as much as i want to give a damn, i don't.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Find me one public speech in which any of those leaders even mention their theological position (or lack there of), let alone link it to any of the terrible decisions they made when in power. Like pkc and Dawkins have said, trying to link the attrocities committed under communism to atheism is like trying to link them to facial hair. Correlation does not equal causation.

Yes, but couldn't that go for the theists as well? Yes correlation does not imply causation and this would lead to the assumption that the atrocities conducted under theist views are not due to belief in God per se. Believing in God doesn't mean that you are going to kill people, in the same way that not believing in God doesn't mean that you are going to murder individuals. It is a a different thing to justify your acts by taking advantage of external variables (which could take the form of both God and No-God-theism and atheism respectively), from lowering existential stress by believing or not believing in irrational (?) thoughts. Maybe religion can be divided in the personal and social (e.g. church, leadership) levels...


I don't believe that the atrocities conducted in the "name of religion" can ever be dominated by anything else though. One can only look back at the crusades, the dark medieval times and generally in the dark ages of Europe. FFS, people were killed because they "looked" like witches! Human life truely had NO value back then. But this doesn't mean that religion is bad, simply due to the fact that these atrocities were not spawned directly by religious beliefs, but from people who attributed their actions to some religious beliefs (distorted religious beliefs that is!). Yes there are correlations but no causations. The fact that most wars are related to some religious aspect simply results from the fact that religion was a dominant factor throughout human history. "Dominant" in the literal sense of the word, since in most of the times it was deeply entangled with the highest authority. If non-religion was the standard, then i'm almost sure that the same amount of killings would have taken place. Brutal human nature-same, excuses-different. Simple as that

Furthermore, If one is searching for correlations, then he/she will find that there were times that religion was positively correlated with development (e.g. Al-gebra...the maths we know...were created by wise islamo-arabic men and the Arabs weren't always about blowing people and buildings, they were also about philosophy, astronomy, architecture, maths and yes, the beginnings of science). As it was said numerous times before, correlation does not imply causation and in the same way religion in itself can't start wars, it can't also start maths. Religion itself can not create development or decline, in the same way non-religion canno't. It is people who do it, religious or non-religious. From that point of view there is no inherent evil in both theism or atheism, but in the people who aspouse them. ( to these and any other concept for that matter that ends in -ism for that matter!).

quote:

Originally posted by krypton Atheism is not in particular trying to spread its message as theistic religion does. I am also going to say that being an atheist does not mean you cannot be morally person consious person. Though being atheist in rationale no doubt has the possibility to open the door to any belief system one wants to believe in. With no supreme judge to be held accountable towards, one can justify just about anything. If man is god, who is to judge man? Cambodian Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot is one example. Though he wasn't trying to spread atheism as theistic religion does, he justified his brutal acts through the window of communism and establishing a utopian state. The philosophies of Moa, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. were of course communist, and all were atheists. Their governments were officially atheist. I'm not saying all atheists are brutal murderers. But you cannot separate their belief systems from their brutal acts. So the notion that atheistic regimes of the 20th century killed more people than all other wars of history combined still stands.

And this is the other side of the coin. In the same way the "god-atheist-leader" can act the way he wants due to the fact that there is no entity higher then him/her to judge his/her actions, the "god-theist-leader" can act the way he wants because there is an entity higher then him/her to judge his "enemies" (which in most of the times happen to be the specific God's and current relligion's enemies!) and justify his/her actions. In the present case, the Quran or the Bible (as far as i know) never talked about murdering people that watch porn, but it seems that (religion) leaders can always "find a hole" somewhere in the numerous pages of the holy-books sayings...(or even directly distort them...maybe re-write them under the influence of "holy guidance!"). The bible never talked about murdering witches, murdering people who believed in other gods etc. Various manipulative tactics can in principle give the religious leader the same freedom with the non-religious one, a fact that is gloriosuly proved through-out history...



And you have to understand that it it was not the "atheism-for-jesus" that made Hitler to kill all these people (or any other atheist leader for that matter). Hitler possibly didn't give a darn about religion, except maybe for some absurd new-agey, mystical nordic beliefs which were not direcly associated with him, but with the broad movement of Nazism. It was not Hitler's atheism/astrological passion (should we start running scared from astrologists just because Hitler was consulting an astrologer?) that started the WW2. It was a complex, multi-factorial situation taking place at that specific space-time,and included various complex socio-political factors such as the state of Europe, the actual state of Germany, Hitler's and his party's perceptions of the state of Germany, Hitler's and his party's thoughts about what should be done about that state, people's thoughts and reactions to Nazism and the state of Europe and Germany etc. etc. etc. Hitler organised and took advantage of situations and hence started the war (and this could be done by any other atheist-theist leader for that matter, be it Mao or a Pope). Even if Hitler was an evangelist, he would still start the WW2 (hmmm possibly it could be even more severe then!Just joking.). As i said before, same amount of killings, different excuses (e.g. not Arian race but the good White Jesus who protects the good white Germans. Oh sorry isn't Bush saying something similar?). So concluding no inherent evil in concepts. Evil in acts.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Yes, but couldn't that go for the theists as well? Yes correlation does not imply causation and this would lead to the assumption that the atrocities conducted under theist views are not due to belief in God per se. Believing in God doesn't mean that you are going to kill people, in the same way that not believing in God doesn't mean that you are going to murder individuals. It is a a different thing to justify your acts by taking advantage of external variables (which could take the form of both God and No-God-theism and atheism respectively), from lowering existential stress by believing or not believing in irrational (?) thoughts. Maybe religion can be divided in the personal and social (e.g. church, leadership) levels... I don't believe that the atrocities conducted in the "name of religion" can ever be dominated by anything else though. One can only look back at the crusades, the dark medieval times and generally in the dark ages of Europe. FFS, people were killed because they "looked" like witches! Human life truely had NO value back then. But this doesn't mean that religion is bad, simply due to the fact that these atrocities were not spawned directly by religious beliefs, but from people who attributed their actions to some religious beliefs (distorted religious beliefs that is!). Yes there are correlations but no causations. The fact that most wars are related to some religious aspect simply results from the fact that religion was a dominant factor throughout human history. "Dominant" in the literal sense of the word, since in most of the times it was deeply entangled with the highest authority. If non-religion was the standard, then i'm almost sure that the same amount of killings would have taken place. Brutal human nature-same, excuses-different. Simple as that Furthermore, If one is searching for correlations, then he/she will find that there were times that religion was positively correlated with development (e.g. Al-gebra...the maths we know...were created by wise islamo-arabic men and the Arabs weren't always about blowing people and buildings, they were also about philosophy, astronomy, architecture, maths and yes, the beginnings of science). As it was said numerous times before, correlation does not imply causation and in the same way religion in itself can't start wars, it can't also start maths. Religion itself can not create development or decline, in the same way non-religion canno't. It is people who do it, religious or non-religious. From that point of view there is no inherent evil in both theism or atheism, but in the people who aspouse them. ( to these and any other concept for that matter that ends in -ism for that matter!). And this is the other side of the coin. In the same way the "god-atheist-leader" can act the way he wants due to the fact that there is no entity higher then him/her to judge his/her actions, the "god-theist-leader" can act the way he wants because there is an entity higher then him/her to judge his "enemies" (which in most of the times happen to be the specific God's and current relligion's enemies!) and justify his/her actions. In the present case, the Quran or the Bible (as far as i know) never talked about murdering people that watch porn, but it seems that (religion) leaders can always "find a hole" somewhere in the numerous pages of the holy-books sayings...(or even directly distort them...maybe re-write them under the influence of "holy guidance!"). The bible never talked about murdering witches, murdering people who believed in other gods etc. Various manipulative tactics can in principle give the religious leader the same freedom with the non-religious one, a fact that is gloriosuly proved through-out history... And you have to understand that it it was not the "atheism-for-jesus" that made Hitler to kill all these people (or any other atheist leader for that matter). Hitler possibly didn't give a darn about religion, except maybe for some absurd new-agey, mystical nordic beliefs which were not direcly associated with him, but with the broad movement of Nazism. It was not Hitler's atheism/astrological passion (should we start running scared from astrologists just because Hitler was consulting an astrologer?) that started the WW2. It was a complex, multi-factorial situation taking place at that specific space-time,and included various complex socio-political factors such as the state of Europe, the actual state of Germany, Hitler's and his party's perceptions of the state of Germany, Hitler's and his party's thoughts about what should be done about that state, people's thoughts and reactions to Nazism and the state of Europe and Germany etc. etc. etc. Hitler organised and took advantage of situations and hence started the war (and this could be done by any other atheist-theist leader for that matter, be it Mao or a Pope). Even if Hitler was an evangelist, he would still start the WW2 (hmmm possibly it could be even more severe then!Just joking.). As i said before, same amount of killings, different excuses (e.g. not Arian race but the good White Jesus who protects the good white Germans. Oh sorry isn't Bush saying something similar?). So concluding no inherent evil in concepts. Evil in acts.

What are you going to school for?

