Athiesm, Punishment and Killing

Michael

03-16-08, 09:38 PM

This is the main point here: Giving people any reason at all to kill is more than reason enough.

To set about guidelines as clear as mud (such as the "Perfect" Qur'an) where no two people can agree on what the hell it says is basically free-for-all to justify any sort of killing. And that's exactly what has happened. Weather it's someone being stoned to death or someone strapping on a bomb and blowing to bits children there's always this reassurance that somewhere in the mud this action of mine, to kill, is justified by Allah.

IMO, A truly enlightened person will recognize that people are going to kill and then set about attempting to make sure that all people know it is wrong and that they shouldn't endeavor to do it.

As so: Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill.

Or
Though shall not Kill or Killing is a sin etc.. ect...

If you don't get it SAM that's because people become mentally stunted when they labor under the following assumptions:
My Religion is Perfect.
My Religious Book is Perfect.
My Religion is the only True Religion.
Mohammad is the only True Prophet.

There is no way to fix that problem. Basically such a person simply can not understand why it's important that religion teach that killing is wrong and how this makes a positive impact on society over teaching that killing is sometimes ok just as long as you observe the following rule: flies fly just as dirt is made of ground when the moon split in two it's marzlike mountains have deep roots all praise Allah....

S.A.M.

03-16-08, 10:11 PM

*loooooooooooooooooong diatribe on Islam and Muslims*

I suppose there is a point in there somewhere that addresses the OP. :confused:

Michael

03-16-08, 11:11 PM

Here's the point: Giving people any religious-sanctioned reason at all, to kill, is more than reason enough for people to then kill. It's therefor self-evident that any such religion is a fundamentally flawed beleif system.

S.A.M.

03-16-08, 11:13 PM

Did you vote?

Michael

03-16-08, 11:15 PM

I am an atheist and I say YES

Norsefire

03-17-08, 12:02 AM

Not only justified but necessary. Punishment, for instance.

Also, I put "theist" but I am only Faithful not religious. I believe in God and all the Prophets but I myself follow no specific religion.

Norsefire

03-17-08, 12:03 AM

Michael

03-17-08, 12:22 AM

No, because it would be justified under the religion.Norsefire,
Religion should keep itself to speaking about "why am I here", "how do I find meaning in this existence" "what happened to Scoobie me Dog and Goldy me fish?" "treat others with dignity" "be good to the planet" blah blah blah ... those sorts of things.

The absolute LAST thing you want religion involved with is politics - to this we must both agree???

And also it's quite evident that religion should never religiously justify killing other people. Look, people are going to kill, simply because of our primate heritage, so don't ever give them an additional excuse. Leave concepts such as when it's ok to proscribe killing to democratically elected representatives of the people. In that way as the society advances past needing mountain-, sky- and sea- daddys so will the laws regarding such actions in said civilizations.

make sense?
:)
Michael

Norsefire

03-17-08, 12:25 AM

Norsefire,
Religion should keep itself to speaking about "why am I here", "how do I find meaning in this existence" "what happened to Scoobie me Dog and Goldy me fish?" "treat others with dignity" "be good to the planet" blah blah blah ... those sorts of things.

The absolute LAST thing you want religion involved with is politics - to this we must both agree???

And also it's quite evident that religion should never religiously justify killing other people. Look, people are going to kill, simply because of our primate heritage, so don't ever give them an additional excuse. Leave concepts such as when it's ok to proscribe killing to democratically elected representatives of the people.

Michael

I understand, but that is your mentality. In the mentality of extremists they don't even think like you do, they think on an entirely different level, they feel that what YOU say is ridiculous. I do understand though and partly agree with you though.

However, in the killing of criminals,there is absolutely nothing wrong with that and in my opinion capital punishment is not used enough.

James R

03-17-08, 12:49 AM

According to some atheists on this forum, religion should not have ANY decree on murder or killing under any circumstances, as this proscribes capital punishment and/or provides justification for killing.

Do you have any references to atheists on this forum who said that?

However, if we look at societies under atheist rulers, they are replete with murder and torture.

You still seem to be having trouble separating cause and effect here.

How many "atheist rulers" have killed in the name of atheism, or set up societies where people are killed for failing to live up to "atheist ideals", whatever they are meant to be? I'll venture: none.

So, in the absence of scriptures and religion, what is the atheists inspiration for murder? What is the "rational" approach to punishment?

If you need to ask, you probably need to go and do some basic reading on the issue of punishment. Read about the influence of classicism and positivism on the history of punishment. In particular, I suggest you look up the names Cesare Lombroso and Jeremy Bentham and read what they had to say about the rationale and purpose of punishment.

Once you've done that, come back and we can have a useful discussion.

iceaura

03-17-08, 12:54 AM

However, if we look at societies under atheist rulers, they are replete with murder and torture. The confusion of theism with religion is going to dog this whole argument.

Besides, the mindreading involved in determining whether a ruler is atheist or not (and what exactly is meant by that) is beyond me. More useful, I think, to compare childhood and character building environments than states of mind - more reliable data.

As far as why an atheist tyrant would punish and kill - I presume more or less with the same motives anyone would, only with different public justification.

If we look at societies under rulers, they are replete with murder and torture. With exceptions, naturally.

Something to consider: given the lack of the crutch and pre-groomed underlings, tyrants that have no religion supporting their seizure of power might find murder and torture more needful. That may account for their extreme rarity - to last, tyranny requires a moral as well as a physical authority, and without the supportive priest a tyrant's task becomes more difficult.

Given a fear of God to work with, the tyrant may need less fear of violence, say.

James R

03-17-08, 12:57 AM

iceaura:

Very Machiavellian. :)

Adstar

03-17-08, 01:00 AM

If you are a threat to the safety of other people then you should be put in a place safe to both you and them until such time that you are no longer a threat to their safety.

I agree. Feels odd agreeing with you snakelord but i suppose the odds where that we would eventually find some point of agreement somewhere along the way. lol

Anyway As a Christian i do not see the need for humans to carry out punishments upon offenders. If a person cannot function properly in society, that is they cannot control their temper or cannot control a compulsion to steal or offend in some other way then they should be removed from society until such time as they have had their flaw rectified.

I do not believe in Jails as such, It would be far batter to put such people in a self sufficient kibbutz type guarded labour camp maybe located on islands, where they would grow their own food make their own clothes ect ect and have counselling and training. Once they where deemed by the authorities to no longer be a threat to society they could be released. That could take 3 months or 30 years for two different people who committed the same crime. Once released if the person re-offended then they would be returned to the camp for the rest of their lives, because they would have demonstrated that they where capable of fooling the experts in the system who formerly recommended their release.

The current system in most of the world only provides offenders with a facility where they can learn to be more effective criminals and turns petty criminals into people with psychological scars capable of great violence because from the abuse they received in prison.

As a Christian i believe that no one will escape justice for offences committed on earth God will judge. So punishing people here is to me pointless.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Xev

03-17-08, 01:24 AM

According to some atheists on this forum, religion should not have ANY decree on murder or killing under any circumstances, as this proscribes capital punishment and/or provides justification for killing. Some also disagree (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1785163&postcount=48) with the notion of forgiveness/compensation of crime as an alternative to punishment, while agreeing that prisons are full of innocent but convicted people.

However, if we look at societies under atheist rulers, they are replete with murder and torture.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d81/sushi_1983/not_this_shit_again.jpg

John99

03-17-08, 03:31 AM

Is there a way to just kill the labels?

