Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,044 Year: 5,301/9,624 Month: 326/323 Week: 170/160 Day: 6/38 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moral high ground
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4527 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 1 of 318 (644448)
12-17-2011 11:28 PM


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.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by hooah212002, posted 12-18-2011 9:42 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied
 Message 5 by nwr, posted 12-18-2011 10:42 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied
 Message 6 by jar, posted 12-18-2011 10:47 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied
 Message 7 by Dogmafood, posted 12-18-2011 10:58 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 12-18-2011 11:33 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied
 Message 10 by frako, posted 12-18-2011 12:03 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied
 Message 38 by Portillo, posted 12-20-2011 4:32 AM Butterflytyrant has replied
 Message 96 by GDR, posted 12-23-2011 8:27 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4527 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(3)
Message 11 of 318 (644526)
12-18-2011 6:50 PM


I have some data from the Bible to put on the table
Hey folks,
Sorry about the big cut and paste but here goes -
quote:
Killed by God
? -- Drowned everyone in the whole world except for Noah and his family (Genesis 7)
1 -- Saltified Lot's wife (Genesis 19:26)
? -- Burned all of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah (except for "good" Lot who offered his virgin daughters to a mob of men and then slept with both of them himself later)
1 -- Slew Er, Judah's firstborn son (Genesis 38:7)
1 -- Killed Er's brother, Onan because he spilled semen on the ground so as not to conceive offspring for his brother's wife whom he was forced to marry (Genesis 38:9-10)
? -- The firstborn in all of Egypt (Exodus 12:29)
? -- Drowned the pharoah and all of his gang in the Red Sea (Exodus 14:26-28)
2 -- Nadab and Abihu for making a fire
? -- Burned some Jews for complaining
? -- Sent a plague against Jews for being greedy
11 -- Sent a plague on Jews who gave the chosen land a bad report
? -- Korah and other Jews who didn't like Moses
? -- The Lord causes the earth to open and swallow up the men and
their families because they had been rebellious (Numbers 16:27-33)
250 -- A fire from the Lord consumes 250 men (Numbers 16:35)
14,700 -- Sent a plague on Jews apparently for the hell of it (Numbers 16:49)
"many" -- Sent serpents on Jews (Numbers 21:6)
24,000 -- Plague killed Jews who followed Baal (Numbers 25:9)
? -- Philistines
50,070 -- Jews who looked in the ark of the covenant (1 Samuel 6:19)
1 -- Nabal for scorning David
1 -- Uzzah for touching the ark when trying to keep it from falling
1 -- David and Bathsheba's child
70,000 -- Sent a pestilence because David sinned (2 Samuel 24:15)
51 -- Fire from heaven consumes the prophets of Baal (2 Kings 1:10-12)
102 -- Sent fire down on Ahaziah's men
42 -- Sent bears to kill children who mocked Elisha (2 Kings 2:23-24)
? -- Sent lions to kill invaders
185,000 -- Assyrians (2 Kings 19:35)
80,000 -- Lots of bad Israelites
___________________________________________
399,933 + ? -- Total killed by God!
Killed on God's orders by his followers
? -- Jacob's sons killed every man in Shechem
3,000 -- Jews worshipping the golden calf (Exodus 32:27-29)
1 -- Man gathering wood on the Sabbath Day (Numbers 15:32-36)
? -- Canaan (Numbers 21:3)
? -- The Lord commands Moses to kill the people and expose them in broad daylight so that the Lord's anger may be turned away from Israel (Numbers 25:4)
? -- Took the city of Heshbon from the Amorites
? -- All of the people of Bashan
? -- All Midianites except for the virgin girls (Numbers 31:17-18)
? -- The Israelites destroy the men, women, and children of Sihon leaving no survivors after the Lord gave them over to them (Deuteronomy 2:33-34)
? -- The Israelites destroy the men, women, and children of Og after the Lord gave them over to them (Deuteronomy 3:6)
? -- Everyone in Jericho but Rahab, a hooker who betrayed her city (Joshua 6:21-27)
? -- Achan and his family (who had nothing to do with it) for stealing (Joshua 7:19-26)
12,000 -- Joshua utterly smites the people of Ai with the God's approval (Joshua 8:22-25)
? -- Everyone in the cities of Ai, Amalek, Makkedah, Libnath, Lachish, Egnolites,
Jarmuth, Geder, Hebronites, Debirites, Hormah, Arad, Addellam, Bethel,
Tappuah, Hepher, Apheh, Lasheron, Madon, Tasnach, Megiddo, Kedesh,
Jokneam, Dor, Goiim, Terzah, Gibeonites and all of the Amorites.
10,000 -- Canaanites of Bezek (Judges 1:4)
10,000 -- The Israelites kill the Moabites with the help of the Lord (Judges 3:29)
? -- The people of Jerusalem, Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai
? -- The people of Zephath, Gaza, Ashkelon, Ekron, and the king of Moab, Eglon.
? -- The army of Sisera and the men of Karkor
? -- Jephthah destroyed 20 cities
30 -- The Spirit of the Lord comes Samson and causes him to slay thirty men
(Judges 14:19)
1000 -- Under the Spirit of the Lord, Samson slays 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass (Judges 15:15)
3000 -- Samson, with the help of the Lord, pulls down the pillars of the Philistine house and causes his own death and that of 3000 other men and women (Judges 16: 27-30)
50,100 -- The men of the tribe of Benjamin (Judges 20:35, 43-48)
? -- The tribe of Jabesh-gilead
? -- The Ammonites, the Philistines and the Amelekites
331,269 -- David killed a whole bunch of people
3 -- Solomon killed a few people too
? -- All of Jeroboam's extended family
? -- All of Baasha's extended family
450 -- Prophets of Baal
793,000 -- All Jewish Baal-followers
127,000 -- Arameans slain by the Israelites with the help of the Lord (1 Kings 20:28-30)
1 -- Man who wouldn't strike a prophet
? -- Moabites
172 -- Jezebel, Ahab's sons, Joram, their priests, and their friends
142 -- Ahaziah's relatives
? -- The sacrifice of the firstborn of Israel so that the Lord might horrify them.
? -- All of Baal's followers
1 -- Athaliah for killing sons
1 -- Mattan the Baal priest
10,002 -- Edomites and two servents
? -- All of the pregnant women in Tirzah
20,000 -- Hezekiah killed a bunch of people
500,000 -- Israelites killed each other
50,000 -- Ethiopians
23,000 -- Seerites
510 -- Haman's army
75,300 -- More of the army
___________________________________________
2,017,956 + ? -- Total killed by God's followers under his orders!
So the grand total comes to:
399,933 Killed by God
+ 2,017,956 Killed by God’s followers
= 2,417,889 + ? people killed by God and his followers under his orders PLUS an unknown amount which probably number into the millions, including the whole world at the time of Noah, and over 60 whole cities!
Source:
http://www.angelfire.com/ky/nogod/deathtoll.html
and similar source:
Biblical Deaths: How Many Did God Kill? How Many Did Satan Kill?, page 1
It would seem to be an odd position to attempt to position yourself just above people like Hitler or Stalin and claim the moral high ground.
So far, from the above count we have a bare minimum of 2.5 million. I would welcome any estimates of the amount of people killed in the flood, the firstborn of Israel and other figures marked with a question mark.
If we have a conservative estimate for this, we can ask the other team to begin their task by equalling the death toll in their holy book.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by purpledawn, posted 12-19-2011 7:44 PM Butterflytyrant has replied
 Message 34 by glowby, posted 12-19-2011 11:59 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied
 Message 62 by Portillo, posted 12-21-2011 3:57 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4527 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(2)
Message 32 of 318 (644673)
12-19-2011 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by purpledawn
12-19-2011 7:44 PM


