Author Topic: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century  (Read 19202 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #522 on: January 14, 2012, 03:39:58 PM »

To me, arbitrary, would be like writing a bunch of possible rights down on pieces of paper, throwing them into a hat, then randomly picking them.   Calling them arbitrary implies there's no reason behind them,  and there was.

Note the bold. Still an assertion on your part. Not an actual intelligent argument. You're still only justifying what you say with nothing else but because you say so. It does not matter what you think, it matters what you can support.

The second part is very slightly better but still does not constitute anything intelligent. Arbitrary does not necessarily, by definition, mean there was no reason behind them. It means there was no supported reason behind them, and as I've pointed out repeatedly you have given no reason for why these were called "natural" rights other than that people wanted to call them such.

Don't say there was a reason, give the reason. And before you start retreading your old, pointless assertions, it has to be a reason that indicates they had a reason for making them "natural" rights other than because they wanted to.

I'm not going to give anymore supporting reason because I'd just be repeating myself on this thread.

And the rights aren't entirely subjective since they were agreed upon by multiple observers.
Quote from: Alzael
This is seriously almost too stupid to actually comment on, Gill. It does make a good signature though. Don't you think that before you use the word subjective, you should actually know what it means?

To respond, yes, it is still entirely subjective. See the bold, that statement alone makes it subjective. If it has to be "agreed upon" then it is subjective. Objective means that it is what it is regardless of what people think.

I'm not talking about some absolute truth or scientific standard.    Multiple people, agreeing to some universal standard, is objectivity in this context.   
« Last Edit: January 14, 2012, 03:42:44 PM by Gill »

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #523 on: January 14, 2012, 03:46:31 PM »

Majority rule, that's how.   The majority of people agree that they wish to live,  not be murdered,  therefore they agree on a natural-right to live.

Which makes it entirely subjective and arbitrary. Which is what everybody has been telling you. You're the one who started trying to claim an allegiance to a "higher authority" and then used that as an excuse to justify your bigoted position that you would not vote for an atheist.

A "higher authority" which I note that you still fail to justify in anyway, shape, or form.

Well then that's an obvious problem then.   I've never been arguing that 'natural-rights' are to be seen as some scientifically objective standard.
 
Nothing in government is considered in terms of scientific objectivity, so I don't even know why anyone would think I would be doing that.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #524 on: January 14, 2012, 03:49:15 PM »
I've never been arguing that 'natural-rights' are to be seen as some scientifically objective standard.
 
Nothing in government is considered in terms of scientific objectivity, so I don't even know why anyone would think I would be doing that.

No, that is exactly what you'd been arguing:  That rights should be seen as a fact of nature, and that this would help prevent governments from arguing they be taken away or witheld.

I suppose one way to avoid telling intentional untruths is to actually forget the truth when convenient.  But it's still not honest, which is why I mentioned in the other thread that there is more to honesty than just refraining from telling intentional untruths (lies).
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #525 on: January 14, 2012, 03:55:13 PM »
I'm not going to give anymore supporting reason because I'd just be repeating myself on this thread.

Gill, the issue is that you have not given ANY supporting reason. You could not possibly be repeating yourself because you haven't done it in the first place. All you have done is repeat the same assertion over and again. Nothing has been supported.

Can you really not grasp this? If you had supported anything you said, I would not need to be asking for it as I am now.


I'm not talking about some absolute truth or scientific standard.    Multiple people, agreeing to some universal standard, is objectivity in this context.   

No. It is not. This is not what the word means. You are simply altering the definition to back up your own ignorant ideas. No matter how many times you try to claim otherwise, it is still a lie.

Stop lying, Gill. Try to display some degree of intellectual honesty, at least once.


Well then that's an obvious problem then.   I've never been arguing that 'natural-rights' are to be seen as some scientifically objective standard.
 
Nothing in government is considered in terms of scientific objectivity, so I don't even know why anyone would think I would be doing that.


Yes you are actually. You just did up above when you claimed objectivity. There is no such thing as “scientific objectivity”. Either something is objective or it isn’t. If it is, then you are making such a claim. If you are not, then you are saying that they are subjective. Which leads to the point that I made above.

So either you were lying then, or you’re lying now, or you’re just unable to comprehend even what you yourself are talking about. Which is it?
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #526 on: January 14, 2012, 04:10:16 PM »
I'm not going to give anymore supporting reason because I'd just be repeating myself on this thread.

Gill, the issue is that you have not given ANY supporting reason. You could not possibly be repeating yourself because you haven't done it in the first place. All you have done is repeat the same assertion over and again. Nothing has been supported.

