Vorkosigan

Incidentally, Farseeker, you have mentioned KAL007 several times, as an example of an atrocity committed "in the name of atheism". And you have stated that no humanist organization has ever condemned it.

Has he really? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard.

Jack the Bodiless

More on "booby-trapped toys" in Afghanistan.

From <a href="http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/100.html" target="_blank">this article</a>:
It seems that the rumor may have started with children mistaking air-dropped mines for toys. From <a href="http://www.operationsick.com/articles/19950416_childrenbearbruntofmodernwars.asp" target="_blank">this article</a>:
Note that this article, from activists dedicated to protecting children from the effects of war, makes no mention of mines deliberately made to look like toys.

There are many references to this problem affecting Afghan children due to American cluster munitions used against the Taliban. So, yet again, we have "Christian America" performing an identical atrocity to the "atheist Soviets".

Primal

FS: LOL, I've seen less holes in swiss cheese then in your argument.

On the one hand you state that nonbelief cannot cause anything, but then say atheism, nonbelief in Gods caused X.

You cannpt have it both ways:

You must either say that nonbelief does not cause anything, in which case you cannot blame atheism for any atrocity.

or

You must admit that nonbelief can be blamed, in which case I can say aracists are terrible people: just look at Stalin, Mao, and Lenin. They killed many people and were nonracist.

Many of your arguments have been refuted many times and again all you do is comeup with spurious speculation on how religion wasn't "the real cause". Speculation based on possible causes which is just as relavent as saying that maybe the "real cause" for religious atrocities was, not religion, but alien parasites. I mean, its possible after all.

Unless there is compelling reason to think otherwise, motives are taken at face value via Occum's Razor. This is necessary to avoid turning the question into a guessing game of possibilities. So unless you can find a compelling, plausible, reason for me to think that religious atrocities were really caused by some other drive, like "politics" (a worthless ploy as politics can include religion btw) I'm going to see such actions as largely or in part, motivated by religion.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by FarSeeker:

"You have likewise been criticizing Christianity for few evil people who called themselves Christian instead of Atheist. And Atheists have no justification for morals, only opinions."

I already answered this -- I provided several sources of secular morality, and you said in response, "The question is whether they can maintain the right ones." You utterly failed to respond to my points, "The theist has no better justification for morality than the atheist does, because the theist simply dogmatically accepts that God's morality is the correct one. Multiple studies indicate a negative correlation between theism and morality." RSVP.

"Well, that is your opinion. Stalin didn’t share it, Dr. Singer doesn’t seem to share it, the doctors performing partial-birth and post birth abortions don’t share it. And since Dr. Singer holds the Chair of Bioethics at Princeton, I think his opinion holds more weight than yours."

Singer's wrong. I have already shown why in my previous post. If you understand why abortion is in fact immoral, please answer my points.

"But it’s strange, I thought it was wrong to kill people because -- even among Atheists -- they were intelligent human beings, not whether someone misses them. It’s a pity if I am wrong. If it is OK to kill someone if only a few people miss a person, as you said, then that would still allow a multitude of killing. Do you miss the victims of the Tiananmen massacre? Then it’s OK with you?"

Adult, intelligent humans are not the same as fetuses or embryos. I said that the reasons murder is wrong usually don't apply in the case of abortion, and you have failed to answer this point. Why is abortion wrong? I do not recommend a deontological position here; you will have rather a hard time supporting it. Utilitarianism favors abortion, as I have demonstrated. Or do you have some other reason?

"Scientific deceit or ignorance does not become you. There is a difference between a viable embryonic human and an unfertilized egg. Note I also recognize a difference between a viable embryo and a rare accident I have only heard reference to where an egg turns cancerous instead into an embryo."

Show me where I have practiced deceit or ignorance.

"Also, make your claims about studies with references please. I have been lied to by Atheists about their 'facts.'"

The U.S. department of prisons has statistics available that show atheists are underrepresented in prisons. Further, see Skeptic vol. 6 no. 2 1998, page 77 for the following:
(Italics original.)

"Well, that is your opinion. What goals requires you to eat meat but the joy of killing animals? What goal requires you to cut down a tree but joy of destroying a forest?" (Emphasis original throughout.)

Eating meat for the taste and nutritive value, cutting down a tree to build a house. Were you really unaware of those?

"Perhaps I was calling the fallacy by an incorrect name; what is the fallacy called when you say that the judge is not allowed to execute justice, but a layman can? Vigilantism?"

