1 edit
Originally posted by humyYes I had already acknowledged your qualification by writing "What would be reasonable of course is to refute an assertion that theist have not been violent."
Arr yes, but I am not the one claiming/implying that the evidence simplistically DOES clearly show a simple direct causal link between theism and crime.
My argument is with those that not only do claim this but claim/imply that atheism causes crime while theism prevents crime.
By response to that will always be [b]IF the evidence DOES clearly show a simp ...[text shortened]... S clearly show a simple direct causal link.
I hope I have made my cautious position clear here.[/b]
In setting out statistical correlations between theism and violence, there is no particular reason to make reference to atheism and violence since that is not what you are commenting on, so the heated cries to this effect miss their mark and talk at cross purposes. Certainly, attempts to argue that atheists or materialists are inherently violent and anti-human rely on specious reasoning.
What is violent is the use of power to try and destroy religious adherence, but I see little distinction between the way communists have persecuted people with religious faith and the way, for example, Christians have persecuted people with different religious faiths. Maybe the height of absurdity was reached in the martyrdom of the protestant Bishop Cranmer for rejecting transubstantiation, which would be sad had he not sent so many people to the same stake for endorsing transubstantiation. Even Cranmer himself acknowledged that very few people even understood the argument but that did not prevent strong adherence to either camp, up to and including the acceptance of martyrdom.
At some point opinionated people on this forum would do well to recognise that people with violent aims will never have much difficulty in perverting any source, secular or religious, to their ends. [It would be useful if debaters could appreciate that so called Social Darwinism is not even similar to Darwinism. People have been breeding better dogs, cattle, horses and poultry since the dawn of civilisation if not before then. English lords in Scotland exercised their so called Droit du seigneur in the hope of impregnating the Scots with good English blood to help end what they perceived as their inherent defects. Wiklpiedia tracks this practice back to references in Herodotus.]
For example, it suits many people to insist that Islam is inherently violent and also inherently oppressive to women. After all, violent and oppressive groups rely heavily on appeals to Islam for their vile schemes. This rather discounts the overwhelming desire among Muslims in many lands for a more enlightened interpretation of their faith and it discounts the historical record, in which an enlightened pursuit of Science and secular philosophy as well as a record of tolerance and respect towards other religions features very strongly and in striking contrast to the Christian historical record. It all depends on which slice of history and social geography you wish to draw on to support your preconceived opinions. [Remember I write this as an atheist - not among the people tolerated in the Qu'ran since Islam was established in opposition to paganism, not in opposition to Christians, Jews or even Zoroastrians]
It is fascinating to appreciate the survival of the Jewish faith within Spain and Portugal despite the Inquisition's best efforts, or the survival of Orthodox Christianity in Russia despite Stalin's efforts. Whether The Inquisition or Stalin actually were the more systematic and violent is not easy to resolve - maybe the Inquisition achieved more. All the evidence is that, the more religious groups feel themselves to be under threat, the more stringently they adhere to the strict requirements of their respective faiths.
As we have seen - most notably in St Augustine of Hippo -, when Reason and Faith come into conflict, then Reason is jettisoned. It was no accident that the last great philosopher in Alexandria, Hypatia, was beaten and flayed by a Christian mob. The track record suggests that when it comes to tolerance, Atheism has no apologies to make to those of Faith. But the argument against violence and intolerance has always been a secular one and never religious (apart from Islam - sorry guys!). In the Renaissance, it was Humanism that emerged as the champion of individual freedon and respect for the common humanity of all. This did not entail any necessary rejection of religious faith. For example, the writings of Montaigne set out a whole system of tolerant humanism based on the Grek and Roman philosophers (who had of course been destroyed by the Church) but Montaigne maintained a very solid adherence to his Catholic fiath. He just did not find it relevant to his ethics [perhaps because, on investigation, the Bible has not got a lot to say that is of much help, but that's my opinion shared by many others including Christian theologians].
Originally posted by FMFYes. You might find Karen Armstrong's biography of Mohammed an acceptable and painless introduction since she has no axe to grind against Christianity.
If your interest is genuine, robbie, why not research it, or engage some Muslims in dialogue?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad:_A_Biography_of_the_Prophet
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yawn! it not only exists i have proven it by your failure to mention any of the atrocities
committed in attempts to establish atheistic states and instead you have attempted to distort the
reality of the mater and/or ignore the data, continuing to point out exclusively atrocities
committed by alleged theists. Why have you ignored those committ ...[text shortened]... ties have been committed by both theists and atheists, but noooo, your bias
would not let you.
it not only exists i have proven it by your failure to mention any of the atrocities
committed in attempts to establish atheistic states
did I say/imply in any way that an atheist is INCAPABLE of atrocities and NEVER commit atrocities? -Answer, no.
So what has this got to do with any “bias”? -answer, nothing.
The rest of your post is irrelevant because of this.
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how do i know it, i like to read, i read it somewhere and I am uninterested in futile
arguments over semantics and even less in unsubstantiated opinions. Can you make
your texts smaller I have a real attention deficiency. Perhaps you had better read this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
how do i know it, i like to read,
so PLEASE show us what you read from a valid source and highlight EXACTLY were it says/logically implies “Hitler was FAR MORE influenced by atheistic philosophers like Nietzsche and materialistic philosophies like Social Darwinism than he was by any kind of pretence of religious piety, “ (my emphasis) while taking full account of such facts that he referred to “God” several times in his writings and he and most Nazis were theists.
Perhaps you had better read this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
why? What has this got to do with biological Darwinism ( which is NOT social Darwinism ) or atheism ( if that is what you want to imply ) ? Social Darwinism was an unscientific and mainly if not totally a THEIST doctrine invented by theists as stupid and delusional as you are.
Biological Darwinism does not in any way logically imply social Darwinism for biological Darwinism is evidence/reason based while social Darwinism isn't.
No rational atheist has ever believed in nor will ever believe in social Darwinism.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI guess I am ignorant here but what is 'on street grooming'?
"There is an over-representation [of Asian men] amongst recent convictions in the
crime of on-street grooming [and] there should be no silence [b]in addressing the
issue of race as this is central to the actions of these criminals," he said.
"They think that white teenage girls are worthless and can be abused without a
second thought; it ...[text shortened]... it or has any thoughts i would appreciate it for the
matter has plagued me for some time.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Indeed here is a Nazi propaganda video, detailing Darwinian ideas suggesting a
program of sterilisation and/or euthanasia,
‘All weak living things will inevitably perish in nature. In the last few decades, mankind
has transgressed frightfully against the law of natural selection. We haven’t just maintained
life unworthy of life, we have eve ...[text shortened]... its clear to see how such thoroughly lofty
principles transcend this materialistic philosophy.
Indeed here is a Nazi propaganda video, detailing Darwinian ideas suggesting a
program of sterilisation and/or euthanasia,
‘All weak living things will inevitably perish in nature. In the last few decades, mankind
has transgressed frightfully against the law of natural selection. We haven’t just maintained
life unworthy of life, we have even allowed it to multiply! The descendants of these sick
people look … like this person here!’
&skipcontrinter=1
the Nazi propaganda video tells lies if they say Darwin said or believed this. This was NEVER “ Darwinian ideas”.
The rest of your post is irrelevant because of this.
Shame on you to propagate Nazi propaganda! -you are evil.
It was not rational people like Darwin but delusional THEISTS similar to yourself that were responsible for mass murder.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt would be useful if debaters could appreciate that so called Social Darwinism is not even similar to Darwinism. People have been breeding better dogs, cattle, horses and poultry since the dawn of civilisation if not before then. English lords in Scotland exercised their so called Droit du seigneur in the hope of impregnating the Scots with good English blood to help end what they perceived as their inherent defects. Wiklpiedia tracks this practice back to references in Herodotus.
Indeed here is a Nazi propaganda video, detailing Darwinian ideas suggesting a
program of sterilisation and/or euthanasia,
‘All weak living things will inevitably perish in nature. In the last few decades, mankind
has transgressed frightfully against the law of natural selection. We haven’t just maintained
life unworthy of life, we have eve ...[text shortened]... its clear to see how such thoroughly lofty
principles transcend this materialistic philosophy.
6 edits
Originally posted by humyTHEISTS similar to yourself that were responsible for mass murder - Humy
[quote] Indeed here is a Nazi propaganda video, detailing Darwinian ideas suggesting a
program of sterilisation and/or euthanasia,
‘All weak living things will inevitably perish in nature. In the last few decades, mankind
has transgressed frightfully against the law of natural selection. We haven’t just maintained
life unworthy of life, we have even a ...[text shortened]... ople like Darwin but delusion THEISTS similar to yourself that were responsible for mass murder.
LOL, its a rather interesting statement considering i gave up fishing because i could not
stand to inflict pain on a single worm nor put a barbed hook into a fishes mouth and yet
i am guilty, one can only assume through association, with professing the same beliefs
as mass murders and then you talk of delusion,
funniest post ive read for ages, having to wade through the rest of the drivel was a
small price to pay for such top notch entertainment. I am going to look out Talking
Heads 77 and blast out psycho killer in honour of this post.
Cant seem to face up to the facts. . . .LOL
2 edits
Originally posted by finneganI dont think its as tenuous a link Finn as you are making out, we are talking of
It would be useful if debaters could appreciate that so called Social Darwinism is not even similar to Darwinism. People have been breeding better dogs, cattle, horses and poultry since the dawn of civilisation if not before then. English lords in Scotland exercised their so called Droit du seigneur in the hope of impregnating the Scots with good English bl ...[text shortened]... ived as their inherent defects. Wiklpiedia tracks this practice back to references in Herodotus.
principles and their application, clearly there are similarities with Darwinism and
Applied Darwinism or Social Darwinism, depending on what you wish to term it and its a
far broader and more subversive teaching than is immediately apparent, ranging from
economics to criminality to sexuality.
Originally posted by humyYou have trouble comprehending any point. 😏clearly you dont know anything, please take a look at the demographics of the
worlds worst atrocities
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm
Don't know what point you are trying to make here with that link. Have you actually looked at that link?
It clearly lists atrocities that are known to be mainly caused by theists and NOT, in ...[text shortened]... likely to commit atrocities as shown by my previous links I just gave so stop being dishonest.
Originally posted by humySatan the Devil was Hitler's god so that makes him a theist or an atheist. 😏
So? So what? How does that contradict the statistical facts I have just shown?
Theists are still responsible for most of the crimes, murders etc.
Do you deny these statistical facts?
Do you deny that Hitler was a theist?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe link may not be tenuous but the direction of causality requires sorting out and you need to clarify your targets more accurately. As I wrote above (and if you keep repeating your stuff why not me?)
I dont think its as tenuous a link Finn as you are making out, we are talking of
principles and their application, clearly there are similarities with Darwinism and
Applied Darwinism or Social Darwinism, depending on what you wish to term it and its a
far broader and more subversive teaching than is immediately apparent, ranging from
economics to criminality to sexuality.
At some point opinionated people on this forum would do well to recognise that people with violent aims will never have much difficulty in perverting any source, secular or religious, to their ends.