Axe: >If that doesnt qualify as religiously >motived, THEN WHAT DOES??? Damir: >i'm beginning to understand why people around here >dislike you so much: you are incapable of basic reading >comprehension, never mind critical thinking. >enjoy the rest of the day! Well Damir, I guess that really answers his question doesn't it. LOL JB
Your opinion is reasonable and so is mine. Depending on one's opinion, atheism is or isn't a belief system.
Hilarious!! Your whole argument was based on a strawman fallacy by claiming that I believed the crusades were religously motivated because "the pope said so", (WHICH I NEVER SAID) and your going to accuse ME of lacking critical thinking skills? LOLOLOLOL!! You FAILED to support your position with a SINGLE SHRED of evidence, and now your going to turn tail and run with nothing more than personal attacks???? Dude.... better take a look in the mirror and read up on some critical thinking. Your never even attempted to support your claim. peace axeman
Actually...depends on the type of atheism. STRONG atheism is a positive belief. The vast majority of atheists, are however, weak atheists, who simply lack god belief. peace axeman
I think perhaps the crusade / atheist debate misses a more important point. If millions were murdered in the name of the crusades, and millions were murdered in the name of communism (Stalin), and millions were murdered in the name of fascism (Hitler, Japan), and millions were murdered in the name of racial superiority, and millions were murdered just for sport (it was considered lawful to hunt aborigines in Australia for much of the 20th century), then what is the common thread? The common thread is that there are people out there who tend to support, and participate, in mass murder on a large scale for various reasons that appear to be statistically interchangeable. The broader lesson here is that it makes no more sense to say Christianity intrinsically supports mass murder than it does to say communism supports mass murder or that democracy supports mass murder. The "in the name of" is an add-on, because every mass murderer in history would say that their actions were for the good of ____ (fill in the blank). The debate usually comes up because an atheist points a finger at a Christian and talks about how awful the crusades were. But this intrinsic assignment of blame misses the point that the event itself is not necessarily connected to a religious philosophy, and indeed misses the point that more people have been murdered, in sheer numbers, under the guise of materialistic and nationalist philosophies. If there were no finger pointing towards the crusades, the general response that Stalin and Mao were murderers too would not be forthcoming. Because the tendency to dominate and kill is intrinsic to human nature, there is no safety, and no necessary benefit, to stamping out religion. A modern, "civilized" society that was completely devoid of all spiritual consideration could still easily decide to take a genocidal course of action if it were deemed to be in their best interest.
I think Turok already made a similar/better point:: ANY belief system that places requirements higher than than the individual on the individual becomes a great system of control. Be it communism or theism or rampant nationalism, this 'allegiance' to some higher power leads to ugly things. JB YOU SAID: A modern, "civilized" society that was completely devoid of all spiritual consideration could still easily decide to take a genocidal course of action if it were deemed to be in their best interest. COULD??? Do we have a history of such actions or are you simply stating a highly unlikely possibility?? Gee.... im an atheist who doesnt believe in an after life and thoughts of mass suicide never cross MY mind? I wonder why? Because its STUPID thats why. If your asserting that without "spiritual stuff" it is more likely to wipe itself out, please backup that assertion. On the other hand.... there is a clear historical correlation between religion and bloodshed. Even today in 2004. Religion being ONE of many such systems that correlate with bloodshed. peace axeman
Dark: >The broader lesson here is that it makes no more sense >to say Christianity intrinsically supports mass murder than >it does to say communism supports mass murder or that >democracy supports mass murder I'll challange you on that one, particularly as it related to your democracy comment. Ask 100 Christians what the primary book or 'roadmap' shall we say of their religion is and at least 99 of them will say the Bible. Intrinsic to the stories and teachings throughout the bible is a revengeful, mass murdering philosophy in the name of the christian god. (yeah, go ahead and say it's not true and make me start trotting out the scripture). Though many in pursuit of democracy (within this country in particular) have committed mass murders and other attroctities, I would sure like you to find me documents that support this philosphy as "intrinsic" to democracy. JB
Ideologies are very dangerous. Being right is dangerous. Which leads me to capitalism. Now let's see if you can deduce why I think that capitalism is the most danerous ism ever.