Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW Are you opposed to a secular constitution then ?

An interesting question. Philosophically speaking, many questions actually turn on what is meant by the question . what for example is a "secular" constitution?
If you read my comments on the plains by the atheist education Minister Quinn to remove religious institutions form 50% of schools for starters my views might be clearer.

I support the Irish constitution if that is what you mean. The Irish Supreme courts under that constitution interpret the constitution. They have found that the people are paramount in a Republic. In Ireland the constitution grants rights to mothers, to families and for freedom of religion and belief ( which also includes atheism I would reckon). To that end the constitution does not ban religion in schools. Instead it supports the right to an "ethos" of a school by funding the salaries of the teachers . If 30 Muslims come together and want a schools the State will fund them. Same if 30 atheists want a school. But people accept that religious ethos schools give the best of education. Even the Atheist Minister went to one and sent his own children to several of them.

If that is what you mean by "secular constitution" I support it.

I also don't follow the fascist "blueshirt" idea of people being better than other sorts of people . I don't see any reason why ( other than some obvious examples such a citizens or children being able to vote or have bank accounts) the constitution should differenciate between people. Catholics should not have more rights then atheists or blacks have more rights than Jews. In Ireland they don't. If that is a "secular constitution" then yes I am all for it. I don't like to single out groups like priests, blacks, homosexuals etc. and attack them. Again with the obvious exceptions such as those groups putting themselves up as better than others or demanding a superior position or casting disparaging remarks on others. It is rare you will witness me going to an atheist forum to tell atheists how bitter they are unless of course it is in defence of some attack they already made on how stupid believers are for example. Likewise I have debated Islam, holocaust revision etc. In other fora i have supported Islamic people and revisionist history ( although not strict Holocaust revision) . Nothing wrong with revision if some facts actually support it. I fact I would consider myself a revisionist of "pedophile priests" mythology.
If that is "secular" then I'm all for it.

ISAW

Wonderfull how people say Christians ccommitted genocide so chalk that up to christianity butnot "Atheistic regimes with atheism as a central pillar committed genocide butthat has nothing to do with atheism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II_of_Belgium#Private_colonialism

Leopold fervently believed that overseas colonies were the key to a country's greatness, and he worked tirelessly to acquire colonial territory for Belgium. Neither the Belgian people nor the Belgian government was interested, however, and Leopold eventually began trying to acquire a colony in his private capacity as an ordinary citizen. The Belgian government lent him money for this venture.

I fail to see where Leopold was acting with "Christianity" as a central tenet or under instructions from the Pope or Archbishop of Cantebury.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65963071&postcount=492
=Fasgnadh on Only true Scotsman

An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to
defend the historical reality of atheism. For example

EVERY atheist regime in history, (i.e. The USSR, Maoist China,
Pol Pots Genocide, North Korea, those states which are led
by atheists, with the entire ruling Central Committee atheist,
implementing explicit atheist policies) has been a totalitarian
tyranny.
They committed the systematic persecution of religion, forcible
indoctrination of children and adults with atheism, expropriation
and destruction of religious property, and the terror, torture
and murder of believers. >70,000,000 died in the atheist holocausts.

Atheists argue that 'No True Atheist would create tyranny' despite the
clear evidence of atheists Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Ill Suk and
his psychotic offspring Kim ill Fuk doing PRECISELY THAT!

In fact they can find NO EXAMPLE of an atheist state, in all of human
history, which was NOT a totalitarian tyranny!

Sometimes the argument is accompanied by hypocritical attempts at
diversion such as "Those regimes were all 'male'", an easily falsifiable
lie, (Madame Mao and other female members of the Central Committees) or
but they were 'Communist in name' .. sure.. just like the "Democratic
People's Republic of Korea" is a Democracy in name?!???

Priceless! The argument has been conclusively resolved by those
atheist tyrants themselves, e.g.:

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

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

By arbitrarily selecting ANY OTHER ATTRIBUTE, (gender, moustaches,
brand name chosen), the claim that 'no true atheist' regime would
be a tyranny is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach,
this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.

The logical flaw is that not all atheist regimes were 100% male, or had
moustaches and the Chinese Communists now allow religion, have declared
it a social positive, and have prospered and progressed, unlike EVERY
atheist communist state which has been a catastrophic failure!!!

Lets clarify that point for the dull witted atheists: Not all COMMUNIST
governments have been catastrophic failures, (China reformed its
constitution, permitting religions to function, and has progressed
phenomenally) ..but all ATHEIST ones have been!!! B^]

The common feature is that those tyrannies were ALL ATHEIST REGIMES, and
in fact were the ONLY atheist regimes in history. 100% of atheist
regimes, without exception, have been murderous tyrannies!

Q.E.D. They *are* the historical REALITY of atheism.

Morbert

Firstly, ISAW, I would ask you to stop linking to alt.atheism. I stopped using USENET groups because of the juvenile mindlessness expressed in them, particularly on the theist side. They have absolutely nothing to do with what I am saying. I, for example, have no interest in excusing genocide or "no true atheist" arguments. I am only interested in highlighting your incorrect statements about the relation between atheism and genocide. This is an incredibly obvious point that your reactionary posting style prevents you from grasping.

Regarding the slaughter of Native Americans: I meant to type 20-30 million by the U.S. (I don't think there was even 200 million native Americans ever in America.) However, the over 100 million by European settlers (I am including North and South America) is a reasonable estimate even by the sources you supply. It is undeniably a catastrophic number either way. But still you are entirely missing the point, as evidenced by the following statements made by you.

I assume you will admit God if God exists or if people believe God exists is a higher authority than the State?
The belief God doesn't exist is called atheism. You agree to that?
Given what you just stated
Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state.
then
Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no God.
then
Totalitarianism only works if people in charge are atheists.

ISAW wrote: »

Wonderfull how people say Christians ccommitted genocide so chalk that up to christianity butnot "Atheistic regimes with atheism as a central pillar committed genocide butthat has nothing to do with atheism"

I fail to see where Leopold was acting with "Christianity" as a central tenet or under instructions from the Pope or Archbishop of Cantebury.

Atheism is a statement about the existence of God. It is either true or false. Atheism is not a set of moral principles. You cannot say Totalitarian regimes were adopting atheist principles, and then turn around and say Leopold was not adopting Christian principles. Instead, you should consistently say that Leopold was not adopting Christian principles, and Mao was not adopting atheist principles because they don't exist. The oppression of religion is not an atheist principle.

Did they use atheism as a tool? Sure, just as they used metallurgy as a tool. But it is totalitarianism and fascism that informed their moral and political decisions. Do you think if I, or any average atheist, had my way, I would unveil some set of atheist principles and start oppressing religion? Of course not. Unless we use your own custom definition of oppression, which includes the propagation of ideas through rational discourse. Then I would certainly be oppressive. But that aside, no, I would not. My moral decisions are informed by humanist principles. They cannot be informed by atheist principles. What's strange is you accept this yourself. You "couldn't agree more". But you still try and pin atrocities on non-existent atheist principles.

