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.

The god Allah, like Jesus, is also an offshoot of the Jewish god Yahweh, and shares the main attributes and myths (with some minor modifications).

Thus "Abrohamic" (or "Abrahamic", but that spelling ain't as cool) can be used to denote the three main religions that sprout from Abraham's covenant with the god Yahweh - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Actually the Jewish Yahweh doesn't really have Heaven or Hell, just a promise of eternal life for believers when the messiah (finally) turns up, it's only after gentle Jesus meek and mild brings his "good news" that you get eternal punishment for the unbelieving dead, so the line about Hell only applies to Allah and Jesus.

All three are apparently fine with ocular tumours for infants, though.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

E&C, I am really interested in the proofs of your statements about the Mormons and Joseph Smith, Jr.
It would be interesting to have concrete facts to back the claims.

I've already given references in this thread, in particular a reference to his conviction for "glass looking" (a crime of fraud that involves looking into crystals and pretending to know mystical truths revealed therein - which just so happens to be the method he used to "divine" the truths of Mormonism years later).
... .

Then E & C, it should be no trouble at all to give me links to what you said then since you know exactly where in this mess you posted them since they are your own postings.
I did not see these references the first time through, they would have stood out for me since I need them.
Since they are so sure to be condemning, you should not be sad to re-post them here clear on the 21st page where all can see them clearly again.
Right E & C?

Now E & C, these references are not some "he said, he said" bits of junk, are they?
Heresay proves nothing and helps me not at all.
If ol' Joe Smith was convicted of something, you have the references to the legal bits, right?
I need concrete proof, not just some bit from some odd anti-Mormon pamphlet.
Proofs I can go to and get actual copies of primary documents from reputable sources E & C.
That is what I NEED!

Evil & Chaos wrote:
...
What need would a merciful deity have of a hell?
And why withhold evidence of its existence if a simple manifestation in the age of cameras would instantly convert everyone (why choose illiterate Bronze Age Palestinian desert for your revelations, if you have all of time and geography to choose from?).
Why, if nothing can happen that is contrary to your Will, do you allow babies to be born with (and soon die of) painful eye cancer?
What kind of omnipowerful, omnipresent evil schmuck does those kinds of things?

To put people who committed horrible acts upon humanity into.
That is what hell is for.
Or do you believe that "God" should throw out all His law and common sense as well, forgive people like this and let them join all the rest of mankind in some sort of heaven or elysium?
Seriously man, are you one of those who believe in no consequences for anything we do?

Proofs that can convert everyone in this age?
You are kidding right?
Have you read scripture at all E & C?
How many folks that had Christ right there that denied Him and His teachings?
How many that saw the miracles of Jehovah that denied Him deity?
In this day of Photoshop accusations and so forth, how fast would His miracles be turned to only hoaxes by the people He is here to save.
How many hundreds, if not thousands, of miracles would it take to convert all?
Is there even a number that would or could?
Is He supposed to force you or enslave you to believe?

Nothing can happen contrary to the will of God, E & C?
Who exactly are you listening to as to what is God's will for man?
Is He supposed to be out saving folks from themselves?

I guess E & C, you want a deity that saves people from the natural and earned consequences of their own actions, that defies nature every time you ask Him to and does not respect any of us as individuals or the choices we make?
What is this earthen existence supposed to be in your view E & C?
A no-stings vacation?
A toddler's play date?

BTW E & C, I believe that Book says that he started at the beginning of the world, not with the Jews.
Theirs just happens to be the written record that folks have gotten a hold of.
Everything we record on can be destroyed; otherwise, how could you record on it?
Do you have access to records that claim to be older that validly disprove or correct the Israelite account?

Gee E & C, I wonder what things we could be reading right now if the Library at Alexandria had not been destroyed?
Bible supposed to be older and younger than the creme of Greek theatre; how much of that body of work do we not have?

Seriously E & C, some of your demands seem to be just a bit long on the demand part and really short on the paying attention part of the equation..
Plus, you make some really illogical demands on deity to suit what purpose?
Do not mean to be annoying, but you really seem short and shy on the "why"s & "wherefore"s part of the issue that the philosophy classes I went to demanded.
Would you please point out how you are not?
Thank you.
I will really appreciate it.

 DouglasJB wrote:

Evil & Chaos wrote:

E&C, I am really interested in the proofs of your statements about the Mormons and Joseph Smith, Jr.
It would be interesting to have concrete facts to back the claims.

I've already given references in this thread, in particular a reference to his conviction for "glass looking" (a crime of fraud that involves looking into crystals and pretending to know mystical truths revealed therein - which just so happens to be the method he used to "divine" the truths of Mormonism years later).
... .

Then E & C, it should be no trouble at all to give me links to what you said then since you know exactly where in this mess you posted them since they are your own postings.

Here's a good overview for you of the entire case, plus some of the surrounding hoaxes, forgeries etc. conducted by Mormons interested in obfuscating the truth: http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no68.htm
Here's an overview of the publishers of that particular website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerald_and_Sandra_Tanner

Plenty of other resources available of course, they're just the number #1 hit on google on the topic.

