Regarding the OP. This video is silly. It was not made for Christians to watch or to take seriously. It is made for 'anti-Christians' (whether atheist or otherwise) to 'pile-on'. Sadly, I think it is about as useful at disproving Christianity as the silly Peanut Butter film is at disproving evolution. Both films expose how obtuse each 'group' can be. And yes I used that word for its specific meaning.
With that said it is his presentation that is flawed. I believe his argument is valid (unlike the Peanut Butter one) if over-simplified.
frgsinwntr wrote:
please explain how Christianity... is not contingent upon the belief in Jesus?
No, you have to believe in Jesus. But you do not have to believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Based on your answer you are emotionally incapable of differentiating between the two, very different, concepts.
frgsinwntr wrote:I'm going disagree with you here.
I can differentiate between the two.
You are simply saying something that no one else I have run into has said. Which made me stop and think for a minute.
I wasn't sure what you were saying.
But thanks for the flame bait attempts
If you were capable of differentiating between the two, on an emotional level (hence the 'emotionally'), you would have come to the same conclusion of your own accord. At this point you are simply proving capable of following instructions.
frgsinwntr wrote:
please explain how Christianity... is not contingent upon the belief in Jesus?
No, you have to believe in Jesus. But you do not have to believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Based on your answer you are emotionally incapable of differentiating between the two, very different, concepts.
As I recall from my youth ( my family is Chatholic,and I spent many a sunday in church and spoken to a few priest),belife that jesus is the son of god is one of the fundemental foundations of christianity.
frgsinwntr wrote:
please explain how Christianity... is not contingent upon the belief in Jesus?
No, you have to believe in Jesus. But you do not have to believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Based on your answer you are emotionally incapable of differentiating between the two, very different, concepts.
Uh, as a former Catholic (it has been a few years) IIRC all main stream Christian beliefs except Mormonism are directly tied to the belief that Jesus is both the son of God and also God in the Flesh. Mormons (now I could be mistaken as I am not Mormon and haven't studied this stuff in a while) believe Jesus is the son of God but not God himself.
dogma wrote:Its one of the fundamental tenets of Catholicism.
Ok,I'll accept that,but would not Catholicism=a sect of Christianity?
Also,IIRC,my Babtist and Episcopailian friends (as youngsters),were taught the same thing.
Now,of course I havn't been a "practicing" Catholic(or any form of christianity) since I was 10,but I am curious as to how one could say they are a christian without the belife that jesus is the son of god?
It just seems contrary to what I've come to understand as a basic christian belife.
GoFenris wrote:
Uh, as a former Catholic (it has been a few years) IIRC all main stream Christian beliefs except Mormonism are directly tied to the belief that Jesus is both the son of God and also God in the Flesh.
That's wrong. Certain Christian sects, especially in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, belief Christ was simply a prophet (this can also carry into the meaning of 'son' per translation).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
frgsinwntr wrote:
Dogma you're arguement needs evidence. What group are you talking about in christian sects?
In the US you have United Church of Christ, United Disciples of Christ, some of the more liberal Catholics, Quakers, the list goes on.
dogma wrote:Its one of the fundamental tenets of Catholicism.
Ok,I'll accept that,but would not Catholicism=a sect of Christianity?
Also,IIRC,my Babtist and Episcopailian friends (as youngsters),were taught the same thing.
Now,of course I havn't been a "practicing" Catholic(or any form of christianity) since I was 10,but I am curious as to how one could say they are a christian without the belife that jesus is the son of god?
It just seems contrary to what I've come to understand as a basic christian belife.
Apparently I am not the only one who can't see through emotion? : )
But seriously Dogma, It is common Belief that christians have to believe that Jesus was the son of God lol Try to take a moment to educate as opposed to telling us "EPIC FAIL"
FITZZ wrote:
Ok,I'll accept that,but would not Catholicism=a sect of Christianity?
It is. However, his Populance does not define Christian belief.
FITZZ wrote:
Now,of course I havn't been a "practicing" Catholic(or any form of christianity) since I was 10,but I am curious as to how one could say they are a christian without the belife that jesus is the son of god?
It just seems contrary to what I've come to understand as a basic christian belife.
You can claim that the term 'son' is not literal. Jesus being the 'son' of God in the same sense that I am a 'son' of philosophy. You can also claim that theological suzerainty is not granted by genetic association, but the right of works.
Or you can just straight up say that Jesus need only be the most significant, not uniquely so.
GoFenris wrote:
Uh, as a former Catholic (it has been a few years) IIRC all main stream Christian beliefs except Mormonism are directly tied to the belief that Jesus is both the son of God and also God in the Flesh.
That's wrong. Certain Christian sects, especially in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, belief Christ was simply a prophet (this can also carry into the meaning of 'son' per translation).
Then I am mistaken. My apologies, I am not a theologian and have made assumptions. Your comment further supports my original statement regarding the video.
frgsinwntr wrote:
Apparently I am not the only one who can't see through emotion? : )
Noone can see through emotion, it just so happens that your emotions cloud your judgment of Xianity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
GoFenris wrote:
Then I am mistaken. My apologies, I am not a theologian and have made assumptions. Your comment further supports my original statement regarding the video.
I liked your comment. It what I would have said if drink had not pushed me into hyper-logic mode.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
frgsinwntr wrote:
But seriously Dogma, It is common Belief that christians have to believe that Jesus was the son of God lol Try to take a moment to educate as opposed to telling us "EPIC FAIL"
Common belief. Cute. There is no such thing. When you say 'common belief' you are simply referencing your own prejudice.
FITZZ wrote:
Ok,I'll accept that,but would not Catholicism=a sect of Christianity?
It is. However, his Populance does not define Christian belief.
FITZZ wrote:
Now,of course I havn't been a "practicing" Catholic(or any form of christianity) since I was 10,but I am curious as to how one could say they are a christian without the belife that jesus is the son of god?
It just seems contrary to what I've come to understand as a basic christian belife.
You can claim that the term 'son' is not literal. Jesus being the 'son' of God in the same sense that I am a 'son' of philosophy. You can also claim that theological suzerainty is not granted by genetic association, but the right of works.
Or you can just straight up say that Jesus need only be the most significant, not uniquely so.
Well,again I must admit to being non-practicing,and thus,perhaps misinformed and/or misunderstanding.
However,growing up we were tought that jesus was the son of god and was born of man to teach us and to eventualy die for our sins,theses were always the tenents of christianity as I understood them.
