Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Except for the fact hat ALL the "there is no god" governments were oppressive murder regimes and the ones that allowed religion were not.

And as for arguments falling apart . Do you realy believe atheism is a better way?
Do you relly believe Norway is an atheist country? do you believe Norway has adopted atheism in any way whatsoever as part of their constitution like it has the Lutheran church?

You keep trying to build straw men. Conflating "Totalitarian, oppressive regimes that enforced state-atheism and absolute anti-clericalism, along with imposing socioeconomic change through violence always resulted in atrocities." And "atheism itself, even in the context of a secular pluralist societyl, will result in atrocities."

Norway, as I have said before, is a secular pluralist country with a predominantly atheist population, it a falsification of the claim that atheism in society predisposes that society to barbarism.

do you believe society would be better if people were atheist and religion was rejected?

That is an impossible question to answer. I believe it would be "better" insofar as I consider atheism to be true and I like it when true things are accepted by people. I do not, however, believe we would suddenly bloom into a utopian society. The "benefit" of atheism extends only as far as a better understanding of metaphysics, just as the "benefit" of Fourier transforms is a better understanding of frequency spaces.

As for "rejecting" religion: I do believe society would be better if some aspects of religion were rejected, such as the derivation of morality from a supreme authority that communicates by proxy. But I also accept positive influences religion can have. It is a lot easier to donate money to charity if you feel it helps bring about the rebirth of a perfect world free of the smallest shred of sin and suffering.

Okay wee let you into the club then but if you start any trouble you will be barred.

And what's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

Funny how you are "well aware" of 50% Catholic" and before i pointed it out to you you claimed you never were aware of it at all.
When i stated I interpret "lets start by getting rid of 50% of ethos schools" as an anti family anti church atheists together way. you said message 2148 " I cannot find that quote. Are you making things up again?"

I specifically asked you for the quote you provided, the one that began with "Let's start by...", implying an anti-Catholic, anti-family "atheist way" conspiracy. The quote I provided clearly outlines the motivation behind lifting the monopoly of Catholic-ethos schools (note that he is not getting rid of them, as plenty still want them).

You are the one fudging now. Quite clerly I stated atheist = ther is no God.
So you want to call all peopl ewho believe in supernatural tyhings who are not part of mainstream religions atheist. Even then the numbers are tiny and that is so for Narway.
You can't get off the hook trying this and trying to call Lutherans atheist.

But in any case I have stated to you before by hard "atheist" I mean no God and no supernatural forces.

So only hard atheists commit atrocities? Believing in ghosts somehow also predisposes you away from genocide?

tommy2bad

Believing in ghosts somehow also predisposes you away from genocide?

Well no one wants 6 million ghosts chasing them :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

So marien. You are very happy to take arguments not made by such as "Norway is an atheist country" and turn them into a claim I didn't make like "Isaw believes all countries should be like Norway"?

I just can't make ane sense of this post.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

You keep trying to build straw men. Conflating "Totalitarian, oppressive regimes that enforced state-atheism and absolute anti-clericalism, along with imposing socioeconomic change through violence always resulted in atrocities." And "atheism itself, even in the context of a secular pluralist societyl, will result in atrocities."

It is quite simple
Any society in history that brought atheism as a principle into government was atrocious.
Almost all societies which adopted cvhristianity was a principle in government were not!

Norway, as I have said before, is a secular pluralist country

Norway is a country with a christian Church linked to the State and built on christian principles for 1000 years!

with a predominantly atheist population,

It has NOT got a predominantly atheist population!

You evidence is
1. - a cartoon which is wrong on several claimed "facts"
2. - your opinion that Bhuddists ( also less than a per cent of Norway) are atheist and anyone not say9ing they are christian are automatically atheist
i.e. Hogwash!

My evidence is
1. Gallup - a recognised international pollter
2. The Internationally recogniseed Human Development Index
3. Eurostat- the Eu official statistics agency
4. The Norwegian States own statistical census
5. The Church of Norway's own statements
6. The Norwegian constitution

it a falsification of the claim that atheism in society predisposes that society to barbarism.

It is a straw man to try to shift your claim from "Norway is atheist " to "Norway has atheism in socity"

It is a "shifting the burden" fallacy to try to suggest I support a counter claim that to your contention that an atheistic society or a society of atheists ( who dont actually enact any laws or principles based on their atheism in spite of a society being 100% atheist) would be a better society.

Nor do I calim I can logically prove 100% atheism will result in atrocities.
All I can say is
Any society in history that brought atheism as a principle into government was atrocious.
Almost all societies which adopted Christianity was a principle in government were not!
I suspect 100% atheism would result in some atheist principles being enacted.
Why else would you want a 100% atheist society? Just so you can do nothing about it when it happens?

That is an impossible question to answer. I believe it would be "better" insofar as I consider atheism to be true and I like it when true things are accepted by people. I do not, however, believe we would suddenly bloom into a utopian society. The "benefit" of atheism extends only as far as a better understanding of metaphysics, just as the "benefit" of Fourier transforms is a better understanding of frequency spaces.

