Actually, in the case of the Nazis I CAN blame the Bible, and I will. Jews were reviled all throughout Europe and the States, not just by the Nazis, because of the Bible. Plus, Hitler was Christian.fluff said:
Dumbsville UK
- Thread starter fluff
- Start date
What Ohio said.LordOpie said:
I'll also add that "love" is an emotion that is demonstrable. God is an abstract comment that is by definition not demonstrable. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.
OK then, stick to Stalin and blame him on religon. The thing there is that he was more destructive than Hitler and religion was not involve, illustrating that removal of religion does not make any damn difference.Old Man G Funk said:
Isn't an agnostic 'an atheist who lacks the courage of their convictions.'? (I cannot remember the source of the quote).BuddhaRoadkill said:
What do you mean precisely, you didn't beleive in God but now you're not so sure? Or do you reserve the right to attribute the term god to some long-live, highly intelligent, alien life-form?
Saying that removal of religion doesn't make "any damn difference" is already a retreat from the original statement by Burly that without religion things would be 10 times worse, but I don't want to accept that and leave it as is.fluff said:
1. If older religious despots and regimes had the killing power of Stalin, he would have looked tame comparitively. For example, the crusades would have been even uglier than they were.
2. Religion had already inserted itself as a power figure. For Stalin to become the sole power figure, he had to remove it. If religion had stuck to it's bailiwick and not dabled in politics and power over the people, it would not have been necessary. (Note: I admit that this argument has the smack of "blame the victim" to it, but that's what happens in power strugglesm, plus all is fair in love and war as they say.)
3. I will agree with Chang that blind nationality can be just as bad and just as irrational as religion, which is what Stalin was using to whip up irrational furor.
4. Even so, none of this refutes the fact that religion teaches people to hate and to kill. We will never know what human history would be like without religion, but I think I'm well within the bounds rationality to say that without "holy" books telling us to hate and kill, there would be less of it.
What science specifically?BuddhaRoadkill said:
How are you defining "agnostic"? Meriam-Webster defines it as:
From http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/agnostic
Are you saying that we can not know whether there is a god or not, which is the actual definition, or are you going off of the popular definition that it means that you believe in some higher power, you just aren't sure what that higher power is?
I have also heard that quote before, although I also can't remember where it came from.fluff said:
Well, Shirley's rhetoric is hers not mine.Old Man G Funk said:
There is no logic to your argument, simply an opinion. You agree that Soviet Russia purported to be an areligious state, you agree it was no better than a religious state (and worse than many) yet try to argue that religion was still to blame (rather than the cult of personality). I'm confused.
What are you saying, that Stalin's victims would have been worse of had he been Christian?
1. You assumed Burly's argument by responding to my comment to him (I'm pretty sure Burly is a guy by the way.)fluff said:
2. Your comment (#62) that started this whole thing was somewhat of a non-sequitor. Having holy books that tell people to murder and commit genocide is not an optimal condition and we would be better off without. Whether Stalin used those books or not doesn't mean that we would be better off with them.
There is some opinion to my argument, and I stated that, but perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm blaming irrationality. Stalin was irrational, as was the nationalism that he fostered in order to whip people up into following his policies of murder. Religion is also irrational and also has a long history of murder and aggression. Regardless of Stalin, I think we would all be better off without this aggressive irrationality called "religion". Of course, I can't back it up because I can't replay history, but I believe I'm on solid ground in saying that having holy books that explicitly tell people to commit murder and genocide is NOT a good thing.
That is a distinct possibility.
Old Man G Funk said:
Shirley a guy? Surely not?
As you display pretty severe anti-religious views it really does come down to a dogmatic viewpoint ,no?
As opposed to an indistinct one?Old Man G Funk said:
I think so.fluff said:
Dogmatic? Please tell me that you are being facetious and I'm just not getting it...
From Meriam Webster again (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/dogma)
Now, whether I display anti-religious views that are severe or not, the fact remains that holy books common to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion all exhort their followers to violence and hatred. Whatever I think doesn't change that fact. If you think having books that incite people to violence and hatred in the name of something that you yourself called irrational is better than not having that, then I don't know what to tell you. Personally, I think my opinion on the matter is on solid ground.
Well, I was trying to emphasize that it is a very real possibility, and not just some possibility on the level of the possibility of monkeys flying out my arse.fluff said:
Aye - 1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate groundsOld Man G Funk said:
Your established opinion with no evidence to back it up is that humanity has been worse off with religion that it would have been without it.
If you have some evidence I will reconsider...
Name a theocracy you'd prefer to live in as opposed to a liberal democracy...fluff said:
Narnia.
Would that be a secular liberal democracy that has freedom of religious belief?Silver said:
What, evidence of god telling his followers to commit genocide, murder, etc.? Open the book to just about any page and you can find something hateful in it. Besides, I admitted it was my opinion.fluff said:
Are you seriously arguing that belief in irrationality is better than non-belief?
Isn't that redundant?fluff said:
No, evidence that man would be worse off without religion.Old Man G Funk said:
Non-belief in what? You seem to think that removing one irrational belief system will automatically allow a preferable (and I imagine you are thinking rational) belief system to exist in its place. I am arguing that that is not a logical conclusion.Old Man G Funk said:
Oh and I'll check the song of solomon and see how many people I want to smite.
Dunno, if we are talking at a conceptual level then I may need you to define liberal democracy...Old Man G Funk said:
You mean better off, correct?fluff said:
I don't have evidence of that, no one does. I can look at the teachings of religion and the history of it, however, and make a good case that religion is a greater force for evil than for good.
I'm sorry, what belief system of mine are you referring to? Are you trying to call atheism a belief system? Are you saying it is just as irrational as belief in a deity? Removing Christianity, et. al. will not necessarily entail that people will think rationally, but it will ensure that Christianity no longer can teach people hate.
What you are really arguing is that teaching hate and intolerance would be preferrable to not teaching hate and intolerance. You are arguing that people need to be told that big brother is watching their every move, or else they will resort to killing their fellow man or rape or torture or any manner of other crimes. So, why are there not roving bands of atheists killing and raping. If I need a daddy figure making sure I don't do anything evil, then why am I not out killing people right now instead of typing on this forum?
Also, if you think belief in the supernatural is irrational, then why would you argue that it is preferrable?
Just to clarify...I have no gender.
I'll make sure to refer to you as a gender neutral "it" from now on...j/k.BurlyShirley said:
Oh also, my mistake on the Nazi thing, but my point still stands. Governments that dont acknowledge religion or even outlaw them are no better off, if not worse in the examples Ive seen. I cant really quantify "10 times worse" but, IMO, that religion serves as an accepted basis for morality for most people definitely serves for the better on an individual level. Without any basis for morality (dont forget we've already assumed people cant handle simple logic) how do you convince people not to murder one another?
Certainly outlawing religion is anathema to a free society, and I don't advocate that. Governments that don't "acknowledge religion"? Um, our government is supposed to be just that.BurlyShirley said:
The accepted basis for morality is cultural and can exist quite nicely without religion. Do you really think the only thing that is keeping people from going on mass murder sprees is god?
Illogical stupid people. ie, the masses? Yes. God or a religion of some sort that requires people be decent or face the consequnces.Old Man G Funk said:
And where is this "cultural morality" with no basis of religion that is doing so well in any kind of scale. Im not talking about 12 hippies in Sri Lanka either. I need some historical reference.
But, that's not any majority religion we have in this country. The religions here teach hate, intolerance, genocide, you name it. The real lesson is "Obey god or face the consequences."BurlyShirley said:
Certainly, the fact that we don't have slaves or kill the mentally retarded is a cultural morality that has evolved as our culture has, in spite of religion. We certainly did not get those ideas from the Bible.
You dodged my question completely.
But to adress your points:Old Man G Funk said:
Killing the mentally ill, or housing them inhumanely was culturally acceptable for the longest time. I would argue that the values people gained from religion resulted in the turn of the tide. Same for slavery.
Excuse me?BurlyShirley said:
Our morals come from society. If we took our morals from the Bible, we would have slaves and would kill off our mentally retarded. The morals we have came from our evolving society in spite of the Bible.
Bull****.BurlyShirley said:
Where did you find any of that in the Bible? And, when did that occur?
Adressed that already.Old Man G Funk said:
Please quote me a passage from the new testament (the majority of religion in the US, remember) that says kill the retards. Please.
Bull****, really? Who said anything about the bible? Im taking collective values gained from religion. Not one specifically.Old Man G Funk said:
Youre losing this argument badly, btw.
Actually, to put this in context. I am not religious. I also am not against killing off retarded babies. I am, however, against slavery.
Collective values which only started to change after Enlightenment thought. Odd that...BurlyShirley said:
Slavery is a bad example, btw. Abolitionists and Slavers both argued from the same book a lot of the time. And Quakers are hardly representative of the modern Christian.
NT or OT, both are holy to the Christian (the majority of this country.) I will find it, but I don't have time. I'll get it tomorrow.BurlyShirley said:
Values gained from religion? Read the Bible and you will get the values taught by it to the majority of the people of this country. It's hateful propaganda. If you really want to argue that teaching hate somehow makes people better and keeps people in line....BurlyShirley said:
No no no. The NT says that savage **** in the OT is not good, hence, it is not followed by your "the majority of the country" so you cannot use it.
Find me where it says that. Both of us have some homework then.