When Christians were in control some people from time to time did suffer yes. Nothing in comparison to when atheists were in control with their "humanist" principles of "there is no God"

Totalitarian regimes did not adopt humanist principles. They adopted fascist, totalitarian principles. Similarly, Japan during WWII (not contemporary Japan) adopted anti-humanist principles.

The Holocaust and atheistic Stalinist and Maoist genocides were true. do you also think that they were great things?

I can't believe I have to explain this. "The Holocaust" was a terrible thing. "The Holocaust happened." is a true statement, and is a great statement. "The Holocaust never happened" is a false statement, and a vile statement.

Similarly, "The non-existence of God" might be a terrible thing. But "God does not exist" is a statement about that terrible thing.

I never claimed every atheist is useless. all i pointed out is whenever atheists come together to proclaim atheism like religious people do top proclaim belief then nothing usefull ever came of it and usually only death resulted in them trying to spread their atheism.

You asked for examples of atheists coming together and contributing to society.

It isn't an atheist group promoting atheism!

Of course it's not! If an organisation promoted atheism or Christianity, and masqueraded as a charity, that would be a vile thing indeed! Instead, these groups only promote the welfare of people. But they exhibit examples of atheists coming together and contributing to society.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

I, for example, have no interest in excusing genocide or "no true atheist" arguments.

while at the same time you will claim that atheistic regimes were not "true atheists" but"regimes" or " totalist" or "power hungry" or maybe "scottish" even anything but atheistic.

I am only interested in highlighting your incorrect statements about the relation between atheism and genocide. This is an incredibly obvious point that your reactionary posting style prevents you from grasping.

Quite simply

Exhibit A : All the regimes/governments/control groups/ dictarors claiming to be "Christian" ( and Ill argue not all of them were butlet us juatadd all theones claiming to do whatthey were doing with Christianity as a central tenet) - maybe millions of dead but plenty of buildings, artworks, libaries management systems etc. built

Exhibit B: all the groups working for atheism claiming "there is no God" is a principle by which we should run society. Result : piles of skulls and scorched Earth, famine etc.

When Exhibit B decided to be ( or destroyed itself and was replaced by it) more like Exhibit A i.e. by allowing religion and allowing religious standards into theior soiciety and not persecuting people who didnt subscribe to "there is no God" Result: Improvement
[/quote]

[/quote]
Regarding the slaughter of Native Americans: I meant to type 20-30 million by the U.S. (I don't think there was even 200 million native Americans ever in America.) However, the over 100 million by European settlers (I am including North and South America) is a reasonable estimate even by the sources you supply. It is undeniably a catastrophic number either way.
[/quote]

I don't accept Christianity resulted in the deaths of 100 million Americans even adding in South America. I don't believe any widespread Christian regime called for and organised the deaths of millions of Americans. I don't believe the deaths in Iraq of US troops and of a million citizens was because of Christianity or because of Islam.

Atheism is a statement about the existence of God. It is either true or false.

Let us assume it is false. Then the moral standards of God should be followed as a higher authority then the State no?

Let us assume people believe it is true. AS you already said "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."then Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no God. No?
Your proposal not mine.

Atheism is not a set of moral principles. You cannot say Totalitarian regimes were adopting atheist principles, and then turn around and say Leopold was not adopting Christian principles.

And regime holding "there is no god" as a central principle is not acting under any belief of a higher authority than themselves. Given your own definition "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state," atheistic regimes can be totalist. Given your definition religious regimes can not.

Leopold of Belgium was NOT acting even for the Belgian State. He acted in a private capacity as a private individual. He proposed no Christian principles for the acqusition of an African country. Like Cecil Rhodes he did not claim nor was he not doing this because God told him to or because he regarded it as God's work. atheistic regimes specifically State they are spreading godlessness and specifically go about dismantling religious belief.

you should consistently say that Leopold was not adopting Christian principles, and Mao was not adopting atheist principles because they don't exist. The oppression of religion is not an atheist principle.

your words:
"Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."

QED
Atheists do not believe in a higher authority like God do they?

Did Leopold announce "Atheism is the opium of the masses?" and specifically target any atheists or promote any religious belief?
Did Mao say "religion is the opium of the people" and did he not specifically promote atheism and the destruction of religion?

Did they use atheism as a tool? Sure, just as they used metallurgy as a tool. But it is totalitarianism and fascism that informed their moral and political decisions.

This would be the sort of totalitarianism and fascism which only works if only works if people believe there is no higher authority would it?

Do you think if I, or any average atheist, had my way, I would unveil some set of atheist principles and start oppressing religion?

I really don't know. I don't suspect so since you seem quite fair. When atheist Minister Quinn got education however he went about announcing that half the schools would have to be taken out of religious ethos. Atheist senator Bacik attends Church of Ireland services in Trinity where she gets her votes but the atheist Ireland organisation whose meetings she also attends have distinct anti Church leanings ( and probably more senate votes:) .

I have heard cabinet ministers say "I leave my personal beliefs at the cabinet door" Do you believe them?

Of course not. Unless we use your own custom definition of oppression, which includes the propagation of ideas through rational discourse. Then I would certainly be oppressive. But that aside, no, I would not. My moral decisions are informed by humanist principles.

These would be universal principles of natural law would they? Just as believers have?
So you believe in natural law.

They cannot be informed by atheist principles.

I agree. Societies informed by atheistic systems are doomed to fail.

What's strange is you accept this yourself. You "couldn't agree more". But you still try and pin atrocities on non-existent atheist principles.

I agree. Societies informed by atheistic systems are doomed to fail.

Totalitarian regimes did not adopt humanist principles. They adopted fascist, totalitarian principles.

Facist totalitarian principles like "there is no God" i.e. Atheistic ones?

Similarly, Japan during WWII (not contemporary Japan) adopted anti-humanist principles.

And atheist country. Ironic that isn't it?

This is an example of christianiy/religion persecuting people ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Massacre_of_De_La_Salle_Brothers#The_February_12.2C_1945_Massacre
This
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
was because of christianity?
Or these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

All the fault of Christians?

Are you saying
1. Because man has used religion as a cause for war, it should be dispensed with.
I'm saying the lack of belief has been much more a cause of war. so maybe
Well
2. because Atheists start wars and commit atrocities Atheism that should be dispensed with? Or at least maybe prevented from running society?

Im just saying 2 has a much better case than 1.


One of the first targets of many evils in the world is the Roman Catholic Church. Christians are often the first to be persecuted .

I can't believe I have to explain this. "The Holocaust" was a terrible thing. "The Holocaust happened." is a true statement, and is a great statement. "The Holocaust never happened" is a false statement, and a vile statement.

Similarly, "The non-existence of God" might be a terrible thing. But "God does not exist" is a statement about that terrible thing.

You asked for examples of atheists coming together and contributing to society.

Ill accept some atheists can come together and do good for society even oif they do not do it based on the belief that there is no God just as some Christians can cause harm even though it is not based on following a true belief in a God.

Of course it's not! If an organisation promoted atheism or Christianity, and masqueraded as a charity, that would be a vile thing indeed!

REally Vincent De Paul is a Charity promoting Christianity. It was specifically set up in Paris to do something about the poor and downtrodden when coffee house atheists were preaching against belief and calling for destruction of religion and doing little else. Are the Vincent De Paul members or their society a charity promoting christian values vile?

Instead, these groups only promote the welfare of people. But they exhibit examples of atheists coming together and contributing to society.

Not really. They may have been founded by an atheist or two not acting in any way from their lack of belief. Maybe some influence from God found it's way to them through "humanist principles" Just as Karl Marx could have got his more acceptable principles in socialism from Christian Social teaching.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

while at the same time you will claim that atheistic regimes were not "true atheists" but"regimes" or " totalist" or "power hungry" or maybe "scottish" even anything but atheistic.

I have said no such thing. I said their principles do not stem from atheism. The oppression of religion doesn't stem from atheism. Genocide doesn't stem from atheism. That is like saying the Holocaust stemmed from Darwinism.

Quite simply

Exhibit A : All the regimes/governments/control groups/ dictarors claiming to be "Christian" ( and Ill argue not all of them were butlet us juatadd all theones claiming to do whatthey were doing with Christianity as a central tenet) - maybe millions of dead but plenty of buildings, artworks, libaries management systems etc. built

Exhibit B: all the groups working for atheism claiming "there is no God" is a principle by which we should run society. Result : piles of skulls and scorched Earth, famine etc.

When Exhibit B decided to be ( or destroyed itself and was replaced by it) more like Exhibit A i.e. by allowing religion and allowing religious standards into theior soiciety and not persecuting people who didnt subscribe to "there is no God" Result: Improvement

Which shows that amoral statements like "there is no God" or "natural selection occurs" should not be tendered as a code of ethics or principle of governance which includes persecution of people.

I don't accept Christianity resulted in the deaths of 100 million Americans even adding in South America. I don't believe any widespread Christian regime called for and organised the deaths of millions of Americans. I don't believe the deaths in Iraq of US troops and of a million citizens was because of Christianity or because of Islam.

And I agree. Instead, such people took Christianity and Islam, and contrived a set of principles that resulted in persecution, poverty, and death. But what I can't understand is why you believe persecution and death are an innate part of atheism?

Let us assume it is false. Then the moral standards of God should be followed as a higher authority then the State no?

Yes.

Let us assume people believe it is true. AS you already said "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."then Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no God. No?
Your proposal not mine.

And regime holding "there is no god" as a central principle is not acting under any belief of a higher authority than themselves. Given your own definition "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state," atheistic regimes can be totalist. Given your definition religious regimes can not.

Leopold of Belgium was NOT acting even for the Belgian State. He acted in a private capacity as a private individual. He proposed no Christian principles for the acqusition of an African country. Like Cecil Rhodes he did not claim nor was he not doing this because God told him to or because he regarded it as God's work. atheistic regimes specifically State they are spreading godlessness and specifically go about dismantling religious belief

your words:
"Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."

QED
Atheists do not believe in a higher authority like God do they?

Did Leopold announce "Atheism is the opium of the masses?" and specifically target any atheists or promote any religious belief?
Did Mao say "religion is the opium of the people" and did he not specifically promote atheism and the destruction of religion?

This would be the sort of totalitarianism and fascism which only works if only works if people believe there is no higher authority would it?

The conclusion from all of the above: Totalitarianism is bad.

I really don't know. I don't suspect so since you seem quite fair. When atheist Minister Quinn got education however he went about announcing that half the schools would have to be taken out of religious ethos. Atheist senator Bacik attends Church of Ireland services in Trinity where she gets her votes but the atheist Ireland organisation whose meetings she also attends have distinct anti Church leanings ( and probably more senate votes:) .

I have heard cabinet ministers say "I leave my personal beliefs at the cabinet door" Do you believe them?

Then does that not contradict your conclusion about atheism and bloodshed?

These would be universal principles of natural law would they? Just as believers have?
So you believe in natural law.

No. They are a constructed set of principles that do not come from nature, but rather an ethical study of what it means to value compassion, fairness and equality.

I agree. Societies informed by atheistic systems are doomed to fail.

Facist totalitarian principles like "there is no God" i.e. Atheistic ones?

Totalitarian, fascist societies are doomed to fail. Why would a government comprised of secular, humanist atheists be doomed to fail?

And atheist country. Ironic that isn't it?

This is an example of christianiy/religion persecuting people ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Massacre_of_De_La_Salle_Brothers#The_February_12.2C_1945_Massacre
This
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
was because of christianity?
Or these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

All the fault of Christians?

Are you saying
1. Because man has used religion as a cause for war, it should be dispensed with.
I'm saying the lack of belief has been much more a cause of war. so maybe
Well
2. because Atheists start wars and commit atrocities Atheism that should be dispensed with? Or at least maybe prevented from running society?

Im just saying 2 has a much better case than 1.

I am saying both 1 and 2 are wrong.

Really Vincent De Paul is a Charity promoting Christianity. It was specifically set up in Paris to do something about the poor and downtrodden when coffee house atheists were preaching against belief and calling for destruction of religion and doing little else. Are the Vincent De Paul members or their society a charity promoting christian values vile?

This has nothing to do with what I said. Some Christian values are fine, and shared by many. Does Vincent De Paul use money to convert people to Christianity? Is that a tenet?

Not really. They may have been founded by an atheist or two not acting in any way from their lack of belief. Maybe some influence from God found it's way to them through "humanist principles" Just as Karl Marx could have got his more acceptable principles in socialism from Christian Social teaching.

Again, you seem to be completely missing the point. Of course a lack of belief will not inspire charity. Your entire argument, apart from a naive interpretation of the totalitarianism, consists of the observation that a lack of belief does not directly inspire charity. Darwinism doesn't inspire charity either. So what?

marienbad

ISAW , you are showing a fundamental lack of understanding of totalitarianism in these discussions, you are adopting a definition that suits your argument. You can just as easily substitute trade unions,political parties, sports organisations in place of religion.. A good place to start is to really look at the name -totalitarianism.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

I have said no such thing.

you said "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."

I said their principles do not stem from atheism.

God is a higher authoriuty
Atheists don't believe in God
Atheists don't believe in a higher authority
"Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."

The oppression of religion doesn't stem from atheism.

"Communism is incompatible with religious faith",
I suppose we are all to believe that instead it stems from Christianity?
So you deny the anti-theistism (Gosateizm) of the Soviets?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/11.htm

Two-thirds of the Soviet population, however, were irreligious. About half the people, including members of the ruling Communist Party and high-level government officials, professed atheism. For the majority of Soviet citizens, therefore, religion seemed irrelevant.

Just like the modern atheists claim.

