Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-27-2014, 07:50 AM
 
6,324 posts, read 4,320,590 times
Reputation: 4335

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexcanter View Post
Christianity is all about an objective morality, as in God .

Not moochy moochy everybody love love love. Love is an emotion -relative, and only as good as its source as in foundation . Parents can't even begin to raise a family without an objective good.
No it's not.

If it was about "objective" morality, then it wouldn't JUST be homosexuals being targeted. Drunkards and fortune tellers, anyone who has told a lie, fornicators, adulterers, people who work on the Sabbath, people wearing blended fabrics, disobedient children (including adult children), non-Christians, blacks (for not obeying their masters), and a slew of other people would also have to be targeted for discrimination.

No, no, it doesn't matter if you can't tell if someone is an adulterer or if they worked on Sunday last weekend. Because you really can't tell if someone is gay, either, but that didn't stop people from thinking we needed a pro-discrimination law against them. So Christians do NOT have a moral leg to stand on in this case because the target is specific. Not sinners in general, but ONLY homosexuals. That is not objectivity, that's just bigotry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-27-2014, 07:58 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,087 posts, read 20,691,451 times
Reputation: 5928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
There is a thin line that separates refusing service and inability to provide it.


The question is which side of the line is refusing to perform a service that violates a person's religion?

Does a Jewish employee at a fast food doing have the right to refuse to make a cheeseburger? Does a Muslim in a convenience store have the right to sell beer to a customer?

Notice that in large grocery stores in which they have some employees below the age of 21, the ATF law forbids them to check out beer sales. or to even handle any alcohol containing beverages.
Good post. Perhaps what this comes down to is what counts more - law or religion?

"To Hell with Man - made Law" shouted the poster of a Muslim demonstrator.

I say to hell (meaning - get rid of) with religion -based law.

Ok, if the Law says something, you should observe it. We have done this discussion several times with checkout personnel who won't handle bacon, Pharmacy staff who won't handle contraceptive pills, registrars who won't marry gays, Amish who won't put legally required signs on their buggys if they drive outside the Amish area.

This is responded to variously, but it should not be. If you can't observe the law when you ride a bus, drive a motor -bike, a buggy or act as a marriage Registrar, or if you can't do the job you are in, because of religious views, you had better look for another job, and not drive a car, bike or buggy.

You have no right to demand that the law or indeed the terms of the job should be bent in order to accommodate one's religious beliefs.

I concede that I do feel that, in your own home, area or place of worship, there is some wiggle room. You can't break the law on health and safety, fraud, hate -speech, age of consent or violence, but I can see some merit on asking the law to stay outside and not force revision of religious beliefs.

I would never agree to anyone insisting that you had to have some forbiddden image in your mosque because of some law or other, but the law should intervene if you has someone's hands cut off there.

Broad and inaccurate, but you get my point.

Thus I do have sympathy with some churches not wanting to permit same -sex marriages and indeed those who won't provide a cake with two brides on. But if they have no problem with a cake with two dogs on, that's up to them.

That's why I can only say it's not a legal matter, but a personal one and all we can do is let the people take their business elsewhere.

Now, if they refused to provide a cake for a mixed marriage because they'd been told 'make the groom out of Coffee Icing', then the law is being broken. I might have sympathy with their right to think even reprehensible thoughts like 'No decent black dude should ever hitch up with a honky blonde' but the law is the law and it's out of my hands.

So, in the end it does seem to be not a matter for religion or even morals, first and foremost, but what the Law says.

The law is not always right - for a long time being gay was a crime - but the law is always the law. If you don't like it, change it. You don't ignore it.

If anything the law is driven by public opinion, and public opinion is driven by moral views - either based on human reason or on religion.

I'd say that there is no case to oppose same sex -marriage so reason does not support the prejudice against it, and religion is not in itself a good reason for enacting Law.

