Rusting Car Bumper

I diagree. Although not well phrased in this case this is a thorn in the pro-afterlife side.

If indeed the afterlife is what mattered then keeping people alive should be of little concern and one shouldn't be afraid of death. In fact one should celebrate the deaths of believers and not mourn them.

It's not a mindless rhetorical attack. Its simply the posing of a quesiton to point out the mental discontinuity between the beliefs of some theists and their own behavior.

DC

Wyz_sub10

I agree with DC on this (which I am allowed to do seeing as we are not in the Politics forum ).

If time on earth is suffering, why not opt for paradise? I would think, under this view, a theist would value life far, far less than an atheist.

There is no real connection between atheism and rape, however. You can explain an aversion to such things in a variety of ways that do not come back to god.

Some theists have said that time on earth is a test, and that they go to heaven only when called. Fair enough. But what are the parameters? Why do victims and aggressors often die alike? How has a SIDS baby been tested?

I agree the wording needs work, but I do not understand a Christian mourning a tragic death in the way an atheist does, given the beliefs sets.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]</p>

Living Dead Chipmunk

You missed my point.

Stalin killed for reasons completely independant of religion. The 9/11 hijackers killed for no reason BUT to further religious goals.

Stalin's reasons for murder would have existed and been carried out no matter what religion he professed. The hijacker's reason for murder was based entirely on theological doctrine, and would NOT have been carried out if aforementioned theological doctrine had been rejected.

If you know of any instance when an atheist killed in the name of atheism, I'd love to hear it. There are plenty of example of theists killing for their god(s).

ageofreason2000

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, I don't think Stalin would've got where he did without the vehicle of Communism, the chaos of the revolution allowed Stalin to position himself as tyrant.

Stalin did what he did because he chose to but the ideology of communism allowed him to.
Similarly the hijackers did what they did because the ideology of Islam (or more accuratly Al Quada) allowed them to.

I think its more a question is communism guilty for allowing Stalin to do what he did and is Islam guilty of allowing the hijackers to do what they did.

I suppose its a question of who is more guilty the ideology or the individual.

Can we blame cars for being able to go fast or the driver for driving irresponsibly?

Age, in ramble mode

Living Dead Chipmunk

So Communism is a religion now? What god(s) are Communists attempting to glorify at the expense of the infidels?

Tom Sawyer

LDC:

I disagree. I think that the 9/11 hijackers killed to further their political goals, which happened to have a strong religious element. Just like when the Palestinian suicide bombers blow Israelis up in the name of Allah, they're doing it to try and get a Palestinian homeland, not to further the cause of Islam.

If the Middle East were a mainly atheist area and everything else was equal, most of the situations would be exactly the same. You'd get more regular bombings instead of suicide bombings, but other than that there wouldn't be much of a difference. The terrorists are fighting to get political goals achieved which have religious overtones, not to get religious goals achieved that have political overtones.

Jamie_L

I think the issue about religion and killing people is over-done and inflammatory, BUT it's not total BS.

Pretty much all religion is based on blind faith at some level. Human beings in possitions of religious authority can manipulate that blind faith. If someone believes it is their duty to serve a god, and you can convince them that committing violence glorifies their god, then you've got a recipe for disaster.

A regular joe who gets religion isn't likely to go around killing people in the name of God. However, if a bad apple in the church or a clever cult leader can get their claws into the regurlar religious fellow, you've got a lot of problems.

Religion tends to down-play and often discourage critical thinking as aplied to the religion and the church. That's the danger. One hopes that most people will step back and scratch their heads when a religious leader starts talking about doing bad things. However, the religion itself can't be relied upon to provide people with the motivation or intellectual skills to stand up and ask those questions.

We are fortunate that modern society, for the most part, now encourages people to be more than just mindless drones to their religion. It is my belief, however, that this transformation did not come from inside those religions themselves.

Jamie

ageofreason2000

Hello LDC

Well that's not what I said, there where some MAJOR political changes then untested, the russian take on communism allowed Stalin to rise to power.
Without the Revolution how likely is it Stalin would be in the history books.

However to answer your question directly.
The god the russian communists worshipped (after much manipulation) was Stalin.

Stalin only used Communism the way power seeking God Bothers have used the Bible.

Age

zamboniavenger

No, but it is a dogma, or at least was in the Soviet Union. Like Lone Ranger stated earlier, dogma, in any form, is harmful.

Heathen Dawn

</strong>

The Palestinians had a homeland promised to them twice: in 1947 and in 1993. In both cases it was a treaty giving them a shared place in Palestine alongside the Jews, and in both cases, instead of accepting it and going home in peace, they opted for war. The goal of the Palestinians is not just to get a homeland for themselves - it is also to rob the Jews of their homeland. When Palestinians blow Israelis up in the name of Allah, they're doing it to further the cause of Islam, not just to gain a homeland for themselves.

</strong>

If the Mid East were mainly an atheist area, the Palestinians would accept the proposal of 1947. Or if not that, then the proposal of 1993. Both proposals gave them a homeland, albeit alongside the Jews. But because of their religious bent, they don't want a homeland alongside the Jews, so they chose war in both cases.

The latter, the latter. A religious goal that have achieved political overtones. In any case, there's no separation between religion and politics in Islam. Religion is politics in Islam. This isn't your "render unto Caesar" Christianity we're talking about.