This argument doesn't work because atheist despots like Stalin or Hitler (the two oft used examples--though there's mixed evidence as to whether Hitler was atheist) don't commit atrocities in the name of atheism. Stalin, for example, didn't starve millions to death via forced collectivization out of some imperative motivated by a lack of belief in God. Hitler didn't kill millions of Jews because his atheist principles required it. Pol Pot didn't commit near genocide because this followed by his lack of belief in God. Hitler did what he did due to a rigid, dogmatic political/social ideology that had nothing to do with being atheist (if he were).
They were motivated by other dogmatic or selfish beliefs--that they were atheist is somewhat coincidental and beside the point. The broader problem is dogmatic belief, whether that is religious or political (or some other form). This boy didn't die due to a belief in God but due to belief in a dogmatic religious system. In contrast, the inquisition was directly motivated by dogmatic religious belief, as were the terrorist attacks on 9-11, etc. Yours, and Jason's, arguments are widely off the mark.
No yours is off the point because I did not say they did it because they were atheists nor has Dart. We propose that these atheists did not have the restraints that religion provides thus it is likely they would not have done what they did had they had such restraints. Oh, and for Stalin, his political view was officially atheistic and anti religion, so perhaps in his case there was more of a direct cause. Their atheism is not coincidental because it makes them what they were to a large extent.
Jason Bourne wrote:Wow what a rabbit trail. Can you demonstrate mass killings similar to Stalin by any religious group that adheres to these ideas? The fact is, there have been despots that were not restrained by religious beliefs that killed millions. Can you demonstrate a similar religious person that did such things? One comparable to Staling will do. Not even Islamic terrorists come close. Though I will grant that given the chance they might.
"Millions" of dead is dependent upon population levels and killing technology and not a function of intent. I think there are many that killed proportionately as many or more under the banner of heaven. Here are a few:
Oliver Cromwell
Alexander
Caesar
Xerxes
William the Conqueror
Edward III
The Jewish genocides of Amalekites and Midianites
Cortez
etc.
The story linked about is about a 14-year old boy who just died after refusing a blood transfusion because it would make him unclean and unworthy. He's a Jehovah's Witness. Apparently his birth parents weren't currently his legal guardians, and they wanted him to have the transfusions. The article doesn't explicitly say so, but I suspect that his aunt, a devout Jehovah's Witness, was the legal guardian at the time. Maybe if someone sees a reference to this somewhere else it will say just how that worked.
Anyhow, the state tried to get a ruling from a judge that the boy should have the transfusions against his wishes, but the judge denied the state's attempt, ruling that the boy was mature and competent enough to know what he was doing.
Well he's dead now. Congratulations, all those who advocate faith in Bronze Age goatherder mythology and morality. It's the advocacy of such superstition and belief which allows the more "out there" forms of it to have their toll. This kid was taught by a bunch of adults who believed in absurd superstition that the health choice that could save his life would make him unworthy in God's eyes, and this kid is dead now from following their advice.
Well, thankfully Jehovah will restore him from backup after Armageddon and he can inherit an acre or two in Paradise on Earth. Bully for him.
This is one of the reason why science is dangerous.
This argument doesn't work because atheist despots like Stalin or Hitler (the two oft used examples--though there's mixed evidence as to whether Hitler was atheist) don't commit atrocities in the name of atheism. Stalin, for example, didn't starve millions to death via forced collectivization out of some imperative motivated by a lack of belief in God. Hitler didn't kill millions of Jews because his atheist principles required it. Pol Pot didn't commit near genocide because this followed by his lack of belief in God. Hitler did what he did due to a rigid, dogmatic political/social ideology that had nothing to do with being atheist (if he were).
They were motivated by other dogmatic or selfish beliefs--that they were atheist is somewhat coincidental and beside the point. The broader problem is dogmatic belief, whether that is religious or political (or some other form). This boy didn't die due to a belief in God but due to belief in a dogmatic religious system. In contrast, the inquisition was directly motivated by dogmatic religious belief, as were the terrorist attacks on 9-11, etc. Yours, and Jason's, arguments are widely off the mark.