Bells

03-17-08, 03:52 AM

According to some atheists on this forum, religion should not have ANY decree on murder or killing under any circumstances,
That could be because a lot of people, be they atheist or theist are against capital punishment.

as this proscribes capital punishment and/or provides justification for killing.
Yes.

Some also disagree (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1785163&postcount=48) with the notion of forgiveness/compensation of crime as an alternative to punishment,
As in making the criminal pay for forgiveness? I doubt a parent, who has had a child murdered, would want to put a price on just how much that child was worth before they granted forgiveness, can you? In some instances, the convicted will be forced to pay compensation and other times, he/she will be imprisoned. And sometimes they may have to do both.

while agreeing that prisons are full of innocent but convicted people.
Yes. There are people who are wrongly convicted.

However, if we look at societies under atheist rulers, they are replete with murder and torture.
Indeed.

Look at Saudi Arabia as an example. Oh wait..

:rolleyes:

As others have already pointed out in this thread, how many of those "atheist rulers" who ran societies that were apparently "replete with murder and torture", did all of the murdering and torturing in the name of 'atheism' and 'atheist ideals'?

So, in the absence of scriptures and religion, what is the atheists inspiration for murder? What is the "rational" approach to punishment?

So theists need scripture and religion as an inspiration for murder? Now I understand why one theist member, on here, recently said that one should kill if God asks them to kill.

But to answer your (bizarre) question, I simply would not know what inspires one to murder. Some kill out of jealousy, greed, revenge, etc. As an atheist, I have not murdered anyone, to date. I'll be sure to let you know if I am ever 'inspired though'...

As for a '"rational" approach to punishment'? I am not a supporter of capital punishment, but at the end of the day, it depends on the crime involved. Some warrant life imprisonment and others do not.

SnakeLord

03-17-08, 05:32 AM

I agree. Feels odd agreeing with you snakelord but i suppose the odds where that we would eventually find some point of agreement somewhere along the way. lol

It's a miracle! Praise jebus. :D

The current system in most of the world only provides offenders with a facility where they can learn to be more effective criminals and turns petty criminals into people with psychological scars capable of great violence because from the abuse they received in prison.

Alas this is one of the downsides but is not a problem with the justice system. The issue is that upon release most convicts find themselves unable to get a job and thus have little choice but to once again resort to crime.

Every job application you'll find makes people fill in conviction details. With hundreds of people going for the same job, any application with that section filled in goes straight in the bin. Be honest, as an employer which would you choose: The kid that went to university or the one that went to jail?

Once you have served the time for the crime it should be forgotten, giving the ex-con a fighting chance.

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 05:38 AM

Do you have any references to atheists on this forum who said that?

In the link?

You still seem to be having trouble separating cause and effect here.

How many "atheist rulers" have killed in the name of atheism, or set up societies where people are killed for failing to live up to "atheist ideals", whatever they are meant to be? I'll venture: none.

Several. To quote a few

The Soviet Union was an officially atheist state.

Soviet policy toward religion was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. As the founder of the Soviet state V. I. Lenin put it:

Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.

Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and, ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs. In the 1920s and 1930s, such organizations as the League of the Militant Godless ridiculed all religions and harassed believers. Atheism was propagated through schools, communist organizations (such as the Young Pioneer Organization), and the media.

China:

The People's Republic of China was established in 1949. Its government is officially atheist, which viewed religion as emblematic of feudalism and foreign colonialism.

Religious belief or practice was banned because it was regarded as backward and superstitious by some of the communist leaders, from Vladimir Lenin to Mao Zedong, who had been critical of religious institutions.[20]

Houses of worship, including pagodas, temples, mosques, and churches, were converted into non-religious buildings for secular use during its early years. The Cultural Revolution led to a policy of elimination of religions; a massive number of places of worship was destroyed.

Korea:

On both sides of the border, Dobbs heard horror stories from underground Christians about recent North Korean persecution. Executions and torture may occur in large part in North Korea's prison camp—the gulag holds an estimated 200,000 political prisoners—but they also happen in public. Dobbs gleaned one estimate that the regime kills 300 people a year for their faith. Other well-connected activists report arrests of Christians were higher last year than in 2005, with perhaps 50,000 believers languishing in prison.

* In one prison, a warden hung a Christian man upside down and ordered him to deny his beliefs. Eventually the warden stabbed at him and pushed him to the ground, ordering 6,000 prisoners to trample him to death.
* Eight prisoners stayed silent when told to deny the existence of heaven, so an infuriated prison official ordered other inmates to pour molten iron over them.
* Some reports say Christian prisoners are deliberately crippled so they cannot walk; others are left naked and so starved they eat the rats scampering in their prison cells raw.

If you need to ask, you probably need to go and do some basic reading on the issue of punishment. Read about the influence of classicism and positivism on the history of punishment. In particular, I suggest you look up the names Cesare Lombroso and Jeremy Bentham and read what they had to say about the rationale and purpose of punishment.

Once you've done that, come back and we can have a useful discussion.

Thanks. :p

The confusion of theism with religion is going to dog this whole argument.

Besides, the mindreading involved in determining whether a ruler is atheist or not (and what exactly is meant by that) is beyond me. More useful, I think, to compare childhood and character building environments than states of mind - more reliable data.

As far as why an atheist tyrant would punish and kill - I presume more or less with the same motives anyone would, only with different public justification.

If we look at societies under rulers, they are replete with murder and torture. With exceptions, naturally.

Something to consider: given the lack of the crutch and pre-groomed underlings, tyrants that have no religion supporting their seizure of power might find murder and torture more needful. That may account for their extreme rarity - to last, tyranny requires a moral as well as a physical authority, and without the supportive priest a tyrant's task becomes more difficult.

Given a fear of God to work with, the tyrant may need less fear of violence, say.

That makes sense, it also explains why they eventually had to give up, since all they did was create martyrs.

Bolshevik policies toward religious belief and practice tended to vacillate over time between, on the one hand, a utopian determination to substitute secular rationalism for what they considered to be an unmodern, "superstitious" worldview and, on the other, pragmatic acceptance of the tenaciousness of religious faith and institutions. In any case, religious beliefs and practices did persist, in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces allowed by a state that recognized its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.[8] The result of this militant atheism was to transform the Church into a persecuted and martyred Church.

An intense ideological anti-Christian and anti-religious campaign was carried out throughout the history of the Soviet Union. An extensive education and propaganda campaign was undertaken to convince people, especially the children and youth, not to become believers. The role of the Christian religion and the Church was painted in black colors in school textbooks. For instance, much emphasis was placed on the role of the Church in such historical horror stories as the Inquisition, persecution of Galileo, Giordano Bruno, and other heretical scientists, and the Crusades. School students were encouraged to taunt and use peer pressure against classmates wearing crosses or otherwise professing their faith. In the 1920s there were many "anti-God" publications and social clubs sponsored by the government, most notably the scathingly satirical "Godless at the Workbench" ("Bezbozhnik u Stanka" in Russian). Later on, these disappeared because a new generation has grown up essentially atheist.[citation needed]

A "scientific" perspective was used to attack religion extensively. The Church was portrayed as obscurantist and opposed to the findings of science. Much was made of alleged Christian belief in the literal Creation account in the book of Genesis which the pro-Darwinian textbooks ridiculed.[citation needed] As part of the anti-foreign and anti-capitalist propaganda, an effort was made, especially in the 1920s and 1930s, to imprint in the minds of the people an image of the West as dominated by the anti-scientific ignorance of the Church, as opposed to the scientifically "progressive" atheist Soviet state.[citation needed]

In general, Christianity was portrayed as corrupt, hypocritical, a loyal servant of the reactionary czar, obscurantist, "opium for the people" according to Karl Marx, and otherwise evil. However in spite of the Communist regimes attempts to stamp out Christianity in its lands the Church and Christianity actually florished, as many Christians began to practice and preach their faith in secret, this movement was called the Underground Church, of which Ritchard Werembrant of Romania was a prominent member and preacher. The Underground Church still exixts in Communist lands like China, North Korea, Vietnam etc. Many Christian believers in the Soviet Union have told of being imprisoned for no other reason than believing in God. Many have recently been canonized as saints following their death at the hands of Soviet authorities; they are collectively referred to in the Orthodox Church as the "new martyrs".

Crunchy Cat

03-17-08, 12:30 PM

According to some atheists on this forum, religion should not have ANY decree on murder or killing under any circumstances, as this proscribes capital punishment and/or provides justification for killing.

Religion should not have any power over a governing body, other religions, or non-religions.

Some also disagree (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1785163&postcount=48) with the notion of forgiveness/compensation of crime as an alternative to punishment, while agreeing that prisons are full of innocent but convicted people.

I think there's room for the juducial system to become more aligned with human psychology.

However, if we look at societies under atheist rulers, they are replete with murder and torture.

I guess they should have governed instead of ruled no?

So, in the absence of scriptures and religion, what is the atheists inspiration for murder? What is the "rational" approach to punishment?

Threat removal presumably. IMO, the best approach to dealing with a criminal is to fix the criminal's behavior if they want to change. I speculate we'll invent technology to switch peoples behavioral epigenetic markers on and off and that will make behavior modification a heck of alot quicker than traditional methods.

spidergoat

03-17-08, 12:55 PM

What nation with an official religion has a space program, and has sent people into space like the USSR and the US have?

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 01:02 PM

What nation with an official religion has a space program, and has sent people into space like the USSR and the US have?

What does that have to do with killing or punishment?

spidergoat

03-17-08, 01:09 PM

I'm just saying, there are benefits to a secular state, for instance greater promotion of science and technology.

Chinese punishment hasn't changed too much since ancient times, thus their famous cruelty is a cultural phenomenon, not a religious one.

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 01:13 PM

I'm just saying, there are benefits to a secular state, for instance greater promotion of science and technology. .

Doesn't help the thousands incarcerated or killed, I'm afraid.

Chinese punishment hasn't changed too much since ancient times, thus their famous cruelty is a cultural phenomenon, not a religious one

Before:

Religion in China has been characterized by pluralism since the beginning of Chinese history. Temples of many different religions dot China's landscape, particularly those of Taoism, Buddhism, and Chinese folk religion. Mahayana Buddhism remains the largest organized religion in China since its introduction in the 1st century.

Independently of adherence to organized religions (see below), most Chinese ground their spirituality in Chinese folk religion, Confucianism, and ancestor worship. These are not organized religions but rather practices or thought systems denoting membership in ethnic Chinese culture and civilization.

The Chinese religions are family-oriented and, unlike Western religions, do not demand the exclusive adherence of members. Chinese people may visit Buddhist temples while living according to Taoist principles and participating in local ancestor veneration rituals.

After:

The People's Republic of China was established in 1949. Its government is officially atheist, which viewed religion as emblematic of feudalism and foreign colonialism.

Religious belief or practice was banned because it was regarded as backward and superstitious by some of the communist leaders, from Vladimir Lenin to Mao Zedong, who had been critical of religious institutions.[20]

Houses of worship, including pagodas, temples, mosques, and churches, were converted into non-religious buildings for secular use during its early years. The Cultural Revolution led to a policy of elimination of religions; a massive number of places of worship was destroyed.

This policy relaxed considerably in the late 1970s at the end of the Cultural Revolution and more tolerance of religious expression has been permitted since the 1980s. The 1978 Constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees "freedom of religion" with a number of restrictions. Since the mid-1990s there has been a massive program to rebuild Buddhist and Taoist temples.

The Chinese Communist Party has said that religious belief and membership are incompatible. Party membership is a necessity for many high level careers and posts. That along with other official hostility makes statistical reporting on religious membership difficult.

I'd say the persecution for belief has increased under atheist rule, wiping out centuries of religious pluralism.

spidergoat

03-17-08, 01:40 PM

Right, but their treatment of criminals hasn't changed much in hundreds of years, only what they call a crime.

If you insist on condemning, for good reason, the detainment of people for religious reasons, you would have to consider the martyr of thousands of Christians by the Romans, the destruction of Aztec culture by European missionaries, the arrest and torture of Bahá'ís in Iran, the Russian pogroms against Jews, the crusades, the 30 years war between Catholics and Protestants, the Inquisitions, the Salem witch trials, the Armenian genocide... Religion not only failed to prevent these tragedies, it caused them.

Atheism failed to prevent the murder of political prisoners in the USSR, but it didn't cause it.

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 01:44 PM

Atheism failed to prevent the murder of political prisoners in the USSR, but it didn't cause it.

Hmm if they were arrested, tortured or killed for not being godless, then it most certainly did.

Same logic as here:

If you insist on condemning, for good reason, the detainment of people for political or religious reasons, you would have to consider the martyr of thousands of Christians by the Romans, the destruction of Aztec culture by European missionaries, the arrest and torture of Bahá'ís in Iran, the Russian pogroms against Jews, the crusades, the 30 years war between Catholics and Protestants, the Inquisitions, the Salem witch trials, the Armenian genocide... Religion not only failed to prevent these tragedies, it caused them.

spidergoat

03-17-08, 02:16 PM

I don't know of any that were sent to Siberia for not being atheist.

draqon

03-17-08, 02:21 PM

guys in Russia the pogroms happened not because they were Jews, but because Jews in Russia happened to be very wealthy and that meant that under those laws they could own many slaves which were of Russian blood, it got to be so bad that one Jewish master owned as many as 100 slaves in his house...a death of which would not be noticed. So Russians rebelled and Jews had to run elsewhere.

spidergoat

03-17-08, 02:25 PM

Hmm if they were arrested, tortured or killed for not being godless, then it most certainly did.

Same logic as here:

Actually not even. If they were arrested, tortured and killed for not being godless, atheism wasn't the reason. The reason was prejudice against religion. Atheism doesn't cause prejudice against religion. If you are an atheist, and you feel the need to kill or harm religious people, that is due to your perverse nature, not the disbelief in God.

On the other hand, religion causes prejudice against other religions and atheism, since many religions consider unbelievers to be influenced by Satan, and their influence a threat to everlasting union with God.

In some religions, if you leave it, the believers are directed to kill you. Atheism has no such tenets.

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 02:44 PM

Actually not even. If they were arrested, tortured and killed for not being godless, atheism wasn't reason. The reason was prejudice against religion. Atheism doesn't cause prejudice against religion. If you are an atheist, and you feel the need to kill or harm religious people, that is due to your perverse nature, not the disbelief in God.

On the other hand, religion causes prejudice against other religions and atheism, since many religions consider unbelievers to be influenced by Satan, and their influence a threat to everlasting union with God.

In some religions, if you leave it, the believers are directed to kill you. Atheism has no such tenets.

Unfortunately the evidence contradicts you. Apparently atheism can be as if not more intolerant of other beliefs, even without written tenets. There are quite a few examples right here on this forum, who think merely being religious is sufficient to consider the other person unnatural or brainwashed or inferior.

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 02:52 PM

I don't know of any that were sent to Siberia for not being atheist.

Just because you don't know does not mean it did not happen

Many religions popular in the ethnic regions of the Soviet Union including the Roman Catholic Church, Uniats, Baptists, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. underwent ordeals similar to the Orthodox churches in other parts: thousands of monks were persecuted, and hundreds of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, sacred monuments, monasteries and other religious buildings were razed.

