Athiesm, Punishment and Killing

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No assumption. Just abductive reasoning.

 

Amen!

 

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

 

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.

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.

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.

 

So is there a difference between atheists brought up as theists and atheists brought up as atheists?

If Stalin was brought up as a theist, does that make his atheism more prone to violence somehow? Or are atheists brought up as theists really misunderstood closet theists?

 

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.

 

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......

 

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, while atheists who go on killing sprees are either mad or closet theists or merely built wrong.

Does that cover it?

 

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

 

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

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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

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

 

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

Again, not at all.

Try harder.

 

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