Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by FarSeeker:

"No, Thomas, I am not arguing with you, just as you are not arguing with me. You are arguing with someone that you wish to demonize and insult. Christianity is what Jesus taught. Nowhere in His teachings can you find justification for your demonization of Christianity."

Huh? Show me where I have demonized or insulted you, or retract your claim. I understand that Jesus taught. Maybe it would be better to call these murderers members of Christendom rather than practitioners of Christianity although I'm sure they'd call themselves Christians anyway. Let's try to avoid the No True Scotsman here.

"On the other hand, Atheism offers nothing but a vacuum, which mankind tries to fill with whatever they think.*"

Well, yeah, we try to encourage thinking rather than to discourage it.

"You claim to use some miracle cure-all you call 'rationalism', ..."

I am not a rationalist, and I doubt many atheists are either. My guess is that most atheists would be empiricists, phenomenalists, or skeptics.

"...yet you cannot prove that Stalin was wrong anymore than you can prove Wizardry wrong."

Of course I can. (1) Anyone who murders millions of people is wrong; (2) Stalin murdered millions of people; (3) therefore, Stalin was wrong. And this is whether or not "wrong" means objectively or subjectively wrong. The argument will only be persuasive to you if you accept the premises, and I trust you will. I do too.

"Wiz used his rationality to reach a conclusion that disputes yours. You claim yours is right; Wiz claims 'his' is right. If you cannot come to a rational agreement, I don’t have to address your argument because Wiz already did and found it false."

Yes, you do. You must prove Wizardry correct, if he agrees with you, before I have to make up my side of the burden of proof. Again, I could probably find a Christian who believes that atheists and Christians have equally good moral foundations. (This fact is supported by multiple studies suggesting an inverse correlation between religiosity and morality.) Maybe you disagree with this Christian, but show me why I ought to disagree with this Christian.

"On the other hand, I could point to Atheists who have accepted Jesus as their Savoir, and leave it as that."

No, you can't. You can only point to former atheists who have accepted Jesus as their savior, and that is irrelevant to my point.

I have a question for you. How do you figure out what is morally correct?

Peter Edward Faulkner

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Edward Faulkner ]</p>

David M. Payne

Looks like Peter is taking his messages and going home.

David

FarSeeker

BZZZ, wrong! I reviewed your posts; you claimed you had reasons that Dr. Singer was wrong, but you provided none. Please do so.

Sorry I can't post a more complete response to your post, but while updating my system at the MicroSloth web site, they wiped out my internet settings (all hail Gates of Borg), and I haven't been able to get them to work right since then. (I'm posting this from work.)

abe smith

Thanks for saying all-that, Bill Snedden. Glad you're in there slugging on our behalf. Abe

Vorkosigan

I had no idea you actually answered! Most sorry for taking so long to reply.

So, if the populations are rounded off, China at 1 billion (with 1/3 religious just for example), and the US at 0.250 billion (with 9/10 religious), then China could have 333 million and the US 225 million religious people.

Actually, a recent PRC white paper gave the figure for religious practice in China at over 90%, when you sum the numbers. The government itself appears not to know the actual figures. In 2000 it said that over 75% of the population practices traditional Chinese religion. It has since lowered this number to 200 million, in the most recent White Paper -- see <a href="http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/13870.htm" target="_blank">the State Department Report</a>. This is even more confusing because the very definition of "religion" is so uncertain in China.

“[S]upport of the Methodists for the Nationalists,” is NOT well known, but is only an unsubstantiated claim.

Let's see....it's well known to people who know what they are talking about. Here's a hilarious history from a Methodist point of view <a href="http://www.imarc.cc/history5.html" target="_blank">See this</a>. I especially liked the part about Chiang Kai-shek spreading the gospel by implementing it in politics. Like in political murders, for example.

But please notice how you attribute only those who oppose your POV as representing Christianity. As I said, the support given to the Nationalists by the Methodists and the Catholics is more likely related to political factors than Christian ones.

