For AtheistAlex

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='blovedwolfofgod' date='Feb 15 2005, 03:57 PM'] This is just to try to illustrate that human morality isnt universal. The US went from slavery to massive war to anti-slavery (except in the deep south). South America doesnt have slavery because they needed money from Europe and the great powers there didnt like it. Power affects human morality. There can be no consensus because power changes hands frequently and everyone wants it. The weak go with the strong, the stronger oppose the opposition, a fight breaks out and the winner imposes that morality on the new territory and sphere of influence.



[/quote]
The bible is filled with slavery and it NEVER states it as being immoral. No where in the commandments do I see it. No where does jesus ever say its wrong. This is what the bible says about slavery:

[i]Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."[/i]

So this tells us that being a good slave, is like being good to god. Where is the morality in that? The best christian appologetics have to say about this is that, the bible helped improve the treatment of slaves, and that they were not mis treated like its commonly thought. I think this is a poor excuse, slavery is wrong period. But I guess according to god its not, right?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Feb 15 2005, 04:05 PM']

You dont get it at all. Hitler believed in 'divine right'. The german race, (aryans), were the master race not because they had evolved into a higher form. Or because other races have de-evoled. But rather that, it was the purest and best from the start. That god had intended them to be the most powerful race. And that all races were under them. And that the reason those races lived was because the aryans carried them along. You need to read on the volk movement and what was going on in germany at the time. Not spew out some stuff that seems to make sense to you, but its not acurate at all and not the truth.



What you mention is a book written by the supposed secretary of hitler. None of these anti-christian quotes were ever recorded or written down by hitler. They all came second hand. Towards the end alot of the current german philosophers wanted to move away from christianity because of its jewish roots. But the religious mentality was still very prevalent.



This only shows you how much you truly do not know. Religion was not banned in russia during those times. You could believe what you wanted and even churhces were built during that era. THe difference is that the state had no religion. It was a complete seperation. If you want to blame atheisism for communism, not the system itself than thats your perogative. Basiclly your argument is that the reason those people were bad was that they were atheist. I would say the totalitarian aspects of communism is the root of the evil, not atheisism. Also Stalin during his time, restore the Orthodox Church hierarchy to serve russia, not a very atheistisc thing to do.




Would there be a middle east conflict witout religion? There would be no islamic militants without a religion? Would the hindus and muslims be fighting over kashmir without a religion? Would the crusades have occured? How many religious wars have been waged over history compared to how many have been waged over atheism?



Propaganda. Open your eyes. Ever heard of the Inquisitions. It is said that somewhere between 1-9 million people were killed throughout this time. It took the vatican until this century to issue a statement of regret about the inquistions. And to clear Gailleo's name. Giordano Bruno died during the inqusistions, he was an astronomer. Now factor in the crusades, and you got yourself a heavy death toll of millions. [/quote]
It's you who doesn't get it! Maybe it's time you do some serious study of history instead of rehashing the same old anti-religious tracts.

Any serious historian will conclude that Hitler and the Nazis were quite antithetic to traditional Christianity. Despite the lies of the anti-Catholic detractors, the fact remains that Pope Pius XII was one of the greatest protectors and helpers of the Jews during WWII.

This "Hitler was a good Christian" nonsense is a load of horse dung, and I think you know it.

Communism is indeed an atheistic ideology, based on the anti-religious theories of Karl Marx. ALL of the communist leaders and governments were militantly atheist and anti-religious, including Josef Stalin, the greatest mass-murderer in history. If you doubt this, read the memoirs of Hungarian Cardinal Mindzenty, who suffered horrific torture under the Communists, or of Solzhenitsyn. The communist governments were vehemently atheist and anti-religious, and did persecute Christians (and still do in China). Communist schools indoctrinate the children in atheism, and religion was actively discouraged by the government.
The communist leaders realized that they could not completely wipe out the Church in their countries, so they strictly regulated it, as Stalin did, to make it a puppet of the (still atheist) Communist Government. People were not "free to beleive whatever they want," but had to not teach anything contrary to what the communist government told them to teach. Those who opposed the comunists were punished, including by being sent to the Gulag. This is not "separation of Church and State," but strict state control of the Church.

You cannot esacpe the fact that the communists were all atheists, and atheism was seen as an intrensic part of Communist ideology.
Atheistic Communism has been responsible for far more deaths and atrocities than any other regime or system in history.
Why we should continue to beleive that athiesm will somehow deliver us from all the world's problems (as communism also promised to do) is beyond me.

