Are atheists less civilized than normal members of society? - Page 26 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15007346
MrWonderful wrote:Who would have thought! No difference between a godless mocker of Jesus Christ and a follower of Jesus Christ. Emily, you are SO WISE - wiser by far than Jesus Christ. What did Jesus know when he scorned non-believers, eh?


Dear @MrWonderful
the difference being the degree to which we FORGIVE or not.
That rule applies to BOTH theists and nontheists
Christians and nonChristians equally.

What Jesus was addressing is whether we are hypocrites,
and expect our faults to be forgiven but blame and judge others
where we would not want to be judged or blamed.

So anyone can be a hypocrite.

The DIFFERENCE is whether we mutually forgive faults in ourselves
and each other. Or we don't forgive and get stuck in mutual hypocrisy
and finger pointing blame games that kill relations instead of healing them.

That's what the point of Jesus and Christian teaching is
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE that focuses on Forgiveness and Correction
(instead of Retributive Justice that focuses on judgment and punishment)

It's NOT that "nontheists and theists" are "all the same" or
"Christians or nonchristians"
but the UNIFORM rule that determines
if we make "heaven" or "hell" of our lives and relations with others
is if we live by "Restorative Justice" with faith in Good Will for All based on true charity,
or "Retributive Justice" based on ill will for others due to fear or unforgiveness.

Is THIS more clear what the factor is that makes the root difference?
#15008292
Scheherazade wrote:Personal bias aside, the more I observe, the more I become convinced that atheism as a whole appeals more to uncouth and antisocial personalities than to higher society.


How many have died in the name of Atheism?

I would submit that it's far less than the number which has died in the name of Christianity or Islam. Do you find the slamming of airliners into skyscrapers "couth"? Do you believe the Crusades were conducted by those of a high social fiber?

One of my favorite movie quotes: "Ever since there has been one true God there has been killing in his name."

I can think of little which is more antisocial and uncouth than that...
#15008421
Please name the last war that was based on religion. I will wait. It'll take some time, as there hasn't been ANY in the last few centuries.

Wars are generally for non-religious reasons, now. The last wars for religion being in Europe, in the 17th century, and before.
#15008464
Godstud wrote:Please name the last war that was based on religion. I will wait. It'll take some time, as there hasn't been ANY in the last few centuries.

Religious conflict is pretty constant. Just because it takes place within the rubric of nation-states doesn't mean they aren't religious wars. The Iran-Iraq war was fought between Sunni and Shia leadership. The current war in Yemen involving Saudi Arabia and Iran is religious in nature. The war between the South Sudanese and the Janjaweed was religious. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is religious. So was the partition of India, into India, Pakistan, and East Pakistan (Bangladesh). Jews were also singled out in WWII. Pograms were an issue in Eastern Europe as well.
#15008467
Sorry, but no. That's a ridiculous assertion. I am sure you can provide sources for all these claims?

I suppose the Iraq War was religious because USA is a Christian(mostly) country, and the Iraqis were Mulsim? :eh:

In the end, you can make almost all conflicts seem like they are based on religion, but they aren't. The persecution of Jews in WW2 had to do with anti-semitism based on ethnicity, and they were a convenient scape-goat for the German people.
#15008570
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you believe the Arab-Israeli conflict is based solely on religion, then you are ignoring important aspects such as disputing land claims, the role of Israel as a supporter of US neo-imperialism, and the unofficial apartheid of Israel.


I never said the conflict was based solely on religion. But only the most ignorant among us would suggest that it's not an important part. And many of the land claims are based on beliefs tied strongly to religion.

And every time some piece of shit Muslim suicide bomber yells "Allahu Akbar!" before launching his bits and pieces outward at the speed of sound it's a religious attack...
#15008571
BigSteve wrote:I never said the conflict was based solely on religion. But only the most ignorant among us would suggest that it's not an important part. And many of the land claims are based on beliefs tied strongly to religion.


I do not see it as important except that it is sometimes used to rally some of the troops.

It would be difficult to argue that religion is a cause of the current conflict.

And every time some piece of shit Muslim suicide bomber yells "Allahu Akbar!" before launching his bits and pieces outward at the speed of sound it's a religious attack...


No, not necessarily. The 9/11 attackers, for example, were not very religious or devout. Assuming that Muslim suicide bombers kill themselves in terrorist attacks for religious reasons ignores important aspects of modern US foreign policy, and how said policy causes these attacks.
#15008574
Pants-of-dog wrote: Assuming that Muslim suicide bombers kill themselves in terrorist attacks for religious reasons ignores important aspects of modern US foreign policy, and how said policy causes these attacks.


I dunno'... maybe you're aware of a different translation of "Allahu Akbar", or maybe you're just ignoring it because it makes arguing your point more difficult...
#15008576
BigSteve wrote:I dunno'... maybe you're aware of a different translation of "Allahu Akbar", or maybe you're just ignoring it because it makes arguing your point more difficult...


It is merely an exclamation.

It does not actually prove anything about the causes of the attack.

When you look at the actual behaviour of many of these attackers, they do not act like devout Muslims. They eat pork, they drink, they visit strip clubs, et cetera.

If religion was the important cause that you argue it is, the terrorists themselves would be more devout. They are not.
#15008581
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is merely an exclamation.

It does not actually prove anything about the causes of the attack.

When you look at the actual behaviour of many of these attackers, they do not act like devout Muslims. They eat pork, they drink, they visit strip clubs, et cetera.

If religion was the important cause that you argue it is, the terrorists themselves would be more devout. They are not.


I find it fascinating that you're able to speak with such authority about terrorists.

You're talking about the 9/11 terrorists. I'm talking about terrorists.

Omar Mateen killed 49 people in a gay night club in Orlando in 2016. He identified himself as a "soldier of God" and an "Islamic soldier". He was heard saying it before he opened fire. Considering how tolerant Islam is of homosexuality, I don't think it takes a genius to see how there could be a connection between Mateen's religious beliefs and his actions.

Or howsabout Sri Lanka?

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/273566/isis-video-shows-sri-lanka-terrorists-shouting-daniel-greenfield

Sure seems as though there's a connection between their actions and their beliefs. They slaughtered known Christians in that attack...
#15008629
BigSteve wrote:I find it fascinating that you're able to speak with such authority about terrorists.

You're talking about the 9/11 terrorists. I'm talking about terrorists.


Yes, the research on terrorism does tend to focus on the more lethal terrorists; those who are capable of planning and executing attacks that have significant impact.

Omar Mateen killed 49 people in a gay night club in Orlando in 2016. He identified himself as a "soldier of God" and an "Islamic soldier". He was heard saying it before he opened fire. Considering how tolerant Islam is of homosexuality, I don't think it takes a genius to see how there could be a connection between Mateen's religious beliefs and his actions.


Yes, it is a simple logical keap.

The trouble with this idea is its very simplicity. It ignores important evidence like Mateen's mental illness, his possible homosexuality, and the fact that the preacher at Mateen's mosque never preached against homosexuals.

Or howsabout Sri Lanka?

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/273566/isis-video-shows-sri-lanka-terrorists-shouting-daniel-greenfield

Sure seems as though there's a connection between their actions and their beliefs. They slaughtered known Christians in that attack...


Why do you assume this was about religion and not (for example) Sri Lanka's recent troubled political history?
#15008632
I am still waiting for someone to tell me why the waging of war is less "civilized" than not waging war. It is unpleasant sure. It is clearly, in its prosecution, brutal. But war, offensive and defensive, has been a defining (if not the defining) aspect of civilization since Og and his band took Grugs mammoth and women.

There is nothing inherently "civilized" about abandoning war. As long as not everyone does it the effect is, at best, temporary.
#15008642
Pants-of-dog wrote:The trouble with this idea is its very simplicity. It ignores important evidence like Mateen's mental illness, his possible homosexuality, and the fact that the preacher at Mateen's mosque never preached against homosexuals.


You're correct, it is very simplistic. Look up Occam's Razor applies...

Why do you assume this was about religion and not (for example) Sri Lanka's recent troubled political history?


Well, because were screaming "Allahu Akbar!" right before they slaughtered Christians.

Call it a hunch...
#15008664
@BigSteve Just because you yell you, "God is great!", just before you kill yourself, does not make your suicide religiously motivated. You are simplifying things to an almost absurd level.

If I yell "Help me God!", just before I blow myself up on a plane, even though I am an Agnostic/Atheist, does not make my actions religiously motivated.

Religion in Israel/Palestine is less important than the land, and the wars in the last century, or so, have been about acquisition of said land, not about religion. It is, however, as mentioned, easy to use religious speeches to motivate troops and people, though.

Regarding religion and terrorism...

Exclusive: Sophisticated analysis says there is no single pathway to violent extremism
The main findings include:

• The majority are British nationals and the remainder, with a few exceptions, are here legally. Around half were born in the UK, with others migrating here later in life. Some of these fled traumatic experiences and oppressive regimes and claimed UK asylum, but more came to Britain to study or for family or economic reasons and became radicalised many years after arriving.

• Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug ... terrorism1
#15008684
BigSteve wrote:You're correct, it is very simplistic. Look up Occam's Razor applies...


Occam’s Razor does not describe reality.

Well, because were screaming "Allahu Akbar!" right before they slaughtered Christians.

Call it a hunch...


So you have no actual evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to believe your claim is true.
#15008705
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you have no actual evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to believe your claim is true.


The "Call it a hunch" comment was tongue-in-cheek.

If someone hangs a black guy while screaming "God bless the KKK!", it would be a fair assumption to conclude that racism is the catalyst.

I'm sorry you're having a problem with the math on this one. It's pretty simple, actually...
  • 1
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
The Irishman...

You know BS. You just made a complete fool out of[…]

We have gone on to the next page. So far no ACC d[…]

Yes, to show that even the falsified data (so f[…]

The evidence is all around you. You just refuse […]