Oh yes...the suppression of competing authoritarianisms is an important political factor.

If your hatred for Christians is common in your movement,

I hate Christians...but my son goes to a Christian school, and is a Christian.

The Bible speaks for itself. Let us look at the logic of your statement: “In any case, whether [Hitler was Christian] or not is irrelevant; [he was an Evolutionist] and that is all that counts.” Or: “In any case, whether [Stalin was Marxist] or not is irrelevant; [he was an Atheist] and that is all that counts.”

So your claim is that Paul Shan, Cardinal of Kaohsiung, is not a Christian and a Catholic?

Who said anything about organizations? I was asking you to help INDIVIDUALS who have suffered. But if you don’t think people deserve to live and be free because they belong to an organization you despise, then I guess we can all see what your “Humanism” really is.

I'd be happy to help the Catholic bishops in prison in China. But I can't really do that, because like I said, his movement is inhuman and anti-democratic. I doubt he'd stop agitating against democracy if he were out. I doubt he'd support the democratic movements in Taiwan and China, if he were out. I wouldn't help a mafioso in prison for exactly the same reasons. I would help the plain ordinary joes imprisoned for being Catholic, because I distinguish between dupes and leaders.

And yet you claim to have freed some of these “authoritarian,” morally “inhuman,” contemptuous of freedom, democracy and personal choice individuals from jail. Were you lying, or just admitting to a temporary madness?

No, I helped get ordinary Christians out of KMT jails, not Catholic clerics out of Communist jails. Are you incapable of reading, or just being a troll?

I know of your irrational contempt, bias, prejudice and bigotry towards Christianity; but do you absolutely need to continue drowning me in it?

I did not put up the piece by Benjamin Rush. So don't blame me.

Yes, churches do tend to hold together tighter under persecution. But is this important? Only that your flippant reply about not caring what “two authoritarian systems” do to each other means you don’t care that the churches get stronger in China. On the other hand, how would your organization hold together under persecution?

What organization? We don't have an organization. Each atheist is a person with his own views. Are you referring to the SecWeb?

Vorkosigan

FarSeeker

Vorkosigan, posted December 04, 2002 07:14 AM And how many of these work in the Chinese government? How many were in the chain of command that ordered the '89 Massacre?

You contradict yourself; why are you putting your son in the hands of the very Christian learders you want to leave in jail? Not to mention the anti-science attitude of those teachers other Atheists have claimed on this thread, your giving him a bad education, are you that bad a father?

Any one who acts contrary to the teachings of Jesus the Christ is not acting as a Christian, but as a fallen sinner. Maybe you can think of it as DP's idea that the rationalism of Stalin does not represent "true rationality".

You won't support the human rights of imprisoned Christians in China because they MAY NOT support your ideas. Have I got that right? So, as a Sunday school teacher, if I was to march for a Republic (Democracy is not a viable government, ask the US Founding Fathers) in your country, and get arrested, you would not support my Human rights because I disagree with you? I guess Orwell was right in his description of you ideas: some people are more equal than others.

"Aren't you uppity for a minor bipedal spieces." (paraphrase of a "ST: Voyager" character)

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by FarSeeker:

"BZZZ, wrong! I reviewed your posts; you claimed you had reasons that Dr. Singer was wrong, but you provided none. Please do so." (Emphasis original.)

I quote myself...

Originally posted by Thomas Metcalf:

"Here are the reasons murder is bad: people miss the victim, the victim's contribution to society is prevented, the victim does not get the chance to enjoy life. Abortion does not suffer from any of these. Few to no people will miss the victim of an abortion, and if one attempts to use the latter two to argue against abortion, one ought to have as many babies as possible. This is surely not the case."

You responded to these points, I responded back, and you were silent. Please read my posts more carefully before you claim that I have practiced deceit or scientific ignorance (still unsupported) or that I haven't provided reasons to think Singer is wrong (patently false).

Polar Bear

So far this debate has been really fascinating and informative.

I would like to address a few things about the atrocities supposedly committed in the name of atheism vs. the atrocities supposedly committed in the name of Christianity.

Allow me to invent two examples out of thin air.

Suppose that atheist Soviet dictator Nogodnik issued a decree: "All those who hold land that is not used for the common good of man shall be forced to relinquish their claim to that land. Resistance shall be met with death." In practice, this meant that all churches were destroyed and any religious people that resisted were in fact murdered. In addition, it meant that all castles held by Russian nobles were also destroyed and the nobles slain -- even atheist ones. As a result, the Soviet regime headed by Nogodnik grows in power and influence.

Also suppose that a Christian dictator -- call him Frank -- issued the following decree: "All those who hold land that is not used for the glory of God shall be forced to relinquish the land; those who refuse to see this truth shall be smitten as the LORD commands." In practice, this meant that the homes of unbelievers were destroyed and all resisting unbelievers executed. In addition, the churches of several Christians sects, who could not really be considered unbelievers, were also destroyed and their leaders executed. As a result, Frank's Christian empire grows in power and influence.

Now, all else being equal, we should either accept the reasons put forth by these dictators, or we should reject them -- perhaps on the assumption that what they really wanted was power and influence, perhaps on the assumption that they were just crazy psychotics who liked to kill people for no reason, or perhaps 'cuz they were just evil, if you believe in such a thing.

My point is, why would one argue that Nogodnik wasn't interested in power/influence and really just wanted to kill people of faith -- while also arguing that Frank was interested in power/influence despite his professed antipathy towards unbelievers?

Did Stalin (or whoever) ever commit atrocities and use atheism as his justification? Not that I know of, though perhaps someone else can cite examples. Certainly it is true that Stalin (and other atheist leaders) committed atrocities against Christians (and people of other faiths), but was this done because the victims were not atheists, or because they represented a threat to the leader's power?

In the same way, did the various religious leaders use their religion as a justification for their atrocities? Yes. Numerous examples have been cited in this thread.

Anyone care to address this discrepancy?

Also, I have seen a lot of talk about the atheist dictators of the 20th century but hardly any mention (aside from Chiang Kai-Shek) of one of the most infamous and deeply religious fascists: Francisco Franco of Spain. He was a devout Catholic from beginning to end.

And, for what it's worth, I think that Hitler certainly believed in God and Jesus, but was scornful of the more, shall we say, humanist aspects of Christianity. He shared this contempt for the "love the enemy" parts of Christianity with Nietzsche (not that I think Nietzsche is to blame for Hitler or the NSDAP). Hitler used Christianity when it was convenient to him, and set it aside when it was not -- just like any politician seeking to curry favor with various people. But, as someone else has already pointed out, he was no atheist. In fact, one of the things Hitler loathed about Soviet Communism was its professed atheism!

The Straight Dope's answer on the topic seems pretty straightforward to me:
<a href="http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlerchristian.html" target="_blank">http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlerchristian.html</a>

Polar Bear

also, before I get accused of anything, I would like to unequivocally condemn the following:

• Hitler's crimes
• Stalin's crimes
• Pol Pot's crimes
• All the atrocities committed by the Red Chinese
• The WTC attacks
• Involuntary euthanasia
• Rape of female hostages taken in war (Numbers 31:17)
• Infanticide/killing children (Numbers 31:17, Deuteronomy 2:33, Joshua 6:21, Ezekiel 9:5, 1 Samuel 15:3)
• Dashing of infants against the rocks (Psalm 137)
• Sending bears to kill impudent children (2 Kings 2:23)
• Slavery (Leviticus 25:44, Exodus 21:20, Ephesians 6:5, Titus 2:9, etc.)
• Killling prisoners (2 Chronicles 25:12)
• The ripping open of pregnant woman (Hosea 13:16, 2 Kings 15:16)
• The smashing of asteroids into Earth (although this isn't really a human act, is it?)

I hope this absolves me from any accusations of supporting atrocities via silence.