|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4422 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Moral high ground | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
This thread is not a general discussion of supposed Christian moral superior attitude.
Message 1 had a very specific issue to be addressed.
Butterflytyrant writes: I have noticed that many religious people seem to believe that they hold some sort of moral high ground. They seem to believe that because they follow the teachings of a particular faith, they automatically become superior to others when it comes to interpretation of scripture, moral and ethical judgements etc One of the reasons for this claim often stems from the idea that their particular religion or religion in general has a lower kill rate than no religion. Portillo provided this claim in Message 87
Atheistic regimes have killed over 100 million people. Thats 10,000 times more than all religious atrocities put together since the beginning of time. I have heard this claim made many times. I have seen it brought up in debates and now it appears here. I would like to challenge those who believe this to be true to support it. Questioning anyone's stance on anything else would be off topic.
Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') thread. Thank youAdminPD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portillo Member (Idle past 4160 days) Posts: 258 Joined: |
quote: Try to debate without using swear words. And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Rule #10: The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.
Participants: Please remember to address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. This is a debate forum, not a chat page. Chat style posts don't help move the discussion forward.
Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') thread. Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension. Thank youAdminPD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4422 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
Portillo,
Try to debate without using swear words. Any particular reason I should do this? Are you a child? This would be your second wasted post without actually dealing with the subject.I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson 2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4422 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined:
|
PD,
I dont know if you really dont get this or you are just playing dumb? I cant think of any reason why you would play dumb and you usually don't come across as a moron so I will assume that the error is mine and I have not explained this clear enough. I will have another go.
This thread isn't about deaths in the Bible. From your OP it is more about deaths in the real world. Wrong. The thread is about some people believing they hold a position of moral superiority due to their religious beliefs and the death count associated with their religion. The title of the thread is -
quote:from Message 1 The first sentence of that post is -
quote: The thread is about people believing that they are superior when it comes to morality because of the teaching of their faith. The next sentence in the post is -
quote:from Message 1 That is an important sentence and I think that it is the one that you are not getting. I am aware that YOU do not believe that the bible is a factual document. What this means is that YOU do not need to account for the deaths in the bible if/when you decide to address the OP. The particular beliefs of the individual replying are relevant. If the person replying DOES believe that the bible is a histoically accurate book, then THAT PERSON needs to take those deaths into account. As there are people on this forum who DO believe that the bible is a factual book and the deaths that occured in that book DID actually occur in reality, then THOSE PEOPLE need to take them into account. See thread titled "A Problem With the Literal Interpretation of Scripture" beginning - Message 1 to see people who believe that the bible is a factual document. Or try the AiG or Creation Min website. I will split them into two groups for you and put you in one of those groups. Group 1 - The people who believe that the bible is a factual document believe that the deaths in the bible really occured. These people need to take the deaths of the bible into account when they deal with the moral superiority issue because THEY BELIEVE that they really occured. Group 2 - The people who do not believe that the bible is a factual document. This group need not deal with the deaths in the bible when they beal with the issue of moral superiority because THEY DO NOT BELIEVE that they really occured. You are in group 2. There are others on this forum who are in group 1. The people in group 1 need to take the deaths of the bible into account when they put their arguement forward regarding their views on moral superiority. Have I explained this clearly enough?
I say the Bible isn't a source of real data for deaths and you feel you are justified in using the Bible as a source of data to support your position because others believe it is factual or historical. You are still missing the point. I understand that each individual religious person has their own interpretation of the scripture and they believe that their interpretation is the correct one. Each person reaches their position with their particular version of religion behind them. If a person comes to their position of moral superiority combined with the belief that the bible is a historical document then that person needs to deal with the biblical death toll. If a person comes to their position of moral superiority but do not believe that the bible is a historical document, then they do not need to deal with the biblical death toll. The person who is stating their positions belief is important. Look at it another way. Person A believes that they have a claim for moral superiority because they are a member of a particular religious group. Person A puts foward the claim that 'atheist regimes' have a much higher death toll than their brand of religion in order to support the position of moral superiority they hold. Person A believes that the bible is a historically accurate document. This means that person A believes that each and every death in the bible acctually occured. Given this information, person A needs to justify their claim regarding the death toll including all of the deaths they belive have occured. This includes the deaths in the bible.
Although you agree in Message 80 that the Bible is not reality, you still feel justified in using the numbers because some believe it is true. Of course I do. An individuals own position of morality, if based on death tolls, must include all of the deaths that individual believes occured. How could it be any other way? If an individual believes that the deaths did occur then they include them in their own calculations to establish a position of moral superiority. I am including deaths in the bible for those individuals who include the deaths in the bible. For those who do not believe that the deaths in the bible occured, then I do not include them.
Believing something is factual doesn't make it so. You using the numbers because someone else believes they are real doesn't make them factual either. If a person is basing their position of moral superiority on their religions death toll, and they believe that the deaths in the bible actually occured, then those deaths, fictional or otherwise, need to be taken into account. They need to be taken into account if the person staing their opinion believes that the deaths occured. Let me try it another way to hammer this home. Lets say my position was that I am morally superior to everyone else. I state that I am morally superior to everyone else because my religion has killed the fewest people. I point out that athiest regimes have killed 10 million people. I believe that my holy book is a factual document. In my holy book, followers of my religion kill 20 million people. Given this information, my position falls apart. How would it be possible for me to claim moral superiority (based on death tolls) if the death toll that I believed to have occured actually exceeds the death toll of athiest regimes? It does not matter if the deaths in my holy book actually occured or not. My belief that they occured is what defeats my position.