According to the declassified Soviet archives, during a one year period covering 1937 and 1938 alone, Stalin's police detained 1,548,367 victims, of whom 681,692 were shot - an average of 1,000 executions a day. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, numerous mass graves filled with executed victims of the terror were discovered. Some, such as the killing fields at Kurapaty and Bykivnia, are believed to contain hundreds of thousands of corpses.

http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/news/transdniestrias_bishop_blesses_memorial_to_stalin_ victims.html

draqon

03-17-08, 02:53 PM

Just because you don't know does not mean it did not happen

http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/news/transdniestrias_bishop_blesses_memorial_to_stalin_ victims.html

this are all lies. :eek:

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 02:56 PM

this are all lies. :eek:

Apparently its an underestimate :bugeye:

Some experts believe the evidence released from the Soviet archives is understated, incomplete or unreliable. For example, Robert Conquest suggests that the probable figure for executions during the years of the Great Purge is not 681,692, but some two and a half times as high. He believes that the KGB was covering its tracks by falsifying the dates and causes of death of rehabilitated victims.

You can look it up here

http://www.memo.ru/eng/

draqon

03-17-08, 03:04 PM

Apparently its an underestimate :bugeye:
You can look it up here
http://www.memo.ru/eng/

LIES

its easy to get a website these days and rewrite the history

spidergoat

03-17-08, 03:05 PM

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 03:17 PM

Atheism is just not believing in God. That's it. Anything else is your own interpretation.

It's as if you blamed all the world's problems on not being a zombie.

Yeah its all in the interpretation, isn't it?;)

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 03:17 PM

LIES

its easy to get a website these days and rewrite the history

draqon, the fact that millions died under Stalin is not news.

There are mass graves to prove it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_graves_in_the_Soviet_Union

spidergoat

03-17-08, 03:23 PM

Yeah its all in the interpretation, isn't it?;)

I should say invention, since there is nothing to interpret.

I think I understand SAM's assumption now. People are so conditioned by religion to hate those that do not believe as they believe, that they think atheism means hating religious people. After all, if atheism were a religion, it must teach so. This is a fallacy.

spidergoat

03-17-08, 04:15 PM

Just because you don't know does not mean it did not happen

http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/news/transdniestrias_bishop_blesses_memorial_to_stalin_ victims.html

That doesn't say anyone was killed for being religious, only that the buildings were torn down. Following that, there are numbers for total victims killed, but it doesn't say why. You haven't made the connection.

stretched

03-17-08, 05:35 PM

I think I understand SAM's assumption now. People are so conditioned by religion to hate those that do not believe as they believe, that they think atheism means hating religious people. After all, if atheism were a religion, it must teach so. This is a fallacy.

Its the "ism" in atheism that creates the problem. Its sounds like a belief system like Hinduism or Buddhism or Sufism or Theism. Damnit, it should be changed to something like Nobelief. In use, I am a Nobeliever...:D

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 05:53 PM

I should say invention, since there is nothing to interpret.

I think I understand SAM's assumption now. People are so conditioned by religion to hate those that do not believe as they believe, that they think atheism means hating religious people. After all, if atheism were a religion, it must teach so. This is a fallacy.

No assumption. Just abductive reasoning. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning)

Bells

03-17-08, 06:07 PM

Unfortunately the evidence contradicts you. Apparently atheism can be as if not more intolerant of other beliefs, even without written tenets. There are quite a few examples right here on this forum, who think merely being religious is sufficient to consider the other person unnatural or brainwashed or inferior.

And there are more than enough examples on this forum where theists believe atheists to be either heathens, "unnatural", stupid, blind, I could go on but you get my drift...

Lets look at this thread as one example. Hardly tolerant of atheists, now is it? After all, you are basically saying atheists have no self control and would go on a murdering rampage if ever elected to office. Completely ignoring the fact that there have been few rulers who have dared to announce their lack of belief in God for fear of political suicide. Even Stalin, in his Communist zeal to purge society of all outside control (including religious control) was brought up as a theist.

The irony is you start this thread, completely ignoring just how intolerant (and murderous) and equally wrong, some religious Governments and legal systems (in current times) actually are.

Enmos

03-17-08, 06:20 PM

And there are more than enough examples on this forum where theists believe atheists to be either heathens, "unnatural", stupid, blind, I could go on but you get my drift...

Lets look at this thread as one example. Hardly tolerant of atheists, now is it? After all, you are basically saying atheists have no self control and would go on a murdering rampage if ever elected to office. Completely ignoring the fact that there have been few rulers who have dared to announce their lack of belief in God for fear of political suicide. Even Stalin, in his Communist zeal to purge society of all outside control (including religious control) was brought up as a theist.

The irony is you start this thread, completely ignoring just how intolerant (and murderous) and equally wrong, some religious Governments and legal systems (in current times) actually are.

Amen!

Michael

03-17-08, 06:29 PM

SAM is atheist as well - there are many modern day Gods and Alien Over Lords she lacks a beleif in.

I think everyone here would agree that Religion played a useful role early in human civilization (ex: Egyptians) Life was tough and the laws (ex: Code of Hammurabi*) reflected this. As fraggle said, most people were killed by other people hence: "God told me in my head "Human - Don't Kill!"".

There's nothing wrong with that.
Everyone agree?

Another thing everyone would agree to is this: Religion was used to control people. Hence we have Ramses II, Xerxes, Qin Shi Huang, Alexander of Macedonia, Julius Caesar, Asoka, Mohammad, Kim Jong Il, etc... all claiming either direct divinity or a connections with the God(s) of one kind or another to rule the people.

There's nothing too complicated about that is there?
Everyone agree?

Does everyone also agree that there is a BIG difference between a religious philosopher, say someone like Buddha and a religious ruler, say someone like Alexander. BOTH people have a vision of the future. Alexander thought if he conquered the world with his army he could unite everyone and thereafter there would would be peace. Buddha seemed to think that he could use deep meditation on various ideas and come to conclusion that he'd then teach to people. He thought he reached a place of happiness and so his vision was if everyone got to that place there would be world peace.

Everyone agree?

Two different types of people, two different approached to a similar problem.

Well, who do you think, of the two, had more foresight?
Alexanders idea wasn't a new one - and we now know it doesn't work in the long term either. When Alexander wanted his people to follow him he convinced them he was The Chosen One. The God's picked him. In some cases he taught people he was a God. Did he think so? Maybe not. But he had a goal and this was the way he chose to achieve it. Tell the little people the Gods had chosen Him, Alexander, and then set about conquering the entire World/ This meant justifying some killing. Killing the people who opposed Him. After the World was conquered the superior Greek culture would bring Hellenized Civilization to the barbars and an ensuing peace would envelop humanity.

So now on to Buddha.
Did Buddha think that most people were going to become monks and sit in quite contemplation? Or did he understand that most people were in fact probably going to remain as farmers or fishermen? Given his goal is similar to Alexander's - that is, to eventually bring peace and happiness to the world: WHY did Buddha come to the conclusion to instead teach people? Note: Buddha is teaching people. He isn't saying: Don't Kill because some God told me in my Head. He's saying Don't Kill because you wouldn't want to be killed.

Did Buddha think that all killing would stop? No. SAM posted in another thread his contemplation about a person being killed. He therefor understood people would continue to kill.

So, why then did he chose this route?

Michael

Kadark

03-17-08, 07:48 PM

SAM is atheist as well - there are many modern day Gods and Alien Over Lords she lacks a beleif in.

Not this argument again! Theism is defined at the point where the belief in at least one God is established. You're simply arguing semantics, and doing a poor job at it.

Another thing everyone would agree to is this: Religion was used to control people. Hence we have Ramses II, Xerxes, Qin Shi Huang, Alexander of Macedonia, Julius Caesar, Asoka, Mohammad, Kim Jong Il, etc... all claiming either direct divinity or a connections with the God(s) of one kind or another to rule the people.

You need a history lesson. Shi Huang didn't use religion to control the Chinese - in fact, he was directly responsible for destroying all the works of Laozi (Taoism founder), Confucius (Confucianism), and Mencius, all prominent Chinese philosophers of the Zhou dynasty that started some type of religion. Destroying and disregarding religious practices/artifacts was one of the biggest reasons he was overthrown, and his dynasty concluded.

Next, Asoka didn't use religion to control people, either. He was actually a ruthless warrior (with no religion) that began to appreciate Buddhism after he came into power. Once he adopted Buddhism, he became more interested in educating people of Buddhism than he did with gaining more power or glory. Clearly, after Asoka adopted religion, the conquests and battles (under his rule) stopped. He is famous for this, man.

Well, who do you think, of the two, had more foresight?
Alexanders idea wasn't a new one - and we now know it doesn't work in the long term either. When Alexander wanted his people to follow him he convinced them he was The Chosen One. The God's picked him. In some cases he taught people he was a God. Did he think so? Maybe not. But he had a goal and this was the way he chose to achieve it. Tell the little people the Gods had chosen Him, Alexander, and then set about conquering the entire World/ This meant justifying some killing. Killing the people who opposed Him. After the World was conquered the superior Greek culture would bring Hellenized Civilization to the barbars and an ensuing peace would envelop humanity.

Alexander didn't use religion to control people. This is fictitious nonsense. His father Philip II had just conquered every polis in Greece without religion, so why would Alexander find it necessary to use religion? He didn't. Just because your soldiers are religious, doesn't meaning they're fighting because of your religious influence. Regardless of religion, those Macedonians would be fighting alongside Alexander, just as they did Alexander's father. That's a fact.

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 08:11 PM

SnakeLord

03-17-08, 08:18 PM

While we're on the subject of killing I've actually started on the god kill list, (part 1), which can be found on my site. (www.snakeystew.com)

This god has sanctioned the slaughter of others on countless ocassions. As long as you believe in such an entity you can be motivated by the belief in it to slaughter people. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in such entities, and so if you are compelled to slaughter it isn't because of your lack of belief but merely because you're that kind of person.

Atheism in and of itself is not a motivational factor to anything other than a lack of belief in gods. You are an atheist to Thor. If you kill people, your lack of belief in Thor has nothing to do with it.

Michael

03-17-08, 08:21 PM

Kadark,
I'm not arguing semantics. Take this for example: Romans referred to Xians atheists. Now, why do you suppose that was the case? You guys misuse the word athiest so much as to turn it into having the exact oppose meaning - a beleif system "Atheism". As if this now puts strong atheists on par with Theists. It's not a belief system. It's simply lacking a beleif.

It's not a tired old argument. It's me repeatedly correcting your misuse of the word atheist.

Second, I said claiming either direct divinity or a connection with the God(s) of one kind or another to rule the people

Qin Shi Huang created the title huangdi the di part "帝" has the meaning big (usually written 大) and Supreme God in Heaven and creator of the world.
Asoka's edicts were similarly considered divine.
Alexander was anointed "son of the Gods" and pharaoh in Memphis (332 BCE)

Look the point is leaders often use ideas about divinity in ruling people. Surely you're not trying to argue otherwise???

Lastly, back on thread topic: Do you think Buddha spent some time thinking about stuff? I mean, he's kind of popular in that way - right? So, why then did he chose this route of teaching people to learn not to kill all while still knowing that people would still kill? Why? Why did he decide, upon years of contemplation that this was a better way of going about things instead of, say, just proscribing some simple rules of when it's OK to kill and when it's not OK to do so? I'm curious as to your answer.

Michael

PS: Do you find it interesting that no two Muslims can agree about when it's OK in Allah's eyes to Kill another human? Ever think maybe that's why Buddha went about things his way?

"Perfect" Book ... pffff......

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 08:21 PM

SnakeLord

03-17-08, 08:22 PM

So its your contention then that all theists are terrorists in training, just waiting for an opportunity to go on murderous sprees and fulfill their religious requirements

Absolutely not, I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself.

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 08:24 PM

Absolutely not, I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself.

Hmm so then theists who are not motivated to kill for their beliefs are probably not "real" theists, then?

Since if they did believe, they should be motivated to kill

spidergoat

03-17-08, 08:26 PM

Does it matter which God you believe in? Or are they all equally effective in promoting morality?

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 08:29 PM

Does it matter which God you believe in? Or are they all equally effective in promoting morality?

Don't you mean immorality?

After all, according to SL's premise

god kill list

One must by default assume that the primary motivation for all killers who happen to be theist must be religion, while atheists who harbor delusions of murder are mentally defective or closet theists. After all, as deniers of a belief system, they are by nature passive and non motivated by their lack of belief.

Kadark

03-17-08, 08:31 PM

I'm not arguing semantics. Take this for example: Romans referred to Xians atheists. Now, why do you suppose that was the case? You guys misuse the word athiest so much as to turn it into having the exact oppose meaning - a beleif system "Atheism". As if this now puts strong atheists on par with Theists. It's not a belief system. It's simply lacking a beleif.

Okay ...

My only problem is when you call others atheists, simply because they only believe in one God. By that logic, everybody is an atheist, so long as they don't believe in every single god to have ever been worshipped. This is a poor argument, Michael. Believing in one God constitutes theism - more specifically, monotheism. Not atheism.

Qin Shi Huang created the title huangdi the di part "帝" has the meaning big (usually written 大) and Supreme God in Heaven and creator of the world.

It doesn't matter what he called himself! The Chinese hated the guy, anyway. He raised taxes incredibly, was brutal and intolerant in his rule, destroyed the religions of the Chinese, etc. Nobody was loyal to Shi Huang because they thought he was a God.

Asoka's edicts were similarly considered divine.
Alexander was anointed "son of the Gods" and pharaoh in Memphis (332 BCE)

They were named those titles, in all likelihood, because of their success. Whether people believed Asoka or Alexander had divinity doesn't change a thing. At the end of the day, they're simply soldiers who have to take demands from their leader - whether he's a "God", or a "son" of God, etc.

Lastly, back on thread topic: Do you think Buddha spent some time thinking about stuff? I mean, he's kind of popular in that way - right? So, why then did he chose this route of teaching people to learn not to kill all while still knowing that people would still kill? Why? Why did he decide, upon years of contemplation that this was a better way of going about things instead of, say, just proscribing some simple rules of when it's OK to kill and when it's not OK to do so? I'm curious as to your answer.

If that's the case, then his teachings aren't very practical or applicable to the standards of reality.

PS: Do you find it interesting that no two Muslims can agree about when it's OK in Allah's eyes to Kill another human? Ever think maybe that's why Buddha went about things his way?

That's not true at all. Muslims who are knowledgeable about their religion agree to its standards. It's the politicians who can never agree to anything.

spidergoat

03-17-08, 08:31 PM

I don't speak for the Snake. I was talking about your premise, that lack of theistic religion leads to wanton killing.

SnakeLord

03-17-08, 08:33 PM

Hmm so then theists who are not motivated to kill for their beliefs are probably not "real" theists, then?

Since if they did believe, they should be motivated to kill

Umm, no - that's not what I've said.

One must by default assume that the primary motivation for all killers who happen to be theist must be religion

Again, not at all.

Try harder.

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 08:34 PM

I don't speak for the Snake. I was talking about your premise, that lack of theistic religion leads to wanton killing.

In governments, intolerance of atheists appears to be a recurrent theme.

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 08:37 PM

Umm, no - that's not what I've said.
Again, not at all.

Try harder.

Its pretty clear

This god has sanctioned the slaughter of others on countless ocassions. As long as you believe in such an entity you can be motivated by the belief in it to slaughter people.

So if such a believer kills someone and one finds that killing under the circumstances he faced is sanctioned by his God, he is clearly motivated by his belief.

Now if he were an unbeliever who killed in the very same situation, its a personality defect.

Michael

03-17-08, 08:49 PM

Believing in one God constitutes theism - more specifically, monotheism. Not atheism. I think this is part of the problem.

Anyway, a man who catches his wife cheating and kills the other guy certainly didn't kill because of religion.

BUT, some people do kill because of religion.

If that's the case, then his teachings aren't very practical or applicable to the standards of reality. OR... maybe ... just maybe spending a few years in quite meditative contemplation gave him a little more insight into things.

That's not true at all. Muslims who are knowledgeable about their religion agree to its standards. It's the politicians who can never agree to anything. I noticed you qualified your statement with knowledgeable about their religion. What SAM isn't knowledgeable about her religion? Come on. The truth is peering into the mud and decoding the Qur'anic-entanglements out of the murky Quranic-flux is impossible.

OK, think about it like this:
You say that the Qur'an is "Perfect" and that the only reason two people can't agree is because they are not "knowledgeable about their religion". Well Kadark, it's seems silly to me to suggest that the Buddhas "teachings aren't very practical or applicable to the standards of reality" and yet accept that most Muslims can't agree to what the Qur'an says because they haven't studied it well enough? Anyone that's not Muslim can see the statement is oxymoronic.

Obviously the Qur'an is not very practical or applicable to the standards of reality if two educated people can't open it up and at least agree on something as simple as when it's OK to kill and when it's not OK to kill.

What does this suggest?
Michael

spidergoat

03-17-08, 08:54 PM

In governments, intolerance of atheists appears to be a recurrent theme.
Yes. Polytheists don't have as much of a problem. I suppose if you have accepted many beings or spirits, different numbers of them aren't as much of a cognitive leap. That is probably why monotheism rose and conquered our mind-space. One God is a jealous God. He (why is it always a he?) gave the people justification for religious war.

SnakeLord

03-17-08, 08:57 PM

Its pretty clear

Apparently not and for that I apologise. I shall try to rephrase this..

One does not, and surely cannot, kill for a lack of belief. I think we will most likely agree that one can only kill for a belief. If we agree to this then in and of itself atheism cannot be a motivator for slaughter because it is, (although theists rarely understand it), a lack of belief, not a belief in.

So..

Exodus 32:27 ‘He said to them, ‘Yahweh, god of Israel, says this, “Buckle on your sword, each of you, and go up and down the camp from gate to gate, every man of you slaughtering brother, friend and neighbour,”‘

Whether this god ultimately exists or not is not the issue, what is the issue is that these people had a belief that he did and that he sanctioned the slaughter of many people. This slaughter can therefore be directly attributed to the order of or belief in a certain sky entity.

Now, it could be said that it is because of his atheism that a man goes around killing theists, but the direct cause would be his belief that theists are assholes, not his disbelief in sky beings. You would then try and work out where that hatred for theists comes from but you wont find it stems from the fact that he doesn't believe in gods unless you are willing to claim that Stalin etc killed people because he didn't believe in the Flying spaghetti monster.

You will ultimately find that the attributable cause is far removed from his atheism, (in the case of Stalin etc it would be a belief in communism). Lack of belief in something cannot be a direct cause.

Any better? Sorry, it's late :)

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 08:58 PM

Obviously the Qur'an is not very practical or applicable to the standards of reality if two educated people can't open it up and at least agree on something as simple as when it's OK to kill and when it's not OK to kill.

You're assuming that the Quran is some kind of static decree frozen in time.

No religion can be static and cater to the needs of society.

What the Quran is, is a guideline. If you follow its philosophy in entirety, there is very little dissent between Muslims. Its why there has never been a split in the religion even though there are numerous numerous sects. Because scholars agree on one thing and that is if there is a consensus between a group and it fulfils the requirements of scholarship (ie prededent in the values of the Quran), then there is no reason people should not be allowed to follow it. In other words, there are four Madhabs in Sunnis and God knows how many in the Shias, but they are all acceptable if that is what the people want.

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 08:58 PM

Yes. Polytheists don't have as much of a problem. I suppose if you have accepted many beings or spirits, different numbers of them aren't as much of a cognitive leap. That is probably why monotheism rose and conquered our mind-space. One God is a jealous God. He (why is it always a he?) gave the people justification for religious war.

What polythiests?

Kadark

03-17-08, 09:00 PM

I think this is part of the problem.

Anyway, a man who catches his wife cheating and kills the other guy certainly didn't kill because of religion.

BUT, some people do kill because of religion.

Those events are few and far between. They tend to get lost in the shuffle, considering most of the killings in history have been committed for some type of power struggle.

OR... maybe ... just maybe spending a few years in quite meditative contemplation gave him a little more insight into things.

I don't care if he would have meditated until he died. His solutions are impractical. I don't care if killing is prohibited by Buddha - if I'm a Buddhist, and somebody is out to kill me, then I'll be damned if I don't try to kill them first.

I noticed you qualified your statement with knowledgeable about their religion. What SAM isn't knowledgeable about her religion? Come on. The truth is peering into the mud and decoding the Qur'anic-entanglements out of the murky Quranic-flux is impossible.

I didn't say she wasn't knowledgeable. We simply have different interpretations of certain things - most of them stemming from our cultural differences. I'm pretty sure we can agree that direct threats to you or your loved ones' lives, or living under oppression, warrant the permission to fight.

OK, think about it like this:
You say that the Qur'an is "Perfect" and that the only reason two people can't agree is because their are not "knowledgeable about their religion". Well Kadark, it's seems silly to me to suggest that the Buddhas "teachings aren't very practical or applicable to the standards of reality" and yet accept that most Muslims can't agree to what the Qur'an says because they haven't studied it well enough? Anyone that's not Muslim can see the statement is oxymoronic.

Muslims believe in the concept of self-defense. According to you, Buddha forbade violence under any and all circumstances. To me, the former is more practical and suitable to everyday life. There may be minor discrepancies between Muslims, but it is known by all of us that killing is allowed when innocent lives depend on it.

Obviously the Qur'an is not very practical or applicable to the standards of reality if two educated people can't open it up and at least agree on something as simple as when it's OK to kill and when it's not OK to kill.

We do agree on that.

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 09:00 PM

Now, it could be said that it is because of his atheism that a man goes around killing theists, but the direct cause would be his belief that theists are assholes, not his disbelief in sky beings. You would then try and work out where that hatred for theists comes from but you wont find it stems from the fact that he doesn't believe in gods unless you are willing to claim that Stalin etc killed people because he didn't believe in the Flying spaghetti monster.

You will ultimately find that the attributable cause is far removed from his atheism, (in the case of Stalin etc it would be a belief in communism). Lack of belief in something cannot be a direct cause.

Any better? Sorry, it's late :)

Unless of course, the lack of belief itself is a belief. The term lack of belief assumes a void where nothing exists. What is the status of atheists in this regard?

