Forced to be atheists (and still refusing)

[CrazyAnglican]

I agree with you almost completely PLAYER. Upon the first point, yeah I hated asking for people to post their names, but the focus of the thread was increasingly moving away from the suffering of this group of people. I do, very much, think that the focus cannot slip away from that. The ways, any ways at all, that we can use to teach people to be tolerant and loving of others are useful. Certainly posting a name is not, but it did serve to bring the conversation back from "They aren't / cannot be atheists (according to {insert username here}'s definition) most probably because they make us look bad".

The point cannot be overlooked that people non-believers and believers alike can be duped by unscrupulous leaders. To say that any one group is more susceptible is to say that they have a greater capacity for evil than others, and that is dangerous.

[radiojake]

I agree with you almost completely PLAYER. Upon the first point, yeah I hated asking for people to post their names, but the focus of the thread was increasingly moving away from the suffering of this group of people. I do, very much, think that the focus cannot slip away from that. The ways, any ways at all, that we can use to teach people to be tolerant and loving of others are useful. Certainly posting a name is not, but it did serve to bring the conversation back from "They aren't / cannot be atheists (according to {insert username here}'s definition) most probably because they make us look bad".

The point cannot be overlooked that people non-believers and believers alike can be duped by unscrupulous leaders. To say that any one group is more susceptible is to say that they have a greater capacity for evil than others, and that is dangerous.

I think the main problem, CA, is like Snorri pointed out, is that you have seemed to have picked up on the North Korean attrocities because the perpretrators are not thiest. Coupled with the fact that you are a self-confessed 'jesus freak', and one can start to see a hidden agenda with highlighting these human rights abuses compared to the hundreds of others that are simultaneously happening at this moment.

Why haven't we seen you write about blood diamonds from Africa? Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe? Maybe because this North Korean story had a sense of anti-christian stigma that could be played with.

Disclaimer: - This does not mean in anyway that I don't comdemn all of these actions commited by the North Korean Government.

[muy_thaiguy]

I agree with you almost completely PLAYER. Upon the first point, yeah I hated asking for people to post their names, but the focus of the thread was increasingly moving away from the suffering of this group of people. I do, very much, think that the focus cannot slip away from that. The ways, any ways at all, that we can use to teach people to be tolerant and loving of others are useful. Certainly posting a name is not, but it did serve to bring the conversation back from "They aren't / cannot be atheists (according to {insert username here}'s definition) most probably because they make us look bad".

The point cannot be overlooked that people non-believers and believers alike can be duped by unscrupulous leaders. To say that any one group is more susceptible is to say that they have a greater capacity for evil than others, and that is dangerous.

I think the main problem, CA, is like Snorri pointed out, is that you have seemed to have picked up on the North Korean attrocities because the perpretrators are not thiest. Coupled with the fact that you are a self-confessed 'jesus freak', and one can start to see a hidden agenda with highlighting these human rights abuses compared to the hundreds of others that are simultaneously happening at this moment.

Why haven't we seen you write about blood diamonds from Africa? Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe? Maybe because this North Korean story had a sense of anti-christian stigma that could be played with.

Disclaimer: - This does not mean in anyway that I don't comdemn all of these actions commited by the North Korean Government.

What CA is actually trying to do here (since it seems you missed the "Forced to be Christian" thread), is trying to get some people's heads out of their rear ends when they constantly go on about the Inquisition and the human rights abuses then, as to focusing on something that we can actually try and fix that is going on here and now. And North Korea was used because of the relation of theism to the Inquisition (in the Forced to be Christian thread) and Atheism to Juche in North Korea.

[CrazyAnglican]

I think the main problem, CA, is like Snorri pointed out, is that you have seemed to have picked up on the North Korean attrocities because the perpretrators are not thiest. Coupled with the fact that you are a self-confessed 'jesus freak', and one can start to see a hidden agenda with highlighting these human rights abuses compared to the hundreds of others that are simultaneously happening at this moment.

Why haven't we seen you write about blood diamonds from Africa? Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe? Maybe because this North Korean story had a sense of anti-christian stigma that could be played with.

Disclaimer: - This does not mean in anyway that I don't comdemn all of these actions commited by the North Korean Government.

Thanks, MTG.


But Jake, there isn't a hidden agenda here. There certainly is a dual purpose in that I'm speaking out against the atrocities in North Korea (and they need to be spoken out against, we seem to agree on that), and that I'm providing a counter-point to the idea that religion (particularaly theistic religion) is a major cause for man's inhumanity to man. If the 20th Century taught us nothing else it should have driven the point home that man does not need a reason to be inhumane.

