What people see in religion

[Graeme Dice]

So Stalin is a valid representative of atheism then. Check.

Stalin didn't murder all those people in the name of atheism, so your statement is non-sensical.[/quote]
Are you trying to tell me that he wasn't a "true atheist" then?

[Nick]

Religious bigotry. "Anyone who is a Christian who commits unspeakable atrocities in the name of Christianity isn't a 'true Christian,' because being a Christian means that you must be a moral person with respect to the humanist moral code, even though the Bible makes no such requirement." I heard that spiel in retreats and Theology classes, and it doesn't float. It's the reasoning used by Christians who feel guilty about their religion's ugly past and similarly ugly beliefs in order to make themselves feel better. They concoct their own brand of the religion and call it "True Christianity," while saying that anyone who doesn't follow their brand of Christianity is not a Christian, thus absolving Christianity, as a whole, from any blame for the atrocious actions it has brought forth.

The fact is that the Crusaders and Inquisitors had scriptural basis for their actions. Thus, they did what they did in the name of Scripture or Christianity.

So Stalin is a valid representative of atheism then. Check.

Correct. Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in any God. It says nothing about a person's moral code or lack thereof.

Similarly, profession of the Christian faith (Jesus Christ was the Son of God, yada, yada, yada) says nothing about a person's moral code or lack thereof.

The following logical fallacies are all equally invalid:

Some Christians are moral people, therefore all true Christians are moral people.

Some Christians have reprehensible morals, therefore all Christians are reprehensible.

Some atheists have reprehensible morals, therefore all atheists are reprehensible.

[Smiling Bandit]

If you want to get right down to it, Chirstianity actually has made everything we have possible.

Now that is going too far.

Stalin didn't murder all those people in the name of atheism, so your statement is non-sensical.

That isn't entirely true. While atheism was not his "faith" as you might ironically call it, he most certainly saw atheism as part of his communist paradise and hated religiousness. Communists most definetly did oppress people for their religion. Like wise Nazis in Poland, though they weren't explicitly atheist, and unofficially seemed to encourage Wotan-worship.

Wong noted correctly that I confused science and technology. I point out, however, that scientific principles leading up to the Dark Ages didn't exactly win any awards for accuracy. Science didn't really *exist*. There were some of what we'd call scientists in ancient Greece, at least, but they didn't do very well outside of mathematics. We all know now that their contribution to medicine and biology were... limited, at best.

Lastly, and this is my last post here uless one of you dispenses some truly blitheringly stupid statements again, I poit out that all religion's biggst bane is not fanatics in their own ranks, but political involvement. When politics and religion get mixed up - and they cannot be totally seperated, I think - that is when people cause bad things to happen.

[Meghel]

Lastly, and this is my last post here uless one of you dispenses some truly blitheringly stupid statements again, I poit out that all religion's biggst bane is not fanatics in their own ranks, but political involvement. When politics and religion get mixed up - and they cannot be totally seperated, I think - that is when people cause bad things to happen.

Could not agree with you more.

Thank the Lord for the Seperation (in most countries) of State and Religion.
For Politics should have no direct involvement in Religion and Religion should not have direct involvement with Politics.

Of course, Political parties based on a religion are allowed, as long as they draw the line between the seperation of Church and State.

[Wicked Pilot]

Thank the Lord for the Seperation (in most countries) of State and Religion.
For Politics should have no direct involvement in Religion and Religion should not have direct involvement with Politics.

Amen to that brother! Now let's close this thread and go home.

[His Divine Shadow]

Are you trying to tell me that he wasn't a "true atheist" then?

Oh he was but that argument is so hollow anyone can see through it.
There is no atheist book that says "go forth and kill the believers".

Unlike what Durandal was poiting out for the Crusaders.

[Durandal]

Are you trying to tell me that he wasn't a "true atheist" then?

Red herring. In order for atheist beliefs to be responsible for Stalin's atrocities, those beliefs must have encouraged him to do so. Since there's no direct path between atheist and mass-murderer, your argument is completely invalid, because simple atheism in and of itself carries no moral code of conduct. Contrast with the Crusaders, whose actions were a direct result of their Christian beliefs.

[Falcon]

He specifically stated "the Church." That means the Catholic Church.

To be Christian means that you believe in Christ as God's son, the Second Coming and all that jazz. Anyone who meets meets those criteria is a Christian.

Not all Christians are the same, or agree with the same things. Catholics are only one segment of the Christian population, not representative of other groups.

Religious bigotry. "Anyone who is a Christian who commits unspeakable atrocities in the name of Christianity isn't a 'true Christian,' because being a Christian means that you must be a moral person with respect to the humanist moral code, even though the Bible makes no such requirement." I heard that spiel in retreats and Theology classes, and it doesn't float. It's the reasoning used by Christians who feel guilty about their religion's ugly past and similarly ugly beliefs in order to make themselves feel better. They concoct their own brand of the religion and call it "True Christianity," while saying that anyone who doesn't follow their brand of Christianity is not a Christian, thus absolving Christianity, as a whole, from any blame for the atrocious actions it has brought forth.

What about the Christian groups that don't\didn't commit atrocities? They are being unfairly maligned by this lumping action. Its like saying all Germans were Nazis during WW2, or all Russians were Soviets. They shared somethings in common, but not necessairly the ideas of their better know radical counterparts.

No, many of the founders were extremely distasteful toward Christianity. I'd suggest taking a look at www.positiveatheism.com's list of quotes. Look under any of the founding fathers, and you'll find a quote dealing with their disdain for Christianity, especially Ben Franklin.

Many of the founders were also religious, and the vast majority of the American people were religious.

You're equating a dislike of the belief for the dislike of the people. I'm an atheist, and I think that Christianity is one of the most destructive, miserable beliefs in existence, but most of my friends are Christians.

You can't dislike what someone believes without disliking that person. Someones beliefs (religious or otherwise) are what defines the person.

Strawman. No one claimed that they hated Christianity, just that they did not practice it, and that they just didn't like it all that much.

'Didn't like it that much'

Great way to mince words.

[Durandal]

Correct. Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in any God. It says nothing about a person's moral code or lack thereof.

Correct.

Similarly, profession of the Christian faith (Jesus Christ was the Son of God, yada, yada, yada) says nothing about a person's moral code or lack thereof.

Incorrect. Christianity requires certain moral precepts, like abstinence from premarital sex and not watching pornography. Christianity, as a religion, comes with a moral code. What that moral code is differs from denomination to denomination, but there are core values which all of them hold to be true. The biggest is that God is infallible.

The following logical fallacies are all equally invalid:

Some Christians are moral people, therefore all true Christians are moral people.

Some Christians have reprehensible morals, therefore all Christians are reprehensible.

Some atheists have reprehensible morals, therefore all atheists are reprehensible.

Red herring. No one is targeting every Christian to ever walk the Earth. The Crusaders had valid scriptural basis for their actions, so their Christian beliefs encouraged those actions. Thus, Christianity, as a belief system, is responsible.

Not all Christians are the same, or agree with the same things. Catholics are only one segment of the Christian population, not representative of other groups.

Yes, some Christians have accepted secular values into their moral system, because Christianity alone does not have a problem with slavery, racism, sexism or religious bigotry.

What about the Christian groups that don't\didn't commit atrocities? They are being unfairly maligned by this lumping action. Its like saying all Germans were Nazis during WW2, or all Russians were Soviets. They shared somethings in common, but not necessairly the ideas of their better know radical counterparts.

I'm not targeting all Christians, just the religion itself, which has been responsible for millions of deaths. Christian scripture on its own admonishes secular values and puts obedience to God above the lives of fellow humans. Christianity, as a belief system, has led to a whole lot of misery and suffering. Christians who don't accept this are just in denial. The Crusaders were just following what was in Scripture, and how can you get more Christian than following what's in the "Good Book"?

You can't dislike what someone believes without disliking that person. Someones beliefs (religious or otherwise) are what defines the person.

Bullshit. I like plenty of Christians just fine, even though I find the belief in Hell reprehensible, and the belief that all of humanity was created for the sole purpose of one being's aggrandizement depressing. However, in spite of these beliefs, plenty of people are just nice people overall, and I like them.

[Falcon]

Yes, some Christians have accepted secular values into their moral system, because Christianity alone does not have a problem with slavery, racism, sexism or religious bigotry.

Wrong, I know of Christians who do not condon slavery, racism, or sexism (except in the chruch).

I'm not targeting all Christians, just the religion itself, which has been responsible for millions of deaths. Christian scripture on its own admonishes secular values and puts obedience to God above the lives of fellow humans. Christianity, as a belief system, has led to a whole lot of misery and suffering. Christians who don't accept this are just in denial. The Crusaders were just following what was in Scripture, and how can you get more Christian than following what's in the "Good Book"?

The religion wasn't responsible for the deaths, it was the people who used the religion to justify their actions. There are many different interpertations of the Bible, and to say that one, possibly flawed, interpretation sours the entire religion isn't fair. There are many Christians that believe all killing is wrong, and that obedience to God is loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, etc... There are cases of Christians advocating against the death penality when their own children or spouses were murdered, just because they don't believe in any killing for any reason. You can't lump every action and every faction together.

Bullshit. I like plenty of Christians just fine, even though I find the belief in Hell reprehensible, and the belief that all of humanity was created for the sole purpose of one being's aggrandizement depressing. However, in spite of these beliefs, plenty of people are just nice people overall, and I like them.

You like them, but dislike the beliefs that make them who they are. I find that contradicting, don't you?

[His Divine Shadow]

Wrong, I know of Christians who do not condon slavery, racism, or sexism (except in the chruch)

You are not following the twists and turns here, he's not talking about believers here, he's talking about the system, hence your efforts to show that Christian people are not like that are irrelevant.

You like them, but dislike the beliefs that make them who they are. I find that contradicting, don't you?

I don't think you can support that assumption, you assume their belief is what makes them who they are, it is not, most moral values of today are based on "secular humanism" or whatever it is called, most churces also adopted that moral code and integrated into their own, but anyway back to reality, there are not many people who are defined by their faith anymore than the basic good/bad separation.

[Antediluvian]

So Stalin is a valid representative of atheism then. Check.

Stalin didn't murder all those people in the name of atheism, so your statement is non-sensical.

Are you trying to tell me that he wasn't a "true atheist" then?[/quote]

No, I'm telling you exactly what I said. The post you responded to was saying that Christians were commiting those atrocities in the DA in the name of Christianity, and your response indicated that you though Stalin commited atrocities in the name of atheism, hence your comment.

I was pointing out that this is untrue, and Stalin simply did those things because he was an evil man, not because he was an athiest.

If he did it in the name of anything, it was Communism.

[Antediluvian]

(That isn't entirely true. While atheism was not his "faith" as you might ironically call it, he most certainly saw atheism as part of his communist paradise and hated religiousness. Communists most definetly did oppress people for their religion. Like wise Nazis in Poland, though they weren't explicitly atheist, and unofficially seemed to encourage Wotan-worship.)

Of course they did. But Stalin didn't murder all those people because of atheism. Atheism doesn't condone murder, or oppressing people for their religion. Communists like Stalin simply went too far.

What they did was in the name of Communism, nothing else.


Stalin was simply a very evil man.

[Graeme Dice]

Are you trying to tell me that he wasn't a "true atheist" then?

Red herring. In order for atheist beliefs to be responsible for Stalin's atrocities, those beliefs must have encouraged him to do so. Since there's no direct path between atheist and mass-murderer, your argument is completely invalid, because simple atheism in and of itself carries no moral code of conduct. Contrast with the Crusaders, whose actions were a direct result of their Christian beliefs.

Strawman. I never claimed that Stalin'sm atheist beliefs were responsible for his atrocities.

[Graeme Dice]

Similarly, profession of the Christian faith (Jesus Christ was the Son of God, yada, yada, yada) says nothing about a person's moral code or lack thereof.

Incorrect. Christianity requires certain moral precepts, like abstinence from premarital sex and not watching pornography.

Would you care to point out where watching pornography is outlawed in the Bible, and not just by your Catholic upbringing. I'mm not arguing this point, just curious where it comes from.

[Graeme Dice]

So Stalin is a valid representative of atheism then. Check.

Stalin didn't murder all those people in the name of atheism, so your statement is non-sensical.

Are you trying to tell me that he wasn't a "true atheist" then?

No, I'm telling you exactly what I said. The post you responded to was saying that Christians were commiting those atrocities in the DA in the name of Christianity, and your response indicated that you though Stalin commited atrocities in the name of atheism, hence your comment.[/quote]

I stated no such thing. I simply asked if you were denying that Stalin was an atheist.

I was pointing out that this is untrue, and Stalin simply did those things because he was an evil man, not because he was an athiest.

So Hitler did evil things because he was Christian, and Stalin did evil things because he was Stalin?

[Durandal]

Strawman. I never claimed that Stalin'sm atheist beliefs were responsible for his atrocities.

So Stalin is a valid representative of atheism then. Check.

You attempted to turn my reasoning around and use it to prove that atheism was responsible for Stalin's atrocities. However, you failed to account for one, glaring detail: There's nothing in atheism that told Stalin to do any of those things or justified them in any way. There are things in the Bible and Christianity which told the Crusaders to do what they did. Big difference.

Would you care to point out where watching pornography is outlawed in the Bible, and not just by your Catholic upbringing. I'mm not arguing this point, just curious where it comes from.

One of the quotes is from Deuteronomy 22:13-21:

If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her {14} and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," {15} then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. {16} The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. {17} Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, {18} and the elders shall take the man and punish him. {19} They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. {20} If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, {21} she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

This only applies to women, but this day in age, the denominations have seen fit to hold the same restrictions on men, as well. Being a virgin when you're married is highly desirable, and if you are found not to be a virgin when you're married, you get stoned to death. Obviously, this is not a desirable thing.

Here's another from 1 Corinthians 7:25-40.

Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgement as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. {26} Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. {27} Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. {28} But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. {29} What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; {30} those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; {31} those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away. {32} I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs--how he can please the Lord. {33} But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world--how he can please his wife-- {34} and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world--how she can please her husband. {35} I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. {36} If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. {37} But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin--this man also does the right thing. {38} So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better. {39} A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. {40} In my judgement, she is happier if she stays as she is--and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

So Hitler did evil things because he was Christian, and Stalin did evil things because he was Stalin?

Precisely. This isn't about labeling or bias. It's about facts. The fact is that Hitler bought into Christian beliefs and the writings of famous Christians (Martin Luther), and those beliefs fueled him to kill Jews and Gypsies.

In all fairness, however, it could be argued that Stalin's actions could have stemmed from his communist-atheist beliefs, but that does not extend to humanist-atheists or objective-atheists. Atheism itself has no moral code; it only requires a disbelief in god. There's no way it could be responsible for any actions, good or bad.

[Graeme Dice]

Strawman. I never claimed that Stalin'sm atheist beliefs were responsible for his atrocities.

So Stalin is a valid representative of atheism then. Check.

You attempted to turn my reasoning around and use it to prove that atheism was responsible for Stalin's atrocities.

No, I did not. I threw out a comment that Stalin was an atheist and got the reaction that I expected.

Would you care to point out where watching pornography is outlawed in the Bible, and not just by your Catholic upbringing. I'mm not arguing this point, just curious where it comes from.

One of the quotes is from Deuteronomy 22:13-21:

Thanks.

So Hitler did evil things because he was Christian, and Stalin did evil things because he was Stalin?

Precisely. This isn't about labeling or bias. It's about facts. The fact is that Hitler bought into Christian beliefs and the writings of famous Christians (Martin Luther), and those beliefs fueled him to kill Jews and Gypsies. [/quote]
Are you claiming that Hitler was not an evil person then, and his actions can be entirely blamed on Christianity?

In all fairness, however, it could be argued that Stalin's actions could have stemmed from his communist-atheist beliefs, but that does not extend to humanist-atheists or objective-atheists. Atheism itself has no moral code; it only requires a disbelief in god. There's no way it could be responsible for any actions, good or bad.

I never claimed there was.[/quote]

[Antediluvian]

Stalin didn't murder all those people in the name of atheism, so your statement is non-sensical.

Are you trying to tell me that he wasn't a "true atheist" then?

No, I'm telling you exactly what I said. The post you responded to was saying that Christians were commiting those atrocities in the DA in the name of Christianity, and your response indicated that you though Stalin commited atrocities in the name of atheism, hence your comment.

I stated no such thing. I simply asked if you were denying that Stalin was an atheist.

I was pointing out that this is untrue, and Stalin simply did those things because he was an evil man, not because he was an athiest.

So Hitler did evil things because he was Christian, and Stalin did evil things because he was Stalin?[/quote]

Hitler did evil things because he was an evil man, not simply because he was Christian. However, he did use the Bible to justify his actions, just like the Inquisitors and Crusaders of medieval times.

As for Stalin, you got it.

Stated: You implied it, however.

By the way, who's screwing around with the posts?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Antediluvian:
So Stalin is a valid representative of atheism then. Check.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't post that. Why did it say I did?

Tech problem or what?

[Falcon]

stuff

You clearly know little about Christianity. The rules in the old testiment that were set forth for the Jews has been fulfilled. If you want to understand what I feel is true Christianity you need to focus study on the parts that dealt with Jesus and beyond. That is when the stonings, sacrifices, etc.. were done away with. Thats also the gauge I use to determine if a proclaimed Christian is really a practicer or just a preacher. Of course, others may want to use different standards and reasoning, its not really something that is agreed upon by everyone.

[Graeme Dice]

I didn't post that. Why did it say I did?

Tech problem or what?

Problem on my end with not matching the quote,/quote markers properly.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

stuff

You clearly know little about Christianity. The rules in the old testiment that were set forth for the Jews has been fulfilled. If you want to understand what I feel is true Christianity you need to focus study on the parts that dealt with Jesus and beyond. That is when the stonings, sacrifices, etc.. were done away with. Thats also the gauge I use to determine if a proclaimed Christian is really a practicer or just a preacher. Of course, others may want to use different standards and reasoning, its not really something that is agreed upon by everyone.

Didn't Jesus say that all OT laws must be held for all time?

[Durandal]

Wrong, I know of Christians who do not condon slavery, racism, or sexism (except in the chruch).

Irrelevant. The Bible allows for slavery, and encourages racism and sexism, even in the New Testament. Therefore, Christianity can be used as an excuse for enslavement, racism and sexism. And, coincidentally, <shock!> it was.

The religion wasn't responsible for the deaths, it was the people who used the religion to justify their actions.

The fact that the religion can be used in that way makes it responsible. The Bible explicitly states that slavery is acceptable to God.

When a security hole in Windows is discovered and made public, do people sit back and say, "Well, it's not Windows' fault. It's the hackers' fault"? No! Windows can be exploited for malicious purposes, so Windows is at fault, and Windows needs to be fixed.

Christianity can be exploited for malicious purposes, so Christianity is at fault, and Christianity needs to be fixed. This means changing certain parts of the source code, the Bible, to make sure that Christianity can't be used to condone such actions again.

Unfortunately, since the Bible is allegedly the word of God, it can't be changed.

There are many different interpertations of the Bible, and to say that one, possibly flawed, interpretation sours the entire religion isn't fair.

You can't interpret your way out of "You are allowed to take slaves from any non-Israelite country" or "Kill the unbeliever." Under no context are these actions acceptable.

There are many Christians that believe all killing is wrong, and that obedience to God is loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, etc...

Unfortunately, the Bible doesn't back up their assertion that all killing is wrong. Their brand of Christianity has secular influence, and the modifications they make have no scriptural basis.

There are cases of Christians advocating against the death penality when their own children or spouses were murdered, just because they don't believe in any killing for any reason. You can't lump every action and every faction together.

Red herring. No one is lumping anything. The Bible advocates mass-slaughter in the name of God and slavery. Christianity holds as a tenet that the Bible is the word of God, so Christianity is inherently susceptible to use as a justification for the actions which its holy book promotes. Therefore, the religion is flawed.

You like them, but dislike the beliefs that make them who they are. I find that contradicting, don't you?

No, because I don't judge people based on their beliefs. Their beliefs are their own. In your bigoted "To be Christian is to be moral" mindset, such absurdities as beliefs being 100% defining of a person may be reasonable. But, for those of us who realize that there are other aspects to human beings aside from their religious preferences, it's not. What matters is how they treat other people.

You clearly know little about Christianity.

I obviously know more about it than you. Anyone who knows anything about the history of the religion knows that the Crusaders were justified in their actions by the Bible and the beliefs it purports. Have you ever read the Bible?

The rules in the old testiment that were set forth for the Jews has been fulfilled.

So, God, who is perfect in judgment and knowledge and justice ... changed his mind? He went from "Make me mad and I'll kill you, your family, your descendants, and whoever else I want" to "I'm unconditionally loving and infinitely forgiving"? From "Destroy any other religions you encounter" to "Turn the other cheek"? Do you have any idea how absurd that idea is?

Furthermore, if the old laws were "fulfilled," then why do Christians still quote the Ten Commandments?

If you want to understand what I feel is true Christianity you need to focus study on the parts that dealt with Jesus and beyond.

In other words, only the parts that you're comfortable with. You do realize that even the New Testament encourages slaves to obey their masters, and tells the slaves of Christian masters to work extra-hard, don't you?

That is when the stonings, sacrifices, etc.. were done away with.

So, a perfect God reversed his old decrees?

Thats also the gauge I use to determine if a proclaimed Christian is really a practicer or just a preacher.

So, you judge based on the bigoted assertion that being a "true Christian" means that one has to respect human rights, even though there is not one passage in the entire Bible which supports that idea, and hundreds which contradict it?

Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's ideas of Christianity are all supported by Scripture, which makes their version of Christianity more valid than yours. Seriously, do you think that the Crusaders, Inquisitors and slavemasters just pulled those beliefs out of their asses? No! They were all in the Bible!

[Graeme Dice]

So, you judge based on the bigoted assertion that being a "true Christian" means that one has to respect human rights, even though there is not one passage in the entire Bible which supports that idea, and hundreds which contradict it?

Love thy neighbour as thyself.

Now, if that's not support for human rights, what is it?

[John]

Hope for the future. What else can it be, but that their immortal souls will somehow find their way to heaven? The question is, what harm is there in believing such a thing?