What do you suppose those atheists who were shooting 1000 people a day were thinking of?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Einsatzgruppen-Killingfull.jpg/250px-Einsatzgruppen-Killingfull.jpg

SnakeLord

03-17-08, 09:09 PM

What do you suppose those atheists who were shooting 1000 people a day were thinking of?

Communism.. or their lack of belief in Marduk perhaps..

spidergoat

03-17-08, 09:14 PM

What polythiests?

Like the Japanese.

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 09:15 PM

Communism.. or their lack of belief in Marduk perhaps..

Ah so when they were shooting monks/priests/nuns/Jews/gypsies/untermenschen etc, when they were distributing pamphlets about the evils of religion and the scientific superiority of godlessness, they were not doing it because they were eugenicist atheists, but because it was in the name of communism. But communism is not a religion, its an ideology about a socio-political system. So you would expect to find several communists doing the shooting who were not atheists, who were deeply religious, in fact. Is that right? Maybe Muslims, Jews, Catholics? Some priests and nuns too?

iceaura

03-17-08, 09:16 PM

"Chinese punishment hasn't changed too much since ancient times, thus their famous cruelty is a cultural phenomenon, not a religious one"
Before: - - -
- --
After: - - -
- - - - You are comparing atheistic and theistic rulers and regimes before, with an officially atheistic regime after. Some persectued religions, some didn't. Some of the religious ones persecuted other religions, some didn't.

The recent officially atheistic one has persecuted atheistic religions as well as theistic ones, showing that its concern has not been with theism per se.

Likewise with Stalin, who persecuted all religions regardless of theistic stance.

The hostility of Communist (modern wave, capital C) government to established religions is one of the indicators that it is a religion itself - the hostility of religions toward rival religions, even rival sects of the same religion, is legendary. There is no need to distinguish atheistic from theistic religions in this context - Hoffer's " The True Believer" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer does not distinguish even nominal "religion" from other essentially identical belief systems.

Since power normally employs religion (and theistic religion is most useful), revolts against tyranny commonly employ rival religions, with strong hostility toward the oppressive one. And revolts against tyranny commonly involve extreme violence and persecution of the agents of that tyranny. Institutionalized theism has been the right hand of tyranny for thousands of years now - are revolts against it so mysterious ? Or the violence they commonly employ ?
If Stalin was brought up as a theist, does that make his atheism more prone to violence somehow? He was brought up under theistic tyranny - quite brutal theistic tyranny. And he was trained in the use of religious justification for brutality. So - - - -
In governments, intolerance of atheists appears to be a recurrent theme. For a second I misread you as having made a true statement.
In governments, oppression of rival religions is a recurrent theme.
You're assuming that the Quran is some kind of static decree frozen in time. I'm not. I'm being told, repeatedly and by numerous well-informed and interested people, that my assumption of flexibility and manipulability in the Quran is in error and reveals great disrespect for the last and perfect teaching of Allah.
What do you suppose those atheists who were shooting 1000 people a day were thinking of? Those probably weren't atheists, SAM. Those were lifelong theists, for the most part, doing the actual shooting - not an easy habit of mind to break, even if you want to. And of course they had a cause, a belief, a higher purpose and goal, that justified the shooting.

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 09:16 PM

Like the Japanese.

Uh the Japanese are a pluralistic society?

Have you ever met a Japanese?

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 09:24 PM

The recent officially atheistic one has persecuted atheistic religions as well as theistic ones, showing that its concern has not been with theism per se.

Do they believe those religions to be atheistic or are they following your lead?

Likewise with Stalin, who persecuted all religions regardless of theistic stance.

And distributed pamphlets promoting atheism (not Marxism or Leninism or Stalinism, but atheism)

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/109.5/images/hernandez_fig03a.jpg
"On Press Day: Long Live the Bolshevik Godless Press!" A Soviet magazine depicts propagandists dropping newspapers, magazines, and pamphlets form an airplane. "Ko dniu pechati," by D. Mel'nikov, in the September 1931 issue of Bezbozhnik u stanka ("The Godless at the Workbench"). Reproduced with kind permission of the Hoover Institution Library

Can one promote a lack in belief? Is that possible?

The hostility of Communist (modern wave, capital C) government to established religions is one of the indicators that it is a religion itself - the hostility of religions toward rival religions, even rival sects of the same religion, is legendary. There is no need to distinguish atheistic from theistic religions in this context - Hoffer's " The True Believer" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer does not distinguish even nominal "religion" from other essentially identical belief systems.

Exactly, so atheism as a lack in belief is also a belief system. Apparently one can promote godlessness.

Since power normally employs religion (and theistic religion is most useful), revolts against tyranny commonly employ rival religions, with strong hostility toward the oppressive one. And revolts against tyranny commonly involve extreme violence and persecution of the agents of that tyranny. Institutionalized theism has been the right hand of tyranny for thousands of years now - are revolts against it so mysterious ? Or the violence they commonly employ ?

And yet, atheistic demagogues have overtaken all known atrocities by theists. Why?

He was brought up under theistic tyranny - quite brutal theistic tyranny. And he was trained in the use of religious justification for brutality. So - - - -

So were the people he destroyed. However, he believed in the superiority of a godless society which is what set him apart from them.

For a second I misread you as having made a true statement.
In governments, oppression of rival religions is a recurrent theme.

Is it? Do all governments oppress a rival religion?

I'm not. I'm being told, repeatedly and by numerous well-informed and interested people, that my assumption of flexibility and manipulability in the Quran is in error and reveals great disrespect for the last and perfect teaching of Allah.

How do they reconcile the Madhabs and the position of the Islamic scholars in relation to those Madhabs?

Those probably weren't atheists, SAM. Those were lifelong theists, for the most part, doing the actual shooting - not an easy habit of mind to break, even if you want to. And of course they had a cause, a belief, a higher purpose and goal, that justified the shooting.

How do you know what they believed? Did they not do what they did because they all believed in the same godless society? What other motivation did they have for killing hundreds of thousands of people?

Michael

03-17-08, 09:25 PM

You're assuming that the Quran is some kind of static decree frozen in time. It is - hence Islamic Apologists.
(the same is true of the Bible)

Look at your arguments for Good Homosexual Muslims
Look at the apologist reinterpretation of Slavery to mean "volunteering" follower.

Its why there has never been a split in the religion even though there are numerous numerous sects. That's not true the Baha'i are a split.

Also, this argument could be made about any beleif. Buddhism has never been split there are just a bunch of different splits :p Xiatianity has never been split just a bunch of sects and a few heretics like the Mormons :eek:

Haaa Mormons...

I don't care if he would have meditated until he died. His solutions are impractical. To you I suppose they are.

Also, note, I'm not Buddhist.

Michael

spidergoat

03-17-08, 09:25 PM

Unless of course, the lack of belief itself is a belief. The term lack of belief assumes a void where nothing exists. What is the status of atheists in this regard?

What do you suppose those atheists who were shooting 1000 people a day were thinking of?

Going to church with their children on Sunday, maybe wondering what their wives are making for dinner... Noticing the sun reflect off the words "god is with us", on their belt buckles...

spidergoat

03-17-08, 09:28 PM

Uh the Japanese are a pluralistic society?

Have you ever met a Japanese?

They accept new religions and new ideas readily. They were less enthusiastic about other western influences, but their religious practices are diverse. I think it's because they were originally animist.

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 09:31 PM

They accept new religions and new ideas readily. They were less enthusiastic about other western influences, but their religious practices are diverse. I think it's because they were originally animist.

Their religious practices were based on what the king of the day thought good. Ask any Chinese or Korean how accepting the Japanese are as a culture (naijin vs gaijin)

Took a couple of A-bombs for them to reconcile their philosophy, remember?

James R

03-17-08, 09:34 PM

SAM:

You ought to realise that the tyrant Stalin, for example, did not promote atheism per se. What he promoted, essentially, was the idea of himself as a God-king.

Michael

03-17-08, 09:35 PM

Uh the Japanese are a pluralistic society?

Have you ever met a Japanese?No that was to polytheistic.

Most Japanese are not real believers in the mountain and sky and sea gods anymore. But they like their heritage and do support it. Also, there are a lot of good luck things associated with Shinto and so they tend to figure - hey, can't hurt.

spidergoat

03-17-08, 09:39 PM

And yet, atheistic demagogues have overtaken all known atrocities by theists. Why?

The population of the Earth increases exponentially.

SnakeLord

03-17-08, 09:39 PM

Ah so when they were shooting monks/priests/nuns/Jews/gypsies/untermenschen etc, when they were distributing pamphlets about the evils of religion and the scientific superiority of godlessness, they were not doing it because they were eugenicist atheists

You're describing a lot of beliefs there. As an example you mention "distributing pamphlets about the evils of religion" which clearly hints at a belief that religion is evil. That is not atheism - and while sure, many atheists might believe religion is evil, (as do many theists), believing that religion is evil is not atheism.

There are millions of atheists that do not think religion is evil, and sure, there are some that do. Their belief is not atheism.

But communism is not a religion

It is very much like it - worship, but not for gods.

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 09:40 PM

SAM:

You ought to realise that the tyrant Stalin, for example, did not promote atheism per se. What he promoted, essentially, was the idea of himself as a God-king.

From what I have read of the Soviet propaganda it appears to focus on atheism as a scientific belief, rather than any god-king promotion.

One of the primary methods for disseminating antireligious propaganda was through printed periodicals. The first antireligious monthly magazine, Revolutsiaa I tserkov (Revolution and the Church) was published in 1919, followed in 1922 by the short-lived Nauka I religiia (Science and Religion), which was replaced that same year by Bezbozhnik (The Godless). Bezbozhnik was published as a weekly newspaper between 1922 and 1934 and from 1938 to 1941, and as an illustrated journal from 1925 to 1941. Bezbozhnik was produced and distributed by the Society of the Friends of the Godless, founded in 1923, which became the Godless League in 1925 and the League of the Militant Godless in 1929. The League had three major goals: to demonstrate that religion in all its forms had always been an enemy of the workers; to prove that natural science explains everything, leaving no room for religion; and to convince people that socialism and religion are ethically incompatible, so religious observance was disloyal to the state.

A competing publication, Bezbozhnik u Stanka (Godless at the Workbench) was produced by the Moscow branch of the Communist party between 1923 and 1931. This publication was blunt in its tactics, and featured crude illustrations. (Many of the posters in this exhibition were originally published in Bezbozhnik u Stanka). The goal of Bezbozhnik u Stanka was to “expose the clergy as corrupted, religious ritual as unwarrantedly costly, and sacred arts as propagandistic.” Accordingly, it featured heavy use of caricature and stereotypes to create negative views of religion and religious figures.

There were many other antireligious publications, including Antireligioznik (The Antireligious, 1926-41), Derevenskii Bezbozhnik (The Godless Peasant, 1928-1932), and Yunye Bezbozhniki (The Young Godless, 1931-1933).

http://www.smith.edu/artmuseum/exhibitions/godlesscommunists/antireligious_periodicals.htm

What promotion are you referring to?

Bells

03-17-08, 09:49 PM

Unless of course, the lack of belief itself is a belief. The term lack of belief assumes a void where nothing exists. What is the status of atheists in this regard?

What do you suppose those atheists who were shooting 1000 people a day were thinking of?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Einsatzgruppen-Killingfull.jpg/250px-Einsatzgruppen-Killingfull.jpg

Nazi's were not atheists, nor was Hitler. On the contrary, he attempted to stamp out atheism by banning 'freethought' organisations.

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 09:50 PM

Nazi's were not atheists, nor was Hitler. On the contrary, he attempted to stamp out atheism by banning 'freethought' organisations.

I was referring to the communists, they did not take pictures. :p

I realised after I saw spideys comment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_graves_in_the_Soviet_Union

spidergoat

03-17-08, 09:54 PM

That's the anti-religious movement, something more than atheism. These people had concerns about the effects of religion on the Socialist Revolution. Since I'm a Democrat, and religion doesn't conflict with my preferred method of government, why should I care what you believe? I might make some posters like that too, they do no harm. The point is, the Socialist Revolution was the ideology responsible for the deaths of so many political prisoners. The semantic issue is, you don't call the revolution a religion. It was very much like a religion in China.

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 09:56 PM

That's the anti-religious movement.

Yes, which when directed at all theists and engaged in the promotion of a godless society, requires an atheist at the helm.

And it was repeated in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.

India too is a Socialist country, except that we're religious. Nehru was a great admirer of Marxism (http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111neh.html), did you know? :)

We even have a couple of Marxist states except the people following the socialist systems are religious.

Michael

03-17-08, 10:22 PM

deleted to make a new thread

spidergoat

03-17-08, 10:36 PM

Technically yes, the head of a Godless society should be an atheist, but atheism by itself doesn't cause persecution of religious people. It's only in relation to the ideology, one could say, the religion, of Socialism, that it could be any threat to the well-being of theistic people.

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 10:50 PM

James R

03-17-08, 10:52 PM

Socialism minus atheism, or communism minus atheism does not appear to have the same effects.

Examples?

S.A.M.

03-17-08, 11:07 PM

Examples?

India is a country with a constitution based on both socialist and democratic principles.

Socialist Party(India) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_(India))

We have currently two Marxist states. West Bengal and Kerala. Tripura and Tamil Nadu have alliances in power which contain the communist factions

Communist Party of India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India)

spidergoat

03-17-08, 11:43 PM

Yeah, I have a socialist book club, we never murder each other... :rolleyes:

Adstar

03-18-08, 12:31 AM

Alas this is one of the downsides but is not a problem with the justice system. The issue is that upon release most convicts find themselves unable to get a job and thus have little choice but to once again resort to crime.

Every job application you'll find makes people fill in conviction details. With hundreds of people going for the same job, any application with that section filled in goes straight in the bin. Be honest, as an employer which would you choose: The kid that went to university or the one that went to jail?

Once you have served the time for the crime it should be forgotten, giving the ex-con a fighting chance.

I guess it depends on what country your in and what disclosure/privacy laws are active. I have never been called upon in a job application to reveal past convictions details.

If the Authorities in your nation where smart they would see to it that such demands where illegal. The last thing an authority should want is a released prisoner who cannot find a job. Maintaining prisoners in the Prison system is a cost burden to the nation and anything that could be done to avoid former criminals re-offending is well worth putting into effect.

There are employers like child-minding providers that could have access to a data base held by the authorities of released sex offenders. No point taking a risk in such a sensitive area.

I think Authorities should even provide a job to released prisoners for a year as a way to help get them into a working habit and also help them achieve a state of normalcy and confidence in the outside community.

But i guess maybe their is a profit motive when a penal system is run by private profit making co-operations. I guess the more offenders the more people in prison and the greater the return to shareholders of business that run jails... maybe they might wish to actively discourage such positive policies by giving a few well places donations and whispering into the right persons ears. LOL Or maybe i am a bit to cynical about how this world is actually run. :)

All Praise The Ancient Of Days