So law -what the law says - is the operative thing here and, if (for religious reasons) these people can't provide a particular service in their own business (if it's someone else's they can shut up or find another job) that is their own affair, unless the Law steps is, like if they refused to rent a hotel room to blacks.

We had a case here about a couple who wouldn't rent a room to gays. The law seemed to have gone far enough to say they had no right to. I don't know whether it goes so far as to say that you have no right to refuse to make a wedding cake with two dudes on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2014, 07:59 AM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,390 posts, read 11,597,224 times
Reputation: 7544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
No it's not.

If it was about "objective" morality, then it wouldn't JUST be homosexuals being targeted. Drunkards and fortune tellers, anyone who has told a lie, fornicators, adulterers, people who work on the Sabbath, people wearing blended fabrics, disobedient children (including adult children), non-Christians, blacks (for not obeying their masters), and a slew of other people would also have to be targeted for discrimination.

No, no, it doesn't matter if you can't tell if someone is an adulterer or if they worked on Sunday last weekend. Because you really can't tell if someone is gay, either, but that didn't stop people from thinking we needed a pro-discrimination law against them. So Christians do NOT have a moral leg to stand on in this case because the target is specific. Not sinners in general, but ONLY homosexuals. That is not objectivity, that's just bigotry.
Well said, cannot rep again. This is it exactly!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2014, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Hyrule
8,390 posts, read 11,597,224 times
Reputation: 7544
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Good post. Perhaps what this comes down to is what counts more - law or religion?

"To Hell with Man - made Law" shouted the poster of a Muslim demonstrator.

I say to hell (meaning - get rid of) with religion -based law.

Ok, if the Law says something, you should observe it. We have done this discussion several times with checkout personnel who won't handle bacon, Pharmacy staff who won't handle contraceptive pills, registrars who won't marry gays, Amish who won't put legally required signs on their buggys if they drive outside the Amish area.

This is responded to variously, but it should not be. If you can't observe the law when you ride a bus, drive a motor -bike, a buggy or act as a marriage Registrar, or if you can't do the job you are in, because of religious views, you had better look for another job, and not drive a car, bike or buggy.

You have no right to demand that the law or indeed the terms of the job should be bent in order to accommodate one's religious beliefs.

I concede that I do feel that, in your own home, area or place of worship, there is some wiggle room. You can't break the law on health and safety, fraud, hate -speech, age of consent or violence, but I can see some merit on asking the law to stay outside and not force revision of religious beliefs.

I would never agree to anyone insisting that you had to have some forbiddden image in your mosque because of some law or other, but the law should intervene if you has someone's hands cut off there.

Broad and inaccurate, but you get my point>

Thus I do have sympathy with some churches not wanting to permit same -sex marriages and indeed those who won't provide a cake with two brides on. But if they have no problem with a cake with two dogs on, that's up to them.

That's why I can only say it's not a legal matter, but a personal one and all we can do is let the people take their business elsewhere.

Now, if they refused to provide a cake for a mixed marriage because they'd been told 'make the groom out of Coffee Icing', then the law is being broken. I might have sympathy with their right to think even reprehensible thoughts like 'No decent black dude should ever hitch up with a honky blonde' but the law is the law and it's out of my hands.

So, in the end it does seem to be not a matter for religion or even morals, first and foremost, but what the Law says.

The law is not always right - for along time being gay was a crime - but the law is always the law.

If anything the law is driven by public opinion, and public opinion is driven by moral views - either based on human reason or on religion.

I'd say that there is no case to oppose same sex -marriage so reason does not support the prejudice against it, and religion is not in itself a good reason for enacting Law.

So law -what the law says - is the operative thing here and, if the law says these people can't provide a particular service in their own business (if it's someone else's they can shut up or find another job) that is their own affair, unless the Law steps is, like if they refused to rent a hotel room to blacks.

We had a case here about a couple who wouldn't rent a room to gays. The law seemed to have gone far enough to say they had no right to. I don't know whether it goes so far as to say that you have no right to refuse to make a wedding cake with two dudes on.
Well said. Thankfully, God didn't seem to agree with the Theists who constructed this bill. He works in mysterious ways you know. They'll be glad he didn't pass it later, maybe next year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2014, 08:16 AM
 
6,324 posts, read 4,320,590 times
Reputation: 4335
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
Humanity has been there and done that. There is only one social/political system where atheism rules with an iron fist and religion is systematically eradicated for the very reasons that you cite. That system was Marxist Communism and that system racked up a bigger body count than all the religious bigotry in human history. The only atheists-ruled states in human history were the very very good at massacring their own people, so much so that Hitler gets bumped down to third place in the list of history's greatest mass-murderers. Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin beat him out by a sizable margin. And no socio-political system in human history has inspired more fear and misery in its citizens than atheist-ruled Marxism.
And like I've said a thousand times, the things that happened had nothing to do with atheism. Do some research on the man named Josef Stalin. In fact the majority of people you cite died in famines in both Russia and China due to bad economic policies involving collective farming. It had NOTHING to do with atheism. Just because atheism was a tenat of communism doesn't mean atheism was the reason for the deaths. You have to show a causal link between atheism and all of the murderers and no one has been able to do that. We CAN however show a causal link between religion and various historical events - from ancient Rome to 9/11.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
The point is not that atheists are all bad and religionists are all good. The point is that human beings will always find an excuse to be horrible to one another.
The difference is that religion allows people to be horrible to each other ... and get away with it. In many cases, it is even supported. Just look at how many people here who supported a discrimination bill in the name of "moral righteousness." A law like this that wasn't bolstered by religious belief never would have made it to the governor, but slap on the words "for religious reasons" and suddenly what was once bad is now good.

I believe it was Christopher Hitchens, responding to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blaming 9/11 on gays and liberals, who said (paraphrased), "If you want to say atrocious, heinous things on national television and get away with it, just put 'Reverend' in front of your name."

I remember when we were talking about that Reverend Whorley who said we should put all gays in concentration camps and let them die off, we confronted a Christian about this comment because, surely, no Christian would actually agree with something like that ... right? But no. It took over 10 pages of debate before she FINALLY admitted that what Reverend Whorley said was wrong. Instead, she deflected the debate into freedom of speech issues and whatnot. Now, one would think that if a person truly believed that putting gays in concentration camps was going too far, they would have no hesitation in saying so. But she DID hesitate - for 10 long pages (I had my settings to show 30 posts per page, so that's 300 posts) before she grudgingly said it was wrong.

Now, yes, that's anecdotal, that's only one person - but considering the support I've seen from Christians in favor of discriminating against gays here on this forum, why shouldn't I believe that a sizeable number, if not a majority, of Christians wouldn't mind seeing all homosexuals rounded up and put into camps?

And this wouldn't even be an issue if "religion" wasn't slathered all over it, wouldn't have been an issue if anyone else but a "reverend" had made the comment about concentration camps. If it had been someone working in the private sector, more than likely, he would have been fired. But reverends, they can go around saying all kinds of despicable things and not only keep their jobs - but be rewarded for it.

THAT is the key difference between secular atrocity and religious atrocity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
The track record of Marxism tends to strongly suggest that religion actually decreases such tendencies.
Again, causality. You have none. Perhaps it was just plain Marxism that causes it. Ah, but more than likely, it wasn't Marxism, communism, or socialism or any -ism that caused all of those deaths. The fact is, we really haven't had a very good example of Marxism - Josef Stalin ruled the USSR for half of its history and he was a madman. One can hardly compare the rulership of a clinically diagnosed paranoid with how it may have been run under someone psychologically normal. As for Mao, as I said, most of those deaths were a result of bad political policies that had nothing to do with religion or atheism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
Unfortunately, we only have that one actual historical model of an atheistic state to go on ... but it truly is remarkable how inhumane people got when all religion-based restraint was stripped away.
Pssssst! Hey you, yeah, you. Wanna buy some causality? Sssh, don't tell anyone, but I'm selling some really cheap. Just don't ask where I got it. But yeah, you sure look like you could use some causality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
It is also remarkable how consistent this was: Almost without exception, every Marxist state saw mass-murder on a colossal scale.
So? Have you ever seen a successful atheist state that wasn't Marxist? Oh right .... not really, huh. So you don't have enough data points to be making even speculation much less conclusions.

