Notices
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: pol pot evil atheist despot

  1. #1 pol pot evil atheist despot 
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    to all
    these are some of the things that the atheistic/communistic despot, Pol Pot, did.
    what are your thoughts on a person like this.


    cambodia Kampong Thum province : pol pot kills all but 8 people and 2 of each animal.
    north of Phnom Penh : pol pot destroys two villages, but leaves the mayor and his daughters.
    Siem Reap : pol pot kills all of the children in the province.
    Kozak Ohana : pol pot orders the killing of the religious, totaling 3000.
    Shintoshin : pol pot kills 14,700 people for complaining about the killing of the religious.
    Hironaka : pol pot kills 24,000 for committing whoredom/fraternising with the americans.
    stoeng treng : pol pot slaughters the villages of krachen province, plunders the city, burnt the homes, kills all the men and male children and any women married. takes the young girls for his men.
    kaoh : Slaughter of pailin and varin, killing everyone and set fire to it.
    anlong veng : pol pot kills the people of argor, and his generals pursue them to tonte sap, where they slay the rest of them and plunder this city. They do the same to the neighboring cities.

    I think this is a sizable chunk to start with.


    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: pol pot evil atheist despot 
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    6,091
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    to all
    these are some of the things that the atheistic/communistic despot, Pol Pot, did.
    what are your thoughts on a person like this.
    Absolute power corrupts, absolutely. And when that power is insane or wont to commit evil then evil is what you get. The sword is mightier than the pen?

    A word of caution. A lot of people may consider this a slam on atheism so I would expect a multitude of examples where religious despots have committed much worse.


    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    i'm sure he just cared too much.
    he did it all with good intention, for the greater good.
    unfortunately for everyone involved, the good was so great it was unachievable.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    My thoughts are that a person like this is, more or less, evil. And since this is the religion forum and you made the point of mentioning that he was atheist, I'm afraid I'll do exactly what zijanthropos predicted and assume you're trying to make a negative point against atheism. Which this really isn't. This is an example of a tyrannical leader who killed people who didn't do what he told them to do. I don't think I need to list examples of non-atheists who have done this. Powerful people who are willing to do anything to stay in power will probably start killing a lot of other people. At this point, religion or non-religion has very little to do with it.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    reading wiki:

    Pol Pot was born in Prek Sbauv in Kampong Thom Province in 1925 to a moderately wealthy family of Chinese-Khmer descent. In 1935, he left Prek Sbauv to attend the École Miche, a Catholic school in Phnom Penh. As his sister Roeung was a concubine of the king, he often visited the royal palace. In 1947 he gained admission to the exclusive Lycée Sisowath but was unsuccessful in his studies. After switching to a technical school at Russey Keo, north of Phnom Penh, he qualified for a scholarship that allowed for technical study in France. Thus, he studied at the EFR in Paris from 1949 to 1953. He also participated in an international labour brigade building roads in Yugoslavia in 1950.

    After the Soviet Union recognized the Viet Minh as the government of Vietnam in 1950, French Communists (PCF) took up the cause of Vietnam's independence. The PCF's anti-colonialism attracted many young Cambodians, including Pol Pot. In 1951, he joined a communist cell in a secret organization known as the Cercle Marxiste which had taken control of the Khmer Student's Association (AER) that same year. Within a few months, Pol Pot also joined the PCF. Historian Philip Short has said that Pol Pot's poor academic record was a considerable advantage within the anti-intellectual PCF and helped him to quickly establish a leadership role for himself among the Cercle Marxiste.

    As a result of failing his exams in three successive years, he was forced to return to Cambodia in January 1953. He was the first member of the Cercle to return to Cambodia and was given the task of evaluating the various groups rebelling against the government. He recommended the Viet Minh, and in August 1953, Pol Pot along with Rath Samoeun travelled to the Viet Minh Eastern Zone headquarters in the village of Krabao at the Kompong Cham/Prey Veng border area of Cambodia.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    i think anti-intellectual, failing exams, says it all.

    hitler failed his exams too.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    i think anti-intellectual, failing exams, says it all.

    hitler failed his exams too.
    but hitler was a lutheran christian, not an atheist, he had a different motivation.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Pol Pot is one of those people I like to argue had belief in what he was doing, thus I conclude that atheism had nothing to do with the evil he did.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    I'm afraid I'll do exactly what zijanthropos predicted and assume you're trying to make a negative point against atheism. Which this really isn't.
    Yes but there seem to be a lot of people on this site who think religion is the root of all evil in the world. Here are a few other tidbits for those folks.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_pot
    The Khmer Rouge also classified by religion and ethnic group. They abolished all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practise their customs.
    Credible Western and Eastern sources put the death toll inflicted by the Khmer Rouge at 1.6 million.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao
    Mao is also recognized as a poet and calligrapher.[5] and destroyer of religion.
    1 million deaths seems to be an absolute minimum, and many authors agree on a figure of between 2 million and 5 million dead.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin
    Early researchers attempting to tally the number of people killed under Stalin's regime were forced to rely largely upon anecdotal evidence. Their estimates ranged from a low of 3 million to as high as 60 million.
    Many religions popular in the ethnic regions of the Soviet Union including the Roman Catholic Church, Uniats, Baptists, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. underwent ordeals similar to the Orthodox churches in other parts: thousands of monks were persecuted, and hundreds of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, sacred monuments, monasteries and other religious buildings were razed.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin
    Likewise, the hostility of the Soviet regime towards all religion made no exception for Judaism, and the 1921 campaign against religion saw the seizure of many synagogues (whether this should be regarded as anti-Semitism is a matter of definition since Orthodox churches received the same treatment).
    Lenin ordered increased emphasis on the food requisitioning from the peasantry, at the same time as the Cheka gave detailed reports about the large scale famine.[48] The long war and a drought in 1921 also contributed to the famine. Estimates on the deaths from this famine are between 3 and 10 million.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    All of whom had belief in what they did. Madness and/or belief equals arrogance and ignorance which causes evil. (Note that belief doesn't ALWAYS lead to arrogance and ignorance)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Am I missing the point or is this a topic about history, not religion? Sure Pol Pot was an atheist, and sure he may have preferred brown shoes over black ones, but what's the connection?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon
    Am I missing the point or is this a topic about history, not religion? Sure Pol Pot was an atheist, and sure he may have preferred brown shoes over black ones, but what's the connection?
    It's become almost a cliche to say "more people have been killed in the name of religion... blah blah" so this thread is an antidote to that.

    Pendragon, I didn't see you objecting to the other thread where religiosity was being correlated with infant mortality rates and stupid crap like that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: pol pot evil atheist despot 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos
    to all
    these are some of the things that the atheistic/communistic despot, Pol Pot, did.
    what are your thoughts on a person like this.
    My thought is that you clearly have some theory about atheists in mind, and rather than trawling for other people's opinions you should first state yours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman ylooshi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    8
    I noticed that all those "evil despots" were also people who ate rice. Clearly, it is their rice-eating ways that led them to mass-murder and genocide.

    I find it fascinating that when the Crusades are mentioned, or when the Inquisition is mentioned -each in criticism of Christianity- Christians are quick to rebut that these people weren't "true" Christians or that modern Christianity cannot be held accountable for the actions of earlier, more ignorant believers.

    Can not this same argument be used with these "atheist despots?"

    Not that it needs to be. There's no reason to accept that any of these people (Stalin, Pot Pot, Mao, et al) committed their atrocities in the "name of atheism," as if there is an "atheist dogma" somewhere to blame. Their deeds where, however, done in the name of dogma and doctrine -and that is what's significant.

    Only those of limited thinking truly believe their in-humanity is a result of atheism. Others who claim such are being intellectually dishonest, looking for cheap arguments at the expense of critical thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Why hasn't anyone mentioned the fact that all those quoted were communists? athiesm doesn't equal communism, and i'd like to argue that those peoples most likely driving force was communism, another mindset similar to religion in many respects, any the majority of athiests fall under a capatalist banner, many being humanists too
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    Why hasn't anyone mentioned the fact that all those quoted were communists? athiesm doesn't equal communism, and i'd like to argue that those peoples most likely driving force was communism, another mindset similar to religion in many respects, any the majority of athiests fall under a capatalist banner, many being humanists too
    This is my feeling too - communists/Marxists are nominal atheists because it is part of the dogma of their religion.

    Perhaps Ideological Atheism could be classified as religion as opposed to the realist lack of theism that pavlos spoke of in the other thread?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    540
    People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

    this is a common mistake made by theists, typically those of the fundy type, they believe atheism is essentially socialist or communist in nature. Thus, atheism should be rejected since socialism and communism are evil. How stupid!

    the first thing we should note is there is an automatic and almost unconscious assumption made by these theists that their religion is somehow equivalent with captialism.

