1. Christians, do you find the killings carried out by muslims to be horrifying and disgusting?
2. Do you find the killings carried out by the israelites to be horrifying and disgusting?
Muslims and Israelites killing people
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Banned
- Posts: 608
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:47 pm
Muslims and Israelites killing people
Post #1If it turns out there are one or more gods, then so be it.
If it turns out there are no gods, then thank reality that no one is going to suffer forever.
If it turns out there are no gods, then thank reality that no one is going to suffer forever.
Re: Muslims and Israelites killing people
Post #141Where did you get "animist" from? Certainly not from the dictionary.
Theism (as per the dictionary):
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).
I am using the word theist as defined by the dictionary. Animism is not a necessary part of theism.
Catholicism is a religion. Religions fall under theism (by definition this is true).
If atheism had a worldview, it would fall under the term atheism.
Hmm, by those definition, I agree. Once you remove the necessity of god from dictating what is moral and how one attains self-fulfillment they do seem to be interchangeable.A secular-humanist is one whose worldview entails the belief that humanity is capable of morality and self-fulfillment without belief in God. Atheists believe that humanity is capable of morality and self-fulfillment w/o belief in God – a tenet routinely articulated here on this website as well as hundreds more by atheists. Therefore, an Atheist is a Secular Humanist.
In essence, we’ve just removed god and the supernatural from the picture. That is all it says, I agree.One may describe “Naturalism� as distinct but it’s defined as a philosophical viewpoint where everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted and certainly delving into naturalist websites one finds the same thing – that man is capable of achieving morality and self-fulfillment w/o belief in God.
It is not saying anything more though, is it?
Sure it does, because those texts do not tell one how to be an atheist. The holy books tell one how to be a Christian or Muslim.Yes. How does it change the fact that atheism and interpretations of texts such as the Manifesto of the Communist Party have led some to violence – very extreme violence – on multiple occasions? It doesn’t.KenRU wrote:Is there a call to violence (slaying the infidels, for example) in the crusaders holy books?
How is that not relevant?
This goes right back to my analogy. If (as a Catholic) I killed people in the name of Christ, is the fact that I am a Catholic relevant? Does it say anything about Christ or Catholicism?Yes, but you’re not acknowledging that atheism and it’s spread was the purpose – even when they specifically said that atheism was the impetus for their actions.KenRU wrote:I acknowledge that the violent behavior by militant atheists is equally deplorable (given your comparison). I am NOT condoning or excusing any bad behavior.
Do you acknowledge motives can be misplaced? Do those who bomb abortion clinics have the same kind of “inspiration�?I asked you earlier, “Do you know their motivations better than they did?�
What does it mean (or say) about veganism if one kills in its name? What is the relevance of making this claim? It tells me nothing (good nor bad) about veganism. It only tells me that the person is cruel and/or insane. It tells me about the character of the person, not veganism.
Same for those who kill in the name of atheism. This "inspiration" you wish to keep illustrating brings nothing to the conversation, it says nothing about atheism, nor does it say anything about veganism when the vegan kills.
Really? Let’s see if you are consistent.Those are all ancillary issues.KenRU wrote:I do not presume to say someone is lying, so if they state that is their reason, I agree then that is their reason. It doesn’t mean I agree it is a cohesive one. Or that it even makes sense. I can kill people for wearing the color blue. It doesn’t mean that my logic is sound.
Is it ancillary to say that the right-wing Christian lunatic who bombs an abortion clinic, or shoots a medical doctor who performs abortions that his Christian "inspiration" has nothing to do with Christianity?
When this person commits these violent acts, what does this say about Christianity? Is Christianity his inspiration? And dos it speak ill of Christianity, especially if I lump this act under the umbrella of people who were inspired to kill for Christianity?
This carries the equivalent weight of saying “people need air to breathe� and is more accurately stated as (imo) "people can be “inspired� to violence for just about anything.They killed people and did it in the name of atheism; therefore, atheism can inspire people to violence and challenges to that simply aren’t based upon fact.
If you disagree, please explain why. Can you provide an example that will illustrate the difference?
So you admit atheism has no fault with respect to Lenin’s and Hitler’s actions?Fault has nothing to do with it.KenRU wrote:Let me put it this way: If (when I was a Catholic) I killed people who didn’t believe in Christ or take him as their savior, would that be the fault in any way of Christianity?
Exactly. Does atheism have tenets?If Catholics did this and said that Catholicism was their inspiration then it was. Now, whether or not they were following the tenets of their faith is different.
Well, as long as your conscience is clear, lol.My conscience is clear as to whether or not I was attacking you personally. I wasn’t.KenRU wrote:That’s one whopper of a condition you tacked on to your apology, JLB. You’ll forgive me if I find myself calling it’s sincerity into question.
-all the best
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
Re: Muslims and Israelites killing people
Post #142Animism is belief that common everyday things have spirits that are called “gods� in some forms of it. You implied that Atheist/Secular-Humanist was as inappropriate as theist/Catholic. Animism is theistic as is Roman Catholicism; however, the contrasts far outnumber the comparisons; whereas, the contrasts between the unnamed worldviews of most atheists and the worldview of self-proclaimed Secular-Humanists are indistinguishable so as to make the two synonymous with one another. I maintain that any protests against that are simply unreasonable/illogical – whatever.KenRU wrote:I am using the word theist as defined by the dictionary. Animism is not a necessary part of theism.
And I have produced sources from the Internet where atheists indeed referred to the “atheist worldview� and how their website seeks to educate people to further it (the worldview, that is.)KenRU wrote:If atheism had a worldview, it would fall under the term atheism.
That is what I’m saying – that the two are interchangeable if one abides by commonly received definitions of the concept “secular-humanism.�KenRU wrote:Once you remove the necessity of god from dictating what is moral and how one attains self-fulfillment they do seem to be interchangeable.
Why is this supposed to be earth-shattering, which you seem to think it is? I don’t see it’s importance. Two groups of people found justifications to kill. That Christians interpreted OT commands as license to do so, when Christ clearly said “Pray for your enemies� rather than pelt them w/rocks is the same thing as Atheists who read “Religion is the opiate of the masses� and felt that gave them license to wipe religion and the religious from the face of the planet.KenRU wrote:Sure it does, because those texts do not tell one how to be an atheist. The holy books tell one how to be a Christian or Muslim.
It says that people will interpret a text anyway they want and claim it as their inspiration – be it good or bad.KenRU wrote:This goes right back to my analogy. If (as a Catholic) I killed people in the name of Christ, is the fact that I am a Catholic relevant? Does it say anything about Christ or Catholicism?
- 1. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind – it is abomination� means “Kill men who participate in homosexual acts�
2. “Religion is the opiate of the masses� means “wipe religion and the religious from off the face of the planet.�
I’m not trying to say anything about atheism other than atheist claims that religion causes violence – be atheist and then violence will decrease dramatically (yes, that is routinely implied by most atheists) is a case of “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones� since atheism indeed has moved some to extreme violence. Atheist characterizations would cast all of us theists as anti-science, anti-intellectual, slack-jawed hicks who praise Jay-zuz while waving our hands in the air while not contributing much else to society except intolerance and violence.KenRU wrote:This "inspiration" you wish to keep illustrating brings nothing to the conversation, it says nothing about atheism, nor does it say anything about veganism when the vegan kills.
They killed theists and said that atheism was their inspiration; therefore, I take them at their word - that atheism inspired them to commit atrocities. Fortunately, most atheists may think that theism is ridiculous, but they don't take it any further than that - just as most Christians think that homosexuality is a grave sin, but take it no further than that.KenRU wrote:So you admit atheism has no fault with respect to Lenin’s and Hitler’s actions?
If some call a worldview then indeed it can have tenets.KenRU wrote:Exactly. Does atheism have tenets?
Re: Muslims and Israelites killing people
Post #143We will disagree, obviously. There is absolutely an importance. Atheism has no book telling one how to be an atheist. Religions do have a holy book. I maintain that any protestations to the contrary “are simply unreasonable/illogical - whatever�.JLB32168 wrote:Why is this supposed to be earth-shattering, which you seem to think it is? I don’t see it’s importance. Two groups of people found justifications to kill. That Christians interpreted OT commands as license to do so, when Christ clearly said “Pray for your enemies� rather than pelt them w/rocks is the same thing as Atheists who read “Religion is the opiate of the masses� and felt that gave them license to wipe religion and the religious from the face of the planet.KenRU wrote:Sure it does, because those texts do not tell one how to be an atheist. The holy books tell one how to be a Christian or Muslim.
See below for a practical difference.
Great. Now what text (teaching one how to be an atheist) can be misinterpreted? Please don’t use one that teaches one how to be a fascist, Marxist or whatever. A text teaching one how to be an atheist is what I am asking you for.It says that people will interpret a text anyway they want and claim it as their inspiration – be it good or bad.KenRU wrote:This goes right back to my analogy. If (as a Catholic) I killed people in the name of Christ, is the fact that I am a Catholic relevant? Does it say anything about Christ or Catholicism?
This is not from a book teaching one to be an atheist. No matter how much you want to link it to atheism will not change this fact. And any attempts to do so will just appear exactly as what it is – a desperate attempt to even the playing field.2. “Religion is the opiate of the masses� means “wipe religion and the religious from off the face of the planet.�
I have encountered some theists (on this website and elsewhere) who would characterize atheists as without morals, without a sense of right and wrong and/or devil worshippers.[/list]I’m not trying to say anything about atheism other than atheist claims that religion causes violence – be atheist and then violence will decrease dramatically (yes, that is routinely implied by most atheists) is a case of “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones� since atheism indeed has moved some to extreme violence. Atheist characterizations would cast all of us theists as anti-science, anti-intellectual, slack-jawed hicks who praise Jay-zuz while waving our hands in the air while not contributing much else to society except intolerance and violence.KenRU wrote:This "inspiration" you wish to keep illustrating brings nothing to the conversation, it says nothing about atheism, nor does it say anything about veganism when the vegan kills.
But I am careful not to generalize that all theists do this.
Citing that there is a tangible, provable link (inspiration, if you will) from religious texts to violence and bigotry does not mean (to me at least) that all theists behave this way.
Well yes, they do, they propose, endorse and legislate laws against same sex marriage.They killed theists and said that atheism was their inspiration; therefore, I take them at their word - that atheism inspired them to commit atrocities. Fortunately, most atheists may think that theism is ridiculous, but they don't take it any further than that - just as most Christians think that homosexuality is a grave sin, but take it no further than that.KenRU wrote:So you admit atheism has no fault with respect to Lenin’s and Hitler’s actions?
The difference, as I said, is very relevant.
Then you should be able to explain this further for me. Let’s say I agree (entirely) with this point “Atheism is a worldview�. Please, tell me what are some of my tenets?If some call a worldview then indeed it can have tenets.KenRU wrote:Exactly. Does atheism have tenets?
-all the best
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
Re: Muslims and Israelites killing people
Post #144Yes, we’re going to have to disagree because both sides have a significant body count informed by their take on a reading selection. You see a difference. I don’t.KenRU wrote:We will disagree, obviously. There is absolutely an importance. Atheism has no book telling one how to be an atheist. Religions do have a holy book.
In other words, exclude those texts that atheists used to inspire their violence and once that evidence is off the table then tell you what text/teaching was misinterpreted. Isn’t that like “Exclude all evidence from NASA. Now that we’ve done that, what evidence do you have that men ever landed on the moon?�KenRU wrote:Great. Now what text (teaching one how to be an atheist) can be misinterpreted? Please don’t use one that teaches one how to be a fascist, Marxist or whatever.
Okay.KenRU wrote:This is not from a book teaching one to be an atheist.
Why is that important? The fact that you guys found reasons outside of religious books to slaughter tens of millions of people is supposed to demonstrate what exactly – your creativity?
Then talk to them. I’m addressing the constant assertion, “Atheism doesn’t inspire people to violence because there’s no book for atheism that teaches it.� This is supposed to be of some significance and apparently theists are supposed to utter some combined “GASP!!� at the fact that atheists got into power and butchered people – but at least it wasn’t because of a book (except that it was.)KenRU wrote:I have encountered some theists (on this website and elsewhere) who would characterize atheists as without morals, without a sense of right and wrong and/or devil worshippers.
Well yes. They do vote and try to move people to see their side of things and see that policy reflects those ideas. Morality is relative though. They’re only wrong in opposition’s eyes.KenRU wrote:Well yes, they do, they propose, endorse and legislate laws against same sex marriage.Let’s start off with two: Atheists believe in the development and public acceptance of a humane ethical system stressing the mutual sympathy, understanding, and interdependence of all people and the corresponding responsibility of each individual in relation to societyKenRU wrote:Then you should be able to explain this further for me. Let’s say I agree (entirely) with this point “Atheism is a worldview�. Please, tell me what are some of my tenets?
And
They believe in the development and propagation a social philosophy in which humankind is central and must itself be the source of strength, progress, and ideals for the well-being and happiness of humanity.
Is that a good start?
- Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: Muslims and Israelites killing people
Post #145[Replying to post 143 by JLB32168]
China took a picture of the American flag on the moon...
Do you now get the picture?
China took a picture of the American flag on the moon...
Do you now get the picture?
I will never understand how someone who claims to know the ultimate truth, of God, believes they deserve respect, when they cannot distinguish it from a fairy-tale.
You know, science and logic are hard: Religion and fairy tales might be more your speed.
To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight
You know, science and logic are hard: Religion and fairy tales might be more your speed.
To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight
Re: Muslims and Israelites killing people
Post #146Hopefully, the difference that I see will become clearer to you below.JLB32168 wrote:Yes, we’re going to have to disagree because both sides have a significant body count informed by their take on a reading selection. You see a difference. I don’t.KenRU wrote:We will disagree, obviously. There is absolutely an importance. Atheism has no book telling one how to be an atheist. Religions do have a holy book.
No, you are not excluding those texts that just atheists use. You are excluding those texts that ANYONE can use.In other words, exclude those texts that atheists used to inspire their violence and once that evidence is off the table then tell you what text/teaching was misinterpreted. Isn’t that like “Exclude all evidence from NASA. Now that we’ve done that, what evidence do you have that men ever landed on the moon?�KenRU wrote:Great. Now what text (teaching one how to be an atheist) can be misinterpreted? Please don’t use one that teaches one how to be a fascist, Marxist or whatever.
Because that is what we are talking about.Okay.KenRU wrote:This is not from a book teaching one to be an atheist.
Why is that important?
You keep saying “you guys�, as if, once again, the violence perpetrated is inspired by something teaching one to be an atheist (thus lumping “us� all together). It doesn’t. Unlike religion, there is no “text� teaching one to be an atheist. There is a text, though, teaching one to be a Christian.The fact that you guys found reasons outside of religious books to slaughter tens of millions of people is supposed to demonstrate what exactly – your creativity?
Acting like a book INSPIRED BY GOD is just as powerful a teaching tool as one that is written by a man, is minimizing the power of your god, and probably isn’t the best argument you can make.
If I’m teaching my son to be a Christian, and I say, “this book is inspired by god, heed it well and live your life accordingly and you will be rewarded in the afterlife�, are you really going to argue that this message is JUST AS POWERFUL as if I told him, “here, son, read this book, it doesn’t really teach you to how to be an atheist, but it does touch on it, it really teaches you how to be a Marxist, oh, and it is inspired by a man�.
Which do you think will be more persuasive? If both have a passage that can be interpreted to cause harm, which is more likely to inspire people? The man made text or the divinely inspired one?
You really don’t see a difference now?
I’m not expecting any such gasp, lol. But an honest critique is not an unwarranted expectation.Then talk to them. I’m addressing the constant assertion, “Atheism doesn’t inspire people to violence because there’s no book for atheism that teaches it.� This is supposed to be of some significance and apparently theists are supposed to utter some combined “GASP!!� at the fact that atheists got into power and butchered people – but at least it wasn’t because of a book (except that it was.)KenRU wrote:I have encountered some theists (on this website and elsewhere) who would characterize atheists as without morals, without a sense of right and wrong and/or devil worshippers.
Again, the book inspired atrocities, but it is not a book that teaches one to be an atheist.
Not when they are imposing their religious beliefs on someone who doesn’t share them.Well yes. They do vote and try to move people to see their side of things and see that policy reflects those ideas. Morality is relative though. They’re only wrong in opposition’s eyes.KenRU wrote:Well yes, they do, they propose, endorse and legislate laws against same sex marriage.
Then they’re just plain wrong. Much like you wouldn’t appreciate being forced to follow Islamic laws.
Do you agree with this worldview? If so, then it is not an atheist worldview then is it? Plus, where did you find such a list?Let’s start off with two: Atheists believe in the development and public acceptance of a humane ethical system stressing the mutual sympathy, understanding, and interdependence of all people and the corresponding responsibility of each individual in relation to societyKenRU wrote:Then you should be able to explain this further for me. Let’s say I agree (entirely) with this point “Atheism is a worldview�. Please, tell me what are some of my tenets?
It is if you can answer the following:And
They believe in the development and propagation a social philosophy in which humankind is central and must itself be the source of strength, progress, and ideals for the well-being and happiness of humanity.
Is that a good start?
Where did you get such an idea? And, do you share these beliefs?
-all the best
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg