|
Effectronica posted:Oh, you're smarter than James Clerk Maxwell, eh? Concerning electromagnetism and his field of study? I doubt it. Overall? Probably. -EDIT- Nessus posted:I'm speaking more generally and metaphorically of 'intolerance of dissident beliefs to the point of imprisonment and torture'. While the Soviet Union eased up a whole hell of a lot, they did not completely stop, and various other states had similar unpleasantnesses. But did they do those thing because they were atheistic or secular? Because of not it would be super disingenuous to compare the two things.
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:44 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Name some. I mean, yes, you have Stalin, but even he eventually let up on the Churches during World War 2. But who else? Mao, Kim, Pol Pot..
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:But you were talking directly to me, you impolite person. Miltank posted:Mao, Kim, Pol Pot..
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:08
|
|
Torka posted:I think you can believe someone is mistaken about a particular issue without thinking that you're smarter than them Yes. Whether someone believes in a particular thing does not say anything about its truth-value nor, necessarily, anything about their intelligence. When people hold otherwise, they are wrong, regardless of whether it's "they believe in such, therefore it is true" or "they believed in such, I am thus smarter than they by virtue of my disbelief". CommieGIR posted:CLARK Maxwell. James CLARK Maxell. Clerk, sorry. That's how everybody in physics spells it. And yeah, actually, that's what he said. He's smarter by virtue of being better-educated, which is dumb on its own.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Mao, Kim, Pol Pot.. http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/03/03/a-great-myth-about-atheism-hitlerstalinpol-pot-atheism-atrocity/ Effectronica posted:Yes. Whether someone believes in a particular thing does not say anything about its truth-value nor, necessarily, anything about their intelligence. When people hold otherwise, they are wrong, regardless of whether it's "they believe in such, therefore it is true" or "they believed in such, I am thus smarter than they by virtue of my disbelief". You were right, it was Clerk, However, that was still not what he was arguing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Mao, Kim, Pol Pot.. I really don't think it's fair to include state-cults where the leader substituted for God as "atheist"
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/03/03/a-great-myth-about-atheism-hitlerstalinpol-pot-atheism-atrocity/
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:11
|
|
SedanChair posted:But you were talking directly to me, you impolite person. I'm not. I said this once, and probably will be saying it again. Perhaps I should add it to my signature for the duration of this thread, and enable it. CommieGIR posted:http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/03/03/a-great-myth-about-atheism-hitlerstalinpol-pot-atheism-atrocity/ Does the USSR classifying dissidents as mentally ill count as punishing (secular) heresy? How about the USA (officially secular) torturing Chelsea Manning, debating over whether to assassinate Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, etc. And yeah, whatever, it's obviously turning into a semantical argument over what intelligence is, so let's disagree.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Yes, to add another post to the fire, I am not saying atheism "caused" these things, I am saying that atheism "did not prevent" them, and that the absence of theistic beliefs, or the presence of ideologically atheistic beliefs, does not necessarily prevent them. Regardless if they are religious or atheists, bad people to bad things, especially in the quest to establish or maintain power. That's Kim, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, etc. Nearly every dictator in history. Effectronica posted:Does the USSR classifying dissidents as mentally ill count as punishing (secular) heresy? How about the USA (officially secular) torturing Chelsea Manning, debating over whether to assassinate Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, etc. The USA is not secular. Hasn't really been since the 1950s, despite what the Constitution says, or did you miss all the rednecks with "In GOD we trust" pasted all over their vans and trucks, and the push for states to adopt an 'official religion' in the South. And Stalin was more a matter of trying to solidify his power base than some atheistic quest to wipe out religion. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I really don't think it's fair to include state-cults where the leader substituted for God as "atheist" I literally don't think its fair to include non-egalitarian societies as christian.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Does the USSR classifying dissidents as mentally ill count as punishing (secular) heresy? How about the USA (officially secular) torturing Chelsea Manning, debating over whether to assassinate Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, etc. No, it doesn't, because they didn't/aren't doing those things specifically because they do not believe in a god but because their targets represent a threat to their power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:13
|
|
Who What Now posted:No, it doesn't, because they didn't/aren't doing those things specifically because they do not believe in a god but because their targets represent a threat to their power. Have you been following the discussion at all, or are you just playing a ridiculous semantical trick where "orthodoxy", "heresy", "dogma", etc. are suddenly only applicable to religion rather than words derived from religious jargon?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Name some. I mean, yes, you have Stalin, but even he eventually let up on the Churches during World War 2. But who else? Well, you're looking at an effect and I'm unsure whether you're familiar with the root causes. Yes, socialist autocrats were apt to repress catholics and other christians. In most nations, the catholic church has been exempt from taxation; in developing nations, the catholic church has, historically, been one of the largest landholding groups in history. What this means is that the church would own the land and be exempt from all taxation for the working of the land, so the church would rent out the property to local aristocrats and nobility in a quid pro quo system where patrons who made donations and demonstrated their fidelity publicly would be awarded large management contracts for below-market rates while the masses would be fed and indoctrinated by the church, with revenues sent to Rome and priests best able to produce reports of popular support with high profit margins relative to other churches of similar constituencies receiving promotions more rapidly than priests focused solely upon social outreach and humanitarian efforts. To simplify some trends, during the post-war era, it was common for nominally socialist rulers in newly independent or urbanizing nations to proposed taxes upon church property, be assassinated, have the opposition come to power, only to have the opposition overthrown by more radical nationalists and opportunists who understood the necessity of tax reform for the creation and continued funding of state bureaucracy, and it was during these more radical revolutionary periods when church property would be expropriated in land reform schemes in order to eliminate the church as an alternative power structure to consolidated one-party rule. This process tended to be quite messy and did often result in mass executions of devout christians, clergy, and organized group rapes of nuns. It happens; its how you play power politics and solidify your base as an absolutist dictator. Nessus posted:Right, like, I'm talking about the phenomenon of 'torturing/killing those who disagree with your ruling ideology for political gain.' This did not suddenly appear with the Spanish Inquisition. Nope! That's just a trend of what happens when you need to raise money or abdicate some power and delegate authority, and choose not to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:No, it doesn't, because they didn't/aren't doing those things specifically because they do not believe in a god but because their targets represent a threat to their power. The Spanish inquisition was an office of the Spanish monarchy, although there had been a previous Papal Inquisition, mostly aimed at the Albigensians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Have you been following the discussion at all, or are you just playing a ridiculous semantical trick where "orthodoxy", "heresy", "dogma", etc. are suddenly only applicable to religion rather than words derived from religious jargon? It's a completely fair criticism if the claim is that having an atheistic view or a secular government was a direct cause of those things. E: Nessus posted:Do you think the various inquisitions and so forth were rooted in just deciding one day, with no consideration for political, economic, or other reasons, to go "Hm, you know what we need to do now? Torture the heretic and expropriate his lands!" I believe that religion played a slightly larger role than "none at all" which, although it was not the primary consideration, is an important distinction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Do you think the various inquisitions and so forth were rooted in just deciding one day, with no consideration for political, economic, or other reasons, to go "Hm, you know what we need to do now? Torture the heretic and expropriate his lands!" The SPANISH one was, but the Catholic Church had their own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition The Inquisition carried on until the middle of the 1800s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:21
|
|
Who What Now posted:It's a completely fair criticism if the claim is that having an atheistic view or a secular government was a direct cause of those things. Nobody said that at any point. Go talk to imaginary friends and enemies elsewhere, please.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I literally don't think its fair to include non-egalitarian societies as christian. Well, Christianity has been mobbed up with the state since the days of Constantine at least. Jehovah's Witnesses call the resultant ungainly beast "Christendom" and I think it is definitely worth making the distinction. But you make a good point, I don't think there have been any hippie Jesus communes that killed in his name. Speaking of Hitchens being retarded, I think it was him who said or repeated "it takes religion to make a good person do something bad." That is such an embarrassingly wrong assertion that it really tells you how blinded he was by resentment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It's a completely fair criticism if the claim is that having an atheistic view or a secular government was a direct cause of those things. It all comes back to whether law is rooted in divine or human authority, doesn't it? Hence why America is a secular nation, and Russia is not: In America, law is rooted in divine authority, while in Russia, law is rooted in human authority.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Nobody said that at any point. Go talk to imaginary friends and enemies elsewhere, please. Then it's a pretty meaningless criticism to bring up in the first place and Nessus' point is an irrelevant one. E: My Imaginary GF posted:It all comes back to whether law is rooted in divine or human authority, doesn't it? Hence why America is a secular nation, and Russia is not: In America, law is rooted in divine authority, while in Russia, law is rooted in human authority. All law is rooted in human authority. That you can convince people otherwise is a totally separate matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:It all comes back to whether law is rooted in divine or human authority, doesn't it? Hence why America is a secular nation, and Russia is not: In America, law is rooted in divine authority, while in Russia, law is rooted in human authority. Putin is trying to fix that but the harder he tries, the more he proves that the law is rooted in human authority. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Well, Christianity has been mobbed up with the state since the days of Constantine at least. Jehovah's Witnesses call the resultant ungainly beast "Christendom" and I think it is definitely worth making the distinction. I reject the authority of the Council of Nicaea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:It all comes back to whether law is rooted in divine or human authority, doesn't it? ....what? Even if it claims to be from divine, and regardless of what religion you believe in, HUMAN authority governs all in the physical world
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Putin is trying to fix that but the harder he tries, the more he proves that the law is rooted in human authority. Well, if this were the classical world, I'd expect Putin to consolidate power and expand Russia's borders to their maximum before state collapse and the emergance of Slavic feoderati migrating westward to spread the word of the final prophet of god to the homonazi unbelievers and correct their heretical views. CommieGIR posted:....what? Even if it claims to be from divine, and regardless of what religion you believe in, HUMAN authority governs all in the physical world Except that individuals believing in the divine nature of the law and its sanction as the most proper means by which to achieve paradise is a real phenomenon and is the core of one of America's branches of government. The whole purpose of institutional development is to separate human will and patrilinial tendancies from identity politics. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I reject the authority of the Council of Nicaea. Well then not to be unkind, but I wonder how relevant you are to the discussion of what people and societies are or are not Christian.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Well then not to be unkind, but I wonder how relevant you are to the discussion of what people and societies are or are not Christian. I figure I'm at least as relevant as an athiest 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Regardless if they are religious or atheists, bad people to bad things, especially in the quest to establish or maintain power. That's Kim, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, etc. Nearly every dictator in history. Why do you think America was more secular before the 1950s?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Why do you think America was more secular before the 1950s? Well, you got me, it wasn't. They just finally made the fact that it was not secular more public. My Imaginary GF posted:Except that individuals believing in the divine nature of the law and its sanction as the most proper means by which to achieve paradise is a real phenomenon and is the core of one of America's branches of government. The whole purpose of institutional development is to separate human will and patrilinial tendancies from identity politics. “God’s still up there.” Inhofe cited Genesis 8:22 to claim that it is “outrageous” and arrogant for people to believe human beings are “able to change what He is doing in the climate.” - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/james-inhofe-says-bible-refutes-climate-change#sthash.Dk4w6miS.dpuf And its not helping us. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Serious question, what's the deal with always using the capitalized pronouns? It's really distracting and a dead giveaway that you're talking to a zealot, always with the Him and His love and He and you must believe in Him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Well then not to be unkind, but I wonder how relevant you are to the discussion of what people and societies are or are not Christian. Everyone is Jewish, whether they've realized it or not. Therefore, the purpose of a good life is to live an example by which others may be inspired to comply with the divine law; one cannot force compliance, nor should one use force to achieve this when alternative tools exist. Therefore, converts must be discouraged, the code preserved, with civil society emerging from these roots. raskalnikov_86 posted:Serious question, what's the deal with always using the capitalized pronouns? It's really distracting and a dead giveaway that you're talking to a zealot, always with the Him and His love and He and you must believe in Him. Rhetorical method of emphasis, with connotations of anthropomorphism by using the same grammar to describe an abstract concept as you would a living person. Idolatry, the lot of it. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:36
|
|
raskalnikov_86 posted:Serious question, what's the deal with always using the capitalized pronouns? It's really distracting and a dead giveaway that you're talking to a zealot, always with the Him and His love and He and you must believe in Him. The same reason Nate Silver uses "Mr. Obama" and "Mr. Romney", and so on. It's a term of respect that sets things apart from the everyday world.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The same reason Nate Silver uses "Mr. Obama" and "Mr. Romney", and so on. It's a term of respect that sets things apart from the everyday world. He Who Shall Not Be Named
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Well, you got me, it wasn't. They just finally made the fact that it was not secular more public. In what way? America was deeply, publicly, religious by every other account.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:In what way? America was deeply, publicly, religious by every other account. *sighs* Yeah, it was 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I figure I'm at least as relevant as an athiest Atheists are only relevant in countries with functional governments. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Atheists are only relevant in countries with functional governments. Atheists are those who don't organize their primary community identifier around a religious association. In America, due to the collapse of community following desegregation within the trends towards suburbanization, atheism has taken on an anti-social moniker of identity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Atheists are those who don't organize their primary community identifier around a religious association. In America, due to the collapse of community following desegregation within the trends towards suburbanization, atheism has taken on an anti-social moniker of identity. As usual, the internet has bad, worthless and ineffectual people on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Atheists are those who don't organize their primary community identifier around a religious association. In America, due to the collapse of community following desegregation within the trends towards suburbanization, atheism has taken on an anti-social moniker of identity. I'm pretty sure not believing in gods factors in there somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'm pretty sure not believing in gods factors in there somewhere. Its almost as if God was used justified certain atrocities to happen in the American South?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:44 |
|
|
Miltank posted:Mao, Kim, Pol Pot.. Uh if you're referring to Kim Il Sung and the rest of the Kim dynasty, this is far from an atheist state. The whole Kim regime is the heart of a massive personality cult. When printed or graven images of the Dear Leader are essentially sacred icons and citizens are so indoctrinated that they have a hard time imagining the Kims pissing or making GBS threads or having any basic bodily functions at all because they are so divine... you don't really have an atheist state. You have a nominally atheist state that makes exceptions for their own religious elements. EDIT: Nessus posted:In other words, torture does not slur atheism, but neither can atheistic beliefs be claimed to prevent torture. Unless we're going now into a "well, they obviously weren't REALLY..." which starts verging into the libertarian argument that since no fully libertarian society has existed, libertarian ideas cannot be judged for harms they have caused in other environments. Well, yeah... atheism is ultimately insignificant as an affirmative belief system because it is simply a negation of substantive ideas. It is only important if those substantive ideas are founded on nonsense or enable bullshit policies like creationist education or anti-environmentalism. ShadowCatboy fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:56
|
|