I did not see these references the first time through, they would have stood out for me since I need them.

I posted a copy of Smith's court appearance document naming him as a "glass looker" amongst other things. Perhaps you didn't see that.

Now E & C, these references are not some "he said, he said" bits of junk, are they?

Nope, they are official court documents that show Smith was arrested, charged, and convicted with the crime of "glass looking" in his younger days (long before he "revealed" mormonism).

Heresay proves nothing and helps me not at all.
If ol' Joe Smith was convicted of something, you have the references to the legal bits, right?
I need concrete proof, not just some bit from some odd anti-Mormon pamphlet.
Proofs I can go to and get actual copies of primary documents from reputable sources E & C.
That is what I NEED!

Well, I'd say that's what you've gotten.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
...
What need would a merciful deity have of a hell?
And why withhold evidence of its existence if a simple manifestation in the age of cameras would instantly convert everyone (why choose illiterate Bronze Age Palestinian desert for your revelations, if you have all of time and geography to choose from?).
Why, if nothing can happen that is contrary to your Will, do you allow babies to be born with (and soon die of) painful eye cancer?
What kind of omnipowerful, omnipresent evil schmuck does those kinds of things?

To put people who committed horrible acts upon humanity into.
That is what hell is for.

The Bible says you go to hell for the crimes of... not believing in Jesus, and not repenting of sins. That's it.
Not earthly actions or actual sins committed (described as earthly "works" in most translations), but belief in Jesus, and repentance.

Under Christian theology, we are all born with original sin, we are all born already guilty enough to go to Hell, regardless of the other sins we may commit in life, only acceptance of Jesus as our personal saviour can remove our sins and allow us to enter Heaven.

The Qur'an is broadly the same - it's belief or otherwise in Allah that sends you to hell, your actions in life are distant secondary considerations.

Or do you believe that "God" should throw out all His law and common sense as well, forgive people like this and let them join all the rest of mankind in some sort of heaven or elysium?
Seriously man, are you one of those who believe in no consequences for anything we do?

This is the setup the Bible gives us:

- God is Love.
- God creates Earth, Heaven and Hell
- God sets the criteria by which the dead go to Heaven (belief in Jesus, plus repentance for all our sins, including the sin of allowing Eve to eat a forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden) or Hell (non-belief in Jesus).
- God fails to tell humankind about the existence of Heaven and Hell for the first 200,000 years of humanity's existence.
- God then sets out to provide evidence of his existence, by sending some prophets to the most illiterate and warlike parts of the bronze age middle east.
- God then decides to fix things once and for all, and the best way he can think of doing it is to torture himself to death in illiterate iron age Palestine, and inspire a set of four self-contradictory books to be written about his suicide 200 years later.

That is not a self-consistent set of behaviours to me. That's not a God of Love.
That is, in fact, the behaviour of a god who barely cares at all about the eternal fate of his creations.

- Islam also adds a coda where God gives visions of truth (not to mention a pet winged horse) to an epileptic illiterate warlord named Mohammad.
- Mormonism also adds a coda where God gives visions of truth to a convicted conman named Jospeh Smith Jnr.

Proofs that can convert everyone in this age?
You are kidding right?
Have you read scripture at all E & C?

I've read the Bible, the New Testament, chunks of Talmud, the Qur'an, some Hadith, various Buddhist texts, and I'm starting on the Gita.
I considered reading the Book of Mormon, but I prefer the ancient myths, they're more fun.
What have you read?

How many folks that had Christ right there that denied Him and His teachings?
How many that saw the miracles of Jehovah that denied Him deity?
In this day of Photoshop accusations and so forth, how fast would His miracles be turned to only hoaxes by the people He is here to save.
How many hundreds, if not thousands, of miracles would it take to convert all?

If God knows everything, and can do anything, (both common claims about Jesus) then he knows the single thing he could do that would convert everybody and save everybody from Hell.

Is He supposed to force you or enslave you to believe?

If god was even vaguely concerned about the eternal painful suffering of billions, he'd reveal himself in a credible manner (not to a preacher in pre-literate desert, in other words).

Nothing can happen contrary to the will of God, E & C?

By definition, nothing can happen contrary to the will of a being that knows everything and can do anything.
Because that being knows everything, and can choose to stop anything it doesn't want to happen, then anything that does happen, happens because that being chose to allow it to happen.

Who exactly are you listening to as to what is God's will for man?

All those preachers who tell me they know exactly who created the universe, what that being wants us to believe, how that being wants us to live our lives, who that being wants us to marry, etc.
You can't claim to know all those things about the will of a deity, and then say you don't know anything about a deity's will. It's inconsistent.

Is He supposed to be out saving folks from themselves?

He's supposed to be "Love".
"Love" doesn't equate to torturing people with fire for all eternity because of the monstrous crime of... not believing in the divinity of what appears to be a bunch of myths written down hundreds of years after all the alleged participants in those myths died.

I guess E & C, you want a deity that saves people from the natural and earned consequences of their own actions, that defies nature every time you ask Him to and does not respect any of us as individuals or the choices we make?

