For AtheistAlex

[Socrates]

[quote]That statement is an outright lie that I definitely refute and have refuted. We can start a thread on all the religious wars versus all the wars inspired by atheism and it would be no contest. More blood has been shed by religion than anything else, hands down.[/quote]

An estimated 90-100 million people have been killed by atheist communist genocide worldwide during the 20th century. You have done absolutely nothing to refute this. Simple denial is not refutation.

Countless people were also murdered in in the atheistic and anti-Christian French revolution.

Your playing with words does nothing for your argument. Whoever the "Christian Communists" were, they are not the Marxist-Leninist Communists responsible for the genocide and atrocity I have mentioned, and therefore have absolutely not relevance to this discussion. They are the ones I am talking about, and I think this is clear to you.

You have shown your ignorance of history by calling all medieval kings brutal tyrants. Some were, but some were also saintly men and women who did their best to help their people. People did a lot of brutal things in the middle ages (as in any time period), but nothing remotely comparable in scale to that committed by the atheist Communists of the 20th Century.

And the KKK was against Catholics, as well as blacks and Jews, by the way.

So far your attempt to prove that atheists are somehow intrinsically less evil or violent than religious people has not been effective.

And I am only interested in defending the Catholic Faith. If you want to lump it together with Muslims, neo-pagans, and Aztec worshipers of Tezcatlipoca, that is your prerogative, yet only reveals your own willfil ignorance.

If you want to engage in rational discussion, that is fine with me. If you prefer to to make insults, accusations of lying, and other such foolishness, I shall simply shake the dust from my feet and move on, rather than waste my time.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 17 2005, 07:52 PM']
An estimated 90-100 million people have been killed by atheist communist genocide worldwide during the 20th century. You have done absolutely nothing to refute this. Simple denial is not refutation.

Countless people were also murdered in in the atheistic and anti-Christian French revolution.

Your playing with words does nothing for your argument. Whoever the "Christian Communists" were, they are not the Marxist-Leninist Communists responsible for the genocide and atrocity I have mentioned, and therefore have absolutely not relevance to this discussion. They are the ones I am talking about, and I think this is clear to you.

You have shown your ignorance of history by calling all medieval kings brutal tyrants. Some were, but some were also saintly men and women who did their best to help their people. People did a lot of brutal things in the middle ages (as in any time period), but nothing remotely comparable in scale to that committed by the atheist Communists of the 20th Century.

And the KKK was against Catholics, as well as blacks and Jews, by the way.

So far your attempt to prove that atheists are somehow intrinsically less evil or violent than religious people has not been effective.

And I am only interested in defending the Catholic Faith. If you want to lump it together with Muslims, neo-pagans, and Aztec worshipers of Tezcatlipoca, that is your prerogative, yet only reveals your own willfil ignorance.

If you want to engage in rational discussion, that is fine with me. If you prefer to to make insults, accusations of lying, and other such foolishness, I shall simply shake the dust from my feet and move on, rather than waste my time. [/quote]
Clearly you have not addressed half the things Ive said. While I have cited things to support my arguments you have simply shouted baseless acusations. I truly love your comment:

[quote]
Your playing with words does nothing for your argument. 
[/quote]

Thank you for conceding the debate and proving me all so right.

[Socrates]

[quote]Clearly you have not addressed half the things Ive said. While I have cited things to support my arguments you have simply shouted baseless acusations. I truly love your comment: Your playing with words does nothing for your argument. [/quote]

Your reference to so-called "Christian communists" is indeed "playing with words" and does nothing to advance your arguments. That term was refering to monastic communities and the like, and had nothing to do with the atheist Marxist-Leninist Commnunism responsible for the genocide and atrocities I've mentioned.

Christian monks leading vows of voluntary poverty were not responible for genocide. Atheist Marxists were.

Enough said.

Edited February 18, 2005 by Socrates

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 18 2005, 11:14 AM']
Your reference to so-called "Christian communists" is indeed "playing with words" and does nothing to advance your arguments.  That term was refering to monastic communities and the like, and had nothing to do with the atheist Marxist-Leninist Commnunism responsible for the genocide and atrocities I've mentioned.

Christian monks leading vows of voluntary poverty were not responible for genocide.  Atheist Marxists were.

Enough said. [/quote]
You just dont get it. My point was to show you that atheism is not essential to communism. Nor is it inspired by atheism, or has anything to do with it. Another point you drove around was the KKK example. All you said was that KKK hates catholics. Duh. I happen to be a minority and live in the south, so I am quite aware of who the klan hates. The point was that, its a requirement to be a christian to be in the klan. No atheist allowed. So if christianity is a core element of the klans ways, is it right to blame christianity on their misdeeds? No , not at all. The two are not one in the same. Im sure if it was required to be an atheist to be in the klan, that you would site that as proof of atheist based injustice.

There is a reason why you are the only one in the world calling it 'Atheist Marxism'. Its just called Marxism for a reason. By the way, all those deaths you speak of, were mostly politically motivated not religiously motivated. Just one of the many things you cannot confront in my arguments. The hate you have for me and other atheist is quite apparent and contradictory to the teachings of christ.

Edited February 18, 2005 by Melchisedec

[Socrates]

First of all, I don't hate atheists. To beleive they are wrong is not to hate them. If I hate athiests, you more than hate Christians.

Second of all, your claim that atheism had absolutely nothing to do with Communism is just plain false. Marx preached atheism, as did Lenin and all his followers. Atheism was the official religion of the Communist state in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and the governments in the Eastern European countries that the Soviets took over by force. Christianity was indeed persecuted and repressed in these places. Priests loyal to the Church were (and are in China) forced to undergo horrific tortures. I have read the testimony of survivors.

[burnsspivey]

I want to play too!

1. It's a viable religious belief.

2. It's also a viable religious belief.

3. That politician is almost certainly a hypocrite, unless he/she is also a pacifist.

4. It's another viable religious belief.

5. I'll need a definition here.

6. One can gain new knowledge and experience new things without having a change of mind. Either new knowlege is assimilated into the current belief structure, it is rejected, or it is left outside of the structure with a virtual ?.

7. This is a silly question, but I already have both.

8. Pro-life liberal...unless there's something else about this person you aren't explaining.

9. Don't have enough info on either to choose.

10. Flag burning -- it's a viable expression of beliefs.

11. Communists -- at least they're trying for something better.

12. Err...the same thing I plan to do now, with the exception of worry about Supreme Court Justice nominees.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 18 2005, 11:56 AM'] Atheism was the official religion of the Communist state [/quote]
Thats where our debate will never go farther than shouting matches. Atheism is NOT a religion. It is the lack of ANY theist beliefs period. Thats the root of the word. The 'A' in Atheist is to denote, without. Like these words 'amoral,' 'atypical,' and 'asymmetrical'. I dont deny that those atrocities occured. What you called Atheism, I call consildation of power. That the reason the churches were persecuted was not because of Atheism, but because the church represented power over people. The communist wanted to take that away and have absolute power over everyone and everything.

Adherents.com a site that collects statistical data of all the worlds religions and beliefs has this to say about the counting of atheist in communist countries:

[i]Sociologically, Communism is as much a religion as other "traditional" religions such as Islam or Christianity, although it promotes (often forcibly) beliefs which would categorize its adherents as atheists. So in Communist countries, large proportions of people may be properly classified as atheists and also Communists, but they would not be considered secular or "nonreligious" in the sociological sense[/i]

Basicly when they refer to these communist as atheist, they are not really secular or without belief like a real atheist is. The leaders are dictators, regardless of religion or no religion, they have always proved to be tyranical. I wouldn't consider the leaders of these countries as atheist, anymore than you would look at a klansman as a good christian.

Socrates, you don't bother me a bit man. I respect what you have to say, I just cannot help to notice your disdain for me or any other atheist in your comments. I married a christian, my mom is a christian. I'd say 98% of my family on both side are christian. And I work in an christian organization volunteering. so I definitely have no problem with christians. People are people to me, religion, creed, all that stuff doesn't matter.

I jumped into this debate because in your previous post you basicly said 'Atheist have no morals'. And I not only disagree with that, but I take offense to it. Thats all.

[Socrates]

Atheism="a" (without) "theism" (belief in God).

This indeed describes the beleifs of Marxist-Leninist communism. This beleif system holds that there is no God, that is no Creator, or Supreme Being.

I think what you and the website are saying is that this system is not a total lack of beleif, but a set of beleifs that is promoted as if it were a religion.

This is indeed true. Marxism quite deliberatley replaces God with "socialist man" (as realized in the Communist state) as the object of ultimate authority and power.
However, this does not change the fact that Marxists-Leninists deny the existance and authority of a God. (A God higher than themselves would put a limit on their will to power.)
As they do not beleive in God, they can properly be defined as atheists.