You are not speaking of a fallacy but rather a putatively false premise.

"However, I ask you to show that 'gratuitous' suffering exists. And is it a tu quoque fallacy if an Atheist says it is moral?"

Gratuitous suffering probably exists, because we observe widespread and numerous instances of apparently gratuitous suffering, and we can conclude from these that some of it is probably gratuitous. To deny that we can make this inference will open you up to quite a few problems, but go ahead. Also, if your position is, instead, that no gratuitous suffering exists, I can conclude there's no reason for me to try to prevent suffering. This is a consequence of Christian morality, apparently. Far better is the naturalist morality that claims some suffering is gratuitous and therefore ought to be prevented.

"I challenge you to even prove your own existence."

1. If I post on this bulletin board, I exist.
2. I post on this bulletin board.
3. Therefore, I exist.

Proof does not refer to "a collection of statements that produces knowledge," but rather, "a sound deductive argument." Christians consistently fail to provide a sound deductive argument for theism or a strong inductive argument for theism, but atheists frequently provide sound deductive or strong evidential arguments for atheism. In fact, God cannot possibly be omnipotent, because it contradicts His other attributes such as His omniscience -- this is an example of an argument that proves the omnipotent God to be nonexistent.

"The Cosmological argument proves the creation event, time, space, matter/energy all had a beginning."

This provides no support for anything resembling theism.

"The teleological argument shows a design, and the relatively benign nature of Earth is statistically unaccountable."

No one has demonstrated that a single intelligence is required to produce the design we observe in nature, much less God. Further, no one has demonstrated that the probability of a life-permitting universe is low, only that if certain things were different, the universe would not permit life -- we don't know that they could be different. Finally, improbability is not evidence of "not chance"; you do not assume someone cheated if you win the lottery.

"It has no connection with the existence of moral law: Either Moral laws exist outside of man’s choice, or you have to admit that the Nazis did nothing wrong according to their own, socially chosen, moral law."

I said evidential moral arguments, not transcendental moral arguments. But yes, the Nazis did nothing wrong according to their morality. According to my morality, which states that it is an objective fact that murder is wrong, the Nazis did do something wrong.

"Hume’s argument comes down to 'miracles don’t exist because they can’t exist because they don’t exist.' Having experienced a minor miracle that saved me from bodily harm and possibly saved my life, I can attest they do happen."

No, that is not Hume's argument. And as for your own miracle, how do you know it couldn't have happened without God? Please support "If there is no God, there is no way the 'miracle' could have happened," or tell me why you need not.

"It developed science and freedom as no other religion did."

Early Islam contributed far more to science than early Christianity, and the Christianity of today is radically anti-science. Most scientists are atheists, and Christians commonly support positions such as Creationism that have been debunked for decades.

"Despite the infections of evil that plagued it (Crusades, Inquisition, corruption, etc.) it gave birth to the free nation of the United States."

I don't think we need to cite Christianity for the birth of the United States. Far more important was a simple desire for freedom, especially given the anti-Christianity beliefs of many of our "founding fathers."

"On the other hand, what 'Atheist' nations are you talking about?"

Atheist rulers did not do what they did because they were atheists, unless you can demonstrate that morality without theism is impossible -- this is still under debate. Theists such as the 9/11 terrorists, however, did do what they did because of theism. Theism often teaches that any action is okay if God claims it is okay, while naturalists can easier hold the position that some things are objectively wrong.

I would be interested to see your response to the Euthyphro dilemma. Is an action good because God says it is, or does God simply report what He notices morally correct actions to be?

And later, you say:

"Atheism always has a world-view built around it..."

Please demonstrate that there is at least one belief all atheists necessarily share, other than "There is not enough reason to believe in any god." Otherwise, I hardly think we have a necessary worldview.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Metcalf ]</p>

DigitalDruid

FarSeeker wrote:
Far, if crusades were a typical political military action in response to a call of help from the Byzantium Empire, then what was the need to butcher jews along the way ("Accept Jesus or die")? How did the jews in Rhineland threaten Jerusalem? The answer is it was not a "typical" political military action. Religious frenzy played a prominent part.
By using "also" you seem to agree that there were progroms as part of the crusade! Doesn’t this contradict your earlier statement that the crusades were as benign as US response to aid England in WW2?
The assertion that atheism is responsible for atrocities in soviet union and china arises from lack of clarity in thought. Marx’s concern was what he perceived to be exploitation of labor. He decried every aspect (capitalism, religion, etc.) of society that seemed (to him) to oppress the proletariat. But one can be an atheist because of reasons entirely different from Marx’s "historical materialism", such as: nebulous concept of god, inadequacy of the candidates offered so far, contradictions/inconsistencies in the scriptures, etc. So isn’t it unfair to assert that every atheist is a communist or supports oppression? It flunks the test of logic:
"A" (Communism) implies atheism ("B"). So ("B") atheism implies ("A")communism?
Another version of related invalid reasoning is:
Communist regimes are oppressive. Communists are atheists. So atheism leads to oppression? A simple Venn diagram would show what’s wrong in this kind of thinking.

Also, what evidence you have that secular/atheistic organizations you mention supported Tianamen Square massacre and other atrocities? I don’t know of any. But I do know of evangelist and Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, who has acknowledged business links in China, condoning china’s policy of forced abortion of girl fetuses. <a href="http://www.au.org/press/pr417012.htm" target="_blank">http://www.au.org/press/pr417012.htm</a>
I am mentioning this because you mentioned atrocities in China. Robertson also justified selective abortion of girl fetuses on this ground: he speculated that in 10 or 20 years Chinese men will have to import wives from Indonesia. This move, he said, "will, in a sense, dilute the--what they consider the racial purity of the Han Chinese." Never mind that he is completely opposed to abortion on any ground here in USA! On the other hand, I do not know of any atheistic/secular organizations in USA that support selective abortion of girl fetuses in China.

First, if it is rational, it is not likely an impulse. Rationality implies deliberate thinking.
Second, Sure there are bad acts aided by rational thinking. You can be rationally calculating while doing harm - just as you can be rational and do science. But for extreme cruelty you need irrational religious fanaticism. Butchering of Jews to warm-up along the way to the crusades is just one example. That’s why I am more scared of irrationality than rationality.

The AntiChris

Not true.

Chris

FarSeeker

I never said it was benign, only that the cause wasn't Christianity. Look the Crusades started in the 1090's, The Eastern Roman Empire had been under attack for, what, some 400 years? This wasn't just some blood-thirsty act, but a political act. The Emperor and the Pope had both hoped for an organized movement of troops (governmental and mercenaries) to aid the Empire. What they got was an uncontrollable rabble. If Christianity was the “blood-thirsty” religion that has been claimed (without objection from you) on this thread, it would have happened much sooner.

Instead of dealing honestly with history, you are doing exactly what George Orwell predicted in “1984,” rewriting it to fit you political wishes.

FarSeeker

Vorkosigan posted August 19, 2002 05:08 AM Right. Once again an Atheists tries to pull a fast one:

First, you claim to have done this in a country that the U.S. supports, as opposed to the Peoples Republic of China (run by several million Atheists).

Second, you try to slip past the fact that there are Christians in the independence movement, and then blame Christians for supporting the KMT (which you fail to mention, actually fought against the Atheists in the PRC, unlike you). The political opinions of those Catholic and Methodist representatives does not represent the teachings of the Bible, but are more likely related to other - political - fears.

The PRC constitution guarantees freedom of religion in Article 36. Ask any PRC official and they will state that the people have freedom of religion in the Red China. But…

May I suggest that you spend some time trying to free Cathjolic Bishop James Su Zhimin, who was arrested in Hebei in 1997, or Pastor Peter Xu who was last known to be in the Henan penal colony, or Philip Xu, who was sentenced to Jiangsu (slave) labor camp without trial in 1997. Or perhaps you could bring to trial those responsible for the deaths of Xiuju (Henan), Rev. Yan Weiping, or Rev. Liu Jiaguo. Perhaps you could convince the PRC to stop torturing prisoners.

Thomas Metcalf posted August 18, 2002 07:03 PM
One,
Wizardry posted March 31, 2002 10:39 PM When you two make up your minds about that, get back to me.

Two:
These are NOT the acts of a “few “ Atheists, but of several million. And I would think that Red China would be fertile ground for your activities. After all, they are already halfway home: they’ve “thrown off the shackles of religion.” They should be begging for your intelligent reasoning; after all:

Wizardry posted March 31, 2002 10:39 PM I can only think of Dylan’s song:
"Blowin In The Wind America” Bob Dylan

Rants? This thread stated with a rant. “[L]ess restrained” in what way? You have already resorted to threats, misrepresentations, insults and lies. More insults will only cause more people to see your emperor has no clothes. But with your threat you only show your hand once again.

[ September 28, 2002: Message edited by: FarSeeker ]</p>

Kantian

Bold rhetoric, Farseeker.

Perhaps you do have some left for lil' old me, whose response has been left behind in the dust, neglected and tattering in the wind, yearning for attention? Or do you prefer to evade all charges of bad arguments by attacking new strawmen of your own invention?

~Transcendentalist~
[edited for grammah]

[ September 29, 2002: Message edited by: Immanuel Kant ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Right. Once again an Atheists tries to pull a fast one:

First, you claim to have done this in a country that the U.S. supports, as opposed to the Peoples Republic of China (run by several million Atheists).

The PRC, as far as I know, is run by Communists, only a few of whom are out and out atheists. As the PRC's own figures show, belief in religion is higher in the PRC than in the US.

Second, you try to slip past the fact that there are Christians in the independence movement, and then blame Christians for supporting the KMT (which you fail to mention, actually fought against the Atheists in the PRC, unlike you).

Dear Ignorant:

(1)The Taiwan Independence movement has links to the Tibetan Independence movement. Both are anti-PRC. Taiwan Independence is ultimately an anti-PRC movement.

(2) The support of the Methodists for the Nationalists is well known, and the Catholic Church as well. As I have stated elsewhere and when, the Presbyterians are to be commended, they are the only mainstream Christian Church opposed to the government. Since I stated that the movement had Christians and non-Christians in jail, it is hard to see how I was "hiding" the fact that there are Christians in the Independence movement. Just for the record, probably the majority of Taiwanese in the US are Christian.

The political opinions of those Catholic and Methodist representatives does not represent the teachings of the Bible, but are more likely related to other - political - fears.

As far as I know, they DO represent the teachings of the Bible. In any case, whether they are Biblical or not is irrelevant; they are Christian, and that is all that counts. When Paul Shan speaks out against democracy on behalf of the Church, he is speaking in his official capacity.

May I suggest that you spend some time trying to free Cathjolic Bishop James Su Zhimin, who was arrested in Hebei in 1997, or Pastor Peter Xu who was last known to be in the Henan penal colony, or Philip Xu, who was sentenced to Jiangsu (slave) labor camp without trial in 1997. Or perhaps you could bring to trial those responsible for the deaths of Xiuju (Henan), Rev. Yan Weiping, or Rev. Liu Jiaguo. Perhaps you could convince the PRC to stop torturing prisoners.

I should help an organization, the Catholic Church, that itself is fundamentally opposed not only to democracy on Taiwan, where I live, but to human freedom everywhere. And I should do this because......?

If two authoritarian systems, alike in structure, inhuman morality and contempt for freedom, liberal democracy and personal choice, should duke it out over adherents, it's no skin off my back. Have you seen how the Church treats leftists in Central America and wherever else it has a modicum of temporal power? Just like the way Communists treat Catholics in China...

Further, as I have discussed elsewhere -- and these are old arguments -- the Christian Churches -- not just the Catholics -- are overjoyed by the persecution. This gives their Churches an excellent anti-government cachet, a chance to seek funds and adherents for "the beleaguered Churches in ________," rising access to government backing in the States, and many other fringe benefits. For example, doctrinal splintering, common in peacetime, is rarer in such situations, because the Churches fear to leave the main organization and strike out on their own against the government. (You might pause to consider that the vast majority of the home Churches in China are syncretic in nature). The odd result of persecution is that the government enforces Church unity and doctrine! Nope, sorry, the Christian Churches love it when persecution strikes. If you like, I'll dig up the article I read last year in Christianity Today, when veteran missionaries wax lyrical about the good old days of the Cultural Revolution.

One only has to look at the actual facts. In Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao, where the Churches are undisturbed, the Christian Churches are moribund and squabbling, and most of the population is irreligious. By contrast, the Churches are booming in China, and the population is more religious than in the west. Ditto for Vietnam, whose recent White Paper admitted that the policy of suppressing Christianity was only stimulating its growth. Sorry, Farseek, but they are lapping up the persecution, and seek to promote and provoke it even more.

I feel terrible for the poor guys in the trenches who are abused by the Communists and exploited by the Churches. I think that is an outrage against humanity. The Churches sending missionaries into China is morally equivalent to a person who sends a young woman to the home of a serial rapist. However, I can't muster much sympathy for higher-ups who, if released, would come to Taiwan and agitate against freedom and democracy here. The only difference in temperament between your Catholic biship and Chiang Tze-min is that Chiang still commands temporal power. It is not morality that restrains the Church, but lack of power...

Vorkosigan