I'd be happier just with a deity that was described in an even vaguely self-consistent manner.

I find Allah to be more self-consistent than Jesus, by the way.
Not any more credible, but at least a bit more self-consistent.

What is this earthen existence supposed to be in your view E & C?
A no-stings vacation?
A toddler's play date?

I don't believe in any Gods, so I don't ascribe any purpose to existence other than what we as human free agents give to it.

BTW E & C, I believe that Book says that he started at the beginning of the world, not with the Jews.
Theirs just happens to be the written record that folks have gotten a hold of.
Everything we record on can be destroyed; otherwise, how could you record on it?
Do you have access to records that claim to be older that validly disprove or correct the Israelite account?

Well the ancient Babylonian myth of Gilgamesh the King contains an account of a Great Flood.
That predates early Hebraic texts.
What's interesting, is that before the Hebrews were present in Babylon, Hebraic texts contain no account of a Great Flood.
After they had been present in Babylon, Hebraic texts contain the Great Flood myth.

So what we have there, is a visible cross-pollination of mythology, that indicates the Israelitish account of history changed over time, based on their interaction with other cultures.
There are other examples - Moses' birth story is suspiciously close to another ancient myth, even the Jesus myth shares common ground with the myth of Mithras.

Needless to say, we have sufficient scientific archeological and geological evidence to say with confidence that the Great Flood did not happen, that the Jews were never slaves in Egypt, that the Exodus from Egypt did not happen, that thousands of dead bodies did not rise from their graves and wander the streets of Jerusalem when Jesus was crucified, etc.

Gee E & C, I wonder what things we could be reading right now if the Library at Alexandria had not been destroyed?
Bible supposed to be older and younger than the creme of Greek theatre; how much of that body of work do we not have?

Your point is a non-sequitur.

Seriously E & C, some of your demands seem to be just a bit long on the demand part and really short on the paying attention part of the equation..

At the core, I only make one demand: I will only believe that which has credible evidence.

Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence, and the deistic claims can't even provide self-consistent ordinary evidence, let alone extra-ordinary evidence.

Plus, you make some really illogical demands on deity to suit what purpose?
Do not mean to be annoying, but you really seem short and shy on the "why"s & "wherefore"s part of the issue that the philosophy classes I went to demanded.
Would you please point out how you are not?

I am a rationalist.
An existentialist.

I have no reason to believe in ghosts, until I see credible evidence of ghosts.
I have no reason to believe in magic, until I see credible evidence of magic.
I have no reason to believe in gods, until I see credible evidence of gods.

It does not matter that people tell me their gods will burn me for eternity if I ignore their claims, if there's no credible evidence for their claims, their claims may be dismissed just as easily as a man who has been convicted of pretending to have magic powers, who dictates a religion whilst he has his head face-down in a hat.

I'd have to say that an omnipotent Creator of Everything probably wouldn't be all that interested in the moral behavior of a single organism huddled on one out of trillions of planets in countless galaxies.

Honestly people should refrain from killing/stealing/etc based on their own morals rather than doing it because they expect a reward or fear a punishment at the end of their life. If we were good and honest to one another for no other reason than because it was the right thing to do, and left Deities out of it altogether, earth would be a much more pleasant place.

 Badablack wrote:
I'd have to say that an omnipotent Creator of Everything probably wouldn't be all that interested in the moral behavior of a single organism huddled on one out of trillions of planets in countless galaxies.

Honestly people should refrain from killing/stealing/etc based on their own morals rather than doing it because they expect a reward or fear a punishment at the end of their life. If we were good and honest to one another for no other reason than because it was the right thing to do, and left Deities out of it altogether, earth would be a much more pleasant place.

Frankly even without deities earth would be a messed up place regardless thanks to inherent human nature and our tendency to screw over anything in our path. Look at arguably the 1st two bloodiest wars in recent history with WW1 and WW2. They occurred largely for secular reasons and there was massive slaughter on a scale never seen before from both sides over pointless reasons of nationalism (and other non-religious isms in the case of World War 2) and warmongering. Not much to do with deities here and we're doing a great job blowing each other up.

Also secularization hasn't changed the fact that crimes and killing continues to occur, it just is hidden (or sometimes not at all) from the public eye under the falsity of legitimate businesses for organized crime and corruption flourishes regardless if there's a secular regime or a religious one.

Also by applying our own moral values with no relative objectivity we can not only bend our moral values to suit our needs which shows our inherent hypocrisy (and untrustworthiness regardless of religious values so just being "good and honest" doesn't really work out that well) but it means that morally you can't object to what I do that you may find offensive or "wrong", you can disagree but there's no moral basis that yours are better than mine. It just makes it based on a social contract that can be again corrupted by whichever group's ideas/beliefs is dominant and in power.

Needless to say I really disagree with the idea that a world without religion would make it any better.

