Evolutionism vs creationism

[Albahan]

This has devolved into looking for the actions of extremists on both sides and using them to try to put the other side down. Its pathetic. Stop it.

>Hitler was a devout Catholic
Now you're just spewing complete bullshit and its become really, really sad. I thought you were above this. Maybe you should research things before you go off an make absurd statements like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_H...eligious_views

[JellySlayer]

> Mao and Stalin were communists. That they were atheists is largely coincidental

I somehow doubt that was a condolence to the religious people they murdered.

> --their interest wasn't in stamping out religion per se,

I seem to recall the phrase 'religion is poison', but again, different books.

Stalin and Mao killed lots of people. I don't deny that. Attributing these atrocities to atheism is rather far-fetched. It is more accurate to attribute their actions to their belief in communism.

> Hilter was a devout Roman Catholic.

I don't know much of catholocism, but I doubt many catholics would repeat
the above statement.

Probably not. Again, simply because Hilter was Catholic does not mean that it is correct to attribute his actions to Catholicism. Hilter's driving motivation was his belief in fascism and the superiority of the German race. That and he was probably crazy as a loon.

> doubt that had that [they?] the opportunity, resources, and a modern military,
> that Islamic nations wouldn't be just as brutal?

If memory serves, iran has never launched a pre-emptive strike against any nation.

I'm not sure what that proves. Some of their neighbours have proved to be rather unstable from time to time.

The point of that section of the article was to prove that bad deeds
have been perpetrated by believers and non. You agree that the believer's
bad deeds are valid, yet claim the bad deeds of non-believers aren't
valid, as they didn't previously declare that they were acting in the
name of non-believing.

I'm not arguing that non-believers can't do bad things. I'm arguing that non-belief is not, generally speaking, a motivation for doing bad things (or good things). Religion, by comparison, is a very good motivator for actions, both good and bad. The problem is that bad things tend to have a much bigger impact, on global or historical timescale, than good things. There's a reason that we remember people like Hilter, Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin, and not some equivalently great philanthropists.

There is plenty of blame to be distributed. I place more blame for the afghani
deaths upon vengence seekers. I remember no cries for 'justice' coming from
any religious organizations. Quite the contrary from secular sources.

I'll assume the reason you believe this is that you didn't watch TV at the time either.

Hogwash. The push for Iraq war was from uncle sam, not churches. Do not
equate the fed with religion, regardless of what they spout.

The Republican Party has been in bed with the evangelicals since the Reagan years.

> they believe that the only thing that matters is what happens in the next
> life, and are prepared to sacrifice anyone

You quote an extreme. The counter would be an athiest that says it's OK to
eat humans, as they're just animals... but you would call that invalid, as
he didn't first proclaim he was eating in the name of atheism.

The statement "I do not believe in God" does not compell you to take any action.
The statement "I believe in God" can compell you to take action.

A lack of belief in something generally does not obligate you to do anything. There are lots of things that a given person doesn't believe in, and these things have no impact on their lives to speak of. It is what you believe in that makes a difference in how you behave. Atheism is not a real philosophy in that sense. It makes no claims about how you ought to behave or what you ought to do with your life. It is simply the absence of beliefs about anything supernatural.

[JellySlayer]

This has devolved into looking for the actions of extremists on both sides and using them to try to put the other side down. Its pathetic. Stop it.

>Hitler was a devout Catholic
Now you're just spewing complete bullshit and its become really, really sad. I thought you were above this. Maybe you should research things before you go off an make absurd statements like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_H...eligious_views

Hilter made use of Christian ideas symbolism constantly in his speeches and writings. The article notes that he was a member of the Catholic church until the day of his death. "Devout" might be too strong of term, but I don't feel it is entirely unreasonable to say he was Christian, if not Catholic. I emphasize my previous point on the matter: I don't claim that Hilter's religious views led to his actions. They were not his motivating influence, any more than his vegetarianism was.

[gut]

> Now you're just spewing complete bullshit

delightful contribution

> Attributing these atrocities to atheism is rather far-fetched

I think it's far fetched to see athiests executing believers
for the crime of believing, then calling it coincidence.

> simply because Hilter was Catholic

belonging to a religion is more than attendance.

> Hilter's driving motivation was his belief in fascism

weren't Germans starving when hitler was young. I imagine
that might have done some stuff to his head. I think he
saw his function as to care only for germans, because he
thought nobody else did. I see the whole 'we are superior'
stuff as little more than a motivational tool.

>>> Islamic nations wouldn't be just as brutal?

>> If memory serves, iran has never launched a pre-emptive strike

> I'm not sure what that proves.

secular governments of Isreal, America, etc... have a record
of attacking first. The islamic fundamentalist iran doesn't.
It implies that believers can sometimes be comparitively
tolerant.

> bad things tend to have a much bigger impact, on global or
> historical timescale, than good things

again, we disagree. I think you aren't giving enough credit to
the good. I go to sleep every night with my doors unlocked and
sometimes even open. If I didn't live in the middle of the bible
belt, I wouldn't even try it. Don't just give penalties when a
building falls down. Give credit to everyday decency that is
encouraged by religion as well.

> I'll assume the reason you believe this is that you didn't
> watch TV at the time either.

I only stopped watching about 2 years ago. I do remember that
the pope counceled america not to respond, and have to wonder
if things would not have turned out better if we hadn't.

> Republican Party has been in bed with the evangelicals

evangelicals = a voting block, they do not push military agenda

> The statement "I believe in God" can compell you to take action

I know, I see it everyday, and it's mostly good. Just because
we don't celebrate the good doesn't mean it is outwieghed by
the bad.

