Sarah Palin is McCain's Choice for VP

I love how she and the McCain campaign can lie about their record, and yet the Obama campaign doesn't attack them on it. What the fuck is wrong with them?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']That's true. That's some weird shit. But it doesn't bother me. They seem harmless, if weird.[/QUOTE]

I see that, for you, nutty white religious folk are ok.

Fair enough.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I see that, for you, nutty white religious folk are ok.

Fair enough.[/QUOTE]

Most Conservatives arnt scared of white nutty religious people. If they arnt one themselves the rest of their political brothers are.
 
Well, colored me shocked. Too bad it'll probably air like 2 times. They really should just create an ad calling Sarah Palin a thief for not giving back the bridge to nowhere money. fuck her.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Again showing there is nothing on this planet more stupid, annoying, wrong and deadly then organized religion. Faith is ok in and of itself.....but as soon as faith goes from a personal belief/experience to an organized one it becomes a very very bad thing.[/quote]

I hated the theocratic rhetoric sprinkled throughout, but other then that I really didn't have a problem with anything they did.

If modern Christian offshoots get their jolies answering cell phones then what's it to me, after all Fox News ran footage of DNC yoga sessions with color commentary and I have to believe this weirded out alot of red staters.

I don't think you can fairly lump all organized religion together either. If you want to talk about Abrahamic religions then I'm inclined to agree with your sentiment, but there are plenty of modern religions that have been able to organize without large radical offshoots that employ violence and hypocrisy as main tenets. In addition there have been plenty of athiest philosophies that have proven to be extremely dangerous, to the degree that I believe they negate your claim.
 
[quote name='camoor'] In addition there have been plenty of athiest philosophies that have proven to be extremely dangerous, to the degree that I believe they negate your claim.[/quote]

List them. This is a typical Christian apologist claim, and they always seem to fall flat on their face with it.
 
[quote name='evanft']List them. This is a typical Christian apologist claim, and they always seem to fall flat on their face with it.[/quote]

Well it's been done to death, I wish I had a handy copy-paste. I'll just throw out Stalin's brand of Communism and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge as good examples of what I'm talking about.
 
[quote name='camoor']Well it's been done to death, I wish I had a handy copy-paste. I'll just throw out Stalin's brand of Communism and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge as good examples of what I'm talking about.[/quote]... to which the typical response goes that while communism is an atheistic philosophy, it's not an atheist philosophy.

...

But I'd rather leave that argument to someone who isn't myself.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']... to which the typical response goes that while communism is an atheistic philosophy, it's not an atheist philosophy.

...

But I'd rather leave that argument to someone who isn't myself.[/QUOTE]

It's ok. The point is, people in the very near past have been butchered on a scale of millions in the name of disdain for organized religion and believing "religion is poison", among other things.

My point is not to say that atheism leads to genocide. But rather to point out that there is no proof that striving for absence of organized religion in a society somehow makes it safer or less violent.

In other words: All violent religious extremists came from organized religion. But not all organized religion creates violent extremists. And the same applies for violent atheist extremists.

When entering this discussion, one ultimately, usually, concludes that it's really not that useful to look for religious affiliation or lack thereof when looking for modern patterns in violence.
 
It's bad stuff all around - not least of all because it's usually used as a piss-poor argument from consequences: "X has led to Y. Y is bad. Therefore, X is totally false."
 
I found this it was pretty interesting


So let's compare resumes:
Palin:
Age 22 Graduates from college
22-24 Works as sports reporter, gets married
24-28 Marriage, fishing business owner/operator, children, PTA
28-32 City councilwoman
32-38 Two terms as mayor of Wasilla
38 Runs and narrowly loses race for Lt. Governor
38-40 Commissioner: Alaska Oil and Gas Commission
42 Elected Governor
42-44 Governor

Obama:
23 Graduate fro college
23-24 2 short term jobs
24-27 Community organizer
28-30 Law school, elected editor of law review (Harvard)
30-32 graduates law school, works for something called Project Hope.
32-43 Lecturer U. of Chicago Law school.
36-43 Elected to state senate. Loses race for congress.
43-Elected as senator
43-47 Senator

There it is, no embellishments or denegrations.
Let's not forget that Obama had seen half of the world, including its no so pretty aspects, long before he even got to college, and Mrs. Palin has not seen much outside Alaska (may be on vacations only) until she became a Governor.
Let's not forget that community organiser is somebody who works in an urban community district. I want to assure you that a single community district in Chicago is WAY bigger than the city of Wasilla, and quite possibly on par with the whole state of Alaska.
The Economist Blog, Irreverent Comment 9/9/08
 
Wow. Just wow.

Obama's resume looks stunning in comparison. All those years in tax payer funded jobs is astounding.

Palin on the other hand, man I would rather vote for a school lunch lady. How pathetic. Only starting out at the bottom of the barrel and working her way up to a lowly governor of a state everyone makes fun of. Unbelievable. No experience whatsoever. Whoever votes for such a lying inexperienced religious nut- hick is a true imbecile.
 
"In June 2008, speaking at Wasilla Assembly of God, Palin stated that she'd work to implement God's will from the governor's office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets."

...what?

Seriously, what?
 
Didn't know about Alaska Oil and Gas. Maybe if she wins it'll be her skipping around the White House lawn holding hands with Saudi sultans instead of Bush.
 
Well first most of them haven't been committed in the name of Atheism. Yes atheists have done horrible things and created movements but I in history class never learned about something being done specifically in the name of atheism.

Second though atheism in a way is an organized religion for lack of better words. Thus you can lump it in with them. Im happy to be a good ole agnostic. You will never find an agnostic killing in the name of something......because we wont ever admit that something exists without evidence and even then will probally be skeptical ;) I could meet God and my response would be ok and how did you come to exist.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Well first most of them haven't been committed in the name of Atheism. Yes atheists have done horrible things and created movements but I in history class never learned about something being done specifically in the name of atheism.[/quote]

Well maybe today you can learn something then.

Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938.[38] During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, after the NKVD had recruited the new metropolitan, the first after the revolution, as a secret agent. Thousands of parishes were reactivated until a further round of suppression in Khrushchev's time.
Click to expand...

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

It's not fair to separate atheism from Communist regimes - after all athiesm is not a form of government, simply a belief (or lack of belief, if you will). Trying to separate atheism from communist regimes is trying to separate an egg from a baked cake.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']When entering this discussion, one ultimately, usually, concludes that it's really not that useful to look for religious affiliation or lack thereof when looking for modern patterns in violence.[/quote]

I vehemently disagree.

A rational, objective mind cannot simply take the position of moral relativism in this regard, IE that there is no correlation between a specific religion and an individual's violent behavior (or any other form of human behavior for that matter) in the modern world. I think this is patently untrue.

Just the fact that you put "modern" in your statement belies your point. I think we can all agree that past cultures such as the ancient Greeks, ancient Romans, or Vikings acted the way they did in part because the mainstream religions of their day promoted violence and shunned mercy. The people of those religions had different interpretations of their religions to be sure, but as a whole they were more violent because of their beliefs.

In respect to religion, what has magically changed between then and now that makes religion so irrelevant in the decision process of a modern person? Just looking at the way the people of x religion vote or the number of places bombed in the name of proves your point wrong.
 
[quote name='camoor']Well maybe today you can learn something then.



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

It's not fair to separate atheism from Communist regimes - after all athiesm is not a form of government, simply a belief (or lack of belief, if you will). Trying to separate atheism from communist regimes is trying to separate an egg from a baked cake.[/QUOTE]

I dont think that its fair though to say this was done in the name of atheism though. It was a power hungry dictator and his cronies who had a choke hold on power. How many of them do you think were doing this because they were atheists? Few, the reason these people go after churches is largely because of the power over the people they have. They take on religion not because they are atheists but because they see them as a threat. And the people that work for them again are not doing it because of some vendeta or a belief but because its what keeps food in their mouths and themselves out of jail.

I cant think of a single time in history where people because of a lack of a belief in God did something on the level we are talking about. However there are plenty of examples like the Crusades or the Irish fighting over religion where we can see not just leaders killing in the name of God, but also the people standing up and happily doing it. Hell we still have Christian morons killing gays and bombing abortion clinics, how often do you hear of Atheists doing stuff like that? Rarely if not ever because it just wouldn't make sense.
 
[quote name='camoor']I vehemently disagree.

A rational, objective mind cannot simply take the position of moral relativism in this regard, IE that there is no correlation between a specific religion and an individual's violent behavior (or any other form of human behavior for that matter) in the modern world. I think this is patently untrue. [/quote]
Sometimes there is a correlation. I'm not saying there isn't anymore. I'm saying that violent dangerous people, in general, are going to be violent and dangerous. They will look for reasons to be and excuses to be. If it isn't religion they find to excuse their actions, it will be something else. And TODAY, especially, looking for only religious violent criminals doesn't serve any good for society, other than fuel the atheistic lynch mob mentality.

Just the fact that you put "modern" in your statement belies your point. I think we can all agree that past cultures such as the ancient Greeks, ancient Romans, or Vikings acted the way they did in part because the mainstream religions of their day promoted violence and shunned mercy. The people of those religions had different interpretations of their religions to be sure, but as a whole they were more violent because of their beliefs.
Click to expand...
My entire statement hinges on the use of the word "modern". Entire nations usually don't go to war any more over because of a singular religion (except for maybe the Sudan). It's become very rare. It has gone from being the main reason to go to war to an extremely rare case.

But when examining individuals running around being violent, like I said above, I think looking for patterns of religious affiliation in random acts of violence isn't productive. The disturbed violent mind will find any excuse they can, that's usually illogical, to be as they are.

The REASON it isn't productive to do so, is because simply looking at lists of murderers etc, and finding the ones that claim they did it for religious reasons is only half a step away from the "See!!!! Religion is dangerous!" crowd. But scientifically, that doesn't prove any such thing when you study the criminal mind's need for finding a philisophical outlet bigger than life for their actions.

In a nutshell, what I'm babbling about: Had those religious violent extremists never known what religion was, there is no evidence they would be any less violent.

In respect to religion, what has magically changed between then and now that makes religion so irrelevant in the decision process of a modern person?
Click to expand...
It doesn't make it irrelevant, it just doesn't prove anything about religion. It just proves that the criminal minded need passionate religious type beliefs to carry out their actions.


[quote name='MSI Magus']I dont think that its fair though to say this was done in the name of atheism though. It was a power hungry dictator and his cronies who had a choke hold on power. How many of them do you think were doing this because they were atheists? Few, the reason these people go after churches is largely because of the power over the people they have. They take on religion not because they are atheists but because they see them as a threat. And the people that work for them again are not doing it because of some vendeta or a belief but because its what keeps food in their mouths and themselves out of jail.

I cant think of a single time in history where people because of a lack of a belief in God did something on the level we are talking about. However there are plenty of examples like the Crusades or the Irish fighting over religion where we can see not just leaders killing in the name of God, but also the people standing up and happily doing it. Hell we still have Christian morons killing gays and bombing abortion clinics, how often do you hear of Atheists doing stuff like that? Rarely if not ever because it just wouldn't make sense.[/QUOTE]

Well your are largely splitting hairs. Since there is no organized Atheist body to dictate organizational agendas etc, they are hard to compare. So all we have to go on is belief. Many atheists have massive disdain for religion, and that disdain has lead to brutal mass violence. So for many people, including me, that's very comparable to a country going to war over a religious belief.

However, the mass murderers mentioned in this thread also believed that "religion was poison" and organized religion was a threat to all that was good and decent. You hear many of these types of things even mentioned here in this thread. Stalin and Pol Pot believed the same things and said the same things, they just had the power to do something about it and did.
 
[quote name='camoor']Well it's been done to death, I wish I had a handy copy-paste. I'll just throw out Stalin's brand of Communism and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge as good examples of what I'm talking about.[/quote]

Yeah, exactly what I expected. Don't post about this anymore.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I dont think that its fair though to say this was done in the name of atheism though. It was a power hungry dictator and his cronies who had a choke hold on power. How many of them do you think were doing this because they were atheists? Few, the reason these people go after churches is largely because of the power over the people they have. They take on religion not because they are atheists but because they see them as a threat. And the people that work for them again are not doing it because of some vendeta or a belief but because its what keeps food in their mouths and themselves out of jail.[/quote]

We're getting a little far off the beaten path here. My only contention was that you were incorrect in saying "nothing on this planet more stupid, annoying, wrong and deadly then organized religion". The ideology of Stalin's Russia exempted organized religion and it was one of the most deadly regimes in world history (if not the deadliest).

Plus there are many organized religions whose ideologies have not been used to perpetrate a significant amount of "stupid, annoying, wrong and deadly" actions. I noticed your examples keep citing the same Abrahamic religions, there are other religions out there...
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']My entire statement hinges on the use of the word "modern". Entire nations usually don't go to war any more over because of a singular religion (except for maybe the Sudan). It's become very rare. It has gone from being the main reason to go to war to an extremely rare case. [/quote]

I don't know that it was routinely the "main reason" for war in the past, likewise I'm not sold that it's "extremely rare" for religious differences to be a deciding factor to go to war in modern times.

Maybe European nations used it as a rallying cry, and doubtless the vagaries and arcane rules of differing dogmatic Christian sects did lead to more strife then would have happened otherwise, but methinks the Kings were more intrigued by power and gold then whether the book of psalms should be read in French or Latin. Likewise with any other historical periods in which religious wars were fought that I can think of at this moment.

On the flip side, let's take an example close to our times. Bush W. was at least partially elected due to his deeply dogmatic religious beliefs, and his presidency made the decision to go to war with Afganistan and Iraq. Bush W. has admitted he is being guided not by his real father, but his "heavenly father". Had America chosen the candidates who were less motivated by their religion, do you deny that the decision to go to war would have been different?
 
[quote name='camoor']We're getting a little far off the beaten path here. My only contention was that you were incorrect in saying "nothing on this planet more stupid, annoying, wrong and deadly then organized religion". The ideology of Stalin's Russia exempted organized religion and it was one of the most deadly regimes in world history (if not the deadliest).

Plus there are many organized religions whose ideologies have not been used to perpetrate a significant amount of "stupid, annoying, wrong and deadly" actions. I noticed your examples keep citing the same Abrahamic religions, there are other religions out there...[/QUOTE]

I stick by my statement. I mean yes you can say that humans, then unstable people or certain other things that would indeed be better off. But organized religion is a disgusting thing that I would rather see fade away. You keep bringing up Stalin but as I said first off even if he was an atheist I gurantee you many of his soldiers wernt and he did not carry out his actions in the name of his atheist views. As I stated we have seen everyone from politicians to the common man to the religious leaders themselves wage wars and crimes against humanity in the past and in modern day society in the name of religion. Point out 1 person that has claimed what they are doing was in the name of atheism, and make it someone where most following them fervently believed in atheism as well. I doubt you can.

As for the fact that im focusing on Abrahamic religions yes I realize there are many more out there, its just their guilty of the most sins that im aware of and their followers are frequently insane deusch bags and hypocrites(iv only meet a few Christians ever that truely followed their good books teachings or understood its meanings). Im well aware of numerous other religions and that some of them are largely peaceful and have done great things. Hinduism and Buddhism are both great, and on the modern end my fiancee is a "Unitarian Universalist" which is a new religion that does not teach 1 message it teaches general positive focused messages and also has guest speakers from many other religions to enlighten its congregation. I think its amazingly brilliant and I love it....love it enough that I thought about joining it at one point and fulfilling a dream of becoming a pastor(yep iv thought about it). However I firmly believe that organized religion is wrong at its core. Even if a religion teaches great things and is largely a peaceful religion its just too easy to corrupt and its too hard to not have other religions that arnt peaceful exist and persecute those not part of it.
 
I don't understand why Sarah Palin appears to be helping the McCain ticket. I watched her acceptance speech again today (well, I could only stand to re-watch parts of it after originally watching the entire thing) and, I must say, she was snide, smug, and mean-spirited. I can't imagine that that tactic would appeal to many women voters.

The only thing I can think of is that she appealed to the "Bubba" voters that were otherwise tepid regarding McCain and his less-than-ideal conservative credentials. Could a VP pick really make that much of a difference? Historically speaking, no, but this may be a unique case where McCain had to energize the base of his party more than independents/swing voters.

I thought it was a bad pick when he made it, but I'm beginning to think I was wrong. McCain, it seems, may have been crazy like a fox.
 
[quote name='camoor']We're getting a little far off the beaten path here. My only contention was that you were incorrect in saying "nothing on this planet more stupid, annoying, wrong and deadly then organized religion". The ideology of Stalin's Russia exempted organized religion and it was one of the most deadly regimes in world history (if not the deadliest). [/quote]
I want to point out that, also, is my only contention. That comment is not only full of intolerance and hate, it's incorrect.

Plus there are many organized religions whose ideologies have not been used to perpetrate a significant amount of "stupid, annoying, wrong and deadly" actions. I noticed your examples keep citing the same Abrahamic religions, there are other religions out there...
Click to expand...

[quote name='camoor']
Maybe European nations used it as a rallying cry, and doubtless the vagaries and arcane rules of differing dogmatic Christian sects did lead to more strife then would have happened otherwise, but methinks the Kings were more intrigued by power and gold then whether the book of psalms should be read in French or Latin. Likewise with any other historical periods in which religious wars were fought that I can think of at this moment.[/quote]
That's mostly what I am talking about. And the crusades are usually what the anti-religionists use as examples when trying to justify quotes like above.

Had America chosen the candidates who were less motivated by their religion, do you deny that the decision to go to war would have been different?
Click to expand...
I honestly don't think religion got us into the war in Iraq or had much to do with it. I think had there been different leaders, we may not have gone to war, but it wouldn't be because of different or no religion affiliations.

[quote name='MSI Magus']I stick by my statement. I mean yes you can say that humans, then unstable people or certain other things that would indeed be better off. But organized religion is a disgusting thing that I would rather see fade away. [/QUOTE]
I read this and it occurred to me that I have some Vegan friends that feel the same way about meat consumption. In fact, if someone were to determine that most violent people eat meat, you could use almost the same logic as you are using against religion for the abolishment of meat.
Just food for thought.
 
[quote name='crunchb3rry']Didn't know about Alaska Oil and Gas. Maybe if she wins it'll be her skipping around the White House lawn holding hands with Saudi sultans instead of Bush.[/QUOTE]

Don't be so sure. She quit the commission, accusing another member (who happened to be the Republican Party chairman for Alaska) of corruption, for which he was forced to resign and pay a fine. Then, as governor, she has forced the oil companies to pay a bigger share to Alaska and resisted their attempt to get state funding for a natural gas pipeline (for which they found the funds, magically, after she negotiated an alternate deal with a Canadian company with much less taxpayer incentives).
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I want to point out that, also, is my only contention. That comment is not only full of intolerance and hate, it's incorrect.




That's mostly what I am talking about. And the crusades are usually what the anti-religionists use as examples when trying to justify quotes like above.


I honestly don't think religion got us into the war in Iraq or had much to do with it. I think had there been different leaders, we may not have gone to war, but it wouldn't be because of different or no religion affiliations.


I read this and it occurred to me that I have some Vegan friends that feel the same way about meat consumption. In fact, if someone were to determine that most violent people eat meat, you could use almost the same logic as you are using against religion for the abolishment of meat.
Just food for thought.[/QUOTE]

Iv been ignoring most of your posts since you refuse to use logic, but this one caught my attention and it seems like you actually tried to put forth a debate sooooo. The example you give isnt a logical one, I can understand where it seems like it would be, but look at it this way. Have meat eaters ever directly done violent things in the name of meat? Maybe you could make a case that most meat eaters are violent because most people that eat meat are violent. But if you reread my posts I have made the point that not just are most religious people morons or some blanket statement like that, but these religious people commit the atrocious acts in the name of their religion or their religious beliefs.

Again if you want to come up with an example then give one where people are directly doing things in the name of something or believing its right because of something. You can argue that meat makes people more violent and there actually is a logical scientific basis to that argument. But you cant argue that anyone has ever commited a violent act thinking this is for the meat or the meat told me to.
 
[quote name='camoor']Do us all a favor and don't post anymore.[/quote]

I'm not the one who used the generic Christian apologist talking points to somehow equate atheism with religion, even though one is a belief system with a codified set of principles and one is, ya know, not. By bringing up Stalin's brand of communism as a proof of atheism leading to violence without somehow realizing that Stalin's cult-of-personality that replaced god with him was in fact a de facto religion shows that you have no real interest in thinking critically about such matters and would rather parrot the same tired apologia instead of presenting any actual ideas.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I honestly don't think religion got us into the war in Iraq or had much to do with it. I think had there been different leaders, we may not have gone to war, but it wouldn't be because of different or no religion affiliations.[/quote]

Yeah - in retrospect it's not easy to determine the relationship of religion to the Iraq war. In the last election America was split down the middle between the "father figure" candidate (Bush W., who stood for modern conservative values and strong religious beliefs) and the "intelligentsia" candidate (Kerry, who was too busy crafting nuanced positions, weighing his options, and keeping several disparate groups in the fold). IMO the elections seem to be falling in this pattern - with Republicans using the religious right vote to eke out a win every time. I definately think it's scary to think that Bush W. based some of his decisions on talking with his "heavenly father". But it's true that the Iraq war had a more passive relationship with religion, even with the quotes of Bush calling it a "crusade". You could make an arguement it was part revenge, you could say an underlying motivation was the spread of democracy, you could definately point out the snow job pulled on American people using shaky intelligence, but this war was definately not sold to America on religious grounds.

Otherwise I completely agree - I often think it's interesting how we sometimes think on parallel lines but then come to different conclusions.

[quote name='evanft']I'm not the one who used the generic Christian apologist talking points to somehow equate atheism with religion, even though one is a belief system with a codified set of principles and one is, ya know, not. By bringing up Stalin's brand of communism as a proof of atheism leading to violence without somehow realizing that Stalin's cult-of-personality that replaced god with him was in fact a de facto religion shows that you have no real interest in thinking critically about such matters and would rather parrot the same tired apologia instead of presenting any actual ideas.[/quote]

Oh calm down.

You're making this a semantics arguement. What is atheism to you? Has there ever been a pure athiestic state in your opinion? If we're talking hypotheticals, the best I'll be able to do is pull brilliant literary works like "Brave New World" off the shelf as examples of why the theory that religion is more "stupid, annoying, wrong and deadly" then anything else is blatantly wrong.

Again going off the beaten path, but I subscribe to the Jungian theory is that most people like father figures, and this ain't going to change just because you take away their religion.
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah - in retrospect it's not easy to determine the relationship of religion to the Iraq war. In the last election America was split down the middle between the "father figure" candidate (Bush W., who stood for modern conservative values and strong religious beliefs) and the "intelligentsia" candidate (Kerry, who was too busy crafting nuanced positions, weighing his options, and keeping several disparate groups in the fold). IMO the elections seem to be falling in this pattern - with Republicans using the religious right vote to eke out a win every time. I definately think it's scary to think that Bush W. based some of his decisions on talking with his "heavenly father". But it's true that the Iraq war had a more passive relationship with religion, even with the quotes of Bush calling it a "crusade". You could make an arguement it was part revenge, you could say an underlying motivation was the spread of democracy, you could definately point out the snow job pulled on American people using shaky intelligence, but this war was definately not sold to America on religious grounds.

Otherwise I completely agree - I often think it's interesting how we sometimes think on parallel lines but then come to different conclusions.

I agree with you though that these elections are starting to largly come down to Religion and that conservatives are winning because they are playing off Americans fears that Democrats go against their religious values. Its sickening, but hey we want to be a religious nation so just chalk our moronic politics up to another great legacy of religion.



Oh calm down.

You're making this a semantics arguement. What is atheism to you? Has there ever been a pure athiestic state in your opinion? If we're talking hypotheticals, the best I'll be able to do is pull brilliant literary works like "Brave New World" off the shelf as examples of why the theory that religion is more "stupid, annoying, wrong and deadly" then anything else is blatantly wrong.

Again going off the beaten path, but I subscribe to the Jungian theory is that most people like father figures, and this ain't going to change just because you take away their religion.[/QUOTE]

If we want to get really technical about it you could argue if Bush wasnt in office we wouldnt have had the Iraq war. Bush only made it in to office because of as you stated Religion. Or you could look at it this way. What is the reason that we were attacked on 9/11? Conservatives love to paint it as they hate us because of our success, religion and ideals(so the war was sold to us in part as a religious war), but truth is that we pissed them off by years before building bases and entering into what they saw as Holy Lands. Religion rears its ugly head again.

I think that most major wars(and even minor ones)you can go back and find religion playing atleast a minor if not a major role in.

And again you quote me in a horrid way to evanft so again I ask you to show me anywhere in history that atheists have rose up and committed atrocious acts in the name of atheism or because they were atheists. As I said you wont be able to do it because its never happened. As iv said atheists have done horrible things, but not because they are atheists, just because they have been horrible people.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']If we want to get really technical about it you could argue if Bush wasnt in office we wouldnt have had the Iraq war. Bush only made it in to office because of as you stated Religion. Or you could look at it this way. What is the reason that we were attacked on 9/11? Conservatives love to paint it as they hate us because of our success, religion and ideals(so the war was sold to us in part as a religious war), but truth is that we pissed them off by years before building bases and entering into what they saw as Holy Lands. Religion rears its ugly head again.

I think that most major wars(and even minor ones)you can go back and find religion playing atleast a minor if not a major role in.

And again you quote me in a horrid way to evanft so again I ask you to show me anywhere in history that atheists have rose up and committed atrocious acts in the name of atheism or because they were atheists. As I said you wont be able to do it because its never happened. As iv said atheists have done horrible things, but not because they are atheists, just because they have been horrible people.[/quote]

The first two paragraphs are an opinion - I can see your logic and I partially agree - I'll leave it at that.

As for your request to "show me anywhere in history that atheists have rose up and committed atrocious acts in the name of atheism" - I'd have to say "show me anywhere in history that a group of atheists have risen up and committed any type of significant historical action in the name of atheism" I mean, if you're going to take the evanft tact of discounting athiests such as Communists as 'fake athiests involved in a cult of personality' (which is :bs: IMO), then who are these 'real' athiests and what have they ever done that was historically significant?
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']As iv said atheists have done horrible things, but not because they are atheists, just because they have been horrible people.[/quote]

This is the ultimate cop-out BTW. Atheists remain these elusive creatures - always-neutral, perpetually calm. As soon as an athiest does something horrible, their athiesm dissappears and it was due to some other reason.

If your point has become so meaningless that it's just people generally don't do things in the name of atheism, then I say OK (although Marx might disagree). In any case people do horrible things in name of atheist beliefs or ideologies, things that rival or eclipse the horrible things people do in the name of religion.
 
Any action by an atheist SHOULDNT be in the name of atheism. Its not that analogous to a religion.

I imagine there are lots of them in the scientific community, but their fruits arent going to be attributed to their lack of faith.
 
[quote name='camoor']The first two paragraphs are an opinion - I can see your logic and I partially agree - I'll leave it at that.

As for your request to "show me anywhere in history that atheists have rose up and committed atrocious acts in the name of atheism" - I'd have to say "show me anywhere in history that a group of atheists have risen up and committed any type of significant historical action in the name of atheism" I mean, if you're going to take the evanft tact of discounting athiests such as Communists as 'fake athiests involved in a cult of personality' (which is :bs: IMO), then who are these 'real' athiests and what have they ever done that was historically significant?[/QUOTE]

Real atheists never have done anything significant that im aware of. That just goes to my point. And you can say its BS to discount Stalin and the others but as I said did he say he was doing it in the name of atheism? Were his followers all atheists driven to commit the grave sins they did because they were atheist? No, Stalin was a crazy fucker that always wanted to overthrow the system and pretty much watch the world burn. I mean read his bio and some of the stuff he did as a teenager and a young adult. He was never driven by his lack of a belief in god, more just his craziness and hatred of the system.

And btw even if atheists did commit these acts in the name of atheism(which they didnt)that would still go to proove my point since Atheism itself is an organized belief system itself. You can call it that or call it religion....its the same thing and its ugly. Faith isnt a bad thing nor is lack of faith....but when you start getting people together thinking theirs is right bad shit happens. Bush proved it, Alexander the Great proved it, Hitler proved it and in your view your even saynig Stalin proved it. Im sure Palin will after taking over for McCain prove it as well.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Real atheists never have done anything significant that im aware of.[/quote]No True Scotsman?
[quote name='MSI Magus']That just goes to my point. And you can say its BS to discount Stalin and the others but as I said did he say he was doing it in the name of atheism?[/quote]Okay, that's better.
[quote name='MSI Magus']And btw even if atheists did commit these acts in the name of atheism(which they didnt)that would still go to proove my point since Atheism itself is an organized belief system itself.[/quote]Lolwut? It ain't a belief system, and it's about as organized as a herd of fucking cats.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']No True Scotsman?
Okay, that's better.
Lolwut? It ain't a belief system, and it's about as organized as a herd of fucking cats.[/QUOTE]

It is a belief system for lack of better words, and it is organized. Hell they even have an association for atheism now that sends lobyists to congress. You cant get much more organized then that. Yes atheists dont believe in God or in a set of strict principles about what happans when you die. However, they have clearly made up their minds on the fact that there is no god and organized around that belief, thus I call it a belief system.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']It is a belief system for lack of better words, and it is organized. Hell they even have an association for atheism now that sends lobyists to congress. You cant get much more organized then that.[/quote]Yes you can. You could... you know, agree on a set of principles or something.
[quote name='MSI Magus']However, they have clearly made up their minds on the fact that there is no god and organized around that belief...[/quote] That's ignoring a subtlety or two (billions), but that's for another thread, I think.[quote name='MSI Magus']thus I call it a belief system.[/quote]So... because we mostly agree on one thing, we have a belief system? Shit, what isn't a belief system by that definition?

Now, if you were to say humanism or something, then I could go with that. That has, y'know... morals and tenets and all that.

Oh, and as far as the "atheists doing shit in the name of atheism" category: how about the anarchists of the Spanish Civil War burning churches and all that? I'm a little fuzzy on the topic (not helped by propaganda from the Nationalist side) so it might have had more to do with the abuses of the Church than anything else...
 
This conversation is pointless and off-topic, so let me add some thoughts.

First, I'm not one to say that organized religion is the most horrible thing to ever happen. It certainly has its upsides. The danger is in any organization that finds it justifiable to harm/kill people who are different from them. Organized religion just fits that more often than not because there is usually no room for dissent as all things are unverifiable and based on faith and reliance on authority. There are certainly plenty of organized religions that don't fit that mold (and a lot of the time they're the first to go when the others decide they're different enough...).

So, I don't think that it's fair to say that Stalin's purges were inspired by atheism or comparable to something like the crusades in that respect. Now, I'd also say that most wars aren't fought because of religion (or liberty or democracy, unless its your own), but rather because a ruler wants land/power/money and is willing to dupe his/her followers into dying for it. Religion is a tool (and one of the most effective ones) used to rally people against others who are different from them. You don't need a religion to do it, but it works so very well - race/ethnicity would be the runner-up.

In the case of Stalin, his policy was certainly atheistic, but did he rally atheists to kill the religious because they were religious? I don't know that he did, and I think that's the key. In the crusades, the kings may not have really given a shit about the religious differences personally, but it was certainly one of the top reasons why people would fight for them and (other than race) the only real difference between the English and the Muslims/Jews they killed. In the case of Stalin I think the difference was political ideology. It was his political organization that found it justifiable to kill those who were different, rather than a religious one.

Also, MSI, I think you're trying to have it both ways by saying atheists, once organized, become an organized religion and are therefore an example of the badness of organized religion. I agree with you that if they did such a thing it would be an example of where organized religions go wrong (ie, what I said earlier), but they would still be atheists and would be killing in the name of atheism. The reason I would say that this hasn't happened is because atheism isn't organized and has few things on which to organize as I can't think of an atheistic authority structure that would be accepted on faith by atheists.
 
Comparing action/inaction between atheism/theism is pointless because, inherently, atheism plays no role in an atheist's decisions. Theism plays a role in a theist's decisions, both good and bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top