But you're exactly right.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Atheism is not in particular trying to spread its message as theistic religion does. I am also going to say that being an atheist does not mean you cannot be morally person consious person. Though being atheist in rationale no doubt has the possibility to open the door to any belief system one wants to believe in. With no supreme judge to be held accountable towards, one can justify just about anything. If man is god, who is to judge man? Cambodian Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot is one example. Though he wasn't trying to spread atheism as theistic religion does, he justified his brutal acts through the window of communism and establishing a utopian state. The philosophies of Moa, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. were of course communist, and all were atheists. Their governments were officially atheist. I'm not saying all atheists are brutal murderers. But you cannot separate their belief systems from their brutal acts. So the notion that atheistic regimes of the 20th century killed more people than all other wars of history combined still stands.

im not sure i can put it any better than renegade already has (in fact i know i cant!) but i will try.
firstly, you have yet to establish why a person's atheistic belief is of importance in the context you are arguing. indeed, you still havent illustrated why atheism is anymore (or less) responsible for the genocides of the 20th century than the moustaches used by our respective dictators. im not sure which type of fallacy youre appealing to here, but there certainly is one for you im sure.

you're making some poor assumptions regarding the behaviour of supposed atheists (again, if alan bulloch cannot state categorically what hitler's religion was, somehow i doubt that you can) and linking them with atheism itself. as renegade quite rightly notes, correlation does not equal causation. indeed, hitler certainly paid homage to his catholic roots for his entire life. attending catholic ceremonies does not make him a catholic of course, any more than consulting an astrologer made him a mystic.

of course you can separate their supposed religious views from their brutal acts, indeed you have actually failed to JOIN them in any logical way. those leaders made many, many speeches. find me some references to atheism and how their plan revolved around atheism. or involved any of it. the simple fact is there is no causation between their religious views and their behaviour. im still surprised you can't see the distinction.

your argument, that you need the policeman in the sky to maintain social harmony, is quite simply, nonsense. indeed you can make appeals to all kinds of subjective law that the bible is littered with, to justify pretty much anything. if you're clinging to the notion that the imaginary policeman is there to tell us right from wrong, id like you to take a closer look at some of the "rights" and "wrongs" as dictated by the bible, and then come to tell me it makes ANY sense, or that it is useful at providing us with ANY means for superior moral behaviour. i suggest you read dawkins' chapter on the roots of morality, it really is an interesting and eye-opening experience.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Yes, but couldn't that go for the theists as well? Yes correlation does not imply causation and this would lead to the assumption that the atrocities conducted under theist views are not due to belief in God per se. Believing in God doesn't mean that you are going to kill people, in the same way that not believing in God doesn't mean that you are going to murder individuals. It is a a different thing to justify your acts by taking advantage of external variables (which could take the form of both God and No-God-theism and atheism respectively), from lowering existential stress by believing or not believing in irrational (?) thoughts. Maybe religion can be divided in the personal and social (e.g. church, leadership) levels...

the difference being that the religion makes good people do evil things, and more often than not religion is part of the reason the brutal acts are/were committed.

religion is the single best justification for doing just about anything; once you can convince the people their (ingrained and inseparable belief system) dictates they must act a certain way, people are far more capable of swallowing nonsense when its tied together with religious doctrine, as interpreted by the leaders of their faith. you will find most religious "movements" that have committed great acts of barbarity justify these acts with religious truth or justification. look at any pro-life argument in the US that relates to abortion or stem cell research. any war fought in the middle east. and we won't even begin to illustrate how religion serves as one of the greatest, universal schisms that occur between human kind, that allows, justifies and ferments concepts of difference to breed between fellow humans.

___________________

quote:

im not sure i can put it any better than renegade already has (in fact i know i cant!) but i will try. firstly, you have yet to establish why a person's atheistic belief is of importance in the context you are arguing. indeed, you still havent illustrated why atheism is anymore (or less) responsible for the genocides of the 20th century than the moustaches used by our respective dictators. im not sure which type of fallacy youre appealing to here, but there certainly is one for you im sure. you're making some poor assumptions regarding the behaviour of supposed atheists (again, if alan bulloch cannot state categorically what hitler's religion was, somehow i doubt that you can) and linking them with atheism itself. as renegade quite rightly notes, correlation does not equal causation. indeed, hitler certainly paid homage to his catholic roots for his entire life. attending catholic ceremonies does not make him a catholic of course, any more than consulting an astrologer made him a mystic. of course you can separate their supposed religious views from their brutal acts, indeed you have actually failed to JOIN them in any logical way. those leaders made many, many speeches. find me some references to atheism and how their plan revolved around atheism. or involved any of it. the simple fact is there is no causation between their religious views and their behaviour. im still surprised you can't see the distinction. your argument, that you need the policeman in the sky to maintain social harmony, is quite simply, nonsense. indeed you can make appeals to all kinds of subjective law that the bible is littered with, to justify pretty much anything. if you're clinging to the notion that the imaginary policeman is there to tell us right from wrong, id like you to take a closer look at some of the "rights" and "wrongs" as dictated by the bible, and then come to tell me it makes ANY sense, or that it is useful at providing us with ANY means for superior moral behaviour. i suggest you read dawkins' chapter on the roots of morality, it really is an interesting and eye-opening experience.