So in this "society of the truth" ( which of course is just what you believe to be true) you would not have any rules to enforce that truth? What if it turns out not to be the truth? Also, if you are not going to insist people follow atheism why not just leave them alone now and if they want atheist together schools let the state support them and if they want Islamic schools let the state support that?

As for "rejecting" religion: I do believe society would be better if some aspects of religion were rejected, such as the derivation of morality from a supreme authority that communicates by proxy.

So "away with natural law" and "away with God" I thought you didn't agree to such principles being brought in? so apparently you believe society would be better if something
was done but you don't believe in anyone actually doing it? so why not just leave it alone then?

But I also accept positive influences religion can have. It is a lot easier to donate money to charity if you feel it helps bring about the rebirth of a perfect world free of the smallest shred of sin and suffering.

It is a lot better not to donate money and to actually do something yourself. Or to give up all your money and worldly possessions and devote your life to helping. i don't see many atheists doing that. Gilmore when a Councillor opposed planning for a house being built and then about ten years later bought the land himself and built his own house there. His wife acquired about a million in selling land which went up in price as development land when his party complained about land price hikes. Bacik had an earner as a TCD lecturer 9 as far as i know she keeps the Job open) while double jobbing as a Senator. Quinn sends his kids to fee paying religious schools ( and indeed he and his brother went to one themselves and his brother is one of the richest people in Ireland.) I don't know about the brother but all the others are atheists. i mention it because the "50% of schools" idea seems to come from that element of the Labour Party who also support abortion etc. I don't think the same element are so widespread or strong in the "lets talk about the Vatican Embassy" element of Fine Gael or in Sinn féin or Fianna Fáil.

I specifically asked you for the quote you provided, the one that began with "Let's start by...", implying an anti-Catholic, anti-family "atheist way" conspiracy. The quote I provided clearly outlines the motivation behind lifting the monopoly of Catholic-ethos schools (note that he is not getting rid of them, as plenty still want them).

By suggesting a 50% target - as I pointed out!
If you think I meant anything other than Quinn was proposing 50% as a target then I can't really clarify that any further.

So only hard atheists commit atrocities? Believing in ghosts somehow also predisposes you away from genocide?

My position on this is quite clear. Hard atheists who do not believe in God spirits etc. are the militant type that attack the Church . Dawkings Hitchens and the like. IOther atheists are happy not to attack the Church and the church are happy to work with them for example by donating schools to them. Whenever militant atheism got into political power genocide followed.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

It is quite simple
Any society in history that brought atheism as a principle into government was atrocious.
Almost all societies which adopted cvhristianity was a principle in government were not!

Atheism... is... not... a... guiding... principle...

The Societies you are talking about adopted Totalitarianism as a guiding principle. Their Totalitarianism included state-enforced atheism. So what? You are trying to use the above to justify the claim that a secular pluralist society with an atheist majority will commit atrocities.

Furthermore, societies that didn't enforce atheism (even opposed it) also committed great atrocities. Look at Nazi Germany, the Belgian Congo, and the colonization of the new world.

Norway is a country with a christian Church linked to the State and built on christian principles for 1000 years!

And most people in Norway don't believe in God.

It has NOT got a predominantly atheist population!

You evidence is
1. - a cartoon which is wrong on several claimed "facts"
2. - your opinion that Bhuddists ( also less than a per cent of Norway) are atheist and anyone not say9ing they are christian are automatically atheist
i.e. Hogwash!

My evidence is
1. Gallup - a recognised international pollter
2. The Internationally recogniseed Human Development Index
3. Eurostat- the Eu official statistics agency
4. The Norwegian States own statistical census
5. The Church of Norway's own statements
6. The Norwegian constitution

My evidence is is the Eurobarometer, the only surver which explicitly focuses on whether or not "There is a God" is a belief held by the population. 70% said no, 30% said yes.

Furthermore, you keep ignoring the problem with "Church of Norway statistics", as people are automatically registered unless they officially opt out. Again, by that logic, I am a Congregationalist, as I have never officially opted out of that church, despite being baptised as a member.

It is a straw man to try to shift your claim from "Norway is atheist " to "Norway has atheism in socity"

It is a "shifting the burden" fallacy to try to suggest I support a counter claim that to your contention that an atheistic society or a society of atheists ( who dont actually enact any laws or principles based on their atheism in spite of a society being 100% atheist) would be a better society.

Nor do I calim I can logically prove 100% atheism will result in atrocities.
All I can say is
Any society in history that brought atheism as a principle into government was atrocious.
Almost all societies which adopted Christianity was a principle in government were not!
I suspect 100% atheism would result in some atheist principles being enacted.
Why else would you want a 100% atheist society? Just so you can do nothing about it when it happens?

This is hilarious. You build a straw man, and then when I don't argue against your straw man, you accuse me of building a straw man. Again, this suggests you know you are wrong, and are trying to change the argument to make me look wrong.

I will give you another chance: Do you believe a secular, pluralist society, with an atheist majority, will inevitably commit atrocities? If the answer is no, do you therefore agree that majority atheism in a society does not automatically predispose that society to atrocities?