Re: I have some data from the Bible to put on the table
Purple Dawn,
Did you feel any shame whatsoever when you decided to post that bullshit?
I have two big problems with your post.
1. When I read it, I wondered what historical source would have been so biased and ignorant of the actual facts.
Then i checked your source - it was a blog. A fucking blog??? That is your source?
When using a source that may contain no actual facts it is a good idea to see if it is possible that the author may be biased.
The first line of that blog post begins...
Whenever I am evangelizing to non-Christians...
Your information is bullshit for a large number of reasons.
Frako covered the connection between Christianity and the Nazis quite well in Message 13. Would you care to have a stab at actually debating those facts. Notice Frako's sources, including primary sources like actual physical objects and texts written by the regimes leader as well as scripts from his speeches?
The other regimes mention deserve enough respect for a slab of wiki only -
1932-1933 — Holodomor
quote:
The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор, 'Морити голодом', literal translation Killing by hunger) was a man-made famine in the Ukrainian SSR between 1932 and 1933. During the famine, which is also known as the "terror-famine in Ukraine" and "famine-genocide in Ukraine",[1][2][3] millions of Ukrainians died of starvation in a peacetime catastrophe unprecedented in the history of Ukraine.[4]
Early estimates of the death toll by scholars and government officials varied greatly; anywhere from 1.8[5] to 12 million[6] ethnic Ukrainians were said to have been killed as a result of the famine. Recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.4[7] and 7.5[8] million. The exact number of deaths is hard to determine, due to a lack of records,[9][10] but the number increases significantly when the deaths inside heavily Ukrainian-populated Kuban are included.[11] The demographic deficit caused by unborn or unrecorded births is said to be as high as 6 million.[9] Older estimates are still often cited in political commentary.[12]
Scholars disagree on the relative importance of natural factors and bad economic policies as causes of the famine and the degree to which the destruction of the Ukrainian peasantry was premeditated on the part of Joseph Stalin.[4][13][14][15] Scholars and politicians using the word Holodomor emphasize the man-made aspects of the famine, arguing that it was genocide; some consider the resultant loss of life comparable to the Holocaust.[16] They argue that the Soviet policies were an attack on the rise of Ukrainian nationalism and therefore fall under the legal definition of genocide.[17][18][19][20][21] Other scholars argue that the Holodomor was a consequence of the economic problems associated with radical economic changes implemented during the period of Soviet industrialization.
Notice the distinct lack of religious or athiest motivation there? here is the important bit -
They argue that the Soviet policies were an attack on the rise of Ukrainian nationalism and therefore fall under the legal definition of genocide. Other scholars argue that the Holodomor was a consequence of the economic problems associated with radical economic changes implemented during the period of Soviet industrialization
1959-1962 — Great Leap Forward famine
quote:
The Great Leap Forward (simplified Chinese: 大跃进; traditional Chinese: 大躍進; pinyin: D yu jn) of the People's Republic of China (PRC) was an economic and social campaign of the Communist Party of China (CPC), reflected in planning decisions from 1958 to 1961, which aimed to use China's vast population to rapidly transform the country from an agrarian economy into a modern communist society through the process of rapid industrialization, and collectivization. Mao Zedong led the campaign based on the Theory of Productive Forces, and intensified it after being informed of the impending disaster from grain shortages.
Chief changes in the lives of rural Chinese included the introduction of a mandatory process of agricultural collectivization, which was introduced incrementally. Private farming was prohibited, and those engaged in it were labeled as counter revolutionaries and persecuted. Restrictions on rural people were enforced through public struggle sessions, and social pressure. Rural industrialization, officially a priority of the campaign, saw "its development aborted by the mistakes of the Great Leap Forward."[1]
The Great Leap ended in catastrophe, resulting in tens of millions of excess deaths.[2] Estimates of the death toll range from 18 to 46 million,[3][4][5] with estimates by demographic specialists ranging from 18 to 32.5 million.[6] Historian Frank Diktter asserts that "coercion, terror, and systematic violence were the very foundation of the Great Leap Forward" and it "motivated one of the most deadly mass killings of human history."[7]
The years of the Great Leap Forward in fact saw economic regression, with 1958 through 1961 being the only years between 1953 and 1983 in which China's economy saw negative growth. Political economist Dwight Perkins argues, "enormous amounts of investment produced only modest increases in production or none at all. In short, the Great Leap was a very expensive disaster."[8]
In subsequent conferences in 1960 and 1962, the negative effects of the Great Leap Forward were studied by the CPC, and Mao was criticized in the party conferences. Moderate Party members like Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping rose to power, and Mao was marginalized within the party, leading him to initiate the Cultural Revolution in 1966.
Notice the destict lack of religious or athiest motivation there?
Here is the important bit -
The Great Leap Forward of the People's Republic of China (PRC) was an economic and social campaign of the Communist Party of China (CPC), reflected in planning decisions from 1958 to 1961, which aimed to use China's vast population to rapidly transform the country from an agrarian economy into a modern communist society through the process of rapid industrialization, and collectivization.
quote:
aloth Sar (19 May 1925 — 15 April 1998),[1][2] better known as Pol Pot, (Khmer: ប៉ុល ពត), was a Cambodian Maoist revolutionary who led the Khmer Rouge[3] from 1963 until his death in 1998. From 1976 to 1979, he served as the Prime Minister of Democratic Kampuchea. Pol Pot became leader of Cambodia on April 17, 1975.[4] During his time in power he imposed a version of agrarian socialism, forcing urban dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labour projects. The combined effects of forced labour, malnutrition, poor medical care, and executions resulted in the deaths of approximately 21 percent of the Cambodian population.[5] In all, an estimated 2,000,000 to 4,000,000 people died under his leadership. He also led a ruthless and ideologically driven campaign against western culture and capitalism in Cambodia.
Notice the distinct lack of religious or athiest motivation there?
Here is the important bit -
During his time in power he imposed a version of agrarian socialism, forcing urban dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labour projects. The combined effects of forced labour, malnutrition, poor medical care, and executions resulted in the deaths of approximately 21 percent of the Cambodian population.
your comment -
I don't know if these numbers are right or not and I don't plan on checking, but I think there's record of enough deaths in reality without going to stories.
That is very common for your side. You present information from an obviously biased source. You present information that you neither know, nor care if it is accurate. And you expect this to somehow support your arguement?
the second problem I have with your post is -
You don't have any data from the Bible. The Bible passages you refer to are stories. (Just because some believe they are history, doesn't make it so.) I thought you were talking about real deaths. Not deaths in stories. Do we then count all the deaths that are written of in secular stories? I think a few planets have been destroyed in the Star Trek series. I remember some planet wide destruction in Babylon 5. Our planet has supposedly been flooded several times wiping out all life.
You are not the only Christian reading this. Many christians, including members of this forum do believe that the bible is a factual source, not stories. Not one of your team has the same version of christianity as another. It is a bit difficult to post something that aligns with a potentially infinite number of interpretations of a faith.
How the fuck is Star Trek a secular story anyway?
Are you suggesting that there are people out there who believe the Star Trek and babylon 5 universe is actually real?
Many people of your faith believe that the Bible is true. You would have to believe that at least some of it is true or you would not be a christian. I do not think that there are any people that believe that the Star Trek or Babylon 5 universe exists.
Have another go, without the bullshit this time.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by purpledawn, posted 12-19-2011 7:44 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by purpledawn, posted 12-20-2011 7:27 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4527 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 80 of 318 (645095)
12-23-2011 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by purpledawn
12-20-2011 7:27 AM


Re: I have some data from the Bible to put on the table
PD,
As was your source for Bible Deaths, which at least they were looking at deaths mentioned in the Bible and not comparing it to reality.
There are no fully credible sources that discuss the death toll in the bible. Religious sources ignore it. Non religious sources believe it is a work of fiction so dont really bother counting. The only avenue left is blogs and forum pages.
History however does have academic sources. The reason you did not use an academic source is because you would not have found one that supports your opinion.
In order to find a page that does support your opinion, you had to find a blog written by an evangelical christian.
I agree with you that the bible is not reality. However, I realise that I am not the only person in the world. You need to understand that you are also not the only person in the world.
You are aware that there are a lot of pople on your side who believe that the bible is a record of reality dont you?
According to a Gallup poll, 3 in 10 Americans believe this. Thats somewhere around 95 million people.
(Source: In U.S., 3 in 10 Say They Take the Bible Literally )
From my experience, the people who lean towards the religious moral high ground claim also lean towards the idea that the bible should be taken as a recording of reality.
Because of this, I will include the deaths in the bible. For you personally, these deaths dont count because your personal opinion is that the bible is not a recording of reality. For others who do not share your position (they do exist) the deaths in the bible need to be addressed.
You are making assumptions about me personally that you have no basis for. Please argue the position and not the person.
The only assumption that I have made is that you, in some way, worship the christian god as mentioned in the New Testemant. The basis of this assumption comes from reading your posts including one where you discussed having your prayers answered.Message 116. But then in other posts you seem to state that you do not believe Message 40. Let me know which it is so I dont have to make any more assumptions.
Also, I was argueing the position. The position you have as stated in your next sentence -
quote:
My position is that there are plenty of real wars and skirmishes with or without religious or atheistic intent to draw from without resorting to the stories of the Bible.
My response - Many people believe that the bible is true.
The Bible is not an historical book.
I know that and you know that. Other people on this forum do not agree and they will need to address the deaths in the Bible.
My position has nothing to do with who has killed more, just didn't want you padding the numbers.
So in order to make sure I did not pad the numbers, you padded the numbers in my oppositions favour?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by purpledawn, posted 12-20-2011 7:27 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by purpledawn, posted 12-23-2011 8:23 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4527 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 82 of 318 (645100)
12-23-2011 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Portillo
12-20-2011 4:32 AM