And I don't think a primordial creator can be moved to care about the collective well being of seven billion souls, given the vast scale of the cosmos, and the fact that we are a very common insignificant speck toward the edges of a very ordinary galaxy among a sea of galaxies. We can expect.... What was it, 12 or 24 or something other intelligent civilizations to currently exist in space faring capacity at this time. Who knows how many came before us, and how many more will come after.... This Ian's about belief, this is about statistical probability, and our specialness is shrinking every day. I find it more frustrating that we most likely will never engage in the opportunity to interact with ETs from another civilization, irrespective of how our technology improves. It still takes 45 minutes to communicate with mars on a good day, I just don't see iton the cards for interstellar empires or interactions. In that sense, is It the sign of a benevolent creator to construct a habitation space in such a hazardous and remote manner so as to render the habitants prisoners?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit/addendum:
Stop referring to 1st and 2nd world wars. There are far far far bloodier conflicts, ie 30 years war and 100 years war. I'm not up to date on north American pre-european societal conflicts, but I recall reading those also being damnably devastating. Yes, mechanized warfare facilitated the speed at which slaughter could occur, the trouble was you didn't have armies sacking towns wholesale and murdering all of the inhabitants.

 poda_t wrote:
And I don't think a primordial creator can be moved to care about the collective well being of seven billion souls, given the vast scale of the cosmos, and the fact that we are a very common insignificant speck toward the edges of a very ordinary galaxy among a sea of galaxies. We can expect.... What was it, 12 or 24 or something other intelligent civilizations to currently exist in space faring capacity at this time. Who knows how many came before us, and how many more will come after.... This Ian's about belief, this is about statistical probability, and our specialness is shrinking every day. I find it more frustrating that we most likely will never engage in the opportunity to interact with ETs from another civilization, irrespective of how our technology improves. It still takes 45 minutes to communicate with mars on a good day, I just don't see iton the cards for interstellar empires or interactions. In that sense, is It the sign of a benevolent creator to construct a habitation space in such a hazardous and remote manner so as to render the habitants prisoners?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit/addendum:
Stop referring to 1st and 2nd world wars. There are far far far bloodier conflicts, ie 30 years war and 100 years war. I'm not up to date on north American pre-european societal conflicts, but I recall reading those also being damnably devastating. Yes, mechanized warfare facilitated the speed at which slaughter could occur, the trouble was you didn't have armies sacking towns wholesale and murdering all of the inhabitants.

Why exactly should we ignore those wars? How are they in any way less relevant? Especially given the context that it shows that religion is not the only deciding factor in why humans are stupid enough to keep killing one another for trivial reasons. Also about it though in comparison with time frame, those wars took decades compared to the mere years needed to inflict damage still short of the 1st and second world war in terms of sheer casualties and infrastructural damage. That's not including the deaths perpetrated by their own secular governments over the murder of Jews with the Holocaust from the Nazis and the purges and widespread deaths caused by the policies of the Soviet regime. Also the fact that technology HELPED rather than prevented this mass-scale warfare of death demonstrates any ideas of human progress and advancement through technology as folly given that the mass industrialization and gradual secularization of the Western world hasn't changed many of the inherent social issues in society and simply replaced them with other more insidious and underlying problems. There's still inequality between classes and poverty (that's becoming increasingly pronounced) and even the area of secular medicine is increasingly profit-based with pharmaceuticals (who can generally afford the best health care? the rich people).

And seriously? How are armies sacking towns and murdering them all not still there in some sense during the 1st and second world wars? Have you not heard of the Rape of Nanking? Nor the copious amount of war crimes perpetrated by the Soviet Red Army as they marched into German territory culminating in Berlin with the amount of mass rape and killing that occurred with their counterattack against the Germans?

 Grimskul wrote:

 poda_t wrote:
And I don't think a primordial creator can be moved to care about the collective well being of seven billion souls, given the vast scale of the cosmos, and the fact that we are a very common insignificant speck toward the edges of a very ordinary galaxy among a sea of galaxies. We can expect.... What was it, 12 or 24 or something other intelligent civilizations to currently exist in space faring capacity at this time. Who knows how many came before us, and how many more will come after.... This Ian's about belief, this is about statistical probability, and our specialness is shrinking every day. I find it more frustrating that we most likely will never engage in the opportunity to interact with ETs from another civilization, irrespective of how our technology improves. It still takes 45 minutes to communicate with mars on a good day, I just don't see iton the cards for interstellar empires or interactions. In that sense, is It the sign of a benevolent creator to construct a habitation space in such a hazardous and remote manner so as to render the habitants prisoners?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit/addendum:
Stop referring to 1st and 2nd world wars. There are far far far bloodier conflicts, ie 30 years war and 100 years war. I'm not up to date on north American pre-european societal conflicts, but I recall reading those also being damnably devastating. Yes, mechanized warfare facilitated the speed at which slaughter could occur, the trouble was you didn't have armies sacking towns wholesale and murdering all of the inhabitants.

