whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => General Religious Discussion => Topic started by: gzusfreke on December 29, 2011, 09:25:27 PM

Title: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: gzusfreke on December 29, 2011, 09:25:27 PM
First on the list - Pol Pot of Cambodia.  Between 2 million and 4 million people were murdered under his regime, from 1963 to 1998.

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1948150,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1948150,00.html)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: rev45 on December 29, 2011, 09:27:32 PM
Atheist who has not committed mass murder or genocide in the 20th century.

<----This guy.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Emily on December 29, 2011, 09:33:45 PM
Seriously?!? Dude, your god drowned the whole world's population except for 8 people. Pol Pot is a saint compared to your god. Based on this chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates) a hell of a lot more people died during the flood than those who died in Pol Pots reign.

And this is an example of godwins law. It doesn't really go very far.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 29, 2011, 09:38:29 PM
And it's pretty bad when you are forced to use such extreme examples in an effort to make your side look good.

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: gzusfreke on December 29, 2011, 09:42:56 PM
No, like Fox News, just trying to be fair and balanced.  I've seen several comments in several threads blaming theists and religion for mass slaughters, so I thought I'd do some campaigning for your side.

Next up, Joseph Stalin.  Depending on which source you look up, you might see 10 million or tens of millions of people who died under his rule.

http://www.pbs.org/redfiles/bios/all_bio_joseph_stalin.htm (http://www.pbs.org/redfiles/bios/all_bio_joseph_stalin.htm)

We don't even have to discuss God in this thread.  This is just all about how great it is to be an atheist with absolute power and what happens when you have the power to let your worldview and convictions (or lack of) play out to their logical conclusion.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: kin hell on December 29, 2011, 09:46:28 PM
Dear freke

........good to see you practising  the standard xian "knife to a gunfight" humiliator.



Is a theist 100 times more lethal than an atheist? (http://impartialism.blogspot.com/2009/02/is-theist-100-times-more-lethal-than.html)

Saturday, 28 February 2009
Posted by faithlessgod at 13:49
Categories:: ethics, religion


Quote
Well is it? How on earth can I be asking a question? Well this is what the evidence, according to one popular argument popular with theists, shows! Ironically this argument is disputed by many atheists but it seems neither atheists nor theists have bothered to check the facts, no surprise that theists have not or they would remain very quiet on this topic.

Of course, I am addressing that old canard popular with some theists of the amount of atrocities brought about by 20the century "atheist" regimes. I will drop the scare quotes for this dubious labelling but please assume it throughout this post. This is no excuse to take any of what follows out of context.

This argument makes no sense since belief or lack of belief in god alone does not tell you anything at all about ones' economic, political, social or moral beliefs. One cannot make any such conclusion based just this data.

Secondly just because there is a belief held in common such as a lack of belief in the gods or a belief in the gods does not imply that any other beliefs are shared. An additional argument needs to made to show this is the case, if indeed it is the case.

Of course certain popular theistic worldviews have an additional belief that one "cannot be moral without god", but that is a belief not shared by all theists (and these are emphatically not being addressed in this post) and certainly not by most likely any atheist. This belief is a prejudice and, if not supported by evidence, is an unsound basis to (pre)judge other's moral standings.

Still it is not sufficient even if this evidence is supported that one can apply this categorisation as a means to infer the moral status of anyone. To categorise anyone without checking that the asserted dependency is based on solid evidence with strong support and ignoring arguments that demonstrate it is not, is bigotry.

Well does this specific group of theists have any evidence to support their claims? This is where the atrocities of 20th century regimes is offered.

However those theists who use Hitler as supporting evidence, have failed demonstrate that Hitler, his Positive Christianity and the Nazi Movement and its supporters were an atheist regime and there is nearly overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is more than reasonable to conclude that anyone who basis an argument on such demonstrably false data is a bigot.

However although not all such theists would use Hitler they could only or drop back to Stalin, Pol Pot and others. And atheists have often been distracted by dealing with Hitler canard alone to see the bigger picture.

What bigger picture? Well one of the basis of my writing here is that everyone should be subjected to the same standard and not a double standard. In this case, as noted at the beginning of this post, the standard being used by such theists is one to be rejected by any honest and ethical person - regardless of their theistic beliefs.

However it is quite legitimate to show the problems in a flawed standard and why it should not be advocated and this is what I want to demonstrate here. This is to use the standard as defined by the specific theists in question and evaluate regimes in terms of atrocities usually measured by direct deaths caused and to use the same standard to classify regimes as theist or atheist.

One also has to note that there has been historical demographic differences between the distribution of theistic and atheistic beliefs in populations and this needs to taken into account. Also since population levels have substantially changed through time, generally increasing this also has to be taken into account. However this analysis will note this issue but not do such calculations in drawing these preliminary conclusions. This could be left for another post or another blogger if they are so interested. (I did one such isolated example of this in a previous post (http://impartialism.blogspot.com/2007/01/10-myths-about-theism-and-truth-behind.html)).

What does the evidence show if we look at history impartially and use the standard imposed by such theists as they think the argument supports their case?

First of all I will the grant the point used by theists who make this argument that atheism is on the increase and, if they are correct, that the amount of atheists is the highest it has ever been and conservatively use today's ratio of atheists to theists over the past, that is not assume there were fewer atheists than today.

Now I use the data provided by adherents.com which classifies 16% of the worlds populations as "non-religious" in their article Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html). This 16% includes atheists, agnostics, none or expressed no religious preference but half of this number are those who are theistic but non-religious. I will conservatively include all 16% a bias against atheists.

So these two conservative assumptions serve to increase the likely proportion of atheists versus theist ration historically, which some atheist would argue is a bias in favour of theists. I am only doing this because I am trying to help theists out with their argument and to avoid any accusations of bias in favour of atheists. That is there should be an expected ratio of 1:6 atheist: theist regimes. .

Well now what is the historical data classifying deaths according to theistic and atheistic regimes?

Luckily - for me - I just discovered a sterling piece of analysis carried out by the Teapot Atheist  (http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2008/06/anonymous-wanted-body-count-total-so-he.html) on nearly exactly the basis I was going to undertake. It is worth looking in detail at Teapot Atheist's data but I leave that as an exercise to the reader. I use here only the summary data.

Over all of recorded history the death toll by "atheistic" regimes (considered broadly 95,000,000 (including Stalin but excluding Hitler), Hitler/Mussolini 72,000,000 Million and all "theistic" regimes including Hitler/Mussolini/World War 2 2,229,074,100. If we move this highly disputed 72,000,000 from the "theist" to the "atheist" tally the numbers becomes Atheists: 162,000,000 and the Theists 2,157,000,000 (to the nearest million). We can now compare expectations.

If we take the atheist figure as the base line we would expect around 6 times 162 Million deaths from theistic regimes if there is not contribution from theistic beliefs one way or another. This is 972 Million yet the actual figure is well over twice that, against those theists!

Alternatively if we take the theist figure as the base line we would expect around 2.157 M divided by 6 deaths from atheistic regimes if there is no contribution from theistic beliefs one way or another. This is 359.2 Million yet the actual figure is well under twice that, against those theists!

So making many assumptions in favour of theists the best we can possibly do is show the theistic regimes when the go wrong are over twice as lethal as atheist regimes when they go wrong. Remember we are accepting the highly dubious presumptions of such arguments but the outcome is quite the opposite of what those theists who make such an argument realize!

We could look at the danger of theistic regimes over the whole of history and then we see that the lethality of such regimes is 13 times more likely to lead to death than an atheistic regime (2,157 divided by 162).

If we take the demographic difference into account then being in an atheistic population is 6 times less likely than being in a theistic one over the whole of history and since the danger of death due to theism is already 13 as great, this scales up the danger on a per person level by 13*6 to96!!! That is the odds of an atheist causing death is nearly 100 times less than a theist!

The above served as my attention grabbing headline. Can you see the flaw in my reasoning?

Of course all the above maths is rudimentary but this is the point. One does a quick scan of available data to see if the evidence is worth inspecting in more detail. Is it worth doing proper statistical significance and correlation analysis and looking for confounding factors and so on. Well as soon as one checks for confounding factors their whole argument disintegrates, they clearly have not done that anyway.

Instead they have simply assumed they are correct and have looked for evidence to support their conclusion. Not the behaviour of someone who is ethical and very ironic in the case of some using this to argue their supposed moral superiority. This in many many ways is a self-defeating argument made such theists. Clearly theists who have made this argument have not bothered to realize the implications of their reasoning. If they did they would drop such an argument immediately. Even if we stop at the lethality of theistic beliefs only being twice as great as atheistic ones and I repeat this best result of the most conservative analysis biased in such theists favour. Their whole argument is absurd and immoral as is the supposed evidence to support it, as it is however one looks at it, it is against them (not theists per se, just those how proffer such arguments).

So such theists only get away with this because they have unethically selected the data that they think supports their case and most honest and ethical people regardless of theistic belief would either reject it - because we know such reasoning is so flawed to start with - or are distracted by legitimately challenging some of the selected data. ion rather than consider all of the data. I considered all the data here only to provide a new means to help discourage such poor arguments, not to bolster this as a basis to argue on this theme for one side or the other.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: gzusfreke on December 29, 2011, 09:56:39 PM
kin hell, why did faithlessgod appeal to standards and speak of double standards?  If there is no god, then why should I be concerned with living up to faithlessgod's standards or your standards? 

If you want to discuss theistic mass murderers, let's start a new thread, but for now, let's just try to get to the facts about ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century.  We can only enjoy so much fun at one time, let's save some for later!

Behind Door # 3 we have Mao Zedong of China.  45 million deaths have been blamed on him.

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/mao.html (http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/mao.html)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Emily on December 29, 2011, 09:59:54 PM
I've seen several comments in several threads blaming theists and religion for mass slaughters, so I thought I'd do some campaigning for your side.
I don't know what threads you are talking about. As far is this thread goes it all depends on the reason behind the killings. As far as I know Pol Pol and Joe Stalin never killed anyone in the name of atheism.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: kin hell on December 29, 2011, 10:03:10 PM
kin hell, why did faithlessgod appeal to standards and speak of double standards?  If there is no god, then why should I be concerned with living up to faithlessgod's standards or your standards? 

If you want to discuss theistic mass murderers, let's start a new thread, but for now, let's just try to get to the facts about ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century.  We can only enjoy so much fun at one time, let's save some for later!

Behind Door # 3 we have Mao Zedong of China.  45 million deaths have been blamed on him.

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/mao.html (http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/mao.html)

...what can't you understand ?

When you can show that mass murder occurred anywhere specifically because of "a lack of belief in gods", then perhaps it will be worth discussion.

Unfortunately, it is too easy to show that belief in gods has promoted genocide ( eg. just read your blood-soaked bible).
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Nick on December 29, 2011, 10:06:24 PM
He lost me when he said, "FOX News - Fair and Balanced". >:(
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on December 29, 2011, 10:13:07 PM
re Joseph Stalin from Wikipedia (since article at the link you provided did not mention anything regarding his belief or lack thereof)

Quote
"[Stalin's] atheism remained rooted in some vague idea of a God of nature." One account states that Stalin's reversal on bans against the church during World War II followed a sign that he believed he received from heaven.

Atheism isn't "rooted in some vague idea of a God of nature." That could be called paganism - maybe, depending upon actual beliefs. But some sort of theism.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: gzusfreke on December 29, 2011, 10:15:30 PM
When you can show that mass murder occurred anywhere specifically because of "a lack of belief in gods", then perhaps it will be worth discussion.

Do you think that Pol Pot and Joe Stalin would have killed just as many people if they were theists?

Now, rising star Benito Mussolini with a death count of at least 300,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini)

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: violatedsmurf80 on December 29, 2011, 10:16:21 PM
Lets ignore the modern day Christan mass murders  in Croatia in WW2 was a Roman Catholic Nazi state, that killed an estimated 700,000 Serbs and other minorities with the enthusiastic support of Roman Catholic priests, Modern Serb fascism led to the killing of perhaps 200,000 innocent civilian men, women and children in 1991-9, or even protestant death squads in Ireland.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 29, 2011, 10:17:28 PM
I assume, in your opinion, the dastardly atheists exist because of the fall. Why are you so surprised they exist?

Stalin didn't kill people over atheism. He killed because he was a paranoid, power-hungry asshole (who happened to drop out of seminary school, where he was studying for the preisthood. What did you guys do to him?)

Idiots come in many forms. Actually, you should be happy a fe tyrants were atheists. Otherwise you would have a lot of 'splainen to do.

I assume you have Hitler on your list, even though the belt buckles of his elite SStroops read "god with us". I should point out that if I were a similar type tyrant, none of my thugs would be wearing such belt buckles. But you've probably been told hat little Adolph was an atheist, because we get that a lot around here.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: kin hell on December 29, 2011, 10:20:25 PM
When you can show that mass murder occurred anywhere specifically because of "a lack of belief in gods", then perhaps it will be worth discussion.

Do you think that Pol Pot and Joe Stalin would have killed just as many people if they were theists?


Do you think that diversionary question shows any mass murder occurred anywhere specifically because of "a lack of belief in gods"?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on December 29, 2011, 10:21:28 PM
kin hell, why did faithlessgod appeal to standards and speak of double standards?  If there is no god, then why should I be concerned with living up to faithlessgod's standards or your standards? 

If you want to discuss theistic mass murderers, let's start a new thread, but for now, let's just try to get to the facts about ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century.  We can only enjoy so much fun at one time, let's save some for later!

Behind Door # 3 we have Mao Zedong of China.  45 million deaths have been blamed on him.

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/mao.html (http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/mao.html)

Did Stalin, Hitler or Mao kill those millions alone? Would have taken them an awfully long time. No they motivated others to do it. Now what would they use for motivation? They used the usual motivators. Racism, greed, the lust for power and some people are just downright mean.
It's amazing just how vicious seemingly civilised people can become when given absolute power over others. There have been many studies on the subject. Religious beliefs or not it doesn't appear to make any difference at all. The SS guys running the death camps had "Gott Mitt Us" (God with us) engraved on their belt buckles. Why would atheists just kill jews anyway?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: gzusfreke on December 29, 2011, 10:30:06 PM
Friends, I'm not saying your comments aren't worthy of discussion, but after all this thread is titled:

"ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century". 

Show your fellow atheists (Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, et al) some respect here and discuss their noble humanitarian reigns and deeds.  If I wanted to discuss THEISTS who have committed mass murders, well, that subject just seems to be a little over-done on this forum, but we can start a new thread and get totally redundant, reposting old posts and saying the same stuff that's been said many, many times in this forum and pretending its all new. ;)

I don't have a problem discussing theists who have committed mass murders and genocide, because I acknowledge that there are theistic leaders who have done so.  I also acknowledge that just because someone claims to be a theist doesn't make them one, but I also acknowledge that just because someone claims to be a theist doesn't make him any different in my book from an atheist.  Theism in itself is not noble or grand.  It can be just as hideous, or more so, than atheism in my eyes.  Belief in a god or gods doesn't mean someone is morally superior to someone who is an agnostic or an atheist.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on December 29, 2011, 10:32:00 PM
When you can show that mass murder occurred anywhere specifically because of "a lack of belief in gods", then perhaps it will be worth discussion.

Do you think that Pol Pot and Joe Stalin would have killed just as many people if they were theists?


Yes. Why not?

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 29, 2011, 10:34:29 PM
You've made a list, and said they were atheists. That doesn't constitute a discussion, only a listing of facts. What do you want to discuss about it? Yep, a few folks who happened to be atheists were also assholes. You know that. We know that. A few folks who were believers behaved similarly. You know that. We know that. Your point is?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on December 29, 2011, 10:35:35 PM
  Belief in a god or gods doesn't mean someone is morally superior to someone who is an agnostic or an atheist.


Then why did you ask this question?
Quote

Do you think that Pol Pot and Joe Stalin would have killed just as many people if they were theists?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: gzusfreke on December 29, 2011, 10:39:29 PM
kin hell, why did faithlessgod appeal to standards and speak of double standards?  If there is no god, then why should I be concerned with living up to faithlessgod's standards or your standards? 

If you want to discuss theistic mass murderers, let's start a new thread, but for now, let's just try to get to the facts about ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century.  We can only enjoy so much fun at one time, let's save some for later!

Behind Door # 3 we have Mao Zedong of China.  45 million deaths have been blamed on him.

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/mao.html (http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/mao.html)

Did Stalin, Hitler or Mao kill those millions alone? Would have taken them an awfully long time. No they motivated others to do it. Now what would they use for motivation? They used the usual motivators. Racism, greed, the lust for power and some people are just downright mean.
It's amazing just how vicious seemingly civilised people can become when given absolute power over others. There have been many studies on the subject. Religious beliefs or not it doesn't appear to make any difference at all. The SS guys running the death camps had "Gott Mitt Us" (God with us) engraved on their belt buckles. Why would atheists just kill jews anyway?

Frank, you are right.  These guys had help.  You hit the nail on the head - "Racism, greed, the lust for power and some people are just downright mean."  That's the whole point of why God has to judge people.  See, you do know His standards after all and you know when people don't meet the standards. 

Would you say that Gott of "Gott Mitt Us" is the same God that the Jews worshiped?  Probably not.

Why would atheists kill Jews?  I will go on record as saying that I don't believe Hitler was a pure atheist but rather someone with some really weird beliefs in the supernatural.  Leaving out the spiritual explanation and just going with a secular explanation - 1)  Evolutionary views led Hitler (after reading Nietzche) to believe that some "races" of mankind were more superior than others.  Aryans were superior to Jews.  Since Hitler's God was not the God of the Bible (as evidenced by Hitler's murder of many Protestant pastors), Hitler thought he could kill Jews because they were "inferior".  I haven't researched enough to determine why Stalin killed Jews.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: gzusfreke on December 29, 2011, 10:41:33 PM
  Belief in a god or gods doesn't mean someone is morally superior to someone who is an agnostic or an atheist.


