(February 26, 2010 at 5:32 pm)Alex Wrote:

(February 26, 2010 at 5:23 pm)Shell B Wrote: Alex, you are turning the obvious common denominator (communism) into atheism to suit your argument.

The 'obvious common denominator' for all of them is that these people are stupid and impressionable, crazy, evil, or some combination thereof. Trying to blame these things on religion (or atheism) is stupid.

What you are overlooking is that religions are established institutions that teach their followers certain dogma. If the follower believes that dogma with every fiber of their being and commits an atrocity then, yes, I hold the religion to blame.

One of my favorite quotes is this: "Religion is a pox on humanity. Without it, good people would still do good things and evil people would still do evil things. But to get good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Steven Weingarten

It is very appropriate for this discussion.

Quote:

Quote:These things were motivated by her religious belief, not by the belief itself. if she id not hold the belief, she would not have let the child die. That's the point. It was her fault she beleived what she did, not the belief's fault she belied in it.

Right! Her religious belief caused her to let her child starve to death. You seem to want to blame her stupidity rather than the religion. I blame both.

Who would you have me blame? Is the religion now a person accountable for things? She was the one who believed what she did, she was the one who let the child starve to death, she was the on ewho took this course of action and it was ultimately all her fault. Are you suggesting that instead of putting her on trial for this, we should put the religion she classified herself under on trial? Last time I checked, religion is not a person whom you can bring to the stand in court. It is not a biological being of any kind. So, if we don't blame the woman, who do we blame? Should we bring every single Christian Fundie up on trial for this one crime, and put them all in prison for it? Should we then also re-try them everytime another crime is commited due to someone's stupid beliefs which they label as 'Christian'? That sounds tyrannical!

My point is, you are going through motions and gymnastics for the sake of blaming the woman's actions on something external, when she was the one who internally made the decision to believe, and to believe stupidly. Again, I offer you the chance to provide a pastor or group of pastors/priests who stood over her the whole time and forced her to make these decisions. Then we can put them on trial for their stupidity.

Religious institutions are put on trial, although not as much as I would have liked. There are countless child abuse cases that have been covered up by the Catholic church, countless deaths caused by faith-healing churches, yet they never get sent to trial because these institutions are seen as "good", and people should believe what want. I'm fine with people believing what they want, but when that belief leads to the death, or torture of someone, I'm afraid they've crossed the line as far as I am concerned.

People get brainwashed into thinking all sorts of terrible things by these groups, and they cannot be held accountable for their actions if it was the result of another practically ordering them to do it. So it's wasn't "ultimately all her fault". If there is no evidence to suggest she would have done this without the guidance of her church, it is self evident that the church was involved in this crime.

(February 26, 2010 at 7:41 pm)Watson Wrote:

Quote:

Quote:These things were motivated by her religious belief, not by the belief itself. if she id not hold the belief, she would not have let the child die. That's the point. It was her fault she beleived what she did, not the belief's fault she belied in it.

Right! Her religious belief caused her to let her child starve to death. You seem to want to blame her stupidity rather than the religion. I blame both.

Who would you have me blame? Is the religion now a person accountable for things? She was the one who believed what she did, she was the one who let the child starve to death, she was the on ewho took this course of action and it was ultimately all her fault. Are you suggesting that instead of putting her on trial for this, we should put the religion she classified herself under on trial? Last time I checked, religion is not a person whom you can bring to the stand in court. It is not a biological being of any kind. So, if we don't blame the woman, who do we blame? Should we bring every single Christian Fundie up on trial for this one crime, and put them all in prison for it? Should we then also re-try them everytime another crime is commited due to someone's stupid beliefs which they label as 'Christian'? That sounds tyrannical!

My point is, you are going through motions and gymnastics for the sake of blaming the woman's actions on something external, when she was the one who internally made the decision to believe, and to believe stupidly. Again, I offer you the chance to provide a pastor or group of pastors/priests who stood over her the whole time and forced her to make these decisions. Then we can put them on trial for their stupidity.