Why exactly should we ignore those wars? How are they in any way less relevant? Especially given the context that it shows that religion is not the only deciding factor in why humans are stupid enough to keep killing one another for trivial reasons. Also about it though in comparison with time frame, those wars took decades compared to the mere years needed to inflict damage still short of the 1st and second world war in terms of sheer casualties and infrastructural damage. That's not including the deaths perpetrated by their own secular governments over the murder of Jews with the Holocaust from the Nazis and the purges and widespread deaths caused by the policies of the Soviet regime. Also the fact that technology HELPED rather than prevented this mass-scale warfare of death demonstrates any ideas of human progress and advancement through technology as folly given that the mass industrialization and gradual secularization of the Western world hasn't changed many of the inherent social issues in society and simply replaced them with other more insidious and underlying problems. There's still inequality between classes and poverty (that's becoming increasingly pronounced) and even the area of secular medicine is increasingly profit-based with pharmaceuticals (who can generally afford the best health care? the rich people).

And seriously? How are armies sacking towns and murdering them all not still there in some sense during the 1st and second world wars? Have you not heard of the Rape of Nanking? Nor the copious amount of war crimes perpetrated by the Soviet Red Army as they marched into German territory culminating in Berlin with the amount of mass rape and killing that occurred with their counterattack against the Germans?

i have, and appreciate the truth of your statements, but if it's all the same to you, I'd prefer to steer clear of Godwin's law.

 poda_t wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:

 poda_t wrote:
And I don't think a primordial creator can be moved to care about the collective well being of seven billion souls, given the vast scale of the cosmos, and the fact that we are a very common insignificant speck toward the edges of a very ordinary galaxy among a sea of galaxies. We can expect.... What was it, 12 or 24 or something other intelligent civilizations to currently exist in space faring capacity at this time. Who knows how many came before us, and how many more will come after.... This Ian's about belief, this is about statistical probability, and our specialness is shrinking every day. I find it more frustrating that we most likely will never engage in the opportunity to interact with ETs from another civilization, irrespective of how our technology improves. It still takes 45 minutes to communicate with mars on a good day, I just don't see iton the cards for interstellar empires or interactions. In that sense, is It the sign of a benevolent creator to construct a habitation space in such a hazardous and remote manner so as to render the habitants prisoners?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit/addendum:
Stop referring to 1st and 2nd world wars. There are far far far bloodier conflicts, ie 30 years war and 100 years war. I'm not up to date on north American pre-european societal conflicts, but I recall reading those also being damnably devastating. Yes, mechanized warfare facilitated the speed at which slaughter could occur, the trouble was you didn't have armies sacking towns wholesale and murdering all of the inhabitants.

Why exactly should we ignore those wars? How are they in any way less relevant? Especially given the context that it shows that religion is not the only deciding factor in why humans are stupid enough to keep killing one another for trivial reasons. Also about it though in comparison with time frame, those wars took decades compared to the mere years needed to inflict damage still short of the 1st and second world war in terms of sheer casualties and infrastructural damage. That's not including the deaths perpetrated by their own secular governments over the murder of Jews with the Holocaust from the Nazis and the purges and widespread deaths caused by the policies of the Soviet regime. Also the fact that technology HELPED rather than prevented this mass-scale warfare of death demonstrates any ideas of human progress and advancement through technology as folly given that the mass industrialization and gradual secularization of the Western world hasn't changed many of the inherent social issues in society and simply replaced them with other more insidious and underlying problems. There's still inequality between classes and poverty (that's becoming increasingly pronounced) and even the area of secular medicine is increasingly profit-based with pharmaceuticals (who can generally afford the best health care? the rich people).

And seriously? How are armies sacking towns and murdering them all not still there in some sense during the 1st and second world wars? Have you not heard of the Rape of Nanking? Nor the copious amount of war crimes perpetrated by the Soviet Red Army as they marched into German territory culminating in Berlin with the amount of mass rape and killing that occurred with their counterattack against the Germans?

i have, and appreciate the truth of your statements, but if it's all the same to you, I'd prefer to steer clear of Godwin's law.

Fair enough, I'll stick to communists for now then...but no promises! A Death Korps of Krieg grenadier may walk in and blow out the roof of this discussion!

 Grimskul wrote:
Frankly even without deities earth would be a messed up place regardless thanks to inherent human nature and our tendency to screw over anything in our path. Look at arguably the 1st two bloodiest wars in recent history with WW1 and WW2. They occurred largely for secular reasons and there was massive slaughter on a scale never seen before from both sides over pointless reasons of nationalism (and other non-religious isms in the case of World War 2) and warmongering. Not much to do with deities here and we're doing a great job blowing each other up.

World War I was indeed a broadly secular conflict.

But World War II?
- Christian Hitler sets out to exterminate Jews because of their religion.
- The head of the Japanese Government was regarded by his subjects as a literal living God.

I think you'd struggle to say there were no religious motivations on display there.

Also secularization hasn't changed the fact that crimes and killing continues to occur, it just is hidden (or sometimes not at all) from the public eye under the falsity of legitimate businesses for organized crime and corruption flourishes regardless if there's a secular regime or a religious one.

Actually, research shows that the most secular societies in the modern world, are also the most peaceful and least corrupt.
The most religious societies demonstrate the converse.

