Riverwind

Split from Ten Worst Bible Passages and in response to a digress split out as Metadiscussion on why look for Biblical atrocities

I'll answer "Cheerful Charlie"...

His quoting of verses is just as selective as the Christians he seems to accuse of Cherry-picking.

He claims God must be unjust for rejecting the Jews but forgets to mention that they were, from the beginning, God's chosen people, and are still considered such, but at the same time many of them (according to their own scriptures) rejected their God over and over again in cycles and killed the very prophets sent by God. And God is unjust? Unfortunately, it is man who is unjust.

Further, it is easy to criticize another's views because no one has completely consistent and unassailable views. In fact, I would challenge "Cheerful Charlie" on being an "atheist who loves humanity". In fact, he has little reason, as an atheist, to love humanity, especially to the detriment of his own wishes and desires, and he shows this quite well to the detriment of Christians. So, expose your own views, Charlie, and lets see just how well they stand up to close scrutiny.

gregor

I assume this was in jest . . . otherwise, too strawy to discuss further.

Riverwind

Nope, no jest. I believe that there are "atheists who love humanity" but only through faulty reasoning and through "turning a blind eye" toward the reality of their situation with no God in sight. "Too strawy to discuss further?" It certainly wasn't too strawy to discuss for most philosophers, the existentialists being the only honest ones of the bunch, IMHO.

Cheerful Charlie

I love humanity a lot more than the US politicians that bombed Iraq's water systems (a war crime) and then imposed sanctions that resulted in half a million dead children.

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)


The US knew it would create mass epidemics and deaths. Thomas Nagy, a college professor obtained official US documents via the FOIA laws that proved that. See theSeptember 2001 issue of Progressive Magazine online for that.

Bush and Clinton,who did these things were no Atheists. Nor the Senators and Representitives and military personel who supported these things and did them.

America, 85% Christian believers did not care either. Nor were the leaders of mainstream denominations with well over 100 million plus members,None rose upafter the Albright interview(see above) to denounce this evil and make a major issue of ending these genocidal sanctions.

The killing went on years after the interview on 60 minutes.

Reagan and Bush supported evil regimes and the American religious community never arose and ended these policies. Support for genocidal bastards like Pol Pot, which the US supported all through the Reagan and Bush years to Saddam Hussien, Pinochet,the Contra ex-Somoza gaurds, El Salvadors D'Aubisson,the insane Rios Montt of Guatemala and more.

I did care if the US's oh so religious Christians did not. To suggest I have no reason to love humanity I choose to take as an insult and an attack on my person. I resent that. Heavily. All my life I have taken that sort of insult while the good Christians from Nixon on have supported mad and evil and hateful policies, such as in Vietnam, support for Indonesia's take over of East Timur and subsequent murder of 1/3 the population, illegal bombings in Cambodia, Laos, overthrow of the Chilean governement by Pinochet and support for the murderous policies of his evil regime. Support for murderous Greek Junta generals, Brazil's murderous generals, and Argentine's Dirty War. Under Reagan, the Christians swung far right and never as a whole, demurred over the evil regimes Reagan and then Bush supported. They kept voting for far right scum.

Thus, no Christan has any right to smear me when they have proven since Nixon slimed into office of not caring a pointy rat turd about things like mass murder, mass torture, mass rape, genocide and support for evil by the US government for 35 years.

Maybe now you might understand a bit why I hate and despise religion and especually Christianity. I have hated it since Nixon won re-election with 60% of the vote and the support of the good Christian "silent majority" despite the evils of Nixon and Kissinger and the GOP.

Do I really need god to oppose torture, genocide, murder, and oppression?
Thiose who had God didn't let that stop then, from supporting Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush. Or 500,000 dead Iraqi children.

I do care simply because I have a sense of empathy, and I am intellectually honest with myself. I dont allow myself specious excuses to allow me to accept such evils. Because Clinton and Gore allowed the Bush sanctions to kill in this way, I voted Nader. Twice, and encouraged people to do so for these reasons. Hillary Clinton was silent during this. I won't be voting for her. I suggest nobody do so for that reason alone.

I am slowly writing a book on all of this. American Christianity failed for 35 long, bloody, evil years. Christians thus have no right to continue on the decades long hate and smear attacks on Atheists.

I am hoping to eventually, defang this hateful smear campaign for future American atheists. American Christainity is a shameful failure as a whole, looking back on all of this. Us Atheists had not the numbers or the organizations to battle all this evil. But the failure of American Christianity means that Christians in the US have lost the right to attack atheists for their morality.

My book will be meant to hammer that argument home for future young atheists. It is Christainity that is a moral failure. American Christianity could have fought this evil successfully and did not try.

Cheerful Charlie

Cheerful Charlie

Yes. If God is merciful, loving and just,he would not have killed infants and babies just because they were the firstborn. God is not as claimed, just, merciful or good. The Christians, confronted with this, will twist and turn and make up all sorts of bad excuses.

And THAT is the real evil of all of this. Religion teaches us to be intellectually dishonest. That has given us centuries of witchhunts, religious wars, crusades, heresy hunts, auto-de-fes, religious massacres, forced conversions, inquisitions and evils beyond counting.

That then is the true evil of religion. Rationality, reason and logic are thrown away and hated in name of religion.

Cheerful Charlie

mojuang

You took the task of answering Charlie instead of Roger.But it seems you have gone in a different direction.Please read him carefully before you answer.You seem to be of the idea that no love of humanity is possible without religion but charlie in answer to this rambling has shown you yet again that hate is almost impossible without religion.A 'dirty' heart remains so even when it professes the most profound religious inclination.Roger should still answer Charlie! I wont let it drop...

Riverwind

Yes, I did go in a different direction with good reason. I don't like people who have no basis for their subjective morals telling Christians what they should and shouldn't believe.

That is certainly not what I said, and I think you should reread my own post. What I said is that people without religion can be loving of humanity but they have no rational basis for doing so. You see, if there is nothing out there watching over what we do, there is no rational reason to care about any human beings other than those whom you are close to. Even in that case, there is no good reason for necessarily dealing honestly with them. Why? Because there is every reason to maximize your own happiness at the expense of others (without letting on to them that this is what you are doing, of course).

If you don't see the dilemma, then I request that you go read existentialist philosophy. In my opinion, existentialist philosophers are the only philosophers who saw the reality of our situation here on earth as human beings.

Charlie has shown me nothing... Sorry, Charlie. Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to the nonsense rambling about the supposed evils of religion. He flat ignores all the good done in the world by religion as well among other things. Hate is most certainly possible without religion, and my argument is that it is even worse without a belief in something out there somewhere that holds us to some objective moral standard.

You may not want to let it drop, but you will eventually, because unless you totally ignore the true and scary freedom from morals that you have as an atheist or agnostic (which most atheists and agnostics do ignore because they don't like to think about the fact that they have no objective basis for the morals they've adopted and certainly no right to force them upon anyone else), all your arguments will be vacuous before me and likely before Roger as well. I rejected atheism and agnosticism for the very reason that I find it morally and rationally abhorrent.

Cheerful Charlie

Love of humanity is possible with religion and is possible without it. Hate without religion is possible too.

My complaint is that hate and evil has been something that Christainity has indulged in almost from the beginnig and still does.

What religion does is teach us to be intellectually dishonest. To play games. To abandon logic and reason at the drop of a hat. Does the Bible say God is just, good, merciful, and righteous? Yes, again and again!
Is the God of the Bible actually depicted as just and good and righteous and merciful? No. Romans 11 is just monstrous and senseless. Admit that? No. When you throw away logic, reason and common sense, anything is possible. Shoving starving Jews into ovens, killing 500,000 Iraqi children with evil sanctions, supporting genocidal bastards South of the border, Rios Montt, Pinochet, D'Aubisson et al.

Myth think teaches us to protect stupid myths by being intellectually dishonest and that leads to callousness and evil actions, rationalized by throwing logic and reasson away. To be moral, one has to be rational, reasoning and logical.

Cheerful Charlie

gstafleu

So let's discuss that basis that you think isn't there. The reasoning goes as follows.

1. Many Christians hold that the examples their god sets should be followed, are morally prescriptive.
2. From the bible it is clear that this god commits, condones, aides and abets evil acts. I have mentioned the conquest of Canaan as an example, many other examples have been given by others in this thread.
3. Non-Christians (some at least) therefore have a problem with Christians believing in this particular god because, taking the Christians at their word (see 1 above), they think that said Christians may feel that committing such evils is acceptable, if not something to be actively persued.
4. Hence they have a valid cause in protesting against some of the Christians' beliefs.

Are there any problems with that?

BTW, I notice that I have given the conquest of Canaan as a rather massive example of evil committed/condoned/instigated by the Christian god, and that no Christian on this thread has bothered to even try a refutation.

Gerard Stafleu

Roger Pearse

The basis, that is, for atheists morals.

This has no bearing on your beliefs, tho.

Nor that.

Nor that.

Only that it is irrelevant to the point made.

All the best,

Roger Pearse