Can you really not grasp this? If you had supported anything you said, I would not need to be asking for it as I am now.

I don't even know what the discussion is about at this point.   It's off topic, you seem to just be referring to me.


I'm not talking about some absolute truth or scientific standard.    Multiple people, agreeing to some universal standard, is objectivity in this context.   
Quote
No. It is not. This is not what the word means. You are simply altering the definition to back up your own ignorant ideas. No matter how many times you try to claim otherwise, it is still a lie.

Stop lying, Gill. Try to display some degree of intellectual honesty, at least once.

What does objectivity mean then to you?   I guess only you could have the true definition and understanding of it.


Well then that's an obvious problem then.   I've never been arguing that 'natural-rights' are to be seen as some scientifically objective standard.
 
Nothing in government is considered in terms of scientific objectivity, so I don't even know why anyone would think I would be doing that.
Quote

Yes you are actually. You just did up above when you claimed objectivity. There is no such thing as “scientific objectivity”. Either something is objective or it isn’t. If it is, then you are making such a claim. If you are not, then you are saying that they are subjective. Which leads to the point that I made above.

So either you were lying then, or you’re lying now, or you’re just unable to comprehend even what you yourself are talking about. Which is it?

Give me an example of what you think is objective then, because I don't follow your reasoning.   This has nothing to do with lying.   It has to do with the fact that there are different things objectivity can refer to.   I've taken physics, I understand what it means in that context.  But that meaning doesn't apply to all contexts.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #527 on: January 15, 2012, 04:00:55 PM »

I don't even know what the discussion is about at this point.   It's off topic, you seem to just be referring to me.

No, it's not off-topic. It is entirely on topic. Your lying and unwillingness to engage in an honest discussion in this thread are entirely on topic.

More to the point, if you want it to stay on the original topic then how about responding to the points made regarding the topic, which I have repeatedly asked for? Just go back to post #515, or to any of my posts before that. There were all sorts of points that I raised in regards to what was being discussed. Such as my point that by your definition “natural” rights are arbitrary. Or what I asked about the Declaration of Independence.

I have brought up many points so far in this thread that have dealt with the topic. You have simply either dodged them, or been dishonest in your responses. Which is how the issues of your behaviour became a secondary part of the topic.

1.You have been asked to provide support for your assertions.

2.You have been asked to make relevant arguments and counterarguments.

3.You have been asked to provide a logical chain of thought instead of stringing together a series of assertions that show nothing.

You have failed to do this at every turn.

This is the problem. A conversation cannot actually take place with you because you are unwilling to converse in a meaningful or intelligent manner. All you are interested in doing is repeating the same stupidity over and over again with no better justification for it the 70th time than you had the first. This is why your dishonest behaviour has become an issue of contention. Because having to read the same written resume for village idiot repeated ad nauseum by someone who is seems to not even smart enough to form a single semi-valid point is a little tiring for all involved. Myself and some of the others would like to move along, and we're waiting to see if you're ready to come sit at the adult table with the rest of us.

If you cannot do at least the three things listed above, then you are entirely useless. You have nothing to contribute to a discussion that's more complex than two kids on the playground wondering whether Superman or Batman would win in a fight (actually even that would be above your level of complexity, it would appear).

Most of us are here looking for genuine, honest debate, and intelligent conversation. We are not typically here to listen to someone spout inane theories and ideas that they can't even keep consistent (though that can be amusing on occasion). Either you can do this or you cannot. If you cannot, then you're just here to serve as an object of mockery. Someone to amuse the forum with his funny dancing and silly hats until someone comes along who can actually form a well-reasoned thought..

What does objectivity mean then to you?   I guess only you could have the true definition and understanding of it.

Don't try to be snarky, Gill. For one thing you aren't very good at it. For another, since you're the one who outright declared that he could define words however he wanted to, it's extremely hypocritical to be trying to portray me as the arrogant one for pointing out that you're using a word with a set definition the wrong way.

As a sidenote, why are you asking me what it means? Are you really that incompetent/mentally lazy that you couldn't have just looked it up in a dictionary? Which would have been much faster and easier than waiting for me to do it.

Now that we've cleared that up. Let's move on. I'll try to use simpler words so as not to confuse you.

I already explained what objectivity meant in post #515 and explained to you why it does not mean what you are clumsily attempting to use it as. However to point it out again, in order for something to be objective it must exist as it is independant of any consciousness. For example, if killing is objectively wrong then it is wrong no matter the reason that you kill. It doesn't matter whether you agree with that, it does not matter if you killed to protect your child's life, or if you killed to prevent the deaths of all life on earth. It was still wrong of you to do that.