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/06/atheist-nations-are-more-peaceful.html
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion

Also by applying our own moral values with no relative objectivity we can not only bend our moral values to suit our needs which shows our inherent hypocrisy (and untrustworthiness regardless of religious values so just being "good and honest" doesn't really work out that well) but it means that morally you can't object to what I do that you may find offensive or "wrong", you can disagree but there's no moral basis that yours are better than mine.

Your moral code (The Ten Commandments) refers to slavery (in the 10th commandment, it says "do not covet your neighbour's male or female slaves"), and in the very next chapter of Exodus after the 10th commandment is given, God relates how to capture slaves from amongst your enemies, how much to pay for them when you buy and sell them (women are worth half as much according to your God), and who inherits your slaves when you die (they are divided amongst your children).

I'm sorry, but my moral code is a lot better than that.
My moral code is based on rational situational ethics (not moral relativism as you assert, which to clarify is idea that whatever the majority of a society believes to be moral is de-facto moral, in case you don't fully understand what you're asserting), and not the morality of bronze age slave-taking barbarians.

It just makes it based on a social contract that can be again corrupted by whichever group's ideas/beliefs is dominant and in power.

That's moral relativism, which I do not ascribe to.

Needless to say I really disagree with the idea that a world without religion would make it any better.

Right now the middle-east is riven with a huge civil war between millions of Sunni and Shia Muslims, solely on the basis of who should be the true successor to their prophet Mohammad.
I think the world would be better off without that civil war.

I highly recommend watching this short lecture, entitled "The superiority of secular morality" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq2C7fyVTA4
If you don't have time for the full talk, just listen to his closing statement @ 25 minutes

If you find that interesting, and want to attempt to refute the points raised, I'd also encourage you to watch this longer version of the same talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXrML7zeY1w&list=PL4119AEC250E7777E

Have an exalt dude, that was an awesome read.

Thanks dude, I appreciate that my words were appreciated. :-)

Evil & Chaos wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
Frankly even without deities earth would be a messed up place regardless thanks to inherent human nature and our tendency to screw over anything in our path. Look at arguably the 1st two bloodiest wars in recent history with WW1 and WW2. They occurred largely for secular reasons and there was massive slaughter on a scale never seen before from both sides over pointless reasons of nationalism (and other non-religious isms in the case of World War 2) and warmongering. Not much to do with deities here and we're doing a great job blowing each other up.

World War I was indeed a broadly secular conflict.

But World War II?
- Christian Hitler sets out to exterminate Jews because of their religion.
- The head of the Japanese Government was regarded by his subjects as a literal living God.

I think you'd struggle to say there were no religious motivations on display there.

The Emperor is still considered a divine entity. However Japanese nationalism during WW2 was while racially colored, mostly secular in nature, the drive to conquer the Pacific was very similar to Hitler's own demand for "Living Space" for the German people. Japan is a relatively resource poor island nation, expanding Japanese territory via conquest seemed an adroit solution to those problems to increase Japan's standing as a global power.

Also Hitler wasn't a Christian.

In the final analysis religion is not a motivation for war, but rather an excuse for war and a means by which to control one's population. Witness the Crusades, it's all about controlling trade roots, population pressure and of course preventing the "second sons" of the dedicated warrior class who at the time stood to inherit nothing in Europe from tearing up the local country side.

The Emperor is still considered a divine entity.

Yes. Yes he was. A Living God.

To just assume that had no bearing on the conduct and attitude of the Japanese nation / armed forces is too easy for my tastes.

Hitler wasn't a Christian.

“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.” - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest
not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian
and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord
at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the
Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight
against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with
deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact
that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As
a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have
the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is
anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is
the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty
to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and
work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only
for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning
and see these men standing in their queues and look into their
pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very
devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two
thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people
are plundered and exposed.” - Adolph Hitler, Speech in Munich in 1922, in response to an opponent who stated he could not be anti-semitic due to his Christianity.

“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of
the Almighty Creator.” - Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

“This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the
practical existence of a religious belief.” - Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

“And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his
estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove
those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God.” - Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

“Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another… while the
enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve.” - Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so” - Adolph Hitler, letter to to General Gerhard Engel, 1941

“Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy
enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an
overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted
to live at this time.” - Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf


“The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral
purification of our public life, are creating and securing the
conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life”
- Adolph Hitler, speech to the Reichstag, 1933


“The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost
duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It
will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation
has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our
national morality, and the family as the basis of national life….”
- Adolph Hitler, speech in Berlin, 1933


The first international treaty he made when coming to power was not with another country, but with The Pope.

When his armies marched to war, they did so with "God On Our Side" stamped on their belt buckles.


I can find hundreds of more quotes from Hitler expressing admiration for Jesus, his Christian faith, etc, but I trust that's not going to be necessary.

In the final analysis religion is not a motivation for war, but rather an excuse for war and a means by which to control one's population.

I'll agree that that is often the case, albeit adding religion to the mix is often the catalyst that makes the war possible in the first place (the Crusades couldn't have happened if there was no religious motivation to whip the populations into a belligerent frenzy in the first place).