I find it interesting that nobody brings up this type of "hidden agenda" idea against atheists when they speak of centuries old abuses. Why would you suggest that I'm playing some sort of game while never having reprimanded anyone for the same when they speak out against Christian actions? They are, after all, being every bit as selective in their criticism. I at least will look into any thread about other atrocities you want to post. I really am against any form of abuse of power like this, no matter who carries it out. As far as I'm concerned, Mugabe is every bit the thug that Kim Jong Il is (I don't know as much about him, but am looking into it now). I mention Kim Jung Il, merely because I know more about what is going on there than I do in other areas, and it served to make the point that both atheists and theists are capable of atrocities. I haven't offered it as an endorsement of theism nor have I stated that atheism necessarily leads to this sort of thing. In this, I believe, I'm offering a courtesy that is not often extended to Christians in return, when the conversation drudges back through yet another rehashing of the Middle Ages.

[radiojake]

Well, I don't recall ever really going on about the Inquisition and other Middle Aged events involving dodgy Christians, so I don't know what to say about that. I have ranted on about 16th Century colonialism, mainly because that still has a very real effect on what is going on in third world countries (epecially Latin America and Africa) today.

I see where you're coming from, and I can tell you have the best intentions, I just couldn't help but get a feeling of a christian agenda being somewhere with your posts. (But that's because in a lot of cases it's often ones faith that is the motivating factor for 'good deeds' - (that i've seen))

Anyway, this is why for the most part that i tend to keep away from the religious debates on the board... only occasionally do i put in my 2 cents - I'm not going to be converted in anyway shape or form, no one is going to convince me the existence of god, and i don't intend (or think i could) make someone lose their faith.

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, I don't recall ever really going on about the Inquisition and other Middle Aged events involving dodgy Christians, so I don't know what to say about that. I have ranted on about 16th Century colonialism, mainly because that still has a very real effect on what is going on in third world countries (epecially Latin America and Africa) today.

I see where you're coming from, and I can tell you have the best intentions, I just couldn't help but get a feeling of a christian agenda being somewhere with your posts. (But that's because in a lot of cases it's often ones faith that is the motivating factor for 'good deeds' - (that i've seen))

Anyway, this is why for the most part that i tend to keep away from the religious debates on the board... only occasionally do i put in my 2 cents - I'm not going to be converted in anyway shape or form, no one is going to convince me the existence of god, and i don't intend (or think i could) make someone lose their faith.

So, your position on the matter is unfalsifiable and hence invalid. Ergo, you lose.

[MeDeFe]

Well, I don't recall ever really going on about the Inquisition and other Middle Aged events involving dodgy Christians, so I don't know what to say about that. I have ranted on about 16th Century colonialism, mainly because that still has a very real effect on what is going on in third world countries (epecially Latin America and Africa) today.

I see where you're coming from, and I can tell you have the best intentions, I just couldn't help but get a feeling of a christian agenda being somewhere with your posts. (But that's because in a lot of cases it's often ones faith that is the motivating factor for 'good deeds' - (that i've seen))

Anyway, this is why for the most part that i tend to keep away from the religious debates on the board... only occasionally do i put in my 2 cents - I'm not going to be converted in anyway shape or form, no one is going to convince me the existence of god, and i don't intend (or think i could) make someone lose their faith.

So, your position on the matter is unfalsifiable and hence invalid. Ergo, you lose.

I think it's more of a comment on the nature of debates on the internet than a fundamental statement about his personal system of belief.

[Snorri1234]

Eh, oh well. I was just curious about the rebuttal he promised.

After a week of sleep/work with little free time I forgot about this thing entirely.

[CrazyAnglican]

Eh, oh well. I was just curious about the rebuttal he promised.

After a week of sleep/work with little free time I forgot about this thing entirely.

No problem, I was just curious. Hope things settle down for ya'.

Well, I don't recall ever really going on about the Inquisition and other Middle Aged events involving dodgy Christians, so I don't know what to say about that. I have ranted on about 16th Century colonialism, mainly because that still has a very real effect on what is going on in third world countries (epecially Latin America and Africa) today. I see where you're coming from, and I can tell you have the best intentions, I just couldn't help but get a feeling of a christian agenda being somewhere with your posts. (But that's because in a lot of cases it's often ones faith that is the motivating factor for 'good deeds' - (that i've seen))

Certainly, and I wasn't intending to blame you personally for the arguments that others use. However, when people are publishing books like Hitchens' "god is not Great: how religion poisons everything" it becomes a little ridiculous. So, I have taken the tack that there are things going on in the world that more people should know about. North Korea being one, but sure there are lots more. There is little harm in pointing out that theists have no deadlock on cruelty while we're at it, though. If that's having a Christian agenda it is no less so than others have an atheist agenda when speaking about the evils of religion, and giving little (if any) attention to the great good that comes from it.

Anyway, this is why for the most part that i tend to keep away from the religious debates on the board... only occasionally do i put in my 2 cents - I'm not going to be converted in anyway shape or form, no one is going to convince me the existence of god, and i don't intend (or think i could) make someone lose their faith.