This is not my own personal definition. This is what the word actually means within the context of the english language. So let's go over the problems and flaws with your  rather farcical definition.

[/b]1.[/b]First and foremost going back to your claim.”Multiple people, agreeing to some universal standard”.

What you have just defined here is subjective. If people must agree on it then it is subjective. Again, this is what the word means. Do you see the flaw here? I'm guessing not so let me spell it out.

You have not only changed the meaning of objective, you have redefined it with the definition of subjective.

Aside from the obvious stupidity of this, what then have you redefined subjective as? What about the words in the english language that are related to objective/subjective or that rely on them for their own definitions? How do we redefine them? Are you using the common definitions for those words still?

Which leads to a larger problem......

2.[/b]If you can redefine words to mean whatever you want, how can we possibly communicate ideas? If you tell me that something is objective, but you've redefined objective as something entirely different from how it's commonly understood, how am I to 1)know this 2)understand what you're trying to say 3)determine the veracity of your claims 4)know that you haven't changed it just so that you claim your case is true or 5)argue against something that you have made up in your own head and exists nowhere else.

Do you note all of the problems that this presents. This is why we decided that words have certain meanings. So that we know what we are talking about when we say things like objective. If I can redefine words to mean whatever I want them to mean then I can win any argument I want simply by changing the meaning of the words I'm using. By doing such a thing you deliberately put your ideas outside of the realm of criticism and outside any burden of proof because your ideas can never be proven or shown to be wrong at this point. Rendering any discussion with you pointless because you have deliberately placed your position into a realm where it cannot be critized without agreeing to your arbitrarily decided definitions. However it also removes any possibility of your position being shown to be true, except if one already presupposes your own definitions to be right.

This leads us to.......

3. It is blatantly dishonest to change the definitions of your words so arbitrarily. For several reasons, not the least of which is that you can simply change them again to suit your argument. Going back to “Multiple people, agreeing to some universal standard, is objectivity in this context.” for a moment. For all I know you don't really adhere to this definition and just pulled it out of your ass at the last minute to try and make your point not fail as spectacularly as it clearly was.

It also obfuscates the position that you are trying to take because it makes it hard to know if you are not using different definitions for other words and not telling me. It makes everything you say murky and unclear. Which is good if you're trying to lie, but bad if you're trying to have an honest discussion. You should be focusing on making your point clearer, not cloudier.

And as mentioned above,it makes everything that you have to say lose any effective meaning to anyone who does not automatically share in your presuppositions.

So have we sufficiently covered why you can't just make up your own definitions and expect to not be treated like someone who rode the short bus to school?

As a corollary to what has been said so far. Sometimes there are grey areas in which one can argue that certain interpretations of a word can be considered to be applicable (such as with a word like “rights”) however you fail to take into account that you must have an actual reason for doing this that you can justify. Not just because you lack the ability/desire to learn what the word is supposed to mean and want to make up something else. You certainly cannot however, argue that the word means something that is in diametric opposition to it. Such as your definition of “objective”.

Give me an example of what you think is objective then, because I don't follow your reasoning.

That would be because you're not bothering to try.

  This has nothing to do with lying. 

Actually it has more to do with you being generally dishonest (which is not the same as just lying). However in this instance, yes you are, or you were. Or you're just incompetent, as I pointed out.

It has to do with the fact that there are different things objectivity can refer to.

None of them are applicable to how you're trying to use it.

   I've taken physics, I understand what it means in that context.  But that meaning doesn't apply to all contexts.

I'm guessing that when you say you've taken physics, you mean it in the same sense as when you said that you've read about philosophy. But that's neither here nor there.

First off, irrelevant. What matters is the current context.

You have no idea of what you are talking about. No version of objectivity comes close to matching with your claim.

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

Which one did you mean exactly? I mean besides the one that the woodpecker in your head is trying to tell you about?

Now, it could very well be that I'm wrong and there actually is something in what you are trying to say and it's just getting garbled.

However, this is why I keep telling you to take the time to think, support your statements, and form your words into a  string of coherent thoughts that follow from your premise. You see if you don't support anything or just post assertions/reassertions like you do, or just jump from one single or double sentence paragraphs to another it makes your position seems disjointed, uncertain, and makes it hard to take you seriously because it makes you appear profoundly unintelligent.

Gill, start with a statement or a topic. Then show the evidence you have to support it. If you can't show evidence, at least show the train of thought that led you to it. Above all else, think about what you are writing and make certain that the message is consistent with what you are trying to say, and what you have said before. Then you wouldn't have half the forum telling you that your words here are inconsistent with what you said previously. Or telling you that you're contradicting yourself. Or that you're changing your position. More importantly everyone would understand what you are trying to say.

