Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8950 total)
37 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 34 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,364 Year: 22,400/19,786 Month: 963/1,834 Week: 33/430 Day: 33/63 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WooHoo! More idiots running the gub'ment.
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5881
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 25 of 245 (548705)
03-01-2010 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by hooah212002
02-27-2010 9:25 PM


It is shocking to think that this man is a legislator and this stupid to be using obscure bible passages as a means of anecdotal medical advice, and to be repealing laws based on such an infringement of the 1st Amendment.

But then, it is Virginia, home to some of the wackiest bible thumpers you've ever seen.

Show me where an atheist has don harm in the name of the FSM, or in the name of atheism.

I would tread lightly if I were you. There are whacko's on your side of the fence too.

As for how many atrocities have been committed under the pretense of some religion, it pales in comparison to the numbers murdered by despots seeking a religion-free utopian society in the last 100 years alone.

My advice to you is not to turn this in to an "Us versus Them" thing. That would only further perpetuate ignorance.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hooah212002, posted 02-27-2010 9:25 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by hooah212002, posted 03-01-2010 5:38 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Rahvin, posted 03-01-2010 11:31 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 29 by Theodoric, posted 03-01-2010 4:36 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 30 by Taz, posted 03-01-2010 7:24 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5881
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 27 of 245 (548708)
03-01-2010 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Buzsaw
02-28-2010 9:07 PM


Re: Poor Babes
The American way has always been to get up the votes to determine policy.

No, as this is descriptive of Direct Democracy (i.e. Mob Rule) which runs counter to a Democratic Republic, which is what the United States is founded upon.

There are certain "inalienable rights" that NO one can vote away. See, democracy is great until people can be persuaded to take away other people's rights. Majority rule, sounds fair right? Not always. Suppose you lived in a Muslim country which now, by popular vote, decided to round up all the Christians and execute them. Does their majority opinion outweigh the right for your life, persons, and property to be intact? I would hope not.

And let us not forget that everything Hitler was able to accomplish was perfectly legal and he had the backing of the majority opinion in Germany. Should we then assume Hitler and his Brown Shirts were righteous because it had an air of sophistication, an air of legality, an air of open debate?

If things were left to a Direct Democracy, the people on this forum would have voted for your execution long ago. I trust you can see why the founding fathers were so utterly opposed to a direct democracy and chose instead a republic.

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself." -- John Adams

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" -- Benjamin Franklin

So what if it's a religious conviction, so long as the majority goes along for whatever reason?

Because that's not how it works in a republic. Religious neutrality is the only way religion can ever be rightfully protected by the government, think about it. Otherwise you have one religion (which is set up in the government) working to subvert all other competing religions.

Suppose a bunch of Muslims started getting elected. Slowly you watch Christendom become more and more outlawed, but the People voted on it. Would you be so forgiving? No, because it should be your inalienable right to practice Christianity freely.

The Founding Fathers saw to it that certain things are beyond debate, like inalienable rights bestowed by your Creator. Stop trying to infringe upon the very people who were trying to protect your freedoms.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Buzsaw, posted 02-28-2010 9:07 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5881
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 91 of 245 (548886)
03-02-2010 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Rahvin
03-01-2010 11:31 AM


I really, really despise your insipid mindless middle nonsense.

What does "middle nonsense" consist of???

Stalin wasn't out to kill Christians like some Roman emperor throwing them to the lions. He was killing off anyone loyal to the opposition, in any form that might take. It's not even clear that Stalin himself was an Atheist, as he had some strong ties to Orthodoxy.

You are right to say that Stalin's goal was a political purge, however, Stalin was very much against religion because it heavily conflicted with Marxist ideology. And yes, he attended the seminary in his youth but grew to despise it, possibly more than you despise my "insipid mindless middle nonsense."

And to suggest that anti-religion mass murders have been worse than religiously-motivated purges is blatantly stupid.

It's not a matter of being "worse" in linear terms, but rather the amount killed in relatively much shorter period of time. I am simply illustrating that to indict religion as being a cause for violence is foolish when juxtaposing the opposite. The problem is not religion or irrelegion as it were, but the condition of the human heart itself.