The facts stand: More people have been killed and more have been persecuted by atheistic governments than by any other!

You;re the one only listening to propoganda. I have indeed heard of the inquistition, and know that those figures you gave me are lies. Where did you get them from? What were his methods? The vast majority of people put before the inquistition were found innocent and not killed. (I can get some figures later.)

The violence in the Middle East largely between Muslims and Jews, not Christians. And many of the Jews are actually secularists. It is a conflict over land more than religion.

The Crusades were a defensive war, in which Christians came to reclaim the Christian Holy Land from the Muslims which had invaded it by military force. What attrocities were commited by the Christians (such as the sack of Constantinople) were soundly condemned by the Church.

Melchisedec, open your eyes, and start reading something besides Pravda and atheistic anti-Christian propoganda. You might learn something.

[save ferris 101]

Ok, just to clear things up, the Fascism in Nazi Germany did not believe in the Church or support it. To the Fascists, the state was the religion, and their leader, Hitler, was a quasi-god. The whole basis of Fascism is that the state is the center of everything. After the war, Hitler and his ministers were going to get rid of the Church.

[AtheistAlex]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 15 2005, 12:57 PM'] 1. After this, I'll stop discussing movies in this thread (just to keep things simple - if you want to reply, we can start another thread - this is my fault - I started the whole movie thing ) I had never said anything about Michael Moore, though I believe he's a filthy liar. A case could be made against Bush without resorting to Moore's falsehoods. His lies are protected by the first ammendment, though, and I think boycotts, protests, and such give movies free publicity and are counter-productive.

2. Without absolute morality, you still have no reason to condemn anything the Nazis or anybody else did.
Your argument about "absolute morality" makes no sense.
You say simply you "disagree" with the Nazi "final solution" and therefore can say it is wrong. (without giving a reason).
I say torture and murder of innocent people is always absolutely wrong ("Thou shalt not kill") and therefore have a firm basis for condeming the Nazi's "solution."

If the morality of actions is always subjective, there is no basis for condeming any action. It all comes down to people's ever-changing and conflicting feelings. If everything is subjective, people can always find a loophole to justify any atrocity.

Do you imply that slavery was morally good when it existed because it was "good business"? Was slavery morally wrong then, or was it morally right?
If slavery was right then, what makes it wrong now? What is to prevent it from becoming morally right again, if in some future time it becomes "good business"?
In fact, slavery is currently "good business" in some Muslim North African countries? Does mean slavery is morally right for them?
Should we oppose slavery in places where it is practiced? [/quote]
1. Okay...

2. *sigh* I wrote all that and it still wasn't read, I see.

Notice, that in what you have said, you have admitted that there is a moral subjectivism, no matter what [i]I[/i] think personally about these events. You have said, that one group, like slavemasters, see things one way, and we here and now, post-slavery, see these events completely differently.

Slavery may not have been considered morally good, and whether it was morally bad, well, that was an issue that was in contention as well. Now, though, most everyone is in agreement that slavery is wrong. Thusly, it [u]is[/u] wrong.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 15 2005, 08:04 PM']
[/quote]
[quote]It's you who doesn't get it!  Maybe it's time you do some serious study of history instead of rehashing the same old anti-religious tracts.[/quote]

Oh brother, you are so predictable. So you are not saying that, darwin inspired the nazis and that atheism and communism are the same are not the same old anti-atheism tracts? I doubt you will answer that truthfully.


[quote]Any serious historian will conclude that Hitler and the Nazis were quite antithetic to traditional Christianity.  Despite the lies of the anti-Catholic detractors, the fact remains that Pope Pius XII was one of the greatest protectors and helpers of the Jews during WWII.
[/quote]

I will not get into a debate about this controversial pope because it could be a long discussion. Any information you disagree with is labeled propaganda. That just reveals the blinders you choose to put on when the information is not to your liking.
Are we both guilty of making history subjective? No need to answer that, I know your answer already.


[quote]This "Hitler was a good Christian" nonsense is a load of horse dung, and I think you know it.[/quote]

Please point out where I said that or ever implied it. My statement was that hitler was a religious , superstious man. His ideaologies arrised from religous ferver and not science. The nazis fascination with the occult and holy relics has been recorded in history and even been portrayed and popular movies. Many men have spread evil in the name of god, he was no different. My mom is a christian, my wife is a christian, my whole darn family are christians practically. Im not comparing them to hitler. You need to relax and take a sip of holy water.


[quote]You cannot esacpe the fact that the communists were all atheists, and atheism was seen as an intrensic part of Communist ideology.
Atheistic Communism has been responsible for far more deaths and atrocities than any other regime or system in history.
Why we should continue to beleive that athiesm will somehow deliver us from all the world's problems (as communism also promised to do) is beyond me.[/quote]

The problem with communism was , communism itself , not atheism. The dictatorships that run a communist government and the freedoms they limit are what is ultimately responisble for the deaths of which you speak of. Atheism in a free society like a america would not create an evironment where death is mandated down from the government. Atheism is not even the root concept of communism, its all about social class and differences. Nothing divides us more than religion and classes, like the divide between you and I. They sought to destroy that, and it was a very bad idea. No more does Stalin represent atheism than hitler represents the germans.



[quote]You;re the one only listening to propoganda.  I have indeed heard of the inquistition, and know that those figures you gave me are lies.  Where did you get them from?  What were his methods?  The vast majority of people put before the inquistition were found innocent and not killed.  (I can get some figures later.)[/quote]

The church appologize for the inquistions in 2000, and at the same time they reported lower numbers of the number of dead. The numbers I have seen on various resources have always been in the millions, if you want to put your blinders on for that, go right ahead. Your still skirting the issue that the church was responsible for their deaths, how do you answer that. 1 or 1 millions, its a precious life none the less.


[quote]
The violence in the Middle East largely between Muslims and Jews, not Christians.  And many of the Jews are actually secularists.  It is a conflict over land more than religion.[/quote]

And what is the significance of this land. Its holy land that contains holy relics. I mean cmon, you are denying its a religious war? Ask any muslim or jew and they will set you straight. You need to really read on the mideast conflict, because you know nothing. In a nutshell its over religious sites that are both holy to muslims and jews, I could go more indepth if you wish. And you never even rebutted my other examples. I mean if I was given a weak, I am sure I could come up with more wars and more death and carnage over religion than you could ever find from atheism.

[quote]Melchisedec, open your eyes, and start reading something besides Pravda and atheistic anti-Christian propoganda.  You might learn something.[/quote]

Pravda, is that the alien news paper. You got me confused with somebody else cause I dont read fairy tales.

In Reason...

[Socrates]

[quote]I will not get into a debate about this controversial pope because it could be a long discussion. Any information you disagree with is labeled propaganda. That just reveals the blinders you choose to put on when the information is not to your liking.
Are we both guilty of making history subjective? No need to answer that, I know your answer already. [/quote]

Well it's good you apparently know the answer. Choosing only to pay attention to material which supports your own atheistic position and dismissing anything that does not support it, then accusing me of "putting on blinders" seems hardly a way to debate!

The slanders about Pope Pius XII mostly came out long after his death, and by those with an agenda against the Church. These claims have afterwards all been roundly and soundly rebuked by others, but you're right. That debate should go to another thread.

[quote]My statement was that hitler was a religious , superstious man. His ideaologies arrised from religous ferver and not science.[/quote]

Superstitious, perhaps, but hardly religious. He denied the Church and was not even a church-goer, and is known to have been quite anti-Christian. His ideologies arose from megalamania and racism, not "religious fervor"! Religion involves submitting to a higher Authority. Hitler wanted to crush anything that stood in the way of his drive to power. (I think you watch too much Indiana Jones.)

[quote]The problem with communism was , communism itself , not atheism. The dictatorships that run a communist government and the freedoms they limit are what is ultimately responisble for the deaths of which you speak of. [/quote]

Atheism was regarded by all the communists revolutionaries and leaders as an intrinsic part of Communism. The rejection of God and Church authority is part of their beleif that rejects all other authority and sets up "socialist man" (in practice, teh Communist state) as the supreme authority. The Communist leaders would all disagree with you that atheism was not important to their ideology.

The fact remains that atheistic Communism governments have killed more people than any other governments in history! You still have not refuted this point.

Fallen human beings will abuse power and do evil things under any religion or lack thereof, but atheism, which recognizes no higher moral authority than itself, gives tyrants free reign. Both Communsism and Nazism were systems which were "free" from higher religious authority and recognized themselves as the ultimate authority.