If you're not going to actually put some effort into the things you say, please do the favour of refraining from saying it.

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline rickymooston

Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #528 on: January 16, 2012, 12:38:30 AM »
Arbitrary does not necessarily, by definition, mean there was no reason behind them.  It means there was no supported reason behind them, and as I've pointed out repeatedly you have given no reason for why these were called "natural" rights other than that people wanted to call them such.

"Subject to individual will or without restriction" is the wiki definition of arbitrary.

How is that related to "supported" reason? You've lost me?

Quote
Don't say there was a reason, give the reason. And before you start retreading your old, pointless assertions, it has to be a reason that indicates they had a reason for making them "natural" rights other than because they wanted to.

I'll agree with you that "natural born" is rhetoric. We see that through most of history, most people didn't have those rights. However, the majority of people could have felt the status quo is unjust ...

The fact that there is a "reason" behind our morality and our perceived sense of what "rights" should be, does not mean its easy to be specific as to what the reasons are. Its somewhat complicated but one can see for example, that most people would prefer to live in a society that allows them those "rights". People with those rights as individuals, may not necessarily care about whether other people have those rights. However, as a group, they had been denied them and in order to gain those rights as individuals, they had to share them.  Nobody would die for somebody else's rights, if that person was being denied the rights himself.



Quote
To respond, yes, it is still entirely subjective. See the bold, that statement alone makes it subjective. If it has to be "agreed upon" then it is subjective. Objective means that it is what it is regardless of what people think.

Well, sociapaths exist and sociapaths, by definition, don't have empathy or conscience ... I don't think this fact alone proves objective morality doesn't exist.

If most people "agree" and this agreement crosses all cultures, I'd say that would be "objective" morality; e.g., murder is considered wrong in every human society. This is as close to objective as one is going to get.

There are constants inherent in human nature about perceived fairness and there are ones that vary with culture.

It may be the case, that most men feel they should be entitled to say what they think without being punished by law. We don't have data on whether people in dictatorships felt this; I'm guessing that they did. If they did, then there is some justification in calling the desire to have free speech natural, despite the fact that it was denied by the powers that be.

The realization that collectively the masses have the power to force those in power to give them what they think they deserve, is what a revolution is about.

The innate desire may be natural; I don't know whether or not it is. Its clear from history that the realization of that desire in law is not natural; i.e., its been denied to most people throughout history.


"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #529 on: January 16, 2012, 12:54:42 AM »
Christians always try to compare atheism to a religion and give examples of violence commited by atheists to show that it's as bad or worse than Christianity. This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is. Atheists are alike in only aspect: they don't believe in gods. Any other beliefs or behaviors they have in common are unrelated to atheism.

For example, people who play tennis are a group, united by their enjoyment of that sport, but people who don't play tennis are not a group, because not playing tennis is not a sport. There are no fields for not playing tennis, there is no equipment to buy to not play tennis. Some people who don't play tennis may play baseball, or ride bicycles, or not play any sports at all. Playing tennis can lead to injuries, and while people who do not play tennis may also get injured somehow, their injuries are not caused by not playing tennis.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #530 on: January 16, 2012, 01:43:29 AM »
"Subject to individual will or without restriction" is the wiki definition of arbitrary.

How is that related to "supported" reason? You've lost me?

Individual will is a reason.  Without restriction, it is an unsupported one.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #531 on: January 16, 2012, 02:14:41 AM »
Funny how the thread was successfully hijacked away from the "Atheist Atrocities" OP by this "Natural Rights" business, huh? In any case, 18 pages and 500+ posts later it seems Gill's entire argument is merely based on semantics. He doggedly holds on to the "Creator" part of the DOI when it is not the most important part of the sentence. Allow me to edit:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created born equal, that they are endowed by their Creator at birth with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

There, even with all references to a creator removed the phrase is just as meaningful. These rights are Unalienable (not to be taken away) because they are Self-Evident (common sense; obvious). No god required.

It could also be said that opening the statement with "We hold" is essentially the same thing as saying "In our opinion," but I digress...

I think your re-writing would still beg the question,  who or what,  endowed anyone?

OK, I guess keeping the word "endowed" in there was enough to make some folks completely miss my point, so here we go with another edit:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are born equal, that they have at birth certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The point is that, at least in the founding fathers' view, it is common sense that all men should have these rights and that they should be irrevocable. So the most powerful words in the statement are self-evident and unalienable. The mention of a creator is superfluous. The rights are unalienable because they are self-evident. Its that simple.
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2685
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #532 on: January 16, 2012, 02:48:15 AM »
Hey Joe,

I haven't talked to you in awhile. How's the teaching gig going?

