This month in Christianity/Atheism/Judaism/Asia and Far East Religions/New religious movements

[?Impact]

38 minutes ago, Altai said:

he bloodiest statesmen of the history were generally atheist persons.

Certainly during the 20th century there were several political leaders (e.g. Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot) who committed mass atrocities and genocides, but these were committed for political, racial and nationalistic reasons and not due to any atheistic dogma. Linking their actions to atheism is the same as linking them to their gender.  

[Altai]

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Certainly during the 20th century there were several political leaders (e.g. Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot) who committed mass atrocities and genocides, but these were committed for political, racial and nationalistic reasons and not due to any atheistic dogma. Linking their actions to atheism is the same as linking them to their gender.  

Gender is a physical property while atheism is an idea. Your comparing irrelevant things. Their political racial and nationalistic ideas are influenced by their atheistic understanding of life. Worldly and people-specific things such as political perspective comes after general life perspective such as seeking for the source of life through religions/beliefs.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Bob Macadoo said:

Whether an agnostic redneck kills a homosexual directly due to religious doctrine or because his culture and media environment based on said religious context directly  influences his debasing view what does it matter?

Everything if one is arguing about why he did it. If one doesn't care, nothing.

Edited November 27, 2016 by bcsapper

[?Impact]

9 minutes ago, Altai said:

atheism is an idea ... atheistic understanding of life.

What? 

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a God. There is no "understanding of life", or doctrine associated with atheism. There is no Atheist church, scripture, doctrine, dogma, etc. Atheism does not rule ones life. One's political, racial, and nationalistic views, nor ones morality, are not guided by atheism. 

[Altai]

14 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

What? 

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a God. There is no "understanding of life", or doctrine associated with atheism. There is no Atheist church, scripture, doctrine, dogma, etc. Atheism does not rule ones life. One's political, racial, and nationalistic views, nor ones morality, are not guided by atheism. 

Atheism is a response to theism, its not an original idea, its an "anti" movement. Its rule is to have "no rules". They can justify any crimes based on reasons that they believe to be true/right. 

Edited November 27, 2016 by Altai

[Bob Macadoo]

33 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Everything if one is arguing about why he did it. If one doesn't care, nothing.

You seem to be arguing there is no difference between culture and doctrine yet only with respect to one religion.  "Deplorable" behaviour is influenced by culture not prescripted.  

[The_Squid]

7 minutes ago, Altai said:

Atheism is a response to theism, its not an original idea, its an "anti" movement. Its rule is to have "no rules". They can justify any crimes based on reasons that they believe to be true/right. 

How many atheist suicide bombers are there?

 

How come atheists commit less crimes and are less violent than religious people?

Citing four different studies, Zuckerman states: "Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread." He also states: "Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries."

Within the United States, we see the same pattern. Citing census data, he writes: "And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be the highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be the among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon."

And these findings are not limited to murder rates, as rates of all violent crime tend to be higher in "religious" states. Zuckerman also points out that atheists are very much under-represented in the American prison population (only 0.2%).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion

[?Impact]

16 minutes ago, Altai said:

Atheism is a response to theism, its not an original idea, its an "anti" movement. Its rule is to have "no rules". They can justify any crimes based on reasons that they believe to be true/right. 

Atheism is not a movement, it is not anti-anything. It is simply the lack of belief in a God. There is no justification of good or bad with atheism, those are completely tangental issues. Unlike a religion (yes religion, not just theism) the has scriptures, doctrine, and clergy that tell you what is right and what is wrong, and how to live your life, atheism has nothing to do with that. It is like saying people who wear blue shirts are bad, completely and totally irrelevant. 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Bob Macadoo said:

You seem to be arguing there is no difference between culture and doctrine yet only with respect to one religion.  "Deplorable" behaviour is influenced by culture not prescripted.  

No, I'm simply referring to the argument that is most common on here, and the one I was specificaly involved in.  Actions due to religious beliefs are actions due to religious beliefs.  There's no reason, in my opinion, to try and pretend they are not.  A religion does not deserve our blinkers.

It applies to all religions. It just so happens that one comes up a lot more often than others.