History for dummies
Portillo,
Lets take a few examples. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and their henchmen, in a period of 6 decades, killed 100 million people. Pol-Pot, in a period of 3 years, killed 2 million.
None of these deaths can be attributed to atheism. Use wikipedia. It will give you an overview of the examples you have provided. The cheif motivations in your examples are -
Lenin - Overthrow of capitalism through communist revolution
Stalin - Maintenance of Stalins communist rule. Paranoia and distrust.
Mao - Rapid transformation from agrarian economy to communist society. Rapid industrialisation.
Pol Pot - Forced conversion on Cambodian society to agrarian socialism.
The Inquisition - full title : Inquisitio Haereticae Pravitatis or inquiry on heretical perversity. Roman catholic organisation. Torture and executions for heresy.
The Salem Witch Trials - Trials and executions for breaking christian laws regarding witchcraft.
Can you spot the ones that are religiouly motivated?
again, use wiki for more info.
Let me make this clear so that Im never misunderstood. I dont think I have a moral superiority to anyone.
Good. Thats one down.
I am sick. Sick from sin and Jesus is my hospital.
It is very sad that you feel that way. Created sick then commanded to be well...
"Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick, and commanded to be well ... And over us, to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine North Korea. Greedy, exigent, greedy for uncritical phrase from dawn until dusk and swift to punish the original sin with which it so tenderly gifted us in the very first place."
Christopher Hitchens

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Portillo, posted 12-20-2011 4:32 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Portillo, posted 12-23-2011 8:42 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4527 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 87 of 318 (645110)
12-23-2011 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by purpledawn
12-23-2011 8:23 AM


Re: Believing Doesn't Make it Fact
PD,
Wow, my first few posts and you still didn't understand them. Stop trying to make assumptions about me personally. Deal with the position I present in the post.
Unless you can prove the Bible is a factual source, then it isn't a viable source for this discussion on deaths.
This is your reply to a post where I request that you state your position, I said -
Let me know which it is so I dont have to make any more assumptions.
I have asked you to state your position so that assumptions need not be made and you decide to dance instead.
I have dealt with the position you present.
Was I unclear when I dealt with your position in Message 80?
So you are complaining that I am making assumptions an not dealing with your post in reply to a post of mine where I request that you state your position and I deal with your your post?
I will run through it again, correct me if I am wrong.
your position as stated in Message 44
My position is that there are plenty of real wars and skirmishes with or without religious or atheistic intent to draw from without resorting to the stories of the Bible.
Me recognising and dealing with your position from Message 80
your position - The Bible is not an historical book.
my reply - I know that and you know that. Other people on this forum do not agree and they will need to address the deaths in the Bible.
Unless you can prove the Bible is a factual source, then it isn't a viable source for this discussion on deaths.
One more time with feeling.
You have stated your position. You have stated that you do not believe that the bible is a a factual document. That means that you no longer have to discuss this element of the debate. You have already covered your position and have no more to say on that oarticular subject. Fine. Great. Gold star for you. You have stated your position and no longer need to discuss it anymore.
The people who do need to deal with the deaths of the bible are those who believe that the bible is a factual document.
You do not believe that the bible is a factual document so this excludes you. get it? or do you need to post another comment stating exactly the same thing?
let me put it another way...
If you do not believe that the bible is a historical document, then you do not need to respond to the post regarding deaths in the bible.
How is that? get it now?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by purpledawn, posted 12-23-2011 8:23 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by purpledawn, posted 12-23-2011 11:46 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4527 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 88 of 318 (645111)
12-23-2011 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Portillo
12-23-2011 8:42 AM


Re: History for dummies
Portillo,
Thats a relief. I was worried that those avowed atheists were killing in the name of atheism.
was that a rebuttal?
Or was that you throwing something out there hoping that some of the lurkers will be ignorant as fuck and believe that you may actually have a point?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Portillo, posted 12-23-2011 8:42 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Portillo, posted 12-23-2011 4:43 PM Butterflytyrant has replied
 Message 93 by AdminPD, posted 12-23-2011 5:23 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4527 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 94 of 318 (645148)
12-23-2011 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Portillo
12-23-2011 4:43 PM


Re: History for dummies
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Portillo, posted 12-23-2011 4:43 PM Portillo has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4527 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(2)
Message 95 of 318 (645149)
12-23-2011 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by purpledawn
12-23-2011 11:46 AM


Re: Believing Doesn't Make it Fact
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:
Moral high ground
from Message 1
The first sentence of that post is -
quote:
I have noticed that many religious people seem to believe that they hold some sort of moral high ground.
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:
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
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by purpledawn, posted 12-23-2011 11:46 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by purpledawn, posted 12-23-2011 9:08 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4527 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 108 of 318 (645206)
12-24-2011 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by purpledawn
12-23-2011 9:08 PM


Re: Christians Off The Hook
PD,
*sigh*
How is it possible, with all of the examples provided to you, is it possible for you to still miss this point?
I will try again.
I will break it down into the smallest parts I can.
Two people. We have two people.
One person, lets call him Arnold says "I am morally superior to you"
The other person, lets call her Sally says "Why"
Arnold replies "because my religion has killed less people than yours"
Arnold is basing his own personal feelings of moral superiority on the death toll of his religion. (please read that a few times as that is the bit you keep missing)
Sally says "ok, that is a fair point but lets do the numbers"
Arnold counts up the deaths due to religious wars and genocides, from current history books and the Bible, which is a history book in his opinion and comes to a total of 2 million deaths*
Sally counts up the deaths according to the history books and comes up with 1 million deaths*
*These figures are imagined
Sallys says to Arnold "according to these figures, your claim of moral superiority due to the death tolls of our factions is refuted"
Arnold cannot say he is morally superior to Sally because the death toll he puts forward of his religion exceeds Sally's.
Arnold's opinion that he is morally superior to Sally is based on the death toll that he believes has occured. It does not matter if that total is correct or not. Arnold has based his attitude on that death toll. That is the death toll that he has based his opinion on.
If a person has based their position of moral superiority on a death toll and they believe that the bible is a factual document, then it is necessary for them to include the deaths in the bible into their count.
Lets try it another way
Kevin states that he is the best at spelling in a group of 10 people.
Kevin has this opinion because when he does spelling tests with his mother, he always gets 10 out of 10.
He asks the others and he is the only one who always gets 10 out of 10.
He repeats that he is the best at spelling because of the count that he has.
Unfortunately for Kevin, his mum is a liar and tells him he gets 10 out of 10 just to make him happy.
Kevin does not know this. Kevin has developed his opinion using information he believes to be true.
It does not matter if the information is true or not, the point is that Kevin has used this information to develop his opinion in regards to his spelling ability.
get it?
quote:
my comment - 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.
your reply - No they don't, unless they actually made some claim concerning those deaths.
They do. that is my point. The people who believe that the bible is a factual document do believe that the deaths in the bible did occur. If they make the claim that they are morally superior because atheism has a higher death toll, then they need to put all of the deaths that they believe to have occured on the table.
If a person who believed that the bible was a factual document does count the deaths in the bible as real deaths. If they also claim to be morally superior because their faith has a lower death toll, then they need to include all of the deaths that they believe to have occured that have lead them to that position.
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."
All this means is that you are missing the point.
Some believe Hitler was an Atheist, but my guess is that you won't let them take him off their tally.
Seriously? I will need you to tell me that you are actually seriously putting this bullshit forward as an honest point before i deal with it. It would surprise me if you really are putting this forward as a serious point because it is fucking idiotic. I will assume it is just an off the cuff remark unless you tell me that you honestly believe that you are making a valid point.
It's a shame you decided to deal in some fiction instead of sticking with reality.
Again, all this means is that you are still missing the point.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by purpledawn, posted 12-23-2011 9:08 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by purpledawn, posted 12-24-2011 9:20 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4527 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 112 of 318 (645211)
12-24-2011 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by purpledawn
12-24-2011 3:38 AM


Re: Numbers From Fiction
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.
Wrong. This is not my position. This is you making an incorrect assumption. Remember how quick you are to jump on people when they do that? You are making an assumption that I have informed you is incorrect already.
My position is - A person who believes that the deaths in the bible really occured, needs to count those deaths in the death toll.
I am not choosing what someone adds to their own tally.
I am reminding those that believe that the bible is historically accurate that THEY need to add the deaths to their tally.
When you manage to understand this you will begin to see why the rest of your post is pointless.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by purpledawn, posted 12-24-2011 3:38 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by purpledawn, posted 12-24-2011 8:26 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4527 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 121 of 318 (645277)
12-24-2011 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by purpledawn
12-24-2011 8:26 PM


Re: Numbers From Fiction
PD,
I am glad that I can count patience among my personal attributes.
quote:
PurpleDawn writes:
His position is that since some believe the stories to be true, those deaths should be added to the religious tally.
Butterflytyrant writes:
My position is - A person who believes that the deaths in the bible really occured, needs to count those deaths in the death toll.
your reply - I'm not seeing the difference.
I know you dont see it. What I cant work out is how it is possible for you not to see it. You keep missing it over and over and over again.
I will try in this post one last time to explain this to you. After this you may have to just step out of the discussion as you cannot grasp a quite important part. If you cant understand this point, you will not be able to make any sensible comments.
One more time with feeling...
We have a new person, his name is Donald.
Donald has reached his own personal position in regards to his moral superiority with careful thought.
This is the point you are not getting. Donald has used his own beliefs to develop his position on morals.
In Donalds case, the events and situations he either personally witnessed or knows about and believes are true have been used to develop his own opinion in relation to moral superiority.
This does not mean that Donalds beliefs need to be applied to all other people. That would make no sense. But Donalds beliefs need to be taken into account when in discussion with Donald.
If Donald counts those deaths when he is establishing his position in regards to moral superiority, then why should we not?
This does not mean that the biblical deaths need to be applied to the religious tally for all of the people on the religious side. You keep missing that point. The biblical deaths need only be taken into consideration for the people that include those deaths in their calculations when establishing their moral superiority.
You keep suggesting that I am trying to add the deaths in the bible to the religious tally for all of the religious side. This is an error on your part.
Look at the statements you have quoted -
PurpleDawn writes:
His position is that since some believe the stories to be true, those deaths should be added to the religious tally.
now look at my statement -
Butterflytyrant writes:
My position is - A person who believes that the deaths in the bible really occured, needs to count those deaths in the death toll.
See how in your version, you are referring to the entire religious sides tally whereas in my quote, I am referring to a single person- "a person".
quote:
I am not choosing what someone adds to their own tally.
I am reminding those that believe that the bible is historically accurate that THEY need to add the deaths to their tally.
PurpleDawn writes:
Still not seeing the difference.
I know you're not. Amazing isn't it. I am as surprised as you are.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by purpledawn, posted 12-24-2011 8:26 PM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4527 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 122 of 318 (645286)
12-24-2011 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by purpledawn
12-24-2011 9:20 PM


Re: Christians Off The Hook
PD,
It isn't the religious person using the numbers from his religious book, it is the religion-free person using the numbers.
You are missing the one important point. The only people who need to add the deaths in the bible to their tally are the people who believe that the Bible is a historically accurate book.
If they have arrived at their position of moral superiority by counting the death toll of the respective teams, then they need to make sure that they count the deaths in the bible.
Only those who belive that the biblical deaths did occur need to do this.
Protillo, as you have pointed out, does not believe that the deaths in the bible really occured. So he does not need to add the deaths in the bible to his count.
A bible literalist, who makes a statement like 'I believe that my faith has caused less deaths than yours' needs to add the deaths that he has counted that have lead him to establishing this position.
I realise that I was unclear in the very first message, however I have made it clear since then.
I have made it clear that the deaths in the bible need only be taken into account for the people who believe that the bible is a historical document.
from Message 80
From my experience, the people who lean towards the religious moral high ground claim also lean towards the idea that the bible should be taken as a recording of reality.
Because of this, I will include the deaths in the bible. For you personally, these deaths dont count because your personal opinion is that the bible is not a recording of reality. For others who do not share your position (they do exist) the deaths in the bible need to be addressed.
from Message 80
Other people on this forum do not agree (with you) and they will need to address the deaths in the Bible.
from Message 87
You have stated your position. You have stated that you do not believe that the bible is a a factual document. That means that you no longer have to discuss this element of the debate. You have already covered your position and have no more to say on that oarticular subject. Fine. Great. Gold star for you. You have stated your position and no longer need to discuss it anymore.
The people who do need to deal with the deaths of the bible are those who believe that the bible is a factual document.
You do not believe that the bible is a factual document so this excludes you. get it? or do you need to post another comment stating exactly the same thing?
let me put it another way...
If you do not believe that the bible is a historical document, then you do not need to respond to the post regarding deaths in the bible.
from Message 95
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.
from Message 95
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.
from Message 95
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.
from Message 95
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.
Notice from that last example where I stated 'person A' many times. Notice how 'person A' is singular. Its not refering to all religious people or the entire opposition to the OP. It id referring to 'person A' (whoever person A may be).
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.
from Message 95
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.
from Message 95
If a person has based their position of moral superiority on a death toll and they believe that the bible is a factual document, then it is necessary for them to include the deaths in the bible into their count.
from Message 108
I have corrected you on this point on enough occasions now that you should not be making the same error.
If the religious book contained numbers of deaths caused by religion-free people, would you want those numbers used in the tally?
The issue is not deaths caused by 'religion free' people. It is deaths caused specifically for religious reasons. If a person had developed their position of moral superiority through that religious book, then I will give a tentative yes. You would need to be a bit more specific about what you are saying though. Perhaps give an example of what you mean.
The quote you provided in the OP does not bring up the deaths in the Bible. I know what you point is, I'm disagreeing with it.
Your continued repetition of the same mistake indicates that you do not know what my point is in relation to this issue.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by purpledawn, posted 12-24-2011 9:20 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by purpledawn, posted 12-25-2011 6:50 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied
 Message 158 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-27-2011 12:05 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4527 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 125 of 318 (645299)
12-25-2011 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Granny Magda
12-25-2011 6:33 AM


Re: Numbers From Fiction
Hey Granny Magda,
but not with Portillo, at whom the thread was originally aimed.
Inspired by Portillo, but not aimed at only him.
From the OP -
quote:
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.
I have aimed the challenge at any who believe that religious people stand on moral high ground or are morally superior/can make morally superior judgements or decisions etc and use death tolls or acts of violence to establish this claim.
Portillo has advised that he does not see himself as morally superior. Which does make me curious what his point was when he brought it up. But that is for another thread.
My challenge is open to everyone. I am also interested in the thoughts of others who have faced this particular claim.
After PD and I have ironed out the current issue, I will start to discuss some of the other posts.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Granny Magda, posted 12-25-2011 6:33 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4527 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 164 of 318 (645586)
12-28-2011 8:43 AM


wondering if anyone is going to deal with reality?
From what I can understand, Purple Dawn and now Catholic scientist do not think that the deaths at the hands of God are religiously motivated.
I think this is a excersise in semantic bullshit. I cant understand why anyone would say that when God commands someone to kill, then it is religiously motivated, but when god decides to do hi own dirty work, it is not.
What a load of bullshit.
This is some sort of pointless distraction argument designed to lead people away from the actual discussion. An activity that I seem to notice PD is involved in quite a lot.
God killed a lot of people because they did not do what he said or did not worship him.
They did not follow the instructions of god so he killed them.
How can killing people for not following the instructions of god only count as religiously motivated when a person does it, but not when God does it himself?
Doing what god tells you to do means it is religiously motivated, but God doing what he wants is not religiously motivated?
So if I killed nearly every person on earth because they are breaking gods rules, that would be religiously motivated. Yet if god kills nearly every person on earth because they are breaking his rules, then it is not religiously motivated.
What a load of bullshit.
This question is for PD -
Lets say I am a bible literalist and I say that I am moraly superior to you. You ask me to provide my count. I include all of the deaths from the history books that I have (including the bible). You count up all of the deaths from the history books you have. My position of moral superiority has been created using the bible as fact. I have come to my position using the bible as fact. I provide my numbers of the deaths, including those deaths cause by god and you tell me that I cannot use those figures because you do not believe that my religious book is fact. I have based my whole fucking life around this book. Including my position on morality. And you, you arrogant fuck are going to stand/sit there and tell me that my book is fictitious so my position is invalid? You are telling me that I cannot have developed my own opinions because the book I based my opinions on is not fact in your view.
Does that hypothetical situation seem sensible to you at all?
Why do you swear on the bible in court if it is just a book?
Why dont you go down to a court house and tell them that they should just throw their bibles away. the book is not true, so swearing on a bible should mean nothing. But to a lot of people it does mean something. It does not matter that it is a work of fiction.
Why do people (Message 113) automatically give Christopher Hitchins a hard time because he wrote a negative review of Mother Teresa?
Because people develop their opinions and positions on things that are often not true. That does not make their position any less real.
How about you go talk to the Jews and tell them that they dont have to circumcise their baby boys anymore because even though they believe that they have to, you are right and they are wrong, the bible is a work of fiction so it can all stop.
Then you can head over to Africa and tell them all that condoms are OK again because the popes position is based on a work of fiction so everyone can tarp up whan they fuck from now on. (the church has recently changed their position on this issue)
Then you can tell the Jehovahs witnesses that its ok for them to have blood transfuctions because their book is a work of fiction, you are right about this and they are wrong. it does not matter if they believe it to be true. They just need to do whatever you say because you say so.
Then you can do a big 'Purple Dawn saves us all' world fucking tour. you will need to visit many nations and you can tell all of the crazy islamic extremists that there is no heaven. Their book is a work of fiction so there is no reason to perform any actions or develop any opinions using the book. They will tell you it is fact. You can nod and smile in a condescending way and just keep telling them you are right and they are wrong. Tell them that they need not develop any opinions of positions on the teachings of their book, even if they do believe that it is fact because it is not. Any they should take your word for it.
People do some very stange things and develop strong opinions based on the teachings of their favourite holy book.
People develop their opinions of morals on their holy book.
I know that you can be justified in saying that their opinion may not be valid in all debates.
But who the fuck are you to tell them that their own opinions are not valid because you do not believe that their holy book is true.
I could base my morals on the 'Clifford the Big Red Dog Books' if I wanted to. And I could do a damn sight worse. Would my moral position be invalid because the books are a work of fiction? Of course they wouldnt. Just because the events that have lead me to my current position did not happen in your view does not mean they cannot be an effective means of justifying a personal position.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by purpledawn, posted 12-28-2011 9:39 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied
 Message 168 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-28-2011 10:22 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024