So their atheism didn't solely drive their political ambitions, or their persecution of those who disagreed with them? Unlike religious persecutions of dissenters. Ok, I understand a litttle better now. Thankyou Tavarish. And Thor.

(March 22, 2010 at 12:17 pm)Thor Wrote:

(March 22, 2010 at 12:04 pm)tavarish Wrote:

(March 22, 2010 at 11:50 am)RedFish Wrote: Wot about PolPot or Chairman Mao?
I do agree about sanctimonious bullshit though..

I'll elaborate a bit on Thor's point. There have been evil people on both sides of the fence of belief. However, the fact that belief can compel people to do arguably evil things as a direct result of doctrine. Atheism has no doctrine. What dictatorships often do is take away the rights of people, religion being one of them. It's not about trying to proselytize to people, it's directly telling people what to believe, and acting violently to those who oppose you. This is the problem.

Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin were very politically charged and interested in retaining power and control, rather than promoting tenets of something which by definition, has no internal dogma, and isn't a worldview in the least.

Absolutely correct! Thanks for the assist!

I must add that it is tiresome when believers pull out Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.. as "evidence" of what happens when atheists are in charge. They don't seem to understand that these mass killers were not inspired to do evil because of atheism!

I then point out Sweden and Norway, and how well they're doing versus the rest of the world.

(March 22, 2010 at 12:28 pm)tavarish Wrote: I then point out Sweden and Norway, and how well they're doing versus the rest of the world.

Good point. I would love to see one of the major parties run an atheist for President. It would be interesting to see how much of a factor that would be in the campaign.

Are not the Scandinavian countries just too polite to talk about it? I get the point, man has done terrible things in the name of religion. Belief and Faith? Are they the same thing? I'd claim to have Faith, but my beliefs are quite apt to change depending on the available evidence. I'd claim to have Hope for a better future for all, including the FSM. But it doesn't blind me to facts. Shit happens. My God is Love. That's nobodys dogma, it just is.
What am I? << That's a valid question...I'm quite baffled myself...wasn't when I came in....

(March 22, 2010 at 12:40 pm)RedFish Wrote: Are not the Scandinavian countries just too polite to talk about it? I get the point, man has done terrible things in the name of religion. Belief and Faith? Are they the same thing? I'd claim to have Faith, but my beliefs are quite apt to change depending on the available evidence. I'd claim to have Hope for a better future for all, including the FSM. But it doesn't blind me to facts. Shit happens. My God is Love. That's nobodys dogma, it just is.
What am I? << That's a valid question...I'm quite baffled myself...wasn't when I came in....

"Shit happens" and "My God is Love" are statements from two completely opposing mindsets. One is objective, the other is subjective. "God is Love" is dogma, here's the definition:

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

(March 22, 2010 at 1:04 pm)tavarish Wrote:

---

(March 21, 2010 at 6:08 pm)tackattack Wrote: Well first off I don't think he's insane, many people find religion in prison, and those numbers don'ttake any of that into account. I can't see the average person at my Church committing a heinous crime outside of sexual perversion.

So that means they don't do it, right?

(March 21, 2010 at 6:08 pm)tackattack Wrote: I would wager if a proper study was done, that surveying one crime.. killers... the ratio of theism prior to the commiting of the crime and after it was vastly askew. Being "God fearing" probably does more for the parole board than a rational mind.

So it's better to believe in God for the parole board? I thought we were talking about being well-rounded for society, not conforming to favoritism.

(March 21, 2010 at 6:08 pm)tackattack Wrote: @RedFish... I'll take a shot at it. As humans lost their spee and natural defences through evolution. tools were required. Structure for a society and community was formed as were heirerarchies. Tools of varying qualities distinguished value among the society. The highest in society fought for the best tools. Best became subjective as standards improved. The it was which tool had the most feathers and did the job of dicing the fish. Tool adornment was logically a first art form, that coupled with visual language development, art is a natural progression. No research just off the top.

You're on the right track.

---

1-So that means they don't do it, right? Of course not, they could, we are all capable of horrendous things. It's just counter-intuitive to believe a majority of a civilized society, prone to "sheep-like" belief to love thy neighbor is more likely to commit heinous crimes.

2-I think being well rounded for wociety is a pipe dream few accomplish. When given an opportunity, people like electricity usually tries to find the easiest path. The easiest path is usully to conform to what's expected, which in this example would be to brown-nose the parole board.

(March 22, 2010 at 1:58 pm)tackattack Wrote: 1-So that means they don't do it, right? Of course not, they could, we are all capable of horrendous things. It's just counter-intuitive to believe a majority of a civilized society, prone to "sheep-like" belief to love thy neighbor is more likely to commit heinous crimes.

So how is that relevant to the argument in which believers are somehow more prone to do good things? Intuition isn't evidence of anything.

(March 22, 2010 at 1:58 pm)tackattack Wrote: 2-I think being well rounded for wociety is a pipe dream few accomplish. When given an opportunity, people like electricity usually tries to find the easiest path. The easiest path is usully to conform to what's expected, which in this example would be to brown-nose the parole board.

Exactly. It says more about the parole board than the inmates.

1- My point wasn't that theists are better than atheists. I was pointing out a glaring counter-intuitive point that from my Christian teachings it's more likely that the numbers in the aforementioned poll were not including all variables and thus needto be retested fo validity. My point if anything was that theists have more societal reprocussions to not commit heinous acts, not that they did or couldn't.

(March 22, 2010 at 4:01 pm)tackattack Wrote: 1- My point wasn't that theists are better than atheists. I was pointing out a glaring counter-intuitive point that from my Christian teachings it's more likely that the numbers in the aforementioned poll were not including all variables and thus needto be retested fo validity. My point if anything was that theists have more societal reprocussions to not commit heinous acts, not that they did or couldn't.

And I made the point that your assertion is irrelevant to the conversation, since it has no bearing on what is actually occurring.

I agree that 'God is Love' is dogma. My God is love is not, it is merely my personal belief. I am not an organisation.
I don't consider myself authoritative. I feel affinity with those who Love, but this is not a religion. I don't feel the need to preach, only ask, as Bo Diddly did...''Who do you love?''


I also hate the iniquities of man, the corruption in the catholic church, paedos, rapists, murderers, and many other assorted scumbags. Does this hatred make me unworthy to love? Not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from?? That just makes no sense to me. If you never doubt, you'll never know.