Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Militant Atheism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    I think it's ginkgo biloba.
    Gecko Bilbo? Sounds like the name of a bounty hunter on Star Wars.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      Gecko Bilbo? Sounds like the name of a bounty hunter on Star Wars.
      Or a Hobbit from LotR.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
        Or a Hobbit from LotR.
        Hobbits were bounty hunters on Tatooine?

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Hobbits were bounty hunters on Tatooine?
          No, but Bilbo Baggins was a Hobbit.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Maybe you should take that gunko bambozo for your memory! (or whatever it's called, I forget)
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
              I think it's ginkgo biloba.
              I want you to listen very closely -- I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ginkgo Biloba.....
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                I want you to listen very closely -- I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ginkgo Biloba.....

                Comment


                • #68
                  The point made by Dawkins, is not that Soviet Communism did not shed a lot of blood. His point is that “[t]here is not the smallest evidence that [atheism] systematically influences people to do bad things.”

                  And I think he is correct. That Soviet Communism was atheistic & bloody, is true. But that tells us nothing about any other atheists, many of whom are decent and moral people.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                    The point made by Dawkins, is not that Soviet Communism did not shed a lot of blood. His point is that “[t]here is not the smallest evidence that [atheism] systematically influences people to do bad things.”

                    And I think he is correct. That Soviet Communism was atheistic & bloody, is true. But that tells us nothing about any other atheists, many of whom are decent and moral people.
                    They are moral despite atheism, not because of it.

                    A consequence of atheism is there is no basis for morality other than some agreed upon standard that evolved over time in various societies. Killing someone just to get their stuff or because you are mad at them isn't objectively wrong, it is just that society has defined it is wrong. A society could have easily decided that doing that was perfectly fine and a great way to get ahead in the world (a.k.a. Klingons in Star Trek) - so there is no reason except convention to have any morals at all. If you want to kill someone for fun, there is nothing wrong with it if you don't get caught by society.

                    The reason people who are atheists DO have morals is because atheism is false. God has built a moral compass into our very being, even when they don't believe in him.

                    Romans 2:14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      They are moral despite atheism, not because of it.

                      A consequence of atheism is there is no basis for morality other than some agreed upon standard that evolved over time in various societies.
                      Fair point, but, Christianity could be described as an “agreed-upon standard that evolved over time in various societies”. It is not clear that it has any more real authority than any other ethical code. It does not stand out as unmistakeably Divine.
                      Killing someone just to get their stuff or because you are mad at them isn't objectively wrong, it is just that society has defined it is wrong. A society could have easily decided that doing that was perfectly fine and a great way to get ahead in the world (a.k.a. Klingons in Star Trek) - so there is no reason except convention to have any morals at all. If you want to kill someone for fun, there is nothing wrong with it if you don't get caught by society.

                      The reason people who are atheists DO have morals is because atheism is false. God has built a moral compass into our very being, even when they don't believe in him.

                      Romans 2:14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.
                      “Even when they don’t believe in Him” - exactly. People do not need to advert to God at all, in order to be moral, virtuous and upright people. That God is - from a Christian POV - the Source of all the goodness in them, however true in principle, is of no practical importance whatsoever to them. Plato did not come across the Four Cardinal Virtues of Prudence, Justice, Temperance & Fortitude by reading or hearing the Old Testament, but (so it seems) by thinking them out for himself. A man who lives by those virtues, will be much worthier of respect, admiration and imitation, than a bad Christian who is a stranger to them.

                      People do not need a transcendent reason to behave well. Conversely, acknowledging a transcendent God as the sole ultimate Origin of ethics does not, in practice, mean that one is going to behave any better than one’s atheist neighbour. On the contrary, acknowledging such a God is entirely compatible with depraved behaviour, but also with finding Divine approbation for depraved behaviour. Joshua is shown in Joshua 10 - whether as accurate history or not, is not directly relevant - as exterminating the people of three towns, in obedience to an allegedly Divine command.

                      Marcus Aurelius, in his campaigns, was not directed by the God of Joshua. STM that Marcus Aurelius had a far purer ethic than Joshua. It may have been of a less exalted origin, but, by the same token, it was less liable to become diabolical. Joshua and his brand of theism make a much less attractive picture than the Stoic Roman Emperor. The Assyrians had what they thought were the commands of their gods for the cruelties they inflicted on their enemies. The trouble with a supposed Divine Command is, that if the recipient finds it dubious, or worse, it can’t be argued with: there is no “equipment” within the Biblical books, to enable what seems to be a morally repugnant Divine Command to be challenged.