> The statement "I do not believe in God" does not

lack of belief doesn't have to be the primary motivation for a
deed to attribute the deed, in part, to lack of belief. If
hitler really feared god, you wouldn't recognize his name.

> Hilter made use of Christian ideas symbolism

didn't we already cover this, about leaders pretending their
own will is that of gods? that doesn't make you a believer,
just a manipulator.

[Silfir]

It's hard to do things "in the name of Atheism", but it doesn't change the fact that it's perfectly possible to be atheist and perpetrate a cruel dictatorship (just like it's possible to claim yourself to be Christian and perpetrate cruelty - please note this doesn't absolve Christianity as a whole from responsibility). To cite the article, in both cases the people are just as dead. Atheism does not imply moral superiority I'm afraid - it doesn't imply moral inferiority either. "You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One" doesn't agree with you because it's hard to do things "in the name of Atheism", considering atheism is not a religion - perhaps "You Can Be Either and Still Do Terrible Things"?

Keep in mind that strictly "atheist" states have been a decided rarity in history - the people in charge have been religious people basically every time. If there is not as many examples of cruel atheist states, then it's because atheists haven't been as numerous and vocal as they are today.

[Albahan]

Hilter made use of Christian ideas symbolism constantly in his speeches and writings. The article notes that he was a member of the Catholic church until the day of his death. "Devout" might be too strong of term, but I don't feel it is entirely unreasonable to say he was Christian, if not Catholic. I emphasize my previous point on the matter: I don't claim that Hilter's religious views led to his actions. They were not his motivating influence, any more than his vegetarianism was.

The article says that he was confirmed unwillingly and never attended mass or received the sacraments after he left home. I'd hardly call that being a member of the Catholic church or of any form of Christianity.

The article also says that he preferred Protestantism because of how there was more room left for reinterpretation. Hitler liked this because he could use this to his advantage by twisting teachings around so that they could be reinterpreted in his favor. He used his corrupted form of Christianity and its ideals as a means to pacify and persuade the masses. As gut said he was a manipulator. He was more like Stalin in the sense that he really wanted people form a religion around him and to worship him as their "Messiah" which is how he had his hierarchy set up when he took control.

>Delightful contribution
Thanks

[grobblewobble]

I don't
need no stinking books, tv shows, politicians,
'holy' men, or other assorted sources of mental
illness to tell me (to, or) not to go around
killing people. Someone tells me to go kill
someone, I tell them no thanks.

if I didn't fear god and the law, I would kill everyone I ever wanted to

Sometimes I find it hard to tell when you are being serious and when you are just being ironic or provocative.

[gut]

do you really think I would go around killing people

[JellySlayer]

It's hard to do things "in the name of Atheism", but it doesn't change the fact that it's perfectly possible to be atheist and perpetrate a cruel dictatorship (just like it's possible to claim yourself to be Christian and perpetrate cruelty - please note this doesn't absolve Christianity as a whole from responsibility). To cite the article, in both cases the people are just as dead. Atheism does not imply moral superiority I'm afraid - it doesn't imply moral inferiority either. "You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One" doesn't agree with you because it's hard to do things "in the name of Atheism", considering atheism is not a religion - perhaps "You Can Be Either and Still Do Terrible Things"?

I agree with this wholeheartedly. My interest is in motivations: atheism is not a philosophy that gives motivation to do good, nor is it a philosophy that argues that you should do evil. It is simply an absence of belief about things spiritual. Religion is a great motivator for both good and evil. It's been argued (eg. in Guns, Germs, and Steel) that, in fact, that is why religion was created in the first place--to give people motivation to do things that they would not otherwise be inclined to do.

secular governments of Isreal, America, etc... have a record
of attacking first. The islamic fundamentalist iran doesn't.
It implies that believers can sometimes be comparitively
tolerant.

There'd be a lot of people around the world surprised to learn that Israel and the United States are secular states. I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's not the perception that a lot of people get from their actions.

evangelicals = a voting block, they do not push military agenda

If you can, I'd encourage you to track down the documentary called "Waiting for Armageddon". It's out on DVD.

lack of belief doesn't have to be the primary motivation for a
deed to attribute the deed, in part, to lack of belief. If
hitler really feared god, you wouldn't recognize his name.

Well, that depends on which god he feared, now doesn't it? Joshua in the Old Testament annhiliated numerous cities and peoples; so did David. Both are revered figures in some Christian circles. In the Middle Ages, the Popes commanded armies and empires and did a lot of terrible things. Mohammad was as much a general and king as he was a prophet and slaughtered a lot of people. The motivations for such people (assuming they even existed) is complicated, but I think it'd be hard to argue that these characters were anything but devout. Again, religion is a great motivator to convince people to do things that they really ought to have better sense not to. It's a lot easier to go to war if you think that the supreme creator of the universe told your leader that's what He wanted you to do.

[gut]

> If you can, I'd encourage you to track down the documentary
> called "Waiting for Armageddon". It's out on DVD.

Let me guess, it's vid where extremist political brainwashed
yankees tell me how my people really are. Maybe they are in
a position to know better than me though, as all I do is live
here.

> Well, that depends on which god he feared, now doesn't it?

The L one

> Joshua in the Old Testament annhiliated numerous cities

and claimed it was gods will, we covered that already.

> it'd be hard to argue that these characters were anything but devout.

it'd be hard to argue they didn't hear voices.