However, if you look at very secular nations, they ARE rather successful. Certainly more successful than America is right now.

I guess we could also look to the Middle East to see what happens when there is too much religion. And there, we DO have direct causality between murder and oppression ... and religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
But keep blaming religion for stuff if it makes you feel better. I prefer to blame human nature.
Gee, thanks for your permission. But I would have kept blaming religion for stuff regardless. Not for everything, of course, but when religion deserves the blame, I'm going to point it out instead of giving it a free pass whenever it tries doing something raunchy - like passing pro-discrimination bills.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2014, 09:28 AM
 
Location: Chicago Area
12,687 posts, read 6,729,827 times
Reputation: 6593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
And like I've said a thousand times, the things that happened had nothing to do with atheism.
Nothing to do with atheism? Are you crazy? One of the great pillars of Marxism is the elimination of religion. Every serious attempt at Marxism saw a massive crusade attempting to eradicate religion. It happened in China, the USSR, N Korea, Eastern Europe, Cuba, etc. And while each of those Marxist nations ultimately postponed their attempt at eradicating all religion, millions of people died in their anti-religious campaigns. Do a little research into it and actual facts might just surprise you. Vladimir Lenin -- a Marxist purist -- led the charge against religion in the USSR. Stalin carried on the "good fight" but Lenin started it. Even long after those nations had put off on wiping out religion to "we'll work on that later," they were still atheist states. To be a member of the Communist Party in a Marxist country, you had to be an atheist. Even as recently as the 1980's, in a Marxist nation a person with religion was a pariah. If you were openly religious, you were denied all access to higher education. You were the new lowest class of society (oh the irony!) Oh yeah, and by the way, many of those famines were intentional and often even targeted undesirables like the Ukrainian people. Peoples who atheists like Stalin considered a threat to his rule.

Karl Marx was undoubtedly sincere in his beliefs. He sincerely believed that the forcible elimination of classes and religion would ultimately result in love and peace on earth. He wasn't entirely wrong in his thinking. Classes and religion really certainly have been used as excuses to do terrible things. But when put into practice, his ideas completely backfired. Why? Human nature. Eliminate the corrupt powerful aristocracy in society and a new even more corrupt aristocracy (the Communist Party) will quickly take their place, palaces and all. Eliminate religion and people start focusing blind devotion and worship on the Communist elites. Mao and Lenin, Fidel Castro and Kim Sung become your new gods. You say that "real Marxism" has never actually happened? After so many attempts at it, why do you suppose that is? Simple: Unless you have an entire nation of completely unselfish, incredibly hard working, absolutely perfect people, Marx's utopia is impossible. Just like every other utopia.

It never fails to astound me how anxious you and other atheists are to disown the real-world attempts at Marxism. They absolutely were atheists! They weren't just atheists, they did everything they could to eradicate religion. They never entirely gave up on the crusade to eradicate religion, a crusade that was presumably for the betterment of humankind. Karl Marx even gave atheists their favorite cute little anti-religious slogans!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Marx
'Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.'
This was later shortened into the misquote: "Religion is the opiate of the masses." It does convey the spirit of what Marx really said, but in fewer words and with a lot less self-righteous contempt.

