Community >> View Thread
1 2 3  >> All
Author
Norvell


Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 2,113


There used to be minimum standards that most people agree on.

1) Deliberately lying is wrong. Lying to malign someone is worse. In the Bible, this is referred to as 'bearing false witness', and was worthy of its own spot on the Ten Commandments. However, even the most extreme atheist acknowledged the wisdom of this rule.

2) Stealing is wrong. If you borrow money and refuse to pay it back, that's stealing. If you refuse to pay someone for their services (e.g. contractors), that's stealing. If you defraud people out of their savings through deceptive business practices, that's stealing. It's not 'Gaming the System' if you get away with it -- you're an outright crook if you engage in this behavior.

3) Physical and sexual assault. If someone lays their hands on you for the purpose of sex or to inflict harm, against your wishes, that's assault. If you are accused of this behavior -- it's troubling. If three people accuse you of this, that's a pattern. If two dozen people accuse you of this, there's either a highly organized conspiracy (which is almost impossible to maintain), or we simply employ Occum's Razor. The simplest explanation is often the correct one.

-----

When you get right down to religion, beyond the obligatory deference to God and the various rituals involved in maintaining faith -- the message is rather simple. Don't steal, don't harm, don't lie. If you look at the Ten Commandments, only about four of them refer to morality and ethics. The wisdom of simplicity. We know wrong when we see it.

These laws can be extrapolated further, of course. When Christopher Hitchens re-wrote the Commandments for Vanity Fair, he made a few valid additions to the Big Ten, such as forbidding violence against children. Or that slavery can never be condoned.

I don't approach morality or ethics from the angle of purity. Many situations call for nuance and understanding. Lots of grey areas. However, I think there should be a line in the sand regarding acceptable human behavior. If you fall below that line to such an egregious degree that it defies quantification (e.g. you regularly transgress ALL THREE rules of minimum human decency) -- we as a society, as a species, get to call you out. The onus is on you to redeem yourself -- not on us to 'understand' your differing ideology.

Where do you stand on this?


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 10
atrimus


Location: Saint Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 1,927





Posted with Google Chrome 62.0.3202.94 on Windows 7
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 15,472



    Quote:
    There used to be minimum standards that most people agree on.



    Quote:
    1) Deliberately lying is wrong. Lying to malign someone is worse. In the Bible, this is referred to as 'bearing false witness', and was worthy of its own spot on the Ten Commandments. However, even the most extreme atheist acknowledged the wisdom of this rule.



    Quote:
    2) Stealing is wrong. If you borrow money and refuse to pay it back, that's stealing. If you refuse to pay someone for their services (e.g. contractors), that's stealing. If you defraud people out of their savings through deceptive business practices, that's stealing. It's not 'Gaming the System' if you get away with it -- you're an outright crook if you engage in this behavior.



    Quote:
    3) Physical and sexual assault. If someone lays their hands on you for the purpose of sex or to inflict harm, against your wishes, that's assault. If you are accused of this behavior -- it's troubling. If three people accuse you of this, that's a pattern. If two dozen people accuse you of this, there's either a highly organized conspiracy (which is almost impossible to maintain), or we simply employ Occum's Razor. The simplest explanation is often the correct one.



    Quote:
    -----



    Quote:
    When you get right down to religion, beyond the obligatory deference to God and the various rituals involved in maintaining faith -- the message is rather simple. Don't steal, don't harm, don't lie. If you look at the Ten Commandments, only about four of them refer to morality and ethics. The wisdom of simplicity. We know wrong when we see it.



    Quote:
    These laws can be extrapolated further, of course. When Christopher Hitchens re-wrote the Commandments for Vanity Fair, he made a few valid additions to the Big Ten, such as forbidding violence against children. Or that slavery can never be condoned.



    Quote:
    I don't approach morality or ethics from the angle of purity. Many situations call for nuance and understanding. Lots of grey areas. However, I think there should be a line in the sand regarding acceptable human behavior. If you fall below that line to such an egregious degree that it defies quantification (e.g. you regularly transgress ALL THREE rules of minimum human decency) -- we as a society, as a species, get to call you out. The onus is on you to redeem yourself -- not on us to 'understand' your differing ideology.



    Quote:
    Where do you stand on this?


I feel beyond morality, concepts of right and wrong, this is generally something occurring in nearly every area.

We have science denial at important points and large areas of society will not believe anything found one way or another. Unless a political talking head tells them too.

This leads to much of the problem being laid out about sort of a corruption of reality and a floating definition of many aspects.

I will say that some things have loads of grey areas. Like killing somebody for instance. It is something that is wrong to do. About everybody agrees with it, but what if it is in self defense? The person is just as dead. One could argue that maybe it is still the wrong thing to do in some moral sense but one could not argue that it was not justified.

Issues get really merky anyway. And we do a great job, read we as very big picture, of going into tribes on everything.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,633



    Quote:
    There used to be minimum standards that most people agree on.


There still are.


    Quote:
    1) Deliberately lying is wrong. Lying to malign someone is worse. In the Bible, this is referred to as 'bearing false witness', and was worthy of its own spot on the Ten Commandments. However, even the most extreme atheist acknowledged the wisdom of this rule.


Is it? Always? In every case?

How about a small 'white lie' that harms no one, but saves someone emotional pain, for example?


    Quote:
    2) Stealing is wrong. If you borrow money and refuse to pay it back, that's stealing. If you refuse to pay someone for their services (e.g. contractors), that's stealing. If you defraud people out of their savings through deceptive business practices, that's stealing. It's not 'Gaming the System' if you get away with it -- you're an outright crook if you engage in this behavior.


Is it? Always? In every case?

Would you condemn someone who had no money, and stole food to keep their child alive for one more day? Say someone from a third world country ravaged by famine?


    Quote:
    3) Physical and sexual assault. If someone lays their hands on you for the purpose of sex or to inflict harm, against your wishes, that's assault. If you are accused of this behavior -- it's troubling. If three people accuse you of this, that's a pattern. If two dozen people accuse you of this, there's either a highly organized conspiracy (which is almost impossible to maintain), or we simply employ Occum's Razor. The simplest explanation is often the correct one.


Yes. Agree with this.


    Quote:
    When you get right down to religion, beyond the obligatory deference to God and the various rituals involved in maintaining faith -- the message is rather simple. Don't steal, don't harm, don't lie. If you look at the Ten Commandments, only about four of them refer to morality and ethics. The wisdom of simplicity. We know wrong when we see it.


Religion? What's religion got to do with it? Thankfully, we don't get our morals and ethics from religion. On the contrary, religion seems to warp morals and ethics out of shape.


    Quote:
    These laws can be extrapolated further, of course. When Christopher Hitchens re-wrote the Commandments for Vanity Fair, he made a few valid additions to the Big Ten, such as forbidding violence against children. Or that slavery can never be condoned.


Absolutely. It would be difficult NOT to come up with ten commandments that are better than those found in the bible. Which just goes to show how immoral a book the bible actually is.


    Quote:
    I don't approach morality or ethics from the angle of purity. Many situations call for nuance and understanding. Lots of grey areas. However, I think there should be a line in the sand regarding acceptable human behavior. If you fall below that line to such an egregious degree that it defies quantification (e.g. you regularly transgress ALL THREE rules of minimum human decency) -- we as a society, as a species, get to call you out. The onus is on you to redeem yourself -- not on us to 'understand' your differing ideology.



    Quote:
    Where do you stand on this?


I don't think it's as clear cut as simply saying 'stealing is bad', or 'lying is bad'. There are grey areas, areas where you have to have some moral give and take. Every case has to be judged on it's own merits.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Norvell


Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 2,113



    Quote:
    Is it? Always? In every case?


Nothing is absolute. To malign, discredit, exaggerate or to avoid accountability are main reasons for lying. Being a deceitful person -- a liar -- is not a positive quality.


    Quote:
    How about a small 'white lie' that harms no one, but saves someone emotional pain, for example?


This is a good point, but even in the case of white lies, the truth is generally preferable. At least among adults. Although answering disparaging to a question like, 'Does this make me look fat?' is not recommended either.


    Quote:
    Would you condemn someone who had no money, and stole food to keep their child alive for one more day? Say someone from a third world country ravaged by famine?


I absolutely wouldn't condemn someone who stole a loaf of bread to feed his family. This is where we get into a grey area of ethics. A moral dilemma.

There are many moral dilemmas in this world. Violence to achieve freedom or independence is another such dilemma. Can terrorism ever be justified? What about terrorism against a regime that is subverting your rights? It's a difficult question.


    Quote:
    Religion? What's religion got to do with it? Thankfully, we don't get our morals and ethics from religion. On the contrary, religion seems to warp morals and ethics out of shape.


I am not a religious person, but many are.


    Quote:
    I don't think it's as clear cut as simply saying 'stealing is bad', or 'lying is bad'. There are grey areas, areas where you have to have some moral give and take. Every case has to be judged on it's own merits.


Agreed. The main point is not to ignore those grey areas, which can always be found, but rather to establish a minimum standard of human decency.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 10
JesusFan


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 17,778


If there is really no God, then NONE can claim there is a standard of absolute truth, so whatever goes, and if killing someone, or raping them is what ones sees as being acceptable, it would be!

Judges and civilzations would just break down, as no real right or wrong!


Posted with Google Chrome 62.0.3202.89 on Linux
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,633



    Quote:
    If there is really no God, then NONE can claim there is a standard of absolute truth, so whatever goes, and if killing someone, or raping them is what ones sees as being acceptable, it would be!



    Quote:
    Judges and civilzations would just break down, as no real right or wrong!


Absolute rubbish.

Every statistic shows that the more secular the society, the more moral and ethical it becomes.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
atrimus


Location: Saint Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 1,927



    Quote:
    If there is really no God, then NONE can claim there is a standard of absolute truth, so whatever goes, and if killing someone, or raping them is what ones sees as being acceptable, it would be!


This comment doesn't make a lot of sense in a world where so many have killed (and raped) in the name of god.


    Quote:
    Judges and civilzations would just break down, as no real right or wrong!






Posted with Google Chrome 62.0.3202.94 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 1,791



Uhm....Russia aanyone?


Posted with Google Chrome 52.0.2743.116 on Windows 10
Norvell


Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 2,113



    Quote:

    Uhm....Russia aanyone?


Russia under Putin has been one of the biggest importers of right-wing Christian fundamentalism in the modern era. Putin is currently engaged in a massive campaign of violence against homosexuality under the pretense of Christian values. The Russian Orthodox is one of the main pillars of Putin's power base.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 1,791



    Quote:

      Quote:

      Uhm....Russia aanyone?



    Quote:
    Russia under Putin has been one of the biggest importers of right-wing Christian fundamentalism in the modern era. Putin is currently engaged in a massive campaign of violence against homosexuality under the pretense of Christian values. The Russian Orthodox is one of the main pillars of Putin's power base.


I am talking about communist Russia, which was anti-religion and far worse than Putin.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
Norvell


Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 2,113



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

        Uhm....Russia aanyone?

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Russia under Putin has been one of the biggest importers of right-wing Christian fundamentalism in the modern era. Putin is currently engaged in a massive campaign of violence against homosexuality under the pretense of Christian values. The Russian Orthodox is one of the main pillars of Putin's power base.



    Quote:
    I am talking about communist Russia, which was anti-religion and far worse than Putin.


It's hard to get worse than Putin, who runs an authoritarian kleptocracy which is actually far more disruptive to Western interests than even the Soviet Union. Many of the right-wing Nationalist Western movements -- from Le Pen to Farage, and possibly Trump himself -- are backed, influenced, bankrolled, or ultimately subservient to Russia to some degree. The whole Syria mess can attributed to Putin, along with the escalation of the ISIS conflict. The notion that Putin is a net positive in fighting terrorism, for example, is on its face a laughable assertion. He's made things far worse for the US.

Mikhail Gorbachev was a reasonable person, by contrast.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 1,791



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

          Uhm....Russia aanyone?

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Russia under Putin has been one of the biggest importers of right-wing Christian fundamentalism in the modern era. Putin is currently engaged in a massive campaign of violence against homosexuality under the pretense of Christian values. The Russian Orthodox is one of the main pillars of Putin's power base.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I am talking about communist Russia, which was anti-religion and far worse than Putin.



    Quote:
    It's hard to get worse than Putin, who runs an authoritarian kleptocracy which is actually far more disruptive to Western interests than even the Soviet Union. Many of the right-wing Nationalist Western movements -- from Le Pen to Farage, and possibly Trump himself -- are backed, influenced, bankrolled, or ultimately subservient to Russia to some degree. The whole Syria mess can attributed to Putin, along with the escalation of the ISIS conflict. The notion that Putin is a net positive in fighting terrorism, for example, is on its face a laughable assertion. He's made things far worse for the US.



    Quote:
    Mikhail Gorbachev was a reasonable person, by contrast.


I am not saying Putin is good. I am saying he is far better than Stalin through Gorbachev. Mikhail saw the writing on the wall.

But you cant paint Putin as worse than Communist Russia if you know the history. Stalin was as bad or worse than Hitler himself who is the symbol of insane evil. And Communist Russia was VERY anti-religion.

And guess who was even worse than Hitler and Stalin...a certain Chinese Communist Dictator Mao...who was also VERY anti-religious.

Just pointing out you cant say its all religions fault...when the 3 greatest mass murdering societies in the history of the world were anti-religion.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 1,791



    Quote:

      Quote:
      If there is really no God, then NONE can claim there is a standard of absolute truth, so whatever goes, and if killing someone, or raping them is what ones sees as being acceptable, it would be!



    Quote:
    This comment doesn't make a lot of sense in a world where so many have killed (and raped) in the name of god.


Personally I think it's just sadly human nature ands all about bad people in power be it religious or non-religious.

Power corrupts whether its based on religious power or state power. Many terrible thing shave been done in religions name...but they have really often done in the name of power with religion (or some other ideological belief) as the cover.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
Norvell


Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 2,113



    Quote:
    I am not saying Putin is good. I am saying he is far better than Stalin through Gorbachev. Mikhail saw the writing on the wall.


Stalin was an overt murderer, true. Few beat him in the area of body count. The difference with Putin is that he's a subversive threat. Putin is a former KGB colonel who has no qualms about killing -- and killing large swaths of people (e.g. Syria) -- but he understands that achieving the fall of the West is done via subversion, rather than a direct assault. It could be argued, and I think rightly, that Putin is a bigger threat than ISIS and has caused more damage to post-WW2 America and the Western alliance than anyone.

It's difficult to compare that to overt atrocities, I would agree


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 1,791



    Quote:

      Quote:
      I am not saying Putin is good. I am saying he is far better than Stalin through Gorbachev. Mikhail saw the writing on the wall.



    Quote:
    Stalin was an overt murderer, true. Few beat him in the area of body count. The difference with Putin is that he's a subversive threat. Putin is a former KGB colonel who has no qualms about killing -- and killing large swaths of people (e.g. Syria) -- but he understands that achieving the fall of the West is done via subversion, rather than a direct assault. It could be argued, and I think rightly, that Putin is a bigger threat than ISIS and has caused more damage to post-WW2 America and the Western alliance than anyone.


Oh ageed...hes a potential huge threat and is very destabilizing,,,Crimea anyone? Ukraine?


    Quote:
    It's difficult to compare that to overt atrocities, I would agree





Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,633



    Quote:

    Uhm....Russia aanyone?


Despite Russia declaring that it was an atheist state and actively persecuting religion, it never actually was. You can't simply legislate against religion - all you do is drive it underground. This certainly seems to have been the case here as since the fall of the Soviet Union there's been a big resurgence of religion there.

So, I'm talking about truly secular-leaning countries like Sweden, Denmark and Norway, where the people have naturally drifted away from religious belief.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 1,791



    Quote:

      Quote:

      Uhm....Russia aanyone?



    Quote:
    Despite Russia declaring that it was an atheist state and actively persecuting religion, it never actually was. You can't simply legislate against religion - all you do is drive it underground. This certainly seems to have been the case here as since the fall of the Soviet Union there's been a big resurgence of religion there.



    Quote:
    So, I'm talking about truly secular-leaning countries like Sweden, Denmark and Norway, where the people have naturally drifted away from religious belief.


They were specifically non religious...they were in power.
The 3 greatest mass murdering cultures in the history of the word were
#1 Communism
#2 Communism
#3 Fascism

All specifically targeted religions.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 15,472



    Quote:

      Quote:
      There used to be minimum standards that most people agree on.



    Quote:
    There still are.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      1) Deliberately lying is wrong. Lying to malign someone is worse. In the Bible, this is referred to as 'bearing false witness', and was worthy of its own spot on the Ten Commandments. However, even the most extreme atheist acknowledged the wisdom of this rule.



    Quote:
    Is it? Always? In every case?



    Quote:
    How about a small 'white lie' that harms no one, but saves someone emotional pain, for example?



    Quote:

      Quote:
      2) Stealing is wrong. If you borrow money and refuse to pay it back, that's stealing. If you refuse to pay someone for their services (e.g. contractors), that's stealing. If you defraud people out of their savings through deceptive business practices, that's stealing. It's not 'Gaming the System' if you get away with it -- you're an outright crook if you engage in this behavior.



    Quote:
    Is it? Always? In every case?



    Quote:
    Would you condemn someone who had no money, and stole food to keep their child alive for one more day? Say someone from a third world country ravaged by famine?



    Quote:

      Quote:
      3) Physical and sexual assault. If someone lays their hands on you for the purpose of sex or to inflict harm, against your wishes, that's assault. If you are accused of this behavior -- it's troubling. If three people accuse you of this, that's a pattern. If two dozen people accuse you of this, there's either a highly organized conspiracy (which is almost impossible to maintain), or we simply employ Occum's Razor. The simplest explanation is often the correct one.



    Quote:
    Yes. Agree with this.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      When you get right down to religion, beyond the obligatory deference to God and the various rituals involved in maintaining faith -- the message is rather simple. Don't steal, don't harm, don't lie. If you look at the Ten Commandments, only about four of them refer to morality and ethics. The wisdom of simplicity. We know wrong when we see it.



    Quote:
    Religion? What's religion got to do with it? Thankfully, we don't get our morals and ethics from religion. On the contrary, religion seems to warp morals and ethics out of shape.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      These laws can be extrapolated further, of course. When Christopher Hitchens re-wrote the Commandments for Vanity Fair, he made a few valid additions to the Big Ten, such as forbidding violence against children. Or that slavery can never be condoned.



    Quote:
    Absolutely. It would be difficult NOT to come up with ten commandments that are better than those found in the bible. Which just goes to show how immoral a book the bible actually is.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      I don't approach morality or ethics from the angle of purity. Many situations call for nuance and understanding. Lots of grey areas. However, I think there should be a line in the sand regarding acceptable human behavior. If you fall below that line to such an egregious degree that it defies quantification (e.g. you regularly transgress ALL THREE rules of minimum human decency) -- we as a society, as a species, get to call you out. The onus is on you to redeem yourself -- not on us to 'understand' your differing ideology.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Where do you stand on this?



    Quote:
    I don't think it's as clear cut as simply saying 'stealing is bad', or 'lying is bad'. There are grey areas, areas where you have to have some moral give and take. Every case has to be judged on it's own merits.


I sort of agree, but I would lean towards them being bad. Unless there was justification myself. And it would have to be fairly reasonable stuff.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,633





    Quote:
    They were specifically non religious...they were in power.
    The 3 greatest mass murdering cultures in the history of the word were
    #1 Communism
    #2 Communism
    #3 Fascism


No.

Those were arguably* the greatest mass murdering regimes, but you can't blame the entire cultures for their leaders, especially given the way those leaders came into and held on to power.

I say arguably because it's impossible to even guess how many people were murdered in the name of Christianity over the centuries. Between the crusades, the inquisitions, witch hunts, murders for heresy, or being in the wrong subset of Christianity (Protestant v Catholic for example).

    Quote:
    All specifically targeted religions.


When it suited them to do so. More so under communism than fascism. But even Stalin reinstated the Russian Orthodox Church in 1941. Why did he do that? Because he knew that religion was still a major factor in Russia despite the persecutions and he needed something to galvanise the people to patriotic fervour in preparation for war.

And that's the point I'm making here. Stalin may have been an atheist. Many of those in power around him may have been atheists - I dare say some were not. Closet Christians, as it were - but most of the population whether they dared show it or not, clung to some form of religious worship.

And it's a similar story with Hitler.

But in any case, the associations don't establish causation. Hitler and Stalin didn't murder millions because they were atheists. They murdered them because they were psychopaths.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
atrimus


Location: Saint Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 1,927



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        If there is really no God, then NONE can claim there is a standard of absolute truth, so whatever goes, and if killing someone, or raping them is what ones sees as being acceptable, it would be!

      Quote:

        Quote:
        This comment doesn't make a lot of sense in a world where so many have killed (and raped) in the name of god.



    Quote:
    Personally I think it's just sadly human nature ands all about bad people in power be it religious or non-religious.



    Quote:
    Power corrupts whether its based on religious power or state power. Many terrible thing shave been done in religions name...but they have really often done in the name of power with religion (or some other ideological belief) as the cover.


I agree. I'm in no way saying that belief is the cause of all suffering; just challenging the notion that morality doesn't exist without belief in god.





Posted with Google Chrome 62.0.3202.94 on Windows 7
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 15,472



    Quote:

      Quote:
      They were specifically non religious...they were in power.
      The 3 greatest mass murdering cultures in the history of the word were
      #1 Communism
      #2 Communism
      #3 Fascism



    Quote:
    No.



    Quote:
    Those were arguably* the greatest mass murdering regimes, but you can't blame the entire cultures for their leaders, especially given the way those leaders came into and held on to power.



    Quote:
    I say arguably because it's impossible to even guess how many people were murdered in the name of Christianity over the centuries. Between the crusades, the inquisitions, witch hunts, murders for heresy, or being in the wrong subset of Christianity (Protestant v Catholic for example).

      Quote:
      All specifically targeted religions.



    Quote:
    When it suited them to do so. More so under communism than fascism. But even Stalin reinstated the Russian Orthodox Church in 1941. Why did he do that? Because he knew that religion was still a major factor in Russia despite the persecutions and he needed something to galvanise the people to patriotic fervour in preparation for war.



    Quote:
    And that's the point I'm making here. Stalin may have been an atheist. Many of those in power around him may have been atheists - I dare say some were not. Closet Christians, as it were - but most of the population whether they dared show it or not, clung to some form of religious worship.



    Quote:
    And it's a similar story with Hitler.



    Quote:
    But in any case, the associations don't establish causation. Hitler and Stalin didn't murder millions because they were atheists. They murdered them because they were psychopaths.


This last point is critical I think. And many refuse to acknowledge it. It is like the gag argument "You know who believed in arithmetic...Hitler".




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 62.0.3202.94 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 1,791



    Quote:

      Quote:
      They were specifically non religious...they were in power.
      The 3 greatest mass murdering cultures in the history of the word were
      #1 Communism
      #2 Communism
      #3 Fascism



    Quote:
    No.


YES


    Quote:
    Those were arguably* the greatest mass murdering regimes, but you can't blame the entire cultures for their leaders, especially given the way those leaders came into and held on to power.


No they were...look it up. Mao...Stalin...then Hitler


    Quote:
    I say arguably because it's impossible to even guess how many people were murdered in the name of Christianity over the centuries. Between the crusades, the inquisitions, witch hunts, murders for heresy, or being in the wrong subset of Christianity (Protestant v Catholic for example).

      Quote:
      All specifically targeted religions.


Arguably because the facts don't support your argument. How many were murdered over money? Look its clear...you hate Christianity. Atheists and Muslims and every other religion just get along so great right?


    Quote:
    When it suited them to do so. More so under communism than fascism. But even Stalin reinstated the Russian Orthodox Church in 1941. Why did he do that? Because he knew that religion was still a major factor in Russia despite the persecutions and he needed something to galvanise the people to patriotic fervour in preparation for war.


You didn't dare go to that church unless you were an old woman. If you say otherwise you don't understand what happened in other countries during this time period. Period.


    Quote:
    And that's the point I'm making here. Stalin may have been an atheist. Many of those in power around him may have been atheists - I dare say some were not. Closet Christians, as it were - but most of the population whether they dared show it or not, clung to some form of religious worship.


Some did some did not...this isn't the point we were talking about though.


    Quote:
    And it's a similar story with Hitler.



    Quote:
    But in any case, the associations don't establish causation. Hitler and Stalin didn't murder millions because they were atheists. They murdered them because they were psychopaths.


Hmmm...maybe the Christian leaders didn't murder people in certain time periods because...oh maybe they were psychopaths and not because they were religious?

You hate religion so much you cant even see this.


Posted with Google Chrome 52.0.2743.116 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 1,791



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        They were specifically non religious...they were in power.
        The 3 greatest mass murdering cultures in the history of the word were
        #1 Communism
        #2 Communism
        #3 Fascism

      Quote:

        Quote:
        No.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Those were arguably* the greatest mass murdering regimes, but you can't blame the entire cultures for their leaders, especially given the way those leaders came into and held on to power.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            I say arguably because it's impossible to even guess how many people were murdered in the name of Christianity over the centuries. Between the crusades, the inquisitions, witch hunts, murders for heresy, or being in the wrong subset of Christianity (Protestant v Catholic for example).

              Quote:
              All specifically targeted religions.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              When it suited them to do so. More so under communism than fascism. But even Stalin reinstated the Russian Orthodox Church in 1941. Why did he do that? Because he knew that religion was still a major factor in Russia despite the persecutions and he needed something to galvanise the people to patriotic fervour in preparation for war.

              Quote:

                Quote:
                And that's the point I'm making here. Stalin may have been an atheist. Many of those in power around him may have been atheists - I dare say some were not. Closet Christians, as it were - but most of the population whether they dared show it or not, clung to some form of religious worship.

                Quote:

                  Quote:
                  And it's a similar story with Hitler.

                  Quote:

                    Quote:
                    But in any case, the associations don't establish causation. Hitler and Stalin didn't murder millions because they were atheists. They murdered them because they were psychopaths.



    Quote:
    This last point is critical I think. And many refuse to acknowledge it. It is like the gag argument "You know who believed in arithmetic...Hitler".


No more so than Christian leaders (and we always bring up the Christians because its not fair to Muslims right?) did it because THEY wee psychopaths and not because religion? Making excuses (in this case being a psycho) for one while not the other is not critical thinking.


Posted with Google Chrome 52.0.2743.116 on Windows 10
MysteryMan

Agree 100%...with Atrimus below :P *nt*.

Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 1,791


>


Posted with Google Chrome 52.0.2743.116 on Windows 10
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,633



    Quote:
    Arguably because the facts don't support your argument. How many were murdered over money? Look its clear...you hate Christianity. Atheists and Muslims and every other religion just get along so great right?


Let's be absolutely clear: I'm not keen on any religion, not just Christianity.


    Quote:
    You didn't dare go to that church unless you were an old woman. If you say otherwise you don't understand what happened in other countries during this time period. Period.


Because old women were the patriots he wanted to send to war? Good thinking, Stalin.

It doesn't matter who went, or how often, or if they took their dog and their budgie with them. I'm just saying he did it (and there was a reason he did it), and that's a point of historical fact.



    Quote:
    Some did some did not...this isn't the point we were talking about though.


It's ABSOLUTELY the point. I'm talking about the overall religiosity of the population of a country. I'll set out the argument again:

Countries that are less religious - overall, among the population as well as the leaders - have lower crime rates. Countries that are more religious have higher crime rates. Less religious countries also have better records in education, living standards and human rights.



    Quote:
    Hmmm...maybe the Christian leaders didn't murder people in certain time periods because...oh maybe they were psychopaths and not because they were religious?



    Quote:
    You hate religion so much you cant even see this.


I have no doubt that many of them were. But their primary motivating factor in most cases was their religious belief. Atheism was not the primary motivating factor for Hitler, Stalin and Mao. It's a crucial difference.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 15,472



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          They were specifically non religious...they were in power.
          The 3 greatest mass murdering cultures in the history of the word were
          #1 Communism
          #2 Communism
          #3 Fascism

        Quote:

          Quote:
          No.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            Those were arguably* the greatest mass murdering regimes, but you can't blame the entire cultures for their leaders, especially given the way those leaders came into and held on to power.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              I say arguably because it's impossible to even guess how many people were murdered in the name of Christianity over the centuries. Between the crusades, the inquisitions, witch hunts, murders for heresy, or being in the wrong subset of Christianity (Protestant v Catholic for example).

                Quote:
                All specifically targeted religions.

              Quote:

                Quote:
                When it suited them to do so. More so under communism than fascism. But even Stalin reinstated the Russian Orthodox Church in 1941. Why did he do that? Because he knew that religion was still a major factor in Russia despite the persecutions and he needed something to galvanise the people to patriotic fervour in preparation for war.

                Quote:

                  Quote:
                  And that's the point I'm making here. Stalin may have been an atheist. Many of those in power around him may have been atheists - I dare say some were not. Closet Christians, as it were - but most of the population whether they dared show it or not, clung to some form of religious worship.

                  Quote:

                    Quote:
                    And it's a similar story with Hitler.

                    Quote:

                      Quote:
                      But in any case, the associations don't establish causation. Hitler and Stalin didn't murder millions because they were atheists. They murdered them because they were psychopaths.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        This last point is critical I think. And many refuse to acknowledge it. It is like the gag argument "You know who believed in arithmetic...Hitler".



    Quote:
    No more so than Christian leaders (and we always bring up the Christians because its not fair to Muslims right?) did it because THEY wee psychopaths and not because religion? Making excuses (in this case being a psycho) for one while not the other is not critical thinking.


Who cares about Christians or Muslims? I know this spun off into a religious direction with morality but the point I was stating holds true regardless.

It is false equivalency. Assuming that because one person was one thing that by causation the things the person did were derived from that character. This holds for science denial, immigration debates or whatever else thing you want to talk about. We tend to assume cause and effect.

The Christian vs Muslim thing is bunk. Both sides should be held to the same standards. However, pending the argument you are having. If we are discussing the US who has more pull. Christians or Muslims? Surely not the later. Other parts of the world are the reverse, but in the US that is not the case. And in a historical context all religions are a mixed bag.

One can make the case that they were psychopaths. The worst of them anyway over the years for whatever reason. They happily used religion (pick which one) as a justification for their actions. In the case of Hitler or Stalin, they also used appeal to religion to accomplis those ends. But not in isolation. A mixture of nationalism, religious heritage and other ends.

Religion, one can easily make the case, results in as much or more cultural harm as anything else. Maybe more, it is hard to count for it. It is often used as justification for whatever ill there is.

Is something that is so manipulatable that ok. Does it balance any sort of cost benefit analysis? For a given person it may be wonderful and make them a better person. On the whole, it is more used as a sword to divide people and resort to base tribalism than anything else.

One is wise to be highly skeptical of anything making a religious appeal. As it usually means wanting to make other people believe as I do with no other real rational grounds other than my view of what certain ancient teachings say. And these are often the people (regardless of religion) who are more than happy to disgard all aspects of modern science as they become inconvenient.

So, what I was addressing initially is very important. As it is very poor logic. People do not care and never will but it is not way for society to progress. And basically resorts into saying whatever the reality is was too complicated. Let me just make this hasty comparison and assume all conclusions stem from one fact.

Not all Christians are bad people because they are Christian either, nor Muslims nor whatever else. Some are just bad people. However, I would contend that religion has made it easier for people to do things and get away with it from the angle of "divine right" and therefore beyond question. Which is dangerous. And we are seeing, in the US and in Europe, a reversion to thought and reversion to many of the worst tendencies in nationalism, religion and ideology. Few seem to care much. So long as they get their way.





Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 15,472



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        They were specifically non religious...they were in power.
        The 3 greatest mass murdering cultures in the history of the word were
        #1 Communism
        #2 Communism
        #3 Fascism

      Quote:

        Quote:
        No.



    Quote:
    YES



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Those were arguably* the greatest mass murdering regimes, but you can't blame the entire cultures for their leaders, especially given the way those leaders came into and held on to power.



    Quote:
    No they were...look it up. Mao...Stalin...then Hitler


Is it yes or no? I recommend reading his response in full instead of breaking it up.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      I say arguably because it's impossible to even guess how many people were murdered in the name of Christianity over the centuries. Between the crusades, the inquisitions, witch hunts, murders for heresy, or being in the wrong subset of Christianity (Protestant v Catholic for example).

        Quote:
        All specifically targeted religions.



    Quote:
    Arguably because the facts don't support your argument. How many were murdered over money? Look its clear...you hate Christianity. Atheists and Muslims and every other religion just get along so great right?


What facts are you using to refute them? One could consider Gangus Kan or others. They killed on pretty epic scales in different ways. Other empires also did things like it over larger periods of time. How many, it is not always easy to tell how many people died.

It is even harder to tell how many people were killed for one belief or another. Be it in whatever. That has nothing to do with Christianity or whatever religion. One could make a bigger case that more people die because of the use or misuse of religion than whatever other cause.

Nazi's, the Soviets and so on killed all manner of people for all manner of reasons. It is whatever excuse they needed to get out there to meet their ends.

In Germany they gradually raised hatred against the Jews. Using in part some aspects of Christianity that still exist. Stalin killed all manner of people, some for no clear reason at all. Religion was mixed into nationalism for Nazi's. That is a fact. Was Hitler himself a Christian? Hardly matters?

If one wants to make that claim than is one to discount anybodies beliefs because they not whatever group a given person fancies? Does one assume Evolution is a lie because Darwin did not go to church enough?

Ancient One is trying to make something of a nuanced argument. I am not sure you are doing a great job of refuting it. More coming off as needlessly confrontational. AO, if you have paid attention, dislikes all religions.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      When it suited them to do so. More so under communism than fascism. But even Stalin reinstated the Russian Orthodox Church in 1941. Why did he do that? Because he knew that religion was still a major factor in Russia despite the persecutions and he needed something to galvanise the people to patriotic fervour in preparation for war.



    Quote:
    You didn't dare go to that church unless you were an old woman. If you say otherwise you don't understand what happened in other countries during this time period. Period.


Proof? Why would they restart the church in the first place then?


    Quote:

      Quote:
      And that's the point I'm making here. Stalin may have been an atheist. Many of those in power around him may have been atheists - I dare say some were not. Closet Christians, as it were - but most of the population whether they dared show it or not, clung to some form of religious worship.



    Quote:
    Some did some did not...this isn't the point we were talking about though.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      And it's a similar story with Hitler.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        But in any case, the associations don't establish causation. Hitler and Stalin didn't murder millions because they were atheists. They murdered them because they were psychopaths.



    Quote:
    Hmmm...maybe the Christian leaders didn't murder people in certain time periods because...oh maybe they were psychopaths and not because they were religious?


This is something one could argue but it is also impossible for you to argue with a straight fact that religion is not used as an excuse. One of the most consistent ones in history that really is just authority saying to do something.

Be it mass murder, burning of heritics, slavery or whatever other thing. If there was a psycopath at the high end of things, they gave their view and it was the will of God. Most others went with it. Few of the good religious folks under them did much to question that view and just went with it. Usually until something big happened to stop it or a change in power.

This is not unique to religion but religion sure makes it easier. Does not matter what religion.


    Quote:
    You hate religion so much you cant even see this.


I think one is wise to be highly skeptical of any argument from a religious pretext. If one is to actually critically consider something. Why should one believe a very old book and somebodies view on it on matters of critical important.

At the point in the world many debates result in evidence vs somebodies belief. And belief wins way too much. Way way too much.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 15,472


I would disagree. Morality does not require religion or a God. Some draw their morality from religion but different religions. And they do just fine.

One also has to think that God is not enforcing those laws or making morality clear to all. So things get complicated fast. IMO.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
atrimus


Location: Saint Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 1,927



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Arguably because the facts don't support your argument. How many were murdered over money? Look its clear...you hate Christianity. Atheists and Muslims and every other religion just get along so great right?



    Quote:
    Let's be absolutely clear: I'm not keen on any religion, not just Christianity.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      You didn't dare go to that church unless you were an old woman. If you say otherwise you don't understand what happened in other countries during this time period. Period.



    Quote:
    Because old women were the patriots he wanted to send to war? Good thinking, Stalin.



    Quote:
    It doesn't matter who went, or how often, or if they took their dog and their budgie with them. I'm just saying he did it (and there was a reason he did it), and that's a point of historical fact.



    Quote:


      Quote:
      Some did some did not...this isn't the point we were talking about though.



    Quote:
    It's ABSOLUTELY the point. I'm talking about the overall religiosity of the population of a country. I'll set out the argument again:



    Quote:
    Countries that are less religious - overall, among the population as well as the leaders - have lower crime rates. Countries that are more religious have higher crime rates. Less religious countries also have better records in education, living standards and human rights.


You're sweeping a lot of factors under the rug here. Urban crime is a major contributor to overall crime in the US. As someone born and raised in a rough urban neighborhood, I can comfortably say that very little of it had any religious motivation. I imagine this is the case for most urban crime across the country.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      Hmmm...maybe the Christian leaders didn't murder people in certain time periods because...oh maybe they were psychopaths and not because they were religious?

      Quote:

        Quote:
        You hate religion so much you cant even see this.



    Quote:
    I have no doubt that many of them were. But their primary motivating factor in most cases was their religious belief. Atheism was not the primary motivating factor for Hitler, Stalin and Mao. It's a crucial difference.






Posted with Google Chrome 62.0.3202.94 on Windows 7
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,633




    Quote:
    You're sweeping a lot of factors under the rug here. Urban crime is a major contributor to overall crime in the US. As someone born and raised in a rough urban neighborhood, I can comfortably say that very little of it had any religious motivation. I imagine this is the case for most urban crime across the country.


I'm not sweeping anything under the rug at all. Nor am I saying that religion is the sole motivating factor in crimes. That would be ridiculous.

What I am saying, yet again, is that countries that are less religious tend to have lower crime rates, and have better records on other issues like education, human rights and social welfare.

You can draw a clear distinction between the Western world and Middle Eastern and third world countries. There's absolutely no question about that. But the correlation also exists in general and to a lesser extent if we're just examining countries in the West.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
1 2 3  >> All

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software