Now,if there are sects of christianity that do not acknowledge jesus as the son of god,and as simply a prophet,would that not be somthing more "secualar'(sp),as it dosn't seem to embrace the concept of jesus divinity,and mearly views him as a good man with some good ideas?
dogma wrote:That's wrong. Certain Christian sects, especially in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, belief Christ was simply a prophet (this can also carry into the meaning of 'son' per translation).
Can you name which ones? I have never heard of them, and most of the sects of Eastern Orthodoxy simply the national churches.
dogma wrote:In the US you have United Church of Christ,
Who believe that Christ is the Son of God, per their SoF:http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/statement-of-faith.html
dogma wrote:United Disciples of Christ,
As do the Disciples, per their SoF:http://www.heartofeugene.org/AboutOurChurch/AboutDisciples.htm
dogma wrote:some of the more liberal Catholics,
Which aren't a sect, but rather dissidents with Church teachings...
dogma wrote:Quakers, the list goes on.
Quakers are different...some would even say heretical. It is hard to point to them and say, "They believe this," simply because you can't. Many Quakers do believe in the divinity and orthodox view of Christ, although they certainly wouldn't state it as such. But some don't. Again, it is impossible to label them one way or another simply because of their strange structure and affiliation.
FITZZ wrote:Now,if there are sects of christianity that do not acknowledge jesus as the son of god,and as simply a prophet,would that not be somthing more "secualar'(sp),as it dosn't seem to embrace the concept of jesus divinity,and mearly views him as a good man with some good ideas?
Well, if he is a prophet, his "good ideas" are those of God.
I mean, is Islam secular on account of not believing Muhammad to be the son of God?
FITZZ wrote:Now,if there are sects of christianity that do not acknowledge jesus as the son of god,and as simply a prophet,would that not be somthing more "secualar'(sp),as it dosn't seem to embrace the concept of jesus divinity,and mearly views him as a good man with some good ideas?
Well, if he is a prophet, his "good ideas" are those of God.
I mean, is Islam secular on account of not believing Muhammad to be the son of God?
Well,no I don't belive so,however,to the best of my understanding,it isn't a basic tenet of Islam to belive Muhammad is the son of god.
FITZZ wrote:Well,no I don't believe so, however, to the best of my understanding,it isn't a basic tenet of Islam to believe Muhammad is the son of god.
dogma wrote:That's wrong. Certain Christian sects, especially in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, belief Christ was simply a prophet (this can also carry into the meaning of 'son' per translation).
Can you name which ones? I have never heard of them, and most of the sects of Eastern Orthodoxy simply the national churches.
dogma wrote:In the US you have United Church of Christ,
Who believe that Christ is the Son of God, per their SoF:http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/statement-of-faith.html
dogma wrote:United Disciples of Christ,
As do the Disciples, per their SoF:http://www.heartofeugene.org/AboutOurChurch/AboutDisciples.htm
dogma wrote:some of the more liberal Catholics,
Which aren't a sect, but rather dissidents with Church teachings...
dogma wrote:Quakers, the list goes on.
Quakers are different...some would even say heretical. It is hard to point to them and say, "They believe this," simply because you can't. Many Quakers do believe in the divinity and orthodox view of Christ, although they certainly wouldn't state it as such. But some don't. Again, it is impossible to label them one way or another simply because of their strange structure and affiliation.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Can you name which ones? I have never heard of them, and most of the sects of Eastern Orthodoxy simply the national churches.
A standard component of Eastern Orthodoxy is the untenable nature of God's existence. The rest follows organically.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Who believe that Christ is the Son of God, per their SoF:http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/statement-of-faith.html
Read beyond the initial statement.
Also, once you acknowledge God as the Father of all, you can cancel the significance of God as the Father of Jesus.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
As do the Disciples, per their SoF:http://www.heartofeugene.org/AboutOurChurch/AboutDisciples.htm
Never read the UDC statement of faith. Was going on my conversations with their Head Disciple.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Which aren't a sect, but rather dissidents with Church teachings...
But are Christians. Given the subversive tendencies within the faith, they still count. Also, I never brought up the notion of sects. That was Frigs. Again, emotionally incapable of rational thought on the matter.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Quakers are different...some would even say heretical. It is hard to point to them and say, "They believe this," simply because you can't. Many Quakers do believe in the divinity and orthodox view of Christ, although they certainly wouldn't state it as such. But some don't. Again, it is impossible to label them one way or another simply because of their strange structure and affiliation.
Obviously, but the point of the initial comment was to elucidate the difficult inherent in classifying Christianity as a faith which requires that one belief in the genetic relationship between Jesus and God. I don't need to prove that Quakes lack that belief in homogeneity, only that some Quakers lack that belief.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Can you name which ones? I have never heard of them, and most of the sects of Eastern Orthodoxy simply the national churches.
A standard component of Eastern Orthodoxy is the untenable nature of God's existence. The rest follows organically.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Who believe that Christ is the Son of God, per their SoF:http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/statement-of-faith.html
Read beyond the initial statement.
Also, once you acknowledge God as the Father of all, you can cancel the significance of God as the Father of Jesus.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
As do the Disciples, per their SoF:http://www.heartofeugene.org/AboutOurChurch/AboutDisciples.htm
Never read the UDC statement of faith. Was going on my conversations with their Head Disciple.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Which aren't a sect, but rather dissidents with Church teachings...
But are Christians. Given the subversive tendencies within the faith, they still count. Also, I never brought up the notion of sects. That was Frigs. Again, emotionally incapable of rational thought on the matter.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Quakers are different...some would even say heretical. It is hard to point to them and say, "They believe this," simply because you can't. Many Quakers do believe in the divinity and orthodox view of Christ, although they certainly wouldn't state it as such. But some don't. Again, it is impossible to label them one way or another simply because of their strange structure and affiliation.
Obviously, but the point of the initial comment was to elucidate the difficult inherent in classifying Christianity as a faith which requires that one belief in the genetic relationship between Jesus and God. I don't need to prove that Quakes lack that belief in homogeneity, only that some Quakers lack that belief.
JEB_Stuart wrote:It isn't a tenet at all...
Nope. Its actually blasphemy.
Yea... I'm "emotionally incapable" hehe
You seem to like this phrase... I'm not sure you know what it means
I find strange organisms in my Peanut Butter all the time. I just eat them. They scream and scream, and beg their little microscopic deity for forgiveness for their sins right up into the moment I crap them out. This entire thread is a waste of computer processing power.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Can you name which ones? I have never heard of them, and most of the sects of Eastern Orthodoxy simply the national churches.
A standard component of Eastern Orthodoxy is the untenable nature of God's existence. The rest follows organically.
But the Eastern Orthodox does recognize the major ecumenical councils as the definition of the Faith. No Eastern Orthodox priest or even a common adherent would even think of agreeing that Jesus in not the Son of God. They would agree that such as thought as part of any group that claims to be Christian would be blasphemous....
dogma wrote:Read beyond the initial statement.
Also, once you acknowledge God as the Father of all, you can cancel the significance of God as the Father of Jesus.
They acknowledge the Nicene Creed as a basic definition of the Faith, which clearly labels Christ as being the Son of God and also being one with God, ergo Christ is God, just a different facet.
dogma wrote:But are Christians. Given the subversive tendencies within the faith, they still count. Also, I never brought up the notion of sects. That was Frigs. Again, emotionally incapable of rational thought on the matter.
Most Catholics, especially the clergy, would not regard these people as Catholics then, and in accordance with the orders as laid out in Papal Bulls and Encyclicals, those people are excommunicated from the Church. They are outside the realm of Christendom for all intensive purposes.
dogma wrote:Obviously, but the point of the initial comment was to elucidate the difficult inherent in classifying Christianity as a faith which requires that one belief in the genetic relationship between Jesus and God. I don't need to prove that Quakes lack that belief in homogeneity, only that some Quakers lack that belief.
Well the first five ecumenical councils really laid out the framework for what the Faith is. It is widely regarded and agreed that those who reject these councils are not Christians....
dogma wrote:Nope. Its actually blasphemy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warpcrafter wrote:I find strange organisms in my Peanut Butter all the time. I just eat them. They scream and scream, and beg their little microscopic deity for forgiveness for their sins right up into the moment I crap them out. This entire thread is a waste of computer processing power.
Then don't read it and waste our time with your pithy comments...
frgsinwntr wrote:Actually I am dyslexic and I also have a Masters In Physics.
Cool story bro.
frgsinwntr wrote:
Thanks
I'm glad your ad hominem is working.
Yep, that is ad hominem. However, if you had studied anything relating to logic, you would know that ad hominem is not necessarily invalid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:But the Eastern Orthodox does recognize the major ecumenical councils as the definition of the Faith. No Eastern Orthodox priest or even a common adherent would even think of agreeing that Jesus in not the Son of God. They would agree that such as thought as part of any group that claims to be Christian would be blasphemous....
My experience tells me otherwise. You could argue via a criterion of elimination, but then we're getting into no true Scotsmen territory.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
They acknowledge the Nicene Creed as a basic definition of the Faith, which clearly labels Christ as being the Son of God and also being one with God, ergo Christ is God, just a different facet.
No they don't, they accept it as valid information. Again, read the statements of faith. I've been in this Church for my entire life (my father is part of their theological council), and what you're saying has very little to do with the UCC.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Most Catholics, especially the clergy, would not regard these people as Catholics then, and in accordance with the orders as laid out in Papal Bulls and Encyclicals, those people are excommunicated from the Church. They are outside the realm of Christendom for all intensive purposes.
You can claim that, however my knowledge of the more liberal churches within the larger Catholic Church speaks against it.
Again, you're treading very close to no true Scotsmen territory.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Well the first five ecumenical councils really laid out the framework for what the Faith is. It is widely regarded and agreed that those who reject these councils are not Christians....
Do I believe in the fantasy wizard a.k.a, Harry potter, Gandalf version, No. However there are people that dabble in satanism and witchcraft and therefore could be classified as wizards and witches.
Watch that Peanut Butter video again. When he takes the top off the jar, foil on the PB is already peeled back a little. Looks like they felt the need to check that there was no new life in there before they shot it....
The OP video is such a terrible attempt at propaganda, Whats up with the crazy voice they gave the guy reading the bible? thats not biased....
Also how do you draw a logical line between two verses, one written by a man well after the death of Christ, and the other translated in a chain from 3-4 languages into English, and then claim that to not believe in them is pan amount to denying your whole religion.
And if I was going to make an argument about witches and demons, I would take it upon myself to learn the cultural meaning of the words for the time period in which the verse was written before I made and ass of myself by equating it with a resent pop-culture phenomanon (by the way he also missed the fact that there are no demons in HP).
Now as for the peanut butter guy, that is at the opposite side of the propaganda war, and was no better argument than the video from the OP.
FITZZ wrote:Well,no I don't belive so,however,to the best of my understanding,it isn't a basic tenet of Islam to belive Muhammad is the son of god.
It's not, but in either case it's a religion founded on a prophet. In one case there's a much larger group of people who think that prophet is the son of god as well.
I heard an old guy tell a story about one of his friends who was preaching on a street corner. There was a small crowd around him. One of the men passing by was a college professor. He approached the preacher, gave him his card and said "I challenge you to a debate this sunday." The preacher took the card and invited the man to stand with him. He said he would accept the debate on the condition that he bring along someone who had been delivered from alcoholism after discovering that there was no god, someone who had been freed from a life of prostitution, someone who was dying of cancer and got healed because there was no god, etc. The man quickly said he no longer wished to debate the preacher.
Regardless if that story is completely true, exaggerated or completely false, it makes a good point. In the same way, so does scripture. Yes, there's weird crap in there, but a lot of stuff in our culture would have really freaked out ancient Jews too. I believe in the supernatural and have experienced it in both positive and negative ways. I have enough circumstantial evidence to believe for myself, and I believe it's hard if not impossible to force someone else to believe in it too.
Well, then if witches and wizards and demons are all works of fiction and fantasy(as the narrator says) and that works referencing them are works of fiction, then that means most history, psychological, and some laws are fiction. I think ireland or scotland had a law stating that it was illegal to pretend to practice wiccan, witchcraft, etc. If this is so, then all Irish or Scottish laws are in fact fiction, and any country that has people attempting to practice witchcraft are indeed fiction. Not only that, but that entire movie is fiction as it references witches, wizards, and demons more than several times.
Also, it fails to take the fact that fat and blood of animals were useful back then to many people. If god had said "give me your cadillacs" to a group of recently freed slaves, then it really wouldn't of related to them. Also, nice work quoting the old testament, most christians pay more attention to the new testament anyways.
George Spiggott wrote:Witches and wizards? Yes. Magical powers for the aforementioned? No. Demons? No.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:someone who was dying of cancer and got healed because there was no god
Both sides of this one are mythical.
I don't like the underlying message in thet story, that being that faith and learning are mutually exclusive.
It's not saying that at all, nor am I saying to treat every word as the most utmost truth. The academic group often opposes itself to the religious group just for the hell of it, and vice versa. Doesn't mean there has to be any animosity, just pointing out that there is.
There are records of people being dead, being prayed for then not being dead anymore. There are doctor's records to prove it. I've known a hell of a lot of people with "incurable" diseases that turned to a religious source for help and suddenly didn't have the disease anymore. I'm not going to bother trying to convince you because it's a waste of my typing, and I'd much rather type about toy soldiers or other such nonsense
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Well, then if witches and wizards and demons are all works of fiction and fantasy(as the narrator says) and that works referencing them are works of fiction, then that means most history, psychological, and some laws are fiction. I think ireland or scotland had a law stating that it was illegal to pretend to practice wiccan, witchcraft, etc. If this is so, then all Irish or Scottish laws are in fact fiction, and any country that has people attempting to practice witchcraft are indeed fiction. Not only that, but that entire movie is fiction as it references witches, wizards, and demons more than several times.
Or the law that gave every town in America schools which was called the "Old Deluder, Satan Act." It said something to the effect that Satan would try to delude the minds of the young, so they should stay busy by learning things. Not that it gets mentioned anywhere anymore.
Wow that video was fething offensive. It was totally made to stroke anti christian egos. I couldn't even finish it. This is about as objective and productive as me making a video where I just repeat the phrase; "every one who disagrees with me is stupid".
The part about the ram's blood was a Jewish ritual. While he's at it, why not insult every religious practice? Theres plenty more religions to piss on, Islam, hinduism, shinto, bhuddism, etc. I think the guy who made this vid just has a grudge against christianity. I don't believe in Islam, but I don't run around telling muslims the quran is a poorly written storybook.
He's not even right about anything in that video though. There are several people I know who call themselves witches and are in ways of practicing wiccan. Not to mention there are people who practice witchcraft and voodoo so I will say that witchery and wizardry exist. There have been confirmed possessions so I will say that demons exist. Seeing as though they exist, the bible is NOT a work of fiction and therefore everyone should be christian.
Also, the video should've ended with "share this video with others... so that they can laugh at you for even bringing up this piece of garbage." or perhaps "successful troll is successful".
halonachos wrote: There have been confirmed possessions so I will say that demons exist.
What do you mean by 'confirmed'? There have been confirmed cases in which certain types of dementia have been explained by certain people as the work of possession, but that doesn't necessarily mean the person was actually possessed.
halonachos wrote:
Seeing as though they exist, the bible is NOT a work of fiction and therefore everyone should be christian.
That's a rather long bow to draw. Even should something like a demon be proven to exist, its existence would not be a necessary endorsement of Christianity.
There are only certain cases that the catholic church investigates, those deemed worthy of exorcism are to me a confirmation of either possession or a really messed up haunted house.
The second statement you quoted me on was a shot at the video's idiocy. I was mimicking it this time, don't worry I'm not that stupid, yet.
dogma wrote:What do you mean by 'confirmed'? There have been confirmed cases in which certain types of dementia have been explained by certain people as the work of possession, but that doesn't necessarily mean the person was actually possessed.
Well there is an order of the Roman Catholic Church that deals with exorcisms, but I am not sure how much of their work is documented....
dogma wrote:That's a rather long bow to draw. Even should something like a demon be proven to exist, its existence would not be a necessary endorsement of Christianity.
I don't think that you can say Christianity can be proven, so I disagree with that statement, but I do believe everyone should be a Christian. If any of you find it intolerant that is too bad, but it is a basic tenet of my faith and I adhere to it. That being said, I am not going to start up any inquisitions or anything of that nature, but I do love talking about God and the Bible, among many other things, and would be more then happy to answer any questions via pm.
JEB_Stuart wrote:I don't think that you can say Christianity can be proven, so I disagree with that statement, but I do believe everyone should be a Christian.
I believe that not everyone should be a Christian. Now where do we go?
dogma wrote:What do you mean by 'confirmed'? There have been confirmed cases in which certain types of dementia have been explained by certain people as the work of possession, but that doesn't necessarily mean the person was actually possessed.
Well there is an order of the Roman Catholic Church that deals with exorcisms, but I am not sure how much of their work is documented....
dogma wrote:That's a rather long bow to draw. Even should something like a demon be proven to exist, its existence would not be a necessary endorsement of Christianity.
I don't think that you can say Christianity can be proven, so I disagree with that statement, but I do believe everyone should be a Christian. If any of you find it intolerant that is too bad, but it is a basic tenet of my faith and I adhere to it. That being said, I am not going to start up any inquisitions or anything of that nature, but I do love talking about God and the Bible, among many other things, and would be more then happy to answer any questions via pm.
I gotta agree with you Jeb, I too believe everyone should be christian, the world would be a lot gentler, friendlier place. We'd have a lot less to argue about. However, I think forcing it on anyone would be the worst thing a person could do, (totally not saying that you advocate it, just pointing it out) I'm a big believer in personal freedom and idividuality so if someone doesn't want to believe in God, I'd let them do as they please. Oh well, in a perfect world we'd all get along and people wouldn't post slowed propaganda on youtube.
JEB_Stuart wrote:I don't think that you can say Christianity can be proven, so I disagree with that statement, but I do believe everyone should be a Christian.
I believe that not everyone should be a Christian. Now where do we go?
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I heard an old guy tell a story about one of his friends who was preaching on a street corner. There was a small crowd around him. One of the men passing by was a college professor. He approached the preacher, gave him his card and said "I challenge you to a debate this sunday." The preacher took the card and invited the man to stand with him. He said he would accept the debate on the condition that he bring along someone who had been delivered from alcoholism after discovering that there was no god, someone who had been freed from a life of prostitution, someone who was dying of cancer and got healed because there was no god, etc. The man quickly said he no longer wished to debate the preacher.
Regardless if that story is completely true, exaggerated or completely false, it makes a good point. In the same way, so does scripture. Yes, there's weird crap in there, but a lot of stuff in our culture would have really freaked out ancient Jews too. I believe in the supernatural and have experienced it in both positive and negative ways. I have enough circumstantial evidence to believe for myself, and I believe it's hard if not impossible to force someone else to believe in it too.
This is a fun argument....
I know plenty of people who "found" god and still died of cancer... still are prostitutes (well strippers).... and are all about drinking!
I also know people who have no god and still got healed... aren't alcoholics anymore... and aren't still stripping...
So... yea your story doesn't make any point... It says "look at these wonderful things!" only God can do that...
Well no... if it is true and only god can do that then... if we find one person who is godless that fits that criteria... your entire argument and story fail...
however your second part interests me...the part I highlighted.... What evidence did you find?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
JEB_Stuart wrote:I don't think that you can say Christianity can be proven, so I disagree with that statement, but I do believe everyone should be a Christian.
I believe that not everyone should be a Christian. Now where do we go?
JEB_Stuart wrote:I don't think that you can say Christianity can be proven, so I disagree with that statement, but I do believe everyone should be a Christian.
I believe that not everyone should be a Christian. Now where do we go?
To the bar for a pint? I don't have a problem with people who disagree with me. I am not an intolerant person, and I love meeting people with different perspectives. It gives me more to think about
frgsinwntr wrote:So... yea your story doesn't make any point... It says "look at these wonderful things!" only God can do that...
Eh? I don't think it did.
It looked like it was saying that belief in God has done more for people's well-being than a lack of belief. It never implied no one ever had their life made better without converting to Christianity, that would be nonsensical.
I don't think everyone should be Christian. It's like saying everyone should have blonde hair, only wear black clothing. The world would be a boring place if everyone thought the same.
Witches, and wizards, and demons are archaic terms. Through my research into the occult when I was younger, I believe that there is some kind of 'otherworldly' dimension/facet that exists, and that there are entities who exist in it, and people who are capable of invoking/using it through various methods, means, and philosophies, but it depends on what you would call those people and entities. The terms you give work, but I would disagree with the connotations they have.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Well there is an order of the Roman Catholic Church that deals with exorcisms, but I am not sure how much of their work is documented....
That's what I mean. We don't have empirical evidence that demons exist. We may eventually obtain some, but without that confirmation is impossible.
JEB_Stuart wrote:I don't think that you can say Christianity can be proven...
frgsinwntr wrote:
I also know people who have no god and still got healed... aren't alcoholics anymore... and aren't still stripping...
I don't know of many programs for alcoholics that do not invoke the concept of a higher power in a way which renders the God distinction anything more than technical.
frgsinwntr wrote:
So... yea your story doesn't make any point... It says "look at these wonderful things!" only God can do that...
Its a story about the motivational power of belief.
frgsinwntr wrote:
Well no... if it is true and only god can do that then... if we find one person who is godless that fits that criteria... your entire argument and story fail...
If God exists, then the question of one's belief in him is largely irrelevant. Your comment is a bit like claiming that someone who believes they have no body would not be subject to the needs of their body.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:I wasn't referring to your post. I was instead referring to Nacho's post....
frgsinwntr wrote:
I also know people who have no god and still got healed... aren't alcoholics anymore... and aren't still stripping...
I don't know of many programs for alcoholics that do not invoke the concept of a higher power in a way which renders the God distinction anything more than technical.
frgsinwntr wrote:
So... yea your story doesn't make any point... It says "look at these wonderful things!" only God can do that...
Its a story about the motivational power of belief.
frgsinwntr wrote:
Well no... if it is true and only god can do that then... if we find one person who is godless that fits that criteria... your entire argument and story fail...
If God exists, then the question of one's belief in him is largely irrelevant. Your comment is a bit like claiming that someone who believes they have no body would not be subject to the needs of their body.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:I wasn't referring to your post. I was instead referring to Nacho's post....
Ah, I was confused by the quoting.
EDITED. Wrex is correct
Yes I agree that Belief can be a motivating factor, the story is skewed in such a way that it suggests these things can only be accomplished with God.
As far as programs for alcoholism that don't appeal to a higher power? Who said anything about those people using a program? In fact... many studies have shown that these programs that rely on god have a high failure rate. (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html for example)
There is a logical assumption that organized support is more effective than dispersed ideals. It is fantastic to talk about relatively rare occurrences, such as a person able to support themselves; this does raise the question about whether or not anyone can actually accomplish the same goals without support. What about the people that cannot find support through any means available? Do they just fall? Of course they do, and that is probably a function of their psyche more than their environment.
When I look at groups like AA, I do have to have some respect for the solid support that they can provide to many types of people. Using faith, is not based entirely on God, but on the ability to stand up and accept your circumstances while assessing the best way to receive your support when available; as well as taking what steps you can on your own.
It is also funny that you would say that to Dogma, as he has not even mentioned the need for a god in anyway. Assuming you are young sith.
Norwulf wrote:
, I too believe everyone should be christian, the world would be a lot gentler, friendlier place. We'd have a lot less to argue about.
Hmm.. huge swathes of history would suggest otherwise...
..but that could just be us violent Euro trash.
Are you referring to the crusades? If you are I should point out that it was two different religious groups in conflict. What I was talking about was a hypothetical situation where everyone shared the same religious views, in this case christianity. I do realize how impossible that is though.
note: my descendants were violent euro-trash, so I'm not gonna judge.
Norwulf wrote:Are you referring to the crusades? If you are I should point out that it was two different religious groups in conflict. What I was talking about was a hypothetical situation where everyone shared the same religious views, in this case christianity. I do realize how impossible that is though.
There are numerous instances of violence associated with Christianity in European history. The Crusades being one of them, even though they were blatantly for political reasons, just draped in the sheepskin of religion. I don't believe that just calling yourself a Christian or professing belief in it makes you a peaceful person. Its a change that has to come from within, but you are right in your assertion that Christ calls for peace, and as his followers so should we.
Norwulf wrote:note: my ancestors were violent euro-trash, so I'm not gonna judge.
frgsinwntr wrote:
Yes I agree that Belief can be a motivating factor, the story is skewed in such a way that it suggests these things can only be accomplished with God.
I didn't get that from it. To me it read as an objection to the debate via functionalist criteria. Basically, the veracity of a statement with respect to God's existence is less important than the practical benefits of religious belief.
frgsinwntr wrote:
As far as programs for alcoholism that don't appeal to a higher power? Who said anything about those people using a program?
You don't necessarily have to employ a program in order to be considered as acting in accordance with its methodology. A scientist is a scientist even if he doesn't know what the word scientist means.
AA doesn't rely on a God. That's a categorical misnomer. A higher power does not have to be a God in the literal sense. If it did, then anyone who believes in something more powerful than themselves would be a Theist. Believe in the United States? Its your God, and you're now a Theist. Believe in that cat sitting on your desk (its a very big, powerful cat)? Its your God, and you're now a Theist. Ad nauseum.
I've read some of the orange papers stuff. Its interesting, but I think he slips up in a couple areas. Namely, he looks at AA without first looking alcoholism itself (accepting that its a disease in anything approaching a clinical sense seems mistaken to me), and considers remission as tantamount to failure (AA doesn't present itself as a cure).
Yes, yes it is. But not for the reasons you'd be told today by modern Muslims.
Explain...
When Muhammed originally wrote the tenets of Islam, he was writing to create a new sect of Christianity and believed Jesus was the Messiah. Hence, belief in Muhammed to be the son of God would be blasphemy as you were saying that Muhammed was Jesus.
(Bit of background: my wife has a Middle Eastern/Islamic Studies degree)
Norwulf wrote:note: my ancestors were violent euro-trash, so I'm not gonna judge.
fixed it for you
lmao! How did I do that? Oh well I'm gonna leave it so my ego will stay in check, and everyone on dakka can know what a dumbass I am sometimes. Piers=peers lolz.
BTW I had a friend who was in AA and they made him choose a higher power. He went with captain cucumber, a mystical being that looks suspiciously like the warden from superjail. He ended up with quite a following tbh.
AA doesn't rely on a God. That's a categorical misnomer. A higher power does not have to be a God in the literal sense. If it did, then anyone who believes in something more powerful than themselves would be a Theist. Believe in the United States? Its your God, and you're now a Theist. Believe in that cat sitting on your desk (its a very big, powerful cat)? Its your God, and you're now a Theist. Ad nauseum.
I've read some of the orange papers stuff. Its interesting, but I think he slips up in a couple areas. Namely, he looks at AA without first looking alcoholism itself (accepting that its a disease in anything approaching a clinical sense seems mistaken to me), and considers remission as tantamount to failure (AA doesn't present itself as a cure).
Agreed about the slippage but...
Since 1996, courts across the United States, in a number of different cases, have ruled that inmates, parolees, and probationers cannot be ordered to attend AA. Though AA itself was not deemed to be a religion, it was found to contain enough religious components to make such coercion a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the constitution.[56] In September 2007, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that a parole office can be sued for ordering a parolee to attend Alcoholics Anonymous.[57][58] (thanks wikipedia!)
so it is enough of a religion according to the US govt
I'm not sure of your definition of belief and believe. can you define them for me and what they mean in your post?
Found this, thought it was worth a watch. All depends on How serious you take your literature.
But seriously... What are your thoughts about his argument?
Ok. Lets go back to the orignal video. Here are the videos claims in order:
1. In order to be a Christian you need to beleive that Jesus was the Son of God. This is correct, more specifically you need to beleive that Jesus the Son of God died for your sins and was risen from the dead (Romans 10:9-10). the word Christ in itself means Messach - in this context the Son of God.
2. Do you beleive in witches, wizards and demons? Ok, for the first two most people do. Witchcraft exists because there are people who claim to be witches and perform witchcraft. Whether witchcraft has the effects they claim is not relevant and open to further discussion. This works on the traditional concept that a wizard is a male witch (which is not actually true but see below).
As for demons, I certainly do. I have seen at least one.
I see no reason to be tricked into thinking a 'no' answer, neither should anyone else, at least for the first two concepts.
3. The Father God instructs us to kill witches and stone wizards. The Old Testament does condemn witchcraft, but IIRC the word wizard does not appear at all. The video is slanting the story to make out Biblical witchcraft to be a Harry Potteresque fantasy. This is not necessary, witchcraft appears today, just without flying on broomsticks and turning people into toads.
4. Jesus casts out demons to prove his spiritual manhood. Either a cheap shot or an ignorant misunderstanding, actually Jesus did not show off when performing ministry. In fact when He healed and delivered He requested that the person helped go home quietly, Jesus did not want specific attention to the miraculous but to the message he preached. Any brief read of the four Gospels will point out this over numerous examples.
5. Exodus 29 and Leviticus 4 blood rituals. Pre Christian worship of the Hebrew God required sacrfiice to atone for sin. This is his rule, get over it. Go must punish sin, so the only way to escape judgement is on a legal technicality, covering oneself literally with the blood of a sacrifice as sin requires atonement by blood. Again God makes the rules. The idea of the cross sacrifice is that it once and for all time negated this ritual, but because God had up til then accepted that as an excuse for forgiveness it meant that God could legally accept faith in Jesus as a sign of forgiveness.
This might and does sound wierd, but the basic principle is that a God who beleives in justice must address peoples misgivings as a just God, thus because we are not just and deserve punishment to one extent or another He must create a legal technicality that 'gets us off'. This, the Bible argues, is God's solution.
6. Why would a divine super-being be interested in 'the fat around the kidneye of a dead bull'? Its a two part question. Partly he is because it is something you can do without any access to high technology and rerquires obedience. Thus it was azn achievable sacrifice by the peoples of the time. However he wasnt truly interested either; as quoted in Psalm 51:16-17 "You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise."
'Broken' in this case means surrendered to Gods will, not destroyed as per a jilted lover.
7. How can I tell if Harry Potter is real or not? As described above there are major differences between 'wizardry' as in the ancient or contemporary occult and the 'wizardry' ass found in D&D and modern fantasy. Is there anyone recorded who actually beleives in Harry Potter, as opposed to fans of ther books or films?
You could at this point raise Jedi 'worship' as an exambple of pop cuklture religion but that is little more than cosplay and/or a fun way to mess up an official census form. People might follow the Jedi ethic - which is in fact a mish mash of pre-existing Oriental religious techniques and artistic apprentice conventions, but any benefit is therefore coincidental and just applies to isolated concepts drawn from Buddhism and Shinto reiterated in the film background for a fantasy setting. Its also telling that the inventor/IP owner of the Jedi story concept does not think it a religion.
8. The ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is an important one. Yes and it can be/should be learned from a very early age.
9. Welcome us to the ranks who can identify describing witches wizards and demons as fantasy. Well you can most certainly distinguish fact from fantasy and still beleive in ther Bible, those concepts are not mutually exclusive. Secondly the concepts of witches/wizards and demons may exist in seperation to the role as depicted in modern fantasy literature, art, films or games.
frgsinwntr wrote:
Since 1996, courts across the United States, in a number of different cases, have ruled that inmates, parolees, and probationers cannot be ordered to attend AA. Though AA itself was not deemed to be a religion, it was found to contain enough religious components to make such coercion a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the constitution.[56] In September 2007, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that a parole office can be sued for ordering a parolee to attend Alcoholics Anonymous.[57][58] (thanks wikipedia!)
so it is enough of a religion according to the US govt
Sort of. The bold component is very important. In essence the prevalence of religion in association with the program is considered to sufficiently 'taint' the program such that a requirement of AA attendance would be very likely to translate into the required attendance of a church.
frgsinwntr wrote:
I'm not sure of your definition of belief and believe. can you define them for me and what they mean in your post?
Any valid definition will work. I'm not making a specific comment. Only a categorical one.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Someone should do a list for the peanut butter one.
I havent got round to looking at that yet, I might have heard of the story if it is what I think it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:Just in case you haven't seen this one:
1. Evolution vs Creationism. The point so often missed is that there is no 'versus'. You can beleive in one ther other or both within certain paradigms, the concepts are not mutually exclusive. That which is commonly now known as 'Intelligent Design' is in effect a very early form of Creationism, not a revisal. I have problems with the Intelligent Design movement for this reason, it need not exist, it is merely Creationism. The problem from the Creationist side comes from Biblical literalism, a very dangeous thing and spoken against by such persons as Jesus himself. After all the peoples of the time expected the Messach to be a great warrior and conqueror because the Bible said so, however this was a literalist teranslation, and missed out on the fact that much of the bible is written in a prophetic and parallel method that requires indirect interpretation. That is wgy people exptected Jesuis to kick Roman arse, not preaxch peace and forgiveness. It is easy to see both interpretations in the Old Testament in hindsight. Now if the principle concept of the Old Testament was misinterpreted, the coming of the Messach, then what else is misinterpreted? The whole of the early chapters of Genesis come into the completely, after all if Genesis 1 is about life before man, from who's perspective is it written, or relayed? Not mans, but perportably from God's, as God is a non corporeal and timeless being for whome "a thousand years is as a day, and a day like a thousand years" , a literal seven day advent from the point of view of God need not be incompatible with hundred of millions of years of evolutionary progress, even if the seven days themselves are not in literal order. A theist can argue that the seven days of creation are the 'cause', and the evolutionary process and for that matter the cosmological process is the 'effect'. The two do not clash.
The problem with the Evolutionary movement is that it has been hijacked by atheism, under their own form of Biblical literalism. atheism and Biblical literalism often go hand in hand, especially where atheists have a ham fisted interpretation of biblical verses - for a good example of that see the previous video. It is interesting to note that those who proposed the principles of evolution were not committed atheists, though Darwin had a healthy contempt for the church of his contemporary times, pretty much for the reasons listed above.
The real question lies with whether it is beleived the universe is accidental or co-ordinated. I beleive the latter, but my clever God hides his hand just enough to keep you with a valid choice. Remember noone has ever disproved God, but while miracles have been reported by many, empirical proof has also been tantalisingly ommitted.
2. Peanut butter. The park of life emerged in the precambrian era, which was a very long time ago and lasted a very long time. The first steps of life on earth took place over a time period longer than all subsequent events. Thus for a jarr of peanut butter to be given a fair chance to encourage newly created/designed or randomly evolved life it will need to be left alone for a VERY long time, something in the region of a few hundred million years will do.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Only if you use the word differently from most of the population.
Your thoughts aren't real? They don't exist? They're abstract and not physical, true. But they exist. Most of the population also watches too much TV and eat garbage that they know is bad for them.
Khornholio wrote:Your thoughts aren't real? They don't exist?
A thought about an imaginary figure isn't that figure any more than a thought about a real object is that object. If there's a distinction between what exists in the reality and what exists only in your imagination, there is a difference between a thought and the subject matter of your thought.
At any rate, your definition of existence applies to absolutely everything, which makes it a meaningless word. Saying that something "exists in your mind" is different from saying that it "exists". The later is assumed to exist in reality, because the alternative is for for saying that "it exists" to be a meaingless statement.
No. I'm saying look at European history--like I said--, when the Xtian church was the dominant force and easily the "default" religion. Centuries of war, murder, death, assassination, pillaging etc etc.
What I was talking about was a hypothetical situation where everyone shared the same religious views, in this case christianity. I do realize how impossible that is though.
Because all Xtians are the same and see things exactly the same. Obviously. How often do those snakes bite you ? Use of contraception ? Being pacifistic working out well for you ?
No. I'm saying look at European history--like I said--, when the Xtian church was the dominant force and easily the "default" religion. Centuries of war, murder, death, assassination, pillaging etc etc.
You are implying it was therefore different, in fact it was always the same. War murder death assassination and pillaging long predated Christianity of course.
reds8n wrote:
What I was talking about was a hypothetical situation where everyone shared the same religious views, in this case christianity. I do realize how impossible that is though.
Because all Xtians are the same and see things exactly the same. Obviously. How often do those snakes bite you ? Use of contraception ? Being pacifistic working out well for you ?
Not all Christians and Christian groups are the same, think the same or act the same.
..I don't see how you merely repeating the points I have made adds anything new here at all.
I was implying no difference or double standard, just pointing out the obvious flaw in this "world of peace scenario" that when we have had the scenario he's described it hasn't been like that at all. Equally if you look at any significant region dominated by pretty much any religion, or viewpoint or ideology you'll find the same thing, to greater and larger degress.
This topic is easily and immediately answered. I don't know about wizards, but anyone who has worked for a living knows demons and witches exist-you're constantly subject to their cruel onslaughts...
@All: The story is just a story. It also never said that aliens have grey skin instead of green, but did it ever try to or did I ever say it did? Please move on.
I think people get caught up not knowing the difference between a church, community, denomination, etc. We're all individual people. I don't care if we go moments where we feel united, but you'll never get a group of more than 5 people that feel the exact same way about everything. Does anyone really think that all the crusaders shared the exact same mindset? People do stuff for their own reasons. I'd rather someone pick what they believe, keeping an open mind and being willing to admit when it doesn't work. There's no point in arguing "groups," because that logic just fails. Some Christians are psycho and think they're "God-warrriiiioooorrrs!" and can scream at whoever they wish, while others you may not even notice being that different from you. The "All Christians are..." generalizations are tired.
As for the subjectivism, it's a waste of time. Either stuff is real or it ain't. Elsewise, you may not exist yourself. Nihilism tends to defeat itself in the sense that it's pointless to be a nihilist. That should be their slogan
Ooh, fun fact, the Inquisition had more recorded victims than the holocaust. The Vatican allegedly has even more records we'll never see.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Ooh, fun fact, the Inquisition had more recorded victims than the holocaust. The Vatican allegedly has even more records we'll never see.
And Dan Brown makes an appearance. What do you base such a claim on? Which Inquisition are you referring to? There were four, but only two of them were run by Catholic Church. The only two that were run by the Church itself were what historians call the "Medieval Inquisition" and the Roman Inquisition. After the French invaded the Italian peninsula in 1798, they sent back almost all of the Inquisition documents to France, they numbered around 100,000. Hardly seems to be close enough to compare it to the Holocaust, and even more unlikely that the Vatican has these documents...
"L. H. Franzibald is the Dan Brown of fantasy epics." ~ Extreme Digest
Perhaps it is time we shed this lame terminology and adopt a quest for whether you believe in wolfoids and witchaloks, or you are sorely in need of a whipping. Witches and wizards need to get with it and start dual-wielding their wands.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Ooh, fun fact, the Inquisition had more recorded victims than the holocaust. The Vatican allegedly has even more records we'll never see.
And Dan Brown makes an appearance. What do you base such a claim on? Which Inquisition are you referring to? There were four, but only two of them were run by Catholic Church. The only two that were run by the Church itself were what historians call the "Medieval Inquisition" and the Roman Inquisition. After the French invaded the Italian peninsula in 1798, they sent back almost all of the Inquisition documents to France, they numbered around 100,000. Hardly seems to be close enough to compare it to the Holocaust, and even more unlikely that the Vatican has these documents...
Honestly, I have no idea. I heard it on the History channel. I guess I shouldn't blurt things without having a few sources first :p
I don't believe that the Inquisition killed more people than the Holocaust.
That would just be an absurd amount of people killed for that time. There's a world of difference between modern populations and medieval populations. Additionally, the Inquisition generally tried to avoid killing people; the whole point was to save them from their heresy so it wouldn't be necessary. However, they did steal and torture to a much greater degree, so they were far from saintly in that regard.
Perhaps if by victims you mean anyone persecuted by the group, and by Inquisition you refer to all four major "Inquisitions" (starting with the Medieval Inquisition in 1184 and ending with the Roman Inquisition in around 1860), you would have a comparable number. But in that case, you're still looking at persecution over 700 years and persecution over less than 15.
::EDIT:: Ah, just one of those facts you pick up? Yeah, I tend to do the same thing. Well, I think there are conditions under which it could be true, but I think they'd have to be kind of silly.
Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't believe that the Inquisition killed more people than the Holocaust.
That would just be an absurd amount of people killed for that time. There's a world of difference between modern populations and medieval populations. Additionally, the Inquisition generally tried to avoid killing people; the whole point was to save them from their heresy so it wouldn't be necessary. However, they did steal and torture to a much greater degree, so they were far from saintly in that regard.
Perhaps if by victims you mean anyone persecuted by the group, and by Inquisition you refer to all four major "Inquisitions" (starting with the Medieval Inquisition in 1184 and ending with the Roman Inquisition in around 1860), you would have a comparable number. But in that case, you're still looking at persecution over 700 years and persecution over less than 15.
::EDIT:: Ah, just one of those facts you pick up? Yeah, I tend to do the same thing. Well, I think there are conditions under which it could be true, but I think they'd have to be kind of silly.
Still,you have to admit,people acting in the name of christianity(and at the time supported by the church),have racked up an impresive body count,and unlike the nazis,don't seem to be abhord for those actions.
Frazzled wrote:And here's where the thread drops into the toilet.
That's certianly not my intentions Frazzled,nor was it to troll,I'm simply perplexed by,what seems to me a certian degree of hypocricy when it comes to defining atrocities.
Frazzled wrote:And here's where the thread drops into the toilet.
That's certianly not my intentions Frazzled,nor was it to troll,I'm simply perplexed by,what seems to me a certian degree of hypocricy when it comes to defining atrocities.
Highest possible atheism death toll without Stalin: 45,000,000.
Highest possible atheism death toll with Stalin: 95,000,000.
theism: 2,229,074,100
Nazis.... 9 million...
Religion has caused a lot of deaths, more particularly fighting OVER religion
I hear a fair amount of criticism of Christians (especially Catholics) for the Inquisition. More than is fair, oftentimes, as it was something that happened fairly long ago. Of course, the way the Catholic Church handles some of their prior crimes might contribute to it a bit (I think they've been somewhat prideful in that regard. Probably because they still have a lot of reverence for tradition and such).
The Holocaust was really a very "modern" event, and it having happened in a country that was, at the time, considered to be as advanced and civilized as any other - not to mention pretty similar culturally - made it a much bigger deal than it probably would have been if it happened in, say, China, 1650. The extensive documentation and large number of survivors able to tell of the story (in the age of mass media) also made it a bigger deal.
"The Inquisition" also existed over a huge span of time, but never did anything so hugely noticeable that everyone would remember it centuries later. They also died out over time, so there was no real "defeat" that had their conquerors looking to further expose the crimes of their enemies.
Nazism was also pretty dedicated to the ideals of the Holocaust - namely, the extermination of the Jewish race (and some other groups), and the brutal treatment of even more groups that failed to live up to the Nazi ideal. By contrast, there's not much fundamental to Christianity that requires conflict with Jews and Muslims, or that requires "conversion" by torture to be true belief, or that requires witchcraft do be considered a common crime.
Highest possible atheism death toll without Stalin: 45,000,000.
Highest possible atheism death toll with Stalin: 95,000,000.
theism: 2,229,074,100
Nazis.... 9 million...
Religion has caused a lot of deaths, more particularly fighting OVER religion
That doesn't seem to mean all that much without a corresponding set of numbers that can tell how many people of the world have been atheist and how many have been theists.
I could start Orkeo's Death Cult of Murder tomorrow and me and my four other members could murder as many people as we possibly could. The number of people killed by my Death Cult probably wouldn't even compete with, say, Buddhism, but that doesn't make my religion the more peaceful one.
(And the whole concept of people being "killed for X" because the killers were X is kind of silly at any rate. Stalin certainly didn't kill most of the people he did "for atheism".)
In other news, Confucianism is Theist? I didn't think Gods were a significant part of it.
Genghis Khan, an avowedly religious person (and, like many of his co-religionists, a homophobe of the highest Levitical quality), ground up about 40 million lives in the expansion of his empire throughout the 13th century.
Spluh? Temejin wasn't religious in anything approaching the colloquial sense, and certainly was not a theist.
The French Revolution, built on Enlightenment principles, probably cost somewhere from 1-2 million lives.
Enlightenment principles have nothing to do with atheism.
That said, the entire exercise of attributing casualties to religion is foolish. Belief causes death, and the absence of belief generally does not. However, simply being an atheist does not mean that one lacks belief. In fact, to the extent that the 'death tally' is a standard trope for the more militant atheists, the opposite if often true.
Orkeosaurus wrote:
I could start Orkeo's Death Cult of Murder tomorrow and me and my four other members could murder as many people as we possibly could.
Do we get full medical coverage ? What are the dress requirements too ?
JEB_Stuart wrote:Ah, well in reality it isn't belief that kills people, it is rigid idealism. That's my two cents anyway...
Yeah, this. If you don't join any groups claiming they know how to build a great new world and all it'll take is to kill some of those bad people, you probably won't end up one of history's great monsters.
Just you know, whether or not you have faith, just don't be a dick.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't believe that the Inquisition killed more people than the Holocaust.
The Spanish Inquisition was the worst of them and it totalled around three or four thousand killed total. Which was a pretty crap thing to do, but its a long way short of the Nazis.
A whole lot more Jews were killed over the years in countless pogroms, and people don't even talk about those any more.
