Your view on Atheists

[Totenkopf]

On the second part, I was under the impression that Nancy was talking about the Senate in the LF (not the US Senate, as you seemed to have misunderstood--though she can feel free to correct me here), which is what I was talking about. On the first part, you are also being equally presumptuous. One needn't bring up the subject. Besides, what exactly is an "atheist platform", as I thought you contended elsewhere that there was no real such thing as atheist values. So, what could such a platform really be based on other than defining itself as "anti-theist"? Besides, isn't Keith Ellison a Muslim, but he got elected anyway. But to throw it back in your court, please provide all the concrete examples of atheists running for public office that didn't win b/c of some religious bias on the part of the electorate, specifically as regards the "divinity" of Jesus (ie demonstrate that they were SPECIFICALLY rejected B/C they were atheists). Don't forget to check which members of the US Congress (both houses) currently/past consider themselves atheists or are known to be other than Christian. Frankly, you're the one engaging in presumption and therefore the burden is upon you to provide all the examples. Thanks.

[Achilles]

On the second part, I was under the impression that Nancy was talking about the Senate in the LF (not the US Senate, as you seemed to have misunderstood--though she can feel free to correct me here), which is what I was talking about.

Ah, fair enough. Since I was discussing "foreign and domestic policy" and she mentioned "senate" I just assumed that we were on the same track. To your point, we may not have been.

 

On the first part, you are also being equally presumptuous. One needn't bring up the subject.

Actually, Nancy did, however based on the above we may have crossed wires. Regardless of any miscommunication, I did not bring it up apropos of nothing. If my interpretation is correct, then Nancy raised the point and you may feel free to address your question to her. If my interpretation is incorrect, then we will quickly discover this and move on. In the latter case, the claim is her's and will need to be defended as the burden of proof is on her (despite your diatribe below).

 

Besides, what exactly is an "atheist platform", as I thought you contended elsewhere that there was no real such thing as atheist values.

This should help you. I recommend bookmarking this link so that you can quickly reference it again in the future.

 

IIRC, I explained this in the aforementioned "elsewhere" as well.

 

So, what could such a platform really be based on other than defining itself as "anti-theist"?

Dunno, you tell me.

 

Besides, isn't Keith Ellison a Muslim, but he got elected anyway.

Your point?

 

But to throw it back in your court, please provide all the concrete examples of atheists running for public office that didn't win b/c of some religious bias on the part of the electorate, specifically as regards the "divinity" of Jesus (ie demonstrate that they were SPECIFICALLY rejected B/C they were atheists). Don't forget to check which members of the US Congress (both houses) currently/past consider themselves atheists or are known to be other than Christian.

And how would you presume I do that? Cross-reference the atheist registry? Nice try. Good to know that your debate tactics haven't changed.

 

Frankly, you're the one engaging in presumption and therefore the burden is upon you to provide all the examples. Thanks.

I'm always happy to do so when I'm the one making the claim. Take care.

[Totenkopf]

Up to your usual tricks as well, I see Do wonders never cease....

 

Please, if you're going to make your claims, at least be able to back them up with something other than paranoid suspicions. I tried to give you that opportunity, but it's no sweat off my back that you don't wish to rise to the challenge.

 

 

Your reference to the original "platform" was somewhat inconclusive as a lot of those ideas sounded much like secular progressive ideas that didn't of necessity exclude people of faith from embracing them w/re to public policy. I figured perhaps you had something more definitive in mind vis-a-vis atheist values. Besides, as a muslim, the whole "divinity of Jesus" thing should have gotten in the way of his (Ellison's) being elected.

 

Btw, I only referenced Nancy in regard to use of the word Senate, and not the subject of how atheistic views apparently seem to "forbid" atheists from serving in Congress (or any elected office, really). My point was in reference to your first reply to me about Jesus and elected officials. I'll chalk up you being tired as the reason for missing that.

 

Pleasure doin' business w/ya......

[Jae Onasi]

Perhaps in the future to prevent confusion we should specify which Senate we're referring to--US Senate (or just the default 'Senate') vs. JK's Senate--I knew that Nancy was talking about the JK Senate in one of the earlier posts, but I can see where that would easily be confusing and could be applied to either body.

 

Aww, it's nice to see you boys getting along as usual.

[Nancy Allen``]

Contempt is neither death nor it is discrimination.

 

It's a step in the right direction. And just on that, this, the way we're talking now, it's fine far as I'm concerned. Making unhelpful comments such as "McReligion: Billions and billions served crap" I'm sure you'll agree isn't fine.

 

 

I don't understand what this has to do with my questions.

 

This was in reply to you asking who decides what scripture people of any given religion should follow. Some experts, the minority as far as I know (and I would hope they are) believe in bringing death to those who sin, as some passages say happens. They believe it is not any spiritual death they suffer for sin, rather they are to be physically put to death, the act of stoning which was common in those times or burning them at the stake like they did to witches. However others, the majority of Christians at least, support the notion of Jesus dying for our sins and through him we are absolved of our misdeeds including the Original Sin. Which is right is a point of contention from religion to religion, within the same religion and even from church to church.

 

On the second part, I was under the impression that Nancy was talking about the Senate in the LF (not the US Senate, as you seemed to have misunderstood--though she can feel free to correct me here), which is what I was talking about.

 

Yeah, that'a exactly what I was referring to, the Senate debate forums where discussion has gotten a little out of hand.

 

In the latter case, the claim is her's and will need to be defended as the burden of proof is on her (despite your diatribe below).

 

Don't ask me, I always switched off whenever they compared Bush to some great evil, before it got to religion in politics. Though I do know a little, enough for me I think to say the following and get back to what the topic is about. I may not lay claim to religion poisoning the world, but I know right and I know wrong and I have the good grace to know which is which. Allowing people to be entitled to believe and follow religion is right. Condemning people for their beliefs, as Bush does for Islam or Islamic countries do for beliefs that arn't their own, or some do for any and all religion, is wrong.

[Achilles]

Up to your usual tricks as well, I see Do wonders never cease....

Since your argument has already been reduced to repeating yourself and/or repeating what I say back to me (ala "I know you are but what am I"), I feel that any further attempt to sort out your line of reasoning would be a poor use of my time. It's been fun.

 

It's a step in the right direction.

You'll have to explain that one to me, please.

 

And just on that, this, the way we're talking now, it's fine far as I'm concerned. Making unhelpful comments such as "McReligion: Billions and billions served crap" I'm sure you'll agree isn't fine.

Isn't fine as far as an open dialog, correct. I won't comment on the validity of the sentiment.

 

Again, is this taken directly from some kind of atheistic "holy" reference or is this some comment made by a lone individual that you are now using to characterize *all* atheist and/or a hypothetical situation that you present for argument's sake?

 

This was in reply to you asking who decides what scripture people of any given religion should follow. Some experts, the minority as far as I know (and I would hope they are) believe in bringing death to those who sin, as some passages say happens. They believe it is not any spiritual death they suffer for sin, rather they are to be physically put to death, the act of stoning which was common in those times or burning them at the stake like they did to witches. However others, the majority of Christians at least, support the notion of Jesus dying for our sins and through him we are absolved of our misdeeds including the Original Sin. Which is right is a point of contention from religion to religion, within the same religion and even from church to church.

This still does not address the question though. You refer to extremeists as "experts" and then "hope" that they are a minority. Are these "experts" the ones that get to determine which interpretations are correct and which are incorrect? If they are, then why is it that you hope they are in the minority? Could it be that your religion *really* advocates a set of behaviors that you do not agree with?

 

In the interest of avoiding a gish gallop, I'll simply repeat my original question: Who gets to decide which interpretations are correct?

 

Yeah, that'a exactly what I was referring to, the Senate debate forums where discussion has gotten a little out of hand.

Thank you for clarifying. My original point still stands: individual contempt is not the same thing as systematic condemnation and intolerance (not to mention policies supporting death). You seem to think that complaining about atheists not pulling punches re: theism is about on par with religions that openly discriminate and/or kill people.

[tk102]

@Totenkopf, Achilles: The Snarky-o-meter has reached a "derail warning" point so I need to ask you two to cool down a bit. You're flame baiting each other and it is detracting from the debate.

 

Apparently I was a little too subtle earlier. --Jae

[Achilles]

Apparently I was a little too subtle earlier. --Jae

Probably. Was this:

Aww, it's nice to see you boys getting along as usual.

...supposed to be a moderator warning? It seemed more like one of your "humor mode way on" messages. My apologies for not picking up on that.

 

It wasn't a formal warning since you guys hadn't gone over that line at that point, but I felt the heat creeping up and thought I'd point it out, and yes it was meant in a humor vein. --Jae

[Nancy Allen``]

You'll have to explain that one to me, please.

 

The hatred and intolerance some have for religion is something you do not want to see take hold, because that's where problems start and they end in death squads. Christianity's persecution and killing of witches for example, or Islam being so militant in some countries that those who think otherwise are killed, the Atheist movement must never reach that level of intolerance nor should any belief.

 

Again, is this taken directly from some kind of atheistic "holy" reference or is this some comment made by a lone individual that you are now using to characterize *all* atheist and/or a hypothetical situation that you present for argument's sake?

 

All Atheists who would make unhelpful comments like that to be sure. Think insulting anti Atheist comments, it's the same thing. What applies to Atheists applies to those who follow religion and vice versa.

 

This still does not address the question though. You refer to extremeists as "experts" and then "hope" that they are a minority. Are these "experts" the ones that get to determine which interpretations are correct and which are incorrect? If they are, then why is it that you hope they are in the minority? Could it be that your religion *really* advocates a set of behaviors that you do not agree with?

 

Experts in name maybe, but as far as being, for example Christians, they preach very unChristian like behavior. If Jesus was meant to sweep away the old and bring in the new there is no need to be hunting down and killing homosexuals. Some argue this, saying that we still should. Some would get to determine how things are meant to be in a church or community, and undoubtably they would clash with other experts on their views. Any expert however would know that first and foremost they must abide by the law, which states that murder is illegal even if they are homosexual. Does religion advocate a set of behaviors I do not agree with? I think most people would not agree with some of the things that took place in Old Testement. However that I believe is an account of things that had transpired before and the way things were, rather than how things are meant to be now. If there was no New Testement then certainly those ways would still apply from a religious point of view.

