Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,259 Year: 5,516/9,624 Month: 541/323 Week: 38/143 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moral high ground
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 46 of 318 (644722)
12-20-2011 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by jar
12-20-2011 10:15 AM


Re: Genocide is more than just killing.
All of the territory that is the US today was taken by genocide as well as all of South America, and in both cases one of the dominate tools used was Christianity and the forced imposition of Western Christianity to replace whatever cultures, religions, national identities that existed.
If political powers use religion as a tool to overtake a people, is it really that religion that caused all the killing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 12-20-2011 10:15 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 12-20-2011 10:24 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 48 by subbie, posted 12-20-2011 10:32 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 49 of 318 (644727)
12-20-2011 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
12-20-2011 10:24 AM


Re: Genocide is more than just killing.
Yes, if that is the tool used then the religion must assume responsibility.
Like how my keyboard is responsible for my spelling errors?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 12-20-2011 10:24 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 12-20-2011 10:39 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 318 (644729)
12-20-2011 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by subbie
12-20-2011 10:32 AM


Re: Genocide is more than just killing.
If political powers use religion as a tool and members of that religion allow that use, then the religion is at least complicit, if not responsible.
I do think complicit is a better word than responsible.
Would you blame the North Korean people and their religion for being responsible for the position their in? Are they really even complicit? Or have they been forced?
Not that christians needed that much forcing, but you can draw a line somewhere.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by subbie, posted 12-20-2011 10:32 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by subbie, posted 12-20-2011 10:47 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 318 (644731)
12-20-2011 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by jar
12-20-2011 10:39 AM


Re: Genocide is more than just killing.
but the use of religion was intentional and accepted as a desired goal.
It was, in some cases, but what about the ones I'm talking about?
The ones where a political power uses a religion as a tool... I wouldn't call the religion responsible for that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 12-20-2011 10:39 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 12-20-2011 10:52 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 70 of 318 (644885)
12-21-2011 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by subbie
12-20-2011 10:47 AM


Re: Genocide is more than just killing.
Certainly, whether the people have the liberty to act or not should be a factor in determining the level of responsibility they have.
And how much responsibility we can ascribe to the religion...
I don't think we can get a good number on the amount of deaths "caused by christianity" or anything like that.
You don't know when it was actually religiously motivated or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by subbie, posted 12-20-2011 10:47 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by hooah212002, posted 12-21-2011 2:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 318 (644923)
12-21-2011 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by hooah212002
12-21-2011 2:28 PM


we can attribute enough atrocities that we know were directly attributed to relgiosity throughout history
So lets take a Crusade, shit-tons of mulsims killed in the name of Christianity, right? So, this one Crusader kills this one muslim. Did he do it in the name of religion? Was he forced into his situation and then had to defend himself? Did the religion really motivate his killing? Can we really say?
Now, if you zoom out, you could ascribe religious motivation the whole battle, but then we're getting into religion being the tool used by those in power to control the individuals... and that ain't really the religions fault either.
religion does not have the so called moral high ground it claims it has. We can give enough examples of people who either commited atrocities in the name of religion, or who were religious, to say that morality is irrespective of religion.
So if you focus on the bad things that people do, I too doubt you'll be able to find dependency on religiousity.
But what if you look at the motivations towards the good things that people do?
I think every hospital here in St. Louis is tied to some particular religion. Too, the shelters and food pantries are as well.
I think its easier to ascribe the moral goodness to the actual religion, itself, than it is the badness, because I don't see a lot of moral badness being proscribed as tenets of religion... And the individuals usually follow the tenets.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by hooah212002, posted 12-21-2011 2:28 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by frako, posted 12-21-2011 4:14 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 75 by hooah212002, posted 12-21-2011 4:15 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 318 (644932)
12-21-2011 4:23 PM


Sorry guys, I've changed my mind. I don't want to type about this shit.

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 157 of 318 (645479)
12-27-2011 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Dr Adequate
12-25-2011 11:36 AM


Re: Relative Death Tolls
So, let's get this straight ... if I were to slay a bunch of people "because God wants them dead", that would be a religious reason, but if God does exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason, it isn't?
I'd say that's right. It seems silly to me to call God religious. What religion does God follow? Too, there's the difference of the latter being self-motivation while the former is other-motivated. Isn't the whole point being motivated by something other than yourself?
On the other hand, I wouldn't call "because God wants them dead" a religious reasons unless its following some particular religion.
Regarding the double standard, Portillo specifically mention comparing "Atheistic regimes" with "religious atrocities", so yeah, it doesn't seem to be apples-to-apples from the get-go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-25-2011 11:36 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Tangle, posted 12-27-2011 1:16 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 161 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-28-2011 1:49 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 318 (645494)
12-27-2011 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Butterflytyrant
12-24-2011 11:39 PM


Re: Christians Off The Hook
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.
So which deaths in the Bible are they going to count as religiously motivated? (that is what we/they're counting, right?)
You counted the victims of the flood earlier, but don't you think those shouldn't be counted as religously motivated since they were not caused by someone who was motivated by religion?
How do you determine which deaths in the Bible were religiously motivated and which weren't? How do you determine that for any death, regardless of whether it was in the Bible or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Butterflytyrant, posted 12-24-2011 11:39 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 318 (645597)
12-28-2011 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Butterflytyrant
12-28-2011 8:43 AM


Re: 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.
Well, what the hell do you mean by "religiously motivated". I think it means that you did something because of your religion.
Like, the 9/11 attacks were religiously motivated by Islam.
On the other hand, Timothy McVeigh, while being a christian, wasn't motivated by christianity to bomb buildings, he was pissed at the government.
God, himself, doesn't have a religion imho.
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?
Because God isn't in a religion where he worships himself. God is the object of worship for religions, he isn't religious himself.
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.
Its not about the end result at all. Its about the motivation for the act. If your religion is what motivated you to do the act, then that act was religiously motivated. God doesn't count as "religious" so he cannot be religiously motivated. Its not that complicated and its not a semantic distraction.
This is some sort of pointless distraction argument designed to lead people away from the actual discussion.
Speculating motives only makes you look foolish. We have a genuine disagreement here, and there's no reason to sling shit.
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.
Holy shit, man, calm the fuck down. Argue the position, not the person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Butterflytyrant, posted 12-28-2011 8:43 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 318 (645600)
12-28-2011 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Dr Adequate
12-28-2011 1:49 AM


Re: Relative Death Tolls
The right one, obviously.
So he worships himself?
Isn't the whole point being motivated by something other than yourself?
It's not clear.
Well here's the claim again:
quote:
Atheistic regimes have killed over 100 million people. Thats 10,000 times more than all religious atrocities put together since the beginning of time.
Wouldn't a religious atrocity be one that was motivated by a religion?
Now, the context of the quote is a little cloudy... Here's pretty muc how it went down:
Portillo writes:
BFT writes:
Portillo writes:
And how blind you are to think that Hitch never threw a few stones at religion.
My point was that he have negative things to say about religion but he backed up everything he said.
He backed up everything he said? Atheistic regimes have killed over 100 million people. Thats 10,000 times more than all religious atrocities put together since the beginning of time.
So, to me, Protillo seems to be referring to some claim made by Hitch regarding religion killing more peope than atheism, or something like that. Are you aware of anything like that from Hitch?
"Because God wants it" is pretty much the only religious reason, in the last analysis.
I see that PD brought in this definition of "religious":
Religious
1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
You're using definition 1 and I'm using 2 so it makes sense that we're talking past each other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-28-2011 1:49 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-28-2011 11:38 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 318 (645610)
12-28-2011 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Dr Adequate
12-28-2011 11:38 AM


Re: Relative Death Tolls
I think he has angels to do that for him.
Then how is he the one that's religious?
So, to me, Protillo seems to be referring to some claim made by Hitch regarding religion killing more peope than atheism, or something like that. Are you aware of anything like that from Hitch?
No, but he might have.
I think it'd help if we knew what was being referred to.
Well, the religious beliefs referred to in 2 mostly seem to take the form "God thinks this", "God wants that", "God would like me to put the following group to death ..."
So, since you have god as religious, you'd imagine him going: "hrm, I wonder what I would think that I should do. Oh, I bet its this. I better follow what I want, so I'm gonna do that. Hooray. All praise to me." ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-28-2011 11:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-28-2011 11:49 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 318 (645623)
12-28-2011 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Modulous
12-28-2011 1:50 PM


An important, but potentially off-topic, point should be made here. They don't seem to know anything, they profess the belief that he is above all that nonsense but they don't seem to know that.
There is no reason to discount the possibility that God is following his own religious views about the universe. That religion maybe about super-supernatural things, or it could be strangely self-referential. We don't know and we can't know. I suppose believing something strongly might give the appearance of knowing, but it doesn't fool most of us skeptics
Well yeah, but if we're talking about "the god of the Bible", then there's things we can ascribe to him as a character... and I don't think we can call him religious.
If you're comparing religion vs. non-religion, and wanted to add up the deaths caused by each, would you really count the deaths from The Flood as being religiously motivated (assuming you're counting for the side that believes in the Bible)?
Further, the question in the OP seems to be talking about deaths caused by man in the name of religion (and thus not by god) vs. deaths caused by man in atheist regimes... so either way it doesn't seem fair to include deaths caused by god.
Heh, if we're going to count the deaths by god in the religious pile, then shouldn't we count all naturally occuring deaths in the atheist pile since they would technically be deaths "without god"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Modulous, posted 12-28-2011 1:50 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Modulous, posted 12-28-2011 2:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 318 (645628)
12-28-2011 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Modulous
12-28-2011 2:38 PM


I agree. That's why in Message 173 I mentioned the deaths that men caused in the Bible as a result of their religious beliefs, rather than deaths that God directly caused.
Pretty much the point I was making was that that's how it should be done... And you provided a great example.
Too, if you're going to consider events that actually happened, I don't think you can just blanketly apply religious motivation to the individuals involved in that particular battle, or whatever.
That's why I don't think you can get good numbers to actually make a comparison with.
Can anyone who thinks that their god killed 15,000 people for complaining (Numbers 16) really claim the moral high ground? Can they claim it over people that simply lack the belief that their god did any thing at all?
I don't think any particular religion can claim the moral high ground. Neither do I think "the non-religious" can.
And it just seems silly to add up some number of deaths, like I said earlier, it would be easier to look at the good things as some of those are actually prescribed specifically by the religion so it'd be easier to assign a motivation. But even then, it doesn't really matter.
Potillo did make a fairly specifc claim tho, and part of it was talking about the deaths of "atheist regimes". So he wasn't even comparing motivation to motivation.
Are you familiar with any arguments from Hitch that talk about the number of deaths caused by religions, or anything like that? Because I think P was referring to something specific if you go back and read the context of the quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Modulous, posted 12-28-2011 2:38 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Modulous, posted 12-28-2011 6:05 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 210 of 318 (645817)
12-30-2011 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Jon
12-30-2011 1:10 AM


Re: You cant create the utopia until you free people from religion and get rid of it.
Do you ever post anything about religion that doesn't illuminate your deep hatred and total ignorance of the subject?
I was wondering the same thing...
Here we have two christians calmly expressing themselves to an assholish atheist who spouts nothing but vitriol. And he thinks that he has the moral high ground
Who needs to count deaths!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Jon, posted 12-30-2011 1:10 AM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Rahvin, posted 12-30-2011 12:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 212 by Tangle, posted 12-30-2011 1:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024