What about the misery and atrocities attributed to, say, atheist philosophies in the 20th century alone? Do you know how many millions were killed by atheistic government regimes? (See this thread for a discussion of that very matter.)
Mind you, I don’t know if you’re an atheist or not. However, people are typically quick to jump on Christianity’s track record, without realizing that the atrocities commited in its name are dwarfed many times over by other philosophical/theological viewpoints.
In my last post, I meant to respond to the following:
For various reasons… one of which is that any noble virtue can be perverted. Many atrocities have been committed in the name of love, patriotism and loyalty. Does this fact render those virtues undesirable?
Besides which, the people who make these claims are often unaware of the magnitude of the atrocities committed by ideologies which reject the notion of a creator God.
Jack, when Jesus talks of people coming in His name:
Matt 24:5, Mark 13:6, Luke 21:8, it’s not warning us about people who teach the truth, it’s warning us about the people who say they are Jesus Christ. So, by the very words of Jesus, He is saying watch out for the liars who say they are Jesus, not that Christianity is a lie. Maybe There is a verse you are reading that I missed. You seem to be angry at so-called fundies, what happened to make you angry?
There are many things in the Bible that prove Jesus to be God in the form of man. If anyone should be worshipped, it should be Jesus.
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Phil 2:5
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Phil 2:6 **
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phil 2:7
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Phil 2:8
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Phil 2:9
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Phil 2:10
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Phil 2:11
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
[/QUOTE]
Dale,
Jesus does want us to make known His name and the Bible. Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
How do fundies act that you see as un-Christian?
What exactly does Jerry Falwell do that angers some people? I know he is a preacher, but I only know him by name.
What bothers me is that some people call themselves Christians, but pick and choose which verses they believe. If it goes against anything they love in the world, they think that that verse doesn’t pertain to them. You cannot be a Christian if you do not follow what the Bible teaches.
I agree that there are thing that some people may take to extreme when basically the bible may be saying don’t over-do something, but there are things that are clear.
hope I didn't offend anyone.
JDIt’s not often that a man argues against himself.
If many atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism (as you claim), does this fact alone render atheism undesirable?
Just because your post was the last one on that other thread, it does not necessarily mean that you won the debate.
This kind of ticked some people off:
Martha tells Jesus that her brother Lazarus has already died, but he would not have died if Jesus had been there:
John Chapter 11, verses 25 to 27
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26 and whoever lives and beieves in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
27 “Yes, Lord,” she told him, “I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.”
No, and nowhere did I claim such. I’m merely pointing out that it’s wrong to single out Christianity’s track record when that of atheism is many times worse.
In other words, belaboring the atrocities of Christian history is faulty on two accounts: (1) It fails to distinguish between use and abuse, and (2) by that very same standard, atheism has been far worse. Clear yet?
Excuse me? Did I ever claim to have “won” that debate? For that matter, did I ever insinuate that I “won” it because my post was the last one? Ever?
Please don’t put words in my mouth. Your statement is a classic example of the straw man fallacy.
jab1, that was totally uncalled for.
If somebody had said, “I had the last post, so I won that debate,” then you’d have a point. Nobody said such a thing though, or remotely hinted at such. A casual reader might think that you’re fabricating specious accusations against your opponents.
True enough. With all due respect though, I think that’s an erroneous accusation as well, for reasons explained below.
No offense, jab1, but I think you’ve missed the point. There are MANY ways to refute an argument. One is to identify an erroneous premise. Another is to show that the argument refutes itself, or contradicts the proponent’s own beliefs.
Both techniques can be applied in this situation. Atheists often say that they reject Christianity due to the atrocities committed in its name. That argument has an erroneous premise though, since atrocities can be committed in the name of any noble virtue (love, fatherhood, ambition, compassion and protectiveness, for example). In addition, even if that argument were valid, it would imply that we should reject atheism as well, due to the atrocities committed in it’s name. The argument therefore fails on both counts.
Dale,
I agree wtih your statement of “they usually don’t make headlines.”
In the bible, we are to do good works, like Jesus would, but not make it a point to point them out.
In other words, do them secretly, without getting applause.
Anyone who says, “Look how I’m helping” is suspect.
Please explain what a Fundie is. I am not sure if I am one or not.
I agree and I think I have already conceded this point.
Thanks for the :rolleyes:, but all I needed to do is scroll up to come up with that conclusion and I know exactly what you mean about the fundies.
Agreed, but then have you ever been able to win an argument with a fundie using any other argument?
Interestingly, I know atheists who act more like Jesus than fundies do.
Atheist or communist? Just because the communists were atheists it did not mean that they committed those atrocities in the name of atheism. It was done purely for political control and power over the people. There has never been atrocities committed in the name of atheism.
No, but it proves that those attributes can also be misdirected. The Japanese loyalty to their living God emperor is a good example of this and although not as extreme as some Christian childhood indoctrination, the Japanese children were indoctrinated to be extremely loyal to such an extent that they would sacrifice their own lives for their emperor.
Again, you are describing communism, the atrocities they committed were against the people over whom they ruled. Their goal was not to promote atheism but to ensure that they remained in power. But that’s another debate.
I have had some very bad experiences with fundies, specifically Southern Baptists.
I started a thread relating to this many months ago. If you’re interested you can check it out here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=61374
I guess for me personally, I am fed up with the intolerance that many fundies have.
Yes, this got to me too. And yes, I got very angry.
I know we are getting away from the OP here, but I must make an observation about this.
In my opinion, this is exactly why religion can be so dangerous. Here Jesus promises eternal life, or rather; life after death. Well this is tapping into one of man’s strongest emotions; hope. That hope of some fantastic place is converted into blind faith and that blind faith can be used as a tool turn people into fanatics who can be directed to commit suicidal attacks. After all, why fear death when Valhalla awaits the brave warrior?
Both.
Atheism was a fundamental tenet of these regimes. In fact, they typically prohibited the free expression of religion.
Moreover, atheism was an essential component of their entire ideology. If not for atheism, these specific regimes would not have come about. This demonstrates the folly of dismissing a belief simply because some atrocities were committed by those who professed these beliefs.
Which, if anything, demonstrates that the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity do not invalidate Christianity itself.
Marx saw religion as a tool by those in power to control the peasants. In his time poverty and ignorance were still a major factor as was the Christian stranglehold on the population. As such he concluded that it did not belong in his definition of Utopia where the nation was to be ruled by the people and production was done for the benefit of all.
Unfortunately there was a major flaw in the system as it allowed despots like Stalin to come to power. Stalin saw the church as a threat to his power and suppressed it violently.
The Soviet Union under Stalin was hardly what Marx had in mind, indeed Marx’s Utopian dream looks very different from what the USSR became. Stalin found a tool in Marx’s ideas and he used them to maintain his power. His motivation was certainly not atheism.
I should point out that we are getting way off the topic of the OP now.
One might argue about whether atheism was Stalin’s motive, or merely a worldview that manifested itself through his regime. Regardless of what you call it though, the point remains – people were routinely killed under Communist regimes for worshipping God. To imply that rejection of God was not a motivating factor is clearly stretching a point.
JThunder, when you wrote:
you implied that the discussion had been settled in your favor. Why cite an argument that does not support you? (It actually didn’t end in anyone’s favor, it just petered out.)
I suppose what we are going to have to agree upon that is there is perhaps no philosophy or theology that has not had at least one atrocity committed in its name. It would be silly to try to determine the worth of a given theology or philosophy simply by counting up the deaths committed in their names and saying, “Fewer people have been killed in the name of THIS belief, so it must be the most worthy.”
I know we are getting away from the OP here, but I must make an observation about this.
In my opinion, this is exactly why religion can be so dangerous. Here Jesus promises eternal life, or rather; life after death. Well this is tapping into one of man’s strongest emotions; hope. That hope of some fantastic place is converted into blind faith and that blind faith can be used as a tool turn people into fanatics who can be directed to commit suicidal attacks. After all, why fear death when Valhalla awaits the brave warrior? **
[/QUOTE]
Respectfully, Jesus does not call on people to be warriors to get into Valhalla, but rather “to love thine enemy as thyself”, which is really quite the opposite. Does the New International Version translation accurately report Jesus’ words and did John? I have heard some theologians suggest that this means life of an everlasting quality, which is not inconsistent with the quote, which does not promise at that point that you will actually rise from the dead, although he did then raise Lazarus from the dead.
Does Jesus deliver on his promise of “life everlasting”? I am a witness for the proposition of yes. The teachings of Jesus about love are worth believing and practicing in everyday life. They provide me the meaning that I search for. I daresay, that even if Jesus did not claim to be God, I would find these teachings worthy of faith and good works.
Give me a break. You are jumping to a reckless and unwarranted conclusion.
I said that atheist regimes were responsible for killing millions of people, and the evidence happened to be presented in that particular thread. That does not mean that the threat itself was decided in my favor… and it certainly does not mean that I was claiming victory merely because the last posting was mine.
Note, BTW, that the thread wasn’t titled “Atheist regimes killed millions.” Rather, it was titled, “Is atheism the way to go?” Obviously, I cited that thread to prove the former statement, not to claim victory over the latter. As you yourself quoted, my exact words were,
Note the phrasing. As anyone can plainly see, it was merely pointing you to that thread “for a discussion of that very matter.” That is NOT the same as claiming victory in that thread!
You seem to indicate that atheism = communism. This is obviously wrong. I for one am an atheist and a capitalist.
Stalin persecuted the Russian Orthodox Church because he saw them as a threat to his regime. He wasn’t of the mark either, the ROC was indeed trying to undermine the Soviet government.
In China, another “communist” regime, the government is persecuting the Falun Gong and Tibetan Buddhists because they are a threat to the government. The Chinese government does not have a policy for persecution against other religious organizations, which behave themselves. The motive is clear, maintaining their power within the nation.
Nobody’s suggesting otherwise. Nobody is saying that all atheists are communists. Please follow the postings carefully.
Rather, the point is that atheism has led to tremendous suffering and a staggering death toll. Thus, if one says that we should Christianity because it has led to some great atrocities, then one must reject atheism as well. (In fact, it’s worth noting that Christian teaching itself condemns behavior such as the atrocities of the Crusades. In contrast, there’s nothing in atheism per se that condemns Communism or its atrocities.)
Mind you, this is not an argument against atheism itself. Rather, it merely shows the fallacy of saying that Christianity should be rejected because of the suffering and atrocities that people committed in its name.
Communism led to tremendous suffering and death. To conclude from this that atheism was the cause suggests that you know little of Soviet history. The Soviets killed or persecuted everyone who was a threat to them. Not only the people of the ROC, but also the Tsar and his family, and any and all political opposition. I think the motivation, once again, is clear. The killing was done in the name of communism.
Your position that atheism does not condemn communism shows that you lack an understanding for what atheism is. It is a lack of belief. For atheism to have a stance on any subject, it would require organization and appointed spokes persons. It would require teachings and teachers to put forward some rule concocted by “wise men”. Of course if that where to happen, then atheism would be a religion, the very thing which it is not. It’s also because of this that the very thought that anyone would kill in the name of atheism is ludicrous.
I have personally been harassed by fundies for being atheist. I used to try to remain non-confrontational and even hid the fact that I was an atheist. It seemed as if just because I was an atheist, it gave some people the right to abuse. Well I tolerated the intolerance of these fundies. On September 11, everything changed. Religious fanatics have threatened my security, my life and the lives the people I love. Some one’s belief has seriously affected my life. I don’t care what religion it is, the fact of the matter is that religion was used as a tool to kill thousands of innocent lives. This is unacceptable.
If you are secular and practice your religion in the privacy of your home or place of worship, fine please feel free to do so, but when that worship affects my life to such a degree, I cannot help but be intolerant. Religion is directly linked with ignorance. The more educated a person is, the more secular his religious belief. On the other side, the more ignorant a person is, the more extreme his belief. If religion is a right then it must be practiced wisely. It should be a requirement for all to be taught how religion was used in the past so that religion cannot be used as a tool to kill again. It is alarming to me how history of religion is ignored, especially when it is distasteful.
Jack