Propaganda exists with many faces and people invent all sorts of justifications for why their aims should continue under the threat of sword.

The Holocaust was religiously motivated, and there is frankly no way to argue otherwise if you read even just a few excerpts from Mein Kampf (a stomach turning exercise, but then, nobody ever claimed history was pretty).

The Holocause was less religiously motivated than it was eugenically, socially and racially motivated, since homosexuals, the mentally retarded, gypsy, and Jew were swept up in a tide of pro-cacausian fervor.

The Inquisition was quite obviously religiously motivated. There is no possible way to contest this.

No doubt about it.

The Salem Witch Trials were the same.

It's really silly to use the Salem Witch Trials since it was localized and about 25 people died versus Nazi-Germany's concentration camps or the Soviet Union's gulags which killed, imprisoned, or persecuted millions.

It's true that there are "whackos" of every political and religious (and irreligious) persuasion. Sociopathic behavior is rooted in the individual, and the rest is just the trappings.

That really is all I'm saying, so I don't see the need to be so defensive as if you fall in to that category by proxy because you're an atheist.

My point is there is nothing inherently wrong with being religious or irrelegious, since there are good-natured people of both persuasions who have never hurt a soul.

But some philosophies do lend themselves to work as motivations or jsutifications of abhorrent behavior more than others. Atheism isn't even a philosophy in and of itself - it's simply an absence of any belief in deities. It's rather difficult to jump from "there are no gods" to "we should kill all the Jews."

It is not always simply an absence of belief. As illustrated by China, Germany, and Russia, religion is antagonistic towards despotism because it offers people outside of the regime that the despots want to control.

Christianity, however, has been used to justify all manner of atrocities - including killing Jews, who after all killed Jesus remember, or taking blacks as slaves, because after all they were the seed of Ham, or destroying Native American cultures, since they're just filthy heathens anyway, or shunning the use of condoms in the middle of the African AIDS epidemic.

I'm not religious, so I don't have any affection towards any religion. Like you said people use religious justifications to enact their loathing for something. I am simply saying that is also done in reverse as well. The religious persecution that exists in China, even to this day, is frightening. Christians and Falun Gong practioners are routinely persecuted and there is even growing evidence that Christians, Falun Gong, and prisoners organs have been harvested with the government's knowledge and consent.

Why these individuals? Because they're expendable blights on mankind in the eyes of the PRC.

quote:
My advice to you is not to turn this in to an "Us versus Them" thing. That would only further perpetuate ignorance.

Indeed. You've already perpetuated more than enough on your own.

How is that so if I am being objective and you and Hooah seem to be only pointing the finger in one direction?


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Rahvin, posted 03-01-2010 11:31 AM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Taz, posted 03-02-2010 11:02 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 99 by Rahvin, posted 03-02-2010 12:06 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 226 by Taz, posted 03-17-2010 9:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5881
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 94 of 245 (548898)
03-02-2010 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Theodoric
03-01-2010 4:36 PM


Re: WTF?
These guys were totalitarian thugs, they were not attempting to make a utopian society.

Yes, they very much were trying to create a utopian society where class wars would be put to an end. The problem is their utopian dream ended up being a dystopian nightmare.

They were not specifically seeking a religion-free society.

No, you are right. That was not their only goal, rather suppressing religion was one facet of achieving their societal goals.

They were trying to eliminate any other potential rivals. That religion was one of their potential rivals does mean that they were more against it than anything else. They destroyed any organizations not controlled by themselves. For example, trade unions, independent media, independent universities.

I am not contesting any of that. I am simply pointing out that the freedom of religion was in jeopardy and many were persecuted under the pretense of their utopian society, which included no religion. Religion was viewed by the heads of state as a dangerous relic of the past that conflicted with deepest tenets of their beliefs.

You make it sound like their main motive was destroying religion.

If you extrapolated that I was stating this was their only motivation, then that is your failing and not mine. You assume that must have been what I meant when all I stated was that anti-religious factions have persecuted religion in the same manner that religion has persecuted anyone outside of its sphere of influence.

