, but thats not my point. My point was for many years Christians halted or tried to halt research into this area because these cells used to come only from embryos.
Well monosharp maybe you would care to enlighten us as to the state of embryology in the late 1800s to early 1900s when stem cell research began.
From what I can see it wasn't until much later in the 20th century that embryonic stem cell research began and at a time when the humanity of the embryo was and is irrefutable.0 -
ColmDawson wrote: »
I also give no credence to the idea that 20th century dictators killed because they were atheists.
The question is not did they kill because they were atheists but whether or not atheism was defining factor or were they influenced by their atheism.0 -
And these people were all killed because of atheism yes ? The motivating factor was atheism ?
If you say so.Oh wow you gave 4 examples, nice. Heres one I just randomly happened to be reading;
So thats + 1,000,000 just by accident of me browsing.
Well that's what happens when there is no direction to your research. It's a start but lets see if you can get anywhere close to 153,000,000
Lets see what else is there ...Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]
Ok. You get another 4500
Ah here why don't you just read this.
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2002/10/how-many-people-have-been-killed-by.php
Utter dishonest nonsense and somewhat offensive to boot.And also according to you any country which was atheist and killed people were deaths in the name of atheism so shouldn't we be including the deaths caused by countries who happened to be Christian and killed people ?
Howabout Rome, Byzantine Empire, British Empire, France, Spain, Germany, USA, etc.
read the OP. They may not have been killed in the name of atheism but was atheism a defining factor or an influence.No its not, its an attempt to try and label atheism as the factor behind these deaths. Atheism was not the motivating factor anymore then Christianity was the motivating factor behind WW2 but if you want to go down that street a much better case can be made for christianity been 'integral' to the participants of major conflicts then atheism.
If you say so. I presented factual evidence with no comment other than "This is not a suggestion that atheists are automatically violent, merely a cold scientific analysis of how many have been killed in the name of one particular religion against none."
If it helps you can change "none" to "no reason" or " for some other reason"
But lets take your point there. If Christians were not involved with WW2 who would be governing you now?
If you think Christianity was a motivation behind WW2 then lets explore. I would have to say yes there is an element of truth there and it was to stop the rot, not propogate it.Utter dishonest nonsense.
Is this your answer to anything factual?
If it is then why am I not surprised.0 -
Advertisement
-
Here's something interesting. Put Define: atheism into Google and you get this
the doctrine or belief that there is no God
a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist.
atheist - related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"
atheistic - rejecting any belief in gods
No doubt there are further definitions regarding "lack of belief" but it is interesting that at least some definitions include "rejection". I guess it is in the nature of atheism as a faith system that is founded on sand and not rock. I say faith because the existence or not of God cannot be proven in the manner that atheism requires therefore the belief or lack thereof of God must be taken on faith. I say built on sand not only because of the Biblical reference but because while there are some laws in science that are unchanging, much as there are laws in religion that are unchanging, science frequently takes up new positions based on new learnings while religion is less keen to do the same and requires more indepth testing of validity.
Now, from a Judeo-Christian perspective any breaking of the Ten Commandments is considered a rejection of God. Murder, being the wilful taking or destruction of a human life, is a rejection of one of Gods Commandments and is therefore a rejection of God. This may be a temporary rejection or more persistent. Suffice to say that someone who believes in God and the Ten Commandments must make a decision to break the commandment in order to commit murder. That the person must go through a thought process that says "I know this is wrong but I don't care" at it's simplest.
At the moment the murder is committed the person is rejecting God.
The atheistic thought process may be simpler or more complex depending on the atheist in question. It may be "there is nothing wrong with this" or "I know the law says it is wrong but that is because the law is based on Judeo-Christian myth and sentimentality but the worst that can happen is that I get caught and suffer the temporal consequences".
Or in the cases under discussion "I own this country\empire so I can do what I like"
Hence, if murder is a rejection of God and atheism is a rejection of God then the the possibility of a causal link between atheism and violence and the fact that atheisic regimes are responsible for more deaths that any alternative system of governance is not without merit.0 -
If you believe that humans invented religion, then why are you treating it any differently to how you regard communism, nazism or any of the other human invented ideologies that have resulted in misery for people?
Surely the problem in every case is people not questioning the dogma, not understanding the principles, being brainwashed and following orders.
You'll find that thoughtful religious people, who actually understand the texts, don't use it as an excuse to hate people.
Where did you find those statistics StealthRolex? You can't include every crime committed by an atheistic regime, but not include every crime committed by a religious regime! There's no way to prove that atheism was the motivating factor in those killings, or that religiosity wasn't in other european wars that you haven't included, conveniently.
Within our own society, there are lots of atheists and I don't think there is any correlation between their lack of belief and the crime rate among them. I would say there are many contributing factors to these acts, and your oversimplification doesn't help resolve anything.
Anyway, EVEN IF atheistic regimes were nicer, it wouldn't disprove God's existance, and if religious regimes are nicer, it doesn't prove His existance either. This is a silly debate.0 -
Where did you find those statistics StealthRolex?
Rummel, R.J.
professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii. He has spent his career assembling data on collective violence and war with a view toward helping their resolution or elimination.
Unfortunately his citation list is too long to include here but feel free to challenge with statistics of your own.You can't include every crime committed by an atheistic regime, but not include every crime committed by a religious regime! There's no way to prove that atheism was the motivating factor in those killings, or that religiosity wasn't in other european wars that you haven't included, conveniently.
Granted but there is no evidence to support religious "regimes" killing anywhere close to 153,000,000
I'm sure the statistics presented are a little short of complete and are changing daily but the bottom line of hundreds of millions against millions is not in question.
As I have already pointed out 153, 000, 000 is only the 20th century and specific to atheistic regimes. If you can provide evidence that religious killings come anywhere close even over the the entire history of humanity I will be only delighted to review.
[edit] also as this a Christianity forum it would be unfair to include stats on other non-Christian religions.Within our own society, there are lots of atheists and I don't think there is any correlation between their lack of belief and the crime rate among them. I would say there are many contributing factors to these acts, and your oversimplification doesn't help resolve anything.
The discussion is not about atheism and crime.
I would argue it is not an oversimlification but a presentation of an argument that supports the OPs proposition.
If there are causal links between poverty and crime why then not between a belief that has no moral absolutes and violence.
As a simplification:
Q: do Christians believe there is a link between atheism and mass murder in the context of atheistic regimes?
A: Yes, most do.Anyway, EVEN IF atheistic regimes were nicer, it wouldn't disprove God's existance, and if religious regimes are nicer, it doesn't prove His existance either. This is a silly debate.
This discussion is not about the non-existence of God. There may be more specific threads for that silly discussion0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »
The discussion is not about atheism and crime. Maybe there should be a thread to discuss a link between atheism and an ability to read critically.
I'm not an atheist.
The first part of my post was directed to monosharp, who believes that religion is man made. I was wondering why he hated it more than other ideologies that he believes are man-made, when to him they should be six and half a dozen. His problem should be with people unquestioningly following orders and not trying to understand, which may apply to religious zealots as much as nazis0 -
I'm not an atheist.
The first part of my post was directed to monosharp, who believes that religion is man made. I was wondering why he hated it more than other ideologies that he believes are man-made, when to him they should be six and half a dozen. His problem should be with people unquestioningly following orders and not trying to understand, which may apply to religious zealots as much as nazis
Apologies rantyface it can be hard to tell sometimes so I've removed my rebuttal.0 -
Because it is fallacious?
For the most part yes.Christianity caused no death in and of itself, but rather how people have used it selfishly to justify hatred.
I'd agree to an extent here. As you previously asked, no the gospels most certainly haven't caused any deaths directly etc.
But belief in them, a literal belief in them, has indeed caused deaths.Pretty much in the same way that atheism caused no death in and of itself, but it was incorporated into communist ideology, and used selfishly to justify hatred.
Not really. Because Atheism has no doctrine, atheism has no system, has no belief. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. What your talking about is anti-theism which is the active repression of theism.That's all we need to do. Human beings have an unfortunate propensity to look for excuses or warp things to make excuses, to hate one another. More often than not the root cause is in something else.
Of course. But faith in religion has been that cause, sometimes.If we look at the Northern Ireland conflict in particular this is strikingly obvious. Protestantism doesn't argue for the hatred of the other in pretty much the same way that Catholicism doesn't. However, they served as relevant badges that were attached to each culture, and they became the reason why hatred was justified.
Of course, this is entirely political in nature. Religion has just been dragged along with it.The blame rests with mankind then surely? The latter quote is a contradiction of the former.
Of course the blame ultimately lies with mankind for just about everything.
But religion has actively been responsible for some instances of death/violence. The crusades for example were largely religiously motivated. The Northern Ireland conflict was not.Read the start of my post. You'll find I'm largely in agreement. Atheism was used as a justification to promote communism. Surprisingly on the A&A forum they didn't find this to be a reasonable explanation following a contribution I made recently to the Irish Independent on this very subject.
As a justification to promote communism ? I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here.Again, I fail to see how this is God's fault. I somehow find it difficult to find harmony between killing someone, and fulfilling my duty to love my neighbour as myself.
I never said it was gods fault, I said christianity says "we are all sinners, we're going to hell if we don't worship god etc".
Some people in history have interpreted this and continue to interpret this, to commit acts of violence. I'm not saying their interpretation is right, but it is their interpretation.
My point is that atheism has no such sayings or doctrine. Atheism has nothing at all.Atheism was used as a tool in the education system and so on.
How can it be used as a tool ? Atheism says nothing about anything.
What I believe your referring to is anti-theism, propaganda against religion. This is not atheism.If an embryo indeed is a fertilized human life, it is understandable why people in the pro-life camp (not exclusively Christian) would oppose this.
Yes, hence this belief and the carrying out of it interferes with scientific research.Interesting. If you can provide anything to say such I'd be interested to read it.
Unfortunately I can't remember where I read/heard it and maybe I'm completely wrong on this so don't take my word for it. Anyone else out there know ?0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »I know my quotation from Darwin was out of context and it was a deliberate use of a popular atheist tactic.
Funny how the only people who seem to be quote mining around here are creationists and you.As for embryonic stem cell research for which there is Christian opposition it also servers as another example of atheistic genocide in the name of "science".
How exactly is this atheistic genocide ? Are the researchers all atheist now ?
Or are we back to the true scotsman again, that any research can't be a christian because any 'true' christian wouldn't partake in such research ?0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »Well monosharp maybe you would care to enlighten us as to the state of embryology in the late 1800s to early 1900s when stem cell research began.
[QUOTEwikipedia]Stem cells are cells found in all multi cellular organisms. They are characterized by the ability to renew themselves through mitotic cell division and differentiate into a diverse range of specialized cell types. Research in the stem cell field grew out of findings by Canadian scientists Ernest A. McCulloch and James E. Till in the 1960s.[/QUOTE]0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »Utter dishonest nonsense and somewhat offensive to boot.
Bit like your stats then ? That was the point.read the OP. They may not have been killed in the name of atheism but was atheism a defining factor or an influence.
In killing people or anti-religiousness ? No it can't have been because thats not what atheism is. Thats anti-theism.If you say so. I presented factual evidence with no comment other than "This is not a suggestion that atheists are automatically violent, merely a cold scientific analysis of how many have been killed in the name of one particular religion against none."
Your statistics were nonsensical rubbish.But lets take your point there. If Christians were not involved with WW2 who would be governing you now?
Oh so now killing people is ok for the right reason ?0 -
Advertisement
-
StealthRolex wrote: »Granted but there is no evidence to support religious "regimes" killing anywhere close to 153,000,000
Of course there is, if you define 'religion regime' the same way you have defined 'atheism regime' then every country that was predominantly christian and caused any war/death adds numbers to people killed by christians.
My point is that your definitions are pure utter nonsense.
Some people have indeed been motivated by religion to kill others, religion has been the major factor. But this is quite a small number and I also consider it a stupid argument in the first place.
No-one has ever been killed in the name of atheism because atheism has no belief system, has no doctrine, has no motivation to do anything of the sort.
Anti-theism has caused some amount of death but that is not atheism. It has been a motivating factor.
I am an atheist, I am also an anti-theist and I'll accept you labeling many deaths in the name of anti-theism but its simply incorrect to label them in the name of atheism, they are not the same thing.
Stalin did not kill people because of atheism, he killed them for political reasons related to a policy of anti-theism.As I have already pointed out 153, 000, 000 is only the 20th century and specific to atheistic regimes. If you can provide evidence that religious killings come anywhere close even over the the entire history of humanity I will be only delighted to review.
Sure. Using your definitions, take out a few history books and look for any war in the past 2000 years where any of the combatants were christian.0 -
I'm not an atheist.
The first part of my post was directed to monosharp, who believes that religion is man made. I was wondering why he hated it more than other ideologies that he believes are man-made, when to him they should be six and half a dozen.
Well, firstly I don't hate religion. I'm quite happy to co-exist peacefully with any religion.
The reason I am anti-theist (anti-christian) is because of evangelism. If I try to give you my reasons, I'll probably get banned from here so I'll just say that I hate been persecuted by religious people.
I have no problem with people being christians, buddhists, muslim etc. I have a problem when these people won't allow me the same respect and leave me alone.His problem should be with people unquestioningly following orders and not trying to understand, which may apply to religious zealots as much as nazis
Of course, I completely agree. But theres no Nazi's knocking on my door or shouting at me on the street or insulting my friends/wife because they are the wrong or no religion. There are Christian zealots who do so.0 -
Of course, I completely agree. But theres no Nazi's knocking on my door or shouting at me on the street or insulting my friends/wife because they are the wrong or no religion. There are Christian zealots who do so.
You have to go to the Gardaí about that asap and file a report. Where do you live? I have never seen that. If they're trying to convert you, they're pretty awful at it, and if they're just trying to upset you... well I don't think that's doctrinal Christian teachings so you can't blame Christianity for that. All sorts can be total dickheads.0 -
You have to go to the Gardaí about that asap and file a report. Where do you live? I have never seen that. If they're trying to convert you, they're pretty awful at it, and if they're just trying to upset you... well I don't think that's doctrinal Christian teachings so you can't blame Christianity for that. All sorts can be total dickheads.
Not in Ireland, South Korea.
I don't blame all christianity for it, nor do I blame christian teachings. I blame these minority of fanatical fundamentalist lunatics and I also blame the silence of the majority of christian leaders who won't condemn them.
I'll get a quick banning from here if I continue talking about this so I'll just link a quick article. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/world/asia/02hostage.html?_r=1
And point you to the end.Still, as South Korea’s Christians have become more focused on spreading their faith, there has been growing discomfort in this country, whose roots are Confucian and Buddhist. These days, church vans mounted with loudspeakers sometimes race through the streets of Seoul, broadcasting their message, and sign-carrying proselytizers often weave through subway crowds yelling, “If you don’t believe in Jesus Christ, you will go to hell.”
Add to that people handing out/shoving and throwing pamphlets at passersby outside subway stations.
People following you around the streets literally 'begging' you to listen to them and insulting you when they finally give up.
And most of all which the article doesn't mention is the way they treat Buddhists. Never in my life have I seen such vile hatred thrown at a group as the Buddhists have to deal with in Korea. Its absolutely disgusting.
So the answer to the question I think your asking, why do I dislike christian evangelism so much, is above.0 -
Those darn Christians in South Korea again! :pac:monosharp wrote:But belief in them, a literal belief in them, has indeed caused deaths.
I wouldn't argue that belief alone ever does this. It has to be warped sufficiently for this to occur. However, the phrase "literal belief" is something that is difficult to quantify in Christianity. I know 0 people who take Jesus' parables literally. If they did there would be no message.monosharp wrote:Not really. Because Atheism has no doctrine, atheism has no system, has no belief. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. What your talking about is anti-theism which is the active repression of theism.
Indeed, you can incorporate a principle of non-belief in God, and use it to carry out atrocious things in the same way one can use any faith, or any political view.
If you are promoting non-belief in God, your enemy if you so choose, becomes those who do.monosharp wrote:Of course the blame ultimately lies with mankind for just about everything.
But religion has actively been responsible for some instances of death/violence. The crusades for example were largely religiously motivated. The Northern Ireland conflict was not.
No it hasn't. What people have done with faith is the issue, not faith itself. The Crusades, had a religious venier, but if you read the history, it involves young impressionable nobility looking for the chance to build new nations and acquire new land. I.E For them it wasn't about Christianity, it was about power and money.monosharp wrote:I never said it was gods fault, I said christianity says "we are all sinners, we're going to hell if we don't worship god etc".
This isn't what Christianity argues. Christianity argues that we have sinned, and we are in need of forgiveness. If we do not seek to change our ways, and seek God's, we are in effect choosing to be punished as we deserve, rather than accepting the grace which we don't deserve.monosharp wrote:Yes, hence this belief and the carrying out of it interferes with scientific research.
Sometimes, ethical restrictions are needed in science. It's pretty much the same way that human rights activists interfere to prevent the knowledge that could be known through eugenics.0 -
I wouldn't argue that belief alone ever does this. It has to be warped sufficiently for this to occur. However, the phrase "literal belief" is something that is difficult to quantify in Christianity. I know 0 people who take Jesus' parables literally. If they did there would be no message.
Not saying anyone was ever killed for this but just to use it as an example, doesn't the OT say working on the sabbath is punishable by death ? A literal reading of this + a belief that the bible is the word of god, its not hard to see how some people could interpret it, honestly, as something they had to do.
Many people have been killed because of someones interpretation of their religion. Your perfectly entitled to say its an incorrect interpretation and I'd probably agree with you, but it is their interpretation nonetheless.Indeed, you can incorporate a principle of non-belief in God, and use it to carry out atrocious things in the same way one can use any faith, or any political view.
Its not quite the same thing. Atheism is simply 'not' doing something. I'm actually of the opinion that there shouldn't be a word for it at all, but I'm saying that because I believe its the default position while I'm sure you'd say it isn't.
Its like the difference between belief in a god or belief in a religion.
For example, I'd say that deism has not caused anyone to kill anyone else. Its belief in a personal god, in a religion, in religious texts that are necessary for that. (In the religion category)
Atheism cannot be motivation for anything because atheism is by very definition, 'not' doing something. As soon as it is changed to 'promote non-belief' it is not atheism anymore, it is anti-theism/anti-religion.If you are promoting non-belief in God, your enemy if you so choose, becomes those who do.
Of course. This is called anti-theism not atheism.No it hasn't. What people have done with faith is the issue, not faith itself.
Jakass, I said religion not faith.The Crusades, had a religious venier, but if you read the history, it involves young impressionable nobility looking for the chance to build new nations and acquire new land. I.E For them it wasn't about Christianity, it was about power and money.
And I told you before how I 1) regard this as a stupid argument and 2) don't accept what most other non-religious people say regarding religiously motivated death tolls.
I agree with you to an extent, but you must also admit that quite a large number of these people did in fact go out of religious motivation.This isn't what Christianity argues. Christianity argues that we have sinned, and we are in need of forgiveness. If we do not seek to change our ways, and seek God's, we are in effect choosing to be punished as we deserve, rather than accepting the grace which we don't deserve.
Isn't that what I said ?Sometimes, ethical restrictions are needed in science. It's pretty much the same way that human rights activists interfere to prevent the knowledge that could be known through eugenics.
Its hardly the same thing at all. You consider embryonic stem cell research to be immoral/against your religion. You consider it to be murder in a sense. Is that right ?
Well thats just plain wrong, i'm sorry to say. I don't want to get into an argument about it here but an embryo is just a collection of cells. What is so special about a sperm and egg coming togeather ? Is something not special about them when they are apart ?
Again, I don't wanna get into this argument but trying to suggest embryonic stem cell research is akin to murder/scientific experiment on humans is nonsense.0 -
Advertisement
-
[/QUOTE][QUOTEwikipedia]Stem cells are cells found in all multi cellular organisms. They are characterized by the ability to renew themselves through mitotic cell division and differentiate into a diverse range of specialized cell types. Research in the stem cell field grew out of findings by Canadian scientists Ernest A. McCulloch and James E. Till in the 1960s.
from the same page you neglected to include this.
1908 - The term "stem cell" was proposed for scientific use by the Russian histologist Alexander Maksimov (1874–1928) at congress of hematologic society in Berlin. It postulated existence of haematopoietic stem cells.
1960s - Joseph Altman and Gopal Das present scientific evidence of adult neurogenesis, ongoing stem cell activity in the brain; like André Gernez, their reports contradict Cajal's "no new neurons" dogma and are largely ignored.
1963 - McCulloch and Till illustrate the presence of self-renewing cells in mouse bone marrow.
1968 - Bone marrow transplant between two siblings successfully treats SCID.
1978 - Haematopoietic stem cells are discovered in human cord blood.
1981 - Mouse embryonic stem cells are derived from the inner cell mass by scientists Martin Evans, Matthew Kaufman, and Gail R. Martin. Gail Martin is attributed for coining the term "Embryonic Stem Cell"0 -
Its hardly the same thing at all. You consider embryonic stem cell research to be immoral/against your religion. You consider it to be murder in a sense. Is that right ?
Well thats just plain wrong, i'm sorry to say. I don't want to get into an argument about it here but an embryo is just a collection of cells. What is so special about a sperm and egg coming togeather ? Is something not special about them when they are apart ?
Again, I don't wanna get into this argument but trying to suggest embryonic stem cell research is akin to murder/scientific experiment on humans is nonsense.
By your own definition you are also nothing more than a collection of cells. Is it ok to experiment on you without your express permission?
Various laws may or may not define an embryo as a person. Science does define it as a human being and medical science places moral restrictions on human experiments under WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects.
As a human embryo is human it should be protected from those who deem it sub-human.
If you not understand the nature and mechanism of sexual reproduction and human development you should not bring it up.
It is interesting that those who think human embryo experimentation is acceptable first have to ignore scientific fact. Why is that?0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »
from the same page you neglected to include this.
1908 - The term "stem cell" was proposed for scientific use by the Russian histologist Alexander Maksimov (1874–1928) at congress of hematologic society in Berlin. It postulated existence of haematopoietic stem cells.
Postulating the existence of something counts as research now ?1960s - Joseph Altman and Gopal Das present scientific evidence of adult neurogenesis, ongoing stem cell activity in the brain; like André Gernez, their reports contradict Cajal's "no new neurons" dogma and are largely ignored.
1963 - McCulloch and Till illustrate the presence of self-renewing cells in mouse bone marrow.
1968 - Bone marrow transplant between two siblings successfully treats SCID.
1978 - Haematopoietic stem cells are discovered in human cord blood.
1981 - Mouse embryonic stem cells are derived from the inner cell mass by scientists Martin Evans, Matthew Kaufman, and Gail R. Martin. Gail Martin is attributed for coining the term "Embryonic Stem Cell"
I said it started in the 60's, whats your point in posting these ?0 -
Ahh Wicknight, biologists aren't all atheists though
Did I say they were?