 

Edit> That said, I understand that culture and religion are not separated by a distinct barrier, and that there are grey areas where it would be difficult to ascribe certain behaviour to one on its own.

Edited November 27, 2016 by bcsapper

[BC_chick]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Do I think killing someone because Hitler or Pol Pot told you to is as bad as killing someone because Allah told you to?  Yes.  (there is a bit of a weirdness factor, but that's because I don't believe in God.  It would be tough not to believe in Hitler or Pol Pot)

But my point there was, that it doesn't matter who calls it terrorism and who doesn't, a crime committed in the name of a religion is just that.

Religion unifies people in the same way as borders do.  

I was watching a documentary on Truman's decision to use nuclear bombs on Japan and I found it interesting that both sides committed such unthinkable acts in the name of their ideology and nationalism.  

War with radical Islam is the fight du jour, but when you peel the layers, it's really no different than the many other crimes committed in the name of nationalism.

It's just a different way of portraying 'us' and 'them'.

Edited November 27, 2016 by BC_chick

[dialamah]

16 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

How come atheists commit less crimes and are less violent than religious people?

I think it's because atheists have to decide for themselves how moral or immoral they want to be.  They don't have any outside authority telling them they must or must not do, or promising forgiveness if they screw up one of the 'musts'.   An atheist has to live with the consequences of his own actions, instead of offloading them onto the 'devil' for tempting him.   An atheist has no reason to demand that gays, women or non-believers live their life according to some religious text, and thus has no reason to inflict punishment upon other people for failing to do so.

[Altai]

20 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

How many atheist suicide bombers are there?

 

How come atheists commit less crimes and are less violent than religious people?

 

 

I dont think it has anything with being religious but its directly related with having better life conditions. This is why Saudi Arabia and Qatar has less crime rates than many other countries, including China with about %50 atheist rate. 

https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

Religion unifies people in the same way as borders do.  

I was watching a documentary on Truman's decision to use nuclear bombs on Japan and I found it interesting that both sides committed such unthinkable acts in the name of their ideology and nationalism.  

War with radical Islam is the fight du jour, but when you peel the layers, it's really no different than the many other crimes committed in the name of nationalism.

It's just a different way of portraying 'us' and 'them'.

I don't agree with that.  I don't know where Islam starts being radical but if I had to state a point, it would be wherever it starts to demand certain behaviour from "someone else". (EDIT> And by that I mean with eathly, human delivered repercussions.  I know all religions demand, but usually one doesn't have to worry about not meeting the demands because the repercussions remain part of the fairy tale)

It doesn't have to be a suicide bomber.  That said, there comes a point when it's fairly obvious.  I don't think disagreeing with executing gays or blasphemers is a simple case of me vs them.  They're barbaric, primitive, ignorant bastards, and I'm not.  (I guess that's a kind of me vs them.  I win though)

As for the US and the atom bomb, I don't believe that had as much to do with nationalism as it had to do with not wanting to lose another couple of hundred thousand men.

Edited November 27, 2016 by bcsapper

[BC_chick]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't agree with that.  I don't know where Islam starts being radical but if I had to state a point, it would be wherever it starts to demand certain behaviour from "someone else". 

It doesn't have to be a suicide bomber.  that said, there comes a point when it's fairly obvious.  I don't think disagreeing with executing gays or blasphemers is a simple case of me vs them.  They're barbaric, primitive, ignorant bastards, and I'm not.  (I guess that's a kind of me vs them.  I win though)

As for the US and the atom bomb, I don't believe that had as much to do with nationalism as it had to do with not wanting to lose another couple of hundred thousand men.

When you go an invade a country and they fight back, this is no longer about 'radical Islam', it's about land and ideology... no different than any other war.

[The_Squid]

4 minutes ago, Altai said:

I dont think it has anything with being religious but its directly related with having better life conditions. This is why Saudi Arabia and Qatar has less crime rates than many other countries, including China with about %50 atheist rate. 

https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

Saudi Arabia is a brutal regime with no freedom for their people.   The less religious a country is, the happier its citizens are and the less crime there is and the more free its citizens are.  Anyone can make a "peaceful" society if you run down anyone who disagrees with you with tanks or arrest them.

Religion is a blight on the world.

[Guest]

Just now, BC_chick said:

When you go an invade a country and they fight back, this is no longer about 'radical Islam', it's about land and ideology... no different than any other war.

Sure.  If that's the case, that's the case.  I don't see how the west invading a Middle Eastern country means a Shiite festival has to be destroyed by a Sunni suicide bomber, or a Bangladeshi blogger has to be hacked to death, or a Pakistani politician has to be shot because he wants to change the blasphemy law, or an office full of cartoonists has to be shot because they drew some pictures, but I'm sure there are examples.

[Altai]

Just now, The_Squid said:

Saudi Arabia is a brutal regime with no freedom for their people.   The less religious a country is, the happier its citizens are and the less crime there is and the more free its citizens are.  Anyone can make a "peaceful" society if you run down anyone who disagrees with you with tanks or arrest them.

Religion is a blight on the world.

So you mean Saudi and Qatar are not free countries and people are not allowed by their govts to commit crimes  This is why they are such peaceful  LooooooooooooooooL
 

[BC_chick]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Sure.  If that's the case, that's the case.  I don't see how the west invading a Middle Eastern country means a Shiite festival has to be destroyed by a Sunni suicide bomber, or a Bangladeshi blogger has to be hacked to death, or a Pakistani politician has to be shot because he wants to change the blasphemy law, or an office full of cartoonists has to be shot because they drew some pictures, but I'm sure there are examples.

You're expressing precisely why I think it's hogwash to refer to insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, and even Palestinians who blow themselves up as 'Islamic Terrorism'.

The two are conflated deliberately to justify committing crimes against innocent civilians.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, BC_chick said:

You're expressing precisely why I think it's hogwash to refer to insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, and even Palestinians who blow themselves up as 'Islamic Terrorism'.

The two are conflated deliberately to justify committing crimes against innocent civilians.

A terrorist is defined in the dictionary.  So is motive.  An Islamic terrorist is one who commits a terrorist act for the furtherance of their Islamic ideology.  If they don't, they aren't.

I don't agree with your last sentence.

[The_Squid]

5 minutes ago, Altai said:

So you mean Saudi and Qatar are not free countries and people are not allowed by their govts to commit crimes  This is why they are such peaceful  LooooooooooooooooL
 

No, that's not what I said.  

Maybe you will understand the point put like this:  When you jail or kill atheists just for being atheists, it's not surprising your crappy country will seem to have a lot less atheists...

Also, it's not a peaceful country at all when women are beaten for not wearing sacks over themselves.

[Bob Macadoo]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

A terrorist is defined in the dictionary.  So is motive.  An Islamic terrorist is one who commits a terrorist act for the furtherance of their Islamic ideology.  If they don't, they aren't.

I don't agree with your last sentence.

Its impossible to fight an ideology you can only fight people and there aren't enough suicide bombers to wage war......it is directly a justification to collateral damage.  Guess what "their" culture believes the same.

[Altai]

On 26.11.2016 at 10:14 PM, The_Squid said:

How does atheism influence one's life?

I dont advise you to carry this conversation one step further  your ship is sinking more with each new word you post. Anyway I am going to sleep with a good laugh. Thanks.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Bob Macadoo said:

Its impossible to fight an ideology you can only fight people and there aren't enough suicide bombers to wage war......it is directly a justification to collateral damage.  Guess what "their" culture believes the same.

If you fight people there is going to be collateral damage.  It's unavoidable.  Their culture does it for fun.

[BC_chick]

10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't agree with your last sentence.

How quaint.  So you've never heard the word terrorist used to describe Palestinians, Afghan/Iraqi insurgents... ?

[Guest]

Just now, BC_chick said:

How quaint.  So you've never heard the word terrorist used to describe Palestinians, Afghan/Iraqi insurgents... ?

I'm on record here more than once as stating that I have no idea what terrorist even means anymore, as far as our news and arguments go.  So I defer to the dictionary definition.  I'll let terrorists define their own motives.  If they say "allahu akbar" I'll figure it's religious.  If they say, "this is for my Mom, you bastards", I'll figure there's something else in play. 

How do you mean, "quaint"?