[DurhangAddict]

Tapper, on 03 November 2009 - 08:38 PM, said:

there is an actual temple for Confucius, and he's recognized as a prophet in a branch of Islamic culture, according to wikipedia. So someone did claim he was divine/ divinely inspired .

Then those people are deluding themselves as well

Tapper, on 03 November 2009 - 08:38 PM, said:

Quote

As I said, I was raised in a Christian tradition. But once I reached an age where I could reason for myself it was discarded as no longer relevant.

Your words. If there's wisdom in it, why discard it?

I discarded overall Christian tradition, not the small nuggets of wisdom like "be nice to others" (which is not exclusively a Christian concept).

[caladanbrood]

DurhangAddict, on 03 November 2009 - 08:59 PM, said:

Tapper, on 03 November 2009 - 08:38 PM, said:

there is an actual temple for Confucius, and he's recognized as a prophet in a branch of Islamic culture, according to wikipedia. So someone did claim he was divine/ divinely inspired .

Then those people are deluding themselves as well 

Maybe he was, how would you know?

[Sinisdar Toste]

Tapper, on 03 November 2009 - 07:31 PM, said:

If you ask an open question like this in the title of your topic, and then post an article like that, you're not interested in an open and honest answer to that question. Changing it to: 'religious fellow forumites, I found something to hit you around the ears with, please react!' would be more honest.

well see thats a good idea, unfortunately i didn't think of it before. i just lifted the title from the title of the article.
i'd just like to say that this isn't my opinion. i believe that the bible can teach someone morality, but that the useful parts are constantly interrupted by superstitious prohibitions and inhumane proscriptions that should be disregarded. frankly i think the entire old testament should be dropped from christianity.

good points about the authors stamping present day mores onto a culture that existed 2000 yrs ago, but that highlights a reason for some parts of the bible to be disregarded. for the most part, our morality has evolved since the bible was written, but many people still take every word of the bible to be the undiluted word of god and they use this as a basis to be intolerant and bigoted. i know that no-one in this debate is like that (or at least i have faith) but lots of people are and if i was gonna identify this article's target audience, i'd say it is those people.

[Cold Iron]

Sinisdar Toste, on 03 November 2009 - 10:44 PM, said:

if i was gonna identify this article's target audience, i'd say it is those people.

Both the least likely to read it and the least likely to agree with anything in it.

[Grief]

Keep it civil in here please.

Consider that a warning.

[Sinisdar Toste]

Cold Iron, on 03 November 2009 - 11:15 PM, said:

Sinisdar Toste, on 03 November 2009 - 10:44 PM, said:

if i was gonna identify this article's target audience, i'd say it is those people.

Both the least likely to read it and the least likely to agree with anything in it.

unfortunately

[Cold Iron]

Sinisdar Toste, on 04 November 2009 - 12:02 AM, said:

Cold Iron, on 03 November 2009 - 11:15 PM, said:

Sinisdar Toste, on 03 November 2009 - 10:44 PM, said:

if i was gonna identify this article's target audience, i'd say it is those people.

Both the least likely to read it and the least likely to agree with anything in it.

unfortunately

Edited

This post has been edited by RodeoRanch: 04 November 2009 - 04:12 AM
Reason for edit: Unacceptable language

[Sinisdar Toste]

Cold Iron, on 04 November 2009 - 12:07 AM, said:

Sinisdar Toste, on 04 November 2009 - 12:02 AM, said:

Cold Iron, on 03 November 2009 - 11:15 PM, said:

Sinisdar Toste, on 03 November 2009 - 10:44 PM, said:

if i was gonna identify this article's target audience, i'd say it is those people.

Both the least likely to read it and the least likely to agree with anything in it.

unfortunately

Edited.

well you're right, but i still think it's unfortunate. i guess by the time they've formed their opinions it's already too late to try to introduce some sort of self-reflection without offending their sense of righteousness

This post has been edited by RodeoRanch: 04 November 2009 - 04:12 AM
Reason for edit: See above

[caladanbrood]

I think the idea that is being at least very broadly hinted at by people here, if not actually said, that only atheists have the ability to think for themselves, is one of the funniest things I've heard all year.

[RodeoRanch]

Really? I really have to point out the use of the words like "retard" and "retardation" are not acceptable forms of expression and argument on this board?

I've edited those posts. If you have issue with that, please PM me or another member of the staff.


Please keep things civil or this thread will be locked.

[Tapper]

Sinisdar Toste, on 04 November 2009 - 12:50 AM, said:

Cold Iron, on 04 November 2009 - 12:07 AM, said:

Sinisdar Toste, on 04 November 2009 - 12:02 AM, said:

Cold Iron, on 03 November 2009 - 11:15 PM, said:

Sinisdar Toste, on 03 November 2009 - 10:44 PM, said:

if i was gonna identify this article's target audience, i'd say it is those people.

Both the least likely to read it and the least likely to agree with anything in it.

unfortunately

Edited.

well you're right, but i still think it's unfortunate. i guess by the time they've formed their opinions it's already too late to try to introduce some sort of self-reflection without offending their sense of righteousness

Believers believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. So do atheists.

Basically, modern-day monotheist believers deny the existence of any God but their own. Atheists just deny the existence of all gods. Imho, if you are so convinced there is no God, you might as well be considered a believer in that particular theory

What is/ should be added to that in a healthy situation is that they all respect the right of the other parties to believe in what they believe - your statement doesn't exactly broadcast that, I think, and the article most certainly doesn't.

Moreover, I think believers can do some sort of self-reflection. They just have a somewhat harder time doing it along the lines atheists would like them to, because they are conditioned to put an emphasis on certain morals, but how bad is that?

Humanists do the same, actually, just from a different base: an ethical code on what man should aspire to be, rather than on what God wants his flock to be. As I said before, when you look at what each intends, they're not so different, apart from the starting point. Equality (before the law/God), dignity, safety, mercy, etc. feature prominently in both humanism and religion, and at the least where the interpretionalists are concerned, it usually fits now-a-days society, and I'd say these people are the vast majority of any religious group.

Sure, you're never going to convince the hardliners that are both the backbone of a faith and its minority, and if anything, they're the ones in need of convincing to tone down their black-white view of the world and scripture. However, if you yourself truely believe in the ideals of everyone's equal and allowed to make up their own minds, they're allowed to do what they want to believe and you shouldn't care less about their wish to tie themselves in knots to deny whatever they come across because it doesn;t suit their world view.

But how far are you willing to go? And where is your own atheist turning point?
Let's investigate that a bit and get into that hotbed of morality: choosing death.

Let's start with a clearcut issue. Medical aid.

I really don't care if someone refuses medical aid because he believes its gods will that he is sick ad gods decision if he will get better - or not. That's his right. I care a bit more if that someone takes that decision for his own children who are too young to decide for themselves, but that is parental responsibility and codified law. I guess many/most will agree with me here, 'cause it is about free choice.

Then extend the line to euthanasia. Now, how many of those who were with me on the example above, are still with me now? And if you did drop out and say, 'Tapper, that's a bridge too far', why? Many world religions have various reasons to condemn it. What are your atheist ones?

And if you're an atheist and still with me, what about abortion? See, this is where the atheist movement will definately split. Why? Because at least a part of the movement will attach greater value to the maxim: 'the right to live.' than to 'free choice' and parental wish for their offspring to have a life in which they can be happy and loved. In fact, if you dropped out at euthanasia, you probably cited the right to live as one of your reasons. So, we're back to morality. Now, explain to me, how is the atheist morality 'better' than, say, the christian, the fact that you may arrive at a different conclusion aside?

To take the anti-abortion pro-euthanasia stance a bit further: what if not aborting condemns a person to a life in a wheelchair from birth? And if you allow euthanasia but not abortion because the right to live supercedes the right of choice, do you agree with me that you then willingly condemn a person to 18 years of suffering before you allow them to finish it, just so your moral code is intact? What is the difference with what people perceive as the backward religious point of views there?

What if the person is mentally handicapped so that you have to doubt that choosing for euthanasia is their free choice, maybe because you doubt they cannot fully understand the concept of death? Let them live on till they expire naturally? You're an atheist, your soul's not at stake, so what's the incentive apart from forcing unto someone else that what you see as right?

Do you agree with me that we have come nearly a full circle and come out at beliefs again, and that the 'atheists are more capable of making a decision on what is right and proper than people whose PoVs are coloured by religion are' is actually not that true, on the most fundamental of issues, namely, life?

[Sinisdar Toste]

first off, i am not an atheist. posting an atheistic article does not make me an atheist, nor does making a remark about hardline religious folk. honestly, i take exception to your assumption, that if i seem to be against religion, i am an atheist.

i believe there could be a god, but that it couldn't be described by humans without corrupting its essence completely. i don't use this position to take a high ground and assert that my morality is better than anyone elses.

when it comes to issues like euthanasia and abortion, i don't even try to apply my morals. i've never had to deal with a situation like that, so i don't know all of the factors that have to be taken into consideration. my morals have not yet had to incorporate that kind of decision making, so how can i pass judgment? personal choice informed by professional opinion are how these decisions should be made and not until the woman i love is considering an abortion, or my parents are living their lives in constant pain will i know how i feel about these procedures.

"Do you agree with me that we have come nearly a full circle and come out at beliefs again, and that the 'atheists are more capable of making a decision on what is right and proper than people whose PoVs are coloured by religion are' is actually not that true, on the most fundamental of issues, namely, life?"

again, i never said that atheists are more capable of deciding right and wrong than religious people. just that some religious people follow a morality that is outdated and primitive. some religious people.

This post has been edited by Sinisdar Toste: 04 November 2009 - 02:52 PM

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Tapper, on 04 November 2009 - 10:51 AM, said:

Believers believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. So do atheists.

Basically, modern-day monotheist believers deny the existence of any God but their own. Atheists just deny the existence of all gods. Imho, if you are so convinced there is no God, you might as well be considered a believer in that particular theory

This is a generalization that lacks depth. It's not a belief in the contrapositive so much as it is a doubt in the positive. Many atheists don't believe in God just as people didn't believe the earth was round. There was simply no reason to think otherwise, pending the presentation of some evidence to the contrary. So atheists are sincerely waiting for some evidence, which essentially means they're not taking it on faith. In fact, that's the issue: they fundamentally refuse to take God's existence on faith alone. This lack of faith is a little bit of the antithesis of belief, but it's not an adamant refusal of God- they would love to be proven wrong, but there's the rub...

Quote

Let's start with a clearcut issue. Medical aid.

I really don't care if someone refuses medical aid because he believes its gods will that he is sick ad gods decision if he will get better - or not. That's his right. I care a bit more if that someone takes that decision for his own children who are too young to decide for themselves, but that is parental responsibility and codified law. I guess many/most will agree with me here, 'cause it is about free choice.

To not treat an ailing patient is if not a technical then a tangible breach of the Hippocratic Oath.

The line here is drawn (at least in (some of?) the States) by the law, and clearly. If the parent is recklessly endangering their child by refusing treatment, I believe doctors can take emergency medical custody of the child to treat them. This is because the state holds parents to the responsibilities of educating, feeding, clothing, and caring for their children, and a failure in the measureable achievement of those ends has defined legal ramifications. Someone's free choice can be used as a defense, but a societal interest steps in to protect the children. It makes sense insofar as it is in the interests of the State.

Quote

Then extend the line to euthanasia. Now, how many of those who were with me on the example above, are still with me now? And if you did drop out and say, 'Tapper, that's a bridge too far', why? Many world religions have various reasons to condemn it. What are your atheist ones?

Euthanasia is an issue that is (in my opinion) too difficult to generalize on. There are vastly different cases (including criminal and medical) in which different self-consistent 'moral' standards might be used justifiably.

Quote

And if you're an atheist and still with me, what about abortion? See, this is where the atheist movement will definately split. Why? Because at least a part of the movement will attach greater value to the maxim: 'the right to live.' than to 'free choice' and parental wish for their offspring to have a life in which they can be happy and loved. In fact, if you dropped out at euthanasia, you probably cited the right to live as one of your reasons. So, we're back to morality. Now, explain to me, how is the atheist morality 'better' than, say, the christian, the fact that you may arrive at a different conclusion aside?

To take the anti-abortion pro-euthanasia stance a bit further: what if not aborting condemns a person to a life in a wheelchair from birth? And if you allow euthanasia but not abortion because the right to live supercedes the right of choice, do you agree with me that you then willingly condemn a person to 18 years of suffering before you allow them to finish it, just so your moral code is intact? What is the difference with what people perceive as the backward religious point of views there?

What if the person is mentally handicapped so that you have to doubt that choosing for euthanasia is their free choice, maybe because you doubt they cannot fully understand the concept of death? Let them live on till they expire naturally? You're an atheist, your soul's not at stake, so what's the incentive apart from forcing unto someone else that what you see as right?

Do you agree with me that we have come nearly a full circle and come out at beliefs again, and that the 'atheists are more capable of making a decision on what is right and proper than people whose PoVs are coloured by religion are' is actually not that true, on the most fundamental of issues, namely, life?

The problem is the assumption of a binary choice on each issue is highly disconnected with reality. Both secular and religious people would have to examine a case by case basis. Only an unreasonable hardliner (of any kind) would fundamentally state that general thing X is never to be allowed. Ever. If someone were to make such a choice, it is evidence of either a lack of intelligence or a lack of perspective.

No morality system is any better than any other. The system of morals associated with a belief is not the reason people think what they do, but visa versa.

[Shinrei]

Adjutant Stormy, on 06 November 2009 - 09:47 AM, said:

Tapper, on 04 November 2009 - 10:51 AM, said:

Believers believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. So do atheists.

Basically, modern-day monotheist believers deny the existence of any God but their own. Atheists just deny the existence of all gods. Imho, if you are so convinced there is no God, you might as well be considered a believer in that particular theory

This is a generalization that lacks depth. It's not a belief in the contrapositive so much as it is a doubt in the positive. Many atheists don't believe in God just as people didn't believe the earth was round. There was simply no reason to think otherwise, pending the presentation of some evidence to the contrary. So atheists are sincerely waiting for some evidence, which essentially means they're not taking it on faith. In fact, that's the issue: they fundamentally refuse to take God's existence on faith alone. This lack of faith is a little bit of the antithesis of belief, but it's not an adamant refusal of God- they would love to be proven wrong, but there's the rub...

I would argue that it IS a belief. It is a belief that only things that have been proven to exist, actually exist. On a basic level, we don't actually KNOW anything at all. People who believed the world was flat back in the day were just waiting to be proven wrong. People in Europe who had no reason to believe that swans were anything but white were proven wrong when black swans were discovered on the other side of the world. Truth and the Unknown. I regards to the unknown, there can only BE belief. I don't believe there is a non-annoying Chihuahua in the world. But I don't discount the possibility that one will be discovered someday.....

[caladanbrood]

 

Adjutant Stormy, on 06 November 2009 - 09:47 AM, said:

In fact, that's the issue: they fundamentally refuse to take God's existence on faith alone.  This lack of faith is a little bit of the antithesis of belief, but it's not an adamant refusal of God- they would love to be proven wrong, but there's the rub...

I disagree. Most atheists who I have heard bother to argue about it absolutely love the fact that they can always fall back to the fact that there is no solid evidence for god, and ignore the fact that that's kinda the point. If they were proved wrong the majority would be mighty pissed off. Not all, for sure, but a lot.

[Tapper]

@ Adjutant Stormy:

There is a difference between atheists and agnosts, and I have been very careful in talking about atheists only.
Atheists deny the existence of any god at all (according to wiki, it's only 2.9% of the world population).
Agnosts basically neither confirm nor deny it: we don't know whether there are gods (therefore believing doesn't make sense), but we may know in time - this is what I think you meant with absence of belief.

As you see from all the above, I have been fairly careful to talk about strict atheists only as they are the natural 'opposing force' of those who believe 'there is a God and he wants humanity to live according to his rules.' which was the gist of the article posted in the OP.

On the believing side, I have tried to made a distinction between what I'll call spiritualists (there is some benevolent force I believe in, but it is personal and between that something and me) and those who ascribe to a religion, preferring to talk about the latter only.

As for going black-and-white on the life issue:

I agree that a case by case analysis would be best.
However, to be allowed to make the analysis with any meaning other than theoretical, you need one thing first: a yes or no on the issue: allow it (in principle) or do not allow it at all.

Without allowing it, all other debate is meaningless as it is an excersize in futility. And when the pros and cons are being discussed, you will see people falling back to black and white and morality concerning the bigger issue (or to the morality of their constituency). Only after that do distinctions and circumstances come into the picture.
And on that basis, religion and humanism clash and even the grey will be of a blacker & whiter variant.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

@Brood: That's just a symptom of not having proven it yet. I'm certain the chagrin of millions would be palpable should the day arrive.

@Tap: Fair point, but the conclusion I drew is that the whole charade of that decision really is a futile exercise.

Also, the gradation of atheism into agnosticism is a truly confounding point.
I wasn't very clear, either, on the belief thing. It's like in experment, the contrapositive (that is, usually, that the experiment should show no effects) isn't believed to be true, it is by logical convention the truth unless otherwise proven. Weak agnostics and atheists agree that the burden of proof has yet to be fulfilled, but the atheist side is on this side of it. The agnostic conclusion is that the debate should be called off on account of lack of sufficient evidence. The strong atheist would likely say that the debate never should have arisen, because no evidence for God's existence was ever presented for analysis. The weak atheist sides with the strong atheist, but doesn't dismiss the issue out of hand.

The driving force behind both atheist takes is an approach of rigorous truth-finding. If it's true that God exists, and that proof is collected and shown to the world, most of the atheists would be fine with that. A simple "Shit, I was wrong" would probably suffice.

I think it's funny that atheists are such a small proportion of the world population, but such a disproportionately high fraction of the internet population.

[Powder]

Sinisdar Toste, on 03 November 2009 - 03:26 AM, said:

Didn't quite know which thread this would fit in, so i just started a new one.
one persons argument against the establishment of religion and the bible
first two columns are very interesting, third is just the same old thing about jesus being a hodge podge of old pagan deities.
thought y'all who like to debate these topics might be interested

Hello again! I took the time to read this article and found it to be similar to many objections I have hard about Christianity. I am currently in Graduate school seeking to earn a Masters of Divinity. While this does not make me an expert on the subject, it has given me some insight into this article. The main problem with the author of this text is his hermeneutic. Without devolving into reader response nothingness it is imperitive that we understand that context is important. When you hang any text out in space it loses its meaning. This is compounded by the fact that they are translations, and compounded again by the separation of time and distance. Often times when you come into contact with a difficult text these compounding factros are what make the text inherently difficult.

For instance under the section of Christ as a role model the author quotes Christ as to saying that to follow him one must hate your father and mother. If you read this text by itself, without any awareness to the compounding factors involved it sounds bad if not anti-christian (goes against 5th commandment). That is because as reader, you are supplying your own definition of the word transladed 'hate'. You also are giving your own definition to the word 'love'. Sadly, these are not the definitions which were held by the first century Jewish writer who for all intents and purposes lives halfway around the world from where you are. Hate and Love in the bible are not seen as feelings within yourself. Semitic peoples are not that metaphysical. Instead they are more verbal in nature. What christ is saying here, and other places, is that if you want to follow him he has to be #1 in your life. Not your parents, who in this culture would typically be the #1, thus you must act in a 'hateful' way towards them, by putting Christ first and your parents second.

Also, when quoting 'who should be killed', the author quotes Deuteronomy, and more specifically Deuteronomistic law. Yet when he complains that the 10 commandments do not have every law covered. There is at least a misunderstanding of the text as a whole, at worst a concious break in logic. Essentially the Jewish shema and the Christian 'Golden rule' are the same. You can check in Deut. and in Matt. and will see (depending on translation) something akin to 'love the lord your god with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. There is also a parallel passage in Luke which defines who your neighbor is as well.

I must also deal with the epicurian logic proof against God. I am assuming that everyone understands the law of non-contradiction. A != not A in the same way, in the same sense. It is under these grounds that statements like 'can god create a rock that he cannot lift' fall apart. They break this logical rule, and you end up with a nonsensical statement, just because you apply it to God does not make it non-nonsensical. In the same way, if god chose to make man, and chose to make him a moral being which could choose in right and wrong, and if those choices could lead to evil, than God in his choosing to make mankind free allows for the possibility of evil, or not good. Evil in itself is not material in nature but is null and void, it is a break with the good. So God cannot create a morally free being without the possibility for evil, nor can he rid the created order of evil without riding it of all moral beings (like the rock scenario the logical proof is nonsensical).

Also, back to how the earth came about who created God. By definition God is not created. He is eternally existing outside of time. It shows a gross misunderstanding on the part of the author to ask 'who created God', not only in Christian doctrine but also in logic. By asking 'who created god' the author merely pushes back the question one step. Aristotle came to that conclusion thousands of years ago when he came up with the concept of the 'unmoved mover/s' or primary cause. While this Aristotealian principle does not necissarily point to the Christian God it is far more logically sound than what this author has proposed.

Under the subject of morality I really did almost fall out of my chair laughing. Emancipation of slavery, lead by Christians. Womens movement led by Christians. Civil rights movement lead by christians. Were some Christians fighting against these things? Of course! Every philosophical/ religious idea has good and bad members. Further, the author cites various christian atrocities. The crusades, inquisitions, etc. I do not defend these. The people of that time and place were wrong to act as they did, and were acting contrary to Christian doctrine. The playing field is equal here. Stalin was an athiest, polpot was an athiest, more people have died under athiest regimes in the 20th century, than in all the previous governments combined. Am I saying that athiests then are morally worse than christians, or lumping atheists in with these mad dictators who we would all surely denounce? No! But it is unfair and immoral to stereotype your adversary without acknowleding your own flaws.

The author also seems to have come into contact with someone who is heavily in favor of Original Sin. This doctrine is one which is open to debate within Christian academic circles, and the idea of dead babies going to hell is virtually unsupported. Again every system of ideas has whack-jobs inherent to them Christianity is no exception. Further the idea of Adam and Eve and their sin in the garden depends on how you interpret the story. The interpretation I prefer is this (For those of you who read the story): it is a story about blaming other people for your own wrong doings. God calls out to adam, adam comes foreward blames God then blames eve, eve blames the snake, and then we as christians blame adam and eve for original sin. It is quite ironic to me that this is the case.

On the issue of blood sacrifice. Again the author does not do a good job of stating the case of in this case christianity. The idea is best described as follows, and it is an analogy (all writings about God and the divine are analogical, God transcends language and so be careful not to let languages inability to fully explain the divine frustrait you) Sin is seen as a debt, one which man is uncapable of paying. Mans debt goes up, is unable to pay it and is therefore separated from God. Jesus comes to earth, lives a perfect life. He then pays the debt of every person who ever lived/will live. All man does at this point is acknowledge that the debt has been paid. This analogy will break down at some point, but I ask you to ride it as far as it goes and to let it drop when it ceases to function, after all it can never fully explain the divine.

This life is NOT a veil of tears, nor is it a tryout for the next. Christianity is not about pie in the sky when you die. It is about bringing heaven to earth, creating God's kingdom in the here and now. God created the world and it was good! What does this kingdom look like? People who love and care for one another, who do not take advantage of one another, true community intimacy in fellowship uniqueness in person.

I am running short on time, papers finals and such need preparing for, so I apologize for the sloppy edititing to this post. Let me finish by saying that I do not expect any of the above to convert you or anyone else to Christianity. It is not through argumentation that I came to Christ and so I do not expect any of you to either. By this posting I simply hope to show that Christianity is not what this author claims it to be. Why do I believe in God then? I believe in the Christian God because of how he has effected(affected?) and changed my life. How I have seen his power displayed in me and through me. It is not something I could compose onto so many lines of text here in, it is my experience. To understand it you would have to see me live and that unfortunately is impossible on the intrawebs. It is my hope that this helps those who read it see that Christianity is reasonable, even while they choose to reject it.

I hope that this comes across as a work of Love and passion, because this is my passion in life. It is hard to convey emotion through a textual medium as many of the nuances of my words are lost as I print them on a page, but trust me my friends when I say that I do have tremendous respect for the members of this forum. If anything is seen as harsh within this please forgive me and my communication skills as they are not the best... Thats all for now and I am always open for questions!

Powder



PS I hope this does not kill this thread

[Gothos]

Powder, I don't really have the ordinance to address the majority of your post at this moment, however there is one paragraph I'd like to reply to.

Powder, on 15 December 2009 - 09:38 PM, said:

Under the subject of morality I really did almost fall out of my chair laughing. Emancipation of slavery, lead by Christians. Womens movement led by Christians. Civil rights movement lead by christians. Were some Christians fighting against these things? Of course! Every philosophical/ religious idea has good and bad members. Further, the author cites various christian atrocities. The crusades, inquisitions, etc. I do not defend these. The people of that time and place were wrong to act as they did, and were acting contrary to Christian doctrine. The playing field is equal here. Stalin was an athiest, polpot was an athiest, more people have died under athiest regimes in the 20th century, than in all the previous governments combined. Am I saying that athiests then are morally worse than christians, or lumping atheists in with these mad dictators who we would all surely denounce? No! But it is unfair and immoral to stereotype your adversary without acknowleding your own flaws.

The major drawback of comparing anything 20th century to previous history is that the scale differs so much. Killing 20 million people in the 20th century comes off as a lot easier than it was in, say, the 12th century, even if only because there were a LOT less people around to murder. Still, Genkhis Khan and Tamerlane are both credited with deaths by the millions, which were probably harder to find than for Hitler or Stalin. Also, they didn't have the luxury of having railways or tanks to speed up their conquest and butchery. All things considered they did something of a masterpiece out of genocide. Not that I approve, of course. Still, on the other hand, the nearly pan-asian Pax Mongolia was an incredible boost to West-East relations and trade, and through that, along with Tamerlane curbstomping the Arab world, had great influence upon the shape of today's world. They were not atheists.
However, that doesn't really mean anything. When it comes to genocide, it's all about an idea that you can back up your claim to a murderous rampage with. Be it killing the enemy of the state, enemy of God, terrorize people to surrender instead of fighting you, religion just might be another way of legitimizing your crimes. I'm not saying it makes people do it, I'm saying it has the potential to make it easier.
There is, however, at least one example of religion gone wild - the Aztecs really had their hands full of ritual human sacrifice when the spaniards were coming. They really went into a frenzy, and it was their long held religion that made them think that killing tens of thousands of people a day will save them somehow.
But then, I guess, that misses the christian God by at least an ocean. So this was a little off-topic perhaps.

[Powder]

Gothos, on 16 December 2009 - 09:58 AM, said:

Powder, I don't really have the ordinance to address the majority of your post at this moment, however there is one paragraph I'd like to reply to.

Powder, on 15 December 2009 - 09:38 PM, said:

Under the subject of morality I really did almost fall out of my chair laughing. Emancipation of slavery, lead by Christians. Womens movement led by Christians. Civil rights movement lead by christians. Were some Christians fighting against these things? Of course! Every philosophical/ religious idea has good and bad members. Further, the author cites various christian atrocities. The crusades, inquisitions, etc. I do not defend these. The people of that time and place were wrong to act as they did, and were acting contrary to Christian doctrine. The playing field is equal here. Stalin was an athiest, polpot was an athiest, more people have died under athiest regimes in the 20th century, than in all the previous governments combined. Am I saying that athiests then are morally worse than christians, or lumping atheists in with these mad dictators who we would all surely denounce? No! But it is unfair and immoral to stereotype your adversary without acknowleding your own flaws.

The major drawback of comparing anything 20th century to previous history is that the scale differs so much. Killing 20 million people in the 20th century comes off as a lot easier than it was in, say, the 12th century, even if only because there were a LOT less people around to murder. Still, Genkhis Khan and Tamerlane are both credited with deaths by the millions, which were probably harder to find than for Hitler or Stalin. Also, they didn't have the luxury of having railways or tanks to speed up their conquest and butchery. All things considered they did something of a masterpiece out of genocide. Not that I approve, of course. Still, on the other hand, the nearly pan-asian Pax Mongolia was an incredible boost to West-East relations and trade, and through that, along with Tamerlane curbstomping the Arab world, had great influence upon the shape of today's world. They were not atheists.
However, that doesn't really mean anything. When it comes to genocide, it's all about an idea that you can back up your claim to a murderous rampage with. Be it killing the enemy of the state, enemy of God, terrorize people to surrender instead of fighting you, religion just might be another way of legitimizing your crimes. I'm not saying it makes people do it, I'm saying it has the potential to make it easier.
There is, however, at least one example of religion gone wild - the Aztecs really had their hands full of ritual human sacrifice when the spaniards were coming. They really went into a frenzy, and it was their long held religion that made them think that killing tens of thousands of people a day will save them somehow.
But then, I guess, that misses the christian God by at least an ocean. So this was a little off-topic perhaps.

Your point is well made, but the reason I was posting was in relation to the primary text which started this thread. Therein he makes it seem as though only people who claim to be 'christian' abuse power. I was trying to show that life is not that simple.