No yours is off the point because I did not say they did it because they were atheists nor has Dart. We propose that these atheists did not have the restraints that religion provides thus it is likely they would not have done what they did had they had such restraints. Oh, and for Stalin, his political view was officially atheistic and anti religion, so perhaps in his case there was more of a direct cause. Their atheism is not coincidental because it makes them what they were to a large extent.
I like you Jason, but this is pure b***s***.
Religion provides a restraint to bad behavior--oh, now that's a rich one. Good thing Torquemada was religious, or who knows what he'd have done?
How many millions of data points do you require to demonstrate that you're wrong?
On the flip side, you can offer NO evidence that Stalin, or any other atheistic despot, did anything due to a lack of belief in God. You can only offer non-sequitor supposition.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
The story linked about is about a 14-year old boy who just died after refusing a blood transfusion because it would make him unclean and unworthy. He's a Jehovah's Witness. Apparently his birth parents weren't currently his legal guardians, and they wanted him to have the transfusions. The article doesn't explicitly say so, but I suspect that his aunt, a devout Jehovah's Witness, was the legal guardian at the time. Maybe if someone sees a reference to this somewhere else it will say just how that worked.
Anyhow, the state tried to get a ruling from a judge that the boy should have the transfusions against his wishes, but the judge denied the state's attempt, ruling that the boy was mature and competent enough to know what he was doing.
Well he's dead now. Congratulations, all those who advocate faith in Bronze Age goatherder mythology and morality. It's the advocacy of such superstition and belief which allows the more "out there" forms of it to have their toll. This kid was taught by a bunch of adults who believed in absurd superstition that the health choice that could save his life would make him unworthy in God's eyes, and this kid is dead now from following their advice.
Well, thankfully Jehovah will restore him from backup after Armageddon and he can inherit an acre or two in Paradise on Earth. Bully for him.
This is one of the reason why science is dangerous.
Yep, science is dangerous all right. Best do away with it.
How can you dispute such iron clad argument?
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
John Larsen wrote:"Millions" of dead is dependent upon population levels and killing technology and not a function of intent. I think there are many that killed proportionately as many or more under the banner of heaven. Here are a few:
Oliver Cromwell Alexander Caesar Xerxes William the Conqueror Edward III The Jewish genocides of Amalekites and Midianites Cortez etc.
John
I made this point earlier but Jason ignored it and dartagnan called it absurd. Go figure.
Edited to bold.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jason Bourne wrote:Wow what a rabbit trail. Can you demonstrate mass killings similar to Stalin by any religious group that adheres to these ideas? The fact is, there have been despots that were not restrained by religious beliefs that killed millions. Can you demonstrate a similar religious person that did such things? One comparable to Staling will do. Not even Islamic terrorists come close. Though I will grant that given the chance they might.
"Millions" of dead is dependent upon population levels and killing technology and not a function of intent. I think there are many that killed proportionately as many or more under the banner of heaven. Here are a few:
Oliver Cromwell Alexander Caesar Xerxes William the Conqueror Edward III The Jewish genocides of Amalekites and Midianites Cortez etc.
John
Wow my great-great (a few more greats) granddad made the list. Good for him.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
guy sajer wrote:Yep, science is dangerous all right. Best do away with it.
How can you dispute such iron clad argument?
You obviously didn't see the humourous irony I intended. Are exmos really this dimwitted?
Well, if I missed it, it was because, given lots of data points, the evidence suggested that you weren't capable of humorous irony. An easy mistake to make, ex-Mo or no.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
guy sajer wrote:Well, if I missed it, it was because, given lots of data points, the evidence suggested that you weren't capable of humorous irony. An easy mistake to make, ex-Mo or no.