Once they are given power, atheists have proven to be far better at massacring people than religious folks. Perhaps someday we will have some other atheistic civilizations from which to draw conclusions. Maybe they'll have a better human rights track record. But right now, Marxist nations are all we've got to go on. No other atheistic society has ever existed ... and it was the most terrifying system in human history ... so maybe humanity will be too terrified to opt for a do over.

But far be it from me to tell you to stop burying your head in the sand. Keep on blaming religion for all of the bad things that happen in the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2014, 11:16 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
19,958 posts, read 13,450,937 times
Reputation: 9911
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
Nothing to do with atheism? Are you crazy? One of the great pillars of Marxism is the elimination of religion.
Marxism is not atheism. Not all atheists are Marxist (I daresay very few are) and not all Marxists are atheists. And all Marxists do not agree on exactly how to implement Marxism, either, including the (non-)role of religion in Marxist society. Most modern Marxists acknowledge that virtually all attempts at a Marxist society have failed, and they have a number of theories about where those experiments went wrong. So do political scientists and economists. My guess is that none of those theories center around the (un)belief or (a)theism of the Marxists of past revolutions -- because it's a peripheral issue. It's like saying that Nixon's administration failed because he was a Quaker.

A person who kills multitudes is, first and foremost, a sociopath, and/or driven by some form of mental illness such as megalomania (which e.g., Stalin was). He will commit such acts for those reasons, and his (ir)religion is incidental to that. To continue with the Stalin example, Russian society had long elevated their supreme leaders to demigod status, and Stalin wanted the worship of the people for himself -- that was his motivation for eliminating religion -- until he changed his mind, reopened the Orthodox seminaries and churches, etc., when he felt it would calm unrest.

Many of the deaths under Stalin had relatively little to do with his "purges", too -- they were a result of famine caused by his misguided efforts to set up his ideal collective-based society. And most of the deaths under the purges I would attribute to his (diagnosed) paranoia than to a hatred of the religious per se.

I submit that Stalin would have been just as dangerous as a Capitalist and a Christian (indeed, being raised in a conservative Catholic family that wanted him to become a priest, there is some argument that it is his repressive conservative religious upbringing that contributed to his issues). Just as dangerous, although if he'd come to power in a democratic republic, that arguably would have limited the damage.

In summation, you are conflating politics with metaphysics in an attempt to confer guilt by association. Have a look at various irreligious societies in the modern world -- are they busy imprisoning and killing their people or do not some of them count themselves among the happier of peoples?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2014, 11:24 AM
 
6,324 posts, read 4,320,590 times
Reputation: 4335
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
Nothing to do with atheism? Are you crazy? One of the great pillars of Marxism is the elimination of religion. Every serious attempt at Marxism saw a massive crusade attempting to eradicate religion. It happened in China, the USSR, N Korea, Eastern Europe, Cuba, etc. And while each of those Marxist nations ultimately postponed their attempt at eradicating all religion, millions of people died in their anti-religious campaigns.
Actually, no. In the Soviet Union, for instance, the government rejected the idea that believers were enemies of the state - mainly because there were just too many of them and also because there were many loyal Soviets who just happened to be religious. They were hounded with atheist propaganda and communist party officials tried to infiltrate the churches in order to control them. But by and large, there wasn't some massive attack that killed millions as you say.

Marxism did not advocate the destruction of religion through violence. Marxism said that religion originated from the poor who used it to comfort and reassure themselves that a better life would await them after death. Therefore, the way to eradicate religion was to eradicate the harsh conditions that made them poor. So yeah ... the Marxist policy was just the opposite of your idea. Marxism wanted to elevate the poor to a better standing so they wouldn't have to rely on religion as a crutch to get through the day.

The Soviet Union, "only" executed 28 bishops and 1200 priests. Yeah, I'm not belittling their deaths nor am I justifying their executions. Atheists are not immune from committing atrocities. But millions? No ...

The problem is that people only see this whopping huge number of deaths but really don't categorize them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
Even long after those nations had put off on wiping out religion to "we'll work on that later," they were still atheist states.
Yes, but the difference is that your mixing atheism with Marxism. It's not pure atheism. You have to keep in mind that atheism doesn't tell anyone to do anything, so you can't actually blame a person's or nation's actions on atheism. Therefore, when someone does something against Christians, you can't point to atheism and cite it as the cause. Now, if atheism actually had tenats and doctrines, dogma and holy books to point to for the catalyst, it would be different. But there isn't. All of what you're seeing in these nations is the result of badly-run Marxism and communism. THEY are the ideologies that actually have doctrines.

However, we HAVE had pure theocracies and religion has dogma and tradition and gospels and a plethora of other things that gives people the impetus to be cruel and nasty. This latest bill in Arizona is just such an example. That was not a secular idea; the bill even says a person can discriminate for "religious reasons."

Atheism doesn't do that. You can never say "for atheistic reasons" because atheism is merely the lack of belief in a god. Nothing more. It isn't a doctrine or a philosophy or a set of rules dictating how we should live our lives or how the world ought to be. Nor does atheism promote a mandate to conquer the world with our beliefs. Both Christianity and Islam, on the other hand, DO have such mandates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
To be a member of the Communist Party in a Marxist country, you had to be an atheist. Even as recently as the 1980's, in a Marxist nation a person with religion was a pariah.
But that's Marxism telling people they have to be atheists. It isn't atheisim telling people to be an atheist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
If you were openly religious, you were denied all access to higher education. You were the new lowest class of society (oh the irony!) Oh yeah, and by the way, many of those famines were intentional and often even targeted undesirables like the Ukrainian people. Peoples who atheists like Stalin considered a threat to his rule.
Yes, a threat to his rule. You cannot blame atheism for his paranoia. Sorry. Please cite for me the verse in the atheist code, creed, credo, bible, or other text that says we should cause famines to starve out people who do not become atheists? I have plenty of time while you search.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
Karl Marx was undoubtedly sincere in his beliefs. He sincerely believed that the forcible elimination of classes and religion would ultimately result in love and peace on earth. He wasn't entirely wrong in his thinking. Classes and religion really certainly have been used as excuses to do terrible things. But when put into practice, his ideas completely backfired. Why? Human nature.
Sure, I'll agree with that to an extent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
Eliminate the corrupt powerful aristocracy in society and a new even more corrupt aristocracy (the Communist Party) will quickly take their place, palaces and all. Eliminate religion and people start focusing blind devotion and worship on the Communist elites. Mao and Lenin, Fidel Castro and Kim Sung become your new gods. You say that "real Marxism" has never actually happened? After so many attempts at it, why do you suppose that is? Simple: Unless you have an entire nation of completely unselfish, incredibly hard working, absolutely perfect people, Marx's utopia is impossible. Just like every other utopia.
Yep, I agree with all of that. BUT, I do diverge from your thinking on this point. There is NO other force on earth that can whip up a person, group, or nation to do despicable things than religion. Okay, MAYBE greed might win a fight against religion. Maybe. But religion is dangerous because it is absolutist. You can't go any higher than God, so if God says something, you do it. No questions. No thinking. No doubts. Allegiance to a party elite, a king, an emperor, or a fuhrer is not as blind and absolute as you think it is, but when you throw in God and the dangers to your immortal soul - well - if you actually believe in all that claptrap, that is the most powerful motivator there is. Superstition is an excessively powerful force within the human psyche, far, far more powerful than loyalty to an earthly leader.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
It never fails to astound me how anxious you and other atheists are to disown the real-world attempts at Marxism. They absolutely were atheists!
Which doesn't matter. They were all Russians, too. Does that mean being Russian caused those atrocities? I'm certainly not going to "disown" the disaster poorly-run Marxism did to the world, but it's not really mine TO disown. Just because they were atheists doesn't mean atheism was the impetus. It couldn't have been because, as stated, atheism doesn't tell anyone to do anything. Marxism did that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
They weren't just atheists, they did everything they could to eradicate religion.
Sure ... just like, I'm sure, if fundamentalist Christianity grabbed power in the U.S., they would do their utmost to eliminate homosexuality and quite possibly atheism.