You seem to agree so I am unclear on what precisely it is that you are objecting to.

BTW, I sure hope you were trying to include Hitler in you list.

Absolutely Hitler is included.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Theodoric, posted 03-01-2010 4:36 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2010 3:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5881
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 98 of 245 (548906)
03-02-2010 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Taz
03-01-2010 7:24 PM


Those dictators initiated their purges for political reasons, not because of some atheistic doctrine.

Politics and ideology are inextricably linked. The "policies" of a political platform directly come from their ideologies. I assume you would agree that Bush's policies stem from his politics which are heavily influenced by his religion, would you not?

If that it the case, exactly what difference is there between Chinese oppression of religion? Merely political? What "political" aversion exists in religion? Unless of course it politically conflicts with your ideology.

First, they proclaimed themselves to have a monopoly on truth.

So did most forms of communism, so what is your point? Are you disagreeing that anti-religionist regimes have existed, and still exist in many places, and that they aren't persecuting religion?

They then indoctrinated the school children to view them as religious icons. I have a friend who grew up in Vietnam. He told me that when he was in grade school there the children were made to recite the communist pledge (pray) to a picture of Ho Chi Minh. School children in Soviet Russia also (prayed) to a picture of Stalin and Lenin. School children in China also (prayed) to a picture of Mao. Sound familiar?

You're making my point for me. So what are you objecting to about what I'm saying?

And when they began to feel threatened by some political group or persons, they began their purges... you know, sort of like the inquisitions and the salem witch trials.

Exactly!!!

They had nothing to do with atheism or human reason. To claim so shows the kind of naive thinking found in either school children or republicans.

You are thinking too broadly here. Using "human reason" or "atheism" is not on trial here. I very clearly spoke about "anti-religion" (see the contrast?) Yes, by the very nature of things in order to be anti-religion one has to be an atheist, HOWEVER, being an atheist doesn't automatically make you anti-religion.

I am not, repeat, NOT saying that all atheists are indictable. I am simply pointing out an historical FACT -- that there is blood on the hands of many anti-religion regimes in history. So it is idiotic to try and indict religion alone (under some giant umbrella no less) as being the sole perpetrator of human misery. NOTHING about what I've stated is inaccurate. That you can't even be objective about it points to a blinding bias on your part.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Taz, posted 03-01-2010 7:24 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2010 12:12 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5881
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 127 of 245 (549362)
03-06-2010 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Rahvin
03-02-2010 12:06 PM


Re: The Mindless Middle
The Mindless Middle refers to the strong tendency to seek the "middle ground" in any given dispute and attribute to it a higher likelihood of accuracy than "either side," and label this conclusion as "objectivity." You'll note that at no point is such an assessment actually based on an analysis of facts, but is rather determined by making a compromise of sorts from all sides of any dispute.

You do this...a lot.

This mindless middle that you've assimilated me in to is characteristic of people who just shy away from conflict. These are people pleasers who are more afraid of being offensive than anything else.

I don't fall in to any of those categories. How many times have I excoriated religious folk on this forum? How many times have I had scathing criticism of the anti-religious folk?

1. I'm not seeking their approval or disapproval
2. I'm not meekly tip-toeing around afraid the rock the boat
3. I attempt to view it fairly and not group people together by virtue of association, but rather look at individual (ine)qualities.
4. My reasons aren't mindless. My reasoning is specific, not just ways to "keep the peace."

In this case, you've made a statement to paint atheism in the same historically negative light as religion in terms of crimes agaisnt humanity - a sort of massive scale to quoque fallacy.

Nonsense, because I never said atheism. You just assumed it and immediately went on the defensive. You're now posturing to defend your worldview that was never in jeopardy to begin with.

I said anti-religion very clearly. To be anti-religious you have to be an atheist, but you don't have to be anti-religious in order to be an atheist. Same concept is Londoners are British, but not all Brits are Londoners.

Objectivity does not mean maintaining absolute neutrality towards each side and seeking the "truth" from all sides.

I know. It's not about neutrality, it's about reality. And the reality is that it just so happens that all atheists aren't anti-religious who are drunk on the blood of Christians, and it just so happens that all religionists aren't cooking up atheist-stew. Is that neutrality or is that probably more closely akin to the way things really are?

The relevant fact here is that this purge cannot be attributed to atheism. It was a political purge, spawned of political ideology. How do we know this? There is no atheistic ideology or philosophy whatsoever. It's ratehr difficult to say that the teachigns of atheism led to a purge of the faithful when atheism has, in fact, no teachings at all.

Let's not be coy. The very basic nature of atheism is disbelief. Many, if not most, simply disbelieve and provide compelling reasons for that disbelief. However, an entire ideology has in fact been engendered around the umbrella of atheism. That isn't an indictment on atheism, just the fact that some people use it as justification for their anti-religious works.

How do I know? Look at all the blowhards in the anti-religion movement who easily are louder than all the religious apologists combined. They proselytize in the same manner as their inglorious, religious counterparts. They hold conferences on disbelief, they form churches of disbelief, they actively seek to subvert religion. Nothing about that is simple disbelief.

Atheism is a non-belief. Yet the anti-religious atheists seem to look upon it as if to a God in the form of believing.

It just echo's my point that, like anything else, people find justifications for anything. Within religion or irreligion some people misuse it. They twist and contort for their own ends. But to say that all atheists and all religious people are crazy and fanatical is propaganda all its own.

You can call that me being in the "mindless middle," I call it common sense. This is common sense and has nothing to do with appeasement or placating, or finding middle ground, or seeking a compromise. It's about facts. The simple fact is that on any side of a debate there exists people who manipulate their basic ideological premise.

What reasonable person would disagree with that? Only people with bias would argue that point because they feel it is a personal slight against them. Why is that? Because they're too wrapped up in the "Us vs Them" dichotomy and have lost objectivity.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Rahvin, posted 03-02-2010 12:06 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by onifre, posted 03-06-2010 2:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 133 by Rahvin, posted 03-08-2010 12:27 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5881
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 128 of 245 (549369)
03-06-2010 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Theodoric
03-02-2010 12:12 PM


Re: Your premise is flawed
Anti-religious does not equate to atheism.

Yes, and I very clearly went out of my way to explain.

Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness.

That all depends on why they killed in the first place -- the motive involved. Atheism itself is a non-belief (at least it is supposed to be). However, for the anti-religious it is so much more.

It's the same thing for anything really. If someone happened to be a Christian and killed someone versus a Christian killing someone specifically with the notion of their Christianity being the focus are two entirely different things.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2010 12:12 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by onifre, posted 03-06-2010 2:11 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5881
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 132 of 245 (549393)
03-06-2010 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by onifre
03-06-2010 2:11 PM


Re: Your premise is flawed
First, there is no such thing as "non-belief," that is a made up term. It refers to nothing at all.

Uh, how is that not synonymous?

I live my life with the knowledge that if I drop something it will fall, not that a supernatural entity will suspend it in mid-air. That's what atheism is, nothing more nothing less.

Right, so to be anti-religious is obviously a step further than mere non-belief.

And anti-religious people don't have to be atheist, they could be deist or agnostic. So your whole position is irrelevant.

Perhaps you're right that atheism is not a prerequisite. After examining how an agnostic or a deist could be anti-religious, I would agree. I therefore retract that.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by onifre, posted 03-06-2010 2:11 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5881
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 146 of 245 (549552)
03-08-2010 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Rahvin
03-08-2010 12:27 PM


Re: The Mindless Middle
Some of them (and I count you in this subset) actually believe that they are being objective, when they are doing nothing of the sort.

Oh, I see, so now I'm also delusional. Great.

As an aside, the Midless Middle in politics brings us political drift - when everyone agrees that the correct course of action is "somewhere in the middle," all one side needs to do to swing things their way is to become even more extreme, moving the "center" farther in their direction.

What does that have to do with the state of facts either being accurate or inaccurate or a mixture of both?

I;m not claiming that you're biased. I;m claiming that you're not objective. In this thread you;ve made unsupported statements suggesting that "neither side is right." You took a "middle" position, without actually analyzing any facts at all - and it bit you in the ass, because your statements were factually wrong.

You're going to have to point out what I said that was "factually wrong" because I'm on several different forums discussing several different topics.

Irrelevant. I;m not claiming that you're biased. I;m claiming that you're not objective.

But being objective is not relying on a bias, so which is it?

"Fairness" is not objective. Fairness is the very definition of the Mindless Middle.

Well, you're dead wrong about that. "Fairness" is the synonym of objective. Here, for your own peace of mind.

I feel like you're asking me to define the word is instead of answering a question directly.

quote:
Nonsense, because I never said atheism. You just assumed it and immediately went on the defensive. You're now posturing to defend your worldview that was never in jeopardy to begin with.

I said anti-religion very clearly. To be anti-religious you have to be an atheist, but you don't have to be anti-religious in order to be an atheist. Same concept is Londoners are British, but not all Brits are Londoners.


Liar. See the following quotes from the message I initially responded to

quote:
I would tread lightly if I were you. There are whacko's on your side of the fence too.

As for how many atrocities have been committed under the pretense of some religion, it pales in comparison to the numbers murdered by despots seeking a religion-free utopian society in the last 100 years alone.


You were directly responding to a comment regarding atheism, and you specifically referred to "despots seeking a religion-free utopia." What else ycould that have meant, Hyro? Do you think I'm an idiot, or just too lazy to look back at what you actually said? Your furious backpedalling won't make your comments any more objective.

I very clearly said that to be anti-religion, one had (out of necessity) to be an atheist, but that not all atheists had to be anti-religious. I have been saying that from the beginning, all of which can be verified by simply reading everything I wrote. Oni then said that you could technically be agnostic or deist and be against religion (at least organized religion. I pondered that and came to the same conclusion and retracted my statement that one has to be an atheist in order to be anti-religious. At NO time, however, did I in any sense claim that atheists are to blame. I said clearly that people who are anti-religion go a step further and I even went out of my way to clarify EXACTLY that point.

So, right now, quote me on saying anything like that. You can't because it never happened. You had to quote my original post where you assumed I was speaking about atheists (which is dumb because I'm closer to an atheist than anything else). I'm agnostic, and given my myriad of posts concluding just that, I would think that fact wouldn't be lost on you.

You claimed that the number of people killed "under the pretense of religion" is outnumbered by recent mass-murders motivated by a vision of a "religion-free utopia."

Because it's true.

That specific statement was false. It was also a Mindless Middle arguemnt, because it sought to paint "both sides" as guilty, yet provided no facts at all to support any such assertion.

You don't know anything about history that I have to prove it to you the purges? Is the history of the commissars lost on you? Is the history of the Soviet Union lost on you? This is common knowledge, and that you dispute it only proves that you've lost all objectivity.

Atheism contains no ideology! It's simply a lack of belief (for some, an active dis-belief) in deities. THAT IS ALL. I;m used to repeating this to people like Buz or ICANT, but you should know better, Hyro. There is absolutely no coherent ideology surrounding atheism. There's no Great Book of Atheism, no dogma, no clergy, no central philosophy.

Rahvin, for most atheists it is simply about disbelieving in deities. But please don't expect everyone here to be blind, as if no atheists went a step further and formed entire anti-religious ideologies of hate around it.

The Communist Manifesto, the Humanist Manifesto, etc are documents that go far beyond mere disbelief. They outline how religion is a blight on mankind and find ways to subvert it. That goes beyond mere disbelief, Rahvin. That's forming an ideology and making an enemy out of religion.

You alleging that atheism has no ideology attached to it is just senseless because the whole thing is formed on a philosophical and scientific basis! It wasn't formed in a vacuum. These are carefully constructed ideals.

You've once again claimed that "both sides do this and are equally wrong," without actually qualifying such a statement with facts or evidence or even a logical analysis of the tactics of each.

Qualifying them? Religious and irrelegious people murdered on that basis! I need to qualify that????

You can't even defend yourself against a claim of a Mindless Middle argument without making another such argument. Pathetic.

Let's talk about pathetic. Your use of this Mindless Middle is a straw man and you wield it derisively to make a futile point since I'm here clearly arguing with you. There's no middle position in that. I am unequivocally stating that people died and it was wrong. I'm just saying that two different sides did the killing and it was equally wrong. Apparently you are justifying why it's copacetic for anti-religious people to slaughter religious people because they didn't do it for ideological reason! Rrrrrrrriiiight.

Who is "they," Hyro? I've never seen a "church of disbelief." Have you" Where? I;ve never met an atheist on the street handing our Jack Chick-esque pamphlets seeking to subvert the faithful.

Well, I was actually being metaphorical, but some actually do have congregations where they talk about the evils of religion.

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=...

http://www.atheistalliance.org/

You mean that a subset of atheists persue atheism with a ferver equivalent to those who zealously worship their god(s)? What does theis have to do with the argument at hand?

The people that go beyond mere disbelief are not dispassionate about their aims for religion. They have therefore crossed over from simple disbelief in to anti-religion. Not ascribing to a religion and being against religion are two entirely different things, I think you would agree.

You still haven't shown how your statement

quote:
I would tread lightly if I were you. There are whacko's on your side of the fence too.

Yeah, Hooah is anti-religion not just an atheist. He;s not shy about it. Just click on his name and read any of his posts.

But I'm curious - precisely and specifically which central tenet of atheism is ever "twisted and contorted" for some negative purpose? I find it difficult to believe that a position defined only by a lack of any belief in deities can possibly be "twisted" to any end at all.

You have a simple disbelief in deities. It turns in to a loathing for the religious (or specific religions) which can turn in to an obsession for some. That obsession can lead to the same mentality of why the Nazi's hated the Jews. There is no one reason or central reason, it is a concoction of different reasons, whether real or imagined. What was the "central" reason why Nazi's hated Jews?

Your "common sense" is worse than useless here.

Throughout this post you've been especially congenial with me and I want to thank you for your good behavior.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Rahvin, posted 03-08-2010 12:27 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Rahvin, posted 03-08-2010 7:40 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5881
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 149 of 245 (549587)
03-08-2010 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Rahvin
03-08-2010 7:40 PM


Re: The Mindless Middle
When the populace believes that the correct stance is a compromise between two sides, one side has merely to adopt an extreme version of their position to move the "middle" in their direction. It;s something like haggling - you start by asking for a significantly lower price than you know you'll get so that the seller has room to make a counteroffer while still giving a lower price than if you had offered a fair price immediately.

What does that anecdote have to do with the current discussion and how does that apply to me? Anyone at any time is subject to changing their views if persuasive evidence is presented. I don't see how that is relevant.

This isn't something you're doing. It's simply me mentioning another application of the same phenomenon you've demonstrated.

What am I doing? I'm haggling? I'm taking an extreme view? What am I doing?

In this particular thread, you said that more people have been killed in recent times by atheistic regimes than by religiously motivated ones. That claim is factually wrong. As I showed in message 99 of this thread, Hitler's Holocaust was in fact religiously motivated, while the purges of Russia were not motivated by atheism - rather, atheism was, like the purge itself, just a means to an end motivated by the political desire to eliminate political competition.

Okay, first of all, both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union's respective holocausts and purges are too complicated to attribute to any one thing. Be that as it may, it certainly played a large role.

Was Hitler a Christian? For every quote you provided, there are conflicting quotes made by him concerning Christianity.

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."

[i]"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.i"

"The individual may establish with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror entered into the far freer ancient world, but he will not be able to contest the fact that since then the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion, and that coercion is broken only by coercion, and terror only by terror. Only then can a new state of affairs be constructively created. Political parties are inclined to compromises; philosophies never. Political parties even reckon with opponents; philosophies proclaim their infallibility"

Yet he's also made the statements you quoted as well as directly addressing the Soviet purge of Christianity by saying,

""Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany’s fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity. Fourteen years they have gone arm in arm with atheism. At no time was greater damage ever done to Christianity than in those years when the Christian parties ruled side by side with those who denied the very existence of God. Germany's entire cultural life was shattered and contaminated in this period. It shall be our task to burn out these manifestations of degeneracy in literature, theater, schools, and the press—that is, in our entire culture—and to eliminate the poison which has been permeating every facet of our lives for these past fourteen years."

What we know of Hitler is that he was fascinated by the occult, by Germanic-pagan religions, anything affiliated with the Aryan race, etc, etc.

He used elements of Christianity, like the fact that it was "the Jews" who killed Christ and the anti-semetic writings of Martin Luther to bolster some kind of semblance between him and Christianity. In other words he took the elements of Christianity that appealed to him and discarded the elements he disliked.

Now, as for the Soviet Union, there is NO question behind their motives. History testifies quite strongly, of which you seem to deny despite my utilizing of several sources. For someone who just lambasted me as a Mindless Middle[man] who isn't backing up his claims, I find it rather odd that you are now silent on the issue when I provide clear evidence that refutes your claims.

This laundry list of anti-religious provisions lays it out plainly that religion was something to be destroyed. That is an undeniable FACT and I hope you concede this obvious point.

When I say you're not being objective, I'm saying that you're not basing your statements on facts, but are instead throwing out unsupported assertions based on "common knowledge'

Alright, well, I have now rectified that and provided numerous sources to back up my "unsupported assertions." We can now move beyond that distraction and deal with the issue.

Later you did indeed retract the assertion that all "anti-religious" people must be atheists. However, you quite plainly above were referring to atheists, as you were responding to a comment regarding atheists.

quote:
:You claimed that the number of people killed "under the pretense of religion" is outnumbered by recent mass-murders motivated by a vision of a "religion-free utopia."

Apparently you still aren't grasping the concept. Yes, the people [in the Soviet Union] were committing atrocities because, at least in part (a very large part), religion was an enemy of the State. That is indisputable. Where you go awry is trying to get me to say that "atheists" of all persuasions are therefore guilty by virtue of association. Not only did I not say it, I didn't even imply it.

I very clearly identified "anti-religious" (again, distinguishing from people who disbelieve but have no beef with religion) and qualified that VERY clearly and consistently.

1) the Holocaust was religiously motivated as shown in Hitler's own writings from Mein Kampf, many of which I directly quoted, and which follow directly from the writings of Martin luther, the father of Protestantism.

Nonsense. The Holocaust was racially and socially motivated and Christianity became just one more tool in which to oppress his enemies.

2) the purges of Stalinist Russia were not motivated by atheism, but by politics. Enforced atheism was a means to an end, not in any way a motivation; it is dishonest to claim that the purges were done "in the name of atheism" or "in the name of anti-religion."

I agree now and publicly agreed before that to think atheism was its only motivation for the purges is not telling the whole story. Be that as it may, religion was DEFINITELY on the hit list as one of the main instigators.

What tenet of atheism can be used for any form of motivation whatsoever? Name just one. Any philosophical or ideological position of atheism that can be used as motivation for anything at all.

There is no central tenet of atheism. What's your point? I never claimed that atheism has a figurehead or anything like that. What I said, and which is beyond contest, is that some atheists have gone the extra mile and used atheism as a backdrop for their hatred of all things religious. These anti-religious people have used their atheistic agenda to subvert various religions.

What in there is incompatible with history or incompatible with reality? I mean, that you would even argue that point is ridiculous. It's like me trying to defend the Crusades. You can't defend something that transparently wrong.

Communism does not hold atheism as some sort of ideal. Atheism is not a motivation for communism. Rather, communism idealizes the State. Communism isn;t motivated to stamp out religion because no god(s) exist; communism is simply motivated to stamp out any competition for the authority of the State.

You could clearly draw a line from Nietzsche to Marx to Engels to Lenin ot Stalin etc where an anti-religious stance was a very noticeable central theme.

That's like saying that Christ's resurrection is actually unimportant in the whole theme of Christianity. It's a central point for the people committing the purges and therefore is more than relevant.

Atheism is one thing and one thing only: a lack of belief in deities. Nothing else.

Yeah, and Christianity is just about believing in Christ. It's that simplistic, right? There's no other backdrop necessary. So to blame Christians for the Crusades doesn't make sense.

I hope this illustration shows you what I see about your statement.

I;ve never claimed it was okay for atheists to kill theists.

No, you just denied that it ever happened... My bad

quote:
As for how many atrocities have been committed under the pretense of some religion, it pales in comparison to the numbers murdered by despots seeking a religion-free utopian society in the last 100 years alone.

Are you enjoying your red herring? This isn't about hooah.

This quote was directed to Hooah (an anti-religionist) in direct response to his post. So, yes, it's completely relevant to the debate.

Not believing in god(s) turns into a hatred for those who do? I thought it was the way theists treat atheists that did that. Silly me, thinkign that a simple lack of belief in god(s) didn;t carry any motivation for anything at all.

What do you want me to do, defend theists? It's not going to happen. The theists who abused, tortured, and murdered atheists are just as sordid as the one's who did it in reverse. The difference is for some reason you pretend that one didn't do it at all, which is really suspicious given that you are an atheist who appears to foster some anti-religious sentiments.

I guess bias and fabrication is a result of straying from the Middle.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Rahvin, posted 03-08-2010 7:40 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5881
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 154 of 245 (549607)
03-09-2010 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Buzsaw
03-08-2010 11:04 PM


Re: Athiestic Values
it is not necessarily athiestic values which made these good folks moral.

There is no declared atheist value. The values the average atheist would ascribe to would most likely be culturally influenced and based around altruism, like it is with most people.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Buzsaw, posted 03-08-2010 11:04 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5881
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 155 of 245 (549608)
03-09-2010 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Buzsaw
03-08-2010 11:04 PM


Re: Athiestic Values
I also regard the values of all Biblical princples to be of great benefit to society and cultures, the USA being so blessed over the past due to these values as compared to other nations of different cultures, especially what I consider as athiestic cultures such as the Communist block nations who have consistently been brutal and oppressive to their citizens as history attests.

"Biblical principles" have throughout history have demonstrated to be easily manipulated in to aberrant forms of oppression. The Dark Ages were dark for a reason. Aside from rampant disease, the Church Age was one of the most repressive forms of society this world has ever known, all of which was accomplished in the name of Christ.

You have to take the good with the bad. Whatever good things have come about from Christianity, others have been tragic and we can't just sweep those under the carpet.

I could find good things about Soviet anti-religious regimes, but it doesn't overshadow what crimes were perpetrated under it. I feel the same applies.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Buzsaw, posted 03-08-2010 11:04 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Buzsaw, posted 03-09-2010 9:58 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5881
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 183 of 245 (549784)
03-10-2010 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Buzsaw
03-09-2010 9:58 PM


Re: Athiestic Values
Hyro, for seven long years I've detailed the difference between Christianity and popianity/vaticanity. What ever you want to label the RCC, it is not Biblical NT Christianity. It is the harlot woman/Mystery Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18, whom the text says is drunken with the blood of the true saints. It has a history of violence whereas NT (I say NT) Christianity has no history of violence, nor did Jesus and his apostles advocate such violence as has been practiced by this illigitimate system who's holy father is not the Biblical god, Jehovah, but their alleged infallible pope man sitting on his golden jewel studded throne in Vatican City.

I will certainly agree that there are large differences between protestants and catholics, but both have blood on their hands.

Whenever I alude to Christianity, I am referring to the NT fundamentals of Christianity, i.e. Christian fundamentalism. It doesn't matter how many times I explain this, the same people on this board simply ignore what i have explained and post their strawmen responses falsly associating Christianity to violence.

Perhaps because it sounds as if you are trying to absolve Christianity from any wrong doing by saying that those people only called themselves Xtians, but are not real Xtians.

That begs the question of who arbitrates what a real Christian looks like.

I'm sure for some people that appears very convenient for Christianity to pick and choose who the real Christians are versus the imposters. I'm assuming if they take exception to you, that's probably the angle they are looking at it from.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Buzsaw, posted 03-09-2010 9:58 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019