So in this "society of the truth" ( which of course is just what you believe to be true) you would not have any rules to enforce that truth?

No. People are free to believe whatever they like. Laws only exist to protect the welfare of the citizenry.

What if it turns out not to be the truth? Also, if you are not going to insist people follow atheism why not just leave them alone now and if they want atheist together schools let the state support them and if they want Islamic schools let the state support that?

I specifically said I would not insist people follow atheism! You are incredibly bad at understanding what people say.

So "away with natural law" and "away with God" I thought you didn't agree to such principles being brought in? so apparently you believe society would be better if something
was done but you don't believe in anyone actually doing it? so why not just leave it alone then?

I specifically said I would be happy if people freely did it, but would be 100% opposed to enforcing it. You are incredibly bad at understanding what people say.

By suggesting a 50% target - as I pointed out!
If you think I meant anything other than Quinn was proposing 50% as a target then I can't really clarify that any further.

So the quote doesn't exist? You have no evidence of a great conspiracy?

My position on this is quite clear. Hard atheists who do not believe in God spirits etc. are the militant type that attack the Church . Dawkings Hitchens and the like. IOther atheists are happy not to attack the Church and the church are happy to work with them for example by donating schools to them. Whenever militant atheism got into political power genocide followed.

Dawkins does not attack the church, unless you classify voicing his disagreement with the Church as an attack. In which case you have been attacking atheism left, right, and centre.

But anyway, you have changed your position. Now it is materialists who cause atrocities? It is belief in the supernatural, rather than God, that stops societies like Norway from killing each other?

tommy2bad

Dawkins does not attack the church,

Er, he dose, He has described religion as a virus and religious education as child abuse.
He not only attacks but he makes himself ridiculous doing it.

So "away with natural law" and "away with God"

Are they synonymous ?
What exactly is 'natural law' ?

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Atheism... is... not... a... guiding... principle...

Anyone society who used it as a guiding principle failed.
Societeis that used Christianity didn't fail.
so atheism as a societal motif compared to Christianity falls a bit short.

The Societies you are talking about adopted Totalitarianism as a guiding principle. Their Totalitarianism included state-enforced atheism. So what? You are trying to use the above to justify the claim that a secular pluralist society with an atheist majority will commit atrocities.
[/quopte]

No I am not. Chriswtianity are happy to accept secularism. But in majority christian countries wher they ahve no church State connection or in Christian controlled societies or in societies constitutionally linked to Christianity they are not a mess. Societyes using atheism as a better way however all failed.

Furthermore, societies that didn't enforce atheism (even opposed it) also committed great atrocities. Look at Nazi Germany, the Belgian Congo, and the colonization of the new world.

FEW Christian societies did! Belgian Congo was not done for enforcing Christianity. the Marxist Atheist element of the Congo however was done in the name of Godless atheism.
the Nazi's were not christian and the Pope opposed Naziism.

And most people in Norway don't believe in God.

You still are trying your "Norway is atheists" cartoon logic

My evidence is is the Eurobarometer, the only surver which explicitly focuses on whether or not "There is a God" is a belief held by the population. 70% said no, 30% said yes.

Rubbish!
When asked whether the person "do you believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force".
only 17% of Norwegians said no!

Furthermore, you keep ignoring the problem with "Church of Norway statistics", as people are automatically registered unless they officially opt out. Again, by that logic, I am a Congregationalist, as I have never officially opted out of that church, despite being baptised as a member.

the stats are backed up by Gallup Eurostat and other sources. You are living in a cartoon land.

I will give you another chance: Do you believe a secular, pluralist society, with an atheist majority, will inevitably commit atrocities?

1. Norway is not atheist!
2. Anytime atheism was adopted in the past it resulted in atrocities.
3. I dont think a Christian country will inevitably commit atrocities obnly that they normally never do and while they sometimes do atheist led countries always resulted in atrocities.

If the answer is no, do you therefore agree that majority atheism in a society does not automatically predispose that society to atrocities?

I cant prove it does. Can you prove it doesn't? All I can say is whenever atheism got into power atrocities happened. Norway is not atheism in power.

I specifically said I would not insist people follow atheism! You are incredibly bad at understanding what people say.

so you are happy to follow the ethos schools model?

I specifically said I would be happy if people freely did it, but would be 100% opposed to enforcing it. You are incredibly bad at understanding what people say.

So you are happy for people to freely support ethos schools?

So the quote doesn't exist? You have no evidence of a great conspiracy?

Quinn supported the idea of the 50% of schools target. He stated it twice in the speech I supplied.

Dawkins does not attack the church, unless you classify voicing his disagreement with the Church as an attack.

I have heard him personally . He attacked the church having anything to do with education. He did so saying that it was much worse then any child sexual abuse.

In which case you have been attacking atheism left, right, and centre.

Mostly left.

But anyway, you have changed your position. Now it is materialists who cause atrocities? It is belief in the supernatural, rather than God, that stops societies like Norway from killing each other?