Then why did you ask this question?
Quote

Do you think that Pol Pot and Joe Stalin would have killed just as many people if they were theists?

I was asking because I want to know what, and how, you think.  I wasn't asking it in a rhetorical way, as if I already had an answer and didn't expect one from you.  I wanted your opinion.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: violatedsmurf80 on December 29, 2011, 10:45:44 PM
Why would atheists kill Jews?  I will go on record as saying that I don't believe Hitler was a pure atheist but rather someone with some really weird beliefs in the supernatural.  Leaving out the spiritual explanation and just going with a secular explanation - 1)  Evolutionary views led Hitler (after reading Nietzche) to believe that some "races" of mankind were more superior than others.  Aryans were superior to Jews.  Since Hitler's God was not the God of the Bible (as evidenced by Hitler's murder of many Protestant pastors), Hitler thought he could kill Jews because they were "inferior".  I haven't researched enough to determine why Stalin killed Jews.


Right, I guess it goes back to the True Christiantm, people say that Anders Behring-Breivik was not a christian also, but his face book claimed that he was and he was baptized when he was 15. 
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on December 29, 2011, 10:58:55 PM
Friends, I'm not saying your comments aren't worthy of discussion, but after all this thread is titled:

"ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century".

You've been posting here for 3 years but you still don't understand that the topic sometimes gets widened? (And things sometimes go off-topic.)

Show your fellow atheists (Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, et al) some respect here and discuss their noble humanitarian reigns and deeds.  If I wanted to discuss THEISTS who have committed mass murders, well, that subject just seems to be a little over-done on this forum, but we can start a new thread and get totally redundant, reposting old posts and saying the same stuff that's been said many, many times in this forum and pretending its all new. ;)

You have yet to show that Stalin or any of the others are athiests and that they got people to kill for them for supposedly athiest reasons. All you have done is pick leaders who have slaughtered millions who don't have a clear theist connection - big deal. I would expect there to be quite a few through-out history. While far too many millions have died for theist reasons, there are millions who died for plenty of other reasons. (No, I don't have names and numbers.)

You have yet to make a genuinely on-topic post yourself.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on December 29, 2011, 11:02:22 PM
kin hell, why did faithlessgod appeal to standards and speak of double standards?  If there is no god, then why should I be concerned with living up to faithlessgod's standards or your standards? 

If you want to discuss theistic mass murderers, let's start a new thread, but for now, let's just try to get to the facts about ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century.  We can only enjoy so much fun at one time, let's save some for later!

Behind Door # 3 we have Mao Zedong of China.  45 million deaths have been blamed on him.

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/mao.html (http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/mao.html)

Did Stalin, Hitler or Mao kill those millions alone? Would have taken them an awfully long time. No they motivated others to do it. Now what would they use for motivation? They used the usual motivators. Racism, greed, the lust for power and some people are just downright mean.
It's amazing just how vicious seemingly civilised people can become when given absolute power over others. There have been many studies on the subject. Religious beliefs or not it doesn't appear to make any difference at all. The SS guys running the death camps had "Gott Mitt Us" (God with us) engraved on their belt buckles. Why would atheists just kill jews anyway?

Frank, you are right.  These guys had help.  You hit the nail on the head - "Racism, greed, the lust for power and some people are just downright mean."  That's the whole point of why God has to judge people.  See, you do know His standards after all and you know when people don't meet the standards. 


God doesn't exist to judge anybody. All those people are dead and I doubt it's much comfort to them or their loved ones that god is judging them. Stalin died of old age in bed, as did Mao. Hitler made it into his 60's and Pol Pot was 73.
Where was god before the killing started? He's all knowing so why didn't he just give them all heart attacks before they came to power?

PS. Hitler just used christian anti semetism. He didn't have to try very hard at all.

PPS. Presumably god judged all those dead jews as well and discovering they weren't christians sent them straight to hell.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: gzusfreke on December 29, 2011, 11:08:00 PM
You've been posting here for 3 years but you still don't understand that the topic sometimes gets widened? (And things sometimes go off-topic.)

I still have the right to try to keep the focus on "ATHEISTS yada yada yada yada"

Quote
You have yet to show that Stalin or any of the others are athiests and that they got people to kill for them for supposedly athiest reasons. All you have done is pick leaders who have slaughtered millions who don't have a clear theist connection - big deal. I would expect there to be quite a few through-out history. While far too many millions have died for theist reasons, there are millions who died for plenty of other reasons. (No, I don't have names and numbers.)

You are free to look up online or check out books at the library or buy them at Amazon and research  these people further.  I've provided a few links for each person named.  You are smart - Google their names. 
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: gzusfreke on December 29, 2011, 11:10:16 PM
God doesn't exist to judge anybody. All those people are dead and I doubt it's much comfort to them or their loved ones that god is judging them.

So why waste your time discussing and debating this stuff?  Eat, drink, and be merry!  Go have yourself a party instead of hanging out with a bunch of dead-end, no-real-purpose-in-life accidental blobs of flesh.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on December 29, 2011, 11:13:07 PM
I still have the right to try to keep the focus on "ATHEISTS yada yada yada yada"

But you weren't making an effort - you were whining about the expansion of the subject.

You are free to look up online or check out books at the library or buy them at Amazon and research  these people further.  I've provided a few links for each person named.  You are smart - Google their names.

YOUR premise is that they are atheists so YOU need to show that they are.

Do you think that Pol Pot and Joe Stalin would have killed just as many people if they were theists?

Yes - as many since I see no indication of religion being a major factor. It looks like Stalin was severely psychologically damaged and the others not really any better. If you buy the premise (and I'm not sure I do) of the article above by faithlessgod, then they would have killed more - and by a factor of 13, supposedly.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on December 29, 2011, 11:20:00 PM
God doesn't exist to judge anybody. All those people are dead and I doubt it's much comfort to them or their loved ones that god is judging them.

So why waste your time discussing and debating this stuff?  Eat, drink, and be merry!  Go have yourself a party instead of hanging out with a bunch of dead-end, no-real-purpose-in-life accidental blobs of flesh.

Because it annoys rapture fruit loops like you. I also think our successes scare you. Atheism has made many inroads in America and I'm sure it will make many more. A few more years and it will be as secular as europe is. You should think yourself lucky. Here you can post as much as you like but I've tried posting at religious boards. I'm lucky to make it to 3 posts before I'm banned. So much for free speech.

BTW. Which of those conservative no hopers do you intend to vote for next year. Serial Adulterer Gingrich appears to be flavour of the month. What about Romney. Although he is a mormon. Would a vote for him send you to hell?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: kin hell on December 29, 2011, 11:35:12 PM

So why waste your time discussing and debating this stuff?  Eat, drink, and be merry!  Go have yourself a party instead of hanging out with a bunch of dead-end, no-real-purpose-in-life accidental blobs of flesh.

Nice.

Of course the alternative is to join the flock.
.....and celebrate the joy of instantly being empowered with a meaning and purpose in life   (AKA.....be a mindless sheep).

Evolution doesn't really deal with the cross species breed that you represent battery hen

chook
sheep
parrot

caged in a Faith
zero need of rationality

fleeced by your owners



you need mulesing
the crutch you hobble yourself with is a shitty alternative to reality.


the lord is your shepherd not mine










Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: MadBunny on December 30, 2011, 12:24:50 AM
Did I miss somewhere in this thread, supposedly about atheists that killed tons of people, where they did it in the name of atheism?

Guilt by association is a shallow fallacy.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Brakeman on December 30, 2011, 12:48:51 AM
Nah, It's the north hemi-spereians that do all the mass murder. Look it up.
Stalin, Hitler, Alexander the great, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Hutu's, Amin, etc..

All from the North Hemisphere.  I'm telling you, that's a strong correlation!
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: dloubet on December 30, 2011, 02:02:24 AM
This subject is so negative! How about the fruits of atheistic science? Wasn't it Norman Borlaug, using the godless scientific method, that is credited with saving the lives of a billion people? That one act wipes out the actions of Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, and what the hell let's throw in Hitler just for fun, and leaves us deeply in negative numbers in any theist/atheist bodycount equation.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Astreja on December 30, 2011, 02:05:37 AM
So why waste your time discussing and debating this stuff?  Eat, drink, and be merry!

I'd be a lot merrier if the religious people of this world weren't indoctrinating innocent children with BS mythology that leaves them in terror of hell, raptures and tribulations.  Debunking religious nonsense is a civic duty, not a "waste of time."
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on December 30, 2011, 04:00:26 AM
Debunking religious nonsense is a civic duty, not a "waste of time."

I'm just gonna point out that this is a very good quote for a signature.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 30, 2011, 04:27:41 AM
bm
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: changeling on December 30, 2011, 06:10:19 AM


 I will go on record as saying that I don't believe Hitler was a pure atheist but rather someone with some really weird beliefs in the supernatural.

Isn't that the perfect description of Christianity?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: plethora on December 30, 2011, 07:05:21 AM
@gzusfreke

Yes, some people who led regimes that committed genocides were atheists.

So what? A person cannot be motivated merely by lacking belief in something. People are motivated by what they actively believe. After all, I can't recall a single occasion where my lack of belief in the existence of ghosts lead me to take any action of any kind.

In fact, I don't see anyone accusing leaders of having committed crimes against humanity due to a lack of belief in anything other than a god. Why do think that is? Could it be that lacking belief in alien abductions, ghosts and psychic abilities (which millions do believe in) doesn't actually inform a person's actions? Ah.

Those dictators you mentioned were not motivated by a lack of belief in a god. They were motivated by active belief in certain ideologies. These ideologies happened to be non-religious... and I denounce them as much as I denounce religious ideologies.

To sit there and point at 'atheist' murderers, accusing them of being murderers because they were atheists is like pointing out female murderers and accusing them of being murderers merely because they were women. It's an association fallacy.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: gonegolfing on December 30, 2011, 08:14:19 AM
God doesn't exist to judge anybody. All those people are dead and I doubt it's much comfort to them or their loved ones that god is judging them.

So why waste your time discussing and debating this stuff?  Eat, drink, and be merry!  Go have yourself a party instead of hanging out with a bunch of dead-end, no-real-purpose-in-life accidental blobs of flesh.

I don't know about you all, but are we that desperate for discussion that we'll give the time of day to argue with an arrogant little weasel like this guy ??

We should instead--in a very nice way of course-- tell this puffed up ass wipe to go fuck himself.

Cocky ignoramuses like him are just not worth our time IMHO.  ;)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Anfauglir on December 30, 2011, 08:20:59 AM
Do you think that Pol Pot and Joe Stalin would have killed just as many people if they were theists?

Yes.  Yes, I do.  In fact, I think they would have killed many more, much faster, and with more support from their populations.  They were nut-jobs.....and it was only their atheism that prevented them being much, much worse.  And it seems you agree.

Theism in itself is not noble or grand.  It can be just as hideous, or more so, than atheism in my eyes.  Belief in a god or gods doesn't mean someone is morally superior to someone who is an agnostic or an atheist.

But the question you have been continually avoiding is why you want to establish causation between "atheist" and "mass-murder", without any attempt to show anything beyond (possible) correlation. 

Like plethora said - Stalin killed millions.  But did he kill millions because he was:

A) An atheist?
B) A Russian?
C) Had a moustache?
D) Ate cabbage?

Unless and until you can show that he killed because of one of those (or another) reason, there is no more sense asking "why did the atheist kill....?" than "why did the sushi-lover kill....?". 

And I know you don't want to discuss it - and I can see why - but the reverse it not true: all to often we can say "why did the believer kill....?" precisely because of their belief.

So go ahead: explain why all the deaths these people caused were caused because they were atheists.  Or are you just trolling?

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: jetson on December 30, 2011, 08:46:19 AM
He is a mix between troll and highly deluded theist.  And we all know what this thread is for, and it's sad how the irony doesn't slap him in the face. 

Atheism is also a religion
Atheists have killed millions too
Etc.

I could go on, but the point is clear enough.  When gods, and their followers cannot clearly show demonstrable evidence that their delusions are real, they resort to reminding those of us who don't need the delusion, that we are just as bad as they are.  Hey, when you can't rise above, just drag everyone else down with you!  Sounds like Jesus!

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: gonegolfing on December 30, 2011, 09:23:23 AM
He is a mix between troll and highly deluded theist.  And we all know what this thread is for, and it's sad how the irony doesn't slap him in the face. 

Atheism is also a religion
Atheists have killed millions too
Etc.

I could go on, but the point is clear enough.  When gods, and their followers cannot clearly show demonstrable evidence that their delusions are real, they resort to reminding those of us who don't need the delusion, that we are just as bad as they are.  Hey, when you can't rise above, just drag everyone else down with you!  Sounds like Jesus!

Yes....he's clearly using the "when in Rome do as the Romans do" approach.

But of course he's merely using his argument as a red herring to avoid, as you say, the arduous and thus far impossible task of proving that a god even exists in the first place....Which at the end of the day, is what we all want here at WWGHA--to be pointed to some clear, irrefutable, and up-to-date evidence.

Is that asking too much ?  ;)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Hatter23 on December 30, 2011, 10:03:42 AM
They were also men....does that mean all men are to be blamed? The also did not believe in Leprechauns, does that mean leprechaun believers are better people? They also didn't use heroin, sose that mean heroin use is axiomatically good?  This is bad company fallacy at the most basic.

You have to show it was their atheism that was the motivator. That Atheism was why they inspired people to follow them and commit atrocities.

Also you fail to notice, because of your philosophical blindness, how easily Stalin and Mussolini became buddies with the church when it suited their political purposes. Mussolini in particular pretty much dropped the whole Atheism thing after he got some power, I don't think there's a single time you can find him mentioning it after he was about 28 years old.

Quote
To the Christians and other scum;

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq:
"We have heard that a half million children
have died. I mean, that's more children than
died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price
worth it?"

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright:
"I think this is a very hard choice, but the
price--we think the price is worth it."

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

Atheists have been in America from the beginning.
And we are still here 250 years later.
Never have American Atheists advocated Mass murder,
or supported Stalin. Nor British Atheists either,
our cousins, nor Canadian Atheists.  Us English
speaking Atheists are singularly innocent of these
crimes of mass murder. To attack us because of an
insane dictator like Stalin is not acceptable.

Hitler and his scum were no Atheists either,
first thing Hitler did as dictator was shut
down all atheist and freethought organizations,
sending their leaders to concentration camps.

American Atheists have never been supporters
of mass murderers as a class.

But as we can see from Albright's quote above Americans,
mostly God believers, have supported a political system
that has indeed committed mass murder.

If Theists here want to toss up Stalin's evils,
long ago in the 30's, or Mao's in the 60's, they
have to take responsibilities for not standing
up and ending America's support for genocides
and mass murders in recent times.

Support for
Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Guatemala's Rios, Montt, El Salvador's
Robert D'Aubisson, Bush's bombing of Iraq's water systems,
a war crime, and sanctions, kept on Iraq by Clinton that killed
500,000 innocent children. Pinochet, support for the Indonesian
military as they killed 200,000 East Timurese, and still
are in Papua New Guinea, killing people. We supported the evil
far right murdering regimes of Greece, Brazil, Iran and Argentina.
Winked at decades of brutality and death squads in Mexico,
and Panama.  The US killed 500,000 with indiscriminate bombings
in Cambodia and killed many in Laos.

These evils were not a century ago, far away and by
people we could not influence.

Many of the scum that voted for and supported these
policies still hold office in the US, Senators, and
Congressmen of both parties, Christians all if you ask
them.

No nasty, sneering, hating, bigoted religious clown
has any right to put responsibility of Stalin's crimes
on my shoulder's for crimes this insane bastard committed
40 years before I was born, while the people in the
US government who were responsible for mass murder and
genocide of some 500,000 innocent children, Christians all,
(Save a few Jews, and Mormons) are still holding office,
military commands, and are not voted out of office by outraged
Christians, outraged at wanton genocide.

I see no mainstream churches, nor right winger churches
have wanted to make an effective issue out of this obscene
and wanton string of support for genocide, mass murder,
and dictators.

And as long as these evil men hold office in the US with
blood on their hands while Christians elect these men,
don't point your ugly finger at me and blather,
"Atheism! Stalin! Mass murder!"

You.  Take the log out your eye before blaming
me for something I have no blame for and will not
accept blame for.

As long as these mass murderers of 500,000 Iraq
children hold office in Congress as Senators,
or Congressmen, or those in the military that
approved and carried out these war crimes,
remain there, unpunished, and in office, in
a nation many believers loudly proclaim Christian,
it is you Christians that are the mass murders,
not us American Atheists.

And until these men are removed and tried for their
crimes, I will not hesitate to describe American
Christians as a whole, supporters of genocide,
mass murder and mass murders.

It is not us Atheists who are supporters of mass
murder and genocide.  it is a majority American
Christians who are because they refuse to stop
supporting it and refuse to punish it.

W. C. Barwell 7-7-06.




Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: naemhni on December 30, 2011, 10:11:26 AM
Do you think that Pol Pot and Joe Stalin would have killed just as many people if they were theists?

Yes, because their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) had nothing to do with their actions.  That's the whole point that everyone is trying to drive through your skull.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: jetson on December 30, 2011, 10:13:23 AM
As the OP wants us to do, we should focus on "atheists" who committed mass murder and genocide in the twentieth century.

There are none.  The idea that an atheist would ever commit genocide, or mass murder is barely even a hypothesis, does not even come close to a theory, and has more holes in it than evolution.  Scientists cannot come up with even a single example of an atheist committing mass murder, so I'm not sure this discussion has enough support to get off the ground.

Gzuz, I think we can wrap this one up and move on to showing why you delude children into thinking there's a magic dude who loves them unless they don't worship him, in which case they will burn in Hell.  Whaddya say!

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Ambassador Pony on December 30, 2011, 10:34:28 AM
Seconded. Let's move on to a thread about how moon craters demonstrate the age of the solar system. That link is definitely not in my sig, and certainly should not be clicked on by any young earth creationists.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Historicity on December 30, 2011, 11:25:51 AM
Stalin died of old age in bed,
Died in front of Politburo members.  Krushchev watched it happen and kept changing the details.  Stalin was probably strangled by Beria.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Historicity on December 30, 2011, 11:31:06 AM
Now, rising star Benito Mussolini with a death count of at least 300,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini)

Mussolini was baptized.  Mussolini had his children baptized.  Mussolini remarried his wife in a Catholic church.  Mussolini gave back the Church a Vatican state.  Mussolini outlawed blasphemy.  That Catholic Church cooperated with Mussolini.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/mussolini_roman_catholic.htm (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/mussolini_roman_catholic.htm)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on December 30, 2011, 11:36:03 AM
Evolutionary views led Hitler (after reading Nietzche) to believe that some "races" of mankind were more superior than others.  Aryans were superior to Jews.  Since Hitler's God was not the God of the Bible (as evidenced by Hitler's murder of many Protestant pastors), Hitler thought he could kill Jews because they were "inferior".  I haven't researched enough to determine why Stalin killed Jews.

Uh... what? "Superior" isn't exactly a good word to use when talking in evolutionary terms, unless it is immediatly followed by "capability to survive the given enviroment". Plus, Hitler banned books teaching evolution. To call his views based off of "Evolutionary views" is outright idiotic.

I think you're missing something here.


As for Stalin: He killed for political reasons, paranoia, and communism. His atheism is probably one of the few things that didn't give him more targets.

Do you think that Pol Pot and Joe Stalin would have killed just as many people if they were theists?

Without a doubt.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: changeling on December 30, 2011, 11:48:15 AM
This is scary.
They were all men = men are all evil.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 12:15:39 PM
Course, there have been 'evil' religious people, and vice versa, so I don't think it would be fair to equate one or the other.   But, if I had a choice between having a government leader as an atheist or christian, I'd probably choose the christian.

Since,  the atheist sees no authority higher than himself.  Therefore, I think this can lead more likely to a dictator mindset.  Whereas, a christian recognizes a higher authority than himself, and so would less likely conceive of himself as a dictator.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on December 30, 2011, 12:33:04 PM
Whereas, a christian recognizes a higher authority than himself, and so would less likely conceive of himself as a dictator.

So does a muslim, hindu, jew, sihk, rastafarian, etc etc. Would you have a problem with any of them or just atheists?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on December 30, 2011, 12:33:28 PM
This is scary.
They were all men = men are all evil.

Even worse, they were all alive!
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: naemhni on December 30, 2011, 12:39:38 PM
This is scary.
They were all men = men are all evil.

Even worse, they were all alive!

And the sons of bitches all used hemoglobin for oxygen transport in their blood cells!  Hemoglobin!  Madness, I tell you!
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on December 30, 2011, 12:42:44 PM
This is scary.
They were all men = men are all evil.

Even worse, they were all alive!

And the sons of bitches all used hemoglobin for oxygen transport in their blood cells!  Hemoglobin!  Madness, I tell you!

They breathed???
Good god... We're all doomed!
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 12:43:22 PM
Whereas, a christian recognizes a higher authority than himself, and so would less likely conceive of himself as a dictator.

So does a muslim, hindu, jew, sihk, rastafarian, etc etc. Would you have a problem with any of them or just atheists?

I'd have a problem with anyone who doesn't recognize a higher authority than himself, being a leader of the country.   I live in the u.s.a., so if an atheist recognizes 'natural given rights' , instead of 'god given rights',  I suppose then they would be recognizing a higher authority.   But,  I just see this to be less likely in other parts of the world.

And so you have some people in my country who think; 'why do we need god in the constitution, etc.'.  Well, to prevent tyranny you have to start with the premise that there is an authority greater than any elected official, that's why......
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: changeling on December 30, 2011, 12:44:29 PM
   But, if I had a choice between having a government leader as an atheist or christian, I'd probably choose the christian.

Since,  the atheist sees no authority higher than himself.  Therefore, I think this can lead more likely to a dictator mindset.  Whereas, a christian recognizes a higher authority than himself, and so would less likely conceive of himself as a dictator.

Yeah, I have seen that.
The leader might say that God told him to invade another country or something.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 12:49:07 PM
   But, if I had a choice between having a government leader as an atheist or christian, I'd probably choose the christian.

Since,  the atheist sees no authority higher than himself.  Therefore, I think this can lead more likely to a dictator mindset.  Whereas, a christian recognizes a higher authority than himself, and so would less likely conceive of himself as a dictator.

Yeah, I have seen that.
The leader might say that God told him to invade a country.

Ok. Well, fortunately in my country you need more of a reason to go to war than that.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Death over Life on December 30, 2011, 12:50:50 PM
Did we scare him away?

Anyways, I was planning on challenging the Joseph Stalin claim, but somebody else already did it so thank you!  :)

Let us play his face-value game here for a second. Let us say all of them were atheists and that God is indeed real. The fact that they were atheists means nothing because as the Bible says, God sanctions ALL forms of government, good and bad. So, if God ordained these people to do what they did, who's really to blame, Hitler, Pot, Stalin, Zedong, or is it really God, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit for putting them into office to begin with?

Peter 2:13-23

13Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
15For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
16As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
17Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
18Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
19For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
20For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
21For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
23Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

Romans 13:1-4

Romans 13
1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.


I like the kicker, on verse 2 in Romans that if you resist the corrupt government(s), you are receiving yourself to damnation. Guess the Tea Partyers will have a great awakening coming when they die!
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: changeling on December 30, 2011, 12:53:55 PM
Quote by Gill, "Ok. Well, fortunately in my country you need more of a reason to go to war than that. "

And which country might that be Gill.

"President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to
invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals. "

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: naemhni on December 30, 2011, 12:54:43 PM

Yeah, I have seen that.
The leader might say that God told him to invade a country.

Ok. Well, fortunately in my country you need more of a reason to go to war than that.

Really?  I thought you said you lived in the USA.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 12:55:42 PM
And which country might that be Gill.

"President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to
invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals. "

Ok.  So did all the hundreds of congressmen and women, who are the ones which approve war,  also agree with this idea? 
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: changeling on December 30, 2011, 12:57:20 PM
Sorry pianodwarf,
I was typing while you replied.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: changeling on December 30, 2011, 12:58:42 PM
And which country might that be Gill.

"President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to
invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals. "

Ok.  So did all the hundreds of congressmen and women, who are the ones which approve war,  also agree with this idea?

It doesn't matter if they agreed with his idea.
God gave him the command.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: naemhni on December 30, 2011, 12:59:00 PM
Sorry pianodwarf,
I was typing while you replied.

That's OK, that happens quite a bit around here.  And it's hard to keep track of who's in which country sometimes.  At least, with most of the regulars here, not all of them.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 12:59:42 PM
And which country might that be Gill.

"President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to
invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals. "

Ok.  So did all the hundreds of congressmen and women, who are the ones which approve war,  also agree with this idea?

It doesn't matter if they agreed with his idea.
God gave him the command.

huh?  The president doesn't have the authority to start a war.   This declaration must be approved by congress, so yeah, I think it does matter.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: monkeymind on December 30, 2011, 01:04:06 PM
Why would a President care about the War Powers Act Resolution if he thot god told him to bring war?

Wiki:
The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and again by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for attack on Libya, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action.[2] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional. [3][4]
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 01:06:26 PM
Why would a President care about the War Powers Act if he thot god told him to bring war?

Wiki:
The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and again by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for attack on Libya, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action.[2] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional. [3][4]

apples and oranges.   The iraq war had to be declared and approved by congress, which it was.  So if one wants to blame Bush, then you have to blame congress too...
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: monkeymind on December 30, 2011, 01:12:36 PM
I'm responding to you saying you would rather have a Christian as President, and asking you a question.

(and I referenced Clinton and Obama, anyways)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on December 30, 2011, 01:14:31 PM
Whereas, a christian recognizes a higher authority than himself, and so would less likely conceive of himself as a dictator.

So does a muslim, hindu, jew, sihk, rastafarian, etc etc. Would you have a problem with any of them or just atheists?

I'd have a problem with anyone who doesn't recognize a higher authority than himself, being a leader of the country.   I live in the u.s.a., so if an atheist recognizes 'natural given rights' , instead of 'god given rights',  I suppose then they would be recognizing a higher authority.   But,  I just see this to be less likely in other parts of the world.

And so you have some people in my country who think; 'why do we need god in the constitution, etc.'.  Well, to prevent tyranny you have to start with the premise that there is an authority greater than any elected official, that's why......

You didn't answer the question. Would you vote for a muslim before an atheist?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 01:21:13 PM
You didn't answer the question. Would you vote for a muslim before an atheist?

I doubt it since most Muslim countries seem to be dictatorships.   
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on December 30, 2011, 01:23:57 PM
You didn't answer the question. Would you vote for a muslim before an atheist?

I doubt it since most Muslim countries seem to be dictatorships.

Beside a christian what religion would you vote for?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: monkeymind on December 30, 2011, 01:26:18 PM
So if you read that wiki article the next line after the one I mentioned says:
Quote
All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional.

So if all presidents since the resolution think it is unconstitutional AND if they think god told them to, why wouldn't they be even more likely to start a war w/o congressional approval? I think they would.

But I gotta go for now, can't wait to see if you are gonna answer me this time.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 01:29:55 PM
You didn't answer the question. Would you vote for a muslim before an atheist?

I doubt it since most Muslim countries seem to be dictatorships.

Beside a christian what religion would you vote for?

Maybe buddist or jewish since most those countries are democratic also.   
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 01:35:57 PM
So if you read that wiki article the next line after the one I mentioned says:
Quote
All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional.

So if all presidents since the resolution think it is unconstitutional AND if they think god told them to, why wouldn't they be even more likely to start a war w/o congressional approval? I think they would.


Possibly, that's a complex question...
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Anfauglir on December 30, 2011, 01:39:28 PM
Since,  the atheist sees no authority higher than himself.  Therefore, I think this can lead more likely to a dictator mindset.  Whereas, a christian recognizes a higher authority than himself, and so would less likely conceive of himself as a dictator.

That's the important part.  I'm sure that most Christians DON'T think they are dictating, no more than any imam does.

What people have been trying to say to you (which perhaps got lost in the talk of war), is that a religious leader may at some point come to the position where s/he feels that god wants certain actions performed - and it is then, precisely because they believe in and follow a "higher power", that they will follow what they think that higher power wants, totally convinced that they are correct to do so. 

And THAT is dictatorship.  Doesn't matter that they are following a "higher power" instead of their own whims - the effect is the same - or worse because they have the "backing" of the ultimate Big Cheese for whatever actions they deem fit.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on December 30, 2011, 01:40:32 PM
You didn't answer the question. Would you vote for a muslim before an atheist?

I doubt it since most Muslim countries seem to be dictatorships.

Beside a christian what religion would you vote for?

Maybe buddist or jewish since most those countries are democratic also.

There is only 1 jewish country and no bhuddist democracies. So you don't really have much to go on. Yet most of Europe has secular government. But you wouldn't vote for an atheist. Why do I bother.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 01:46:37 PM
Beside a christian what religion would you vote for?
Quote
Maybe buddist or jewish since most those countries are democratic also.

There is only 1 jewish country and no bhuddist democracies. So you don't really have much to go on. Yet most of Europe has secular government. But you wouldn't vote for an atheist. Why do I bother.

But isn't India buddist or hindu to be specific?  That would be fine.   
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on December 30, 2011, 01:51:07 PM
Since,  the atheist sees no authority higher than himself.

Instead, the atheist likely views everyone as equals. No one is superior, but no one is inferior - thus democracy. The idea that there is a higher power directly contributed to Monarchies - and the very concept of the Christian God is one of the strongest forms of a Dictatorship you could come up with.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 30, 2011, 01:52:32 PM
When you can show that mass murder occurred anywhere specifically because of "a lack of belief in gods", then perhaps it will be worth discussion.

Do you think that Pol Pot and Joe Stalin would have killed just as many people if they were theists?

Now, rising star Benito Mussolini with a death count of at least 300,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini)
how many people of MY nations have christians killed  60 million and counting (Indigenous people of North America)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 30, 2011, 01:53:30 PM
Since,  the atheist sees no authority higher than himself.

Instead, the atheist likely views everyone as equals. No one is superior, but no one is inferior - thus democracy. The idea that there is a higher power directly contributed to Monarchies - and the very concept of the Christian God is one of the strongest forms of a Dictatorship you could come up with.

Correct. As an atheist, I see no higher authority than us. That is us as in we, not as in USA.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 02:10:38 PM
Since,  the atheist sees no authority higher than himself.

Instead, the atheist likely views everyone as equals. No one is superior, but no one is inferior - thus democracy. The idea that there is a higher power directly contributed to Monarchies - and the very concept of the Christian God is one of the strongest forms of a Dictatorship you could come up with.

So then who gives you your rights in the USA,  some temporary elected officials?  No, that is tyranny, to base ultimate authority on temporary government officials.   That's why the founders of the country recognized that people are 'endowed with rights from their creator'.  To take the full power off the government.

Now, if you want to call your creator  'the universe', or 'nature' , instead of God, that's fine, but it's still the same philosophy of recognizing an authority that trumps any person.

And so if one doesn't believe in such an authority, then I think they'd be less respecting of such a governmental premise.    Then you have tyrants, trying to control everyone.  (Instead of conservatives which follow the founders recognition of such rights)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: jetson on December 30, 2011, 02:26:08 PM
What is it with using the word "authority".  What in the world does that even mean for humanity, in this context?  Why does a human being have to recognize a higher authority?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on December 30, 2011, 02:27:14 PM
^^ Because if we don't recognize a higher authority, then we might end up governing ourselves, instead of living in a dictatorship...
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: jetson on December 30, 2011, 02:28:47 PM
^^ Because if we don't recognize a higher authority, then we might end up governing ourselves, instead of living in a dictatorship...

That's how I understand the context, so I'm hoping that Gill can see why this is a weird position to take.  I hope he doesn't think that a higher authority is a requirement for humans to exist, have societies, live their lives, and get along in peace?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 30, 2011, 02:29:49 PM
Why would a President care about the War Powers Act if he thot god told him to bring war?

Wiki:
The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and again by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for attack on Libya, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action.[2] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional. [3][4]

apples and oranges.   The iraq war had to be declared and approved by congress, which it was.  So if one wants to blame Bush, then you have to blame congress too...
and the religion of most U.S. congressman and women?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 02:33:00 PM
^^ Because if we don't recognize a higher authority, then we might end up governing ourselves, instead of living in a dictatorship...

That's how I understand the context, so I'm hoping that Gill can see why this is a weird position to take.  I hope he doesn't think that a higher authority is a requirement for humans to exist, have societies, live their lives, and get along in peace?

I don't understand how that's weird.   Who gives you your rights; other men and women?  Or do you believe you were born with natural rights?

The USA is founded on the principle that people are born with god-given rights.   If you don't believe in god, then call them 'natural given rights'.  But either way, you're recognizing something which endows you power other than simply transient elected officials...
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on December 30, 2011, 02:36:33 PM
Gill, for clarity's sake, could you explain exactly what you think a "right" is, and what it means to give it to someone?

For example, can I go and give you a right?  Why or why not?

EDIT:  Also, to be clear, I am not asking for examples.  I can think of plenty of examples.  I am familiar with the idea of rights.  I am asking you what the concept means to you.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 30, 2011, 02:37:06 PM
^^ Because if we don't recognize a higher authority, then we might end up governing ourselves, instead of living in a dictatorship...

That's how I understand the context, so I'm hoping that Gill can see why this is a weird position to take.  I hope he doesn't think that a higher authority is a requirement for humans to exist, have societies, live their lives, and get along in peace?

I don't understand how that's weird.   Who gives you your rights; other men and women?  Or do you believe you were born with natural rights?

The USA is founded on the principle that people are born with god-given rights.   If you don't believe in god, then call them 'natural given rights'.  But either way, you're recognizing something which endows you power other than simply transient elected officials...
The USA was founded on the blood and bones of its indigenous peoples....the object of this freedom turned from religous freedom to greed,gold,timber and other resources were the new motivator for the establishment of the new colonies.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: jetson on December 30, 2011, 02:42:20 PM

I don't understand how that's weird.   Who gives you your rights; other men and women?  Or do you believe you were born with natural rights?

The USA is founded on the principle that people are born with god-given rights.   If you don't believe in god, then call them 'natural given rights'.  But either way, you're recognizing something which endows you power other than simply transient elected officials...

Gill, ancient people believed in, and invented gods.  Modern humans continue to cling to those inventions today.  None of that makes God real.  God is imaginary, all gods are imaginary.

What this country was founded on was the simple and good idea that no "authority" gets to tell anyone what they should or should not believe, with regards to gods and religions.  They referenced a creator, as they were largely believers in either the Christian god, or a deistic creator - but so what?