The fact is that when people stop worshipping God, in practice, they replace Him with something else, whether the Communist state, money, power, pleasure, whatever.

Melchisedec, I am quite aware that you, and many other atheists are not communists, and do not condone all their beliefs and practices.
I even read a book by an atheist (a refugee from a communist country) who was both very anti-Communist, as well as anti-Christian.
I realize that many communists lead decent and noble lives, and you seem to be one of them.

You and the communists both do not beleive in God (atheists), but that of course does not make you a Josef Stalin anymore than beleiving in God makes me an Osama bin Laden.

I nowhere said that no athiests have morals. I was originally questioning what intellectual basis an atheist would have for declaring something to be right or wrong.

I used the Communists as an example of those whose denial of a God permits them to perform atrocities (having nothing higher than themselves to answer to)

Peace,

Socrates

[AtheistAlex]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Feb 17 2005, 07:33 AM'] Alex,
What's up with "It is not "majority rule". That is our democracy."?  Doesn't make sense.  Isn't our democracy a majority rule?

Not everything that is "TRUE" can be measured emperically.  The emotions that influence the human psyche cannot be measured emperically, but it is true that emotions do have real and significant influence and have a tremendous impact on human behavior.  How emperically can one measure Adolph's motives for choosing the course of action that resulted in the deaths of many that can be measured emperically?

The science of physics cannot explain the science of phsychology.  We are not robots with positronic brains pre-programmed with the 3 laws.  Read Issac Assimov's novels, especially I Robot.  Much of the sci-fi of the 70's & 80's explored the disconnect between 'emperical' science and the reality of human behavior when viewed from a larger perspective of eons.  As Copernicus, Galileo, and Columbus probably told the science world of their time 'It's a matter of limited perspective, you goof-balls'.  An example of limited perspective are dogs.  If they can't smell it, it most likely doesn't exist.  That's why they don't watch TV.  They've got no soul.  [/quote]
I said, It, as subjective morality, is not merely majority rule, 51 percent to 48. That, as in majority rule, is our democracy.

About measuring emotions...actually there have been many ways other than with numbers to empirically measure emotion.

There are quantitative and qualitative observations we can make, the former concerning measurements we take, and calculations we make, and the latter being those observations that we noticed with our senses. We can quantitatively observe many things pertaining to psychology, especially with all the new technology we have produced in the last century.

We can now measure brain activity to various stimuli, a process which has helped to establish which parts of the brain control what, and with that info we can accurately research and understand what someone is feeling for certain circumstances, like in the case of schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder.

This access to the brain means we can have greater insights into the brain's function than ever before, and we can, empirically, measure the brain's function, at least to an extent.

Still, just because we cannot now understand in a scientific fashion all of what goes on in the brain, does not mean we cannot at some time in the future.

Oh, and what's up with the robot analogy?

Edited February 19, 2005 by AtheistAlex

[jesusisalive3]

[quote]Basicly when they refer to these communist as atheist, they are not really secular or without belief like a real atheist is.[/quote] Without belief? Melchisedec, all atheists share a belief. That belief is "There is no God". That is a belief, and from that basic belief, many others have stemmed (such as "There is no absolute truth") and from those beliefs, systems have resulted. (for example: Eugenics, Marxism, Humanism, Darwinism, etc.) And while some caused atrocities, some have helped people. However, all of those who did what all here would call wrong (atrocities in communist countries, the holocaust, etc) did so without conflicting their belief system. This is different in christianity. If the beliefs about what has happened are to be believed, (God created mankind in his image, if He sent his only begotten Son to die for our failures/sins, etc.) then the basic and intrinsical belief of christianity is "God is love". From there, The atrocities commited by these "christians" (Salem witch trials, the KKK, etc) were done against that belief system. Because of this, comparison between the two sets of atrocities becomes irrelavent. Because a christian who follows the beliefs of the church entirely (no more, no less) does no wrong. (one of christianity's main points, conversion {changing}, is why christians still do wrong, we do not comepletely follow our beliefs.) However, an athiest who follows their beliefs as an athiest (also no more, no less) will have no problem with either helping the needy or commiting an atrocity. Peace out, S.

[AtheistAlex]

[quote name='jesusisalive3' date='Feb 19 2005, 08:04 PM'] Without belief? Melchisedec, all atheists share a belief. That belief is "There is no God". That is a belief, and from that basic belief, many others have stemmed (such as "There is no absolute truth") and from those beliefs, systems have resulted. (for example: Eugenics, Marxism, Humanism, Darwinism, etc.) And while some caused atrocities, some have helped people. However, all of those who did what all here would call wrong (atrocities in communist countries, the holocaust, etc) did so without conflicting their belief system. This is different in christianity. If the beliefs about what has happened are to be believed, (God created mankind in his image, if He sent his only begotten Son to die for our failures/sins, etc.) then the basic and intrinsical belief of christianity is "God is love". From there, The atrocities commited by these "christians" (Salem witch trials, the KKK, etc) were done against that belief system. Because of this, comparison between the two sets of atrocities becomes irrelavent. Because a christian who follows the beliefs of the church entirely (no more, no less) does no wrong. (one of christianity's main points, conversion {changing}, is why christians still do wrong, we do not comepletely follow our beliefs.) However, an athiest who follows their beliefs as an athiest (also no more, no less) will have no problem with either helping the needy or commiting an atrocity. Peace out, S. [/quote]
Actually atheism, as I know it, is a lack of belief.

[jesusisalive3]

[quote]Actually atheism, as I know it, is a lack of belief.[/quote]
dude, it has beliefs, even if all of it's beliefs are beliefs in a "not". (God does NOT exist) A belief is not required to be in "something", a belief can be a belief in "nothing." and it still is a belief.

Edited February 21, 2005 by jesusisalive3

[AtheistAlex]

No, not neccesarily. It can be the idea that one cannot prove God's existence is also atheism

[Socrates]

That is agnosticism, not atheism. Agnosticism says that we cannot know if there is a God. Atheism means one beleives there is no God.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='jesusisalive3' date='Feb 19 2005, 08:04 PM']Without belief?  Melchisedec, all atheists share a belief.  That belief is "There is no God".  That is a belief, and from that basic belief, many others have stemmed (such as "There is no absolute truth") and from those beliefs, systems have resulted. (for example: Eugenics, Marxism, Humanism, Darwinism, etc.) And while some caused atrocities, some have helped people.  However, all of those who did what all here would call wrong (atrocities in communist countries, the holocaust, etc) did so without conflicting their belief system. This is different in christianity.  If the beliefs about what has happened are to be believed, (God created mankind in his image, if He sent his only begotten Son to die for our failures/sins, etc.)  then  the basic and intrinsical belief of christianity is "God is love".  From there,  The atrocities commited by these "christians" (Salem witch trials, the KKK, etc) were done against that belief system.                                                                        Because of this, comparison between the two sets of atrocities becomes irrelavent.  Because a christian who follows the beliefs of the church entirely (no more, no less) does no wrong. (one of christianity's main points, conversion {changing}, is why christians still do wrong, we do not comepletely follow our beliefs.)  However, an athiest who follows their beliefs as an athiest (also no more, no less) will have no problem with either helping the needy or commiting an atrocity.                                                                                                          Peace out,                                                                                                        S.[/quote]
Put it this way. Thats like saying 'Nothing' is 'Something'. Its a lack of belief . Period.

now I got to say what you said was absolute bullshit. I cant help but to call it that.


[quote] However, an athiest who follows their beliefs as an athiest (also no more, no less) will have no problem with either helping the needy or commiting an atrocity.[/quote]

There is always this absoulte morality debate and the bible. So I will touch upon it in many respects. Slavery is condoned in the bible and even by jesus. I even stated in a previous post several quotes from jesus about beating your slave lightly. So to be a good christian, than its to basiclly agree and follow slavery. Its everywhere in the bible and its not on one tablet as a sin! I would like for you to point out to me where god says its not right to have someone as your slave? Please I would love to see it.

To an atheist, slavery is a crime. Why? Because it harms people. Throughout civilzation we have developed and refined how we treat each other. Most of this stems from the actions of hurting people through various means for various reasons. An atheist has a moral code they live by. One of these basic tenets is something that anyone can understand. Harming a human is wrong. It never needed to be written down to be considered a crime. And its been a crime , long before the bible had appeared.

You must understand that the bible is open to interpetation, whether you like it or not. We have many versions of christianity around the world, with the 'true' interpetation of it. But yet the criteria for not going against their beleifs is vastly different from each other. Your statement, god is love is vague. How does that mean that committing an atrocity is wrong? Considering the slaughter that goes on in the bible. I will live you with this quote from an atheist who had to defend his morality aswell:

[i]"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth - for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter. He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now."[/i]