Norway is not atheist! You can't get off the hook that way for your cartoon claim.

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

Er, he dose, He has described religion as a virus and religious education as child abuse.
He not only attacks but he makes himself ridiculous doing it.


Are they synonymous ?
What exactly is 'natural law' ?

Dawkins interviewed the Late Chris Hitchens just prior to Christmas; Hitchens I actually admired far more to be honest as a very real human being, sometimes bitter, sometimes crass, but always honest and rough and ready, takes no shyte..a real human blessed with the gift of the gab, and a questioning insight that should not be wrote off.

During the Interview, Dawkins asked the question...in a nice accent...

''If we 'win' and kill Christianity, do you think that Islam will fill the vacuum?'' Jeepers!

Because you just know the common people are idiots really, bless em.....and not really in control of their own brains, it's all those chemicals etc. lets take a picture and examine them - these weird creatures, deluded gosh and oh gee golly. Ahh yes - they won't because they are already bought somehow, what an oddity they are and me Richard completely different - strange that...

I wonder, what would he do if he 'won' lol...how beligerant is the pen sometimes -

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Anyone society who used it as a guiding principle failed.
Societeis that used Christianity didn't fail.
so atheism as a societal motif compared to Christianity falls a bit short.

Which has nothing to do with your claim that atheism causes atrocities. Atheism, like superconductivity or Fourier transforms, is not a societal motif. It is a metaphysical statement about the existence of God.

No I am not. Chriswtianity are happy to accept secularism. But in majority christian countries wher they ahve no church State connection or in Christian controlled societies or in societies constitutionally linked to Christianity they are not a mess. Societyes using atheism as a better way however all failed.

So a secular pluralist society, dominated by atheists, will not cause atrocities?

FEW Christian societies did! Belgian Congo was not done for enforcing Christianity. the Marxist Atheist element of the Congo however was done in the name of Godless atheism.
the Nazi's were not christian and the Pope opposed Naziism.

The above, again, has several problems, but I will not indulge in regressions while you still peddle your nonsense about atheism.

You still are trying your "Norway is atheists" cartoon logic

Rubbish!
When asked whether the person "do you believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force".
only 17% of Norwegians said no!

And when asked "Do you believe in God", 70% said no. Again, atheists can believe in all sorts of spirits or life forces. They simply reject the notion of God/gods.

1. Norway is not atheist!
2. Anytime atheism was adopted in the past it resulted in atrocities.
3. I dont think a Christian country will inevitably commit atrocities obnly that they normally never do and while they sometimes do atheist led countries always resulted in atrocities.

I notice you did not answer the questions at all, and instead said wrong and irrelevant things. Do you believe a secular, pluralist society, with an atheist majority, will inevitably commit atrocities? If the answer is no, do you therefore agree that majority atheism in a society does not automatically predispose that society to atrocities?

so you are happy to follow the ethos schools model?

I am happy for the school ethos to reflect the demand.

So you are happy for people to freely support ethos schools?

Yes. I have not problem with "ethos" schools, provided it does not extend beyond "ethos". I would have a huge problem with the doctrine of hell and damnation for other religions being taught in school as fact.

Quinn supported the idea of the 50% of schools target. He stated it twice in the speech I supplied.

And? What does this have to do with your quote "Let's start"

I have heard him personally . He attacked the church having anything to do with education. He did so saying that it was much worse then any child sexual abuse.

Here is a quote from Dawkins

"I can't speak about the really grave sexual abuse that obviously happens sometimes, which actually causes violent physical pain to the altar boy or whoever it is, but I suspect that most of the sexual abuse priests are accused of is comparatively mild - a little bit of fondling perhaps, and a young child might scarcely notice that. The damage, if there is damage, is going to be mental damage anyway, not physical damage. Being taught about hell - being taught that if you sin you will go to everlasting damnation, and really believing that - is going to be a harder piece of child abuse than the comparatively mild sexual abuse"

I have several problems with what he says, but if this is "attacking" the Church, then I am all for "attacking" the Church. Just as I would not stop you from "attacking" atheism, and would respond with "defensive" counterpoints in the hope of "massacring" incorrect statements.

Norway is not atheist! You can't get off the hook that way for your cartoon claim.

Your entire position is unravelling. I do not care about your "The majority of Norwegians don't believe in God, but they're still not atheists" nonsensical position. But either way, now it is materialists who cause atrocities? It is belief in the supernatural, rather than God, that stops societies like Norway from killing each other?

tommy2bad

Posted by Morbert;
it is materialists who cause atrocities? It is belief in the supernatural, rather than God, that stops societies like Norway from killing each other?

No, it the fact that they live in a society that derives its values from a Christian-enlightenment ethos. ISAW will never credit the enlightenment part or will claim that it is a Christian value (he might be right) but the fact remains that the Christian influence is a major contributer to their success as a society.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the theist element of Christianity is what makes the difference but 1500 years of empire and administration must have contributed something to our knowledge of how to run a state. If we have anything to learn from or thank Christianity for, it's that.