                      The assumption, that I think I see in your post, that people without God will, almost as though by necessity, behave very badly, seems to me to be unfounded & unnecessary. It is a possibility, but not the only one. If people are encouraged to love and honour and prize what is noble, just, and of good report, and if they are given persuasive reasons to love and to do what is good and kind and wise and upright, they should turn out all right, even if God is never mentioned. There is in atheism no inherent reason why atheists cannot be models of all the natural virtues. Whether they are or not, depends on what they have been taught to value - a Christianity of a low moral tone is unlikely to inspire them with a love of virtue.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        The article conflates atheism with Soviet atheism. And given the less than attractive history of Christianity, it is a bit rich to emphasise the brutality of Soviet Communism, as though theism were innocent of brutal behaviour. People with strongly-held convictions, atheist or theist, can become martyrs or persecutors; those who don’t bother too much about such things, are unlikely to become either, whether they be theists or atheists.

                        It is pretty low to argue against “militant atheism” by implying that militant atheism is the same as Soviet Communism. If they are separable - and they are - one would not know it from that article.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                          The article conflates atheism with Soviet atheism. And given the less than attractive history of Christianity, it is a bit rich to emphasise the brutality of Soviet Communism, as though theism were innocent of brutal behaviour. People with strongly-held convictions, atheist or theist, can become martyrs or persecutors; those who don’t bother too much about such things, are unlikely to become either, whether they be theists or atheists.

                          It is pretty low to argue against “militant atheism” by implying that militant atheism is the same as Soviet Communism. If they are separable - and they are - one would not know it from that article.
                          I don't find the Holodomor to be a good argument against atheism either and I cringe when Christians bring it up. As you say, there are plenty of counterexamples for atheists to bring up if we're playing the guilt by association game... and Stalin did it out of political selfishness, not specifically to glorify atheism.
                          "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            It isn't just the Soviets and the Holodomer. You have Stalin's purges (1.45 to 2 million killed) and Holodomor (a.k.a., Terror Famine with 3.3 to 7.5 million killed), Mao's Great Leap Forward (18 to 56 million killed) and Cultural Revolution (1.5 to 3 million killed[1]), Pol Pot's Killing Fields (2 to 2.5 million killed) and North Korean concentration camps (1 to 1.5 million killed) and terror starvation campaign from 1993 to 2008 (up to 1 million killed). This is a bloody legacy in the extreme in less than a century's time since it has ever achieved control anywhere.








                            1. post-Mao leaders acknowledged that 100 million people, one-ninth of the entire population, suffered in one way or another.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              It isn't just the Soviets and the Holodomer. You have Stalin's purges (1.45 to 2 million killed) and Holodomor (a.k.a., Terror Famine with 3.3 to 7.5 million killed), Mao's Great Leap Forward (18 to 56 million killed) and Cultural Revolution (1.5 to 3 million killed[1]), Pol Pot's Killing Fields (2 to 2.5 million killed) and North Korean concentration camps (1 to 1.5 million killed) and terror starvation campaign from 1993 to 2008 (up to 1 million killed). This is a bloody legacy in the extreme in less than a century's time since it has ever achieved control anywhere.

                              1. post-Mao leaders acknowledged that 100 million people, one-ninth of the entire population, suffered in one way or another.
                              The problem is, it's not a legacy of "atheism." Atheism was not the motivating force for any of these things, AFAIK. You have correlation - not causation. If you think you actually have causation, then by all means present the evidence/argument. Otherwise...

                              P.S. Not to mention that a lot of this is "fun with statistics."
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                It isn't just the Soviets and the Holodomer. You have Stalin's purges (1.45 to 2 million killed) and Holodomor (a.k.a., Terror Famine with 3.3 to 7.5 million killed), Mao's Great Leap Forward (18 to 56 million killed) and Cultural Revolution (1.5 to 3 million killed[1]), Pol Pot's Killing Fields (2 to 2.5 million killed) and North Korean concentration camps (1 to 1.5 million killed) and terror starvation campaign from 1993 to 2008 (up to 1 million killed). This is a bloody legacy in the extreme in less than a century's time since it has ever achieved control anywhere.








                                1. post-Mao leaders acknowledged that 100 million people, one-ninth of the entire population, suffered in one way or another.
                                Yes, and those all have one obvious thing in common, which isn't atheism.
                                "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X