You blame religion and the Church for any deaths or attrocities committed under a Christian ruler, yet deny that atheism had any responsibility for the (much greater) atrocities commited by atheist regimes. Looks like a major double-standard at work here.

I suppose you will also claim that religious fervor had nothing to do with the countless Catholic Christian saints who devoted their lives to the service of the poor and suffering.

I will get back later on the Inquisition. I don't have the source with me now, but can get it later, perhaps this weekend when I have time.

All religions are not created equal. As a Catholic, I beleive that the Catholic Church is the true religion. It certainly does not condone the actions of Muslim suicide bombers and the like. Lumping Christians with Muslim terrorists and whatnot all together to generically denounce "religion" as evil, is a common and falacious tactic of secularists.

Edited February 16, 2005 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='AtheistAlex' date='Feb 15 2005, 10:41 PM'] 1. Okay...

2. *sigh* I wrote all that and it still wasn't read, I see.

Notice, that in what you have said, you have admitted that there is a moral subjectivism, no matter what [i]I[/i] think personally about these events. You have said, that one group, like slavemasters, see things one way, and we here and now, post-slavery, see these events completely differently.

Slavery may not have been considered morally good, and whether it was morally bad, well, that was an issue that was in contention as well. Now, though, most everyone is in agreement that slavery is wrong. Thusly, it [u]is[/u] wrong. [/quote]
Nowhere have I said that morality is subjective. Obviously, people "see" moral matters differently, but that does not mean the differnet positions are not objectively morally right or wrong.

You still have not given a clear answer on whether slaver was morally right or wrong. You seem to imply that if enough people say it's right, it's right. You seem to be saying that it may have been right at the time because many thought it was right, but now it's wrong because most people agree it's wrong.

Now, though, most everyone is in agreement that slavery is wrong. Thusly, it [u]is[/u] wrong.

Your definition of "morality" seems to boil down to majority rule. Whatever most people think is good, is good.

Tell me, if the majority of people decided it is good to torture and kill Socrates and AtheistAlex, would this make those actions morally good??

Majority rule is a very weak basis for a system of morality, to say the least

[AtheistAlex]

It is not "majority rule". That is our democracy.

No, this is a societal concept, where morality is defined as the "set, or sets of various things different cultures decide are the things their people ought to, or ought not to do." That's subjective, my friend.

To ask "Is it moral?" assuming it is obviously objective, completely ignores what I have said. So my answer would have to be "Not applicable."

Have a nice night,

Alex

[jasJis]

Alex,
What's up with "It is not "majority rule". That is our democracy."? Doesn't make sense. Isn't our democracy a majority rule?

Not everything that is "TRUE" can be measured emperically. The emotions that influence the human psyche cannot be measured emperically, but it is true that emotions do have real and significant influence and have a tremendous impact on human behavior. How emperically can one measure Adolph's motives for choosing the course of action that resulted in the deaths of many that can be measured emperically?

The science of physics cannot explain the science of phsychology. We are not robots with positronic brains pre-programmed with the 3 laws. Read Issac Assimov's novels, especially I Robot. Much of the sci-fi of the 70's & 80's explored the disconnect between 'emperical' science and the reality of human behavior when viewed from a larger perspective of eons. As Copernicus, Galileo, and Columbus probably told the science world of their time 'It's a matter of limited perspective, you goof-balls'. An example of limited perspective are dogs. If they can't smell it, it most likely doesn't exist. That's why they don't watch TV. They've got no soul.

[Melchisedec]

[quote]
Well it's good you apparently know the answer.  Choosing only to pay attention to material which supports your own atheistic position and dismissing anything that does not support it, then accusing me of "putting on blinders" seems hardly a way to debate!
[/quote]

You steal my material. No originality.

[quote]
Superstitious, perhaps, but hardly religious.  He denied the Church and was not even a church-goer, and is known to have been quite anti-Christian.  His ideologies arose from megalamania and racism, not "religious fervor"!  Religion involves submitting to a higher Authority.  Hitler wanted to crush anything that stood in the way of his drive to power. 
[/quote]

[i]re·li·gious: Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.[/i]

Hitler believed in god, and believed that he was somehow chosen to be the important person he was. THereforce, he meets the defition of religious. Maybe not your defintion, but the standard accepted one. Mein Kampf was the blueprint for the course hitler laid out. During that time, hitler was indeed very religious and that was the inspiration for his evil deeds. While later on in his life he left more orthodox religious views to more occult ones. His racist views stemmed from these religious sources as opposed to social darwinism.


[quote]
(I think you watch too much Indiana Jones.)
[/quote]

I love them movies

[quote]
Atheism was regarded by all the communists revolutionaries and leaders as an intrinsic part of Communism.  The rejection of God and Church authority is part of their beleif that rejects all other authority and sets up "socialist man" (in practice, teh Communist state) as the supreme authority.  The Communist leaders  would all disagree with you that atheism was not important to their ideology.[/quote]

Let me stomped out your dumb statements and paint it very clearly to you.

[i] com·mu·nism:
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
2. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
[/i]

Communism is primarily an economic system, it is not inspired or require atheism to work. Can you explain to me if Atheism is required, how could there be a system called [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_communism"]Religious Communism[/url] that predates Marxism? Please answer that. Here is the truth, atheism was imposed by the Marxist because they believed that religion was like a drug that would help people forget about the problems of their captialist system. Hence the term 'opium for the masses'. THey believed that by taking religion out of the system, that the people would have to face the realities of the flaws of the polcitical system.

I will illustrate exactly the logic you are using right now with the KKK. Here are the requirements for being in the KKK - (white, Christian, at least 18). Now I can say that Christianity is an intrinsic part of being a Klans man. I mean, what is the Klan without a cross to burn. So is it right for me to say that without christianity there would be no KKK? Or that christianity led to the KKK? Do I need to touch upon the facist christian regimes of old for it to get through to you? Atheism and communism are not one in the same, Atheism just means lack of theiest belief, no more , no less.Calling KKK , christian racism, paints an incorrect picutre and I will not resort to your logical fallacies.


[quote]
The fact remains that atheistic Communism governments have killed more people than any other governments in history!  You still have not refuted this point.[/quote]

That statement is an outright lie that I definitely refute and have refuted. We can start a thread on all the religious wars versus all the wars inspired by atheism and it would be no contest. More blood has been shed by religion than anything else, hands down.

[quote]Fallen human beings  will abuse power and do evil things under any religion or lack thereof, but atheism, which recognizes no higher moral authority than itself, gives tyrants free reign.  Both Communsism and Nazism were systems which were "free" from higher religious authority and recognized themselves as the ultimate authority.[/quote]

Thats like saying the Kings of the middle ages were not brutal tyrants because they were guided by the higher authority of the Catholic church. We call it the Dark ages for a reason. Its no diffent to commit acts of hatred because you have no moral authority to live up to or to believe you are acting on behalf of god. From that statement that would leave all of the asian world as immoral because in there belief, there is no god. Yet their murder rates are far lower than ours. Tyrants have always been there own gods, regardless if they appealed to a religious moral authority or not. Your argument that atheist are immoral is offensive at best.

[quote]You blame religion and the Church for any deaths or attrocities committed under a Christian ruler, yet deny that atheism had any responsibility for the (much greater) atrocities commited by atheist regimes.  Looks like a major double-standard at work here.[/quote]

The reason I blame religion is because they used religion as a reason for war. Heresy, infidels, holy land disputes, the list goes on. I dont remember any wars where people who didnt believe in any god faught and killed people who worhsipped one. It was always differing beliefs fighting each other, converting each other and proving their gods are the truest gods. Its no different today.


[quote]I suppose you will also claim that religious fervor had nothing to do with the countless Catholic Christian saints who devoted their lives to the service of the poor and suffering.[/quote]

Thats the positives of religious fervor and devotion. I truly love mother theresa or gandhi or even martin luther king. I cant image a speech by MLK without any kind of spiritual talk. But atheist do public service and work and care for mankind. I for one , work 40 + hours a week and volunteer 20+ hours a week. And you'll get a kick out of this. I volunteer for a faith based organization, but it doesnt bother me at all. Im there to help the kids who need help. Heck, I even join in the prayer circle. But all atheist are immoral evil doers right????


[quote]
All religions are not created equal.  As a Catholic, I beleive that the Catholic Church is the true religion.  It certainly does not condone the actions of Muslim suicide bombers and the like.  Lumping Christians with  Muslim terrorists and whatnot all together to generically denounce "religion" as evil, is a common and falacious tactic of secularists.[/quote]

To you all religions are not created equally, but to an atheist they are. The defintion of religion encompasses your beliefs aswell as beliefs you disagree with. Whether you like it or not, they are religions and I will referr to them as religions.

Edited February 17, 2005 by Melchisedec

[Socrates]

[quote]That statement is an outright lie that I definitely refute and have refuted. We can start a thread on all the religious wars versus all the wars inspired by atheism and it would be no contest. More blood has been shed by religion than anything else, hands down.[/quote]

An estimated 90-100 million people have been killed by atheist communist genocide worldwide during the 20th century. You have done absolutely nothing to refute this. Simple denial is not refutation.

Countless people were also murdered in in the atheistic and anti-Christian French revolution.

Your playing with words does nothing for your argument. Whoever the "Christian Communists" were, they are not the Marxist-Leninist Communists responsible for the genocide and atrocity I have mentioned, and therefore have absolutely not relevance to this discussion. They are the ones I am talking about, and I think this is clear to you.

You have shown your ignorance of history by calling all medieval kings brutal tyrants. Some were, but some were also saintly men and women who did their best to help their people. People did a lot of brutal things in the middle ages (as in any time period), but nothing remotely comparable in scale to that committed by the atheist Communists of the 20th Century.

And the KKK was against Catholics, as well as blacks and Jews, by the way.

So far your attempt to prove that atheists are somehow intrinsically less evil or violent than religious people has not been effective.

And I am only interested in defending the Catholic Faith. If you want to lump it together with Muslims, neo-pagans, and Aztec worshipers of Tezcatlipoca, that is your prerogative, yet only reveals your own willfil ignorance.

If you want to engage in rational discussion, that is fine with me. If you prefer to to make insults, accusations of lying, and other such foolishness, I shall simply shake the dust from my feet and move on, rather than waste my time.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 17 2005, 07:52 PM']
An estimated 90-100 million people have been killed by atheist communist genocide worldwide during the 20th century. You have done absolutely nothing to refute this. Simple denial is not refutation.

Countless people were also murdered in in the atheistic and anti-Christian French revolution.

Your playing with words does nothing for your argument. Whoever the "Christian Communists" were, they are not the Marxist-Leninist Communists responsible for the genocide and atrocity I have mentioned, and therefore have absolutely not relevance to this discussion. They are the ones I am talking about, and I think this is clear to you.

You have shown your ignorance of history by calling all medieval kings brutal tyrants. Some were, but some were also saintly men and women who did their best to help their people. People did a lot of brutal things in the middle ages (as in any time period), but nothing remotely comparable in scale to that committed by the atheist Communists of the 20th Century.

And the KKK was against Catholics, as well as blacks and Jews, by the way.

So far your attempt to prove that atheists are somehow intrinsically less evil or violent than religious people has not been effective.

And I am only interested in defending the Catholic Faith. If you want to lump it together with Muslims, neo-pagans, and Aztec worshipers of Tezcatlipoca, that is your prerogative, yet only reveals your own willfil ignorance.

If you want to engage in rational discussion, that is fine with me. If you prefer to to make insults, accusations of lying, and other such foolishness, I shall simply shake the dust from my feet and move on, rather than waste my time. [/quote]
Clearly you have not addressed half the things Ive said. While I have cited things to support my arguments you have simply shouted baseless acusations. I truly love your comment:

[quote]
Your playing with words does nothing for your argument. 
[/quote]

Thank you for conceding the debate and proving me all so right.

[Socrates]

[quote]Clearly you have not addressed half the things Ive said. While I have cited things to support my arguments you have simply shouted baseless acusations. I truly love your comment: Your playing with words does nothing for your argument. [/quote]

Your reference to so-called "Christian communists" is indeed "playing with words" and does nothing to advance your arguments. That term was refering to monastic communities and the like, and had nothing to do with the atheist Marxist-Leninist Commnunism responsible for the genocide and atrocities I've mentioned.

Christian monks leading vows of voluntary poverty were not responible for genocide. Atheist Marxists were.

Enough said.

Edited February 18, 2005 by Socrates

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 18 2005, 11:14 AM']
Your reference to so-called "Christian communists" is indeed "playing with words" and does nothing to advance your arguments.  That term was refering to monastic communities and the like, and had nothing to do with the atheist Marxist-Leninist Commnunism responsible for the genocide and atrocities I've mentioned.

Christian monks leading vows of voluntary poverty were not responible for genocide.  Atheist Marxists were.

Enough said. [/quote]
You just dont get it. My point was to show you that atheism is not essential to communism. Nor is it inspired by atheism, or has anything to do with it. Another point you drove around was the KKK example. All you said was that KKK hates catholics. Duh. I happen to be a minority and live in the south, so I am quite aware of who the klan hates. The point was that, its a requirement to be a christian to be in the klan. No atheist allowed. So if christianity is a core element of the klans ways, is it right to blame christianity on their misdeeds? No , not at all. The two are not one in the same. Im sure if it was required to be an atheist to be in the klan, that you would site that as proof of atheist based injustice.

There is a reason why you are the only one in the world calling it 'Atheist Marxism'. Its just called Marxism for a reason. By the way, all those deaths you speak of, were mostly politically motivated not religiously motivated. Just one of the many things you cannot confront in my arguments. The hate you have for me and other atheist is quite apparent and contradictory to the teachings of christ.

Edited February 18, 2005 by Melchisedec

[Socrates]

First of all, I don't hate atheists. To beleive they are wrong is not to hate them. If I hate athiests, you more than hate Christians.

Second of all, your claim that atheism had absolutely nothing to do with Communism is just plain false. Marx preached atheism, as did Lenin and all his followers. Atheism was the official religion of the Communist state in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and the governments in the Eastern European countries that the Soviets took over by force. Christianity was indeed persecuted and repressed in these places. Priests loyal to the Church were (and are in China) forced to undergo horrific tortures. I have read the testimony of survivors.

[burnsspivey]

I want to play too!

1. It's a viable religious belief.

2. It's also a viable religious belief.

3. That politician is almost certainly a hypocrite, unless he/she is also a pacifist.

4. It's another viable religious belief.

5. I'll need a definition here.

6. One can gain new knowledge and experience new things without having a change of mind. Either new knowlege is assimilated into the current belief structure, it is rejected, or it is left outside of the structure with a virtual ?.

7. This is a silly question, but I already have both.

8. Pro-life liberal...unless there's something else about this person you aren't explaining.

9. Don't have enough info on either to choose.

10. Flag burning -- it's a viable expression of beliefs.

11. Communists -- at least they're trying for something better.

12. Err...the same thing I plan to do now, with the exception of worry about Supreme Court Justice nominees.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 18 2005, 11:56 AM'] Atheism was the official religion of the Communist state [/quote]
Thats where our debate will never go farther than shouting matches. Atheism is NOT a religion. It is the lack of ANY theist beliefs period. Thats the root of the word. The 'A' in Atheist is to denote, without. Like these words 'amoral,' 'atypical,' and 'asymmetrical'. I dont deny that those atrocities occured. What you called Atheism, I call consildation of power. That the reason the churches were persecuted was not because of Atheism, but because the church represented power over people. The communist wanted to take that away and have absolute power over everyone and everything.

Adherents.com a site that collects statistical data of all the worlds religions and beliefs has this to say about the counting of atheist in communist countries:

[i]Sociologically, Communism is as much a religion as other "traditional" religions such as Islam or Christianity, although it promotes (often forcibly) beliefs which would categorize its adherents as atheists. So in Communist countries, large proportions of people may be properly classified as atheists and also Communists, but they would not be considered secular or "nonreligious" in the sociological sense[/i]

Basicly when they refer to these communist as atheist, they are not really secular or without belief like a real atheist is. The leaders are dictators, regardless of religion or no religion, they have always proved to be tyranical. I wouldn't consider the leaders of these countries as atheist, anymore than you would look at a klansman as a good christian.

Socrates, you don't bother me a bit man. I respect what you have to say, I just cannot help to notice your disdain for me or any other atheist in your comments. I married a christian, my mom is a christian. I'd say 98% of my family on both side are christian. And I work in an christian organization volunteering. so I definitely have no problem with christians. People are people to me, religion, creed, all that stuff doesn't matter.

I jumped into this debate because in your previous post you basicly said 'Atheist have no morals'. And I not only disagree with that, but I take offense to it. Thats all.

[Socrates]

Atheism="a" (without) "theism" (belief in God).

This indeed describes the beleifs of Marxist-Leninist communism. This beleif system holds that there is no God, that is no Creator, or Supreme Being.

I think what you and the website are saying is that this system is not a total lack of beleif, but a set of beleifs that is promoted as if it were a religion.

This is indeed true. Marxism quite deliberatley replaces God with "socialist man" (as realized in the Communist state) as the object of ultimate authority and power.
However, this does not change the fact that Marxists-Leninists deny the existance and authority of a God. (A God higher than themselves would put a limit on their will to power.)
As they do not beleive in God, they can properly be defined as atheists.

The fact is that when people stop worshipping God, in practice, they replace Him with something else, whether the Communist state, money, power, pleasure, whatever.

Melchisedec, I am quite aware that you, and many other atheists are not communists, and do not condone all their beliefs and practices.
I even read a book by an atheist (a refugee from a communist country) who was both very anti-Communist, as well as anti-Christian.
I realize that many communists lead decent and noble lives, and you seem to be one of them.

You and the communists both do not beleive in God (atheists), but that of course does not make you a Josef Stalin anymore than beleiving in God makes me an Osama bin Laden.

I nowhere said that no athiests have morals. I was originally questioning what intellectual basis an atheist would have for declaring something to be right or wrong.

I used the Communists as an example of those whose denial of a God permits them to perform atrocities (having nothing higher than themselves to answer to)

Peace,

Socrates

[AtheistAlex]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Feb 17 2005, 07:33 AM'] Alex,
What's up with "It is not "majority rule". That is our democracy."?  Doesn't make sense.  Isn't our democracy a majority rule?

Not everything that is "TRUE" can be measured emperically.  The emotions that influence the human psyche cannot be measured emperically, but it is true that emotions do have real and significant influence and have a tremendous impact on human behavior.  How emperically can one measure Adolph's motives for choosing the course of action that resulted in the deaths of many that can be measured emperically?

The science of physics cannot explain the science of phsychology.  We are not robots with positronic brains pre-programmed with the 3 laws.  Read Issac Assimov's novels, especially I Robot.  Much of the sci-fi of the 70's & 80's explored the disconnect between 'emperical' science and the reality of human behavior when viewed from a larger perspective of eons.  As Copernicus, Galileo, and Columbus probably told the science world of their time 'It's a matter of limited perspective, you goof-balls'.  An example of limited perspective are dogs.  If they can't smell it, it most likely doesn't exist.  That's why they don't watch TV.  They've got no soul.  [/quote]
I said, It, as subjective morality, is not merely majority rule, 51 percent to 48. That, as in majority rule, is our democracy.

About measuring emotions...actually there have been many ways other than with numbers to empirically measure emotion.

There are quantitative and qualitative observations we can make, the former concerning measurements we take, and calculations we make, and the latter being those observations that we noticed with our senses. We can quantitatively observe many things pertaining to psychology, especially with all the new technology we have produced in the last century.

We can now measure brain activity to various stimuli, a process which has helped to establish which parts of the brain control what, and with that info we can accurately research and understand what someone is feeling for certain circumstances, like in the case of schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder.

This access to the brain means we can have greater insights into the brain's function than ever before, and we can, empirically, measure the brain's function, at least to an extent.

Still, just because we cannot now understand in a scientific fashion all of what goes on in the brain, does not mean we cannot at some time in the future.

Oh, and what's up with the robot analogy?

Edited February 19, 2005 by AtheistAlex

[jesusisalive3]

[quote]Basicly when they refer to these communist as atheist, they are not really secular or without belief like a real atheist is.[/quote] Without belief? Melchisedec, all atheists share a belief. That belief is "There is no God". That is a belief, and from that basic belief, many others have stemmed (such as "There is no absolute truth") and from those beliefs, systems have resulted. (for example: Eugenics, Marxism, Humanism, Darwinism, etc.) And while some caused atrocities, some have helped people. However, all of those who did what all here would call wrong (atrocities in communist countries, the holocaust, etc) did so without conflicting their belief system. This is different in christianity. If the beliefs about what has happened are to be believed, (God created mankind in his image, if He sent his only begotten Son to die for our failures/sins, etc.) then the basic and intrinsical belief of christianity is "God is love". From there, The atrocities commited by these "christians" (Salem witch trials, the KKK, etc) were done against that belief system. Because of this, comparison between the two sets of atrocities becomes irrelavent. Because a christian who follows the beliefs of the church entirely (no more, no less) does no wrong. (one of christianity's main points, conversion {changing}, is why christians still do wrong, we do not comepletely follow our beliefs.) However, an athiest who follows their beliefs as an athiest (also no more, no less) will have no problem with either helping the needy or commiting an atrocity. Peace out, S.