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

State atheism is the official "promotion of atheism" by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice.
Source: Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR: Characteristics and Consequences, David Kowalewski, Russian Review, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 426–441, Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review
...
State promotion of atheism as a public norm was first practised during a brief period in Revolutionary France. Since then, such a policy was repeated only in Revolutionary Mexico and some communist states. The Soviet Union had a long history of state atheism

The ABC of Communism, Nikolai Bukharin and Evgenii Preobrazhensky
Chapter 11: Communism and Religion. ISBN 0472061127, 9780472061129.

Genocide doesn't stem from atheism. That is like saying the Holocaust stemmed from Darwinism.

do you believe belief in God and religion is a bad thing for society?
Do you think if everyone was atheist things would be better?

Do you still believe "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."?

Which shows that amoral statements like "there is no God" or "natural selection occurs" should not be tendered as a code of ethics or principle of governance which includes persecution of people.

so fair enough atheist statements like "therr is no god" should never be al;lowed to influence the running of society but moral statements like that of Christianity should. We don't have any argument then.

people took Christianity and Islam, and contrived a set of principles that resulted in persecution, poverty, and death.

Iraq did not happen because of Christianity!

But what I can't understand is why you believe persecution and death are an innate part of atheism?

Not only atheistic regimes murder but atheistic ones far surpass the totals of others and while the others do contribute something from time to time atheistic regimes build nothing.

The conclusion from all of the above: Totalitarianism is bad.

Indeed this would be "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."?

No. They are a constructed set of principles that do not come from nature, but rather an ethical study of what it means to value compassion, fairness and equality.

You can prove universal morals are social constructs ? Nextyou will be telling us all knowledge is a social construct.

Totalitarian, fascist societies are doomed to fail. Why would a government comprised of secular, humanist atheists be doomed to fail?

Can you list the great atheist civilizations? Or any that had and atheist principle atthe core which did anything useful?

This has nothing to do with what I said. Some Christian values are fine, and shared by many. Does Vincent De Paul use money to convert people to Christianity? Is that a tenet?

It isn't an evangelical society. But it has the Christian view at it's core.
http://svp.ie/About-Us/Who-we-are.aspx

We draw our inspiration and energy from the Gospels and Catholic social teaching and attempt to live the core values (Love of God and Love of our neighbour) through an action oriented programme, working directly with people in need.

Where is the group which draw their inspiration and energy from atheism which attempt to live the core value (God does not exist) through an action oriented programme, working directly with people in need?

What Frederic Ozanam said

"The question which is agitating the world today is a social one. It is a struggle between those who have nothing and those who have too much. It is a violent clash of opulence and poverty which is shaking the ground under our feet. Our duty as Christians is to throw ourselves between these two camps in order to accomplish by love what justice alone cannot do."

What atheist organisation says " Our duty as atheists is to throw ourselves between these two camps in order to accomplish by love what justice alone cannot do."?
http://svp.ie/about-us/spirituality.aspx

Again, you seem to be completely missing the point. Of course a lack of belief will not inspire charity. Your entire argument, apart from a naive interpretation of the totalitarianism, consists of the observation that a lack of belief does not directly inspire charity. Darwinism doesn't inspire charity either. So what?

A lack of belief does not inspire anything! that Is the point! And a proselyting of that atheism and demeaning and ridiculing those that do belief leads to cruelty and persecution of believers.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW , you are showing a fundamental lack of understanding of totalitarianism in these discussions, you are adopting a definition that suits your argument.

this would be Morberts definition ? "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."?

You can just as easily substitute trade unions,political parties, sports organisations in place of religion.. A good place to start is to really look at the name -totalitarianism.

Butpolitical parties trade unions and churches have all controlled societies to some degree and very rarely did it result in mass murder. Those who said "there is no god" and got in control always resulted in murder and at much higher rates.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

this would be Morberts definition ? "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."?



Butpolitical parties trade unions and churches have all controlled societies to some degree and very rarely did it result in mass murder. Those who said "there is no god" and got in control always resulted in murder and at much higher rates.

you continue to use ''all cretans are liars'' reasoning ISAW , your constant need to create an artificial either/or dilemma shows you either have no understanding of history or no interest in understanding history unless you can mould it to your point of view.

History is a continuum and western history is part of that. A rough outline would be that Christianity just followed on from the Greeks and Aquinas completed that synthesis then reformation/Enlightment/Renaissance/Industrial Revolution/Darwinism and I suppose now we are into the age of secularism.


If you want to have a discussion - lets have one , but why not use your own reasoning and observations instead of this constant cut and paste ****e. You never know - you might learn something and I might learn something.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

you continue to use ''all cretans are liars'' reasoning ISAW , your constant need to create an artificial either/or dilemma shows you either have no understanding of history or no interest in understanding history unless you can mould it to your point of view.

Not my definition: "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."

If
all Cretans are liars
and
Marian is a from Crete
then
Marian is a liar is logically consistent.
EDIT: no it isn't!

all Cretans are liars
and
Marian is a a from Crete
then
Marian is a liar
is logically consistent.


If you don't agree with that then your problem is with logic not with me.

History is a continuum and western history is part of that.

History is an interpretation.

A rough outline would be that Christianity just followed on from the Greeks and Aquinas completed that synthesis then reformation/Enlightment/Renaissance/Industrial Revolution/Darwinism and I suppose now we are into the age of secularism.

Whether it is cutting edge mathematics or philosophy 101 they are using the same underlying logic. Western society and I would argue all science is rooted in Greek logic and philosophy. I'm quite happy to discuss the history and philosophy of science. ~I should tell you in advance (although I do not argue from authority) it is one of my academic pursuits.

If you want to have a discussion - lets have one , but why not use your own reasoning and observations instead of this constant cut and paste ****e.

I paste it because I refer to the original source.
If you think it is crap then care to show how it is?

You never know - you might learn something and I might learn something.

Teach us all then. What is wrong about the statistical and historical data I posted?

tommy2bad

If
all Cretans are liars
and
Marian is a from Crete
then
Marian is a liar is logically consistent.

If
all Cretans are liars
and
Marian is a a liar
then
Marian is from Crete is not logically consistent.

See where your going wrong?

ISAW

tommy2bad wrote: »

If
all Cretans are liars
and
Marian is a a from Crete
then
Marian is a liar
is logically consistent.

Having pointed out what "affirming the consequent" is I then went and typed in the above in haste.
all Cretans are liars
and
Marian is a a from Crete
then
Marian is a liar
IS logically consistent.

Thank you for drawing it to my attention. I don't clim to be prefect and sometimes type in haste. Fixed now.

Sin in haste repent at leisure.

tommy2bad

Thank you for drawing it to my attention.

No problem, whats scary is I'm still reading this thread.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Not my definition: "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."

If
all Cretans are liars
and
Marian is a from Crete
then
Marian is a liar is logically consistent.
EDIT: no it isn't!

all Cretans are liars
and
Marian is a a from Crete
then
Marian is a liar
is logically consistent.


If you don't agree with that then your problem is with logic not with me.



History is an interpretation.


Whether it is cutting edge mathematics or philosophy 101 they are using the same underlying logic. Western society and I would argue all science is rooted in Greek logic and philosophy. I'm quite happy to discuss the history and philosophy of science. ~I should tell you in advance (although I do not argue from authority) it is one of my academic pursuits.



I paste it because I refer to the original source.
If you think it is crap then care to show how it is?


Teach us all then. What is wrong about the statistical and historical data I posted?

AS I said , waste of time having a discussion with you. Your method is neither historical nor statistical. It is just find a quote and tack it on to an your internet search result and cut and paste the lot.

But then this is what usually happens when one is operating from a fixed point of view and working backwards to support it.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

you said "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."


God is a higher authoriuty
Atheists don't believe in God
Atheists don't believe in a higher authority
"Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."

"Communism is incompatible with religious faith",
I suppose we are all to believe that instead it stems from Christianity?
So you deny the anti-theistism (Gosateizm) of the Soviets?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/11.htm

Two-thirds of the Soviet population, however, were irreligious. About half the people, including members of the ruling Communist Party and high-level government officials, professed atheism. For the majority of Soviet citizens, therefore, religion seemed irrelevant.

Just like the modern atheists claim.

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

The ABC of Communism, Nikolai Bukharin and Evgenii Preobrazhensky
Chapter 11: Communism and Religion. ISBN 0472061127, 9780472061129.

The conclusion we can draw from this is Totalitarianism is bad. What I have (repeatedly) said is that the principles of Totalitarianism are not the principles of atheism. Just as I would not claim the principles of humanism are not principles of atheism. This is an incredibly simple point. You ignore it every time, and get hung up on the fact that Totalitarian regimes use atheism as a tool to establish their own authority.

Do you still believe "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."?

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. By "works" I mean "is in any way sustainable". I do not mean "is a good system of government". North Korea is a "working" Totalitarian state. But it is still abhorrent. Totalitarianism should be opposed in all forms. I am saying the use of state-atheism in Totalitarian states is in no way a reflection of the validity of atheism, or the integrity of atheists.

do you believe belief in God and religion is a bad thing for society?
Do you think if everyone was atheist things would be better?

I think if everyone freely chose atheism, along with humanist ideals, the world would be a better place. How much better? I have no idea, and am not naive enough to believe it would solve all our problems. My enthusiasm for humanism only extends as far as opposition to the idea that there is an absolute authority that communicates through "appointed" individuals.

so fair enough atheist statements like "therr is no god" should never be al;lowed to influence the running of society but moral statements like that of Christianity should. We don't have any argument then.

Nice try. I have no problem with Christian values if they are shared by pluralist, secular society. I.e. If some of the values are incidentally Christian, then so be it. But the criteria for how we should be governed is not "Is it Christian?". If values are enshrined into law that have no compelling secular argument, such as restriction of gay rights, contraception, evolution in school, or religious preference, then I would wholly oppose them.

Iraq did not happen because of Christianity!

Not only atheistic regimes murder but atheistic ones far surpass the totals of others and while the others do contribute something from time to time atheistic regimes build nothing.

Indeed this would be "Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state."?

Yes, and you again show me that you are not following the conversation at all.

You can prove universal morals are social constructs ? Nextyou will be telling us all knowledge is a social construct.

This is irksome, but would require a large digression to address. For the time being I am focusing on dismantling your naive opinion of atheism, which you base on a misunderstanding of historical atrocities.

Can you list the great atheist civilizations? Or any that had and atheist principle atthe core which did anything useful?

By "atheist" civilization, do you mean civilizations which included atheists, or civilizations which enforced atheism, using it as a tool for their own fanatical endeavours?

It isn't an evangelical society. But it has the Christian view at it's core.
http://svp.ie/About-Us/Who-we-are.aspx

Where is the group which draw their inspiration and energy from atheism which attempt to live the core value (God does not exist) through an action oriented programme, working directly with people in need?

What Frederic Ozanam said

"The question which is agitating the world today is a social one. It is a struggle between those who have nothing and those who have too much. It is a violent clash of opulence and poverty which is shaking the ground under our feet. Our duty as Christians is to throw ourselves between these two camps in order to accomplish by love what justice alone cannot do."

What atheist organisation says " Our duty as atheists is to throw ourselves between these two camps in order to accomplish by love what justice alone cannot do."?
http://svp.ie/about-us/spirituality.aspx

So it is not an evangelical group. Hence, I have no issue with it. Again, I implore you to follow the conversation. It is not an organization promoting Christianity masquerading as a charity. It is an organization of people, inspired by Christianity, doing good works. Why would you expect me to have an issue with this?

A lack of belief does not inspire anything! that Is the point! And a proselyting of that atheism and demeaning and ridiculing those that do belief leads to cruelty and persecution of believers.

The first sentence is true. The sentence in bold is false. It is the Totalitarian oppression of human rights that leads to cruelty and persecution of believers.

all Cretans are liars
and
Marian is a a from Crete
then
Marian is a liar
IS logically consistent.

Yes. But why adopt the premise "all Cretans are liars"?

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

The conclusion we can draw from this is Totalitarianism is bad.

REally? always bad? Always? that is an absolute rule them is it?

What I have (repeatedly) said is that the principles of Totalitarianism are not the principles of atheism. Just as I would not claim the principles of humanism are not principles of atheism. This is an incredibly simple point.

Nor are the principles of communist or Christianity atheist. And when we look we see there were some benign (non atheistic) dictators and some Christian regimes which were bad ( thought the overwhelming majority contributed to society) and some humanists who believed in natural law who also did some good.
Not atheistic regime ever did though! All the regimes who spouted "there is no god" caused absolute mayhem and resluted in death and destruction. That is the simple point you seem to miss.

You ignore it every time, and get hung up on the fact that Totalitarian regimes use atheism as a tool to establish their own authority.

But regimes that back Christianity, Communist or anything else can in fact do some good and doint kill as many people. Those backing atheism always result in death.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. By "works" I mean "is in any way sustainable". I do not mean "is a good system of government". North Korea is a "working" Totalitarian state. But it is still abhorrent.

It is atheistic? does it surpress religious belief and promote an alternative?

Totalitarianism should be opposed in all forms.

Always? That is another absolute moral of yours is it?

I am saying the use of state-atheism in Totalitarian states is in no way a reflection of the validity of atheism, or the integrity of atheists.

But you also believe the use of Christianity you think is a reflection on the Christian religion?

I think if everyone freely chose atheism, along with humanist ideals, the world would be a better place.

But that would be like your "that isnt atheism it is totalism" excuse. Why can't they use anything else with humanist ideals for example? Why does it have to be atheism? And every time we had anyone saying "back atheism" a lot of people ended up dead.

How much better? I have no idea, and am not naive enough to believe it would solve all our problems. My enthusiasm for humanism only extends as far as opposition to the idea that there is an absolute authority that communicates through "appointed" individuals.

Christianity does not claim to have a absolute authority that communicates through appointed individuals no more than humanism claims some moral absolutes are communicated by them. If anyone speaks the truth they are infallible. You don't have to be the Pope to do it. Nor does Christianity say one should have blind faith.

Nice try. I have no problem with Christian values if they are shared by pluralist, secular society. I.e. If some of the values are incidentally Christian, then so be it. But the criteria for how we should be governed is not "Is it Christian?".

christianity has nothing to do with telling people how they should be goiverned. It does not favour democracy communism dictatorship or whatever. Render unto Caesar etc. It favours doing the morally good thing.

If values are enshrined into law that have no compelling secular argument, such as restriction of gay rights, contraception, evolution in school, or religious preference, then I would wholly oppose them.

The whole debate that Christianity is against the theory oif evolution is nonsense and is usually used by atheists as a stick to beat Christians when in fact it is a theory of a tiny number of Biblical fundamentalists.

By "atheist" civilization, do you mean civilizations which included atheists, or civilizations which enforced atheism, using it as a tool for their own fanatical endeavours?

The latter. That put atheism as a central tenet of their civilisation. that said "ther is no God" is something to convince others about and to spread and that those who believe in God are to be disparaged and ridiculed.

So it is not an evangelical group. Hence, I have no issue with it. Again, I implore you to follow the conversation. It is not an organization promoting Christianity masquerading as a charity.

It is promoting christianity! By doing christianity! It does not foicus on converting people to belief in Christianity . It focuses on central tenets that"ther is a God" means that thatbelief manifests in what they do. The "ther is no God" people never did anything loike that! In fact VdP was set up because atheists were attacking christianity in the coffee houses of Paris. They gave out about believers and drank lots of coffee but didn't actually help the poor based on their atheism.

It is an organization of people, inspired by Christianity, doing good works. Why would you expect me to have an issue with this?

Where are the organisations inspired by atheism doing great works?

The first sentence is true. The sentence in bold is false. It is the Totalitarian oppression of human rights that leads to cruelty and persecution of believers.

I have witnessed first hand atheists who openly admit they religion ois to be spurned and atheism to be promoted . I witnessed the same people attack and belittle religious believers wityh very cruel attacks. You say you left alt.atheism because of believers . My experience is of viscous personal attacks were by atheists and agnostics. I see the samne sentiments here and in the A&A forum. Having said that I would not like anyone to think I would identify you as that sort of person. You always seem quite reasonable and fair and not vindictive.

But why adopt the premise "all Cretans are liars"?

I didn't. I hastily took it up when Marianibad mentioned it.:)

tommy2bad

Where are the organisations inspired by atheism doing great works?

How can they, atheism isn't a belief, it's a fact, it can no more inspire than the fact that the moon is green cheese or water is wet. Try to see it from the atheist side, they don't believe in god therefore it isn't an issue for them.
What youre rilling against is stupid people who wast their time on Internet foru.....
Hmmmm I'll get me coat

lmaopml

Actually, a really good exchange. Thanks Morbert and ISAW. I think what ISAW is suggesting that even when we plead to subjective notions we are stating 'absolutes' about what is right and wrong to subscribe to, or what is marginally better subjectively, or marginally more wrong subjectively, i.e. relativism - An Atheist may be happy to bow to those, as their own subjective absolutes, but must concede they are a relativist.

However, not without facing up to the idea that so too could any other Atheist claim any 'absolute' from a subjective stance and one must ask, 'why' are some things universally wrong. Is it because human life, innocence and childhood, freedom are morally good things to protect? Why so? Is it because of the natural order, or is good and bad something beyond naturalism.

I think anyways


Please continue....good stuff so far!

ISAW

tommy2bad wrote: »

How can they, atheism isn't a belief, it's a fact, it can no more inspire than the fact that the moon is green cheese or water is wet.

You believe that do you? flippancy aside may i distinguish here between a subject and the meta subject.

Atheism being a belief or the fact that Christians believe in God is a fact.

This is a different matter as to whether what they believe is actually true.

Try to see it from the atheist side, they don't believe in god therefore it isn't an issue for them.

But for some of them it is. Now atheists are a very small percentage of the population ( well in Western countries anyway and in China it is declining) but whenever atheism is promoted as central to society bad things happen.

What youre rilling against is stupid people who wast their time on Internet foru.....
Hmmmm I'll get me coat

Maybe . Maybe Morbert can say "well those are just fundamentalist atheists and are just as bad as fundamentalist Christians." But i don't see him disavowing himself from Hitchens RIP or Dawkings for their rather nasty attacks on religion.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

You believe that do you? flippancy aside may i distinguish here between a subject and the meta subject.

Atheism being a belief or the fact that Christians believe in God is a fact.

This is a different matter as to whether what they believe is actually true.



But for some of them it is. Now atheists are a very small percentage of the population ( well in Western countries anyway and in China it is declining) but whenever atheism is promoted as central to society bad things happen.



Maybe . Maybe Morbert can say "well those are just fundamentalist atheists and are just as bad as fundamentalist Christians." But i don't see him disavowing himself from Hitchens RIP or Dawkings for their rather nasty attacks on religion.

ISAW , you just don't get it- atheism is not a belief system , it is just a fact, not that it is true/untue but that a person is one , in the same way that they are dog lover or a stamp collector. Continuing to shoe horn totalitarianism on to it is just meaningless. I may just as well substitute child abuse every time I see catholic .

As for Dawkins and Hitchens - will you grow up ! Do you honestly think The Catholic Church gives a fiddlers curse about them ? And even if it did they are perfectly entitled to express their views as are those christians I saw on one website who delighted in his illness as divine retribution .

Are you seriously proposing that they shoud be prevented in some way from expressing their views ?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW , you just don't get it- atheism is not a belief system , it is just a fact, not that it is true/untue but that a person is one , in the same way that they are dog lover or a stamp collector.

Marianabad you juystdont get it.

1.Atheism is a belief in no God ~( or a lack of belief in a God)
2.Christianity is a belief in a God.

Both 1 and 2 are facts i.e. definitions but the belief expressed in both of them is either true or false.

The statement exists that is a fact at the meta level. What the statement says may or may not be true.

Continuing to shoe horn totalitarianism on to it is just meaningless. I may just as well substitute child abuse every time I see catholic .

But do you apply the same standards to non atheists! Christianity is constantly presented by atheists as a religion which causes harm. That the world is better without it. They are usually very careful not to attack a person ( defamation) but instead attack the religion with the "I'm not saying this for any Christians just saying it for their religion"
Which is like the difference between 1 and 2 and the difference between "what 1 and 2 state"

As for Dawkins and Hitchens - will you grow up ! Do you honestly think The Catholic Church gives a fiddlers curse about them ?

We are not discussing about whether the church cares about them ( which incidentally it does so you can forget the implication sideswipe at "The Church" as a non caring/harmful body ) but whether they should have the same standards that they apply to others.

And even if it did they are perfectly entitled to express their views as are those christians

Yes they are but 1 or 2 can't both be right can they? It is when people act on views that the trouble begins. Such as attacking the pope or insiting hatred.

I saw on one website who delighted in his illness as divine retribution .

I would not call such people christian no more than the fake Landover Baptist
or Westboro Baptist. Buitsuch fringe fundamentalist christian elements are frequently touted as representative of Christianity. The think is Dawkings and Hitchens are not regarded as fringe fundamentalists by atheists are they?

Are you seriously proposing that they shoud be prevented in some way from expressing their views ?

Not atall. I'm suggesting that if they are regarded with esteem then atheists should say that. Christians and Muslims completely disavow themselves from fringe fundamentalists and say it has nothing to do with Christianity and is a corruption of Christian belief.

Morbert seems to be saying the same of fundamentalist preachy anti Christian atheists who are the ones with which I have a problem. They ( atheists and fundie atheists) are a tiny percentage of the population anyway. But that does demote them as a belligerent nasty element.

Im quite happy to not go on about them when atheists reject them just as I'm quite happy to discuss Christianity Islam fascism or whatever as long as people don't start categorising "Christians" or "Muslims" as if they were the minority fundamentalist element. But they keep returning to categorising the Pope or some Bishop in with creationists and "God hates fags" elements.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Marianabad you juystdont get it.

1.Atheism is a belief in no God ~( or a lack of belief in a God)
2.Christianity is a belief in a God.

Both 1 and 2 are facts i.e. definitions but the belief expressed in both of them is either true or false.

The statement exists that is a fact at the meta level. What the statement says may or may not be true.



But do you apply the same standards to non atheists! Christianity is constantly presented by atheists as a religion which causes harm. That the world is better without it. They are usually very careful not to attack a person ( defamation) but instead attack the religion with the "I'm not saying this for any Christians just saying it for their religion"
Which is like the difference between 1 and 2 and the difference between "what 1 and 2 state"



We are not discussing about whether the church cares about them ( which incidentally it does so you can forget the implication sideswipe at "The Church" as a non caring/harmful body ) but whether they should have the same standards that they apply to others.



Yes they are but 1 or 2 can't both be right can they? It is when people act on views that the trouble begins. Such as attacking the pope or insiting hatred.



I would not call such people christian no more than the fake Landover Baptist
or Westboro Baptist. Buitsuch fringe fundamentalist christian elements are frequently touted as representative of Christianity. The think is Dawkings and Hitchens are not regarded as fringe fundamentalists by atheists are they?


Not atall. I'm suggesting that if they are regarded with esteem then atheists should say that. Christians and Muslims completely disavow themselves from fringe fundamentalists and say it has nothing to do with Christianity and is a corruption of Christian belief.

Morbert seems to be saying the same of fundamentalist preachy anti Christian atheists who are the ones with which I have a problem. They ( atheists and fundie atheists) are a tiny percentage of the population anyway. But that does demote them as a belligerent nasty element.

Im quite happy to not go on about them when atheists reject them just as I'm quite happy to discuss Christianity Islam fascism or whatever as long as people don't start categorising "Christians" or "Muslims" as if they were the minority fundamentalist element. But they keep returning to categorising the Pope or some Bishop in with creationists and "God hates fags" elements.

As I said earlier, complete waste of time, this guy cannot function without a simplistic either/or artificial dilemma .

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

As I said earlier, complete waste of time, this guy cannot function without a simplistic either/or artificial dilemma .

Logic Marianibad is based on the idea of propositional statements arriving at other conclusions. the thread is about atheism and believers in God. We can't prove either side so I am discussing the implications of those beliefs. I am using empirical data to support my position. If you can't cope with Socratic dialogue ( tedious and all as it is) don't blame me for that.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

REally? always bad? Always? that is an absolute rule them is it?

Nor are the principles of communist or Christianity atheist. And when we look we see there were some benign (non atheistic) dictators and some Christian regimes which were bad ( thought the overwhelming majority contributed to society) and some humanists who believed in natural law who also did some good.
Not atheistic regime ever did though! All the regimes who spouted "there is no god" caused absolute mayhem and resluted in death and destruction. That is the simple point you seem to miss.

But regimes that back Christianity, Communist or anything else can in fact do some good and doint kill as many people. Those backing atheism always result in death.

It is atheistic? does it surpress religious belief and promote an alternative?

Always? That is another absolute moral of yours is it?

And again I reiterate (not for you at this stage, but for anyone who might be reading this), the fact that Totalitarian regimes which put themselves as the ultimate authority end in disaster says absolutely nothing about atheism, or the integrity of atheists. You have not even attempted to demonstrate otherwise, and instead contrive a silly conclusion that convinces nobody but yourself.

But you also believe the use of Christianity you think is a reflection on the Christian religion?

I have made it clear that this is not my position. If I wasn't familiar with your reactionary posting style, I would say you were being a little disingenuous here.

But that would be like your "that isnt atheism it is totalism" excuse. Why can't they use anything else with humanist ideals for example? Why does it have to be atheism? And every time we had anyone saying "back atheism" a lot of people ended up dead.

As I have said before, they don't adopt humanist ideals. And they adopt atheism because they want to minimise the number of subversive, counter-cultural elements in society. "Dear Leader" is more impressive than "Subordinate to God". And again, this says nothing about atheism, or the integrity of atheists. The vast majority of atheists in western society are humanists. This fact alone is enough to refute your crazy conclusions.

Christianity does not claim to have a absolute authority that communicates through appointed individuals no more than humanism claims some moral absolutes are communicated by them. If anyone speaks the truth they are infallible. You don't have to be the Pope to do it. Nor does Christianity say one should have blind faith.

christianity has nothing to do with telling people how they should be goiverned. It does not favour democracy communism dictatorship or whatever. Render unto Caesar etc. It favours doing the morally good thing.

The whole debate that Christianity is against the theory oif evolution is nonsense and is usually used by atheists as a stick to beat Christians when in fact it is a theory of a tiny number of Biblical fundamentalists.

While I could argue with much of this (the last paragraph is especially wrong), does any of it contradict what I said? I said I have no problem with values shared by Christians and atheists alike, and would oppose any non-secular criteria for determining laws people are governed by.

The latter. That put atheism as a central tenet of their civilisation. that said "ther is no God" is something to convince others about and to spread and that those who believe in God are to be disparaged and ridiculed.

Hitler put Darwinism (a fact-based statement) as a central tenet of his governmental policies. Does it say anything about Darwinism, or about whether or not people in power should be Darwinists?

It is promoting christianity! By doing christianity! It does not foicus on converting people to belief in Christianity . It focuses on central tenets that"ther is a God" means that thatbelief manifests in what they do. The "ther is no God" people never did anything loike that! In fact VdP was set up because atheists were attacking christianity in the coffee houses of Paris. They gave out about believers and drank lots of coffee but didn't actually help the poor based on their atheism.

The caricature is ridiculous. Atheists do help the poor. Your silly criteria that it be "based on their atheism", as I have pointed out numerous times, is silly. People don't help the poor based on superconductivity either. People help the poor, based on their humanism.

Where are the organisations inspired by atheism doing great works?

Let's try this again.

Christianity can inspire great works. Therefore Christians can do great works.

Humanism can inspire great works. Therefore atheists can do great works.

The great work of atheists include numerous medical and scientific breakthroughs in the 20th century, the work of Nobel laureates, and the establishment of, and contribution to, charities.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

And again I reiterate (not for you at this stage, but for anyone who might be reading this), the fact that Totalitarian regimes which put themselves as the ultimate authority end in disaster says absolutely nothing about atheism, or the integrity of atheists. You have not even attempted to demonstrate otherwise, and instead contrive a silly conclusion that convinces nobody but yourself.

Again Ill leave Fasgnadh say it:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion/browse_frm/thread/58c9df7a83bdd7e3/68ba2728148b4e5d?tvc=1#68ba2728148b4e5d
I wish you blokes would make up your mind; the other atheists have
been claiming that religion is one long string of violent acts, the
Crusades, Inquisition, Holy Wars.. and that the reason there are no
atheist civilisations is that they were all cowering in fear of
these aggressive Christians and Muslims and Buddhists,

We all know the examples where people CLAIMING to be followers of a
religion ignore it's laws and principles and do harm to others.
Sensible people note that the vast majority of people in those faiths
condemn and repudiate acts of criminal violence, wars of aggression,
acts of terror, which are forbidden by every religion.

Better to have the laws, occasionally breached by wrongdoers, than
atheism, which has no moral or philosophical restraints on violence,
as the world has witnessed in EVERY atheist state, where brutality,
oppression, persecution, fear and despair ruled.

That's why the religions produced great and enduring civilisations,
with occasional aberrations, while EVERY atheist state was a horrific
aberration, and no civilisations were ever produced.

But while you attribute every wrongdoing thing done 'in the name
of religion', even if by an atypical minority, to ALL religions.
while you won't acknowledge any crimes committed by atheists,
even though EVERY atheist state was a totalitarian tyranny, EVERY
member of the ruling coven of tyrants was an atheist, more were killed
than by any religion in history, and atheist states have never produced
a single decent democracy to offset the horrors.

Everyone can see how prejudiced your views are, you damn others
for acts committed by anyone claiming to be part of a religious
community, and make excuses for the only kind of states atheism
has ever produced; murderous tyrannies.

If that doiesn't demonstrate otherwise how about

Every member of the Politburo and
Central Committee of the USSR and Maoist China, which together
killed over 60,000,000 people, (far more than any religion) was
an ATHEIST.

But you apparently believe that them being atheist is just a co incidence and demonstrates nothing at all about atheism? If however they were all Catholics or Muslims they would be "religious fanatics" ?

I have made it clear that this is not my position. If I wasn't familiar with your reactionary posting style, I would say you were being a little disingenuous here.

You think Im being disingenuous because I point out the Politburo were atheist? How about if they were all Catholic or Muslim? You atheist pals would be here crying about evil religious dictatorships would they not?

As I have said before, they don't adopt humanist ideals. And they adopt atheism because they want to minimise the number of subversive, counter-cultural elements in society.

You accuse me of being disingenuous about things and you refer to humanist "ideals" while you deny the "ideal" of natural law?
You also say totalitarianism can only exist where people don't elieve in a higher authority -like God. Atheists don't believe in a higher authoruity. REligious believers do believe in one. Note any similarities with your definition?

"Dear Leader" is more impressive than "Subordinate to God". And again, this says nothing about atheism, or the integrity of atheists. The vast majority of atheists in western society are humanists. This fact alone is enough to refute your crazy conclusions.

Atheists are a small percentage of society to begin with! But as I stated it refutes nothing because whenever atheism was promoted as a central tenet society collapsed whereas when god was promoted it didn't!

While I could argue with much of this (the last paragraph is especially wrong), does any of it contradict what I said? I said I have no problem with values shared by Christians and atheists alike, and would oppose any non-secular criteria for determining laws people are governed by.

But they don't share a belief in God! Societies founded by group A believer thrived and by group B people ended in destruction.

Hitler put Darwinism (a fact-based statement) as a central tenet of his governmental policies.

Social darwinism. I don't need to tell you biological "evolution" of a species and social "evolution" of a soiciety asre two different uses of the word "evolution" do I? Maybe I do because it is atheists like Dawkings who promoted "memetics" the modern counterpart.

With your "universal humanism"
You tout a line of reasoning which the "brights" of this world might support?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement

Then again your have something here in common with one of the four horsemen of atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett

tommy2bad

@ISAW
What are you saying? that atheism is provably bad and theism is provably good?
Because if you are then you are making the mistake of confusing atheism with anti theism.
I can be an atheist and have no problem with Humanism, Islam or Wicca. I can be a theist and be the same.
What I cant do is be a theist or atheist and promote it to the exclusion of all else and be still ok with other ideas.
Intolerance is your enemy not indifference.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Logic Marianibad is based on the idea of propositional statements arriving at other conclusions. the thread is about atheism and believers in God. We can't prove either side so I am discussing the implications of those beliefs. I am using empirical data to support my position. If you can't cope with Socratic dialogue ( tedious and all as it is) don't blame me for that.

not really ISAW- again another false dilemma - atheism is a fact , in the same way stamp collecting is a fact - that is all there is to it.

you are trying to make it a totalitarianism v christianity dilemma when it is not. Your cod philosophy is all wrong when your premise is all wrong.
As I said ''all cretans are liars''

It is a pity as we could be having a brilliant discussion. But at this stage having seen you in action across a number of threads it would appear to me that your objective is to stifle any possibility of dialogue

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

not really ISAW- again another false dilemma - atheism is a fact , in the same way stamp collecting is a fact - that is all there is to it.

And yet we have an atheist, in another thread on this forum, speaking disparagingly of CS Lewis and Alister McGrath because they never wrote anything about Atheism when they were atheists that has impressed other atheists.

So, would it be a valid criticism of an author on stamp collecting that, in the days before he started collecting stamps, he never wrote anything on non-stamp collecting that impressed other non-collectors of stamps? :pac:

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

And yet we have an atheist, in another thread on this forum, speaking disparagingly of CS Lewis and Alister McGrath because they never wrote anything about Atheism when they were atheists that has impressed other atheists.

So, would it be a valid criticism of an author on stamp collecting that, in the days before he started collecting stamps, he never wrote anything on non-stamp collecting that impressed other non-collectors of stamps? :pac:

I donno ? would it? If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle , then on the other had we would have would the match if we had a decent goalkeeper, or would we ? But then if Alexander had turned right instead of left none of this would have happened. Or would it ?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

I donno ? would it? If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle , then on the other had we would have would the match if we had a decent goalkeeper, or would we ? But then if Alexander had turned right instead of left none of this would have happened. Or would it ?

You are argueing against something PDN didnt propose'. His was not a statement of "what if" pseudo history. He and I are pointing out issues of type or set catagorisation. I am pointing out that a different set of standards seem to apply to the religious believers than those that apply to the atheists.