| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Dean 
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
 Posted: February 18 2013 at 12:10 |
 Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
If you tried to Join the Kmer Rouge being Catholic, there was a plastic bag with your name on it.
It's exactly the same |
If you tried joining as an intellectual atheist the result would be the same, if you tried joining as a Western atheist the result would be the same.
It's not exactly the same.
|
|
What?
|
 |
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 12:13 |
|
I'm not saying Dean is making this argument, but I've always found the whole "the world would be a more peaceful place without religion" claim to be pretty thin.
The nuts who go on mass killing sprees are insane, and whether they cite religion or anything else for their insanity, I don't think it makes much of a difference. People like that are going to snap no matter what.
As for the wars, we have no way of knowing what would have been the outcome in the counterfactual. Doubtless some wars are motivated by religion, and while Mao and Stalin weren't motivated by atheism specifically, maybe their atrocities wouldn't have happen if they had had a strong faith in God. Who knows? Not me, certainly, so I think it is silly to pretend we'd know what the world would look like in the absence of a tremendously influential part of human history.
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 12:18 |
Dean wrote:
Yes Ivan.
They were very bad people. Nasty evil wicked atheists.
|
Yes they were
1.- They were evil
2.- They were Wicked
3.- They were atheists
4.- They assassinated millions of religious people
Can you deny it?
Iván
PS: I'm not saying all atheists are bad, by the contrary, I'm a defender of the atheist moral even if i disagree, but you can't deny that MANDATORY ATHEIST systems were as band as RELIGIOUS FANATICAL systems.
PSII: The photo of a guy banging his head in a desk, doesn't replace arguments Dean, it's a simplistic way of acvouiding to respond what is obvious
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 18 2013 at 12:21
|
|
|
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 12:19 |
|
I'm certainly not saying the world would be a better place without religion. I am saying the world would be a better place without religious fanatics. And without religious dogma (and there is quite a bit) that inspires religious fanaticism.
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 12:20 |
thellama73 wrote:
I'm not saying Dean is making this argument, but I've always found the whole "the world would be a more peaceful place without religion" claim to be pretty thin.
The nuts who go on mass killing sprees are insane, and whether they cite religion or anything else for their insanity, I don't think it makes much of a difference. People like that are going to snap no matter what.
As for the wars, we have no way of knowing what would have been the outcome in the counterfactual. Doubtless some wars are motivated by religion, and while Mao and Stalin weren't motivated by atheism specifically, maybe their atrocities wouldn't have happen if they had had a strong faith in God. Who knows? Not me, certainly, so I think it is silly to pretend we'd know what the world would look like in the absence of a tremendously influential part of human history.
|
You are correct - my argument is not "the world would be a more peaceful place without religion" as that is a facile statement to make, as is the opposite statement "the world would be a more peaceful place with religion" or any variants thereof. Mankind will kill each other regardless of the justification, a religion is simply a side to pick to make that justification, as is any other factionism - it is easier to justify killing your enemy when you can demonise them. I am actually trying to get this discussion to consider those who are not lunatics or madmen who still fight for a cause they beleive to be honest and true and just and righteous.
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 12:32 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
Yes Ivan.
They were very bad people. Nasty evil wicked atheists.
|
Yes they were
1.- They were evil
2.- They were Wicked
3.- They were atheists
4.- They assassinated millions of religious people
Can you deny it?
Iván
PS: I'm not saying all atheists are bad, by the contrary, I'm a defender of the atheist moral even if i disagree, but you can't deny that MANDATORY ATHEIST systems were as band as RELIGIOUS FANATICAL systems.
PSII: The photo of a guy banging his head in a desk, doesn't replace arguments Dean, it's a simplistic way of acvouiding to respond what is obvious
|
Why would I deny what is fact. What I question is your simplistic summary and even more simplistic conclusion.
Headdesk is a sign of exasperation. The *headdesk* is merely observing that I got this point some 100 pages back about three years ago when you first said it (in fact when I quoted the identical wikipedia extract on the Khmer Rouge to make the opposite point ). Your argument has changed a little since then but the point remains essentially unchanged. I can repeat my arguments from three years ago if you wish but I fail to see the benefit in doing that.
|
|
What?
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 12:36 |
Dean wrote:
Headdesk is a sign of exasperation. The *headdesk* is merely observing that I got this point some 100 pages back about three years ago when you first said it (in fact when I quoted the identical wikipedia extract on the Khmer Rouge to make the opposite point ). Your argument has changed a little since then but the point remains essentially unchanged. I can repeat my arguments from three years ago if you wish but I fail to see the benefit in doing that. |
The point is
Communists / Atheists had several agenda
One of them was the extermination of religion.