Sure and that's equally why I tend to make a defense of my beliefs and leave it at that. I think (at least I hope) nobody is basing their decisions about their personal faith based upon what total strangers are saying on an internet forum.

[CrazyAnglican]

This month's National Geographic has an article about the situation in North Korea. It's well worth a read.

[Neoteny]

I will probably check that out...

[PLAYER57832]

So, your position on the matter is unfalsifiable and hence invalid. Ergo, you lose.

Something unproveable might well be true ... ergo you used false logic .. ergo an instant "you lose".

[Backglass]

So, your position on the matter is unfalsifiable and hence invalid. Ergo, you lose.

Something unproveable might well be true ... ergo you used false logic .. ergo an instant "you lose".

Remember who you are dealing with...Google "Superiority Complex".

[Martin Ronne]

So, your position on the matter is unfalsifiable and hence invalid. Ergo, you lose.

Something unproveable might well be true ... ergo you used false logic .. ergo an instant "you lose".

mmmmmm......... Ergonomics!

[oVo]

People who seek power tend to do so through political not religious channels nowadays.

Unfortunately that is not true. Religion of all kinds have an instant mass audience and support that can't be overlooked. Even George Bush used his Christian knowledge to appeal to conservative voters of both parties during his campaigns for president... and to prop up the idea that as Commander in Chief he "made the right choices" for which he "has no regrets."

"Believers" of all faiths have killed more people in the name of their GOD in this world than for any other reason. Obviously those who have the right faith must think they will get a pass from their God when it comes to that bit concerning the sanctity of life... and not killing others. There is some form of "Thou shall not kill" in the doctrines of all religions... yet murder continues worldwide. This might suggest that there are more atheists on the planet than originally thought, who have managed to infiltrate the various religions to perpetrate the covert agenda of non-believers via hate and death and war.

Killing with religious overtones continues in this century... the World Trade Center, Afganistan, Iraq, Israel, Somalia, Indonesia... on and on... as it has always been. It doesn't matter if it's Christian or Muslim, religious might makes right.

In America there is an overabundance of Christian televangelists preaching intolerance and fear to their audiences while asking for money to continue the fight... for what we all know is right.

Back to that subject line Forced to be atheists... you can't be forced to be an atheist,
but whatever your beliefs may be... that faith can certainly be tested.

[Snorri1234]

People who seek power tend to do so through political not religious channels nowadays.

Unfortunately that is not true. Religion of all kinds have an instant mass audience and support that can't be overlooked. Even George Bush used his Christian knowledge to appeal to conservative voters of both parties during his campaigns for president... and to prop up the idea that as Commander in Chief he "made the right choices" for which he "has no regrets."

"Believers" of all faiths have killed more people in the name of their GOD in this world than for any other reason. Obviously those who have the right faith must think they will get a pass from their God when it comes to that bit concerning the sanctity of life... and not killing others. There is some form of "Thou shall not kill" in the doctrines of all religions... yet murder continues worldwide. This might suggest that there are more atheists on the planet than originally thought, who have managed to infiltrate the various religions to perpetrate the covert agenda of non-believers via hate and death and war.

Killing with religious overtones continues in this century... the World Trade Center, Afganistan, Iraq, Israel, Somalia, Indonesia... on and on... as it has always been. It doesn't matter if it's Christian or Muslim, religious might makes right.

In America there is an overabundance of Christian televangelists preaching intolerance and fear to their audiences while asking for money to continue the fight... for what we all know is right.

Back to that subject line Forced to be atheists... you can't be forced to be an atheist,
but whatever your beliefs may be... that faith can certainly be tested.

All true, but like sometimes like atheists do bad stuff too.

[oVo]

The problem with people is most likely that we're all human or as George Carlin might say,
it helps to remember that we're all fucked.

With George in mind check out his thoughts on The Ten Commandments,
or if you prefer text go here.

Life is all about choices.

[CrazyAnglican]

People who seek power tend to do so through political not religious channels nowadays.

Unfortunately that is not true. Religion of all kinds have an instant mass audience and support that can't be overlooked. Even George Bush used his Christian knowledge to appeal to conservative voters of both parties during his campaigns for president... and to prop up the idea that as Commander in Chief he "made the right choices" for which he "has no regrets."

Can't be overlooked certainly, but as the commander in chief of a secular nation he wielded secular (not religious power) which actually backs up my assertion that people tend to seek power through political channels nowadays. It's a simple fact that George Bush is a politician not a clergyman. He is a politician who used emotional appeal to shore up conservative Christian support (not all Christians are conservative nor did all of them vote for him, btw), and he is a politician who sought, obtained, and weilded power through political means. George Bush was no religious leader, he was a leader who was religious and used religious rhetoric.

"Believers" of all faiths have killed more people in the name of their GOD in this world than for any other reason.

This is actually pretty much false if you look at the numbers. I realize that it's an oft used rhetorical device, but the machinations that one has to go through to make it look true are just too convoluted. Here, take a look for yourself:

1) Only about 7% of a huge sampling of wars throughout history (a sampling of approx 1,700 wars) can be shown to be directly begun by any church or religion, including those which can be shown to have had religious objectives. (If you exclude wars involving Islam "in response to your 9-11 and Afghanistan references" the number drops to about 3.5%) (Day. Vox. The Irrational Atheist. pg 100.) Day cites the following source The Encyclopedia of War for this information.

2) The five bloodiest events of the 20th Century all involved officially atheistic goverments, but no single group (believers or non believers, etc.) can be singled out as any more at fault than any other. (White. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm ) The difference is that I accept that people of all walks of life will find many different reasons to kill one another. Having a religion makes one no more violent than the absence of religion does.

The rhetorical sleight of hand comes into play when one begins to take the "think of all the preists and their sermons" line of reasoning. Oddly enough you shot that down with your idea that murders happen even though religions say 'thou shalt not murder'. If that's the case then how can a religion be responsible for young men going off to war (any moreso than governmental drafts) when many don't listen to even such a basic commandment with the full weight of societal law behind it. On one hand, we have the intimation that religion is ineffectual at curbing murder (entirely impossible to prove beyond the anecdotal level) and on the other we have people marching off to war because "sombody told them it was God's will" (also entirely impossible to prove beyond the anecdotal). The line of reasoning just doesn't make sense as it's impossible to tell why a large group of people do anything. We just cannot speak for large groups like that, and yet it still leaves us with one very important question. That is, If religion is so bad at enforcing even one very clear and concise commandment from scriptures, how could it be effectual in bringing about frequent conflicts in which scripture isn't clear and churches take no official stance?

Killing with religious overtones continues in this century... the World Trade Center, Afganistan, Iraq, Israel, Somalia, Indonesia... on and on... as it has always been. It doesn't matter if it's Christian or Muslim, religious might makes right.

Hmmm. Killing with religious overtones. What are we to make of that? Certainly most people in the world have some form of religion so chances are that a group of people who participate in a war is likely to have some religion. Yet the counter claim is a bit stronger. Killing with anti-religious overtones is just as prevalent and arguably deadlier (in terms of estimated body count) in the past century. Take a look at the website I cited above, the estimate is about 60,000,000 people that perished over the course of the century at the hands of two officially atheistic governments combined. That's certainly nothing to ignore. The combined death tolls of all the conflicts you mentioned don't approach that.

Back to that subject line Forced to be atheists... you can't be forced to be an atheist,
but whatever your beliefs may be... that faith can certainly be tested.

Absolutely, hence the "and still refusing" part.

[Napoleon Ier]

So, your position on the matter is unfalsifiable and hence invalid. Ergo, you lose.

Something unproveable might well be true ... ergo you used false logic .. ergo an instant "you lose".

Remember who you are dealing with...Google "Superiority Complex".

Or, google "falsifiability" and realize you just sounded off on a topic you know nothing about. Again.

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, looking through this thread, I think I can safely say to CA, and without any hint of irony:

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

[Frigidus]

So, your position on the matter is unfalsifiable and hence invalid. Ergo, you lose.

Something unproveable might well be true ... ergo you used false logic .. ergo an instant "you lose".

Remember who you are dealing with...Google "Superiority Complex".

Or, google "falsifiability" and realize you just sounded off on a topic you know nothing about. Again.

Falsifiability has nothing to do with opinions. Even if it did, saying that someone can't convince you just by arguing with you does not make your stance unfalsifiable. So, you know, there was a bit of irony in this one.

[Simon Viavant]

Is anyone disturbed by the fact that, according to the bible, non-christians get the same punishment as those who refuse Juche, and none of the Christians expressing outrage in this thread care about that?

[Napoleon Ier]

Is anyone disturbed by the fact that, according to the bible, non-christians get the same punishment as those who refuse Juche, and none of the Christians expressing outrage in this thread care about that?

Those are Heretical Genevan lies you shouldn't believe.

[Simon Viavant]

Heretical Genevan lies written in the Bible?

[Snorri1234]

So, your position on the matter is unfalsifiable and hence invalid. Ergo, you lose.

Something unproveable might well be true ... ergo you used false logic .. ergo an instant "you lose".

Remember who you are dealing with...Google "Superiority Complex".

Or, google "falsifiability" and realize you just sounded off on a topic you know nothing about. Again.

Falsifiability has nothing to do with opinions. Even if it did, saying that someone can't convince you just by arguing with you does not make your stance unfalsifiable. So, you know, there was a bit of irony in this one.