Notice the part where it says "I blame both."

its not really the religion or the mothers' fault, it was the cult leaders telling her to do that, they should be the ones put on trail

(February 27, 2010 at 12:15 am)Ashes1995 Wrote: its not really the religion or the mothers' fault, it was the cult leaders telling her to do that, they should be the ones put on trail

It's most definitely the mother's fault coupled with delusional beliefs. Thinking she's not responsible put her in this mess.

(February 26, 2010 at 7:50 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

---

Religious institutions are put on trial, although not as much as I would have liked. There are countless child abuse cases that have been covered up by the Catholic church, countless deaths caused by faith-healing churches, yet they never get sent to trial because these institutions are seen as "good", and people should believe what want. I'm fine with people believing what they want, but when that belief leads to the death, or torture of someone, I'm afraid they've crossed the line as far as I am concerned.

People get brainwashed into thinking all sorts of terrible things by these groups, and they cannot be held accountable for their actions if it was the result of another practically ordering them to do it. So it's wasn't "ultimately all her fault". If there is no evidence to suggest she would have done this without the guidance of her church, it is self evident that the church was involved in this crime.

---

I believe personal accountability is the basest start of responsibility. The influences over the person can accomplice fault and appease public sentiment. They might suffice for blame is the person is not around to set on trial, but all-in-all I feel personal accountability to be the lowest common denominator.
You arguement against atheism being just as potentially evil only protects atheism from the same blame if it's not held as an institution. This forum is a place for atheists to gather and practice arguements against theists and for a better understanding through honest and rational discussion correct?

Using your logic

P believes X.
X tells P to act in a certain way.
P acts in this way and Y is a consequence.
Therefore X is (at least partly) responsible for Y.

Person believes she is an X
X mandates that she act in a certain way
P acts in that way and Y is a consequence
Therefore society label X is (at least partly) responsible for Y


If a person feels they are an atheist and through atheism she learns religions are morally corrupt
Then she goes and burns down a church would you hold atheism responsible? yourself as an atheist?

I do take some amount of personal responsibility for this woman's actions only in that I am part of a society that allows this crap to continue. We can continue to bat the blame ball around and dig into our sides of the fence , continue to bastardise the other side or what? take accountability? Take action against tyranny and blindness? Teach communication and understanding?
Both sides can become extremist views and those propagate hate, division, and fanatacism.

(February 27, 2010 at 7:17 am)tackattack Wrote: If a person feels they are an atheist and through atheism she learns religions are morally corrupt
Then she goes and burns down a church would you hold atheism responsible? yourself as an atheist?

That would be a brilliant analogy if atheism indeed mandated to behave in a certain way, but it doesn't.

(February 27, 2010 at 11:32 am)leo-rcc Wrote:

(February 27, 2010 at 7:17 am)tackattack Wrote: If a person feels they are an atheist and through atheism she learns religions are morally corrupt
Then she goes and burns down a church would you hold atheism responsible? yourself as an atheist?

Quote:That would be a brilliant analogy if atheism indeed mandated to behave in a certain way, but it doesn't.

"The Revolutionary force today has two targets, moral as well as material. Its young protagonists are one moment reminscent of the idealistic early Christians, yet they also urge violence and cry, 'Burn the system down!' They have no illusions about the system"... Saul Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals", American communist, atheist, radical, and community organizer.

"Right! Her religious belief caused her to let her child starve to death. You seem to want to blame her stupidity rather than the religion. I blame both"...quote from Thor.

It could also, just as easily, be argued that atheism influenced Alinskys' call to "violence", and "Burn the System Down".

(February 27, 2010 at 11:32 am)leo-rcc Wrote:

(February 27, 2010 at 7:17 am)tackattack Wrote: If a person feels they are an atheist and through atheism she learns religions are morally corrupt
Then she goes and burns down a church would you hold atheism responsible? yourself as an atheist?

That would be a brilliant analogy if atheism indeed mandated to behave in a certain way, but it doesn't.

You might very well be walking the line, as might some others, but don't pretend that people aren't choosing sides. Atheists responses are somewhat less predictable, than a fundamentalists, but predictable as well.Just look at the convert stories on this forum as a whole. Don't pretend that self-labeling as atheist doesn't hold societal expectations and a connotation, as does the label Christian. I learned that very well my first few weeks here. I don't know anything about Saul Alinsky, but it sounds like a call for action to me, and what is that if not a mandate.