Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

marienbad

ISAW just to take some of your favourite murderous dictators- Hitler was a Catholic, Lenin and Stalin were Orthodox Christians and Pol Pot may have been Catholic , but he was certainly educated by catholics.

Just what is it with Christian education that turns out these kinds of people ?

Ciaran0

PDN wrote: »

God is eternal, so there is no 'before' or 'after' with Him. If He saw Your choice 'after the event' (from your perspective) you would not see that as limiting your choice. So, just because (from your very limited perspective) He sees your choise 'before' that makes no difference. Your choice is not determined by His knowedge. His knowledge is determined by His choice.

So by your logic then, it isn't predestination at all. God has nothing to do with how we get to heaven, so it isn't predetermined. The doctrine of predestination is therefore wrong, is it not? By the way, did you mean to say His knowledge is determined by His choice.? Did you mean 'your choice'?

Have you ever read 'Flatland' by Edwin Abbott? It's pretty amusing how beings in a two-dimensional world struggle to understand the concept of three dimensions. And that is really what happens when our minds (which are conditioned to Newtonian concepts of time) try to grapple with more recent science.

Thanks I think I might look it up . Sounds like a good concept for a book. I certainly see a fair amount of that happening on this thread. But I don't see the relevance though.

Maybe you might want to read up a wee bit on how the term predestination is used in different strands of theology? Thomists, Molinists, Calvinists and Arminians all use the term in different senses.

I know you can say different people believe it to mean different things but predestination means predestination. Some sects may believe in different levels of predestination maybe, but what you are telling me Catholics believe isn't predestination.

The Quadratic Equation

Ciaran0 wrote: »

God knows what choice we are going to make before we make it? God can't be wrong. The people who god knows are doomed to hell are going to be doomed to hell. If God knows in advance what decision I'm going to make before I make it, how am I making the decision myself? Before I even existed, God knew everything I'm going to do. If I really had a choice in the matter then there would be an almost infinite number of ways my life could play out. Yet god knows which way it will play out. God can't be wrong!

Either (a) God get's it wrong sometimes or (b) predestination can't happen.
The concepts of free will and predestination cannot be combined. It does not work.

God sees the outcome of all possibilites relating to your choices, which choices you make is up to you.

God aside, lets say in theory, as an example, some fortune tellers are genuine, if a mere fortune teller knows you are going to pick A instead of B and the outcome, yet does not tell anyone of same, how does this fortune teller's ability to see the future curtail your free will ?

The Quadratic Equation

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW just to take some of your favourite murderous dictators- Hitler was a Catholic, Lenin and Stalin were Orthodox Christians and Pol Pot may have been Catholic , but he was certainly educated by catholics.

Just what is it with Christian education that turns out these kinds of people ?

A better question would be, just what is it with your posts that none of them seem to ever contain a single reliable fact ?

Does this mean in 70 years time, people will be able to claim Eamon Gilmore was in fact a Catholic and ignore his atheism ?

ISAW

nickcave wrote: »

Yet it not my position - it was/is the position of the delusional despots we've spoken about.

And yet you bring it up again...



And this is how I know you haven't been listening. Or else you're obtusely refusing to deal with any of the actual claims I've made and are content with the "But Pol Pot killed millions" line of intellectualism.

If you are, please don't engage me in any of it.

If you are uncomfortable with the "only true Scotsman" element of you "not a true atheistic regime" don't blame me for that.
The facts are there.
They promoted atheism as central to their regime.
Millions died
When they stopped attacking religion the societies they were on improved.

If you want to conveniently ignore all the atheistic regimes and/or redefine them as religions while at the same time singling out the minority of despotic Christian regimes please don't blame me for indicating the double standard in operation and reluctance to engage with it.

PDN

Ciaran0 wrote: »

So by your logic then, it isn't predestination at all. God has nothing to do with how we get to heaven, so it isn't predetermined. The doctrine of predestination is therefore wrong, is it not? By the way, did you mean to say His knowledge is determined by His choice.? Did you mean 'your choice'?

I would agree that the doctrine of double predestination (where individuals are predestined to heaven or hell), as advanced by Calvin, is wrong. I'm not a Catholic, but I don't think you are correct in attributing that doctrine to Calvinism.

And, yes, I did mean to say that God's knowledge is determined by our choices.

But it would be incoorect to say that God has nothing to do with how we get to heaven. It is only possible for us to get there because God sent His Son to die for us.

Thanks I think I might look it up . Sounds like a good concept for a book. I certainly see a fair amount of that happening on this thread. But I don't see the relevance though.

It's available as a free e-book if you google it.

The relevance is that a 2-dimensional being, no matter how hard they try to grasp 3 dimensions, still end up muddying the water by thinking in 2-dimensional terms.

In the same way, we pay lip service to the theory of relativity, but keep lapsing into Newtonian language 'before' and 'after' when referring to an Eternal being.

I know you can say different people believe it to mean different things but predestination means predestination. Some sects may believe in different levels of predestination maybe, but what you are telling me Catholics believe isn't predestination.

No, 'predestination' can refer to several different things - as can 'omniscience' and 'omnipotence'.

Ciaran0

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

A better question would be, just what is it with your posts that none of them seem to ever contain a single reliable fact ?

Does this mean in 70 years time, people will be able to claim Eamon Gilmore was in fact a Catholic and ignore his atheism ?

It's fairly clear that he was saying that they were raised Christian. If people weren't so nit picky there'd be less problems with this thread.

ISAW

Ciaran0 wrote: »

But what has that got to do with anything? We know that forced atheism is just as bad as forced religion,

Entirely wrong! We know enforced atheism is hundreds of times worse! We know countries run by systems where they accept a State religion are sometimes bad but only in a minority of cases. We also know even in bad ones they built great civilizations. And we know that atheistic countries with State Atheism were all wastelands that contributed nothing to society or history except piles of corpses.

which is why it isn't done in modern developed countries.

The old atheist/relativist ploy! "modern/developed countries". LOL the idea that atheism is somehow a "progression" from "ancient/barbaric/religious/undeveloped" countries. All the modern countries who had atheism reduced their people to penury and turned the country into an economic backwater! Modern Undeveloped religious countries fared much better. Even the non democratic and unjust ones.

Your constant referral back to the atheist regimes is (A) off topic and (B) of no consequence to what atheism actually is. Atheism doesn't have a central body governing it, it's decision made by individual who realise that there is no God.

Nor does Christianity. Even the largest denomination the RCC. You seem to think it is all controlled by a group in Rome with the Pope issuing dictatorial proclamation. Encyclicals are rare and the RC church has no role in enforcing Civil law. Maybe the Anglicans to some degree do but it is minor and certainly not despotic.

There is no atheist authority. What has the fact that some very bad people were atheist and forced it on the people they governed got to do with anything? Are you trying to say that Soviet regime's would have been better if they were on the name of God?

No I'm saying quite simply the real top slaughter regimes did it to promote "there is no god" In comparison the "there is a god " societies ( which you will no doubt happily deride while simultaneously ignoring the "there is no god" ones) killed relatively few people.

The Quadratic Equation

Ciaran0 wrote: »

It's fairly clear that he was saying that they were raised Christian. If people weren't so nit picky there'd be less problems with this thread.

It was not in the least clear. As for trying to spin that it was clear, and that anyone prefering facts to fiction is nitpicking . . .LOL

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW just to take some of your favourite murderous dictators- Hitler was a Catholic, Lenin and Stalin were Orthodox Christians and Pol Pot may have been Catholic , but he was certainly educated by catholics.

No they werent. It has been discussed elsewhere. clearly they were not acting on the wishes of the Catholic Church. To argue that they were is ludicrous.

Just what is it with Christian education that turns out these kinds of people ?

Don't know Atheist Minister Quinn seemed happy to go to a christian school and to send his kids to one. To alleged as you do that Catholicism caused all the great slaughter regimes in history is a blatant anti Christian comment.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

No they werent. It has been discussed elsewhere. clearly they were not acting on the wishes of the Catholic Church. To argue that they were is ludicrous.



Don't know Atheist Minister Quinn seemed happy to go to a christian school and to send his kids to one. To alleged as you do that Catholicism caused all the great slaughter regimes in history is a blatant anti Christian comment.

I just knew I should have included that smiley but then I thought ''how condescending'' - how wrong was I ! But now I realise I am on the Christian forum where everything is taken literally.

Ciaran0

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

God sees the outcome of all possibilites relating to your choices, which choices you make is up to you.

God aside, lets say in theory, as an example, some fortune tellers are genuine, if a mere fortune teller knows you are going to pick A instead of B and the outcome, yet does not tell anyone of same, how does this fortune teller's ability to see the future curtail your free will ?

It doesn't mean the fortune teller's ability to tell the future is curtailing my free will, but it does mean that my free will has been curtailed. Because if the fortune teller could see it then then I obviously don't have a choice in the matter as the future he saw was going to be the correct one whether I chose it or not.

To be honest, PDN's explanation was a better one, even if I personally don't believe in it. In your view of predestination, free will can't exist. In PDN's, free will can exist, but it isn't actually predestination at all. It's just a case of God transcending time and thus knowing all. This relies on the assumption that there is only one universe however and not a multiverse as was being discussed earlier I believe.

The Quadratic Equation

Ciaran0 wrote: »

It doesn't mean the fortune teller's ability to tell the future is curtailing my free will, but it does mean that my free will has been curtailed. Because if the fortune teller could see it then then I obviously don't have a choice in the matter as the future he saw was going to be the correct one whether I chose it or not.

You chose A instead of B, the fortune teller was able to fast forward to the future to view this choice ?

Please explain to us how this fortune teller curtailed your free will ?

Ciaran0

PDN wrote: »

The relevance is that a 2-dimensional being, no matter how hard they try to grasp 3 dimensions, still end up muddying the water by thinking in 2-dimensional terms.

In the same way, we pay lip service to the theory of relativity, but keep lapsing into Newtonian language 'before' and 'after' when referring to an Eternal being.

But what evidence is there that there is an eternal being? I'm open to ideas of different dimensions that I'm currently unable to understand existing, provided there was some rational reason to even think about them. But where is there any shed of evidence that an eternal being exists? I'd rather figure out questions that there's probably an answer to. The question of God's existence is one which can't be answered unless he actually comes and announces himself as existing.

The fact is that the eternal being in which you personally believe probably does not exist. Why should you believe in something just because there's a Billion to one chance that it could be true?

Ciaran0

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

You chose A instead of B, the fortune teller was able to fast forward to the future to view this choice ?

Please explain to us how this fortune teller curtailed your free will ?

The fortune teller was able to arrive at my decision before me. I haven't made the decision yet, but he's able to tell what I'm going to do. Therefore I don't actually have a choice.

Please read back to where I said that the fortune teller himself wasn't necessarily the one doing the curtailing, just that the curtailing was taking place, in that, someone knew what I was going to do before I did it so the choice was made before I arrived at it.

Improbable

Ciaran0 wrote: »

The fortune teller was able to arrive at my decision before me. I haven't made the decision yet, but he's able to tell what I'm going to do. Therefore I don't actually have a choice.

Please read back to where I said that the fortune teller himself wasn't necessarily the one doing the curtailing, just that the curtailing was taking place, in that, someone knew what I was going to do before I did it so the choice was made before I arrived at it.

I don't think you've understood. There is a difference between knowing what you will do and making you do something. If you have a box A and a box B and you only open one, a fortune teller might be able to tell (for the purposes of this experiment) which one you are going to open. If you were going to open box A, the fortune teller would know that you were going to open box A. If you were going to open box B, the fortune teller would know that you were going to open box B. This is distinct from FORCING you to open either box A or B.

Da Shins Kelly

ISAW wrote: »

Funny ho9w the same is not applied to you in cases of religious psychopathic control freaks who happen believe in Godor are leaders of a Church. In their case it is belief that is at fault but in the case of a government's anti-clericalism, which opposes religious institutional power and influence, real or alleged, in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen and goes about slaughtering them then it has nothing to do with atheism.

It doesn't have anything to do with atheism. It's to do with control. That's what those regimes are about. Open a history book.

ISAW wrote: »

State promotion of atheism as a public norm was promoted by various regimes. FACT!

It was promoted so the leaders could take the place of God. It's not atheism if other figures are going to act like God, and the people 'believe' in them in the way that they would the Christian God.

ISAW wrote: »

LOL! The old redefining all atheistic regimes as religion switcheroo tactic!
"they were not real atheists they were in fact a religion.
In spite of the fact that they attacked religions slaughtered their priests and adherents and promoted "there is no God" as a central tenet of their political philosophy?
Give us a break.

They got rid of typical Gods and religion so that they themselves could become the Gods and religion. This is one of the characteristics of dictatorships. How can it be true atheism if the people 'believe' in their leader in the way they would believe in a God? What's the difference between believing in Jesus as some kind of saviour and believing in Kim Jong-Il as a saviour? It's all belief in someone who is considered by people and promoted as someone who is 'great'.