There is a causation because it is their worldview that directs their policies.

You make the assertion that religion is solely responsible for human suffering and conflict. I keep telling you that it is not about religion, it's about the worldview. Theists are just as likely as atheists to perform horrible acts, but you seem to not accept this.

Yes, the reasons each group gives for directing destructive policies may be different, but the influence of their worldview to the direction of these policies is exactly the same.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton There is a causation because it is their worldview that directs their policies. You make the assertion that religion is solely responsible for human suffering and conflict. I keep telling you that it is not about religion, it's about the worldview. Theists are just as likely as atheists to perform horrible acts, but you seem to not accept this.

you dont understand. im not making the assertion that religion is solely responsible for anything. im taking issue with you equating atheism with nazism or russian communism, as if this particular (supposed) piece of their "worldview" is of any significance whatsoever. which it isnt.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Yes, the reasons each group gives for directing destructive policies may be different, but the influence of their worldview to the direction of these policies is exactly the same.

if you can't see the distinct differences in modern political times between poor policy and poor religious-inspired policy/thought processes, then there is no hope for you. will try and read the response do dawkins that you posted. i suggest you read the god delusion to get a firmer grasp of what we're talking about, and stop confusing the issue.

for instance (back on topic), please name a state that sanctions the death penalty for consensual sex-based offenses that doesn't derive their particular law from religious belief.

___________________

A state that sanctions the death penalty for consensual sex-based offenses WILL most likely be a theocratic one. No ones denying that religious-based law-making is detrimental. What I'm trying to say is that the opposite end of the political spectrum is just as guilty for similar detrimental law-making, not just religious-based ones.

"God" cannot be simply deleted from worldview. It is always replaced with something else. Atheism is not an organized religious body, whereas most orthodox religions are, so of course theocracy will be in the name of a particular religion, whereas anti-religious governments won't rule in the name of atheism. They will rule in the name of the doctrine that replaces the traditional beliefs of the people.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton A state that sanctions the death penalty for consensual sex-based offenses WILL most likely be a theocratic one. No ones denying that religious-based law-making is detrimental. What I'm trying to say is that the opposite end of the political spectrum is just as guilty for similar detrimental law-making, not just religious-based ones.

of course there are positions in the political spectrum that are detrimental to law-making. the difference is no one's defending them. anytime you criticise religious-based law-making however, people all over the place (like your good self) jump up and down to defend it, or point out (as you have) other equally disastrous policies enforced in recent decades. the main difference is that religious law-making does not have to pass the critical-thinking test as often or as robustly as other non religious public policy. religion is not just another "ism", it is a very particular and individual one. making laws because its "god's will" is a particularly powerful form of intellectual justification for much of the world's populace.
already noted, but ill note it again: there will always be good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. but to make good people do evil things, it takes religion.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton "God" cannot be simply deleted from worldview. It is always replaced with something else. Atheism is not an organized religious body, whereas most orthodox religions are, so of course theocracy will be in the name of a particular religion, whereas anti-religious governments won't rule in the name of atheism. They will rule in the name of the doctrine that replaces the traditional beliefs of the people.

god should be deleted from "worldview". there is nothing quite so antiquated or unsubstantiated as the concept that we should be governing the world's people's based upon superstition, rather than logic or demonstrable scientific fact. and you're right, governments wont rule in the name of atheism, because there is nothing there to rule in the name of (this is its beautiful simplicity). they would rule according to rationality or logic. i dont see the problem? they certainly don't feel righteously justified in curtailing the freedom of the people with their pathetically backward religious superstition.

the rule of law should always be questioned and tested; religious-based lawmaking does not have to pass the rigours of intellectual or social inquiry as do all other belief systems. this makes it truly special in politics. there is no justification for its "special place" in modernity.

___________________

These dirty muslim towel heads need to be thrown into a meat grinder and fed to pigs.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V