Morbert

tommy2bad wrote: »

No, it the fact that they live in a society that derives its values from a Christian-enlightenment ethos. ISAW will never credit the enlightenment part or will claim that it is a Christian value (he might be right) but the fact remains that the Christian influence is a major contributer to their success as a society.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the theist element of Christianity is what makes the difference but 1500 years of empire and administration must have contributed something to our knowledge of how to run a state. If we have anything to learn from or thank Christianity for, it's that.

ISAW is saying that, even though the majority of people in Norway don't believe in God, materialists are in the minority, which is why it has not committed atrocities. This implies his problem is not with atheism, but with materialism.

I have told him before that I had no problem with a society adopting "Christian values", provided those values are shared by others. Confucius's golden rule "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself." is a Christian value. It is also a secular humanist value. And I agree with much of "cultural Christianity".

tommy2bad

Originally Posted by Morbert;
ISAW is saying that, even though the majority of people in Norway don't believe in God, materialists are in the minority, which is why it has not committed atrocities. This implies his problem is not with atheism, but with materialism.

Terms that are often confused and used as sequitur - 'atheistic materialism'. Instrumentalist is the correct term and applies as much to Christianity as atheism. Once man becomes the means and not the end, you're in big trouble.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Which has nothing to do with your claim that atheism causes atrocities. Atheism, like superconductivity or Fourier transforms, is not a societal motif. It is a metaphysical statement about the existence of God.

Exactly! Just like Christianity . Im only referring to societies which say it is worth promoting these metaphysical statements as a societal motif. You claim neither chould be promoted. I just show you that both were in history. Whenever atheism was it resulted in death. Christianity resulted in positive things with some rare exceptions.

So a secular pluralist society, dominated by atheists, will not cause atrocities?

The point is that you may argue secularism is preferable to either Christianity or atheism as a motief but when given one or the other they dont perform the same and are not equal in record. And while you lciam secularism you also admit you would prefer a society of all atheists .

The above, again, has several problems, but I will not indulge in regressions while you still peddle your nonsense about atheism.

But Christianity can be a motif and atheism can't? - double standards!

And when asked "Do you believe in God", 70% said no.

Who is peddaling nonsense now? Norway is NOT an atheist country as you claimed!

Again, atheists can believe in all sorts of spirits or life forces. They simply reject the notion of God/gods.

Norway is not an atheist country. Your cartoon idea of history or Norwegian society is incorrect!

I notice you did not answer the questions at all, and instead said wrong and irrelevant things. Do you believe a secular, pluralist society, with an atheist majority, will inevitably commit atrocities?

Christianity is happy to accept secularism. Norway for example with a Christian church linked to the state may in the future become secuklaRIST. It still wont be atheist erven then!
I believe and atheist majority is something to be highly suspicious of. Why? Becauaee a christian majority in the past made christian governments and christian States and miostly these were good for society. An atheist State would not be Good for society and I fear a mostly atheist country would push for state atheism which is much more terrible than State christianity. Norway for example has state christianity currently.

If the answer is no, do you therefore agree that majority atheism in a society does not automatically predispose that society to atrocities?

I accept i can not prove it logically. all I can say is every atheist state was a disaster and if atheism had a majority I would be suspiscious of state atheism.

I am happy for the school ethos to reflect the demand.

Good for you! THe rabid anti religious hard atheists however are not so happy. Please dont let them into power.

Yes. I have not problem with "ethos" schools, provided it does not extend beyond "ethos". I would have a huge problem with the doctrine of hell and damnation for other religions being taught in school as fact.

But the doctrine of Marxism the market economy or collectivism or other economic theories or feminism or whatever can be taught as a "fact"?

And? What does this have to do with your quote "Let's start"

Quinn proposed 50% as a target .

Here is a quote from Dawkins

Your entire position is unravelling. I do not care about your "The majority of Norwegians don't believe in God, but they're still not atheists" nonsensical position

And I dont care for your cartoon economics or commentary on religion. Norway is not atheist!

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

ISAW is saying that, even though the majority of people in Norway don't believe in God, materialists are in the minority, which is why it has not committed atrocities. This implies his problem is not with atheism, but with materialism.

I have a problem with materialism whether philosophical theological or just economic possessiveness.

I have told him before that I had no problem with a society adopting "Christian values", provided those values are shared by others. Confucius's golden rule "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself." is a Christian value. It is also a secular humanist value. And I agree with much of "cultural Christianity".

cultural christianity and christian values it seems can come about according to you by adopting the motif of christianity as central to society . But somehow you rule out atheism being adopted as such a motif? - double standards!

tommy2bad

Originally Posted by ISAW;
cultural christianity and christian values it seems can come about according to you by adopting the motif of christianity as central to society . But somehow you rule out atheism being adopted as such a motif? - double standards!

Yes, because it has no inherent values and cant be used for anything more than a reason to find values somewhere else.
You your self pointed out that when atheism is a principal of a government it turns to anti theism and is destructive.
Atheism is not a value system, Christianity is. Theism is. Gods make demands. No gods and your on your own, values come from somewhere else, anti religion or humanist or materialist are the options but looking to a god that you declare nonexistent is stupid and pointless. So too is blaming the chosen options on atheism. People are responsible for what people do.