ISAW wrote: »

LOL so in doing that the Nazi's were practicing Roman Catholicism now were they?

You're completely twisting my words. And that is a ridiculous statement. I didn't say that they were practising Catholicism. I said they created a cult of personality around Hitler that elevated him to God-like status. Getting rid of other religions from Nazi Germany was necessary for this to happen.

ISAW wrote: »

Naziism had theosophical roots and was certainly not christian. It was anti christian - just like all the atheistic regimes.

See above.

ISAW wrote: »

Funny how you tell us all about regiimes who want to be treated as gods and proclaim "there is no god worship the leader instead" And brand these "ther is no God" people somehow as non atheist? I thought you defined atheism as "there is no God" people?

Atheists don't 'believe' in any person as some sort of God-like being. These regimes are about believing in the dictators are some sort of saviour and God. Atheists don't believe in that.

ISAW wrote: »

And another "only true Scotsman" emerges!
In spite of the fact of proclaiming atheism as central and "ther is no God" as central these people were not real atheists? I suppose next we are to believe they secretly followed Christianity? Give us a break!

See above. And try not to put words in my mouth, thanks.

ISAW wrote: »

Very few have done so and in comparison few have died because of them. Particularly in relation to Christianity which is what this group is about.

In spite of them actually saying "atheism is an inseparable part of communism" or that "religion is a drug" to be removed from society? In spite of particular targeting of clerics and religious adherents? And in spite of the fact that when they stoppoed attacking religion and dumped the atheistic element but still kept in control their regimes were not nearly as bad?

As I said before, they got rid of religion from society so they could take its place. I've explained this already, so you can stop bringing up the same things time and again and rehashing your argument in a different way.

You're crass and repetitive manner also gives me the awful impression of someone who doesn't actually know what they're talking about so I feel as though this is probably a worthless debate.

PDN

Ciaran0 wrote: »

But what evidence is there that there is an eternal being? I'm open to ideas of different dimensions that I'm currently unable to understand existing, provided there was some rational reason to even think about them. But where is there any shed of evidence that an eternal being exists? I'd rather figure out questions that there's probably an answer to. The question of God's existence is one which can't be answered unless he actually comes and announces himself as existing.

The fact is that the eternal being in which you personally believe probably does not exist. Why should you believe in something just because there's a Billion to one chance that it could be true?

You're rather missing the point here, aren't you?

The extra dimension of which I speak is not God, but rather Einsteinian concepts of Spacetime compared to Newton.

Ciaran0

ISAW wrote: »

Entirely wrong! We know enforced atheism is hundreds of times worse! We know countries run by systems where they accept a State religion are sometimes bad but only in a minority of cases. We also know even in bad ones they built great civilizations. And we know that atheistic countries with State Atheism were all wastelands that contributed nothing to society or history except piles of corpses.

Right. You've only said this nine or ten time now, do you want to say it again a few before letting the discussion move on? Please detail to me, if you can, how atheism was to blame for the evils of these regimes? Atheism itself now. Not the enforcement of it onto people.

The old atheist/relativist ploy! "modern/developed countries". LOL the idea that atheism is somehow a "progression" from "ancient/barbaric/religious/undeveloped" countries. All the modern countries who had atheism reduced their people to penury and turned the country into an economic backwater! Modern Undeveloped religious countries fared much better. Even the non democratic and unjust ones.

Firstly. Where did I say that "atheism is somehow a "progression" from "ancient/barbaric/religious/undeveloped" countries."?!?! You're assuming that I'm implying or inferring things which I am not. Please only reply to the points that I make.

Secondly I found this article quite interesting
http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2011/05/non-religious-nations-have-higher.html
It's how the countries in the world with the highest quality are the ones who place least emphasis on religion.

Also You're blaming atheism for the reason communist countries went wrong but the real reason for communist countries going wrong was mostly communism itself. There were serious flaws in it's Ideals. You can't say conclusively that atheism was the reason for the misery and poverty and killings in those communist regimes so please stop saying it. It's getting awfully repetitive.

Nor does Christianity. Even the largest denomination the RCC. You seem to think it is all controlled by a group in Rome with the Pope issuing dictatorial proclamation. Encyclicals are rare and the RC church has no role in enforcing Civil law. Maybe the Anglicans to some degree do but it is minor and certainly not despotic.

The Vatican?! Honestly! You presumably go to mass every week. There is presumably a priest there giving a sermon. Christianity is made up of organised religions, Catholicism has even a hierarchy of control. I wasn't saying it has power when it comes to law making but Christianity does have a central regulating body! Come on man/woman!

No I'm saying quite simply the real top slaughter regimes did it to promote "there is no god" In comparison the "there is a god " societies ( which you will no doubt happily deride while simultaneously ignoring the "there is no god" ones) killed relatively few people.

We know. You've been saying it over and over and it isn't adding to the discussion at all any more.The whole "Atheists killed more. No Christians killed more!" argument is OT, stupid and of no merit to this thread.

Ciaran0

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

It was not in the least clear. As for trying to spin that it was clear, and that anyone prefering facts to fiction is nitpicking . . .LOL

You prefer facts to fiction? I think it's my turn....

...wait for it...

..... LOL!

PDN

Ciaran0 wrote: »

but Christianity does have a central regulating body! Come on man/woman!

No, it does not.

Ciaran0

Improbable wrote: »

I don't think you've understood. There is a difference between knowing what you will do and making you do something. If you have a box A and a box B and you only open one, a fortune teller might be able to tell (for the purposes of this experiment) which one you are going to open. If you were going to open box A, the fortune teller would know that you were going to open box A. If you were going to open box B, the fortune teller would know that you were going to open box B. This is distinct from FORCING you to open either box A or B.

I've completely understood. The thing is there are infinite number of actions I can take. If someone is able to know what my choice is before I've made up my mind, then how can I be the one making the choice?! Somehow the fortune teller got to one particular outcome out of millions. How could he have arrived at this one if I have free will which could lead me any number of directions?

Ciaran0

PDN wrote: »

You're rather missing the point here, aren't you?

The extra dimension of which I speak is not God, but rather Einsteinian concepts of Spacetime compared to Newton.

Rather I think my point was very valid considering the title of the thread and where the discussion of extra dimensions was leading. I haven't missed the point at all. If you like, you could respond to my post so we can further the debate?

Ciaran0

PDN wrote: »

No, it does not.

What is the catholic hierarchy?? What are the people up in the vatican doing if not looking after and promoting their religion?? This is besides the point anyway. The point was that atheist's aren't an organised group. They are individuals with certain views who for the most part have become atheists because they came to a realisation about the lack of evidence for god. They opposite is true of Christianity. It is an organised group of people who for the most part were born into the belief they have.

Improbable

Ciaran0 wrote: »

I've completely understood. The thing is there are infinite number of actions I can take. If someone is able to know what my choice is before I've made up my mind, then how can I be the one making the choice?! Somehow the fortune teller got to one particular outcome out of millions. How could he have arrived at this one if I have free will which could lead me any number of directions?

Because there is a distinction between knowing what action someone will take and forcing someone to do a particular action. It's the concept that the fortune teller's knowledge isn't constraining your action, but rather that your future action is constraining the fortune tellers knowledge. The fortune teller only knows what action you are going to take. Just because the fortune teller knows what you're going to decide in the end doesn't mean that they're deciding for you. The clue is in the sentence. The fortune teller knows what you are going to decide to do. It is still you that is making the choice and their knowledge of it, doesn't change that.

PDN

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Rather I think my point was very valid considering the title of the thread and where the discussion of extra dimensions was leading. I haven't missed the point at all. If you like, you could respond to my post so we can further the debate?

I've got no interest in trying to convince you that God exists. If I did, then I would go to the A&A Forum and argue it there. that's something I have never done.

If you want come into the Christianity Forum to try to argue us out of our position, then the onus is on you to produce the necessary evidence. That's why, if you look back over this thread - you don't see the Christians here trying to present proof. We are waiting for the contradictions etc. that we were promised. So far they haven't amounted to much.

PDN

Ciaran0 wrote: »

What is the catholic hierarchy??

It's the headquarters for a subsection within Christianity.

What are the people up in the vatican doing if not looking after and promoting their religion?? This is besides the point anyway.

It certainly is beside the point - because it's irrelevant to your claim that Christianity has a central regulatory body.

The point was that atheist's aren't an organised group. They are individuals with certain views who for the most part have become atheists because they came to a realisation about the lack of evidence for god.

I don't think that is true. If you look at the demographics of professed atheists over history, the vast majority have been in countries where it was forced upon them. Do you honestly think that the millions of atheists in Russia, China, Vietnam, eastern Europe etc reached that position because they came to a realisation about the lack of evidence about God? :pac:

They opposite is true of Christianity. It is an organised group of people who for the most part were born into the belief they have.

As is true of almost any philosophy or ideology, including atheism.

ISAW

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Right. You've only said this nine or ten time now, do you want to say it again a few before letting the discussion move on? Please detail to me, if you can, how atheism was to blame for the evils of these regimes? Atheism itself now. Not the enforcement of it onto people.

So Christianity is to blame for any time they enforced religion biut atheistic regimes can never hold atheism ( the actual concept they are enforcing ) to account?

Firstly. Where did I say that "atheism is somehow a "progression" from "ancient/barbaric/religious/undeveloped" countries."?!?

Please explain what a "modern/progressive" country is?
Considering you go on to provide quantitative data on "no God" countries having higher value of life scores whatother case were you making?

Secondly I found this article quite interesting
http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2011/05/non-religious-nations-have-higher.html
It's how the countries in the world with the highest quality are the ones who place least emphasis on religion.

Which states

Belgium came out top, followed by France, Denmark, Spain and Germany. The USA came in 7th, and the UK was 11th.

http://www.adherents.com/adh_predom.html
Christianity
In the following countries the majority of the population cites one of the branches of Christianity as their preferred religion:

Ironically lists France, Denmark, Spain and Germany, USA, UK. Oh and Belgium!

Also You're blaming atheism for the reason communist countries went wrong but the real reason for communist countries going wrong was mostly communism itself.

Look! in atheistic communist countries they always slaughtered.
In non atheistic communist regimes they didn't.
In non communist atheistic dictatorships they always slaughtered.
In non atheistic dictatorships they didn't.
Got the picture yet?

There were serious flaws in it's Ideals. You can't say conclusively that atheism was the reason for the misery and poverty and killings in those communist regimes so please stop saying it. It's getting awfully repetitive.

It doies not seem to be sinking in. Go through them one by one if you want and see which ones repressed religions and which didnt and how they faired.

The Vatican?! Honestly! You presumably go to mass every week. There is presumably a priest there giving a sermon.

What I do or don't do isn't at issue here. Nor whether I am a Catholic or not. I hjave already pointed out to you an agnostic making these points. But in case you diont know I tend to defend the side that the media myth attacks. Whether that is the RCC or Islam or politicians it does not mean I have to be one of them. In this case i represent RC views as best and fairly as I can. Don't try the "guilt by association" or "fundamentalist" card on me.

Christianity is made up of organised religions, Catholicism has even a hierarchy of control. I wasn't saying it has power when it comes to law making but Christianity does have a central regulating body! Come on man/woman!

No it doesnt. Butagain if we were only to take RC or Orthodox or anglican you would have problems with thatassertion . Particularly with anglicans. Butlet us take RC. in this thread a few pages back reference was made to the reports into diocese coming out and how the Chairman who is a Protestant dint realise this image he had of a hierarchical structure was not true.

We know. You've been saying it over and over and it isn't adding to the discussion at all any more.The whole "Atheists killed more. No Christians killed more!" argument is OT, stupid and of no merit to this thread.

It is of no merit because you are aware the numbers are in huge disparity. Just as in other threads clerical abusers are less than one per cent of abusers but their detractors want ot ignore that.

Morbert

The late Christopher Hitchens talking about the notion that North Korea is somehow an irreligious, secular dictatorship. What he says can easily be applied to other dictatorships that frequently get mentioned here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8-Vr_r36Fg

ISAW:There have been two kinds of regimes that have lead to the mass slaughter of people. Atheistic regimes and theistic regimes. The notion that theism somehow immunizes people or organisations against tendencies to commit atrocities is not supported by history. You claim, for example, that atheistic regimes have been far worse than theistic, but make no mention of the socioeconomic conditions that surrounded this small handful of cases. You have made no effort to explore the underlying causes of these atrocities, and have instead decided to bleat a tedious and untrue mantra about atheism and genocide. It's like having a politics and history version of JC.

Morbert

The late Christopher Hitchens talking about the notion that North Korea is somehow an irreligious, secular dictatorship. What he says can easily be applied to other dictatorships that frequently get mentioned here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8-Vr_r36Fg

ISAW:There have been two kinds of regimes that have lead to the mass slaughter of people. Atheistic regimes and theistic regimes. The notion that theism somehow immunizes people or organisations against tendencies to commit atrocities is not supported by history.