1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52614
    19 Aug '05 11:53
    This is the most terse statement I can come up with regarding the
    insane following of religions, especially when it leads to such
    deadly consequenses as we all see today.
  2. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36063
    19 Aug '05 11:551 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    This is the most terse statement I can come up with regarding the
    insane following of religions, especially when it leads to such
    deadly consequenses as we all see today.
    "Such deadly consequences"

    Which are?

    And are these "consequences" less, more or as deadly as those of the followers of atheistic philosophies such as Nazism and Communism?

    Cheers,

    LH
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52614
    19 Aug '05 12:02
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    "Such deadly consequences"

    Which are?

    And are these "consequences" less, more or as deadly as the followers of atheistic philosophies such as Nazism and Communism?

    Cheers,

    LH
    Well the communists at least don't claim some innate superiority
    because of some supposed relation to a god. They claim superiority
    of their own philosophy with no link to a god. There is a clear
    distinction of concepts there. They make no claim to a god given
    mandate. They are more like the mafia, I am the biggest dude in
    the valley and don't mess with me and thats fine, may the best
    system win, just don't think in your mind that when such a system
    is defeated its because God was on our side and therefore they lost
    out because it was God's will. Thats the deadly consequence I am
    talking about, using deadly force in the name of some proported
    god and being self-rightous about it. Its just another name
    for insanity.
  4. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36063
    19 Aug '05 12:061 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Well the communists at least don't claim some innate superiority
    because of some supposed relation to a god. They claim superiority
    of their own philosophy with no link to a god. There is a clear
    distinction of concepts there. They make no claim to a god given
    mandate. They are more like the mafia, I am the biggest dude in
    the valley and don't mess w ...[text shortened]... e of some proported
    god and being self-rightous about it. Its just another name
    for insanity.
    Let me see if I'm getting this correctly:

    A religious person using force in the name of God to kill (say) 100 people and being self-righteous about it is deadlier than a Nazi killing 100 Jews and being self-righteous about it.

    Correct?

    LH

    EDIT: For the moment, I'm not going into the actual numbers killed by either philosophy; or the charitable activities of either. Right now, I'm just trying to guage your philosophy.
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52614
    19 Aug '05 12:201 edit
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Let me see if I'm getting this correctly:

    A religious person using force in the name of God to kill (say) 100 people and being self-righteous about it is [b]deadlier
    than a Nazi killing 100 Jews and being self-righteous about it.

    Correct?

    LH

    EDIT: For the moment, I'm not going into the actual numbers killed by either philosophy; or the charitable activities of either. Right now, I'm just trying to guage your philosophy.[/b]
    Good question, I have to think about that. For now I have to say
    both are wrong but you can put down nazi's by pure force and when
    its over its over and if a recurrance happens ala whats going on with
    neonazi crap showing up, its still group A vs group B or maybe most
    of the rest of the world in their case but I actually don't know all that much about nazi philosophy, don't they claim some godly rights also?
    Don't they have some component in their philosophy tied to religion?
    I think its an absolute horror nazi's could stray so far from basic
    human values as to think they could justify killing millions of jews like
    they did but I think the balance has to go to religious wars for
    absolute numbers of dead.
  6. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    19 Aug '05 12:251 edit
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    "Such deadly consequences"

    Which are?

    And are these "consequences" less, more or as deadly as those of the followers of atheistic philosophies such as Nazism and Communism?

    Cheers,

    LH
    It's easy to make a case for Nazism, communism and Maoism being religions (see any dictionary definition of "religion"😉 especially with their personality cults. I think they add to Son House's case rather than detracting from it.

    Hitler & the gang apparently believed in the old Norse gods. Christian hatred for Jews was not confined to Germany, nor was it unique to the 20th century.
  7. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    19 Aug '05 12:26
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    "Such deadly consequences"

    Which are?

    And are these "consequences" less, more or as deadly as those of the followers of atheistic philosophies such as Nazism and Communism?

    Cheers,

    LH
    You know very well that communism and nazism are not atheistic, since atheism is solely a lack of belief in god(s). You are attmepting to sully atheism by using examples of periods of history where men (Mao for example) claimed their beliefs rested on an atheistic base. This is a particularity of these people, not of atheism, which carries no other belief structure. And besides, as I recall Hitler claimed to be a Christian didn't he?

    sonhouse is equally perverse in his original statement, but I'm surprised you are stooping to such levels.
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52614
    19 Aug '05 12:31
    Originally posted by Starrman
    You know very well that communism and nazism are not atheistic, since atheism is solely a lack of belief in god(s). You are attmepting to sully atheism by using examples of periods of history where men (Mao for example) claimed their beliefs rested on an atheistic base. This is a particularity of these people, not of atheism, which carries no other belief ...[text shortened]... equally perverse in his original statement, but I'm surprised you are stooping to such levels.
    Interesting you as an atheist would think my statement perverse.
    You think people like Mohammed and Paul are not perverse, just
    deluded? Just curious where you are coming from here.
  9. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36063
    19 Aug '05 13:02
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    It's easy to make a case for Nazism, communism and Maoism being religions (see any dictionary definition of "religion"😉 especially with their personality cults. I think they add to Son House's case rather than detracting from it.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

    re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
    n.

    1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
    b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
    2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
    3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
    4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

    The philosophies mentioned certainly do not satisfy (1) and (2). For (3) to apply you would have to consider Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Mao etc. "spiritual" leaders - which IMO is a bit of a stretch. (4) is too general and could apply to any enthusiastic movement.

    So, I would have to conclude - no, these are not religions in any common sense of the term.

    Hitler & the gang apparently believed in the old Norse gods. Christian hatred for Jews was not confined to Germany, nor was it unique to the 20th century.

    The question of Hitler's religious belief is an interesting one (A reasonably non-propagandist article can be found at http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html ) - but ultimately irrelevant. The question is whether the Nazi movement was religious in nature. I think not - there is no comparable "religious mission" with the Nazi party as with, say, Al Qaeda.

    When you say "Christian hatred of Jews", what do you mean? Are you referring to Christianity (as a religion) hating the Jews or the Christian population of Europe hating the Jews? The two are very different.
  10. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    19 Aug '05 13:09
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Interesting you as an atheist would think my statement perverse.
    You think people like Mohammed and Paul are not perverse, just
    deluded? Just curious where you are coming from here.
    Atheism doesn't cover my political views on religion as an institution, but purely, as I said to LH, my lack of belief in the supernatural. The actions of men like Mohammed and Paul is of little importance to me as an atheist as they are just men acting for an institution. Politcally on the other hand I obvjously have opinions on them.
  11. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36063
    19 Aug '05 13:20
    Originally posted by Starrman
    You know very well that communism and nazism are not atheistic, since atheism is solely a lack of belief in god(s). You are attmepting to sully atheism by using examples of periods of history where men (Mao for example) claimed their beliefs rested on an atheistic base. This is a particularity of these people, not of atheism, which carries no other belief ...[text shortened]... equally perverse in his original statement, but I'm surprised you are stooping to such levels.
    Are communism and Nazism theistic, then?

    It is funny you should accuse me of "attempting to sully atheism" in using people as Mao as an example (I never did - I only cited the movements); and then go on to mention Hitler. Aren't you attempting to sully Christianity then?

    In any case, I never mentioned personalities - only the philosophies and the philosophical movements themselves.
  12. Standard memberDavid C
    Flamenco Sketches
    Spain, in spirit
    Joined
    09 Sep '04
    Moves
    59422
    19 Aug '05 13:27
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

    (4) is too general and could apply to any enthusiastic movement.

    So, I would have to conclude - no, these are not religions in any common sense of the term.
    (4) is your personal opinion. Since the definition exists in the online dictionary you chose, everyone *else* concludes that they are.
  13. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    19 Aug '05 13:31
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Are communism and Nazism theistic, then?

    No of course not and I never alluded to such either.

    It is funny you should accuse me of "attempting to sully atheism" in using people as Mao as an example (I never did - I only cited the movements); and then go on to mention Hitler. Aren't you attempting to sully Christianity then? In any case, I never mentioned personalities - only the philosophies and the philosophical movements themselves.

    My point had nothing to do with sullying christianity, I was showing that the philosophies you brought to the debate are not atheistic by nature. Christians can be communists too. I believe you know this full well and as such were using the example of Mao (who claimed to link atheism to his political ideology) to suggest that communism and atheism have a link. Political ideologies are neither theistic or atheistic be nature.
  14. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    19 Aug '05 13:32
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    "Such deadly consequences"

    Which are?

    And are these "consequences" less, more or as deadly as those of the followers of atheistic philosophies such as Nazism and Communism?

    Cheers,

    LH
    Godwin's Law applied on the first reply! That's a first for me.
  15. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    19 Aug '05 13:35
    Originally posted by David C
    (4) is your personal opinion. Since the definition exists in the online dictionary you chose, everyone *else* concludes that they are.
    I concur, especially if "zeal" is preceded by the adjective "fanatical".

    Was Ghandi a spiritual leader, a political leader, or a bit of both?

    I don't think there's any question that Mao's followers regarded him as a spiritual leader, comparable even to Confucius. Here's one link supporting my assertion:

    http://www.china.org.cn/english/culture/82677.htm

    One does not have to belong to a religion or believe in a personal God to have a spiritual life.
Back to Top