Morbert

The point is that you may argue secularism is preferable to either Christianity or atheism as a motief but when given one or the other they dont perform the same and are not equal in record. And while you lciam secularism you also admit you would prefer a society of all atheists .

But Christianity can be a motif and atheism can't? - double standards!

Who is peddaling nonsense now? Norway is NOT an atheist country as you claimed!

Norway is not an atheist country. Your cartoon idea of history or Norwegian society is incorrect!

Christianity is happy to accept secularism. Norway for example with a Christian church linked to the state may in the future become secuklaRIST. It still wont be atheist erven then!

I accept i can not prove it logically. all I can say is every atheist state was a disaster and if atheism had a majority I would be suspiscious of state atheism.

Good for you! THe rabid anti religious hard atheists however are not so happy. Please dont let them into power.

But the doctrine of Marxism the market economy or collectivism or other economic theories or feminism or whatever can be taught as a "fact"?

Quinn proposed 50% as a target .

And I dont care for your cartoon economics or commentary on religion. Norway is not atheist!

All of the above I have addressed before. You still don't understand the difference between a majority atheist society, and a regime that imposes a way of life on society that includes enforced atheism. If your point all along was "Atheism does not provide a sufficient moral linchpin for society", you should have said so. I agree. Just as superconductivity doesn't.

ISAW wrote: »

Exactly! Just like Christianity . Im only referring to societies which say it is worth promoting these metaphysical statements as a societal motif. You claim neither chould be promoted. I just show you that both were in history. Whenever atheism was it resulted in death. Christianity resulted in positive things with some rare exceptions.

Theism is a metaphysical statement. Christianity is much more. Christianity has core ethical principles and a moral code, directly and indirectly applicable to a variety of situations. E.g. :http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/

Atheism has no such thing. You are comparing apples and oranges.

I believe and atheist majority is something to be highly suspicious of. Why? Becauaee a christian majority in the past made christian governments and christian States and miostly these were good for society. An atheist State would not be Good for society and I fear a mostly atheist country would push for state atheism which is much more terrible than State christianity. Norway for example has state christianity currently.

But you are being unclear as to what you mean by atheist. Not believing in God is the criteria I am using. You seem to be using the term to exclusively refer to gnostic materialist militant Mao sympathisers. A society where the majority of people don't believe in God, but who don't contrive a moral framework around enforcing that belief, and who support freedom of religion in a secular pluralist society, will not be predisposed to atrocities. Do you agree or disagree?

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

All of the above I have addressed before. You still don't understand the difference between a majority atheist society, and a regime that imposes a way of life on society that includes enforced atheism.

It isnt me claiming Norway is an atheist country! It clearly isnt1 the church is linked to the state and atheists are ion single digit percentages.

If your point all along was "Atheism does not provide a sufficient moral linchpin for society", you should have said so. I agree. Just as superconductivity doesn't.

Nope. Just as christianity does! The point is COMPARING atheism to christianity.Not comparing atheism or christianity to fourier series or superconductivity. except maybe in cartoons!

Theism is a metaphysical statement. Christianity is much more. Christianity has core ethical principles and a moral code, directly and indirectly applicable to a variety of situations. E.g. :http://cb.oxfordjournals.org/

Atheism has no such thing. You are comparing apples and oranges.

so you cant compare atheism to theism. so much for the title of the thread eh?:)

But you are being unclear as to what you mean by atheist. Not believing in God is the criteria I am using. You seem to be using the term to exclusively refer to gnostic materialist militant Mao sympathisers.

Only when they get into government. If they dont want to get into goivernment Im happy to say that they can bel;ieve as they wish.

tommy2bad

Posted by ISAW;
so you cant compare atheism to theism. so much for the title of the thread eh?

Looking up to check!

Atheism/Existence of God Debates

Doesn't mention comparison 'tho thats acceptable, as long as we define the terms.

As Morbert asserts;

If your point all along was "Atheism does not provide a sufficient moral linchpin for society", you should have said so. I agree

And it seems you agree

Just as christianity does!

ISAW Again;
If they dont want to get into goivernment Im happy to say that they can bel;ieve as they wish.

Very good of you to allow freedom of Conscience, if not freedom of representation.

ISAW

tommy2bad wrote: »

Looking up to check!

Doesn't mention comparison 'tho thats acceptable, as long as we define the terms.

The "/" is a comparioson
The debate was abiout it from the point I entered.
We were not discussing just whether god does or does not exist but rather the implications societally of thioise beliefs.

Very good of you to allow freedom of Conscience, if not freedom of representation.

What i allow or do not allow have nothing to do with it. I dont go in for ayuthorities.
By the way I have also stood up for Islamofacuists and Nazis right to speak.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

The "/" is a comparioson
The debate was abiout it from the point I entered.
We were not discussing just whether god does or does not exist but rather the implications societally of thioise beliefs.



What i allow or do not allow have nothing to do with it. I dont go in for ayuthorities.
By the way I have also stood up for Islamofacuists and Nazis right to speak.

The issue is'nt one of comparing or not ISAW - it is simply that if we do compare then let it be like with like, as Morbert myself and others have continuously pointed out you are comparing apples and oranges.

lmaopml

This current theme of the thread seems to be like a big train crash to be honest, what's new...lol... ISAW (imo) wouldn't like to see an Atheist totalitarian state because - quite rightly, they have always been 'bad' for human rights, freedom, and dignity of the person, whereas other states that have had the Christian God as part of their makeup, are what actually shaped our idea of what 'secular' and freedom of choice should mean in a democratic society.

He's quite correct to point that out.

Morbert seems indignant that he reads ISAW's posts as centering some kind of evil intent around the Atheist or Agnostic person - which he clearly pointed out he is not doing, he is moreso pointing out that if ( and it's a big 'if' ) the Government comprised soley of Atheists than he would be fearful of where exactly that would lead - which again leads to a totalitarian regime, which hopefully we have left behind us thanks in no small way to the foundations of the Christian generations gone by.

You're both saying the same thing, in a kind of butt headed way, tango around the dance floor way, you are just saying it differently.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

The issue is'nt one of comparing or not ISAW - it is simply that if we do compare then let it be like with like, as Morbert myself and others have continuously pointed out you are comparing apples and oranges.

lioke not comparing Christianity and atheism using the same standards for esch
apples and opranges - not like with like = double standards

ISAW

lmaopml wrote: »

This current theme of the thread seems to be like a big train crash to be honest, what's new...lol... ISAW (imo) wouldn't like to see an Atheist totalitarian state because - quite rightly, they have always been 'bad' for human rights, freedom, and dignity of the person, whereas other states

Other non atheistic totalitarian states. Other christian dictatorships and other non atheist non dictatorships.
The thing atheistic states had in common was atheism!
Others were christian and dictatorships but not all christian ones and not all dictatorships were murder regimes. the top killers were the atheistic ones.

that have had the Christian God as part of their makeup, are what actually shaped our idea of what 'secular' and freedom of choice should mean in a democratic society.

He's quite correct to point that out.

And that all the ones with atheism and no God were murder regimes.

Morbert seems indignant that he reads ISAW's posts as centering some kind of evil intent around the Atheist or Agnostic person - which he clearly pointed out he is not doing, he is moreso pointing out that if ( and it's a big 'if' ) the Government comprised soley of Atheists than he would be fearful of where exactly that would lead - which again leads to a totalitarian regime, which hopefully we have left behind us thanks in no small way to the foundations of the Christian generations gone by.

Yes that is what i have fairly much stated I agree.

You're both saying the same thing, in a kind of butt headed way, tango around the dance floor way, you are just saying it differently.

christianity gave t6he world something positive. Atheism built noting and supplied runious regimes.

lmaopml

Yes, I agree with you. I think that Atheists in control of a totalitarian state contribute nothing at all to freedom of a human person to be a 'human' person/ distinctive and have intrinsic worth.

In saying that, the atheist would say they aren't designed to contribute to a 'moral' framework the same way as Christianity is - it's seen as progressive morality, not restrictive, nothing is set as 'good' or 'bad' that can be discerned properly, that we can examine thus far in history anyway, we're still progressing.

The Atheist totalitarian regime is guided by the personalities, or personality that make it up as a dictatorship - I hope that day is bygone, although maybe it's naive to think that 'my life' couldn't be upset - my mums was, she lived through the second world war, I'm sure people were bewildered then too that such badness could endure and seduce people.

With God, you know what you are getting, especially the Christian God, who not only sets the rules but most famously and in a totally unexpected style, is the only crazy in love God to go and live them too.......as a human that would be ultimately killed by us, to prove there is more to love and more to God too. It's the crazy thing that just got my heart and chugged on it...

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

lioke not comparing Christianity and atheism using the same standards for esch
apples and opranges - not like with like = double standards

I just don't understand you at this stage ISAW,

atheism = a disbelief in the existance of God or gods. And that is it , no more and no less. It is not a moral system , a value system , a ruling system. Why will you not accept what every single dictionary encyclopedia, reference book tells you ?

You are continuously falling back on this false definition and thus making any discussion futile.

So the comparision of atheism and christianity is a false one..

And your insistence on using it no matter what is just weak and lazy argumentation and simply prevents any real discussion on other issues.

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

This current theme of the thread seems to be like a big train crash to be honest, what's new...lol... ISAW (imo) wouldn't like to see an Atheist totalitarian state because - quite rightly, they have always been 'bad' for human rights, freedom, and dignity of the person, whereas other states that have had the Christian God as part of their makeup, are what actually shaped our idea of what 'secular' and freedom of choice should mean in a democratic society.

He's quite correct to point that out.

Morbert seems indignant that he reads ISAW's posts as centering some kind of evil intent around the Atheist or Agnostic person - which he clearly pointed out he is not doing, he is moreso pointing out that if ( and it's a big 'if' ) the Government comprised soley of Atheists than he would be fearful of where exactly that would lead - which again leads to a totalitarian regime, which hopefully we have left behind us thanks in no small way to the foundations of the Christian generations gone by.

You're both saying the same thing, in a kind of butt headed way, tango around the dance floor way, you are just saying it differently.

Why is he correct to point that out ? it is not a valid comparision. And until he accepts that, there is little point in discussing ''what leads to a totalitarian regime'' or ''the foundations of Christian generations gone by''

ISAW

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yes, because it has no inherent values and cant be used for anything more than a reason to find values somewhere else.

I agree with you. atheism has no values and is socially good for nothing.

People are responsible for what people do.

Responsible to whom according to what principles? clearly NOT the principle of atheism which you yourself state is no good for such things.

marienbad wrote: »

The issue is'nt one of comparing or not ISAW - it is simply that if we do compare then let it be like with like, as Morbert myself and others have continuously pointed out you are comparing apples and oranges.

You can't have ti both ways. You can't say they can't be compared and also say they can. So if you are using the "they cant be compared" cop out then you are in the above situation where atheism is socially not useful for anything at all. It is only on the taken admission that "atheism is completely useless for a society" that the comparison can be ruled out. Which is what i was trying to establish by the comparison anyway. But fair enough let us say you can't compare atheism to Christianity on ground of building societies because by your own admission atheism is absolutely useless in such things.

lmaopml wrote: »

In saying that, the atheist would say they aren't designed to contribute to a 'moral' framework the same way as Christianity is

Fair enough- atheism is useless for designing a decent moral society which does good things for people.

marienbad wrote: »

I just don't understand you at this stage ISAW,

atheism = a disbelief in the existance of God or gods. And that is it , no more and no less. It is not a moral system , a value system , a ruling system. Why will you not accept what every single dictionary encyclopedia, reference book tells you ?

You are continuously falling back on this false definition and thus making any discussion futile.

So the comparision of atheism and christianity is a false one..

On the basis that one can't compare them because Christianity provides a way to build decent society and atheism is useless for such things. Fair enough.

And your insistence on using it no matter what is just weak and lazy argumentation and simply prevents any real discussion on other issues.

No my insistence is because atheists try to sneak back in the back door and later propose atheism is of benefit for society and society would be better if most people were atheist. If atheism is of no use in such matters then society is no better for having atheism.

tommy2bad

Posed by ISAW;
If atheism is of no use in such matters then society is no better for having atheism.

And no worse. The thing is then Christianity becomes nothing more than a means of social control. A set of manners as it were.
If someone is to be persuaded of the existence of God then thats the weakest reason.
If someone is to be persuaded of the non existence of God it a good explanation of why the religion thing perpetuates.
The fact that we humans need a wrathful god who punishes and rewards is our weakness, He can be all too easily replaced with a regime or king that exploits that weakness to their advantage and our ruin. Thats why atheists keep referring to the 'religious' aspect of totalitarian dictatorships.

ISAW

tommy2bad wrote: »

And no worse. The thing is then Christianity becomes nothing more than a means of social control. A set of manners as it were.

The christian societies with or without social control they built buildings and systems and schools and so on and of all the atheist societies they seemingly concentrated in ripping down all the good done by others. How come the social control of christianity didnt result in the same complete mess of atheistic rule?

If someone is to be persuaded of the existence of God then thats the weakest reason.
If someone is to be persuaded of the non existence of God it a good explanation of why the religion thing perpetuates.
The fact that we humans need a wrathful god who punishes and rewards is our weakness, He can be all too easily replaced with a regime or king that exploits that weakness to their advantage and our ruin. Thats why atheists keep referring to the 'religious' aspect of totalitarian dictatorships.

But when Christianity ( which is not about a vengance God but that is a different matter)
ruled we almost always didn't have slaughter whereas when atheistic regimes ruled we ALWAYS had it. Why is "atheism as a religion" ( your excuse not mine) always bad for society and Christianity only rarely bad?

tommy2bad

Posted by ISAW;
Why is "atheism as a religion" ( your excuse not mine) always bad for society and Christianity only rarely bad?

Not an excuse, an explanation. The answer is in the question. Atheism is not a value it a judgment. Therefore unsuitable for use as a guide to forming society.
The fact that it has been used as a justification for some to replace existing religion with their own religion, doesn't invalidate it stated position. Their is no God. The full stop is important because thats where atheism ends. Anything more is the bit that causes trouble, or good depends on where you go with it.
Christianity on the other hand comes with all sort of injunctions and directions, built up over centuries. Not divulged on a mountain top in a hailstorm to a Chuck Heston lookalike. Asking why Christianity works and atheist regimes that start from year zero don't is stupid, the answer is obvious. Whether a society that is atheist can reach the same end after a several thousand years is an experiment that has already been carried out. It did, it's what we now have. Could it have gone differently? yes, given different circumstances but we'll never know for certain as the chance has passed. We are what we now are because of what we chose then.
You contend that God was necessary for all this to happen or that the idea of God was necessary, I'm not sure which. One is theology the other is sociology.