 

Who gets to decide which interpretation is correct? This is going to be a bad answer, but I think the answer is God, through Jesus, setting about what is written in the New Testement, decided that we no longer have to act this way. Those who act on old ways, who persecute by the old ways are seen as bigots. Remember that priest who was persecuting that witch? I'll try and find a video of it somewhere. Of course this is only going by what I know of Christianity, other religions are probably much diffirent.

 

Thank you for clarifying. My original point still stands: individual contempt is not the same thing as systematic condemnation and intolerance (not to mention policies supporting death). You seem to think that complaining about atheists not pulling punches re: theism is about on par with religions that openly discriminate and/or kill people.

 

As you sow shall too you reap. I remember a discussion where no punches were pulled over whether or not we should be naming names of the dead in Iraq, parading them around on TV, ect. A comment was made to one who supported the idea about whether anti war people would get their yukks seeing dead American soldiers. They were absolutely outraged at having similar comments they made to others thrown back in their face. So if not pulling our punches in any discussion is going to have that type of effect then maybe we should. As for it being on par with religion that openly discriminates and kills, as I said that is exactly the reason why Atheists don't want to become more and more intolerant, more and more emboldended by their actions, because they may find one day that they justify murder. Same for anything else, and a lesson that religion has learnt far too late and some never will.

[Achilles]

The hatred and intolerance some have for religion is something you do not want to see take hold, because that's where problems start and they end in death squads.

I suppose anything is possible, however without a doctrine to organize behind, I consider this to be a largely hypothetical concern. It's not like atheist has a bible or a koran which tells them to kill people that don't agree with them. Also, atheists tend to be free-thinkers and dislike anything that resembles "organization".

 

Christianity's persecution and killing of witches for example, or Islam being so militant in some countries that those who think otherwise are killed, the Atheist movement must never reach that level of intolerance nor should any belief.

But christians and muslims already have. Kinda kills your point don't you think?

 

All Atheists who would make unhelpful comments like that to be sure. Think insulting anti Atheist comments, it's the same thing. What applies to Atheists applies to those who follow religion and vice versa.

So in other words, it's hypothetical. You could have just said so

 

Experts in name maybe, but as far as being, for example Christians, they preach very unChristian like behavior.

Well now I'm really confused because "experts" was your term. So the experts aren't experts? Help please.

 

The questions still remains: if they are experts then on who's authority have you determined that what they preach is "unchristian-like"? Seems to me that if they are experts, they would be in a better position to determine which behaviors are christian and which are not? Unless of course you're finally willing to admit that the entire things is arbitrary.

 

If Jesus was meant to sweep away the old and bring in the new there is no need to be hunting down and killing homosexuals.

But he's not. He says so himself in the bible (Matthew 5:17). Paul is pretty clear about homosexuality still being a big no-no (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, and arguably 2 Timothy). Seems the bible would not support your view of christianity.

 

Some argue this, saying that we still should. Some would get to determine how things are meant to be in a church or community, and undoubtably they would clash with other experts on their views. Any expert however would know that first and foremost they must abide by the law, which states that murder is illegal even if they are homosexual. Does religion advocate a set of behaviors I do not agree with? I think most people would not agree with some of the things that took place in Old Testement. However that I believe is an account of things that had transpired before and the way things were, rather than how things are meant to be now. If there was no New Testement then certainly those ways would still apply from a religious point of view.

You say that experts should first abide the law. If the law is the word of man, but god's law is supreme, then shouldn't man's law be consistent with god's law? If god's law says "kill homosexuals" then shouldn't man's law echo this? The fact that god seems to give a commandment not to murder (literal translation of the commandment) while also telling us to stone to death non-believers, adulterers, disobedient children, rape victims, etc seems to create quite the conundrum.

 

You seems to want to draw the line at old testament/new testament (even though jesus explicited states that he is not here to change the old laws, but we'll conveniently ignore that for the sake of argument). Does this mean that Jewish people are completely within their rights to kill homosexuals? Their version of god's word still says it's ok. Or should they have to bow to a christian doctrine that they don't accept?

 

Who gets to decide which interpretation is correct? This is going to be a bad answer, but I think the answer is God, through Jesus, setting about what is written in the New Testement, decided that we no longer have to act this way.

But the new testament doesn't do what you say it does. Not only that but the new testament is just as contradictory as the old testament. Also, how does this explain the practice of revelation (which catholics, mormons, and evangelicals are especially reliant upon)?

 

Those who act on old ways, who persecute by the old ways are seen as bigots. Remember that priest who was persecuting that witch? I'll try and find a video of it somewhere. Of course this is only going by what I know of Christianity, other religions are probably much diffirent.

No, they are all pretty consistent in the things that matter.

 

As you sow shall too you reap. I remember a discussion where no punches were pulled over whether or not we should be naming names of the dead in Iraq, parading them around on TV, ect. A comment was made to one who supported the idea about whether anti war people would get their yukks seeing dead American soldiers. They were absolutely outraged at having similar comments they made to others thrown back in their face. So if not pulling our punches in any discussion is going to have that type of effect then maybe we should. As for it being on par with religion that openly discriminates and kills, as I said that is exactly the reason why Atheists don't want to become more and more intolerant, more and more emboldended by their actions, because they may find one day that they justify murder. Same for anything else, and a lesson that religion has learnt far too late and some never will.

This is largely a red herring. Let me try to clarify my earlier question:

 

How is it that refusing to cow to theism seems to be just as offensive to you as theistic persecution (ie death, torture, imprisonment, etc) of non-believers (atheistic or otherwise)?

[Totenkopf]

The fact that god seems to give a commandment not to murder (literal translation of the commandment) while also telling us to stone to death non-believers, adulterers, disobedient children, rape victims, etc seems to create quite the conundrum.

 

Technically only true if one equates murder to killing. All murder is killing (figures of speech aside), but not all killing is murder.

 

How is it that refusing to cow to theism seems to be just as offensive to you as theistic persecution (ie death, torture, imprisonment, etc) of non-believers (atheistic or otherwise)?

 

Depends on what form this "refusing to cow" takes. Most things start off small. Talk is cheap, no matter how offensive. At some point talk becomes translated into action and hell breaks loose. No doubt the reason there are laws regarding incitement. Keep in mind that many religions/ideologies start off small before they "graduate" to the level of being able to pull off mass persecutions.

[Nancy Allen``]

But christians and muslims already have. Kinda kills your point don't you think?

 

And you don't want your group, your movement, to join them in killing for what they believe in do you? So you take measures to prevent them from reaching the point where they justily killing.

 

So in other words, it's hypothetical. You could have just said so

 

Not hypothetical, more a case of you not liking people talking down you and your beliefs so it's something that shouldn't be done.

 

Well now I'm really confused because "experts" was your term. So the experts aren't experts? Help please.

 

Think a military expert who believes we would have the same level of success in Iraq that we did in Desert Storm and one who believes that no way will we be that successful again.

 

The questions still remains: if they are experts then on who's authority have you determined that what they preach is "unchristian-like"? Seems to me that if they are experts, they would be in a better position to determine which behaviors are christian and which are not? Unless of course you're finally willing to admit that the entire things is arbitrary.

 

Look at the Ten Commandments. One of them says 'Though Shalt Not Kill', a commandment that carries over to Jesus' time when much of the old ways were deemed obsolete (such as sacrifices being made to God). Some would like to ignore this to kill those who are offensive to their religion.

 

But he's not. He says so himself in the bible (Matthew 5:17). Paul is pretty clear about homosexuality still being a big no-no (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, and arguably 2 Timothy). Seems the bible would not support your view of christianity.

 

Note that he does not call upon the killing of homosexuals.

 

You say that experts should first abide the law. If the law is the word of man, but god's law is supreme, then shouldn't man's law be consistent with god's law?

 

Actually no, as he commands to obey the law unless the law instructs you to sin. While you may find protest to passing of laws that permit homosexuality you very rarely see a call to arms over the matter. I had a friend of mine put this up, it's a classic example of religion going too far.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adHBr4xv0AY

 

The fact that god seems to give a commandment not to murder (literal translation of the commandment) while also telling us to stone to death non-believers, adulterers, disobedient children, rape victims, etc seems to create quite the conundrum.

 

I'm not sure if you interpret 'be put to death' as execution (as opposed to being cast off into hell when they die) or if it's a speficif quote, you'll need to elaborate on this.

 

You seems to want to draw the line at old testament/new testament (even though jesus explicited states that he is not here to change the old laws, but we'll conveniently ignore that for the sake of argument). Does this mean that Jewish people are completely within their rights to kill homosexuals? Their version of god's word still says it's ok. Or should they have to bow to a christian doctrine that they don't accept?

 

Because it's preached that before Jesus is the old and Jesus is the new, and the Bible and I'm sure the Qu'ran does as well instructs that whatever the book says you are to obey the law. The Hebrew Tanakh would most likely say the same thing.

 

But the new testament doesn't do what you say it does. Not only that but the new testament is just as contradictory as the old testament. Also, how does this explain the practice of revelation (which catholics, mormons, and evangelicals are especially reliant upon)?

 

To answer this question I'd hark back to the claim of Bush trying to bring about Revelations, trying to mess up the world so much that he forces Jesus to return. That's one interpretation of how we'd see things turn out, we would destroy ourselves and those who believe be saved.

 

How is it that refusing to cow to theism seems to be just as offensive to you as theistic persecution (ie death, torture, imprisonment, etc) of non-believers (atheistic or otherwise)?

 

Totenkopf answered this for me but I'll reiterate. Let's say for example you disagree with Bush. You're upset with Iraq, with the 2000 elections, with his religious views. You start talking about wanting to do something about it and it festers away at you, eats away at you, and throughout time you begin twisting things around in your head to justify taking action. Now that scenario wouldn't happen, I'd hope not anyway, but if speaking out against religion and condemning it plants the seeds for a violent Atheist uprising then maybe a better idea is to be able to accept that it does exist and people believe in it.

[Jae Onasi]

To answer this question I'd hark back to the claim of Bush trying to bring about Revelations, trying to mess up the world so much that he forces Jesus to return.

 

Please quote me where Bush actually says he's forcing Jesus to return in those words, and the date he said this. I'd be most interested in seeing these comments for myself.

 

If he has not specifically said this, then please don't continue saying that he has. That's disingenuous at best, along with being rumor-mongering.

[Nancy Allen``]

It was a theory Achilles raised some time ago, I'll find the actual discussion.

 

You painted me the picture of religious evil before. Now put it in a frame. From what I understand reading what you've told me in previous threads George Bush, a Christian, wants to force Jesus returning which would destroy the world. To do this he intends to throw the world into such chaos that Jesus, if he does exist (and if Atheists don't believe in God why do they buy this story?), will have to return and bring about the events in Revelations to restore order. And Bush has appointed a number of fellow Christians to follow this plan. Does that sound close to this fear of this fundamentalism you're talking about?

 

I'd say you've almost accurately captured a small part of the argument. The important (and scary) part would be the percentage of the american population that supports/shares this view. Pinning the whole thing on Bush is a little unfair: He did have be elected after all. Instead focus on the fundamentalist movement and I'd say you'd be a lot closer.

 

PS: One does not have to believe something themselves to be terrified of others that do. If all the fundamentalists lived on an island out in the middle of the ocean and wanted to blow themselves up, that would be one thing. If they lived on the island, but had nukes and believed that they had to take us out first before blowing themselves up, that would be another thing, wouldn't you say?

 

Out of all the indications I've been given that Bush is actually trying to do this I just cannot see how. I mean if he is a Christian then he'd know that it's impossible and if he isn't then he wouldn't believe in it anyway.

[Jae Onasi]

This isn't answering my request for Bush's actual quote. I want to see where he himself said this, please.

[Totenkopf]

This isn't answering my request for Bush's actual quote. I want to see where he himself said this, please.

 

 

I always got the sense that this was one of the more egregious examples of Bush bashing done by his ideological opponents, rather than any particular statement made by the man himself. Sort of wonder if this isn't supposed to be some counterbalancing accusation to the Amadinejhad and the 12th Imam claims. However, if anyone can produce a verbatim quote from Bush himself that states he seeks to bring on the Apocalypse, please do so.

[Achilles]

And you don't want your group, your movement, to join them in killing for what they believe in do you?

Huh? As others have pointed out a "group" of atheists is like a "group" of right-handed people. Unlike organized religion, atheism is a natural state. Therefore trying to identify it as a "group" is a losing exercise.

 

That aside, I'm not sure which "your movement" you are referring to. To the best of my knowledge, I'm not part of any movement, so you'll have to clarify what that means.

 

The "join them in killing" part is rather interesting, because that would insinuate that "they" (atheist, I'm assuming) are already killing. Is there a theological cleansing that I'm not aware of? Do we have bands of atheist death squads patrolling the streets looking for theists to kill? Have you heard reports in the news where maybe isolated groups of atheists have done this anywhere? Or is this another of your hypothetical exercises that have no foundation in reality and are born of a complete lack of understanding about what atheism actually is or what most atheists actually believe?

 

So you take measures to prevent them from reaching the point where they justily killing.

Such countermeasures aren't necessary. Most atheists tend toward humanist ethics, which tend to promote human life as valuable unto itself. This means that most atheists would seek to avoid killing others because they do not wish to live in a world in which they themselves would be randomly killed. Regardless though, if some lone atheist were able to rally a small band of atheists and somehow convince them that they should begin killing theists, I imagine they would be quickly ignored by other atheists.

 

See, unlike theists, atheists do not have a fictional book written by bronze age or dark age authors that tells them to kill others in certain circumstances. In the instances in which they have grown up thinking that this book is true and that its edicts are perfect, they have abandoned such thoughts in exchange for less subjective set of ethics. In other words, there is no seed for such things in atheism, so such a thing is largely impossible. Of course, anything is possible, however your time is probably better spent worrying about things that are significantly more probable, such as theistically-inspired mass murder.

 

Not hypothetical, more a case of you not liking people talking down you and your beliefs so it's something that shouldn't be done.

You failed to support your point before and it seems that you've failed to support it here as well. Please provide an example of any atheist "holy" text which advocates such behavior, admit that you are using individual experiences to unjustly paint all atheists a certain way or admit that it is hypothetical.

 

The thrust of your argument thus far has been to show that atheists are somehow exclusive to this or otherwise "more guilty" of it than theists. You either have to support this point or acknowledge that all people are guilty of doing it.

 

Think a military expert who believes we would have the same level of success in Iraq that we did in Desert Storm and one who believes that no way will we be that successful again.

I'm not sure what this has to do with your point.

 

I asked who gets to determine which interpretations of the bible are the correct ones. You responded that "the experts" do, but then said that you worry because "the experts" would promote an interpretation that you don't feel comfortable with.

 

So I'm not sure how military experts in Iraq are applicable to my follow up questions.

 

Look at the Ten Commandments. One of them says 'Though Shalt Not Kill', a commandment that carries over to Jesus' time when much of the old ways were deemed obsolete (such as sacrifices being made to God). Some would like to ignore this to kill those who are offensive to their religion.

My understanding is that "thou shall not murder" is widely consider to be the literal translation, but that's completely beside the point.

 

Again, your response does not answer my question. If the bible is open to interpretation (a point which you seem will to concede), then who gets to determine which interpretation is correct and on whose authority? You dance around this at length, but you've yet to answer it.

 

I will address your red herring though, because I feel it raises an interesting point. You claim that the bible clearly tells us not to kill and that should be our marching orders. However in the very same book we are told that we should stone to death disobedient children, those that try to convert us to another religion, women who do not call for help "loud enough" while being raped, and the list goes on. See, you want to point to one specific part of the bible as evidence for its message of love and tolerance, but you ignore all the contradicting parts which have a very different message. Both messages are very clear and they are in direct violation of each other.

 

Note that he does not call upon the killing of homosexuals.

Paul or Jesus? Jesus tells us that the "old rules" still apply and the old rules do.

 

You ignore my point though, which is that Jesus' new covenant does not invalidate the old one. Please address that as it seems to be central to your point.

 

Actually no, as he commands to obey the law unless the law instructs you to sin.

 

Me: You say that experts should first abide the law. If the law is the word of man, but god's law is supreme, then shouldn't man's law be consistent with god's law?

 

You: Actually no, as he commands to obey the law unless the law instructs you to sin.

 

So your answer is "no, man's laws should not be consistent with god's laws". And your rationale to support this stance is that god provided a loop-hole which states that you should not obey laws that instruct you to sin.

 

Am I missing something?

 

While you may find protest to passing of laws that permit homosexuality you very rarely see a call to arms over the matter. I had a friend of mine put this up, it's a classic example of religion going too far.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adHBr4xv0AY

I'm confused. That link took me to a clip of a television show, in which actors were repeating lines written by people that make up hypothetical situations for a living.

 

Contrived situations = classic examples? Surely you could have referenced a documentary about the salem witch trials or news footage covering an abortion clinic bombing, etc.

 

Also, I'm not sure what a "call to arms" has to do with my point.

 

I'm not sure if you interpret 'be put to death' as execution (as opposed to being cast off into hell when they die) or if it's a speficif quote, you'll need to elaborate on this.

 

Non-believers:

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshiped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.

 

Adultery:

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. (not specifically stoning, but since the bible doesn't specify, I imagine that it's still an option)

 

Disobedient children:

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them. Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

 

Rape victims:

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

 

Because it's preached that before Jesus is the old and Jesus is the new,

I've already pointed out that jesus himself states that this is not the case.

 

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

and the Bible and I'm sure the Qu'ran does as well instructs that whatever the book says you are to obey the law. The Hebrew Tanakh would most likely say the same thing.

Man's law or god's law and which has precedence? That's the whole point.

 

To answer this question I'd hark back to the claim of Bush trying to bring about Revelations, trying to mess up the world so much that he forces Jesus to return. That's one interpretation of how we'd see things turn out, we would destroy ourselves and those who believe be saved.

This response does not address my question.

 

Who gets to determine which interpretation is correct? If we are to take jesus at face value (ignoring contradictions), then how does one explain/validate revelation? Please answer this without introducing any strawmen or red herring arguments.

 

Totenkopf answered this for me but I'll reiterate. Let's say for example you disagree with Bush. You're upset with Iraq, with the 2000 elections, with his religious views. You start talking about wanting to do something about it and it festers away at you, eats away at you, and throughout time you begin twisting things around in your head to justify taking action. Now that scenario wouldn't happen, I'd hope not anyway, but if speaking out against religion and condemning it plants the seeds for a violent Atheist uprising then maybe a better idea is to be able to accept that it does exist and people believe in it.

I'm not even sure where to begin with this one.

 

So in your mind, some atheists that view theism with disdain (regardless of whether or not it deserves it) are just as terrible for voicing that disdain as theists that kill non-believers because they might be guilty of thinking a thought that they will be unable to exercise their free will against in order to prevent it from escalating into a psychotic need to kill? I just want to make sure that I'm understanding this correctly.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Totenkopf answered this for me but I'll reiterate. Let's say for example you disagree with Bush. You're upset with Iraq, with the 2000 elections, with his religious views. You start talking about wanting to do something about it and it festers away at you, eats away at you, and throughout time you begin twisting things around in your head to justify taking action. Now that scenario wouldn't happen, I'd hope not anyway, but if speaking out against religion and condemning it plants the seeds for a violent Atheist uprising then maybe a better idea is to be able to accept that it does exist and people believe in it.

But doesn't that go for all viewpoints? Shouldn't you as a consequence of this go totally apolitical, as your viewpoints on, say, global warming, could technically lead to a violent SUV drivers' uprising against emission regulations?

 

The hatred and intolerance some have for religion is something you do not want to see take hold, because that's where problems start and they end in death squads.

Slippery slope fallacy. Oh, and just that Abrahamic faiths have a tendency to start killing each others, doesn't mean everyone else are liable to do so, too.

[Web Rider]

Please quote me where Bush actually says he's forcing Jesus to return in those words, and the date he said this. I'd be most interested in seeing these comments for myself.

 

If he has not specifically said this, then please don't continue saying that he has. That's disingenuous at best, along with being rumor-mongering.

 

 

Nobody said Bush actually said that. NancyA pointed out that Achilles claimed that was Bush's intent. Achilles conjectured that because of Bush's religiousness, the cronies he's appointed, the actions he's taken as president, along with the base of people who supported him, including as well what other's had shown him regarding Bush, that a Bush was trying to force Jesus's return in order to fix things.

[SilentScope001]

Many people are intolerant. Let admit it. Some atheists are intolerant of theists. Some theists are intolerant of atheists. Does that mean atheists form death squads? No.

 

BUT, that does mean that the intolerant atheists will start doing whatever it takes to harm the theists. After all you are right, so I have to go and prove to the whole world you are right.

 

I'll tell you where intolerance leads to. It leads to flame wars. It leads to negative campagining. It leads to endless screaming and debating. It leads to, well, nothing. Nothing gets accomplished when all you do is debate endlessly. Atheists have it. Theists have it. Intolerance does not lead to death, but it leads to a fate worse than death...perpetual warfare with your enemies.

 

People have better things to do than to go and engage in flame wars about anything. To make a irreverant comparison of the whole war, it is like Star Wars vs. Star Trek fans. You won't have Star Trek fans starting genocide of Star Wars fans, and hey, Star Trek is likely to be much better than Star Wars, but that doesn't mean that the intolerance of the Star Trek fans is justified, especially if the Star Trek fans focus on proving point by point that Star Trek is the best thing ever, and ignore the "less important stuff", like say, eating.

 

You can have a reasonable discussion, as long as you realize the other side believes in something very vaild, and you treat either their viewpoints or, failing that, the humans they are arguing against as vaild. If you don't, then you might as well say nothing, because if you say something, it is likely to be negative.

[Achilles]

Nobody said Bush actually said that. NancyA pointed out that Achilles claimed that was Bush's intent. Achilles conjectured that because of Bush's religiousness, the cronies he's appointed, the actions he's taken as president, along with the base of people who supported him, including as well what other's had shown him regarding Bush, that a Bush was trying to force Jesus's return in order to fix things.

This is mostly correct. I would add that it is not only my claim nor can I be credited with being the first one to put all the pieces together. Additionally, I don't believe I ever stated that Bush was the sole figure, only that it was he, along with his administration, that was paving the way for his constituency's imaginative vision.

[Nancy Allen``]

This isn't answering my request for Bush's actual quote. I want to see where he himself said this, please.

 

The evidence I've been presented of Bush wanting to do this, I'll need to search for it, I can't see in any way shows that he wishes or intends to destroy the world, so the answer would be that as far as I'm concerned there is no such quote.

 

The "join them in killing" part is rather interesting, because that would insinuate that "they" (atheist, I'm assuming) are already killing. Is there a theological cleansing that I'm not aware of? Do we have bands of atheist death squads patrolling the streets looking for theists to kill? Have you heard reports in the news where maybe isolated groups of atheists have done this anywhere? Or is this another of your hypothetical exercises that have no foundation in reality and are born of a complete lack of understanding about what atheism actually is or what most atheists actually believe?

 

By that I mean you harp on about religion killing, it's brought up even when others don't want to discuss it. Well what if Atheists were to grow so intolerant of theists they seek to kill them? Then how will Atheism look? As bad as religion I would wager, as intolerant and hypocritical as they make religion out to be.

 

See, unlike theists, atheists do not have a fictional book written by bronze age or dark age authors that tells them to kill others in certain circumstances.

 

Converse Accident, it's your say so that it's fiction and therefore taking your belief as gospal.

 

Of course, anything is possible, however your time is probably better spent worrying about things that are significantly more probable, such as theistically-inspired mass murder.

 

Another fallacy, poisoning the well. Throw in Special Pleading as Atheism is dressed up to make it look like the way it labels religion doesn't apply to them.

 

You failed to support your point before and it seems that you've failed to support it here as well. Please provide an example of any atheist "holy" text which advocates such behavior, admit that you are using individual experiences to unjustly paint all atheists a certain way or admit that it is hypothetical.

 

Begging the question. The thing is Atheists don't have such standereds and therefore can make up in their own mind that murder of theists is legitimate.

 

The thrust of your argument thus far has been to show that atheists are somehow exclusive to this or otherwise "more guilty" of it than theists. You either have to support this point or acknowledge that all people are guilty of doing it.

 

Of course they are all guilty of it.

 

So I'm not sure how military experts in Iraq are applicable to my follow up questions.

 

Both are experts, both present diffirent poijts of view but only one is correct. Same for religion, diffirent experts and so called experts will have diffirent beliefs on what is right. For example that we should go back to the bad old days of persecution of other religions and non believers, which to me suggests they're not experts at all, they don't know what they're talking about.

 

Again, your response does not answer my question. If the bible is open to interpretation (a point which you seem will to concede), then who gets to determine which interpretation is correct and on whose authority? You dance around this at length, but you've yet to answer it.

 

Beyond what I've told you I cannot give more of an answer than I already have. Go back and have a look at my previous posts.

 

You claim that the bible clearly tells us not to kill and that should be our marching orders. However in the very same book we are told that we should stone to death disobedient children, those that try to convert us to another religion, women who do not call for help "loud enough" while being raped, and the list goes on. See, you want to point to one specific part of the bible as evidence for its message of love and tolerance, but you ignore all the contradicting parts which have a very different message.

 

It certainly is barbaric. There are two things I can point to, one is it was the way things were back in those time, something I'm happy to see we have moved on from, and two putting someone to death for a crime they committed was not considered murder, hence the change to 'Though Shalt not Murder'. To premptively answer something up ahead Jesus showed that we did not have to do this anymore, as through him those who do wrong would be held accountable.

 

Paul or Jesus? Jesus tells us that the "old rules" still apply and the old rules do.

 

They do. That doesn't mean the same punishments apply however.

 

So your answer is "no, man's laws should not be consistent with god's laws". And your rationale to support this stance is that god provided a loop-hole which states that you should not obey laws that instruct you to sin.

 

Am I missing something?

 

Quite possibly. The law is what you are to follow regardless of whatever holy book says. I believe Nick Schultz put it well when he said 'I trust smiting doesn't constitute an assault'. Now assault is against the law even though these Christians believed they were doing the work of the Lord, and that is something too many people miss, the command to obey the law.

 

I'm confused. That link took me to a clip of a television show, in which actors were repeating lines written by people that make up hypothetical situations for a living.

 

Contrived situations = classic examples? Surely you could have referenced a documentary about the salem witch trials or news footage covering an abortion clinic bombing, etc.

 

I could have, but I thought an accurate portrayal of something that is real rather than going the whole hog and showing women being burned at the stake was a better way to go, as for one the sense of normalecy would be something that people would better identify with and for another were I to show actual witch burnings people might think 'okay that's wrong but this is okay' whereas by showing the assault and destruction of a woman's posessions as being wrong I'm showing that even that is going too far, to say nothing of witch burning and abortion clinic bombings that are far more so.

 

Also, I'm not sure what a "call to arms" has to do with my point.

 

The law states that we cannot round up homosexuals and kill them. Therefore a call to arms to do just that would be illegal, and since the law takes presidence over religion it's the law that applies.

 

I've already pointed out that jesus himself states that this is not the case.

 

'He who is without sin cast the first stone'. Look it up, I'm sure it'll answer this point and maybe a lot of others.

 

Man's law or god's law and which has precedence? That's the whole point.

 

Man's law. The religious texts say as much.

 

This response does not address my question.

 

Who gets to determine which interpretation is correct? If we are to take jesus at face value (ignoring contradictions), then how does one explain/validate revelation? Please answer this without introducing any strawmen or red herring arguments.

 

Actually these are your red herring and strawman arguements, but again one interpretation is of the acts of Revelations being our doing, or a large part of it being our doing. For example armageddon, the end of the world, metaphorically speaking we would be the ones breaking the seals by (war? totalarism? sin?) and causing the floods and the earthquakes and at the last minute God would step in and bring about the events of Revelations.

 

So in your mind, some atheists that view theism with disdain (regardless of whether or not it deserves it) are just as terrible for voicing that disdain as theists that kill non-believers because they might be guilty of thinking a thought that they will be unable to exercise their free will against in order to prevent it from escalating into a psychotic need to kill? I just want to make sure that I'm understanding this correctly.

 

How do theists bomb abortion clinics despite their religion saying they are to obey the law? How are terrorists permitted to wage Jihad despite their religion forbidding killing and suicide? They get it into their heads that those parts don't apply to them, and to be fair the people who commit these acts are less religious and more those with an axe to grind. They just use religion as an excuse.

 

But doesn't that go for all viewpoints? Shouldn't you as a consequence of this go totally apolitical, as your viewpoints on, say, global warming, could technically lead to a violent SUV drivers' uprising against emission regulations?

 

Ever hear of Earth First? The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement? Yes it does apply for all viewpoints, as right now there could be those seeking a way to kill the human race to protect the enviroment (hides away Tom Clancy novels and plot to kill reality TV fans).

 

Slippery slope fallacy. Oh, and just that Abrahamic faiths have a tendency to start killing each others, doesn't mean everyone else are liable to do so, too.

 

Explain how so.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Begging the question. The thing is Atheists don't have such standards and therefore can make up in their own mind that murder of theists is legitimate.

Everyone can 'make up their own mind that killing is legitimate'. You, me, everyone. The thing is, however, that there are so many reasons not to murder that the threat of eternal damnation is obsolete.

 

The law states that we cannot round up homosexuals and kill them. Therefore a call to arms to do just that would be illegal, and since the law takes precedence over religion it's the law that applies.

But the law also says that we can't round up Christians and kill them, so even if we atheists were to decide you needed killing, what are you so worried about?

[Nancy Allen``]

That Atheists would stoop to the level theists have and feel that laws don't apply to them. Now do you want that? Are you prepared for that?

[John Galt]

That Atheists would stoop to the level theists have and feel that laws don't apply to them. Now do you want that? Are you prepared for that?

 

But which group of Atheists? It's been said that organizing Atheists is like herding cats. Atheism is not a philosophy, nor is it a world-view in and of itself. Atheism is simply saying "no" to the supernatural. There are a lot more atheists in the US than one would suspect, especially among intellectuals, and none of them, to my knowledge, have advocated killing ANYONE on the basis of religion or lack thereof.