    Communism is not, however, inherently atheistic. It is possible to have communistic or socialistic views while being a theist and it isn't at all wrong to be an atheist while staunchly defending capitalism, which is a combination often found among objectivists and libertarians.
    their existence alone demonstrates, that atheism and communism are not the same thing.

    is christianity opposed to communism? No, the opposite, actually. There is nothing in the gospels which even so much as suggests a divine preference for captialism, now is there.

    quite a bit of what Jesus said supports many of the of socialism and even communism. http://latter-rain.com/general/commu.htm
    He specifically said that that people should give all they could to the poor and that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.

    basic communism states to hold all property in common rather than privately, is practiced by numerous Christian communities now and throughout history. references to it can be found in Acts:

    Acts 4:33-35 "With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. "
    The similarity to Marx's principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" should be obvious.

    and here again in Acts:

    Acts 5:1-11 "But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; with his wife’s knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. "Ananias," Peter asked, "why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God!" Now when Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard of it.

    The young men came and wrapped up his body, then carried him out and buried him. After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter said to her, "Tell me whether you and your husband sold the land for such and such a price." And she said, "Yes, that was the price." Then Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out." Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things."

    their deaths served as an example to all the others of what would happen if they, too, held back profits for themselves instead of giving everything to the community.
    so we can see that this was the first christian commune(ist) society.

    so please lets get away from this silly reference to atheism and communism being the same, the bible is basically a communist manifesto.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon
    Am I missing the point or is this a topic about history, not religion? Sure Pol Pot was an atheist, and sure he may have preferred brown shoes over black ones, but what's the connection?
    It's become almost a cliche to say "more people have been killed in the name of religion... blah blah" so this thread is an antidote to that.

    Pendragon, I didn't see you objecting to the other thread where religiosity was being correlated with infant mortality rates and stupid crap like that.
    I haven't read that thread, it didn't seem interesting to me. Anecdotical 'evidence' is never very interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by ylooshi
    <..>There's no reason to accept that any of these people (Stalin, Pot Pot, Mao, et al) committed their atrocities in the "name of atheism," as if there is an "atheist dogma" somewhere to blame. Their deeds where, however, done in the name of dogma and doctrine -and that is what's significant.
    Exactly, there is no atheist dogma. Atheism is the lack of a theistic dogma, not the replacement with another dogma. So saying that atheism caused Pol Pot and companions to cause horrible crimes, is like saying that their lack of a theistic dogma caused their crimes. But saying that their communist dogma caused their crimes seems very reasonable to me.

    Oh hey, now I know it: Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao were all not blind, so their lack of blindness caused their behaviour! If nobody can give me proof against this, that is evidence of a blind mass murderer, then I consider the question answered.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by ylooshi
    There's no reason to accept that any of these people (Stalin, Pot Pot, Mao, et al) committed their atrocities in the "name of atheism," as if there is an "atheist dogma" somewhere to blame.
    Well, they had no dogma to stop them from doing it, either, did they? History does not tell us how many atrocities, if any, were prevented by somebody's religious beliefs. One thing we can say is that atheism is not going to automatically cure the ills of the world as some people seem to think.
    Their deeds where, however, done in the name of dogma and doctrine -and that is what's significant.
    How are you so sure of that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by ylooshi
    There's no reason to accept that any of these people (Stalin, Pot Pot, Mao, et al) committed their atrocities in the "name of atheism," as if there is an "atheist dogma" somewhere to blame.
    Well, they had no dogma to stop them from doing it, either, did they? History does not tell us how many atrocities, if any, were prevented by somebody's religious beliefs. One thing we can say is that atheism is not going to automatically cure the ills of the world as some people seem to think.
    If someone needs an imaginary god with an imaginary hell to prevent him/her from committing genocide, then that person is a raving madman to begin with. If that person will commit genocide when his 'big brother on a cloud' is taken away, then it's not atheism but his own madness that caused the crime.

    If you still want to use this argument then I have to bring back the old "cliché" that throughout history an enormous number of people were not stopped by theistic dogma from committing horrible crimes, yes the old crusades again (and the jihadists, etc).

    Mentally sane people don't need theistic dogma to prevent them from committing crime. And mental sanity is not something Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc have in common.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by ylooshi
    There's no reason to accept that any of these people (Stalin, Pot Pot, Mao, et al) committed their atrocities in the "name of atheism," as if there is an "atheist dogma" somewhere to blame.
    Well, they had no dogma to stop them from doing it, either, did they? History does not tell us how many atrocities, if any, were prevented by somebody's religious beliefs. One thing we can say is that atheism is not going to automatically cure the ills of the world as some people seem to think.
    If someone needs an imaginary god with an imaginary hell to prevent him/her from committing genocide, then that person is a raving madman to begin with. If that person will commit genocide when his 'big brother on a cloud' is taken away, then it's not atheism but his own madness that caused the crime.

    If you still want to use this argument then I have to bring back the old "cliché" that throughout history an enormous number of people were not stopped by theistic dogma from committing horrible crimes, yes the old crusades again (and the jihadists, etc).

    Mentally sane people don't need theistic dogma to prevent them from committing crime. And mental sanity is not something Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc have in common.
    Exactly, so harold are you saying without your religion you'd turn into a murder because you haven't the fear of hell? of course not

    I have a massive family, and we have at least 3 generations of athiests, we are all good people, our morals are based on empathy, not fear

    I think most of the athiests i know would be classed as humanist, based on this quotation

    Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationality.[1][2] It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems and is incorporated into several religious schools of thought. Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, Humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    I find it particularly interesting that when a theist does some great evil, atheists say it's because of religion, yet when an atheist does some great evil, it's because the individual is evil, or some other ideology must have been involved.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    I find it interesting that when you show the bible and the god therein to be the most evil cult known to man, by just changing a few things to read as if it was an atheist despot the theist all jump on the band wagon to condemn, sorry you theist these are the true statements all for your glorious bible and by you glorious god, pol pot just pales in comparison.

    pol pot did none of these things I posted in the original post, I just reworded it, to seem as though it was him he was guilty of a lot of bad deeds but not those below, they are all attributed to god, the father of jesus.

    I lied, aren't I a little tinker.

    Genesis 6-7 God kills all but 8 people and 2 of each animal.

    Genesis 19:24-25 God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah, except for Lot and his daughters.

    Exodus 12:29-30 God kills all of the firstborn in Egypt, after having hardened the Pharaoh's heart so that he couldn't change his mind about letting them go.

    Exodus 32:27-28 God orders 'the sons of Levi' to kill those that danced aroudn the Golden Calf. Totalling 3000.

    Numbers 16:42-49 God kills 14,700 people for complaining about God striking down some Israelites that had burnt incense back in Num 16:10-35 (250 there)

    Numbers 25:1-9 God slays 24,000 for 'committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab'.

    Numbers 31 God the slaughter of the Midianites. The Israelites plunder the city, razed their cities, killed all the men and male children and any women that weren't virgins. They took the rest for themselves.

    Judges 1: 1-8 Slaughter of Caananites and Perizzites, Israelites kill everyone in Jerusalem and set fire to it.

    2nd Chronicles 14:8-14 God smites the Ethiopians, and Asa and his men pursue them to Gerar, where they slay the rest of them and plunder the city. They do the same to the neighboring cities.


    Before you go and try to justify these actions because it's god, the omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything, I want you to realise how you viewed pol pot for the very same.
    God ordered these things, are these actions moral, they weren't when you thought it was pol pot.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Hehe very clever :wink: Actually the "2 of each animal" should've betrayed it, but I suppose most of us just glimpsed the 'list of horrors' and went right on posting.

    But yea I guess it shows that theists generally apply different standards to things that are in their holy book, and things that are outside it. I know people who claim to believe every letter of the bible, while they'd never say it's morally right to execute 14,000 people for the crime of burning incense on the wrong day..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    I find it particularly interesting that when a theist does some great evil, atheists say it's because of religion, yet when an atheist does some great evil, it's because the individual is evil, or some other ideology must have been involved.
    Thats not necesserely the case with me, I didn't see saddams attrocities as being islams fault, that was the man himself who was evil, but when i see massive percentages of an islamic country allowing/participating in inhumane treatments and saying its their religion, then yes i do blame religion


    I personally believe, suicide bombers are down to religion/political religion rather than the individual purely based on the numbers that are either committing or glorifying their actions, Yes their have been attrocities that have been committed by indivudual athiests(eg serial killers),but the important thing is the the general population doesn't hang posters on street corners, post videos on youtube praising that persons actions in the name of athiesm, or large numbers of copycat individual/group participation in promoting other to commit the same attrocities for the sake of a god

    Where have you seen atheists promoting violence as every mans duty to continue and enhance a non-religious ideology?

    Where have you seen large groups of atheists that mention that all non atheists should be killed?
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Captain, what I'm saying is that the religious people do it not because of religion, but because of the person.

    There are few people who actually do these atrocities because of their religion (as opposed to using religion to justify it), just as there are few people do atrocities because of atheism (as opposed to using atheism to justify it--and there are people who use atheism to justify it).

    It is apparent that many atheists quickly jump to say "well, he did it because of religion", when really the person would have found some other justification for their actions, religion was just the closest thing to grab on to.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Captain, what I'm saying is that the religious people do it not because of religion, but because of the person.

    There are few people who actually do these atrocities because of their religion (as opposed to using religion to justify it), just as there are few people do atrocities because of atheism (as opposed to using atheism to justify it--and there are people who use atheism to justify it).

    It is apparent that many atheists quickly jump to say "well, he did it because of religion", when really the person would have found some other justification for their actions, religion was just the closest thing to grab on to.
    well explain to me then the mind set of martyrdom(the personal and family pride and community support) and the community support of this?

    Yeah i agree its not the case when someones in power, as holding on to powers the driving force, but when you talking large religios groups or even countrys then its a different story, then religion plays a massive part(if not all)

    To me, many many religious people are seriously mentally unstable(my personal opinion, and not a trolling statement), not all, but in certain islamic countrys and parts of the bible belt in the US, a huge majority have seriously worrying mindsets
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Captain, what I'm saying is that the religious people do it not because of religion, but because of the person.

    There are few people who actually do these atrocities because of their religion (as opposed to using religion to justify it), just as there are few people do atrocities because of atheism (as opposed to using atheism to justify it--and there are people who use atheism to justify it).

    It is apparent that many atheists quickly jump to say "well, he did it because of religion", when really the person would have found some other justification for their actions, religion was just the closest thing to grab on to.
    well explain to me then the mind set of martyrdom(the personal and family pride and community support) and the community support of this?

    Yeah i agree its not the case when someones in power, as holding on to powers the driving force, but when you talking large religios groups or even countrys then its a different story, then religion plays a massive part(if not all)

    To me, many many religious people are seriously mentally unstable(my personal opinion, and not a trolling statement), not all, but in certain islamic countrys and parts of the bible belt in the US, a huge majority have seriously worrying mindsets
    Again, it lies in the person, not the religion.

    Religion is a powerful thing; it can be used for good, as well as evil. It all depends on how you interpret it based on your persona.

    As far as entire countries go, that's because people would blindly follow the person who abuses religion; again we see that it all leads back to the person, not religion.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    dressing this whole debate up as a religion versus atheism is a misnomer

    the danger is ideology - placing the importance of ideas ahead of that of people
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    dressing this whole debate up as a religion versus atheism is a misnomer

    the danger is ideology - placing the importance of ideas ahead of that of people
    What is the absence of ideology? I don't think that's even possible is it? Anybody who wants to take charge of a political movement or nation is going to be driven by some sort of vision or set of principles. They are not just looking for a 9 to 5 job. And of course they will always believe their ideology is benefiting "the people."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Both atheists and theists contain moderates and extremes and both are imperfect when they impose their views onto others and BOTH groups do this. Whether it happens greater in one group than another depends on where you live.

    I see religions as 'fan clubs' and like all fan clubs they seek greater membership. There are some atheist 'fan clubs' springing up.
    http://aolsearch.aol.co.uk/aol/searc...tionType=sb_uk, 16,300 entries.

    I would never join any kind of 'fan club' but clearly some people need a 'club' to join in order to belong/express themselves/share power..whatever.

    It's all BS.

    No killing is really 'ordered' by a love or lack of love/belief in God. It is ALL 'ordered' by a desire for power and control and the God/no God thing is just a conveninet excuse and means to manipulate the population.

    Those who are manipulated may think they are doing things in the name of a 'good cause' but really they are just doing as they are told by their human boss/hero/cult figure/religious leader etc.

    Just as those who 'fight' for their country believe what they do is right, when in reality they have been duped just like everyone else.
    .
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Both atheists and theists contain moderates and extremes and both are imperfect when they impose their views onto others and BOTH groups do this. Whether it happens greater in one group than another depends on where you live.

    I see religions as 'fan clubs' and like all fan clubs they seek greater membership. There are some atheist 'fan clubs' springing up.
    http://aolsearch.aol.co.uk/aol/searc...tionType=sb_uk, 16,300 entries.

    I would never join any kind of 'fan club' but clearly some people need a 'club' to join in order to belong/express themselves/share power..whatever.
    I wonder why that is?
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

    It's all BS
    .
    of course it is, the thread is about the god of the bible not man.

    may I say I use to have an american cocker spaniel, I called "furry" which got lengthened over the years to "furry of relativity" you remind me of him.
    I have a picture somewhere I'll dig it out.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos

    may I say I use to have an american cocker spaniel, I called "furry" which got lengthened over the years to "furry of relativity" you remind me of him.
    I have a picture somewhere I'll dig it out.


    .......I think
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •