Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.
People who believe in absurdities can be convinced to commit atrocities.
That accounts for ALL belief systems, especially those modelled on religion such as Stalin's Soviet and the N. Korean regime.
That is one more reason that I am an Atheist; it means NOT succumbing to belief.
https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress ... -hitchens/
That accounts for ALL belief systems, especially those modelled on religion such as Stalin's Soviet and the N. Korean regime.
That is one more reason that I am an Atheist; it means NOT succumbing to belief.
https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress ... -hitchens/
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.
The vast majority have been the religious forever.Immanuel Can wrote:You missed the worst one: the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, in which my relatives, who were more like the Waldenses than the Catholics, actually, were killed and driven out.Greatest I am wrote: For instance, in the Cathars and the Waldensians Inquisitions, Christianity wiped out almost half of France.
But I'm not a Catholic. And your statistics are wildly wrong, even proportionally.
Even accounting for population increase, WW1 and WW2 were unprecedented in the disproportionate numbers killed. Add the Russian Revolution, the Soviet Purges, Mao's China, the Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot, Korea...
It ain't even close.
Go ahead and blame the minority if you like.
Regards
DL
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.
+ 1Dubious wrote:The mass murderer's of the 20th century or any other century, whether or not they were religious god believers, had their agendas and once in power proceeded to fulfill them. Religion in any guise would not have prevented or endorsed it. Theists only use it as a clause to justify how good they are in the eyes of god compared to the evil atheist. Aside which to think that these perpetrators were without religion is one of the myths of the 20th century.
The hypocrisy of the majority.
Regards
DL
Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.
These debates are so stupid - the one side expands the notion of 'atheist' to include the most 20th century atrocities and the other side exaggerates the influence of religion on world leaders and populations. All in a tit for tat effort to lay the most murders on the opponent's historical allies.Greatest I am wrote:+ 1Dubious wrote:The mass murderer's of the 20th century or any other century, whether or not they were religious god believers, had their agendas and once in power proceeded to fulfill them. Religion in any guise would not have prevented or endorsed it. Theists only use it as a clause to justify how good they are in the eyes of god compared to the evil atheist. Aside which to think that these perpetrators were without religion is one of the myths of the 20th century.
The hypocrisy of the majority.
Regards
DL
Why not talk about the present rather than the past? Who is committing atrocities now and why? For instance, America's wars in the mid east have nothing to do with Christianity, but with a combination of retribution for 911 (Afghanistan) and the idiotic idea that Western democracy and values can and ought to be spread around the world to help oppressed peoples preserve their 'human rights.' The atrocities of the Muslims are religious-based for the most part (Isis, Taliban) and those of the West are politically-based. Rwanda was based on racial hatred and tribalism - Bosnia was a combination of racial and religious hatred. North Korea's starvation is a result of totalitarian government.
My point is, that atrocities should be fought against, not because of their motivations, but because of their results. And minimizing one atrocity over another for political or religious reasons, or interpreting historical atrocities according to those same reasons, is plain wrong and stupid. The polarization in Western culture between left and right will destroy it if we are not careful.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.
What a croc of shite!Wyman wrote: For instance, America's wars in the mid east have nothing to do with Christianity,.
The US government and Israeli governments are the chief motivating forces for these wars, and BOTH are highly motivated by their religious populations.
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.
True. It is divisive and does not allow fort a middle ground.Wyman wrote:These debates are so stupid - the one side expands the notion of 'atheist' to include the most 20th century atrocities and the other side exaggerates the influence of religion on world leaders and populations. All in a tit for tat effort to lay the most murders on the opponent's historical allies.Greatest I am wrote:+ 1Dubious wrote:The mass murderer's of the 20th century or any other century, whether or not they were religious god believers, had their agendas and once in power proceeded to fulfill them. Religion in any guise would not have prevented or endorsed it. Theists only use it as a clause to justify how good they are in the eyes of god compared to the evil atheist. Aside which to think that these perpetrators were without religion is one of the myths of the 20th century.
The hypocrisy of the majority.
Regards
DL
Why not talk about the present rather than the past? Who is committing atrocities now and why? For instance, America's wars in the mid east have nothing to do with Christianity, but with a combination of retribution for 911 (Afghanistan) and the idiotic idea that Western democracy and values can and ought to be spread around the world to help oppressed peoples preserve their 'human rights.' The atrocities of the Muslims are religious-based for the most part (Isis, Taliban) and those of the West are politically-based. Rwanda was based on racial hatred and tribalism - Bosnia was a combination of racial and religious hatred. North Korea's starvation is a result of totalitarian government.
My point is, that atrocities should be fought against, not because of their motivations, but because of their results. And minimizing one atrocity over another for political or religious reasons, or interpreting historical atrocities according to those same reasons, is plain wrong and stupid. The polarization in Western culture between left and right will destroy it if we are not careful.
"idiotic idea that Western democracy and values can and ought to be spread around the world to help oppressed peoples preserve their 'human rights."
I do not see that as idiotic but do see it as the first duty of free people to insure that all share in the freedom and human rights we have.
That was the logic behind not trading with countries who sell products made by slave labor children. That same logic says that the West cannot compete in an open market with countries who hold slaves.
Regards
DL
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22457
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.
If they did, they couldn't be more wrong. But they'll never believe that, so why point it out, I guess.Londoner wrote:Immanuel Can wrote:I'm sure they would say the same is the true motivation of your own attitude to Muslims, atheists etc.
One of the cardinal values -- maybe the most important value -- of Christianity is the freedom of conscience. You can discuss with people, debate, argue and proselytize as much as you see fit; but you cannot ever hide truth, indoctrinate or coerce, because the minute you do, you've subverted conscience. Only by a truly conscientious turning to God is anyone ever saved...so to undermine that is literally to be working against God.
So if Atheists decide to be Atheists, a Christian can debate them, implore them, inform them, argue with them, and so on. Or if a Muslim wants to be a Muslim, the same applies. But at the end of the day, every person has to be allowed to stand on his or her conscience.
The only incentive for a Christian to undertake debate, then, is to try to do good to those to whom he or she speaks, by way of convincing their consciences of what the Christian knows to be the truth. Beyond that, no tactics are legit.
That's why Christianity produced (and indirectly, still undergirds) the liberal democratic society (so long as it can). Atheism produces totalitarianism. Islam produces closed, authoritarian religious regimes. And you can find no country on earth that is run by Islam or a self-declared Atheist regime that is not an absolute disaster in regard to human rights and freedom of conscience. Nobody in their right mind wants to live in either place, but everybody from those horrid places is in a fevered rush to get into the post-Christian democracies.
Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.
That is sometimes the attitude of Christians, sometimes not. In nations where Christianity was the state religion, Christians have indoctrinated and coerced those they disagree with. Nor do I observe that self-identifying Christians on these boards tend to go in for much discussion or debate regarding Muslims or atheists, rather I see a crude condemnation.Immanuel Can wrote: If they did, they couldn't be more wrong. But they'll never believe that, so why point it out, I guess.
One of the cardinal values -- maybe the most important value -- of Christianity is the freedom of conscience. You can discuss with people, debate, argue and proselytize as much as you see fit; but you cannot ever hide truth, indoctrinate or coerce, because the minute you do, you've subverted conscience. Only by a truly conscientious turning to God is anyone ever saved...so to undermine that is literally to be working against God.
I suspect that Christian claims of being liberal are often just making a virtue of the fact that they are currently unable to persecute atheists and other religions in the way that they would like to.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22457
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.
That's true of High Anglicanism and Catholicism, because both of those believe salvation CAN be coerced. It can be coerced, they think, because you are saved by "being in the church," as they see it.Londoner wrote:In nations where Christianity was the state religion, Christians have indoctrinated and coerced those they disagree with.
Likewise Islam. In Islam, your private belief is maybe nice, but really not consequential. It's your public "submission" that is crucial. Islam is a very political religion, not one of private conscience.
But Christianity, if one looks at what it actually teaches, denies that any such thing is possible. Faith -- belief -- is an absolute sine qua non of salvation. You have to really believe, or you just cannot be saved.
So how many Quaker bombers can you list? How many evangelical terrorists? How many Anabaptist mullahs? How many Pentecostal Jihads? There are reasons why the answer is "none."
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.
I have only one comment.Londoner wrote:[
I suspect that Christian claims of being liberal are often just making a virtue of the fact that they are currently unable to persecute atheists and other religions in the way that they would like to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYV7KWQ-fY4
Regards
DL
- Greatest I am
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm
Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.
Coerced, or conned?Immanuel Can wrote:That's true of High Anglicanism and Catholicism, because both of those believe salvation CAN be coerced. It can be coerced, they think, because you are saved by "being in the church," as they see it.Londoner wrote:In nations where Christianity was the state religion, Christians have indoctrinated and coerced those they disagree with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=668D_MeV1nY
Regards
DL
Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.
Stupid yes in some ways not so much in other ways. It's been endlessly reiterated by theists that the atrocities of the 20th century were committed by atheists. That view has been debunked and needs to be reasserted. To repeat, the mass-murderers of the period, couldn't care less about religion or simply made it subordinate to their political agendas. If useful, they used it; if not, they ignored it. It was theists who made it into an accusation when in fact it has no reference either way. These guys were going to do what they intended with barely any other factors considered.Wyman wrote:
These debates are so stupid - the one side expands the notion of 'atheist' to include the most 20th century atrocities and the other side exaggerates the influence of religion on world leaders and populations. All in a tit for tat effort to lay the most murders on the opponent's historical allies.
The tenets of Christianity, the belief that Christ is god has been the greatest and longest reigning lie in Western Civilization. The ones who remain still subject to its millennial deceptions only do so because of some future event called the Last Judgement the worst consequences of which they hope to avoid by becoming among the saved. What a load of crap, hardly digestible by an adult mind to think we're that important in the cosmos.
There may indeed be a last judgement in slow motion happening now centered in nature determining our future success on this planet since the godlike creatures on it are rapidly turning it into a hell. What are the odds of any god saving us from that.
Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.
You're stuck in the 1950s. Religious nuts are not mainstream in the US anymore and all they seem to care about is abortion and homosexuals these days, not war. The dems and repubs all wanted to go into Iraq to 'stabilize' the middle east, as if that's possible - I don't even know that the religious conservatives were strongly for it or not. Like I said, the liberals were for it as well, and the republicans for it were called 'neo-conservatives' or 'neo-cons' - hardly a name for your typical conservative religious nut. Neo-cons were a different breed - Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted to insert a presence in the mid-east to protect US (oil) interests. Nothing about religion. In fact the US' strongest ally was Saudi Arabia, arguably the most strident Muslim nation in the world, where people are routinely jailed for things like having sex, being homosexual, women driving cars, etc.. We weren't allies with them because Christians like Muslims, obviously - it was all realpolitik.Hobbes' Choice wrote:What a croc of shite!Wyman wrote: For instance, America's wars in the mid east have nothing to do with Christianity,.
The US government and Israeli governments are the chief motivating forces for these wars, and BOTH are highly motivated by their religious populations.
Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.
'To repeat, the mass-murderers of the period, couldn't care less about religion or simply made it subordinate to their political agendas. If useful, they used it; if not, they ignored it.'Dubious wrote:Stupid yes in some ways not so much in other ways. It's been endlessly reiterated by theists that the atrocities of the 20th century were committed by atheists. That view has been debunked and needs to be reasserted. To repeat, the mass-murderers of the period, couldn't care less about religion or simply made it subordinate to their political agendas. If useful, they used it; if not, they ignored it. It was theists who made it into an accusation when in fact it has no reference either way. These guys were going to do what they intended with barely any other factors considered.Wyman wrote:
These debates are so stupid - the one side expands the notion of 'atheist' to include the most 20th century atrocities and the other side exaggerates the influence of religion on world leaders and populations. All in a tit for tat effort to lay the most murders on the opponent's historical allies.
The tenets of Christianity, the belief that Christ is god has been the greatest and longest reigning lie in Western Civilization. The ones who remain still subject to its millennial deceptions only do so because of some future event called the Last Judgement the worst consequences of which they hope to avoid by becoming among the saved. What a load of crap, hardly digestible by an adult mind to think we're that important in the cosmos.
There may indeed be a last judgement in slow motion happening now centered in nature determining our future success on this planet since the godlike creatures on it are rapidly turning it into a hell. What are the odds of any god saving us from that.
The same might be said about historical 'christian' leaders. The Romans switched religions when it suited them, for instance.
There is a grain of truth to the theists' position although your point is well taken. Many atheists substitute politics for religion to satisfy their moralistic tendencies. The progressive belief that history is tending toward something better often carries with it a desire to 'speed up' the process via social engineering. Marxism lends itself to such treatment - that is what Lenin was trying to do, speed up the progress of history. And given that he outlawed religion, one could plausibly call him and his political experiment 'atheistic.'
Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.
Where is Christianity the state religion? Or are you speaking of the middle ages? And if so, is it really fair to go that far back in history? Where are atheists persecuted in the modern era in the West? Should we forget the Renaissance and the Enlightenment? The 'liberal' political philosophers of the Enlightenment were theists, as were most of the scientists, such as Newton. The doctrine of natural rights and social contract were developed by theists - why would they advocate for natural rights for individual citizens which trumped the power of the State, if they wanted to persecute non-Christians?Londoner wrote:That is sometimes the attitude of Christians, sometimes not. In nations where Christianity was the state religion, Christians have indoctrinated and coerced those they disagree with. Nor do I observe that self-identifying Christians on these boards tend to go in for much discussion or debate regarding Muslims or atheists, rather I see a crude condemnation.Immanuel Can wrote: If they did, they couldn't be more wrong. But they'll never believe that, so why point it out, I guess.
One of the cardinal values -- maybe the most important value -- of Christianity is the freedom of conscience. You can discuss with people, debate, argue and proselytize as much as you see fit; but you cannot ever hide truth, indoctrinate or coerce, because the minute you do, you've subverted conscience. Only by a truly conscientious turning to God is anyone ever saved...so to undermine that is literally to be working against God.
I suspect that Christian claims of being liberal are often just making a virtue of the fact that they are currently unable to persecute atheists and other religions in the way that they would like to.