I said they get sick and tired of refuting the same old arguments for ID. I'm sure the theist ones get as sick and tired of this as the atheist ones....and to be fair the Discovery Institute has 'many' different personalities, we're constantly bombarded with programs with an underlying message..
Possibly, but judging by the comments of the people who have left the group in recent years the common Creationist religious out look is becoming the dominate focus of the group.Myself, I don't see the payoff in even getting involved in creationist or id debates....I feel it reduces God, or tries to explain him too much in too much 'detail'..I wouldn't begin to know even...
It's simply a matter of 'faith'...I really don't know whether I'm all the way right or all the way wrong, but it's the path I've chosen and I'm sticking to it.....If that's ok?
No, I will not allow it :pac:0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »Christian Crusades 1095-1272 1,000,000
Spanish Inquisition 16 C-18 C 350,000
Albigensian Crusade 1208-1249 200,000
Witch Hunts 15 C-17 C 100,000
Some what of a incomplete list, no?
Also why just Christianity? Why not theism vs atheism?0 -
Advertisement
-
To throw your own objection back at you monosharp: Were these acts really motivated by the Gospel, or by selfish human aims?
Isn't the question more where people genuinely motivated by love/devotion/fear of God when carrying out them?
I think, in a lot of cases at least, the answer is yes.
Equally I think a lot of those who followed Leinin and Stalin were motivated by love/devotion/fear of these people or their concept that the Communist party manipulated.0 -
Postulating the existence of something counts as research now ?
Albert Einstein - proposed two POSTULATES of Relativity
Stephen Hawking- postulated small black holes
Michio Kaku - postulates wormholes and parallel timelines
Edwin Abbot - postulated ( in a very humourous way) a fourth spacial dimension.
Whether or not any of the above are researchers ( and I would argue they are) their contribution to science is undoubted.
The question you ask is steeped in a logical empiricist view of science. I suggest you delve a bit further into the underlying epistemology. I also suggest that you think about the idea of science as measuring things such as embryos, dead slaves, gassed gypsies and Jews , gulag torture victims etc. as one thing and the value placed on human life as another thing. Even without God atheistic Science in insufficient to run society. everytime such valueless relativist theories were proposed they resulted in abject social destruction. One can not derive a equation to prove that a human life has value and one can't use that fact to claim that because it can't be shown by science then it therefore should be ignored.
Finally, if you have a problem with fundamentalists, please don't take it out in religious believers as you realise the fundamentalists hands and strategies for them then.0 -
Christian Crusades 1095-1272 1,000,000StealthRolex wrote: »Found this interesting set of statistics and thought it might help with the discussion.
Spanish Inquisition 16 C-18 C 350,000
Albigensian Crusade 1208-1249 200,000
Witch Hunts 15 C-17 C 100,000
Total: 1,650,000
[/quote]
You numbers are WRONG! The inquisitions for about five Centuries. The Spanish Inquisitiuon was the WORST of them in terms of deaths. But it is no wher neat 350,000!
It is close I would say to between 10k and 20,000 deaths.
the Albigensian "crusade" was NOT a crusade . it was a supression of a heresy. It was therefore not Christianity attacking non christians but, like Protestant Catholic wars a division within Christianity itself.
At least half the 200,000 figure is from a massacre at Bezier. soem commentors actually state this 100,000 is closer to 20,000
But i would think 1,000,000 overall for all crusades is about right.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#Crusades
note: Source 15 in the above Spanish Inquisition (1478-1834)
MEDIAN estamate: 8,800 under Torqmada ~ 32,000 all told.
Pitirim Sorokin estimated that Europeans lost some 435,000 men on the battlefield between 900 and 1450 CE
AS I said Stalin and Mao got through that many before lunchtime. Outside of battles!This is not a suggestion that atheists are automatically violent, merely a cold scientific analysis of how many have been killed in the name of one particular religion against none.
While the numbers are approximate 153million v 1.6million is significant.
Not alone that (the deaths point) but what about the other point ( the contribution point)?
What did the religious regimes abiove who killed a million people contribute to history?
Compare that to what the atheistic ones who killed 100 Million plus contributed.
The "Great Leap Backwards"?
The "cultural devolution"?0 -
It was therefore not Christianity attacking non christians but, like Protestant Catholic wars a division within Christianity itself.
Oh, well thats ok then :rolleyes:
Wasn't most of the people Stalin killed his own people, so just a division among Communists really, not to get worked up about
What silliness0 -
Albert Einstein - proposed two POSTULATES of Relativity
Stephen Hawking- postulated small black holes
Michio Kaku - postulates wormholes and parallel timelines
Edwin Abbot - postulated ( in a very humourous way) a fourth spacial dimension.
Yes.Whether or not any of the above are researchers ( and I would argue they are) their contribution to science is undoubted.
Yes and absolutely yes.
Did I suggest they weren't ?
I said that research into stem cells started in the 1960's.
Another poster quoted wiki saying that people postulated about it as early as 1903.
I asked was research the same as postulation.
You then replied, telling me about scientists who made postulations trying to infer that I was saying they weren't researchers/scientists because of that.
pos·tu·late (psch-lt)
tr.v. pos·tu·lat·ed, pos·tu·lat·ing, pos·tu·lates
1. To make claim for; demand.
2. To assume or assert the truth, reality, or necessity of, especially as a basis of an argument.
3. To assume as a premise or axiom; take for granted. See Synonyms at presume.
re·search (r-sûrch, rsûrch)
n.
1. Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry. See Synonyms at inquiry.
2. Close, careful study.0 -
Postulating the existence of something counts as research now ?
I said it started in the 60's, whats your point in posting these ?
You made a claim in #406 which is incorrectNo I'm quite aware of that, but thats not my point. My point was for many years Christians halted or tried to halt research into this area because these cells used to come only from embryos.
Pleuripotent stem cells were identified and researched long before embryonic stems cells were the subject of research. Your initial comments regarding stem cell research were not specifically about embryonic stem cells, just stem cells in general, so there are question marks over your use of stem cells as an example of your opinion of Christianity stifling science. Nor was it clear from your argument if you thought stem cells were only derived from embryos or how aware you are of current stem cell research that takes adult pleuripotential stems cells and modifies them to behave like embryonic stem cells.
It can be argued that free reign on embryonic stem cell research would stifle research on pleuripotential adult stem cells which would be an argument for how atheisim can stifle science.
Science loves a challenge and without Christianity there would be less challenges ergo without Christianity science would not be as advanced as it is, IMO.
Atheistic thinking is narrow minded and limited IMO and looks for easy solutions be that killing the opposition or avoiding science that is long, costly and more palatable to the general populace because it avoids killing.0 -
Not alone that (the deaths point) but what about the other point ( the contribution point)?
What did the religious regimes abiove who killed a million people contribute to history?
Compare that to what the atheistic ones who killed 100 Million plus contributed.
The "Great Leap Backwards"?
The "cultural devolution"?
Relax ISAW, I have also provided under request the reference for the stats. If the professor is wrong I'm sure he would not be adverse to being corrected as I welcome your updates.
The intention was to further the discussion with some quantitative analysis that indicates atheistic killing outweighs religious killing by a margin.
If you want a qualitative analysis I would suggest that religious killings are fewer because it is soon realized that the killings are not supported by the religion of the instigators, where as for atheistic regime killing there is no religious or moral boundary dictating to the conscience or to reason.0 -
Just a small observation regarding this ridiculous statistics wars Given that the Earth's human population has grown rapidly over time, surely it would be more relevant to compare proportions of Global Populations killed by various regimes, rather than talking number quantities.0
-
-
StealthRolex wrote: »In what terms? If you have statistics that further the discussion please present.
All the Pope's wars? The wars between France and England? The wars between Protestant and Catholic?StealthRolex wrote: »Because this is the Christianity forum. Other faiths are not under attack here.
What does that have to do with the numbers of deaths caused by atheism? If you are comparing atheism to theism you have to compare atheism to theism, not to a subset of theism.0 -
Advertisement
-
Just a small observation regarding this ridiculous statistics wars Given that the Earth's human population has grown rapidly over time, surely it would be more relevant to compare proportions of Global Populations killed by various regimes, rather than talking number quantities.
Given that the OP referred to 20th century regimes and that six times as many people have been killed by governments than in war it is more relevant to examine the political ideology of the governments behind the killings.
The two largest contributers are listed as USSR and PRC which profess(ed) state atheism.0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »You made a claim in #406 which is incorrect
No its not incorrect.
Postulation does not = research.wikipedia wrote:Stem cells are cells found in all multi cellular organisms. They are characterized by the ability to renew themselves through mitotic cell division and differentiate into a diverse range of specialized cell types. Research in the stem cell field grew out of findings by Canadian scientists Ernest A. McCulloch and James E. Till in the 1960s.<snip>...However, it was not until 1963 that the first quantitative descriptions of the self-renewing activities of transplanted mouse bone marrow cells were documented by Canadian researchers Ernest A McCulloch and James E Till.
Research into adult stem cells in animals and in humans has been ongoing since this time, and bone marrow transplants – actually a transplant of adult stem cells – have in fact been used in patients receiving radiation and chemotherapy since the 1950’s.Science loves a challenge and without Christianity there would be less challenges ergo without Christianity science would not be as advanced as it is, IMO.
I said before, your absolutely right. Without Christianity we would be far more advanced then it is.0 -
Just a small observation regarding this ridiculous statistics wars Given that the Earth's human population has grown rapidly over time, surely it would be more relevant to compare proportions of Global Populations killed by various regimes, rather than talking number quantities.
Relevant with regards to what?
Leaving aside the driving motives of the offenders, I would have thought that diluting, say, the total numbers of people murdered by a particular regime down to a proportion of the entire population rather misses the horror of it all and the energy pored into maximising destruction.
It might well be that there is a gradually lowering potential for killing masses of people as part of one movement (for example, The Holocaust) the higher the higher the overall numbers you are trying to kill. Quite aside from whatever political forces and social constructs may oppose such wholesale slaughter, it might also boil down to the limited availability of resources. In short, not enough bricks to build the gas houses nor men to men to operate them.0 -
I said before, your absolutely right. Without Christianity we would be far more advanced then it is.
This is nothing more than atheistic propoganda
Besides embryonic stem cell research what kind of science would be more advanced?
As it is it if wasn't for Christianity stem cell research would be in the dark ages.0 -
Sure. Using your definitions, take out a few history books and look for any war in the past 2000 years where any of the combatants were christian.
The stats I supplied exclude wars. But off you go then. add up all the wars in history that christians caused and see how many died and compare that to non christian regimes or countries.
What are your totals. Christians - a million maybe two million.
Others closer to 200 Million!
To me it is similar to the focus on clerical abuse. when church involvement relates to one per cent of the damage it is blown out of all proportion.0 -
Just a small observation regarding this ridiculous statistics wars Given that the Earth's human population has grown rapidly over time, surely it would be more relevant to compare proportions of Global Populations killed by various regimes, rather than talking number quantities.
Fair enough. Ive done this before too. so off you go. Supply the proportion of world population killed by christian regimes in history and we can compare that to non Christians.0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Relevant with regards to what?
Future survival of the human race. If you want to evaluate which regime is most harmful to humans you really should be looking it at from the prespective of which one brought us closer to our own extinction. Of course, I would argue that humanity's freedoms are just as important. Ultimately though if Hitler had wiped out 95% percent of the population that would be more devasting to our chances of survival, than say Hitler killing 90 billion people in a population 10 Googol.
Btw, I agree with you, One death is a death too many.0 -
All the Pope's wars? The wars between France and England? The wars between Protestant and Catholic?
What does that have to do with the numbers of deaths caused by atheism? If you are comparing atheism to theism you have to compare atheism to theism, not to a subset of theism.
But you can then just reclassify "atheistic " regimes as "communist" and call communism a religion.0 -
But you can then just reclassify "atheistic " regimes as "communist" and call communism a religion.
No, I've no problem with you calling them atheists, they were atheists.
My issue is when you confuse atheism with anti-theism.
It is difficult to see atheism motivate anyone to do anything in the way an ideology can motivate someone. And atheism isn't an ideology, any more than having a mustache is an ideology.
It is easy to see Communism motivate someone to do something, but then if you admit that you lose the ability to give out about atheism in general, since hardly anyone here is a Communist nor do they seem to want to be.
It is sort of difficult to take your warnings seriously when you don't seem to even understand what you are warning about. It is like warning about mustaches because Hitler had one. If i have a mustache and Hitler has one I'm not ashamed in you pointing out that Hitler had one because I don't think having a mustache makes me a homicidal megalomaniac. Neither am I ashamed that you say Stalin was an atheist because I don't think being an atheist means you are like Stalin.0 -
Advertisement
-
StealthRolex wrote: »This is nothing more than atheistic propoganda
No its not. It was my opinion when I was a (cultural) catholic, it was my opinion when I was nothing and its my opinion now that I'm anti-theist.
Btw by using the term "atheist propaganda" your talking nonsense. Propaganda is spreading lies to suit an ideology, atheism has no ideology, atheism has no lies to spread since it doesn't have a stance on anything.Besides embryonic stem cell research what kind of science would be more advanced?
Everything.
Heres a very lazily gotten quote from wikipedia on the matter.A frequent basis of antiscientific sentiment is religious theism with literal interpretations of sacred text. Here, scientific theories that conflict with what is considered divinely-inspired knowledge are regarded as flawed. Over the centuries religious institutions have been hesitant to embrace such ideas as heliocentrism and planetary motion because they contradicted the dominant understanding of various passages of scripture. More recently the body of creation theologies known collectively as creationism and the more philosophically developed, teleological theory of intelligent design have been promoted by critical or apprehensive, religious theists in response to the theory of evolution by natural selection.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement