|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,510 Year: 6,767/9,624 Month: 107/238 Week: 24/83 Day: 0/3 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4681 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Moral high ground | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
doing some math
WW2 Hitler was of christian faith no doubt about that, stalin and lenin led a cult of peronality could also be counted as religion so could mussloini, The Japan emperor was a god so defintivly the religion pile. Military deaths in WW2 22 500 000 Civilian deaths 40 000 000 a total of 62 500 000 deaths on the religion and cult of personality pile. Atheist pile 0. and if you claim im being unfair you do not understand atheism no atheist believes that stalin, lenin, or muslonini causes the land to be fertile, summer, or that any man hit 11 hole in ones in his first game of golf religion spouts nonsense like that remember the boy borne of a virgin who had magic powers and rose from the dead i see no diference between these charachters. Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3716 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:Come on. Deal with the specific issue presented. I am pointing out an inconsistency in his position. Religious atrocities are those things done by people. If one wants to discuss what God has supposedly done according to the Bible, then the Bible is an appropriate source. The way it is written, this isn't about what gods or any specific god has done. Ancient writers attributing natural disasters, plagues, or illness to a god don't count as religious atrocities. This thread is supposedly comparing human atrocities. The way the OP is written, the claim made by those exuding moral superiority deals with what religious believers have done. IMO, the implication is that religious people are less violent than those who are religion-free. It isn't about what their respective gods have done. If one wants to use the Bible numbers to show what atrocities the religious people have done, then one needs to support that these atrocities actually happened, not just that the believers believe they happened. Just because some believe Hitler is an Atheist doesn't mean that he is and people went out of their way to show that he wasn't an Atheist. So they aren't going to accept that belief that Hitler is an Atheist as true. Accepting what they believe as true to be true in one instance and not in another is inconsistent. In this discussion, comparing fact and fiction is unnecessary and out of place.
quote:What is it with people and absolutes. No one banned, threatened to ban, or suggested banning anything. My position is simply that pulling numbers from religious stories is not viable in this thread; not any other thread, just this thread. Notice I said this thread. I did not make a universal decree, just my opinion in this thread. My point: If one is going to compare human atrocities in this thread, stick to actual facts; it is unreasonable pull in numbers from questionable ancient stories regardless of what believers believe unless one plans on accepting everything they believe to be true as true for the sake of this discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4681 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Dirk writes: We can also turn this around: The state isn't responsible for good deeds and neither is religion. It is people who commit them. That's the problem with religions: they deny responsibility for all the bad stuff yet insist that good things can only be the result of faith... I don't disagree with that. People be they religious or not are capable of good or exil. Religion or atheism for that matter is just what people believe or which group they identify with.
Dirk writes: Btw, the 'abuse' of religion to justify war would already be a good reason to get rid of it altogether; at least it would mean that people who want to commit atrocities would have one less reason to hide behind... Some people use religion as an justification for war but a good many people also use religion as justification for not going to war.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Some people use religion as an justification for war but a good many people also use religion as justification for not going to war. My religion is moraly supperior because 1 of every 1000 folowers of my religion refused to kill people. Yea makes perfect sense. Ignoring hindu, jansit, buddhist, and jehovas witnesses in the above reply. Edited by frako, : No reason given.Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Taz writes: I absolutely don't accept this. It seems human nature to try to escape responsibility. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Inaction is another way of approving. Just because you sat back and not participate in killings and other sins by your peers doesn't absorb you of responsibility. I would have felt better if half the German population was put into concentration camps after the war. They elected the nazis. They stood back and allowed the nazis to do all those things. I agree with that. I don't see where it is contradiction to what I said in the post you replied to. I'm not blaming what Stalin did or Hitler on atheism. It was the result of those in power abusing it but I also agree that it took others out of lust for power and wealth to sign up and there is the group that you mention that go along with it out of ambivalence or fear. Also, I don't think that the German population had any idea what the Nazis would do after they were elected. It seems to me that most democracies have had instances where they elected leaders who did things that they were dismayed by after the fact.
Taz writes: This is why I'm not going to let this go. You Christians, in your morally superior ways, are allowing the socons to take over. Don't even try to deny responsibility. I've said numerous times in discussions on this forum that I don't see Christians as being morally superior to others. The discussions that I've engaged in are centred on why anything is considered moral. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4681 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
farko writes: My religion is moraly supperior because 1 of every 1000 folowers of my religion refused to kill people. I didn't say that my religion is morally superior to others. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 1061 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
You do realize that there is no "atheist doctrine" or atheist holy book for which people can use to justify anything at all, while holy books such as the Quran and Bible DO have text that can be twisted to justify just about any evil thing or even outright dictates such atrocities? Just because you, or any other liberal barely christian don't "believe" it should be twisted in such a manner, or that it should be taken as fable or allegory, doesn't negate the fact that they DO say such things. If you or PD were correct, there should only be ONE sect of christianity: yours. If you, or anyone, can find some atheist manifesto that is necessary for all atheists, or some doctrine that must be ascribed to in order to be a "trve" atheist, I am all ears.....
Put the FSM back in Chrifsmas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 1061 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
The issue between BFT and myself deals with using death tolls from the OT stories and not sticking to reality. Where in the OP does Butterflytyrant mention the Old Testament, or any particular religion?
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. And if we continue to follow BFT's logic, we would be just as prudent to point out to the morons who claim as such that their position is not based on fact and we would also point out the hypocrisy that their position entails which is exactly BFT's point that you are not grasping. You continue to be a soldier of christianity even though this thread is not at all about christianity specifically, but about religion (I would say faith) in general. You act as though it is being said that christianity alone has commited atrocities in the name of a god.
Believing something is true doesn't make it fact. You feel the need to say this to an avowed atheist.....why? You do realize that there is a significant amount of religionists who DO accept the crazy shit in those holy books to be fact, yes? You do realize those same people are, for example, running for the highest office in this country? Those same people are fucking with our education system as well. If it were the liberal half-christians such as yourself and GDR who were the loudest, I highly doubt we would even have this discussion, let alone this website..... Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Put the FSM back in Chrifsmas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 297 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: |
Religious atrocities are those things done by people. If one wants to discuss what God has supposedly done according to the Bible, then the Bible is an appropriate source. The way it is written, this isn't about what gods or any specific god has done. But the list of those killed on God's orders is a list of those killed by people. True, it may be a list of fictional people as far as you and I are concerned, but this thread sprang from comments made by Portillo, who presumably doesn't think these lists are fictional. On that basis, it seems reasonable to me that Butterflytyrant should use them. After all, if Portillo has no problem with those (supposedly true) massacres, but does object to "atheist" massacres, then he is engaged in a double standard, no?
This thread is supposedly comparing human atrocities. The way the OP is written, the claim made by those exuding moral superiority deals with what religious believers have done. IMO, the implication is that religious people are less violent than those who are religion-free. It isn't about what their respective gods have done. I agree to an extent and certainly, using these stories does somewhat alter the focus of the thread, but then, it is Butterflytyrant's thread. He should get some leeway over what the thread is about.
In this discussion, comparing fact and fiction is unnecessary and out of place. I don't think so when there are people like Portillo and Chuck in the house, who think that these stories are true accounts.
What is it with people and absolutes. No one banned, threatened to ban, or suggested banning anything. My position is simply that pulling numbers from religious stories is not viable in this thread; not any other thread, just this thread. Notice I said this thread. I did not make a universal decree, just my opinion in this thread. Sure, I understand you there. I didn't mean to give that impression. I think that it is entirely fair to apply what Portillo believes to be true to Portillo's argument. If he doesn't believe the OT to be a true history, fair enough, but I got the impression that he did see it that way. I do understand your point; these are slightly separate issues. i just think that both make for an interesting angle on this. If we can note the distinction, then I don't see why it should be out of bounds. Merry Christmas! Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : Fix codes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3716 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
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. I'm not seeing the difference.
quote:Still not seeing the difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3716 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:He didn't. In Message 97, where you joined this issue, I referred to Message 11, which is a list of deaths in the OT. quote:Not really sure what this has to do with my position concerning pulling numbers from stories. quote:Not sure what this has to do with my position either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3716 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:In Message 62, Portillo states: Biblical atrocities are fictional. Myths and fables. quote:He isn't altering the focus of the thread. He's just adding those numbers to the death toll. There's plenty of atrocities to compare without resorting to fiction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3716 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:That isn't the scenario that is playing out here. Quite the opposite. It isn't the religious person using the numbers from his religious book, it is the religion-free person using the numbers. If the religious book contained numbers of deaths caused by religion-free people, would you want those numbers used in the tally?
quote: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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024