And some wars do occur mostly or even solely due to religion, and broadly lack secular impetus.

The Vatican is another country.

Hitler was a powerful orator and a master manipulator, much as now, you say what you need to get votes and sway the masses, then work your own agenda as you want.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/13/weekinreview/word-for-word-case-against-nazis-hitler-s-forces-planned-destroy-german.html

Hitler himself is considered a deist at best by historians.

The Wiki article on this is quite good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/13/weekinreview/word-for-word-case-against-nazis-hitler-s-forces-planned-destroy-german.html

I don't disagree that Hitler's view of Christianity was different to that of the mainstream Church, and that he wanted to subsume and divert its emphases more towards his own personal interpretation of the Bible. Or that he sought to undertake that transformation by imprisoning dissenting priests.

That doesn't make Hitler not a Christian, unless you're going to call the Anglican Church not a Christian Church because it holds to a different interpretation of the Bible than the Catholic Church.

Hitler himself is considered a deist at best by historians.

Some historians, by no means all.

There's some room for debate, but when the evidence for Hitler being a Christian is available in many speeches and books, in his actions and the actions of Germany, and the evidence against is exclusively (and often mutually contradictory) personal accounts (often from parties testifying at post-war trials, who would have an obvious self-interest in disassociating themselves from Hitler), I'm inclined to say that he clove to a Christian worldview, if not a strictly (dogmatic) Catholic one.

I dunno, multiple quotes attributing Christianity as a religion fit for slaves and his mass prosecution of the Catholic Church makes his world view pretty clear to me. The man was a master manipulator and an expert at duping people. That his propaganda and deceit is still fooling people in this day and age is impressive, but frankly I see your view on the matter as a case of confirmation bias.

I dunno, multiple quotes attributing Christianity as a religion fit for slaves

Quotes and source attributions, please.

I know he certainly held that opinion about certain interpretations / sects of Christianity.

...and his mass prosecution of the Catholic Church makes his world view pretty clear to me.

His treatment of many Catholic clergy does not affect his basic allegiance to his personal interpretation of Christianity.
Indeed it is consistent with it - he was trying to re-form the Church according to the nature he felt it should have, by weeding out dissenting voices.

He was rather successful at that, I'd say, considering the Catholic Churches in Germany held prayers for Hitler's good health on his birthday every year throughout the war, on the orders of the senior clergy.

Alan Bullock; Hitler, a Study in Tyranny;

Laurence Rees; The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler; Ebury Press; 2012

Are excellent places to start and contain all the information you seem to be denying so vigorously. In the end though you'll never see you're being shammed just as much of the German people were, because you are buying what Hitler wanted his people too because it confirms your view of Hitler as a crazed Christian psychopath.

Same deal with the Japanese, they were a brutal, expansionist military dictatorship in WW2. No need for religion involved.

Are excellent places to start and contain all the information you seem to be denying so vigorously.

I'm not denying, I'm putting forth what I believe, based on information I have available right now.

It would have been better if you'd have supplied actual quotes or arguments, rather than names of books I don't own.

I can note that Wikipedia says that Bullock changed his views somewhat after writing his book, later saying Hitler was more motivated by ideology than his book originally claimed. What affect that may have on the claims of his book, I can only speculate.

In the end though you'll never see you're being shammed just as much of the German people were, because you are buying what Hitler wanted his people too because it confirms your view of Hitler as a crazed Christian psychopath.

Same deal with the Japanese, they were a brutal, expansionist military dictatorship in WW2. No need for religion involved.

What you're doing here is called "strawmanning the argument", setting up a false version of my opinion and then knocking it down.

I didn't say that religion was the only factor, or even the prime factor in most wars. I said it was undeniably a major factor (a potential catalyst element without which wars might not occur, or might not occur to the same depths of depravity).

Ideology and religion aren't the same thing though. Nazism itself is a secular ideology.

and no I would still disagree, all wars are about power, religion is an excuse, not a motivation.

Nazism itself is a secular ideology.

I would contend that German Nazism was not secular, in the same way that, I don't know, the USA's "Tea Party" movement is not secular.
It has a secular manifesto, but is driven by a particular social worldview, and that worldview itself is (in a considerable degree) as a result of a particular religious movement.

Was religion the only motivator for Nazism?
No, just as religion is not the only motivator for the Tea Party.
But it is an inextricable element of it.

Some branches of Nazism (leaders of the SS in particular) got into their own amalgamated religious mysticism rites & cults, but by most reports Hitler regarded those groups as fetishistic nonsense. Permissible (because they were loyal) but silly.

all wars are about power,

There's never been a war that happened solely, or mostly, due to theological differences leading to political animus?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Hitler himself is considered a deist at best by historians.

Given that Deism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive, your point is?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Alan Bullock; Hitler, a Study in Tyranny;

Laurence Rees; The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler; Ebury Press; 2012

Are excellent places to start and contain all the information you seem to be denying so vigorously. In the end though you'll never see you're being shammed just as much of the German people were, because you are buying what Hitler wanted his people too because it confirms your view of Hitler as a crazed Christian psychopath.