If you want to include the Provisional IRA, an independence socialist movement as fanatical religious terrorism, only because they are catholic, the same arguments must apply to China, URSS and Cambodia, because they were atheists.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 12:42 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
Headdesk is a sign of exasperation. The *headdesk* is merely observing that I got this point some 100 pages back about three years ago when you first said it (in fact when I quoted the identical wikipedia extract on the Khmer Rouge to make the opposite point ). Your argument has changed a little since then but the point remains essentially unchanged. I can repeat my arguments from three years ago if you wish but I fail to see the benefit in doing that. |
The point is
Communists / Atheists had several agenda
One of them was the extermination of religion.
If you want to include the Provisional IRA, an independence socialist movement as fanatical religious terrorism, only because they are catholic, the same arguments must apply to China, URSS and Cambodia, because they were atheists. |
Sure. Whatever you say. But what you cannot say is that the Troubles in Northern Ireland had nothing to do with sectarianism - catholics fought protestants. Some of those catholics were socialist, but not all of them were. If you removed all the protestants from Northern Ireland by some divine miracle intervention then the political divisions within that wholly catholic society would divide along left and right ideologies just as they do in every other society.
|
|
What?
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 13:25 |
Dean wrote:
Sure. Whatever you say. But what you cannot say is that the Troubles in Northern Ireland had nothing to do with sectarianism - catholics fought protestants. Some of those catholics were socialist, but not all of them were. If you removed all the protestants from Northern Ireland by some divine miracle intervention then the political divisions within that wholly catholic society would divide along left and right ideologies just as they do in every other society.
|
No, if England left Ireland,. the problems would solve.
Protestants and Catholics coexist in all the world, the problem here is a colony that wants to be free (call them as you want, but it's a colony).
|
|
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 13:45 |
|
^England is not in Northern Ireland. It is part of the UK. I suppose you mean if the UK granted the Ctholics their independence and united Ireland. I would doubt that would bring peace. The protestants very much want to be part of the UK
|
|
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 13:49 |
The discussion between 'theists', 'atheists' or 'agnostics' in general terms is doomed since different people understand different things about the terminology, the discussion needs to be broken down into more treatable pieces, otherwise we can not get anywhere, just for example:
1. I guess that we all agree that the universe we inhabit 'exists' (even if the term 'exist' is itself subject to rivers of ink) and it appears to behave according to some 'laws of nature' (as yet not really known, and importantly not really known if being deterministic or undeterministic). Modern physics seem to suggest that the universe may not need a 'prime mover', the mere existence of laws can account for its existence. Furthermore the strong anthropic supporters believe that even the existence of the set of laws governing our universe is nothing requiring explanation, any mathematically consistent set of laws will result in some 'universe' (material or not), so given mathematics alone it's enough to explain the existence of our universe. So for example on this subject alone, what are your opinions?
2. According to some, even the anthropic 'way out' is insufficient: the mere existence of mathematics, which enable laws to exist, requires some deeper explanation. What do you think about that?
3. Are individual human beings transcendent? A key element of human society religions is the belief that we as individual humans are, we have some 'soul' and after we die it may be rewarded, punished, reincarnated to try again etc. But this does not need be the case, I personally don't think that human individual beings are transcendent, I believe that when we die we die, full stop, but I do not exclude that the phenomenon of life itself may be transcendental in some sense. Some scientists speculate that the 'sense' or 'meaning' of the universe is just to 'realise itself via consciousness', that life and consciousness grow and will gradually encompass greater regions of the universe until eventually the whole universe is conscious of itself, and this is what actually makes it exist, in some sort of logical loop. Now, all this is far too speculative but just in order to show that there are other visions of what 'being a believer' or not can mean. Some people may see such a concept strong enough as to call it a 'god', but if they believe that a human being is no more transcendent than a bacteria or a burning fire, most of us would not call them 'religious people'. What are your thoughts on this?
4. The problem of infinite regress: assigning a cause to whatever phenomenon, e.g. a god to cause the existence universe, only moves the question to 'and what is the cause of god's existence?' Believers put a blanket over the dilemma saying that 'god does not need an explanation' but this is as valid as atheists saying that the existence of the universe does not need an explanation. What do you think?
There are many other sub-questions but these are just some examples of questions which may provide a more productive discussion if attacked bit by bit that just 'I believe in God' / 'I don't believe in any god' stuff. We can only try to chew the elephant if we break it down in pieces.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 14:04 |
Snow Dog wrote:
^England is not in Northern Ireland. It is part of the UK. I suppose you mean if the UK granted the Ctholics their independence and united Ireland. I would doubt that would bring peace. The protestants very much want to be part of the UK |
And why is the Republic of Ireland independent?
Maybe because they are all Protestants
BTW: Not all Unionists are Protestant and not all Republicans are Catholics
It's a POLITICAL PROBLEM, not a religious one.
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 18 2013 at 14:07
|
|
|
|
lazland
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13797
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 14:22 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
^England is not in Northern Ireland. It is part of the UK. I suppose you mean if the UK granted the Ctholics their independence and united Ireland. I would doubt that would bring peace. The protestants very much want to be part of the UK |
And why is the Republic of Ireland independent?
Maybe because they are all Protestants
BTW: Not all Unionists are Protestant and not all Republicans are Catholics
It's a POLITICAL PROBLEM, not a religious one.
|
The Irish Republic is a Catholic country.
The Loyalties are rather split in the North. Loyalists are generally militant to the concept of a United Kingdom. Unionists believe in a United Kingdom, but have been prepared in recent years to accommodate a form of self rule. Both are Protestant. I know of no Catholic Unionist or Loyalist.
Republicans are generally more extreme in their wish to see a united Ireland. The SDLP represent a form of politics that wishes to see a united Ireland, but can "live" with a form of self rule or accommodation with Britain. Both are Catholic. I know of no Republicans who are Protestant.
The above is a simplistic explanation of where Northern Ireland is now, but nowhere near as simplistic, or plain wrong, as the above statement.
The politics of Northern Ireland are inextricably linked with religion. Always has been, and always will be. It is why there is so much fuss of bloody silly religious marches which no other rational person could possibly explain. To go back to its roots, you need to understand the shocking and dreadful calamities inflicted by Cromwell, these having their roots in religious wars between Papists and Protestants.
The situation in Northern Ireland is very much a product of the religious history of the United Kingdom. The rest of my country reached an accommodation with this some decades ago. Northern Ireland still attempts to do so.
The vast majority of the population, btw, abhors violence and political extremism. Also religious extremism. They are ordinary people caught up in a historical, political, and religious conflict which shows little sign of ending. It is a deeply complex situation, for which there are no easy answers, or arguments.
|
|
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 14:27 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
^England is not in Northern Ireland. It is part of the UK. I suppose you mean if the UK granted the Ctholics their independence and united Ireland. I would doubt that would bring peace. The protestants very much want to be part of the UK |
And why is the Republic of Ireland independent?
Maybe because they are all Protestants
BTW: Not all Unionists are Protestant and not all Republicans are Catholics
It's a POLITICAL PROBLEM, not a religious one.
|
It is independent because it was granted independence. 
AS you must know they are not protestants.
Itr is a politaical and religious problem
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 14:35 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean wrote:
Sure. Whatever you say. But what you cannot say is that the Troubles in Northern Ireland had nothing to do with sectarianism - catholics fought protestants. Some of those catholics were socialist, but not all of them were. If you removed all the protestants from Northern Ireland by some divine miracle intervention then the political divisions within that wholly catholic society would divide along left and right ideologies just as they do in every other society.
|
No, if England left Ireland,. the problems would solve.
Protestants and Catholics coexist in all the world, the problem here is a colony that wants to be free (call them as you want, but it's a colony).
|
BRITAIN NOT ENGLAND!!!!
You know so little of the situation I will not enter into a conversation about it. 
|
|
What?
|
|
lazland
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13797
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 14:46 |
^ is this a good time to start a conversation about Welsh Nationalism? 
|
|
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 14:46 |
Only after you get back from chapel. 
|
|
What?
|
|
dtguitarfan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 14:48 |
The Doctor wrote:
I'm certainly not saying the world would be a better place without religion. I am saying the world would be a better place without religious fanatics. And without religious dogma (and there is quite a bit) that inspires religious fanaticism. |
As a follower of Jesus (who had very harsh things to say to the religious of his day), I agree. 
|
|
|
|
lazland
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13797
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 14:51 |
Dean wrote:
Only after you get back from chapel. |
Fantastic  you have cheered up an otherwise rotten day with that post. Thank you 
|
|
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: February 18 2013 at 16:15 |
You are changing the subject
The situation in Northern Ireland is political, not religious.
Catholics and Protestants would live peacefully as in most of the world if it wasn't for England.
|
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread
