Samhain

Yes, of course. As I said before I do not see it as a fault of the Jews on this point, I blame the Nazis for this. But with absence of Semitism could the evil that was the anti-semitic Holocaust have ever been realized? While this may be extremely cold-hearted, it is only logical when regarding our main argument. It is another religious war, although a different type, do we agree? I'll strike this one anyway, though, as I can see that it offends you. I don't mean to be viewed as a jerk or anything on this point, but my focus is not the Holocaust alone, but all religious groups. I'm saying that it does, in effect, give another target for mass murder (a diverging example of Occam's Razor, if we were all kept to one religion, or no religion, we would not have these problems, yes?), a we can see in this case, while it is totally absent of their own choice in the matter. Perhaps I'll review this, since it is a moral problem from your perspective. I see it as cold-hearted, but in regard to this discussion, it should also be viewed as an option. I would not say this is a evil of theists, but it is a evil as a result of theistic belief, yes?

I guess it's because we're arguing different questions. While I accept that these were undoubtedly goods done by theism (Chrisitanity specifically), would it have been done with the absence of theism? That goes with everything in the argument, though. When there's possibility that things could have been done otherwise or in a different fashion, then we must logically come up with a less subjective question. Which is why I keep saying I don't care for the original question. It brings up too many "would it have been done without theism" questions. I feel that regardless, some of these things would still have taken place under other excuses, but could any of these things have been prevented without the powerful excuse of theism? If I were content with the original question I would accept these things, but since I'm not I have trouble understanding how this question is relevant, it makes it hard for me to accept that these things, good or evil were done solely in the name of theism or atheism and that they would not have been done otherwise. We live in a world of possibilities, and to remove an excuse for evil possibilities to manifest themselves would probably be the more logical than to leave the excuses, thereby almost asking that these evils take place as a result.

David M. Payne

First off, I’d like to apologize for being so tardy on my thread here, but the Flu (Not the Mensa Flu) had me down for a week. Also I have been involved with the first below post at the Clemson University Skeptics BB, where it has been a hot topic. See this link, <a href="http://www.steelangel.com/skeptic/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=1" target="_blank">Here</a> Also I must correct an error of Samhain, Don Morgan didn’t post this remark, I did.
I find myself in the middle, as usual, in this debate. I agree with Samhain (SH?) that Marx didn’t set out to create what communism became. At the same time I think Marx was well, naïve, when it came to foreseeing what his system would become. As soon as you talk about the dictatorship of anything, you head down a slippery slope. I agree with much of what fromtheright (FTR?) said, that for all practical purposes communism was doomed to failure based on what it sought to do, replace the sovereign individual with the state. Though we will disagree on the role of religion, (Yes, there is good done by religion FTR, but it might just as well have happened if there was no religion, a question that will never be answered.) I pretty much agree with his analysis of communism below:
I’m going to post these two pieces below, because I think they may stir up even more debate on this thread. The first one is a thread topic here at the Sec-Web in the EoG forum, as well as at the Clemson link above. The second one is a line that I have been looking at that pertains to all forms of authoritarian social structure, secular and religious. It was written to respond to a readers critique of the first piece <a href="http://www.newsreview.com/issues/reno/authors/davidpayne.asp" target="_blank">here</a> in a local newspaper. It to also is related to the issues being discussed in this thread to some degree. Perhaps these two pieces will give you some more grist for your mills.

Is God the biggest mass murderer of all time?
(Evolving beyond religion)
In the year 2000 there were about one billion people (912.3 million) who were atheist, agnostic or nonreligious. (according to Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year.) While that is the third largest group in the world after Christians and Muslims, A casual reading in the media might lead one to think we’re all but nonexistent. As one of this group, (strong agnostic) it’s with some measure of sad irony that I watch the outpouring of grief and anger by many religious denominations over the WTC and Pentagon bombings on 9-11-01. We hear the anguished denunciations that the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, fearless of death, don’t represent the “true Islamic religion”. Really.
Though there are examples of good moral teachings to be found in all religious books, there are also teachings found in them that can lead right to the acts perpetrated on us by Osama Bin Laden and the other fundamentalist followers of the Abrahamic religions, be they Christian, Muslim or Jew.
Often religious scholars will point to the “free will” argument, (which isn’t in the bible by the way), to explain away this murderous and barbaric behavior by religious zealots. So lets look at one disturbing example of God’s, not man’s, behavior, the great flood and Noah’s ark. (Geneses 6-9) God drowns everyone but Noah and his family for their “corruption”. OK, what sin and corruption did the babies and little children of these people, or for that matter the animals on this planet, commit? None. I guess they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, right? Is mass murder the only answer an omnipotent God had for this sinful behavior? In our time this would be called genocide, the first recorded instance I believe. But for the true believer it is the work of a “just” and “merciful” God? Not in my book. Of course there are many who would interpret God’s actions differently, and that begs the point of this intellectual exercise. One can interpret the holy books any way one wants to, because there will be no intervention coming directly from God on this, will there? There hasn’t been any direct intervention in man’s behavior in over two thousand years, has there? As long as there’s no direct action from God to prevent those that seek to take religion down the path of madness, death and destruction, we will continue to suffer from this barbaric behavior. Sooner or later the worst of these groups will possess weapons of mass destruction, and they’ll use them in the name of God. Religious warfare is, after all, as old as recorded history, still ongoing, and apparently endless.
Humanity, not a mythical God, is in control of this planet and its resources. It’s time to put the religious fables away and continue our evolutionary path into the future. Humanity must use logic, reason and the rule of manmade laws to craft our future, not religious teachings that can be interpreted any way those in power want to interpret them. The way religious fanaticism is degenerating into more destructive cults, our survival will surely depend on stopping this religious fundamentalist desire to “save” humanity from our “sinful and corrupt” ways by converting us to their religious point of view, or destroying us all if we refuse to see their light.

The many headed Hydra of Authoritarianism

This evolution of humanity will be easier to accomplish if we can eliminate many of the divisive regimes currently inherent in our makeup. Only a fool can deny the divisive nature that religious conflict has and does play in our interrelationship as a species. All of the major conflicts ongoing now are religious in nature. Sooner or later one of these conflict will involve weapons of mass destruction. These weapons endanger humanity worldwide, a situation that can no longer be allowed to continue.
Democracy and capitalism have triumphed over the forces of repressive authoritarian regimes such Marxism/communism and fascism, for now. However, the Hydra of authoritarianism has many heads, secular and religious, and all must be cut off and a stake driven through its heart, if we are to triumph over its desire to control humanity. Some heads of this hydra, such as fringe religious cults, sects, etc can be small, but dangerous in their own right. They seek control of our lives and fortunes. The theocratic state is another large head of the authoritarian hydra, we see the eternal nature of religious conflict codified into a state supported activity in theocracy. If we are to survive as a species, we need to move beyond these superstitious religious beliefs, and the control they exert on us.

David.

Hi Helen, your work is looking much better.

Samhain

Sorry about the misplacement of your post, David, I didn't mean to do that. I was probably at work at the time or something...Anyway....

Some good discussions on this can be found here in the EoG forum under <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000170" target="_blank">The Injustice of Divine Punishment</a>

Anyone who's interested in this area might want to check it out.

fromtheright

Samhaim,

I'm sorry if I made you sound like a jerk, and I'm really not "offended", but just think it illegitmate to argue (though as I said I do understand the logic) that but for the victims the offense would not occur. I appreciate you saying that it was the Nazis' fault, but I do still disagree with your use of this as an example of an evil that is due to theism, it is much like a thug saying, "Well, if your face wasn't there, I wouldn't have hit it with this baseball bat." Yes, I do see it as a moral issue, but am not offended, I just think it an illegitimate argument however logical.

Samhain

Well, perhaps it is a bit illegitimate. I look at it in a causal way. If a religious group does not exist, it has no chance of being persecuted. I cannot see a religious persecutor as the ultimate cause in this situation since the ultimate cause must be the existence of a religious group (especially since religious beliefs are a choice). If it's a racial matter, well, that's one thing, there is no choice regarding how you are born, but religion is an entirely different matter since it is a choice. (CAUSE: religious group exists, EFFECT: group is targeted for persecution because it exists, EFFECT 2: millions die as a result of the persecution.) Once you choose to be actualized into a group (especially a group with religious basis) you run the risk of being persecuted by someone, this is a possibility, and it must be observed, however remote it may be at the time. Therefore, since actualization into a religious group is a choice of an individual, part of the reason that that person is persecuted lies on the person who made that choice. I'm not saying that they should change beliefs or anything of that sort. But when it can be viewed as a possibility, however remote (although looking at the track record of religion, it may not be so remote), then one must take that into consideration when choosing to be part of a group (or to not be part, for that matter ). If you decide to drive your car across the country, and someone hits you and totals your car, is it illogical to blame yourself (partially) for choosing to take that trip? It only is dependent upon whether that belief is more important than persecution. I hold that religious belief is a choice and therefore a person with belief can be held, in a very indirect way, accountable for their choice concerning their belief in this type of situation. Once again, I don't blame them for being targets, all I'm saying is that it would make the world much simpler, in this regard, if there was no religious belief involved, yes?

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

David M. Payne

Sorry I missed this, I had the flu last week. This thread wasn’t demoted, it was moved to a form that it fit in better, as it wasn’t an EoG question. As for this quote of yours, I never said this ReasonableDoubt, is it your nature to put words in the mouths of those you disagree with? Are you unable to argue the merits of your position, and therefore dependant on snotty little remarks to score your points with? Impressive!

David M. Payne

Some good discussions on this can be found here in the EoG forum under <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000170" target="_blank">The Injustice of Divine Punishment</a>

Anyone who's interested in this area might want to check it out.[/QB][/QUOTE]

They may also want to check out this thread Samhain, which predates the one you list by almost a month. In fact I first raised this topic you are discussing here in the old feedback discussion forum last year. This thread is new: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000122" target="_blank">Is God the biggest mass murder of all time?</a>
Things tend to get discussed over and over again at the Sec-Web. The cast keeps changing here, and when you’re talking about God, religion, atheism, etc, the old becomes new again. (In fact some of these arguments are thousands of years old.) Each time it happens, we see some new wrinkles in the arguments. Sorry you two don’t like the header of this thread, but I think it is a question that is relevant to our current circumstances, ie 9/11. However if you two can settle on a header close to this one, that I can live with, I will change it for you.

I am interested in hearing from FTR on this point. You go on and on about how atheists equal communists when it comes to doing evil. I believe that the evil done by communists was the result of their ideology, not their non-belief in a mythical God. I also think that God, as a mythical being, is not guilty of anything, good or bad. That isn’t an argument that has any utility for you theists though, does it FTR? As for your argument here;
If this argument was valid, then the communists would have to do the same thing the theists do, when they kill in the name of their religion, their God, or both. Ie the communists would have to kill in the name of their non-belief in God, atheism. Never happened. Communists don’t kill in the name of atheism. They kill in the name of the party, the state, the cult of personality, etc, but not in the name of atheism.
As for the reason that communists are atheists, I think it is a combination of the acceptance of scientific evolutionary theory, which leaves no room for a God, as well as the realization that any religion is a competitor for power. History shows that communism brooks no competition for power.


David

Samhain

I think my main problem with the topic was that it seemed irrelevant to discuss which has committed the most evil, because of the simple fact that no one commits an act for lack of belief in something. FTR took your question literally off of the title, "who has done more evil" as far as, have atheists done more evil or have theists done more evil (regardless of what the purpose is that they do these "evils" for). I felt a more relevent question would be more along the lines of: "Is evil committed in the name of atheism?" or perhaps "What evils are committed in the name of theism?" or even "Have theistic beliefs been considered (at the time of the incident) an acceptable excuse for the 'evils' of history?" (ie - can people do evil in the name of theistic beliefs and get away with it with no one really questioning moral values?).

fromtheright

Samhaim,

I think we finally, actually agree on something. I enjoyed the exchange.

hal9000

The going gets tough and fromtheright takes a powder. How tipical of the theists here.