Same deal with the Japanese, they were a brutal, expansionist military dictatorship in WW2. No need for religion involved.

oh for piss sake....... here we go again*eyeroll*can we not point at the obvious thing in recent memory?

I really, really dislike labels. The media and American culture likes to simplify things and define things in oversimplified ways that distort opinions on large groups of people. This is how discrimination starts. This is how hate begins.

Anyway, I would have the label atheist given to me. All common sense aside dealing with magic and all that, when I look at the religions of the world, it looks so obviously man-made to me. The amount of things that need to be ignored to believe in a deity is overwhelming.

Whenever I talk to people about their religion, I keep things polite, and things usually go very well. But at the end of the day it usually is the case that their belief is built on this thing called faith, and thats when things can get ugly.

Faith....It's blind trust that has been misplaced as a virtue. Someone with faith is looked up to in American society. Oh, look at that man, he has so much faith. Doesn't he sound like an upstanding man? Blind trust is dangerous. It's unhealthy. To say I have faith in something means I know there is to be no evidence for this idea, but I believe it anyway. That begs the question why, and the answer is because it feels good. Thats what every discussion ends with when I talk to religious folk.

I don't understand how a healthy human can think in such a way.

As for this whole debate over oh this good/evil guy was an atheist and oh this good/evil guy was a deist, I think its nuts. Ideas should be judged on what they are, not based on who agrees/disagrees with them. Anyone who uses such a tactic doesn't feel confident in addressing the topic of debate directly and isn't really interested in the finding truth through debate but is looking for some sort of victory to sate their insecurities.

Also I'd like to remind everyone to try to act as themselves. Think about what you post here, and ask yourself if its something you'd say if you were speaking to all of these people in person. Anonymity sure makes people bold.

Woah, I thought that thread had died ! Cool to see it's still alive. Need to come back more often.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
- Christian Hitler sets out to exterminate Jews because of their religion.

Totally agree with the rest of your message, but that specific line is just plain wrong. I so hope my grand-mother was given a free get-out-of-concentration-camp card by apostatizing. Even those that apostatized long before Hitler came to power were sent to the camps.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
Thus "Abrohamic" (or "Abrahamic", but that spelling ain't as cool) can be used to denote the three main religions that sprout from Abraham's covenant with the god Yahweh - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Bahaism feels left out again ! Think of those poor bahais. They really are not that much less bahais than jews, they should get some attentions sometime !

 Krellnus wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Hitler himself is considered a deist at best by historians.

Given that Deism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive, your point is?

Because Deism =/= Christianity?

 d-usa wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Hitler himself is considered a deist at best by historians.

Given that Deism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive, your point is?

Because Deism =/= Christianity?

You can be deist and a christian, just like you can be deist and a muslim or deist and a wiccan, it is just a sub type of religious belief just like a/gnosticism.

 poda_t wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Alan Bullock; Hitler, a Study in Tyranny;

Laurence Rees; The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler; Ebury Press; 2012

Are excellent places to start and contain all the information you seem to be denying so vigorously. In the end though you'll never see you're being shammed just as much of the German people were, because you are buying what Hitler wanted his people too because it confirms your view of Hitler as a crazed Christian psychopath.

Same deal with the Japanese, they were a brutal, expansionist military dictatorship in WW2. No need for religion involved.

oh for piss sake....... here we go again*eyeroll*can we not point at the obvious thing in recent memory?

I didn't start the Godwin.

Yup. DEFINITELY religion. NOT the nationalistic revenge of a nation taxed into economic irrelevance to pay restitution for a war started to appease the rampant megalomania of inbred monarchs. All warfare can be traced back to population pressure and trade routes. Even the crusades. Especially WW2. (Because that's literally all it fething was) religion is just another excuse for the powerful to attempt to increase their holdings.

As a side note, the understandings of the Sunni/Shia conflicts in the Middle East displayed in this thread are simplistic at best. It's all coming down to power. Sunni and Shia leaders are fighting to increase their own holdings and using religion as a tool to do it. The Taliban manipulates and controls many thousands of idiots, not for allah but for their own gain and to protect their massive drug trade.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Woah, I thought that thread had died ! Cool to see it's still alive. Need to come back more often.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
- Christian Hitler sets out to exterminate Jews because of their religion.

Totally agree with the rest of your message, but that specific line is just plain wrong. I so hope my grand-mother was given a free get-out-of-concentration-camp card by apostatizing. Even those that apostatized long before Hitler came to power were sent to the camps.

I've a whole chunk of my family tree gone dark too, and I don't think the answer is that simple.

Bahaism feels left out again ! Think of those poor bahais.

To be fair, they also draw from eastern religions and so can't really be considered classical abrohamic, they're closer to being a universalist or omnistic flavour of faith.

All warfare can be traced back to population pressure and trade routes.

I think your own fondness for religion is giving you the same kind of confirmation bias you're accusing me of (in reverse), albeit I don't hold that religion is always (or even often) the main cause for war, only that it is often a contributory factor (IE: I'm not taking an extreme black/white position).