BUT, we're not really talking about whether atheism took its swipe at eradicating religion (especially since Marxism did that and not atheism), we're talking about whether or not atheism caused the deaths of millions of people - which it didn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
They never entirely gave up on the crusade to eradicate religion, a crusade that was presumably for the betterment of humankind. Karl Marx even gave atheists their favorite cute little anti-religious slogans!
And there are PLENTY of atheists who wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if religion were to disappear tomorrow. However, not a single atheist I've ever talked to or read online ever suggested that we get rid of religion through legislation and certainly not through violence. The vast majority of us would like to see religion disappear on its own, through the free will of the people. And, if not religion entirely, then at least this hate-filled, Bible-worshiping, science-rejecting, ultra-superstitious fundamentalist brand of religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
Once they are given power, atheists have proven to be far better at massacring people than religious folks.
Bzzzzt! Sorry, that is entirely incorrect. And we were doing so well! But now we're back to this unsubstantiated accusation.

No, no, no. Atheism didn't massacre anyone. Marxism did. I don't even care if they were shouting, "For atheism!" when they killed someone, because atheism doesn't tell you to kill anyone - unlike the Bible which commands you to kill all sorts of people.

And so, when dealing with a bill as the one in Arizona, oh yes, Christians just ADORE pointing to their Bible verses that explain why homosexuality is a sin and why they should have the right to discriminate against them. Can an atheist do that? What if an atheist wanted to discriminate against a Christian. How do we justify it? Oh right, we can't. Which means if anyone discriminates against a Christian - or massacres a Christian - they're doing it for some other reason (which is most likely Marxism since that is the dogma that tells a person how to be an atheist - but atheism itself isn't doing anything at all. Or they are simply bigots. Or maybe they like to kill).

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
Perhaps someday we will have some other atheistic civilizations from which to draw conclusions. Maybe they'll have a better human rights track record. But right now, Marxist nations are all we've got to go on. No other atheistic society has ever existed ... and it was the most terrifying system in human history ... so maybe humanity will be too terrified to opt for a do over.
Humanity will only be terrified if Christians keep linking atheism to tens of millions dying in the USSR and China. Those were communist and Marxist nations, not atheist nations. Atheism wasn't the "top dog" of philosophies in these nations. Marxism and communism inserted its will into the empty space where atheistic dogma would have been if atheism had dogma. But it doesn't. It still doesn't.

But if you want comparsions, why not compare a secular nation like Sweden to a theocratic nation like Iran. Or, instead of Sweden, perhaps Norway or Denmark or even Japan for that matter. Compare them with places like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Republic of Congo, and other theocracies. Tell me where you'd rather live.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
But far be it from me to tell you to stop burying your head in the sand. Keep on blaming religion for all of the bad things that happen in the world.
Now, what did I just say in my last post? Yes, I said I don't blame religion for everything. I said it. You can go look. So telling me I'm blaming religion for ALL of the bad things in the world, well, no. I said I will cast the blame on religion when I think it deserves it, and more times than not, I can explain in rather great detail precisely WHY I'm blaming religion.

And now ... I'll be happy to discuss this with you further elsewhere, but we're going to get the thread closed if we keep going on about Marxism and such.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2014, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Chicago Area
12,687 posts, read 6,729,827 times
Reputation: 6593
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Marxism is not atheism. Not all atheists are Marxist (I daresay very few are) and not all Marxists are atheists.
Every serious attempt to implement Marxism had some common themes with respect to religion:
1.) The ruling elite were all strict atheists.
2.) In order to join that ruling elite, you had to be an atheist.
3.) Those leaders tried their very best to eradicate religion.

Since the collapse of Communism worldwide, many Marxist faithful and virtually all atheists are in this bizarre state of denial. They

Quote:
A person who kills multitudes is, first and foremost, a sociopath, and/or driven by some form of mental illness such as megalomania (which e.g., Stalin was).
Quite true of Stalin, but you have a significant trend emerging. Every single founding Communist leader apparently also becomes a sociopath. Look at the list of folks who ultimately stopped caring how many corpses piled around them. Folks that were deified and often deified themselves:
Vladimir Lenin - 9 million killed
Mao Zedong - 40 million dead is a lowball estimate. BTW knowingly exporting mass quantities of grain to the USSR while your people starve to death by the tens of millions means that yes you are responsible.
Kim Sung - 3 million killed
Fidel Castro - 50,000 killed (that we know of)
Pol Pot - 1.6 million killed
Ho Chi Mihn - over two thirds of the 4.2 million deaths from the Vietnam/Indochina wars.

The bigger question is, can you name for me any nation turned Communist from within (so not by military conquest via that USSR) that did not have that same trends: Some highly charismatic sadistic sociopath who willfully murdered his own people and a mass movement targeting religion of all types?

Quote:
In summation, you are conflating politics with metaphysics in an attempt to confer guilt by association. Have a look at various irreligious societies in the modern world -- are they busy imprisoning and killing their people or do not some of them count themselves among the happier of peoples?
A.) Standard practice amongst atheist critics of religion is to assign guilt by association. If you are saying that guilt by association is invalid, then religion cannot be blamed for the vast vast majority of deaths and atrocities that atheist critics claim.
B.) Outside of those last vestiges of Marxism, there is no atheist society on this planet today. Yes there are western European nations where religious devotion is currently out of style. How many of those nations are currently being led by a purely atheistic government? Simple answer: None.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2014, 05:08 PM
 
650 posts, read 513,894 times
Reputation: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
No it's not.

If it was about "objective" morality, then it wouldn't JUST be homosexuals being targeted. Drunkards and fortune tellers, anyone who has told a lie, fornicators, adulterers, people who work on the Sabbath, people wearing blended fabrics, disobedient children (including adult children), non-Christians, blacks (for not obeying their masters), and a slew of other people would also have to be targeted for discrimination.

No, no, it doesn't matter if you can't tell if someone is an adulterer or if they worked on Sunday last weekend. Because you really can't tell if someone is gay, either, but that didn't stop people from thinking we needed a pro-discrimination law against them. So Christians do NOT have a moral leg to stand on in this case because the target is specific. Not sinners in general, but ONLY homosexuals. That is not objectivity, that's just bigotry.

Religions are all about an objective morality, it's the premise which allow's love thy neighbor.

Subjective morality is the secularist view which atheist's maintain is superior.

Unfortunately the secularists view will never be able to justify any rational approach, unless it can demonstrate that locking your door is a waste of time.

The only way man can get at an objective morality is with a God belief.

The obvious reasoning is the understanding of a second opinion by 'reflecting in the god idea, where choice, decision, overview all play their roles in the dynamic ongoing day to day experience man encounters both with himself and others. Very simple things. ( tell the truth , the whole truth so help you god was put in place for a reason.

The God belief adds to flourish individually and therefore collectively and on into the species.

That's how it works, not love love love, that's a given. Religions are all about guiding a path for these good attributes of charity in man, not supposing they magically come about by the will. Parents can't even begin to raise a family without an objective good. This is where the value of going the extra mile comes in. Vice is the opposite of virtue, theft is the opposite of charity. Reflecting alongside a god belief allows for an objective self examination.

This subject gets allot of attention because the social is making a suggestion to not only itself, but the youth and future generations the homosexual commitment within itself contributes a value to the species which has a value on equal par with the traditional unit.

Last edited by alexcanter; 02-27-2014 at 06:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:59 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top