In this thread the Bible deaths aren't valid additions to the body count. I hope I have been able to explain why this statement is wrong.I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson 2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Butterflytyrant writes: I have noticed that many religious people seem to believe that they hold some sort of moral high ground. They seem to believe that because they follow the teachings of a particular faith, they automatically become superior to others when it comes to interpretation of scripture, moral and ethical judgements etcOne of the reasons for this claim often stems from the idea that their particular religion or religion in general has a lower kill rate than no religion. The perpetrators of wars will always find ways of justifying their actions. Usually it is done in the name of the state, sometimes in the name of religion and sometimes it’s both. In the end all war is about the personal lust for power and wealth and is an abuse of the position held in the state and/or their religion. The state isn’t responsible for wars and neither is religion. It is people who commit theses atrocities, and unfortunately as Shakespeare wrote in Julius Caesar; the evil that men do live after them and the good is oft interred with their bones. Or to quote The Shadow, (for those old enough), who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:No they don't, unless they actually made some claim concerning those deaths. Of course, by your standards then the Christians don't have to justify any of the numbers you provided in Message 11. That's the Jewish Religion. No Christians around back then. How many deaths do you find in the NT? I know, "but they adopted the Jewish God, and believe it so they have to justify the deaths even though it wasn't under Christianity." Some believe Hitler was an Atheist, but my guess is that you won't let them take him off their tally. It's a shame you decided to deal in some fiction instead of sticking with reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
No Christians around back then. How many deaths do you find in the NT? I know, "but they adopted the Jewish God, and believe it so they have to justify the deaths even though it wasn't under Christianity." Why are you trying to drag this thread off topic into christianity bashing? You and the creationists (portillo) are the only ones mentioning christianity. The OP makes NO mention of christianity. Guilty conscience, me thinks...
Some believe Hitler was an Atheist And they would be wrong, if you bothered to do ANY research (you won't bother though).
It's a shame you decided to deal in some fiction instead of sticking with reality. It's a shame you pander to christianity while being about as liberal as they come about it....Put the FSM back in Chrifsmas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dirk Member (Idle past 4023 days) Posts: 84 Joined:
|
The state isn’t responsible for wars and neither is religion. It is people who commit theses atrocities
We can also turn this around: The state isn't responsible for good deeds and neither is religion. It is people who commit them. That's the problem with religions: they deny responsibility for all the bad stuff yet insist that good things can only be the result of faith... Btw, the 'abuse' of religion to justify war would already be a good reason to get rid of it altogether; at least it would mean that people who want to commit atrocities would have one less reason to hide behind...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:The issue between BFT and myself deals with using death tolls from the OT stories and not sticking to reality. The point of that post: His position is that since some believe the stories to be true, those deaths should be added to the religious tally. If we follow that logic, then since some believe that Hitler was an Atheist, then his death tolls should not be added to the religious tally. Believing something is true doesn't make it fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
I absolutely don't accept this. It seems human nature to try to escape responsibility. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Inaction is another way of approving. Just because you sat back and not participate in killings and other sins by your peers doesn't absorb you of responsibility. I would have felt better if half the German population was put into concentration camps after the war. They elected the nazis. They stood back and allowed the nazis to do all those things.
This is why I'm not going to let this go. You Christians, in your morally superior ways, are allowing the socons to take over. Don't even try to deny responsibility. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Taz writes: You Christians, in your morally superior ways, are allowing the socons to take over. Don't even try to deny responsibility. Now, can I persuade you to try the eggnog without the whisky?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined:
|
Taz writes: I absolutely don't accept this. It seems human nature to try to escape responsibility. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Inaction is another way of approving. Just because you sat back and not participate in killings and other sins by your peers doesn't absorb you of responsibility. I would have felt better if half the German population was put into concentration camps after the war. They elected the nazis. They stood back and allowed the nazis to do all those things. This is why I'm not going to let this go. You Christians, in your morally superior ways, are allowing the socons to take over. Don't even try to deny responsibility. I remember back when you were bragging about not voting, that is, not participating in democracy. In fact I remember that you believed democracy was a scam, that you yourself wanted some 'ubermensch' to take control. Who are you to criticize others who do vote? Who are you who sits on their ass and does nothing to further the human condition than whine about others? GDR is not the enemy of the enlightenment simply because he has a thing about CS Lewis, you are because you have a thing against democracy! {sorry admins, some shit just plain pisses me off} Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0
|
Hi PD,
Believing something is true doesn't make it fact. No, but it is nonetheless reasonable to point out problems and inconsistencies in another's position. One does not need to believe that the Bible is true to point out that those who do believe it true are saddled with believing that God is behind a whole lot of deaths. If you are going to ban any discussion of fiction from a debate about religion, it's going to be a real short debate. Mutate and Survive
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024