I just read your comment and wanted to say that you pretty much nailed it with the tennis analogy.

For example, people who play tennis are a group, united by their enjoyment of that sport, but people who don't play tennis are not a group, because not playing tennis is not a sport. There are no fields for not playing tennis, there is no equipment to buy to not play tennis. Some people who don't play tennis may play baseball, or ride bicycles, or not play any sports at all. Playing tennis can lead to injuries, and while people who do not play tennis may also get injured somehow, their injuries are not caused by not playing tennis.

But the first paragraph was FUBAR. It's easier for me to illustrate how it is FUBAR instead of explaining it, but if my interpretation doesn't make any sense I will attempt to clarify.

You said;

Quote
Christians always try to compare atheism to a religion and give examples of violence commited by atheists to show that it's as bad or worse than Christianity. This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is. Atheists are alike in only aspect: they don't believe in gods. Any other beliefs or behaviors they have in common are unrelated to atheism.

Which could just as easily be reworded to say;

Quote
Atheists always try to compare Christians to homicidal maniacs and give examples of violence commited by Christians to show that it's as bad or worse than atheism. This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christianity is. Christians are alike in only one aspect: they believe in a god. Any other beliefs or behaviors they have in common are unrelated to Christianity.

It's like looking into a mirror.



I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #533 on: January 16, 2012, 02:58:42 AM »
The terms you've subbed in are not analogous to the terms they're replacing.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #534 on: January 16, 2012, 06:56:38 AM »
Yeah Azdgari is right, the way you've rewritten my statement is not a mirror, it's completely different, and inaccurate.

My Christians always try to compare atheism to a religion... vs. your Atheists always try to compare Christians to homicidal maniacs...

Atheists often point out violence that is caused by religion, but generally don't describe Christians as a group as homocidal maniacs. Personally I think Islam is much more dangerous than Christianity but I still would not describe all muslims as killers.

My ...and give examples of violence commited by atheists to show that it's as bad or worse than Christianity. vs. your ...and give examples of violence commited by Christians to show that it's as bad or worse than atheism.

Most Christians acknowledge at least some of the past harms that Christianity is responsible for. On the other hand I don't know any atheist who would say Christianity is 'as bad as atheism' in any respect. Atheism has never hurt anyone.

My Atheists are alike in only aspect: they don't believe in gods. vs. your Christians are alike in only one aspect: they believe in a god.

Very inaccurate. By your definition all religions that believe in a god are Christians, therefore Muslims and Jews are Christians, not to mention every other religion with gods. There is much more that defines Christians than "belief in a god." On the other hand there is nothing else that defines atheists than "does not believe in gods."

Any other beliefs or behaviors they have in common are unrelated to atheism. vs. Any other beliefs or behaviors they have in common are unrelated to Christianity.

Christianity is a whole package of beliefs and behaviors, not just one. Beliefs and behaviors relating to the creation of the world and life, the afterlife, the supernatural, history, culture, races, gender, sex, disease, prayer, fasting, going to church, holidays, food, clothing, entertainment, and just about every possible aspect of everything, up to and including who should live and who should die. While not all Christians share all of the same beliefs in the same way, the ones they do have in common are quite often directly related to Christianity.

To put it in terms of my tennis analogy, we can assume that most tennis players play on a court, they have a racket and a ball, and they wear special clothing while they play. On the other hand if you do not play tennis I can not simply assume you play golf, or like to swim.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 09:00:10 AM by joebbowers »
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #535 on: January 16, 2012, 09:44:17 AM »
I wasn't even talking about the accuracy of the subbed-in paragraph's claims.  The relationships between the words that were subbed in are different from the relationships between the words that were there in the first place.  Example in the first sentence:

Quote
Christians always try to compare atheism to a religion ...

"Christians" are a group of people.  They are comparing atheism - not atheists, but atheism - to a religion.  "A religion" being a quality that a worldview may or may not possess.  Now look at what Jay tried to replace it with:

Quote
Atheists always try to compare Christians to homicidal maniacs

"Atheists" is roughly parallel, so that part is analogous.  But what about the rest?  "Christians" are people.  To be parallel, it would have to use "Christianity" since that is a belief-quality to compare to "atheism", and not actual people.  And "homicidal maniac" is a quality of a person, not a quality of a religion or world-view.

One could say that Christianity promotes maniacal homocide, without calling even a single Christian a homocidal maniac.  That's a big difference between talking about people, and talking about worldviews.  And Jay, your entire paragraph was riddled with this error.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4615
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #536 on: January 16, 2012, 10:26:38 AM »
Joe,,,,could you truly call any of these guys like Stalin athiest? Could they have had there own I am a god,submit to my authority or die complex?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #537 on: January 16, 2012, 07:32:19 PM »
Quote from: Alzael

As a sidenote, why are you asking me what it means? Are you really that incompetent/mentally lazy that you couldn't have just looked it up in a dictionary? Which would have been much faster and easier than waiting for me to do it.

I already explained what objectivity meant in post #515 and explained to you why it does not mean what you are clumsily attempting to use it as. However to point it out again, in order for something to be objective it must exist as it is independant of any consciousness. For example, if killing is objectively wrong then it is wrong no matter the reason that you kill. It doesn't matter whether you agree with that, it does not matter if you killed to protect your child's life, or if you killed to prevent the deaths of all life on earth. It was still wrong of you to do that.

This is not my own personal definition. This is what the word actually means within the context of the english language. So let's go over the problems and flaws with your  rather farcical definition.

[/b]1.[/b]First and foremost going back to your claim.”Multiple people, agreeing to some universal standard”.

What you have just defined here is subjective. If people must agree on it then it is subjective. Again, this is what the word means. Do you see the flaw here? I'm guessing not so let me spell it out.

I asked you what it means to see where you're seeing the difference.    The dictionary can be useful, but it's pretty non-detailed, and has multiple definitions,  so I tend to look deeper into the issue when talking about an idea like truth.

You say objectivity is " something to be objective it must exist as it is independant of any consciousness. "  Ok.   Agreed.  And the first thing people do in order to determine that is to define universal standards of measurement.  I.e.,  the kilogram, second, meter, is this.    Now objective measurements can be made since a universal standard has been agreed to.  A kilogram's a kilogram regardless of anyone's opinion.

So, when talking about the Declaration, and defined rights,  as I said, they aren't totally subjective.   Meaning, there is a degree of agreement to some universal standards.   It's not intended to be wholly open to the ebbs and flows of peoples transient opinions.   If it were, then the whole document wouldn't have much meaning, and could be said to be totally subjective.

So, yeah, I said 'not totally subjective', but of course, there's going to be a degree of subjectivity, since it's not strict objectivity in the sense of scientific objectivity and measurement.

« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 07:34:31 PM by Gill »

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #538 on: January 16, 2012, 08:20:42 PM »
Joe,,,,could you truly call any of these guys like Stalin athiest? Could they have had there own I am a god,submit to my authority or die complex?

I'd say you've got a valid on-topic point. So many of the dictators throughout history have set themselves up as the only authority on Earth with some claiming support of whatever god(s) their society worshipped - even if they didn't believe. If they act like god-on-Earth, can we consider them atheist?

Of course, depending uopn how much they buy into their own spiel it may be a way to get them out from under the umbrella of being a theist and only look at them as delusional. But then we get into the thorny question of whether or not religion is a delusion - but that would be a different thread.

If someone wants to start a "Is religion a delusion?" thread go ahead - just avoid it here since "The Gill Show" has taken over all possible side-thread space and most of the thread space here. I do find "The Gill Show" entertaining now that I've stopped taking him at his word and just watch it for his evasions so have at it.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4615
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #539 on: January 16, 2012, 08:25:22 PM »
Kim-jon of North Korea could hardly be considered athiest.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #540 on: January 17, 2012, 03:17:41 AM »
Joe,,,,could you truly call any of these guys like Stalin athiest? Could they have had there own I am a god,submit to my authority or die complex?

I never said he was, I'm not sure why that question was directed at me. I personally don't know anything about Stalin. I don't know if he was an atheist or not. I've heard it stated many times, but it's irrelevant.

« Last Edit: January 17, 2012, 03:19:21 AM by joebbowers »
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #541 on: January 17, 2012, 03:21:27 AM »
Kim-jon of North Korea could hardly be considered athiest.

Very true. Christians often point out that North Korea is an atheist state, but it's clearly not a model society. What Christians fail to realize is that North Korea is one of the most deeply religious nations on Earth, they believe their leaders are living gods, complete with supernatural births.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2685
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #542 on: January 17, 2012, 02:04:14 PM »
The terms you've subbed in are not analogous to the terms they're replacing.

Yeah Azdgari is right, the way you've rewritten my statement is not a mirror, it's completely different, and inaccurate.

Well dammit. It made sense in my mind  :P

I'll probably take another stab at it just for shits and giggles. I think it's fairly obvious what I was trying to do. However, I'm not certain that what I thought I saw is even there. Sooo, back to the drawing board.

« Last Edit: January 17, 2012, 02:09:31 PM by jaybwell32 »
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #543 on: January 17, 2012, 03:15:40 PM »
[I asked you what it means to see where you're seeing the difference.    The dictionary can be useful, but it's pretty non-detailed, and has multiple definitions,  so I tend to look deeper into the issue when talking about an idea like truth.
Really, "non-detailed"?   Funny how it does indeed have multiple definitions, how the word came about, etc.  I think you mean "doesn't agree with my defintion" so I arbitrarily declare it wrong". 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline caveat_imperator

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #544 on: January 18, 2012, 01:27:51 AM »
Your lying and unwillingness to engage in an honest discussion in this thread are entirely on topic.
I'm surprised he hasn't been moderated yet despite the flagrant dishonesty that's in nearly every post of his.
You can't prove a negative of an existence postulate.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #545 on: January 19, 2012, 04:11:00 PM »
I asked you what it means to see where you're seeing the difference.    The dictionary can be useful, but it's pretty non-detailed, and has multiple definitions,  so I tend to look deeper into the issue when talking about an idea like truth.

Except I didn't link to the dictionary. I linked to the relevant wikipedia articles that detail the ways in which objective is used and why. They were very in-depth on their subject matter. I then asked you which one of those fits in with what you are trying to claim objective is.

So which version of objective is it? If it's none of them then you're simply making up your idea of objective and calling it that. Now it's possible that you may actually have some legitimate justification for this, but since you have failed to provide any that extends beyond the fact that you just want it to be so, I'm left with only my earlier theory that you are either a liar or an incompetent.

You can't just claim depth, Gill. You have to demonstrate it. As it stands it's pretty clear that what you really mean by “look deeper” is “twist it around until it justifies my own ignorance”. But, as I said, feel free to actually show otherwise for once.

You say objectivity is " something to be objective it must exist as it is independant of any consciousness. "  Ok.   Agreed.  And the first thing people do in order to determine that is to define universal standards of measurement.

No it isn't, but I'll overlook this and focus on the other batch of fail below.

I.e.,  the kilogram, second, meter, is this.    Now objective measurements can be made since a universal standard has been agreed to.  A kilogram's a kilogram regardless of anyone's opinion.

No.....it isn't.......dmubass.

A kilogram is a kilogram because someone decided on what a kilogram was. Kilogram is a term that was invented by humans as a way of categorizing and organizing the world. It is not an objective term, because it can be changed anytime humans decide to change it.

If we took what we called a kilogram of matter and placed it into a time capsule for a hundred years. Then opened it up in a future time where the word kilogram now meant something with half the weight that it did previously, the amount of the matter will still be the same, but it will no longer be a kilogram. It would now be two kilograms.

The amount of the matter is objective because how much matter there actually was does not change no matter what we think it is. The measurement itself is not, because the measurements were made up by us and depend on us for their existence.

So, when talking about the Declaration, and defined rights,  as I said, they aren't totally subjective.   Meaning, there is a degree of agreement to some universal standards.   It's not intended to be wholly open to the ebbs and flows of peoples transient opinions.   If it were, then the whole document wouldn't have much meaning, and could be said to be totally subjective.

This is still entirely subjective. Just because people have agreed to a standard does not make it objective. The fact that they had to agree to it is what makes it subjective. As I've mentioned before Gill, repeating the same failed arguments does not increase their veracity.

In order for your argument to work, the rights themselves have to exist as something objective. Then you can say that the universal standards is simply the way in which we classify those rights as humans, the same as how we classify measurement. However you have said that you are not claiming absolute truth. So you cannot make such a claim without contradicting yourself.

As for the document having meaning, subjective things carry great meaning to us all the time. Subjectivity has nothing to do with the meaning that we find in things in life, even  if something is only subjective it is enough that it has significance to that one person.

So, yeah, I said 'not totally subjective', but of course, there's going to be a degree of subjectivity, since it's not strict objectivity in the sense of scientific objectivity and measuremen

It's not objectivity in any sense, Gill. You've dodged away from pretty much all the points I made in the previous post, and failed miserably to justify objectivity in any way. You couldn't even pick out how your ideas demonstrate any degree of objectivity when I provided you a list of how objectivity can be viewed and judged.

You just ignored everything I posted and pointed out except for one paragraph and made a weak and pathetic argument that didn't even remotely prop up your position. I wish I could say that I was surprised.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 06:47:00 PM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #546 on: January 19, 2012, 04:11:26 PM »
"Subject to individual will or without restriction" is the wiki definition of arbitrary.

How is that related to "supported" reason? You've lost me?

Possibly a slight failure of communication on my part.

I said “supported” (that is a reason that has evidence or logical support)  reason as an attempt to distinguish it from simply having a generic reason to do something.

You see in that portion of the discussion, Gill was attempting to portray “arbitrary” as being synonymous with “random”. As evidenced by his attempt at the analogy of drawing papers from a hat. He was trying to claim that what he was portraying was not arbitrary because the people who did it had reasons for what they did.

My point was that arbitrary does not mean random or without reason. You can have many reasons for doing something (such as simply wanting to do it) and still do it arbitrarily. Arbitrary describes a course of action that is not based on logical thought, sound judgement, or with regard for the facts. As I've pointed out to Gill repeatedly so far, the only reason he has provided for these hypothetical people to have made these decisions on “natural” rights is because they wanted to call them this. He has given no reason supported by evidence or logic for anything that he's claimed. Hence the fact remains that his version of “natural” rights remains entirely arbitrary.

Did that make it clearer?

The fact that there is a "reason" behind our morality and our perceived sense of what "rights" should be, does not mean its easy to be specific as to what the reasons are.

True, however Gill is the one making the claims. It's up to him to support them. If he can't, he has no business making them.

Well, sociapaths exist and sociapaths, by definition, don't have empathy or conscience ... I don't think this fact alone proves objective morality doesn't exist.

Actually it does. If objective morality existed then right and wrong (or good and evil) would be something that would be obvious and unarguable. We would all know what it is. If some people don't because of the way that their thoughts work, then it clearly cannot be considered objective. Unless you're going to change the definition of the word, like Gill.

If most people "agree" and this agreement crosses all cultures, I'd say that would be "objective" morality; e.g., murder is considered wrong in every human society.

No, this would be subjective morality. You see this is the same thing that Gill is doing. You're trying to change the words so that you can claim what you want to claim. You can't redefine white to mean black, just because you like that colour better. Which is exactly what you are doing. You are taking a word and trying to change it's meaning to the exact opposite of what it means. The thing is that we already have a word that means the opposite of objective. That word is subjective. So if we already have a word that means that, why do yo want to take a word that has a different meaning and change it to mean that?

I realize that to some people objective sounds better because it allows them to think that reality adheres to some sort of strict black and white system where there are no grey areas or uncertainty, but that doesn't actually change the reality of the universe. You can call it objective if you want, but you're just deluding yourself. It's not. You've just changed the word so that it has the connotations that you desire it to have.

On another note, while murder is wrong in almost every society, you failed to take into account that the definition of murder is different in every society. Sometimes wildly different.

This is as close to objective as one is going to get.

This is just moving the goal posts. It also goes into what I said above. Why change the definition when we already have a word for what you're trying to redefine it as?
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4615
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #547 on: January 19, 2012, 08:06:14 PM »
Joe,,,,could you truly call any of these guys like Stalin athiest? Could they have had there own I am a god,submit to my authority or die complex?

I never said he was, I'm not sure why that question was directed at me. I personally don't know anything about Stalin. I don't know if he was an atheist or not. I've heard it stated many times, but it's irrelevant.
Joe that was the point,,,these guys like Stalin almost have a god complex,,,,as deluded as they are,they have supreme power and used it EXACTLY like God did in the old days

 Submit to my authority or DIE
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #548 on: January 19, 2012, 08:42:45 PM »
Your lying and unwillingness to engage in an honest discussion in this thread are entirely on topic.
I'm surprised he hasn't been moderated yet despite the flagrant dishonesty that's in nearly every post of his.

Usually we wait for a few formal reports before we start moderating. Feel free to click the report to moderator button.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #549 on: January 19, 2012, 11:28:59 PM »
I think your re-writing would still beg the question,  who or what,  endowed anyone?

How endowed you are depends upon your genetics. Some men are well endowed, some are average and some not-so-well endowed. And similarly women have varied endowments of a different part of the body. But women can augment their endowments with silicone.   :angel:

So how did we get from genocide to genitals?  ;D
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
« Reply #550 on: January 20, 2012, 12:08:17 AM »
Nobody would die for somebody else's rights, if that person was being denied the rights himself.

Not true. One has only to look at the history of the USA to see examples of this. The movie "Red Tails" coming out soon is a movie version of an all black flight wing who fought and died for a very racist America. Gays and lesbians are denied some rights but still enlist in the military to fight for America.

And if your claim was correct then no one would ever have deposed a dictator. Admittedly most people fighting to depose a dictator hope to live to enjoy the rights they are fighting to obtain but too many die in such battles to say that everyone expected to live.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther