Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AdrianG wrote:I'm not Christian, so the theological debate is wasted on me.

The guy murdered the doctor.
It was wrong to do so.

Simple as that. Doesn't matter WHAT the doctor did, you can't just kill a guy for doing his job. Unless his job is "enemy soldier in a combat zone."

I fully support abortion for ANY or even NO) reason, but I am not exactly at the moral center of the world on most issues.

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I never heard of the Soviet Union Flying Planes into Skyscrapers or having Armies to invade the Middle East.

Are you seriously trying to make the case that the Soviet Union was morally superior simply because it militantly enforced an Atheistic worldview? Really?

No, I am saying Religion has/will caused/cause far more deaths than atheism ever has.

Mattlov wrote:

AdrianG wrote:I'm not Christian, so the theological debate is wasted on me.

The guy murdered the doctor.
It was wrong to do so.

Simple as that. Doesn't matter WHAT the doctor did, you can't just kill a guy for doing his job. Unless his job is "enemy soldier in a combat zone."

I fully support abortion for ANY or even NO) reason, but I am not exactly at the moral center of the world on most issues.

Exactly. A Bundle of Cells growing unwanted inside a Organ is just a Cancer, and a woman has every right to remove it if she wishes. If you don't like it, fine, don't get an abortion. Screw up your own lives, let other people do what they want with theirs

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Wow thank for your daily dose of psycho babble dogma. I was really needing your intuition here.

Its not intuition, its basic logic. You can't say something is right or wrong without having a standard against which to judge the thing itself. Unless you're willing to say that you have a right to determine the biological affairs of another person you cannot lay claim to a legitimate ban on abortion.

generalgrog wrote:
The problem with your supposition of course, is that God or the Bible makes no commandment to go around and commit justifiable homicide.

That's phenomenally incorrect. The OT is littered with examples of justifiable homicide in the course of war, self-defense, and protection of the innocent.

That's why there is a "new" covenent. They talk about the "new" covenent in this collection of books called the "new" testament.

So no, I'm not "phenomenally" incorrect. If I lived over 2,000 years ago then I would be phenomally incorect. Although I should have been a bit more clearer, I forget who I'm dealing with sometimes.


GG

waiting for the proverbial comeback

Gwar! wrote:No, I am saying Religion has/will caused/cause far more deaths than atheism ever has.

That's an absolutely ridiculous notion. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God, so any ideology which does not feature a supreme being is Atheistic. This includes Communism, Capitalism, Imperialism, Fascism, Feudalism, and a whole lot of others that don't need to be mentioned specifically. Do the math again.

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, I am saying Religion has/will caused/cause far more deaths than atheism ever has.

That's an absolutely ridiculous notion. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God, so any ideology which does not feature a supreme being is Atheistic. This includes Communism, Capitalism, Imperialism, Fascism, Feudalism, and a whole lot of others that don't need to be mentioned specifically. Do the math again.

Yeah I have. Religion still comes out on top.

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, I am saying Religion has/will caused/cause far more deaths than atheism ever has.

That's an absolutely ridiculous notion. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God, so any ideology which does not feature a supreme being is Atheistic. This includes Communism, Capitalism, Imperialism, Fascism, Feudalism, and a whole lot of others that don't need to be mentioned specifically. Do the math again.

I don't believe anyone has ever gone into battle with anything other than "God is on my side" in their head.

Well... maybe the commies. And they never really went to battle. Or did they?

An atheistic ideology is not the same thing as atheism itself.

Orkeosaurus wrote:An atheistic ideology is not the same thing as atheism itself.

Exactly.

generalgrog wrote:
That's why there is a "new" covenent. They talk about the "new" covenent in this collection of books called the "new" testament.

So no, I'm not "phenomenally" incorrect. If I lived over 2,000 years ago then I would be phenomally incorect. Although I should have been a bit more clearer, I forget who I'm dealing with sometimes.

I thought you believed the Bible was the infallible word of God. Doesn't the notion of improvements to the word through the issuance of a new covenant preclude the notion that the Bible is infallible? What's more, if newer is better, then shouldn't you be reading the Koran?

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
That's why there is a "new" covenent. They talk about the "new" covenent in this collection of books called the "new" testament.

So no, I'm not "phenomenally" incorrect. If I lived over 2,000 years ago then I would be phenomally incorect. Although I should have been a bit more clearer, I forget who I'm dealing with sometimes.

I thought you believed the Bible was the infallible word of God. Doesn't the notion of improvements to the word through the issuance of a new covenant preclude the notion that the Bible is infallible? What's more, if newer is better, then shouldn't you be reading the Koran?

No they should be Reading Diatenics or the Book of Mormon.

More proof all religion is bad for you imo.

Gwar! wrote:Yeah I have. Religion still comes out on top.

Name one significant, historical conflict that was motivated only by religion. Just one.

Orkeosaurus wrote:An atheistic ideology is not the same thing as atheism itself.

Right, so Christianity, Islam, and Judaism aren't the same thing as religion itself. Look guys, I just absolved religion of any culpability with respect to the mistakes of the Big 3.

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Yeah I have. Religion still comes out on top.

Name one significant, historical conflict that was motivated only by religion. Just one.

Only by religion? There isnt one. Can you name a War that was solely motivated by Atheism? No. However, many conflicts have religion as a core issue. The Crusades for one. The Current Conflict in Israel/Palestine/Gumdropland. Spain trying to invade the UK because they got rid of a Catholic Monarch.

Do I have to continue? Yes, they eventually expanded to include reasons other than religion, but the core of the conflict has always been differing religious views.

Gwar! wrote:

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Yeah I have. Religion still comes out on top.

Name one significant, historical conflict that was motivated only by religion. Just one.

Only by religion? There isnt one. Can you name a War that was solely motivated by Atheism? No. However, many conflicts have religion as a core issue. The Crusades for one. The Current Conflict in Israel/Palestine/Gumdropland. Spain trying to invade the UK because they got rid of a Catholic Monarch.

Do I have to continue? Yes, they eventually expanded to include reasons other than religion, but the core of the conflict has always been differing religious views.

Maybe it's not the religious views that everyone differs on actually.

A thought came to mind. Maybe the people behind each conflict slowly manipulate or find a very small religious difference with the opposing side to spark their populace into a frenzy of conscription to fight the heretics as it were. Makes sense eh?

dogma wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:An atheistic ideology is not the same thing as atheism itself.

Right, so Christianity, Islam, and Judaism aren't the same thing as religion itself. Look guys, I just absolved religion of any culpability with respect to the mistakes of the Big 3.

The difference is when you define atheism as being a part of anything that doesn't associate itself with gods, everything becomes atheist by default.

According to your logic, vegetarianism has killed lots of people as well; after all, most political ideologies don't involve the eating of meat. It would be different if you defined vegetarianism as "abstaining from eating meat", and atheism as "consciously choosing to follow no gods".

You're using one definition of the word to try and prove something about a different definition of the word.

Frazzled wrote:one murderedf does not a rise in extremism make.

What, Pennsylvania cops don't count?

reds8n wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:. You can't blow someone's head off just 'cause you disagree with them.

Says it all really.

Well, that's just wrong. You certainly CAN do it, it's the legality thing that bites you in the kiester. Not that I disagree with your sentiment...

Nurglitch wrote:Murder is illegal killing, so killing someone legally is, by definition, not murder.

There is a certain irony in one man murdering another man because he believes his victim is a murderer.

Typeline wrote:

youngblood wrote:Playing God is far more fun than serving him apparently.

The problem is that God doesn't talk to anyone and tell them what is right, right now. No one can really know who is serving God, who is playing his role, or if he even cares/exists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Abortion is still illegal in Eire though it is legal to take counselling about it and to leave the country in order to seek an abortion elsewhere.

That seems rather odd. "We made abortion illegal to protect life here in Eire, but if you want one you can leave and get one".

Everything you know is a lie.

Kilkrazy wrote:
In the UK, late abortions are a tiny percentage of the total and are done for serious medical reasons.

Very good point.We don't know if he performed late abortions because he wanted to make a bunch of money, or because letting the baby go to term would have feasibly killed the mother too. If he was doing them for the second reason a huge amount of any 'pro-life' moral authority goes down the drain.

I do find it kind of amusing that someone who is pro-life would promote the ending of life though. You'd think they'd be better served picketing graveyards telling bereaved relatives that 'there's options'.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Is it murder when a Soldier shoots the enemy?
Is it murder when a prisoner is executed?

It is not murder when a Soldier shoots an enemy... that is war.

Execution is another issue... a gray area. i support it only when the evidence is unshakable, like with a confession of the person (or persons).

corpsesarefun wrote:I dont understand why there is hate for this man, he did what he was ASKED to do by the parents...
THEY told him to kill their unborn baby so in what way is he responsible? when a man kills another man does the court inprison the weapon?
To me it seems illogical to blame the tool as he was merely following orders of those who legally own the baby that they are aborting.

using THIS logic, the police should not be able to arrest a hit man / assassin... after all, he did what he was ASKED to do... he was TOLD to kill someone... in what way is he responsible??? why should they imprison the weapon who was merely following orders???

Envy89 wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:I dont understand why there is hate for this man, he did what he was ASKED to do by the parents...
THEY told him to kill their unborn baby so in what way is he responsible? when a man kills another man does the court inprison the weapon?
To me it seems illogical to blame the tool as he was merely following orders of those who legally own the baby that they are aborting.

using THIS logic, the police should not be able to arrest a hit man / assassin... after all, he did what he was ASKED to do... he was TOLD to kill someone... in what way is he responsible??? why should they imprison the weapon who was merely following orders???

Because the Hitman was doing something Illegal, the doctor was not.

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Yeah I have. Religion still comes out on top.

Name one significant, historical conflict that was motivated only by religion. Just one.

Orkeosaurus wrote:An atheistic ideology is not the same thing as atheism itself.

Right, so Christianity, Islam, and Judaism aren't the same thing as religion itself. Look guys, I just absolved religion of any culpability with respect to the mistakes of the Big 3.

Wait a minute, gwar and dogma are adding up casualties from conflicts over the millenia of human warfare attributable to the specific sources of Atheism and Religion? I call bs. You both have made assertions indicating that you both have done the math on these. I call you both out to show your figures, because if you cannot show your figures given the wording of your assertions here "Do the math again." and "Yeah I have. Religion still comes out on top.

My bet is both of you ignore this challenge, and in the process gut your arguments.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm

There, now you can verify my math. That was my source.

More people died last century in the name of non religion (athesiam) then have died in the name of religon in the history of the world.

Envy89 wrote:More people died last century in the name of non religion (athesiam) then have died in the name of religon in the history of the world.

I think you will find not a SINGLE war in the history of mankind has been "in the name of non religion". So what, did the Soldiers at Normandy start Screaming "Praise Richard Dawkins!" at Omaha? Oh, I suppose World War One was fought to make sure those Uppity Serbians were not in their churches! No, I didn't think so. There have, however, been countless wars "In the name of God/Allah/Yaweh".

Please, go on, show me a SINGLE war that has specifically been done to Spread Atheism or in the name of Atheism. I previously listed some examples of wars done in the name of Religion, so I suppose it is your turn now.

As I understand it, in most states in the US late term abortions are only allowed when the mother's life is in danger. If true, does that mean the only late term abortions the doctor was likely to have performed were to save the mother, and if that's true isn't the debate going on in this thread all a little pointless?

generalgrog wrote:You ever heard of the Soviet Union?

GG

Are you trying to tell me that the violence committed in the Soviet Union was a result of a commitment to atheism? Because that would be ridiculous. The atrocities of the Soviet Union are a direct result of a committed belief to Leninism and Stalinism. That is, a belief in a worldview that is stronger than respect for the individual. That it happened to include atheism is irrelevant, much as Hitler's christianity was irrelevant in comparison to to his facist and racist beliefs.

Atheism can't be condemned for inspiring any of the great evils, because ultimately 'there's no God' doesn't inspire people to anything, good or evil.

sebster wrote:Atheism can't be condemned for inspiring any of the great evils, because ultimately 'there's no God' doesn't inspire people to anything, good or evil.

Apart from going out, having sex and generally living a happy full life.

dogma wrote:That's an absolutely ridiculous notion. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God, so any ideology which does not feature a supreme being is Atheistic. This includes Communism, Capitalism, Imperialism, Fascism, Feudalism, and a whole lot of others that don't need to be mentioned specifically. Do the math again.

Dude, that's nonsense. Trying to attach the deaths of a political system to a religious belief is a ridiculous contrivance, and you know it.

I'll put it this way. If a dude is a Christian and he yells 'death to all non-believers' before opening fire at his workplace, you could argue those killings relate to Christianity. But if a dude is a Christian, gets fired, wigs out and shoots up his workplace they are not Christian killings, people cannot in any sensible way argue these are Christian killings.

Similarly, if a system has an underlying atheist philosophy, but also has 'rich people are immoral and we need to kill them to reach utopia', then it isn't hard to say the latter is a lot bigger deal than the former.

The people killed by fascists were killed for their leftist or subversive tendencies. The people killed by communists for their reactionary tendencies. The people killed under feudalism were killed because a line of hereditary got confused and the nobles involved got greedy. They were not killed because of some magical inherent atheism in their political philosophy.

sebster wrote:Atheism can't be condemned for inspiring any of the great evils, because ultimately 'there's no God' doesn't inspire people to anything, good or evil.

That's pretty much it.

Atheism will never do what religion does, because religions (usually) have a system of values inherent to them and atheism does not.

grizgrin wrote:
Wait a minute, gwar and dogma are adding up casualties from conflicts over the millenia of human warfare attributable to the specific sources of Atheism and Religion? I call bs. You both have made assertions indicating that you both have done the math on these. I call you both out to show your figures, because if you cannot show your figures given the wording of your assertions here "Do the math again." and "Yeah I have. Religion still comes out on top.

My bet is both of you ignore this challenge, and in the process gut your arguments.

I should have been more clear. I don't believe that it makes any sense to suppose that religion is the leading cause of death in world history. It simply isn't possible to separate it from those atheistic motivations I listed earlier. When I said 'Do the math again' I was speaking derisively.

Orkeosaurus wrote:The difference is when you define atheism as being a part of anything that doesn't associate itself with gods, everything becomes atheist by default.

Yep. That's the point.

According to your logic, vegetarianism has killed lots of people as well; after all, most political ideologies don't involve the eating of meat. It would be different if you defined vegetarianism as "abstaining from eating meat", and atheism as "consciously choosing to follow no gods".

That definition of Atheism doesn't make sense. In order to abstain from following a god you would have to admit that such a god existed; making the choice to abstain from worship seem foolish if said god is an omnipotent one. A better definition would be 'the belief in the lack of God or god/s'. However, such a definition is inconsistent with the fact that the word Atheism is the literal negation of the word Theism; making it inappropriate to consider it as a positive belief.

Vegetarianism isn't the negation of anything, so your point is moot.

You're using one definition of the word to try and prove something about a different definition of the word.

No, I'm not. I'm using the minimal definition of Atheism to make a comment about the ridiculousness of attributing massive amounts of human suffering to a broad category of human behavior.

Gwar! wrote:Only by religion? There isnt one. Can you name a War that was solely motivated by Atheism? No. However, many conflicts have religion as a core issue. The Crusades for one. The Current Conflict in Israel/Palestine/Gumdropland. Spain trying to invade the UK because they got rid of a Catholic Monarch.

Do I have to continue? Yes, they eventually expanded to include reasons other than religion, but the core of the conflict has always been differing religious views.

I'd argue that religion was never the primary motivation for any of the conflicts you have listed. It was certainly a factor, but it wasn't as though violence would have been completely avoided if everyone stopped believing in God.

Also, Atheism can't motivate anything as it isn't a positive statement. The whole concept only makes sense in a world where Theism also exists.

sebster wrote:
Dude, that's nonsense. Trying to attach the deaths of a political system to a religious belief is a ridiculous contrivance, and you know it.

That's actually the point I was trying to arrive at. Sadly I hit submit before getting there. I tend to get annoyed when people attempt to pin all human suffering on religious belief, despite the presence of other factors that are nearly impossible pare away.

sebster wrote:
I'll put it this way. If a dude is a Christian and he yells 'death to all non-believers' before opening fire at his workplace, you could argue those killings relate to Christianity. But if a dude is a Christian, gets fired, wigs out and shoots up his workplace they are not Christian killings, people cannot in any sensible way argue these are Christian killings.

Yeah, I agree.

Murder is generally not an acceptable course of action over political disputes like this. Especially as little more than a revenge killing where it has zero chance of a net effect.

Ok this has wandered dangerously off-topic and its probably only a matter of time before Fraz puts the smack down on this thread.

Any chance of getting back to the topic at hand before the mods are forced to smite what was (and could still be) an interesting debate as opposed to a pointless flamefest?