What gives us rights, is our democracy, and our understanding of individual freedom.  Our laws, and our constitution speak directly to that.  And if you haven't noticed, those are changing over time, and being amended as necessary.

I do not normally promote my own blog on this forum, but my last post speaks to the founding "principles" of the United States.  Click the WWW link under my avatar if you're interested.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on December 30, 2011, 02:47:40 PM
So then who gives you your rights in the USA,  some temporary elected officials?  No, that is tyranny, to base ultimate authority on temporary government officials.   That's why the founders of the country recognized that people are 'endowed with rights from their creator'.  To take the full power off the government.

[...]

And so if one doesn't believe in such an authority, then I think they'd be less respecting of such a governmental premise.    Then you have tyrants, trying to control everyone.

We gain our rights not from the government, but from society - of which the government is only a part.

Humans are social animals - it is a primary factor in our survival mechanisms. We benefit tremendously from our societies when they do well, and suffer horribly when our societies fail. Our rights come out of mutual respect for those within our society. A healthier society is the ultimate goal; and when an individual's rights are respected, that individual can contribute to society more. When everyone contributes to society, they gain more back from society. The rights themselves form based on what society as a whole deems beneficial in that place and time period. Your rights in the modern day would not be the same rights you would have had 500 years ago (although there would likely be overlaps).

With that said, respect for government should be earned by the government. If the governement cannot uphold and protect the rights of its people, then fuck it.

We are all equals and should be treated as such.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 02:50:15 PM
Gill, for clarity's sake, could you explain exactly what you think a "right" is, and what it means to give it to someone?

For example, can I go and give you a right?  Why or why not?

EDIT:  Also, to be clear, I am not asking for examples.  I can think of plenty of examples.  I am familiar with the idea of rights.  I am asking you what the concept means to you.

A Right is something a person is legally allowed to do in a society.  And they are not given by any government official. The government's role is to protect one's rights.  (at least in my country)

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: jetson on December 30, 2011, 03:03:42 PM
Gill, for clarity's sake, could you explain exactly what you think a "right" is, and what it means to give it to someone?

For example, can I go and give you a right?  Why or why not?

EDIT:  Also, to be clear, I am not asking for examples.  I can think of plenty of examples.  I am familiar with the idea of rights.  I am asking you what the concept means to you.

A Right is something a person is legally allowed to do in a society.  And they are not given by any government official. The government's role is to protect one's rights.  (at least in my country)

So, those rights, as mentioned above, come from the society one lives in, and what it wants to tolerate.  But when religion or gods are used as the basis of those rights, problems arise.  The main problem being that we modern humans should have dropped the God Delusion - but have been unable to.  Thus, society at large continues to attempt to heap their religious and god based rights upon everyone, which means gays can't get married, blacks can't vote, women can't vote, etc.

Humans are able to have sexual intercourse much earlier than most modern societies will tolerate from a legal perspective.  The human animal can create offspring as soon as puberty hits.  But, our society is organized such that we needed some age of accountability, adult age as we call it, so we can develop laws, and restrictions to keep our society from turning into a mess of babies that cannot be properly cared for, for example.

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: monkeymind on December 30, 2011, 03:10:32 PM
Gill, I know your statement was that this country was founded on Christian principals, and that may be so.

I just want to point you to the Treaty of Tripoli where the government denied that the USA was founded on the Christian religion.

Quote
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: DVZ3 on December 30, 2011, 03:10:48 PM
When people like gzusfreke start listing out atrocities caused by so-called atheists, we should start using the ole christian parlor trick and claim that they weren't TRUE AtheistsTM  they were really undercover Christians but not TRUE ChristiansTM;)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: jetson on December 30, 2011, 03:18:57 PM
When people like gzusfreke start listing out atrocities caused by so-called atheists, we should start using the ole christian parlor trick and claim that they weren't TRUE AtheistsTM  they were really undercover Christians but not TRUE ChristiansTM;)

I took it a step further DV...I trashed the whole idea, in exactly the same way they trash evolution.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21064.msg468035.html#msg468035 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21064.msg468035.html#msg468035)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Historicity on December 30, 2011, 03:21:34 PM
Breaking into the discussion, there is a hypocritical meme of both the right and left that Obama unconstitutionally declared war on Ghaddafi, that he defied the Senate which alone has the right to declare war. An often repeated thought is he should be impeached as that is clearly an impeachable offense. Below is the text of the Senate resolution authorizing Obama to take military action in Libya.  It was passed unanimously.  I got this from a page on John McCain's website (http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=1ead0fac-d88a-1c3f-d8c9-b2bc801470e2).  McCain and John Kerry were the cosponsors of the bill:

Quote
SENATORS INTRODUCE RESOLUTION ON THE U.S. MISSION IN LIBYA
May 23, 2011
...
112th CONGRESS 1st SESSION

Expressing the sense of the Senate on United States military operations in Libya.

Whereas peaceful demonstrations that began in Libya, inspired by similar movements in Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere in the Middle East, quickly spread to cities around the country, calling for greater political reform, opportunity, justice, and the rule of law;

Whereas, Muammar Qaddafi, his sons, and forces loyal to them responded to the peaceful demonstrations by authorizing and initiating violence against civilian non-combatants in Libya, including the use of airpower and foreign mercenaries;

Whereas, on February 25, 2011, President Barack Obama imposed unilateral economic sanctions on and froze the assets of Muammar Qaddafi and his family, as well as the Government of Libya and its agencies, to hold the Qaddafi regime accountable for its continued use of violence against unarmed civilians and its human rights abuses and to safeguard the assets of the people of Libya;

Whereas, on February 26, 2011, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1970, which mandates international economic sanctions and an arms embargo;

Whereas, in response to Qaddafi’s assault on Libyan civilians, a ‘‘no-fly zone’’ in Libya was called for by the Gulf Cooperation Council on March 7, 2011, by the head of the Organization of the Islamic Conference on March 8, 2011, and by the Arab League on March 12, 2011;

Whereas Qaddafi’s advancing forces, after recapturing cities in eastern Libya that had been liberated by the Libyan opposition, were preparing to attack Benghazi, a city of 700,000 people and the seat of the opposition Government in Libya, the Interim Transitional National Council;

Whereas Qaddafi stated that he would show ‘‘no mercy’’ to his opponents in Benghazi, and that his forces would go ‘‘door to door’’ to find and kill dissidents;

Whereas, on March 17, 2011, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1973, which mandates ‘‘all necessary measures’’ to protect civilians in Libya, implement a ‘‘no-fly zone’’, and enforce an arms embargo against the Qaddafi regime;

Whereas President Obama notified key congressional leaders in a meeting at the White House on March 18, 2011, of his intent to begin targeted military operations in Libya;

Whereas the United States Armed Forces, together with coalition partners, launched Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya on March 19, 2011, to protect civilians in Libya from immediate danger and to enforce an arms embargo and a ‘‘no-fly zone’’; and

Whereas, on March 31, 2011, the United States transferred authority for Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya to NATO command, with the mission continuing as Operation Unified Protector: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate—

(1) supports the aspirations of the Libyan people for political reform and self-government based on democratic and human rights;

(2) commends the service of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and our coalition partners who are engaged in military operations to protect the people of Libya;

(3) supports the limited use of military force by the United States in Libya as part of the NATO mission to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011), as requested by the Transitional National Council, the Arab League, and the Gulf Cooperation Council;

(4) agrees that the goal of United States policy in Libya, as stated by the President, is to achieve the departure from power of Muammar Qaddafi and his family, including through the use of non-military means, so that a peaceful transition can begin to an inclusive government that ensures freedom, opportunity, and justice for the people of Libya;

(5) affirms that the funds of the Qaddafi regime that have been frozen by the United States should be returned to the Libyan people for their benefit, including humanitarian and reconstruction assistance, and calls for exploring with the Transitional National Council the possibility of using some of such funds to reimburse NATO member countries for expenses incurred in Operation Odyssey Dawn and Operation Unified Protector; and

(6) calls on the President—   

(A) to submit to Congress a description of United States policy objectives in Libya, both during and after Qaddafi’s rule, and a detailed plan to achieve them; and 

(B) to consult regularly with Congress regarding United States efforts in Libya.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 03:22:34 PM
Gill, I know your statement was that this country was founded on Christian principals, and that may be so.

I just want to point you to the Treaty of Tripoli where the government denied that the USA was founded on the Christian religion.

Quote
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli)

Well more so than Christian principles , the principle that there's a higher authority than man which gives people some of their rights.  And so one could call that higher authority 'nature' instead of 'god', but I still see it necessary to believe in such an authority to have such a government.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on December 30, 2011, 03:26:58 PM
A Right is something a person is legally allowed to do in a society.  And they are not given by any government official. The government's role is to protect one's rights.  (at least in my country)

Since humans define what is legal, humans give rights - per your definition.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Historicity on December 30, 2011, 03:27:52 PM
When people like gzusfreke start listing out atrocities caused by so-called atheists, we should start using the ole christian parlor trick and claim that they weren't TRUE AtheistsTM  they were really undercover Christians but not TRUE ChristiansTM;)

Alex Szandor La Vey used to do that.  Acc to him a real Satanist would never harm a child; a child embodies the gullt-free joy to which Satanism aspires.  Likewise a real Satanist would not sacrifice an animal.  I can't remember how he reasoned it but he also said a real Satanist would not cheat on his wife.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: monkeymind on December 30, 2011, 03:42:45 PM
Seems there are technicalities...
Here's where I got my references to Clinton and Obama:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution)
Quote

More recently under President Clinton, war powers were at issue in former Yugoslavia; Bosnia; Kosovo; Iraq, and Haiti, and under President George W. Bush in responding to terrorist attacks against the U.S. after September 11, 2001. "n 1999, President Clinton kept the bombing campaign in Kosovo going for more than two weeks after the 60-day deadline had passed. Even then, however, the Clinton legal team opined that its actions were consistent with the War Powers Resolution because Congress had approved a bill funding the operation, which they argued constituted implicit authorization. That theory was controversial because the War Powers Resolution specifically says that such funding does not constitute authorization."[6] Clinton's actions in Kosovo were challenged by a member of Congress as a violation of the Wars Power Resolution in the D.C. Circuit case Campbell v. Clinton, but the court found the issue was a non-justiciable political question.
and

Quote
May 20, 2011, marked the 60th day of US combat in Libya (as part of the UN resolution) but the deadline arrived without President Obama seeking specific authorization from the US Congress.[8] President Obama, however, notified Congress that no authorization was needed,[9] since the US leadership was transferred to NATO,[10] and since US involvement is somewhat limited. On Friday, June 3, 2011, the US House of Representatives voted to rebuke President Obama for maintaining an American presence in the NATO operations in Libya, which they considered a violation of the War Powers Resolution.[11][12]]
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 03:43:30 PM
A Right is something a person is legally allowed to do in a society.  And they are not given by any government official. The government's role is to protect one's rights.  (at least in my country)

Since humans define what is legal, humans give rights - per your definition.

They recognized and defined what they were, yes.  But the definition was built on the premise that those rights are god-given, or 'natural' if that's preferable to you, and cannot be taken away by the government.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: monkeymind on December 30, 2011, 04:02:38 PM
Gill, I know your statement was that this country was founded on Christian principals, and that may be so.

I just want to point you to the Treaty of Tripoli where the government denied that the USA was founded on the Christian religion.

Quote
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli)

Well more so than Christian principles , the principle that there's a higher authority than man which gives people some of their rights.  And so one could call that higher authority 'nature' instead of 'god', but I still see it necessary to believe in such an authority to have such a government.

OK, but I think Adams as second pres and a founding father, would have a better idea about whatever those principles were than you and I. And he said:

Quote
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion
He was a puritan, so I would think he believed in a higher power, a fundamental aspect of the religion. Of course this could have been more Christian lies.

More recently, in a speech, Obama said that we are not a Christian nation but a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims...and atheists.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on December 30, 2011, 04:07:01 PM
They recognized and defined what they were, yes.

We recognized and defined the legal right to a trial by a jury of our peers?  That's a pre-existing truth of the universe?  Eh?

But the definition was built on the premise that those rights are god-given, or 'natural' if that's preferable to you, and cannot be taken away by the government.

Then the definition you gave is not the one you are actually using.  Please re-answer the question, this time with a real answer.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 04:19:04 PM
They recognized and defined what they were, yes.

We recognized and defined the legal right to a trial by a jury of our peers?  That's a pre-existing truth of the universe?  Eh?


Well that's a specific derivative of the right to life, liberty , and the pursuit of happiness.  And of course, such specific rights are more precisely defined these in ways.

But my main point is,  that the rights, although defined by people, are also declared as natural rights, not rights given to men by other men. 

Because if it is the case that these are man-given rights, then it would be easy for a government official to argue that he should be able to take a right away, since he is the giver, as would be in a dictatorship or communist.

On the other hand,  when you start with the premise that they are natural, unalienable, god-given, then a man can't make a legitimate argument that he should be able to take them away from you.  For how could a man take away a right which is a natural right?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Hatter23 on December 30, 2011, 04:23:56 PM
Well, to prevent tyranny you have to start with the premise that there is an authority greater than any elected official,


Amazingly stupid statement, please review the history of every theocracy who had actual temporal power.

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 04:26:59 PM
Well, to prevent tyranny you have to start with the premise that there is an authority greater than any elected official,


Amazingly stupid statement, please review the history of every theocracy who had actual temporal power.

Ok, so then other men give you your rights?  I guess then it would be logical that they can take them away too.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: dloubet on December 30, 2011, 04:27:40 PM
Quote
Since,  the atheist sees no authority higher than himself.  Therefore, I think this can lead more likely to a dictator mindset.  Whereas, a christian recognizes a higher authority than himself, and so would less likely conceive of himself as a dictator.

Seriously? Are you absolutely crazy? The atheist will see that the people are a greater authority than him. There are more of them, and he had better not piss them off too much. He will see that he needs their cooperation to stay in power, and thus will moderate his actions.

The Christian, on the other hand, doesn't have to care what the people think as long as he thinks he's doing gods work. He's free to be as authoritarian and dictatorial as he likes because he thinks god is on his side. He will ignore threats to himself because he thinks he's on a mission from god and that he either can't be harmed, or that he is prepared to be a martyr. There are no limits on his behavior.

You do not want to live in a theocracy, because if you are not the exact right religion and sect, you will at best be a second class citizen, and at worst be bayonetted to death or set on fire. Or both. Along with thousands -- if not millions -- of others.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on December 30, 2011, 04:34:49 PM
Well that's a specific derivative of the right to life, liberty , and the pursuit of happiness.  And of course, such specific rights are more precisely defined these in ways.

That doesn't jive with your earlier definition of a right.  By that definition, every law that enables people to do something is a right, in its entirety, including this one.

But my main point is,  that the rights, although defined by people, are also declared as natural rights, not rights given to men by other men.


There you go with the passive voice again.  Didn't your English teacher tell you to avoid that, and why?  Passive voice hides information.  We can say "Joe ate a bowl of cereal" or we can say "a bowl of cereal was eaten".  The former is active voice, the latter, passive voice.  See how the passive voice version gives less information with the same # of words?  This is useful if you don't want to indicate who ate the bowl of cereal - in other words, if you have something to hide.

In this case, you have decided to use language that hides who was declaring the rights.  Who declares rights as natural rights, and what gives them the authority to do so?

Because if it is the case that these are man-given rights, then it would be easy for a government official to argue that he should be able to take a right away, since he is the giver, as would be in a dictatorship or communist.

It's generally not the government official who was in charge of giving the rights.  Someone else was, someone the public agrees on, like the "Founding Fathers" - or even the public itself, through direct representation.  Like in a democracy.

On the other hand,  when you start with the premise that they are natural, unalienable, god-given, then a man can't make a legitimate argument that he should be able to take them away from you.  For how could a man take away a right which is a natural right?

By having the power to do so.  What difference would it make if a god did grant certain rights?  The god isn't enforcing them.  Ultimately, it ends up being humans who have to grant those rights, not the god.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 04:35:01 PM
Quote
Since,  the atheist sees no authority higher than himself.  Therefore, I think this can lead more likely to a dictator mindset.  Whereas, a christian recognizes a higher authority than himself, and so would less likely conceive of himself as a dictator.

Seriously? Are you absolutely crazy? The atheist will see that the people are a greater authority than him. There are more of them, and he had better not piss them off too much. He will see that he needs their cooperation to stay in power, and thus will moderate his actions.

The Christian, on the other hand, doesn't have to care what the people think as long as he thinks he's doing gods work. He's free to be as authoritarian and dictatorial as he likes because he thinks god is on his side. He will ignore threats to himself because he thinks he's on a mission from god and that he either can't be harmed, or that he is prepared to be a martyr. There are no limits on his behavior.

You do not want to live in a theocracy, because if you are not the exact right religion and sect, you will at best be a second class citizen, and at worst be bayonetted to death or set on fire. Or both. Along with thousands -- if not millions -- of others.

No, I don't want to live in a theocracy and I don't.   But I do live in a country that doesn't place man as the ultimate giver of rights.  For if that is the case,  that it is man who gives me the right of freedom, life, pursuing happiness,  then I suppose a man would have the authority to take those rights away, wouldn't he?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on December 30, 2011, 04:36:22 PM
Ok, so then other men give you your rights?  I guess then it would be logical that they can take them away too.

This has happened many times in history.  Dictatorships generally entail taking away peoples' rights.

You are trying to claim that dictatorships do not happen, which is a very odd stance to take.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 04:37:56 PM
On the other hand,  when you start with the premise that they are natural, unalienable, god-given, then a man can't make a legitimate argument that he should be able to take them away from you.  For how could a man take away a right which is a natural right?

By having the power to do so.  What difference would it make if a god did grant certain rights?  The god isn't enforcing them.  Ultimately, it ends up being humans who have to grant those rights, not the god.


I just said the difference.   If our rights are 'god-given'  or 'natural-given',  then how can a government official try to argue in taking them away if he didn't give them to you in the first place?  He can try, but most people will not see it as a legitimate argument.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on December 30, 2011, 04:38:03 PM
For if that is the case,  that it is man who gives me the right of freedom, life, pursuing happiness,  then I suppose a man would have the authority to take those rights away, wouldn't he?

You mean like banning gay marriage, making it illegal for African-Americans and women to vote and so on?
Yeah. That never happened in the USA.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 04:40:27 PM
Ok, so then other men give you your rights?  I guess then it would be logical that they can take them away too.

This has happened many times in history.  Dictatorships generally entail taking away peoples' rights.

You are trying to claim that dictatorships do not happen, which is a very odd stance to take.

No I'm not claming that.  I'm saying that if you believe that your rights aren't natural, they were given to you by men, then you must also believe that men can take them away. 
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on December 30, 2011, 04:42:39 PM
I just said the difference.   If our rights are 'god-given'  or 'natural-given',  then how can a government official try to argue in taking them away if he didn't give them to you in the first place?  He can try, but most people will not see it as a legitimate argument.

Did Hitler argue to the Jews that he should be able to take away their right to life?  Or did he just go ahead and do it, with "God-given" sanction?

If people genuinely want a right - whatever its origin - then they will not accept that it should be taken away; this is true regardless of who gave them that right in the first place.  If they do not want a right, then they will not care whether it's from a god or not, they just won't care about the right.

Why are gods better right-givers than humans are?  If a right-giving human's authority can be neglected, then so can a god's.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 04:43:33 PM
For if that is the case,  that it is man who gives me the right of freedom, life, pursuing happiness,  then I suppose a man would have the authority to take those rights away, wouldn't he?

You mean like banning gay marriage, making it illegal for African-Americans and women to vote and so on?
Yeah. That never happened in the USA.

I never said the country was perfect in it's application of law. lol.  I'm saying that it would be a hell of a lot more difficult to try to legitimately argue for taking away someone's rights if they are declared as natural-rights, then if they were declared as man-given.

Which is why, of course, the founders said they were natural rights.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on December 30, 2011, 04:43:51 PM
No I'm not claming that.  I'm saying that if you believe that your rights aren't natural, they were given to you by men, then you must also believe that men can take them away.

Well, yeah, of course men can take them away.  We've seen that happen in history countless times, where peoples' rights have been taken away.

And here you are, claiming it doesn't happen!  Craziness.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on December 30, 2011, 04:45:34 PM
I'm saying that it would be a hell of a lot more difficult to try to legitimately argue for taking away someone's rights if they are declared as natural-rights, then if they were declared as man-given.

You just said that the country you lived in recognized them as natural-rights. Try again.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 04:46:35 PM
I just said the difference.   If our rights are 'god-given'  or 'natural-given',  then how can a government official try to argue in taking them away if he didn't give them to you in the first place?  He can try, but most people will not see it as a legitimate argument.

Did Hitler argue to the Jews that he should be able to take away their right to life?  Or did he just go ahead and do it, with "God-given" sanction?

If people genuinely want a right - whatever its origin - then they will not accept that it should be taken away.  If they do not want a right, then they will not care whether it's from a god or not, they just won't care about the right.

Why are gods better right-givers than humans are?  If a right-giving human's authority can be neglected, then so can a god's.

Well Hitlers country never had a constitution which declared natural-rights, and so that's what happens.....
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: rickymooston on December 30, 2011, 04:47:25 PM
But, if I had a choice between having a government leader as an atheist or christian, I'd probably choose the christian.

This is why many people profess Christ. People assume, falsely in my opinion, that the person who claims "God", is a good person and moral.

Quote
Since,  the atheist sees no authority higher than himself.  Therefore, I think this can lead more likely to a dictator mindset.

This is a huge strawman. In essence, you are protecting your own visions into somebody else. My mother for example, was a strong atheist and gave much of herself to others, always putting them before herself. She was a firm and complete believer in democracy as was my atheist grandfather who died at the age of 98 after living a life of compassionate chartity

My grandfather for example, frequently helped other elderly people walk their dogs. He would come over and talked to one's who were lonely or bedridden.

Did he have a "higher authority"? Perhaps, no but he had principles.

The right question is, to look at what people do.

What policies does this person vote on. What sort of things has the person done in

Quote
  Whereas, a christian recognizes a higher authority than himself, and so would less likely conceive of himself as a dictator.

This assumes the "Christian" is "true". This also assumes that their version of the "authority", agrees with yours.

Was Calvin a "Christian"? Is it o.k. he burned a man to death for disagreeing with him?

What of the popes of the past?

Your thinking on this issue is very shallow, especially given that you are not even a Christian yourself.  ;)

Ask the right questions This is a huge weakness in your approach here.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on December 30, 2011, 04:50:11 PM
Well Hitlers country never had a constitution which declared natural-rights, and so that's what happens.....

You really think that'd have made a difference, Gill?  Really?

Anyway, my post had a key question in it, that you disregarded:

Why are gods better right-givers than humans are?  If a right-giving human's authority can be neglected, then so can a god's.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 04:50:15 PM
I'm saying that it would be a hell of a lot more difficult to try to legitimately argue for taking away someone's rights if they are declared as natural-rights, then if they were declared as man-given.

You just said that the country you lived in recognized them as natural-rights. Try again.

It does.   But that doesn't mean people can't argue to try to take people's rights away, they do all the time.  But, since there were rights which were initially declared as natural-rights, those people face a much harder argument to try to take them, then if those rights were initally declared as man-given.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 04:52:46 PM
Anyway, my post had a key question in it, that you disregarded:

Why are gods better right-givers than humans are?  If a right-giving human's authority can be neglected, then so can a god's.

Because Gods are not humans, so then you take away supreme power from any government official.   But as i said, if you don't like the idea of God, then just as well use the term 'Natural' in place of it, which would seem pretty similar.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on December 30, 2011, 04:57:25 PM
No, "natural" is meaningless in this context.  "Nature" cannot communicate rights.  It has no intentions.  Nature is naturalistic.  It is utterly incapable of giving people rights.

A god could, mind you.  Just like a human could.  If, as you've just said, you need a non-human to give the rights, then we could try to interpret rights from a goat, or a whale.  Those aren't humans, either, and acknowledging the goat's authority to give us rights would "take away supreme power from any government official"...did you mean to add something other than "not human"?  Why is simply not being human important?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on December 30, 2011, 04:59:08 PM
It does.   But that doesn't mean people can't argue to try to take people's rights away, they do all the time.  But, since there were rights which were initially declared as natural-rights, those people face a much harder argument to try to take them, then if those rights were initally declared as man-given.

But these people who do it are the ones who supposedly also follow your god's laws, while (most) atheists are the ones who try to give those rights to people who deserve them.

Wasn't your argument the exact opposite of this?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 05:06:05 PM
No, "natural" is meaningless in this context.  "Nature" cannot communicate rights.  It has no intentions.  Nature is naturalistic.  It is utterly incapable of giving people rights.

A god could, mind you.  Just like a human could.  If, as you've just said, you need a non-human to give the rights, then we could try to interpret rights from a goat, or a whale.  Those aren't humans, either, and acknowledging the goat's authority to give us rights would "take away supreme power from any government official"...did you mean to add something other than "not human"?  Why is simply not being human important?

I'll show you why.  Let's say I'm a government official.  A lawmaker.  If your right to freedom is man-given, then a man should be able to take it away, should he not?   Therefore, I could legitimately argue to take away your right to freedom.

Alternatively, if your right to freedom is god-given, or 'naturally-given' to you,  then how can I form a legitimate argument to take it away?  I'd be arguing to take away something that you naturally already have.   This is not going to be an easy argument to get people to accept, and therefore promotes such freedom in place of tyranny.

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 05:07:56 PM
It does.   But that doesn't mean people can't argue to try to take people's rights away, they do all the time.  But, since there were rights which were initially declared as natural-rights, those people face a much harder argument to try to take them, then if those rights were initally declared as man-given.

But these people who do it are the ones who supposedly also follow your god's laws, while (most) atheists are the ones who try to give those rights to people who deserve them.

Wasn't your argument the exact opposite of this?

Its not so much a religious argument, but an argument for as to why the country needs to recognize a higher authority than man.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on December 30, 2011, 05:09:36 PM
Its not so much a religious argument, but an argument for as to why the country needs to recognize a higher authority than man.

But the country DOES recognize the higher authority than man (according to you), and so do the theists, but the atheists do not; yet they act as you say the other side acts - atheists vote to give people their "god-given" rights, while theists vote to keep those "god-given" rights away from them.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on December 30, 2011, 05:19:46 PM
I'll show you why.  Let's say I'm a government official.  A lawmaker.  If your right to freedom is man-given, then a man should be able to take it away, should he not?   Therefore, I could legitimately argue to take away your right to freedom.

Well, at least women can't take them away then.  &)

If a right to freedom is given, then it can be taken away.  The nature of who gave it has no logical impact in and of itself.  You can put in "... given by men" or you can widen it to "given by conscious beings" or you can narrow it to "given by men with beards".  What difference does it make who gave the rights, aside from what we think of who gave the rights?  And I'm asking for logical differences, Gill, not the impacts you think that agreeing with my position might have on politics.

Alternatively, if your right to freedom is god-given, or 'naturally-given' to you,  then how can I form a legitimate argument to take it away?

The same way you would if it was given by a human being, I imagine.

I'd be arguing to take away something that you naturally already have.  This is not going to be an easy argument to get people to accept, and therefore promotes such freedom in place of tyranny.

Sure it is.  Just convince people that they were mistaken and have different rights after all.  Or that they need to give up those rights in-practice, temporarily.  Or that nature, not having decision-making abilities, doesn't know what's best in this case.[1]  Or that God has become angry and made a new judgment.[2]  Or that God's rights are irrelevant, and we should overthrow them and institute our own.[3]

It's frighteningly easy.
 1. We already accept that line of reasoning with respect to getting dental work and using medicine, after all.
 2. A Christian theist sort of argument.
 3. A Satanist theist sort of argument.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 05:20:15 PM
Its not so much a religious argument, but an argument for as to why the country needs to recognize a higher authority than man.

But the country DOES recognize the higher authority than man (according to you), and so do the theists, but the atheists do not; yet they act as you say the other side acts - atheists vote to give people their "god-given" rights, while theists vote to keep those "god-given" rights away from them.

Could you please give an example of voting to give and take rights?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on December 30, 2011, 05:24:47 PM
Could you please give an example of voting to give and take rights?

Homosexual marriage and African-Americans and women having the right to vote. All three were prohibited. The latter two are now legal everywhere, while the former is still being held back by theists.
I don't know exactly when these things were decided, since I don't live in, nor have I studied the history of, the USA.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on December 30, 2011, 05:26:42 PM
^^ Voting in the representatives who instituted the Patriot Act.  Then voting in more representatives who expanded it to further take away rights and freedoms.  Voting in representatives who gave the government the legal right to declare any citizen a terrorist[1] and either imprison them without legal contact indefinitely, or actually kill them.

This has all happened in America in the last decade.  America, which you've used as an example of somewhere protected by its naturally-given rights.

How did that happen, do you think?  Could it be because rights, even "natural rights", do not defend themselves?

EDIT:  This post is directed at Gill, not at Luci.
 1. Read: enemy of the state.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 05:37:40 PM
How did that happen, do you think?  Could it be because rights, even "natural rights", do not defend themselves?

EDIT:  This post is directed at Gill, not at Luci.

I didn't say that people couldn't argue against someones rights.  But,  by declaring the initial natural-rights, it is much harder to legitimacy try to argue to take them from people.

Declaration of Independence Intro;   

  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. "

What if instead,  the Declaration said;

  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their temporary government officials with certain alienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Wouldn't seem to hard to argue to take people's right away would it?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on December 30, 2011, 05:41:45 PM
The USA was founded on the blood and bones of its indigenous peoples....the object of this freedom turned from religous freedom to greed,gold,timber and other resources were the new motivator for the establishment of the new colonies.

Indeed. God-fearing people who were emboldened by their faith and "god-given rights" who didn't have a clue that the indigenous people had a better understanding of how man and nature interact. So they displaced and slaughtered the supposed "primitives" who were as smart if not smarter than they were - just not as technologically advanced. And, for as "primitive" as the indigenous people were, they knew one needs to be honorable whether in peace or war - something the godfolk didn't have a clue about.

I do not have even an iota of Native American heritage. But if I had a chance (not that it's at all possible) I'd still consider sinking Columbus' ships on their first voyage. Might not stop what happened but better than just killing Hitler - Nazi germany was a much more complex situation.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 05:51:54 PM
:yawn:   anyone who lives in america who wants to talk down about the country, well then,  leave the country....
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: monkeymind on December 30, 2011, 06:00:12 PM
^^^Yeah with the yawning going on, maybe you are too tired and should leave the thread.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on December 30, 2011, 06:03:41 PM
I didn't say that people couldn't argue against someones rights.  But,  by declaring the initial natural-rights, it is much harder to legitimacy try to argue to take them from people.

Only if the people see them as legitimately given.  That's true no matter where the rights "came from".

Wouldn't seem to hard to argue to take people's right away would it?

Replace "temporary elected officials" with "Founding Fathers".  After all, those are the people who actually used their human-given authority to enact those rights in the first place.

Ends up being pretty much the same.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on December 30, 2011, 06:05:43 PM
:yawn:   anyone who lives in america who wants to talk down about the country, well then,  leave the country....

^^ That attitude makes it pretty hard to fix things about one's country.  I mean, if there's a problem, and people leave the country rather than talk about the problem, then the problem's not going to be solved, is it?  Unless it's an overpopulation problem, then it might be solved, but only if people actually leave rather than taking the easy route and shutting up about the problem.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: rickymooston on December 30, 2011, 06:06:24 PM
First on the list - Pol Pot of Cambodia.  Between 2 million and 4 million people were murdered under his regime, from 1963 to 1998.

Yes, I agree:
1) As far as I know, he was an atheist.
2) He killed a lot of people

What you can say further was that he, unlike many atheists, was a communist and further more, I believe he believed in a very backward form of communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_amin <-- Believed in God and killed thousands of people. Amnesty International put the toll at say 500,000 but other estimates are lower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#Religion
Apparently, Khan, may have been a Shaman. He is reputed to have been open to other faiths but he is also known for the slaughter of up to 45 million people.


Anti-jewish pogroms from Muslims and Christians. It should be noted while it can be argued that Hitler was a pan-theist rather than a sincere Catholic, a great many Christians both Catholic and Protestant co-operated in the extermination of Jews during the 1940s.

Quote
During the Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain, beginning in the 9th century, Islamic Spain was more tolerant towards Jews.[8] The 11th century, however, saw several Muslim pogroms against Jews; notably those that occurred in Cordoba in 1011 and in Granada in 1066.[9] In the 1066 Granada massacre, the first large pogrom on European soil, a Muslim mob crucified the Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and massacred about 4,000 Jews[10] In 1033 about 6,000 Jews were killed in Fez, Morocco by Muslim mobs.[11][12] Mobs in Fez murdered thousands of Jews in 1276,[13] and again, leaving only 11 alive, in 1465.[13][14]

In 1348, because of the hysteria surrounding the Black Plague, Jews were massacred in Chillon, Basle, Stuttgart, Ulm, Speyer, Dresden, Strasbourg, and Mainz. By 1351, 60 major and 150 smaller Jewish communities had been destroyed.[15] A large number of the surviving Jews fled to Poland, which was very welcoming to Jews at the time.[16]

Jews, Poles, and Catholics were massacred during the Khmelnytsky Uprising of Ukrainian Cossacks in retaliation for Polish colonialism in 1648–1654,[17] and during the Koliyivshchyna in 1768-1769

What of the genoicide of the natives in North and South America? Hint
What did Jesus's followers do?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 06:07:24 PM
^^^Yeah with the yawning going on, maybe you are too tired and should leave the thread.

I was yawning at the comment  about 'sinking Columbis' ships'.

Yeah, right.  Sink his ships.   Clearly trying to talk down about America, for whatever reason, so if you happen to live here also, why?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: monkeymind on December 30, 2011, 06:09:49 PM
^^^Yeah with the yawning going on, maybe you are too tired and should leave the thread.

I was yawning at the comment  about 'sinking Columbis' ships'.

Yeah, right.  Sink his ships.   Clearly trying to talk down about America, for whatever reason, so if you happen to live here also, why?


I live here because my ancestors always lived here. They didn't leave when Columbus got here, and I'm not leaving either.


Oh yeah and I happen to like it here in spite of its probs.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 30, 2011, 06:12:26 PM
Anyway, my post had a key question in it, that you disregarded:

Why are gods better right-givers than humans are?  If a right-giving human's authority can be neglected, then so can a god's.

Because Gods are not humans, so then you take away supreme power from any government official.   But as i said, if you don't like the idea of God, then just as well use the term 'Natural' in place of it, which would seem pretty similar.
God endorses SLAVERY try again
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 06:12:48 PM
nm
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on December 30, 2011, 06:12:59 PM
I didn't say that people couldn't argue against someones rights.  But,  by declaring the initial natural-rights, it is much harder to legitimacy try to argue to take them from people.
Wouldn't seem to hard to argue to take people's right away would it?

You must have missed this, directed at you:
^^ Voting in the representatives who instituted the Patriot Act.  Then voting in more representatives who expanded it to further take away rights and freedoms.  Voting in representatives who gave the government the legal right to declare any citizen a terrorist[1] and either imprison them without legal contact indefinitely, or actually kill them.
This has all happened in America in the last decade.  America, which you've used as an example of somewhere protected by its naturally-given rights.
How did that happen, do you think?  Could it be because rights, even "natural rights", do not defend themselves?
 
 1. Read: enemy of the state.

You remember the Patriot Act, don't you? Our government didn't even break a sweat taking away our rights. Clever people can always come up with a reason.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on December 30, 2011, 06:14:30 PM
:yawn:   anyone who lives in america who wants to talk down about the country, well then,  leave the country....

What about my "god-given"/"nature-given" right to free speach?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 30, 2011, 06:15:38 PM
Ok, but you recognize that the government trying to take away a right is wrong.  But if the government was founded on the premise that it could just give and take rights as needed, then not too many people would probably question such things as the patriot act.  All I'm saying.....
Title: Straight Men who have killed millions through-out the ages
Post by: rickymooston on December 30, 2011, 06:16:45 PM
Straight Men who have killed millions through-out the ages

Have you noticed that people who run pograms and mass murder rallies tend most of the time to have penises?

Let's see:

Hitler had a disfunctional penis as did most of his principle Nazi leaders. Most members of the SS had penises?

Stalin had a dick as did Pot Pol.

Ghenkis Khann had a rooster and used it on many women. We claim he has 2000,000 descendants in Afganistan.

The leader of the Rowandan genocide was apparently a Christian with a penis.

Idi Amin also had a slong, so did Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, etc, etc.

Now, what is the significance of this? Should all people with penises have their balls crushed?

Or am I just spewing random facts out hoping you will draw idiotic conclusions?

Challenges for karma points -- Women who have caused the murders of many. Evil bitches from
hell ...
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: monkeymind on December 30, 2011, 06:17:12 PM
nm
Is that a linux reference?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on December 30, 2011, 06:20:45 PM
Ok, but you recognize that the government trying to take away a right is wrong.

Depends.  I don't think that the government taking freedoms from convicted murderers is wrong.

All the government needs in order to justify removing a right is to cite another priority that people hold more strongly.  Like protecting the rest of the public from the murderer.  Or protecting the public from terrorists.

But if the government was founded on the premise that it could just give and take rights as needed, then not too many people would probably question such things as the patriot act.  All I'm saying.....

Sure they would, because they want those rights.  If they care about the rights in question, then it doesn't matter if they are "natural" or not:  People will fight for them.  Vice versa if people don't care about them.
Title: Re: Straight Men who have killed millions through-out the ages
Post by: Samothec on December 30, 2011, 06:23:29 PM
snipped
Or am I just spewing random facts out hoping you will draw idiotic conclusions?

Challenges for karma points -- Women who have caused the murders of many. Evil bitches from
hell ...

Why would you spew random facts to obscure the issue? Are you trying to usurp Gill?

Murderous women: Elizabeth Bathory - just off the top of my head (several guys pop into my head but you weren't asking for guys)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on December 30, 2011, 06:24:41 PM
Ok, but you recognize that the government trying to take away a right is wrong.  But if the government was founded on the premise that it could just give and take rights as needed, then not too many people would probably question such things as the patriot act.  All I'm saying.....

It is amazing you are backing down from your previous position and simultaneously making an otherwise empty post.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: monkeymind on December 30, 2011, 06:31:21 PM
BTW, I'm not saying sinking Columbus' ships would have been  a good idea. Probably would have just delayed the inevitable. But it wasn't the US at that point anyways, so I didn't see the comment as talking down America.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on December 30, 2011, 06:41:11 PM
BTW, I'm not saying sinking Columbus' ships would have been  a good idea. Probably would have just delayed the inevitable. But it wasn't the US at that point anyways, so I didn't see the comment as talking down America.

The comment wasn't directly about America. I suspect it would only have delayed things by at most a century given the drive to find a more direct route to China. It's more a matter that of all the massacres of recent centuries which one might have the best chance (a bottleneck) where things could be changed.

Many people talk of killing Hitler (if they were sent back in time) but even if you did it before 1930 at the latest, that might not have prevented anything. He wasn't the only anti-semite - heck, plenty of people in America of the time (and unfortunately now too) were also very anti-semitic. And the war provided a devistated Germany with a goal to build itself up. (America wasn't the only country facing economic problems.)
Title: Re: Straight Men who have killed millions through-out the ages
Post by: Hatter23 on December 30, 2011, 07:30:37 PM


Challenges for karma points -- Women who have caused the murders of many. Evil bitches from
hell ...

Only three come to mind:

Eva Peron
Mother Theresa(through deliberate concentration and rejection of treatment)
Catherine the Great(primarily dissenters in lands conquered)

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: jetson on December 30, 2011, 07:31:23 PM
Gill - here is a distinction I would like for you to consider.

Do animals such as a giraffe or pelican have natural, or god-given rights?  Let's remove god-given from those animals, since we are fairly sure they do not worship any gods.  So we're left with natural rights.  Do animals that are not human, have any natural rights at all?  If so, what are they, and why, and where did they come from?

Here's my point, and possibly an explanation of where at least some atheists might come from.  Atheists do not believe that humans are any more special than any other animal.  That is usually a distinction reserved to believers, who think that their god created us, separate and distinct from the other animals.  That is simply false. 

And because humans have the highest level of human-defined intelligence, we decided to grant ourselves "rights", regardless of whether we describe them as god-given, or natural.  We "think" we have rights, because we thought of them.  And there may be a naturally good reason to have "rights", but there simply is no guarantee, what with serial killers, rapists, wars, genocides, and lots of other lovely forms of intrusion upon the "rights" of an individual.

But this is why we organize, and make governments, and laws.  We need them.  We would have a harder time staying alive, and surviving, if we just let anarchy reign.  And notice too that over time, we can clearly see the pros and cons of different forms of government.  We can also see the tyranny of forcing ideologies upon people without their consent.  This happens in religious laws, as well as secular.

Anyway, do you see where I'm headed with this?
Title: Re: Straight Men who have killed millions through-out the ages
Post by: Historicity on December 30, 2011, 08:28:40 PM


Challenges for karma points -- Women who have caused the murders of many. Evil bitches from
hell ...

Only three come to mind:

Eva Peron
Mother Theresa(through deliberate concentration and rejection of treatment)
Catherine the Great(primarily dissenters in lands conquered)

Ilsa Koch, the "She Wolf of the SS".  She introduced the sport of throwing babies into the air and skeet shooting them with Lugers.   She was so bad that finally the SS tried her.

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: rickymooston on December 30, 2011, 08:29:18 PM
Atheists do not believe that humans are any more special than any other animal.

How do you define "special".

Most people, atheist or not, will value human life over the lives of members of other species. I suppose we are biased but biased most of us are.

Humans most definitely are the only species that has recorded knowledge, that creates technologies,
that has art and a number of things.

I assume of course you mean that biologically speaking we are not special in the sense of having some supernatural nature or what not.

I wonder about the Neadrathrals.

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Historicity on December 30, 2011, 09:24:08 PM
I wonder about the Neadrathrals.
Wonder no more.

The Shanidar caves in Iran were occupied by Neanderthals.  Cave dwelling is not all what it is cracked up to be.  The roofs of caves crack and boulders weighing tons can fall.

A 16 year old Neanderthal boy was found buried.  His skull had been crushed.  Murder?  One should had been crushed as a child handicapping him.  Maybe both were falling ceiling rocks.  He could not do a man's work of hunting and killing.  His teeth had the wear of Eskimo women from chewing the edges of hides to ready them to be sewed into seams of leather clothes.  He was an insignificant male given women's work.

A scientist took to study the soil he was buried in for pollen.  This can tell what kind plants lived in the area and the climate, both in general and the season of the burials.  It didn't just have traces of pollen it was packed with pollen.  The pollen of flowers.  As low a status as he had in the macho world of Neanderthals they had loved him and had buried him with flowers.

In 1908 a French paleontologist studied a Neanderthal skeleton and saw what he intended to see.  The skeleton was stooped.  Obviously the Neanderthals were apelike and were sort of knuckle draggers.  He illustrated the Neanderthal with full body hair like an ape and a vicious snarl on his face.  He missed the signs of senile bone disease.  Also, the old man had no teeth left.  The Neanderthals were exclusively meat eaters so someone must have chewed his food for him[1].  He was the old wise man of the tribe. 

In other words he was on Social Security.  The Neanderthals were a bunch of $&#**^% liberals!  That must be why they went extinct.
 
 1. Hamburgers were invented as food for seniors who could no longer chew thru a steak.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Illuminatus99 on December 30, 2011, 09:50:20 PM
If I really wanted to mess with columbus I'd spend a few years teaching the natives how to smelt steel, build firearms, and possibly introduce them to heavier-than-air flight. Wouldn't have to sink those ships, just let the natives bomb them from the air.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on December 30, 2011, 09:58:49 PM
If I really wanted to mess with columbus I'd spend a few years teaching the natives how to smelt steel, build firearms, and possibly introduce them to heavier-than-air flight. Wouldn't have to sink those ships, just let the natives bomb them from the air.

LOL

But from what I know they'd be horrified at what they'd have to do to get the iron: massive mining with the debris poisoning the land and water. If I had some time with them, I'd do my best to explain that the Europeans would not understand them and ignore their needs/desires/rights. And maybe teach them what little I know of toxins and guerilla tactics.      ;)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 30, 2011, 11:48:56 PM
Instead, the atheist likely views everyone as equals. No one is superior, but no one is inferior -

Complete and total subjective fantasy. Maybe YOU would treat people with different beliefs as equals, but you can't say with any sort of  honesty that any or all atheist LIKELY thinks that way.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on December 30, 2011, 11:50:44 PM
^^ No one is inferior by religious edict, at least.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 31, 2011, 12:35:08 AM
^^ No one is inferior by religious edict, at least.

True, all have sinned[1] and fall short of the glory of God. Depending on what your standard of measurement is, Pol Pot was closer to the mark[2] than me.
 1. Missed the mark
 2. Closer to God in body count, therefor less of a sinner
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 31, 2011, 12:38:06 AM
If I really wanted to mess with columbus I'd spend a few years teaching the natives how to smelt steel, build firearms, and possibly introduce them to heavier-than-air flight. Wouldn't have to sink those ships, just let the natives bomb them from the air.
small pox vaccinations would have saved millions
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: rickymooston on December 31, 2011, 12:38:49 AM
jaywell, I gave out too much karma today. However, I'd like you to know the footnotes in your posts were awesome
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 31, 2011, 12:58:20 AM
jaywell, I gave out too much karma today. However, I'd like you to know the footnotes in your posts were awesome

Thanks, just remember me tomorrow!
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on December 31, 2011, 01:07:26 AM
Quote from: Jaybwell
because we live, we have the right to not yield to tyrants.

Do animals also have the right not to yield to tyrants?  After all, they live.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 31, 2011, 01:12:46 AM
small pox vaccinations would have saved millions

Considering the blankets offered as a kindness of charity from the British to the Native Americans and also the Trojan Horse, it is wise to reject gifts from your enemy.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 31, 2011, 01:17:29 AM
Quote from: Jaybwell
because we live, we have the right to not yield to tyrants.

Do animals also have the right not to yield to tyrants?  After all, they live.

Oh sure, they have the right. But do they have the capacity to exercise their rights? Or stand up and organize for their rights?

No.

So, the question is, should WE recognize their rights?

Yes.

Does this have any bearing on OUR natural rights?

No.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on December 31, 2011, 01:24:18 AM
Alright then.  What gives life, in general, the right to stand up for itself?

I would suggest that the living thing gives itself that right, if it chooses to.  And it can give up that right if it chooses to.  And we can give non-living things the same right, if we so choose, though it won't mean much.

Oh, and what would a life-form that didn't have the right to resist tyranny look like, biologically?  Could you tell the difference?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 31, 2011, 01:26:19 AM
Oh, and what would a life-form that didn't have the right to resist tyranny look like, biologically?  Could you tell the difference?

Sheep?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on December 31, 2011, 01:51:19 AM
Cute.  :)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 31, 2011, 01:57:28 AM
Alright then.  What gives life, in general, the right to stand up for itself?

I don't know what gives life the right to stand up for itself. The only thing I can think of at the moment is something called "survival instinct". In other words, the right to self propagate. But that does not infer that an outside agent assigned life that right.

Quote
I would suggest that the living thing gives itself that right, if it chooses to.

I would agree to a point. The "survival instinct" seems to be more or less encoded into living organisms DNA, so it's not much of a choice.

Quote
And it can give up that right if it chooses to.

Depends on the organism. I can't imagine that a virus or a bacteria or a plant has any choice whatsoever as to what sort of action it will take.


Quote
And we can give non-living things the same right, if we so choose, though it won't mean much.

On the same note, it wouldn't mean much if we refused to grant the rights of limestone to exist.

Quote
Oh, and what would a life-form that didn't have the right to resist tyranny look like, biologically?  Could you tell the difference?

All life forms have the right to resist tyranny. They may or may not have the power to assert their rights but they still have the right none the less. Viruses, regardless of our attempts to assassinate them; resist, adapt, mutate and evolve.

However, if you are asking about what a biological life form without the WILL to resist might look like, I go with sheep. Or cows, they're stupid.




Edit:

Spelling errors and such  :P
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Cyberia on December 31, 2011, 01:59:11 AM
And we can give non-living things the same right, if we so choose, though it won't mean much.

And I would suggest that a non-living thing that demanded or fought for it's "rights" to be "alive"

If an AI starts demanding rights, then it IS alive.  No further test is required, the demand itself is sufficient.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 31, 2011, 02:05:29 AM
If an AI starts demanding rights, then it IS alive.  No further test is required, the demand itself is sufficient.

This is how your comment made me feel

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

Stop blowing my mind!
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on December 31, 2011, 02:36:52 AM
Quote
Oh, and what would a life-form that didn't have the right to resist tyranny look like, biologically?  Could you tell the difference?

All life forms have the right to resist tyranny. They may or may not have the power to assert their rights but they still have the right none the less. Viruses, regardless of our attempts to assassinate them; resist, adapt, mutate and evolve.

It sounds like you're talking about your own values, rather than about something objectively real.  If there is nothin about a life form that can be used to distinguish "having right to resist tyranny" from not having it, then to claim that it has it is to speak of one's own values, rather than about the organism itself.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on December 31, 2011, 02:40:04 AM
And we can give non-living things the same right, if we so choose, though it won't mean much.

And I would suggest that a non-living thing that demanded or fought for it's "rights" to be "alive"

If an AI starts demanding rights, then it IS alive.  No further test is required, the demand itself is sufficient.

I was thinking more of inanimate material, like the limestone that Jay mentioned.  About that:

On the same note, it wouldn't mean much if we refused to grant the rights of limestone to exist.

Actually it means quite a bit, in terms of our willingness to quarry said limestone and render it down into concrete or other industrial materials.

I don't know what gives life the right to stand up for itself. The only thing I can think of at the moment is something called "survival instinct". In other words, the right to self propagate. But that does not infer that an outside agent assigned life that right.

What does survival instinct have to do with the right to resist oppression?  I would have though that survival instinct is more relevant to the right to life.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Anfauglir on December 31, 2011, 02:50:31 AM
.....the principle that there's a higher authority than man which gives people some of their rights.  And so one could call that higher authority 'nature' instead of 'god', but I still see it necessary to believe in such an authority to have such a government.

Hmm.

Gill, is "god" a dictator?
Title: Re: Straight Men who have killed millions through-out the ages
Post by: kin hell on December 31, 2011, 03:18:36 AM


Challenges for karma points -- Women who have caused the murders of many. Evil bitches from
hell ...

Pauline Nyiramasuhuko  has the distinction of being the only woman brought before an international court for genocide and convicted.

She was  minister of family affairs and women's development in Rwanda in 1991 during that horror (800,000+ dead in 100 days   mostly Tutsi).
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on December 31, 2011, 03:49:07 AM
All life forms have the right to resist tyranny. They may or may not have the power to assert their rights but they still have the right none the less. Viruses, regardless of our attempts to assassinate them; resist, adapt, mutate and evolve.

Most life forms aren't even self-aware. They don't know what tyranny is. And, technically, viruses aren't even alive.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 31, 2011, 09:30:26 AM
Gill - here is a distinction I would like for you to consider.

Do animals such as a giraffe or pelican have natural, or god-given rights?  Let's remove god-given from those animals, since we are fairly sure they do not worship any gods.  So we're left with natural rights.  Do animals that are not human, have any natural rights at all?  If so, what are they, and why, and where did they come from?

Here's my point, and possibly an explanation of where at least some atheists might come from.  Atheists do not believe that humans are any more special than any other animal.  That is usually a distinction reserved to believers, who think that their god created us, separate and distinct from the other animals.  That is simply false. 

And because humans have the highest level of human-defined intelligence, we decided to grant ourselves "rights", regardless of whether we describe them as god-given, or natural.  We "think" we have rights, because we thought of them.  And there may be a naturally good reason to have "rights", but there simply is no guarantee, what with serial killers, rapists, wars, genocides, and lots of other lovely forms of intrusion upon the "rights" of an individual.

But this is why we organize, and make governments, and laws.  We need them.  We would have a harder time staying alive, and surviving, if we just let anarchy reign.  And notice too that over time, we can clearly see the pros and cons of different forms of government.  We can also see the tyranny of forcing ideologies upon people without their consent.  This happens in religious laws, as well as secular.

Anyway, do you see where I'm headed with this?

I don't think it's very meaningful to talk about rights out of the context of people's government, so how that idea would apply to animals I don't see.   Anyways, yes I do see a lot of your points.    There's definitely no guarantee for someone's rights, but I believe a person has a better chance in a society in having rights when the society is based on recognizing some natural-rights, and not just man made rights.....  And yes, technically one could say they are 'man made' in the context of the fact that people have to define them, but they are not defined as being given to people by other people, which is the important point.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on December 31, 2011, 09:41:21 AM
Could you please give an example of voting to give and take rights?

Homosexual marriage and African-Americans and women having the right to vote. All three were prohibited. The latter two are now legal everywhere, while the former is still being held back by theists.
I don't know exactly when these things were decided, since I don't live in, nor have I studied the history of, the USA.

So, Gill, you don't have a response to the fact that theists, who recognize the higher authority than human governments, are actually the ones trying to keep people from their "god-given" rights, while the atheists are the ones trying to give people their "god-given" rights?
Or is the fact that you're wrong too much for you to handle?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: rickymooston on December 31, 2011, 09:47:13 AM
I don't think it's very meaningful to talk about rights out of the context of people's government, so how that idea would apply to animals I don't see.

Rights can exist according to people's moral view. That is, there may be a perception that certain rights
are "just".  In dictatorships, the common people often feel a ruler is harsh and unjust, that people have a right to be treated better. During the Nazi reign, the laws were seen as being unjust by those within and without the regime that resisted. Some people may have been deceived as to what was happening. Obviously, some people agreed with the regime.

In the case of the animals jetson mentioned, are you asking human perception of the animal rights or the perception of the giraffes themselves. Which giraffes? From the same herd or from another one.  What sort of behavior occurs within the herd, what rules are enforced. How does one giraffe act when another is being treated harshly?

Quote
There's definitely no guarantee for someone's rights, but I believe a person has a better chance in a society in having rights when the society is based on recognizing some natural-rights, and not just man made rights.....

If you read the bible, all of the societies described were dictatorships and theocracies. The rights as we see them in western democracy don't exist and nobody expects them to.

One can go further to say, that slaves are instructed to respect their masters.

Thus, all our democratic rights are in fact man-made:
- the right to free speech
- the right to pursuit of happiness
- etc

Quote
  And yes, technically one could say they are 'man made' in the context of the fact that people have to define them, but they are not defined as being given to people by other people, which is the important point.

If they were not "defined" by people in the sense language or culture is defined, where do they come from?

At least in the case of giraffes, this claim of yours makes sense. Whatever the order is in a giraffe herd, there is no evidence that it is learned. Its probably instinctive.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 31, 2011, 09:49:09 AM
Could you please give an example of voting to give and take rights?

Homosexual marriage and African-Americans and women having the right to vote. All three were prohibited. The latter two are now legal everywhere, while the former is still being held back by theists.
I don't know exactly when these things were decided, since I don't live in, nor have I studied the history of, the USA.

So, Gill, you don't have a response to the fact that theists, who recognize the higher authority than human governments, are actually the ones trying to keep people from their "god-given" rights, while the atheists are the ones trying to give people their "god-given" rights?
Or is the fact that you're wrong too much for you to handle?

Well, the natural right to gay marriage was never recognized or defined in the founding documents of my country.  One could argue that it is a derivative of the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And of course people do argue this.   But then you're getting into an interpretative issue of the founding documents which is different than a strict denial of a defined natural right. 
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on December 31, 2011, 10:14:25 AM
<snip>

You said that because atheists don't recognize a higher authority, they will (or should) argue against "god-given" rights. Inversely, the theist should not do this.
You also said that your country recognized these "god-given" rights.

Your response contradicts that. So, either you're lying or you don't know what you're talking about. Pick one.
Title: Re: Straight Men who have killed millions through-out the ages
Post by: Hatter23 on December 31, 2011, 11:16:06 AM


Challenges for karma points -- Women who have caused the murders of many. Evil bitches from
hell ...

Pauline Nyiramasuhuko  has the distinction of being the only woman brought before an international court for genocide and convicted.

She was  minister of family affairs and women's development in Rwanda in 1991 during that horror (800,000+ dead in 100 days   mostly Tutsi).
]
Good one, I forgot about her
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Hatter23 on December 31, 2011, 11:18:12 AM
Could you please give an example of voting to give and take rights?

Homosexual marriage and African-Americans and women having the right to vote. All three were prohibited. The latter two are now legal everywhere, while the former is still being held back by theists.
I don't know exactly when these things were decided, since I don't live in, nor have I studied the history of, the USA.

So, Gill, you don't have a response to the fact that theists, who recognize the higher authority than human governments, are actually the ones trying to keep people from their "god-given" rights, while the atheists are the ones trying to give people their "god-given" rights?
Or is the fact that you're wrong too much for you to handle?

Well, the natural right to gay marriage was never recognized or defined in the founding documents of my country.  One could argue that it is a derivative of the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And of course people do argue this.   But then you're getting into an interpretative issue of the founding documents which is different than a strict denial of a defined natural right.

What convoluted horse crap to avoid the basic question "Does this increase freedom, or decrease freedom of sapient beings?"

 
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 31, 2011, 04:03:52 PM
The USA was founded on the blood and bones of its indigenous peoples....the object of this freedom turned from religous freedom to greed,gold,timber and other resources were the new motivator for the establishment of the new colonies.

Indeed. God-fearing people who were emboldened by their faith and "god-given rights" who didn't have a clue that the indigenous people had a better understanding of how man and nature interact. So they displaced and slaughtered the supposed "primitives" who were as smart if not smarter than they were - just not as technologically advanced. And, for as "primitive" as the indigenous people were, they knew one needs to be honorable whether in peace or war - something the godfolk didn't have a clue about.

I do not have even an iota of Native American heritage. But if I had a chance (not that it's at all possible) I'd still consider sinking Columbus' ships on their first voyage. Might not stop what happened but better than just killing Hitler - Nazi germany was a much more complex situation.
here is some intelligent thought on this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7cylfQtkDg&list=FL0zY_u6m4c0Yht834GB-61A&index=16&feature=plpp_video
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on December 31, 2011, 04:18:56 PM
Well, the natural right to gay marriage was never recognized or defined in the founding documents of my country.  One could argue that it is a derivative of the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And of course people do argue this.   But then you're getting into an interpretative issue of the founding documents which is different than a strict denial of a defined natural right.

This post deftly appears to address the question at the same time it brings up something totally unrelated neatly derailing the current direction of the thread. It is simultaneously very skilled and repulsive. I sort of want to both applaud it and smite it. I'll settle for the other balance of neither.

Obviously it leaves Lucifer's question "So, Gill, you don't have a response to the fact that theists, who recognize the higher authority than human governments, are actually the ones trying to keep people from their "god-given" rights, while the atheists are the ones trying to give people their "god-given" rights?" unanswered. Would a possible rephrasing help?

Theists hypocritically do their best to crush other people's rights while godless atheists fight for everyone's rights, why? Is there even a feeble reason for this? Are you okay with this hypocrisy? Are you doing anything to correct this situation? Will you answer any of these – or at least Lucifer's question?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on December 31, 2011, 04:24:06 PM
I am going to rewrite the OP using the topic title that (I think) the OP actually meant:


ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century in the name of atheism

First on the list... nobody. No atheist has ever committed atrocities in the name of atheism, simply because it is impossible to kill over lack of belief.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on December 31, 2011, 04:39:10 PM
From the video: "They forgot the instructions on how to live on Earth."
Indeed.

Mentally I replaced "spiritually" with "emotionally" when he was talking about the land/nature and was fine with it.

For all the claims by Xian Europeans that the indigenous people of North America and their beliefs were "primitive" – which group is okay with incorporating DNA into their worldview and accepting apes as cousins (and recognizing the idea they are cousins, not ancestors), Xians or the supposed "primitives"?

While they are religious, I would rather that anyone who can't be atheist change their religion to a nature worship type like the Hopi and most (all?) other native Americans. We need a significant change in our outlook if we want to survive. I'm not just talking about climate change. We tear into the ground like nothing bad will happen. We poison our air and water. And America practically crows about it which naturally creates a jealously and desire worldwide for what we have including the way we did it since that seems to have worked for us. Who needs mass-murder and genocide when we have corporations willing to poison our environment and pay "our" government to look the other way?

On a lighter note, anyone know what language that was in and what their word "slut" means in English? It appeared in the captions towards the end of the video.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 31, 2011, 04:42:58 PM
Well, the natural right to gay marriage was never recognized or defined in the founding documents of my country.  One could argue that it is a derivative of the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And of course people do argue this.   But then you're getting into an interpretative issue of the founding documents which is different than a strict denial of a defined natural right.

Theists hypocritically do their best to crush other people's rights while godless atheists fight for everyone's rights, why? Is there even a feeble reason for this? Are you okay with this hypocrisy? Are you doing anything to correct this situation? Will you answer any of these – or at least Lucifer's question?

I don't see a hypocrisy.   People on both sides argue law interpretation all the time.  To say it's exclusively theists trying to diminish atheists rights is inaccurate.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on December 31, 2011, 04:46:10 PM
I don't see a hypocrisy.   People on both sides argue law interpretation all the time.  To say it's exclusively theists trying to diminish atheists rights is inaccurate.

Nobody is saying that, although it is accurate. There are only two sides - atheism and theism. Varying degrees of both, yes, but only two sides exist: belief and lack thereof. And no sane human would vote to diminish their own rights.
We're saying (or at least I'm saying) that theists are diminishing what you consider "god-given" rights, whilst atheists are fighting to assure people have those same rights.

You're one more dishonest post away from a report to a moderator.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 31, 2011, 04:47:47 PM
Could you please give an example of voting to give and take rights?

Homosexual marriage and African-Americans and women having the right to vote. All three were prohibited. The latter two are now legal everywhere, while the former is still being held back by theists.
I don't know exactly when these things were decided, since I don't live in, nor have I studied the history of, the USA.

So, Gill, you don't have a response to the fact that theists, who recognize the higher authority than human governments, are actually the ones trying to keep people from their "god-given" rights, while the atheists are the ones trying to give people their "god-given" rights?
Or is the fact that you're wrong too much for you to handle?

Well, the natural right to gay marriage was never recognized or defined in the founding documents of my country.  One could argue that it is a derivative of the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And of course people do argue this.   But then you're getting into an interpretative issue of the founding documents which is different than a strict denial of a defined natural right.

What convoluted horse crap to avoid the basic question "Does this increase freedom, or decrease freedom of sapient beings?"


It's not horse crap if you actually understood the government in the USA.  The federal government has no law forbidding gay marriage.  It's a state law issue.  Individual states can pass the law, others may not.  It really has nothing directly to do with natural-rights declared in the founding documents which was my initial conversation.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 31, 2011, 04:50:56 PM
<snip>

You said that because atheists don't recognize a higher authority, they will (or should) argue against "god-given" rights. Inversely, the theist should not do this.
You also said that your country recognized these "god-given" rights.

Your response contradicts that. So, either you're lying or you don't know what you're talking about. Pick one.

heh?  I never said atheists will or should argue against god-given rights.   

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on December 31, 2011, 04:54:09 PM
heh?  I never said atheists will or should argue against god-given rights.   

My apologies. However, my point remains. If anyone should be arguing against the "god-given" rights, it should be the atheists (who don't recognize the "higher authority"), not the theists. However, the exact opposite is true, and in a country that supposedly recognizes both the "higher authority" and the "god-given" rights, no less. What's your explanation for this?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 31, 2011, 04:57:57 PM
heh?  I never said atheists will or should argue against god-given rights.   

My apologies. However, my point remains that if anyone should be arguing against the "god-given" rights, it should be the atheists, not the theists. However, the exact opposite is true, and in a country that supposedly recognizes them, no less. What's your explanation for this?

Well, I'd say the atheist probably will call them 'natural-rights' instead of god-given, but it's the same difference in a legal sense really.

As far as thinking theists oppose such rights, I don't know why you'd have that opinion, other than the gay marriage example you gave.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on December 31, 2011, 04:58:06 PM
It's not horse crap if you actually understood the government in the USA.  The federal government has no law forbidding gay marriage.  It's a state law issue.  Individual states can pass the law, others may not.  It really has nothing directly to do with natural-rights declared in the founding documents which was my initial conversation.

Really? It seems to be you who doesn't understand or you are playing word games with technicalities.

From Wikipedia:
Quote
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law whereby the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Under the law, no U.S. state (or other political subdivision) may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

The law, specifically Section 3, codifies an irrecognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, which include family insurance benefits for employees of the government, survivors' benefits from Social Security, and joint tax filings.

This was anti-gay and only a hair's-breadth from forbidding gay marriage. Any other marriage is recognized in every other state (barring some weird laws I don't know about).
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on December 31, 2011, 05:04:16 PM
Well, I'd say the atheist probably will call them 'natural-rights' instead of god-given, but it's the same difference in a legal sense really.

I call them "my opinion". I doubt many atheists would call those rights anything other than what I call them.

As far as thinking theists oppose such rights, I don't know why you'd have that opinion, other than the gay marriage example you gave.

Religion has this thing about racial inequality, misogyny, homophobia, slavery...
It would only make sense that those who reject it (atheists) would also reject such hateful concepts.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 31, 2011, 05:05:52 PM
That DOMA law defines at the federal level what marriage is, but certainly doesn't forbid one from obtaining a marriage licence at the state level, if that state allows it, so I'd say that it is primarily still a state issue.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 31, 2011, 05:08:22 PM
Well, I'd say the atheist probably will call them 'natural-rights' instead of god-given, but it's the same difference in a legal sense really.

I call them "my opinion". I doubt many atheists would call those rights anything other than what I call them.


Ok.  Well that can become a problem if the elected officials of the government think that the citizens rights are just 'their opinions' too.  Then, it's whoever's in power's opinion if I should be free.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on December 31, 2011, 05:09:56 PM
Ok.  Well that can become a problem if the elected officials of the government think that the citizens rights are just 'their opinions' too.  Then, it's whoever's in power's opinion if I should be free.

Isn't the USA a democracy? Don't people vote on those issues? You know, unlike in theocracies all throughout history that denied a lot of people the right to freedom (among many others) without a just cause.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 31, 2011, 05:13:26 PM
Ok.  Well that can become a problem if the elected officials of the government think that the citizens rights are just 'their opinions' too.  Then, it's whoever's in power's opinion if I should be free.

Isn't the USA a democracy? Don't people vote on those issues?...


Yeah.  But if you start with the premise that people have no natural-rights,  that they are just the opinions of the transient elected officials, then those same people can argue more easily to take those rights away if they want.

To declare something a natural-right is to declare something which is attempted to be secured by the government, not given and taken away based on the fleeting opinions of temporary officials....
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on December 31, 2011, 05:14:29 PM
<snip>

Try again, only this time don't ignore the part about theocracies.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 31, 2011, 05:28:48 PM
What about theocracies?, I don't believe in them, the founders of the usa wanted to avoid one.  But, they also realized that in order to prevent tyranny, they had to divide powers, and define god-given rights.   It has nothing to do with forcing religion of people, and everything to do with lessening any single government official's power over citizens.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on December 31, 2011, 05:32:57 PM
Theocracies were founded on the principles of a single religion (and, before you complain that christianity wasn't one of these, guess again and do some research). Yet people had little to no rights, and most of the rights people didn't have were those you consider to be "god-given".
So, either they aren't "god-given", or recognizing a higher authority doesn't mean shit, or recognizing a higher authority actually makes things worse. Pick one. I know which one is true. Do you?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 31, 2011, 05:36:15 PM
  So you think a country which declares no god-given rights, or 'natural-rights' if you prefer,  would make no difference?   Ok, so then you disagree then with all of the founders of the usa.  That, they must of had no conception of what they were doing or why, when they wrote such rights into the founding documents?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on December 31, 2011, 05:40:33 PM
That DOMA law defines at the federal level what marriage is, but certainly doesn't forbid one from obtaining a marriage licence at the state level, if that state allows it, so I'd say that it is primarily still a state issue.

And you would be very wrong. Every other state issued marriage licence is legally recognized in every other state, in effect, making them national marriage licences. DOMA forbids such recognition thus forbidding national gay marriage licences.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on December 31, 2011, 05:42:29 PM
Ok, so there's some individuals which oppose gay marriage, and so what's the main point?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on December 31, 2011, 05:52:23 PM
  So you think a country which declares no god-given rights, or 'natural-rights' if you prefer,  would make no difference?

I didn't say that. I said that theocracies were truly founded on the idea of god-given rights and yet almost nobody actually had any rights.

Ok, so then you disagree then with all of the founders of the usa.

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

So yes, I disagree with them. People are not endowed by anything with those rights, nor are they created.
The right to life isn't even an actual right, it's merely the ability to survive along with dumb luck. The other two can only exist if other people cooperate. Hence, not "god-given" or "natural-given".

That, they must of had no conception of what they were doing or why, when they wrote such rights into the founding documents?

Those documents were written over 200 years ago. The founders' bones are probably dust by now.
I have not studied the history of the USA (at least not extensively), so I don't know any of this.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on December 31, 2011, 08:42:05 PM
  So you think a country which declares no god-given rights, or 'natural-rights' if you prefer,  would make no difference?   Ok, so then you disagree then with all of the founders of the usa.  That, they must of had no conception of what they were doing or why, when they wrote such rights into the founding documents?

Well since I don't live in America I would disagree with these all knowing founders of yours. I live in the UK and I have just as much practicle freedom as you do. In fact I would argue that I actually have more freedom than you do.

Rights grow over millenia. America came late into the world so you had the 1700 years of english common law to fall back on. What? Did you think these founding fathers came up with all that stuff themselves? I think not. You've heard of the Magna Carta? Well two clauses from Magna Carta became the fifth and sixth amendments of the American Constitution.

Remember, the greeks invented democracy 3000 years ago. No christian god then.

One more thing I would point out. There are no Christian countries on this planet. There are catholic countries and there are protestant countries. If you wish to have a state religion it would have to be one of those two. Of course choosing either would alienate vast swathes of your population, unless you chose Islam which would alienate everybody.

It's far to late for America to have a state religion. It doesn't matter what the founding fathers wanted. America is what it is and for anyone to want their religion to become the official state religion would be looking for trouble in a country were the majority of people own at least one gun.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: gzusfreke on December 31, 2011, 08:45:21 PM
God doesn't exist to judge anybody. All those people are dead and I doubt it's much comfort to them or their loved ones that god is judging them.

So why waste your time discussing and debating this stuff?  Eat, drink, and be merry!  Go have yourself a party instead of hanging out with a bunch of dead-end, no-real-purpose-in-life accidental blobs of flesh.

Because it annoys rapture fruit loops like you. I also think our successes scare you. Atheism has made many inroads in America and I'm sure it will make many more. A few more years and it will be as secular as europe is. You should think yourself lucky. Here you can post as much as you like but I've tried posting at religious boards. I'm lucky to make it to 3 posts before I'm banned. So much for free speech.

BTW. Which of those conservative no hopers do you intend to vote for next year. Serial Adulterer Gingrich appears to be flavour of the month. What about Romney. Although he is a mormon. Would a vote for him send you to hell?

Fruit loops?  Ad hominem attacks instead of meaningful dialogue doesn't help your cause, it demonstrates a lack of anything intelligent to say.

Maybe you get banned for your insults and not your ideas.  Ever think about that?  You should.  Especially if you are posting your acidic tirades in "family-friendly forums".

Is the only reason you hang out in the forum is so that you might annoy someone?  Get a life, Frank.  There are much nobler pursuits in life.  Like - Do some actual research so the you will have something to add to a discussion instead of only bringing insults to the table.

From my vantage point, America is pretty much God-of-the-Bible-less.  Not the same as godless, as there are many "Gods" in America but the ones that most people profess don't line up with the one described in the Bible.  Maybe it will be a good thing for America to be like Europe.  I think that many of the phonies in church will jump ship and then you all will know that there have been those who may have professed to be believers but were not.  The Church in America will be much purer, like the ones in China, N. Korea, Iran, and Indonesia, if we undergo some persecution, which I am sure you and many of your friends in this forum are all for as well.  I'm ok with that, if it will mean that many of you will see that there really are True Believers and maybe then some of you will believe as well.

I haven't made up my mind, but I am thinking of either Santorum, Paul, or Bachmann.

No, I can't lose my salvation even if I vote for Obama.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: gzusfreke on December 31, 2011, 09:05:44 PM
Those dictators you mentioned were not motivated by a lack of belief in a god. They were motivated by active belief in certain ideologies. These ideologies happened to be non-religious... and I denounce them as much as I denounce religious ideologies.

"Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.[86]
Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction as a public institution: 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.[87] During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, and thousands of parishes were reactivated until a further round of suppression in Khrushchev's time. The Russian Orthodox Church Synod's recognition of the Soviet government and of Stalin personally led to a schism with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.
Just days before Stalin's death, certain religious sects were outlawed and persecuted. Many religions popular in the ethnic regions of the Soviet Union including the Roman Catholic Church (including the Eastern Catholic Churches), Baptists, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. underwent ordeals similar to the Orthodox churches in other parts: thousands of monks were persecuted, and hundreds of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, sacred monuments, monasteries and other religious buildings were razed."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin)

Stalin is quoted as saying "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...all this talk about God is sheer nonsense" in E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1940
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: natlegend on December 31, 2011, 09:07:34 PM
Gill, does the homosexual community have a 'natural right' to get married? If not, why not?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: monkeymind on December 31, 2011, 09:11:19 PM
From the video: "They forgot the instructions on how to live on Earth."
Indeed.

Mentally I replaced "spiritually" with "emotionally" when he was talking about the land/nature and was fine with it.

For all the claims by Xian Europeans that the indigenous people of North America and their beliefs were "primitive" – which group is okay with incorporating DNA into their worldview and accepting apes as cousins (and recognizing the idea they are cousins, not ancestors), Xians or the supposed "primitives"?

While they are religious, I would rather that anyone who can't be atheist change their religion to a nature worship type like the Hopi and most (all?) other native Americans.

Well, I don't represent any tribe, or speak for them, but I have some knowledge of their ways from my many meetings with various tribal members during my time as a trader. I wouldn't call them nature worshipers, although most do speak about living in "right relationship" with the earth and all its creatures, flying, walking, swimming or crawling. Something you might hear Floyd Red Crow Westerman say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Red_Crow_Westerman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Red_Crow_Westerman)

Most Native American Indians have a creation story and a single creator godwhoops! flood story. Khangi Duta, in the video provided by 12 monkeys, used the word Tunkansilla or grandfather for god. Sometimes referred to as Tunkansilla Wankan Tanka. Grandfather Great Mystery.

Here is the Lakota creation story from a chapter of a book I wrote. I believe I heard this version (re-written in my own words) from LAme Deer or Leonard Crow Dog in the early 70's. It's probably on the web somewhere.

Paul cut Rhonda off mid-sentence. “Please Rhonda, I was raised Southern Baptist and I am well aware of the Hebrew creation story. In the beginning there was this void. Then about six thousand years ago God created the heavens and the earth, then the people, then the animals. And did all this in 6 days and then rested. God put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden with a Tree of Life and a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Later God destroyed the people with a great flood and Yada, yada, yada.”

“Yes, but you may find this interesting  about the Lakota and Maori.” “I doubt it. If you’ve heard one creation myth, you’ve heard them all. But O.K., shoot.”

Rhonda continued on, telling Paul about the Lakota creation story. According to Lame Deer, a very long time ago, when the world was newly made, Unktehi the water monster fought against the people causing a great flood. The Great Spirit, Wakan Tanka, was angry with the people. He let the water monster win because he wanted to make a better human being.

Everything was flooded except a hill next to the sacred red pipestone quarry. The people climbed up top to escape the rising waters. The water washed over the hill and  killed everyone. The blood congealed making a big  red pool which turned into the pipestone quarry. The chanupa, or sacred pipe was made of the red rock. Its bowl is the blood of the ancestors, the  stem is their backbone and the smoke is their breath.

Unktehi, was also turned to stone. Wankan Tanka punished her for making the flood. Her back forms a ridge, and you can see her vertebrae today in the Blacks Hills.

One beautiful girl survived when Wanblee Galeshka, a great eagle swept down and she grabbed his feet. She hung on, and he carried her to the top of a tall tree at the top of the Black Hills. The only place not covered with water.

Wanblee kept the girl with him and she became his wife. She became pregnant and had twins, a boy and a girl.  When the waters subsided, the eagle took the woman and the children down to the earth and told them to become a great nation which is now called the Lakota.

The nation came from the children of the boy and the girl, and so all Lakota are descendants of the eagle, the wisest of all birds- the messenger of Wakan Tanka and the greatest warrior.

Here it is:

http://www.webpanda.com/There/uot_someSiouxLegends.htm (http://www.webpanda.com/There/uot_someSiouxLegends.htm)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on December 31, 2011, 09:15:27 PM
God doesn't exist to judge anybody. All those people are dead and I doubt it's much comfort to them or their loved ones that god is judging them.

So why waste your time discussing and debating this stuff?  Eat, drink, and be merry!  Go have yourself a party instead of hanging out with a bunch of dead-end, no-real-purpose-in-life accidental blobs of flesh.

Because it annoys rapture fruit loops like you. I also think our successes scare you. Atheism has made many inroads in America and I'm sure it will make many more. A few more years and it will be as secular as europe is. You should think yourself lucky. Here you can post as much as you like but I've tried posting at religious boards. I'm lucky to make it to 3 posts before I'm banned. So much for free speech.

BTW. Which of those conservative no hopers do you intend to vote for next year. Serial Adulterer Gingrich appears to be flavour of the month. What about Romney. Although he is a mormon. Would a vote for him send you to hell?

Fruit loops?  Ad hominem attacks instead of meaningful dialogue doesn't help your cause, it demonstrates a lack of anything intelligent to say.

Maybe you get banned for your insults and not your ideas.  Ever think about that?  You should.  Especially if you are posting your acidic tirades in "family-friendly forums".

Is the only reason you hang out in the forum is so that you might annoy someone?  Get a life, Frank.  There are much nobler pursuits in life.  Like - Do some actual research so the you will have something to add to a discussion instead of only bringing insults to the table.

From my vantage point, America is pretty much God-of-the-Bible-less.  Not the same as godless, as there are many "Gods" in America but the ones that most people profess don't line up with the one described in the Bible.  Maybe it will be a good thing for America to be like Europe.  I think that many of the phonies in church will jump ship and then you all will know that there have been those who may have professed to be believers but were not.  The Church in America will be much purer, like the ones in China, N. Korea, Iran, and Indonesia, if we undergo some persecution, which I am sure you and many of your friends in this forum are all for as well.  I'm ok with that, if it will mean that many of you will see that there really are True Believers and maybe then some of you will believe as well.

I haven't made up my mind, but I am thinking of either Santorum, Paul, or Bachmann.

No, I can't lose my salvation even if I vote for Obama.

Do you ever listen to yourself?
If you had been born in a muslim country you'd be busy trying to convince me of the joys of islam. If you had been born in ancient Egypt Ra would be the greatest god ever with Horus a close second. Born in India a hindu or sikh and you would be swimming in the Ganges every year. In Israel you'd be a jew with ringlets hanging from your head. Do you get what I'm saying here? Do you catch my drift?

You have been born in an ostensibly christian society so you have gone with the flow. Yet the god you have chosen has no more validity than the others I have mentioned. They all offer "salvation" if only you believe. If I had been born in any of the places I have mentioned I would still be an atheist because my rationality and commonsense would demand it.

See the picture below? Thats America to scale if it was on Saturn. Where are you on that tiny little speck of a country that god just loves soooooo much and what makes you think that any being as powerful as a god would be the least bit interested in the life if a speck that lives on a speck? and more importantly would want that speck anywhere near them after they have lived out their piffling, boring, blink of an eye life?

Salvation? For what?

(http://images1.dailykos.com/i/admin/Saturnscale.jpg)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: gzusfreke on December 31, 2011, 09:17:25 PM
You have yet to show that Stalin or any of the others are athiests and that they got people to kill for them for supposedly athiest reasons. All you have done is pick leaders who have slaughtered millions who don't have a clear theist connection - big deal. I would expect there to be quite a few through-out history. While far too many millions have died for theist reasons, there are millions who died for plenty of other reasons. (No, I don't have names and numbers.)

"Stalinism refers to the ideology that Joseph Stalin conceived and implemented in the Soviet Union, and is generally considered a branch of Marxist–Leninist ideology..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin)

"Marx on religion
See also: Opium of the People
Karl Marx's religious views have been the subject of much interpretation. He famously stated in Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right that
     'Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.[2][unreliable source?]'

The esoteric nature of the quote has led to some confusion among historians, who are divided as to whether Marx was speaking in favor of or against organized religion. Though Marx does state that religion is "the heart of a heartless world," and that "the demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions" (which could be taken to mean that religion is a necessary component of society, true or false), the quote is often used by atheists.[citation needed]

Lenin on religion
Vladimir Lenin was highly critical of religion, saying in his book Religion
     'Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism.'[3]

In About the attitude of the working party toward the religion, he wrote
     'Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.'[4]"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism_and_religion#cite_note-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism_and_religion#cite_note-2)

See also most recent reply to plethora.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on December 31, 2011, 09:36:05 PM
Snipped for focus
... nature worship type like the Hopi and most (all?) other native Americans.

Well, I don't represent any tribe, or speak for them, but I have some knowledge of their ways from my many meetings with various tribal members during my time as a trader. I wouldn't call them nature worshipers, although most do speak about living in "right relationship" with the earth and all its creatures, flying, walking, swimming or crawling. Something you might hear Floyd Red Crow Westerman say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Red_Crow_Westerman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Red_Crow_Westerman)

Sorry, I did misstate things. In spite of the spirits/gods, I tend to think of it as something more like nature worship because of the much better connection to and understanding of nature. I know it isn't but it just clicks like that in my head.


Here is the Lakota creation story from a chapter of a book I wrote. I believe I heard this version (re-written in my own words) from Lame Deer or Leonard Crow Dog in the early 70's. It's probably on the web somewhere.

I can hear the echo through time of Xians trying to tell the Lakota that they are on the right track (because of the flood and small family start) but to get the real story they must read the bible. (shudder)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: gzusfreke on December 31, 2011, 09:39:13 PM
Do you ever listen to yourself?
  Yes, that's the best way to have an intelligent conversation around here.

Quote
If you had been born in a muslim country you'd be busy trying to convince me of the joys of islam. If you had been born in ancient Egypt Ra would be the greatest god ever with Horus a close second. Born in India a hindu or sikh and you would be swimming in the Ganges every year. In Israel you'd be a jew with ringlets hanging from your head. Do you get what I'm saying here? Do you catch my drift?
  No, m8, I don't, because there are tens of thousands of Christians in Iran, Egypt, Iraq, and Syria today.  There are hundreds of thousands of Christians in India today.  You were born in a country that was once a majority Christian and look at you - you are an atheist.  Even many Muslims in Muslim countries are nominal and not practicing Muslims (ie not True Believers in their own religion).

Quote
You have been born in an ostensibly christian society so you have gone with the flow. Yet the god you have chosen has no more validity than the others I have mentioned. They all offer "salvation" if only you believe.
 

That shows how little you know of other religions.  How many actually offer something called "salvation" as it compares to the Christian concept? 

How many offer salvation for all even if you don't believe?  In Buddhism, they don't "believe in" Buddha like Christians "believe in" Jesus.  Does a Buddhist say that I, as a Christian, won't reach the same place they think they will one day reach?  Same goes for Hinduism.  Will I come back next time as a Hindu even though I am a Christian now?  With Hinduism, even you will one day "be saved" or whatever it is they call it.

Quote
If I had been born in any of the places I have mentioned I would still be an atheist because my rationality and commonsense would demand it.
 

That is the height of conceit and self-delusion.  I, I, I, my.  You insinuate that other people are not rational and have no commonsense if they do not think like you.  The only thing demanding that you proclaim yourself to be an atheist is your ego, self, pride, and rebellion.  Many other people who are considered rational and gifted with common sense are also religionists, theists, and Christians.  Christians will acknowledge that someone can be an atheist and still be rational and have common sense.

Quote
See the picture below? Thats America to scale if it was on Saturn. Where are you on that tiny little speck of a country that god just loves soooooo much and what makes you think that any being as powerful as a god would be the least bit interested in the life if a speck that lives on a speck? and more importantly would want that speck anywhere near them after they have lived out their piffling, boring, blink of an eye life?

See this?  It amazed Carl Sagan.  It's the "pale blue dot" image.  Where am I on this tiny little speck in a backwater part of a small galaxy, one of billions and billions of galaxies?  And I am overwhelmed by knowing the God who made all of the galaxies, who named all the stars, and knows me so well that He knows how many hairs are on my head.  He endowed me with an immortal soul, so that when my time is up here I will continue to exist.  So will you.  This life is not all that there is.  Materialism is so overrated.  You and I can agree, this life is piffling, boring, and the blink of an eye compared to living in eternity.  How will you spend the rest of your life?

(http://www.perceptions.couk.com/imgs/pbdot.jpg)

[/quote]
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: monkeymind on December 31, 2011, 09:56:01 PM
Snipped for focus
... nature worship type like the Hopi and most (all?) other native Americans.


Sorry, I did misstate things. In spite of the spirits/gods, I tend to think of it as something more like nature worship because of the much better connection to and understanding of nature. I know it isn't but it just clicks like that in my head.

I can hear the echo through time of Xians trying to tell the Lakota that they are on the right track (because of the flood and small family start) but to get the real story they must read the bible. (shudder)

So many stories were changed to please the Black Robes (Jesuits?).

They told the white guys the flute was to woo their women, and they didn't have a problem with that! They would do certain ceremonies during Christmas and other holidays making the soldiers think they were celebrating theirs.

The Native American Church (Peyote religion) have a ceremony with a budding rod and a water drum (representing Christ) and other Christian symbolism. I don't remember much from the one I attended!

Changed for clarity and formatting
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on December 31, 2011, 10:02:42 PM
Snipped for focus
You have yet to show that Stalin or any of the others are athiests and that they got people to kill for them for supposedly athiest reasons. All you have done is pick leaders who have slaughtered millions who don't have a clear theist connection - big deal. I would expect there to be quite a few through-out history. While far too many millions have died for theist reasons, there are millions who died for plenty of other reasons. (No, I don't have names and numbers.)

Lenin on religion
Vladimir Lenin was highly critical of religion, saying in his book Religion
     'Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism.'[3]

See also most recent reply to plethora.

Interesting. In post # 216 you reply to my post (# 23). And in post # 212 to plethora you recount that Stalin did try to force atheism on others. Showing that while Stalin wasn't atheist (from what I read on Wikipedia) he did used his distorted concept of atheism – really antitheism – to try to control the masses. I do understand that no matter how twisted his comprehension of atheism, it does answer my charge regarding Stalin (only).

I'd ask if you understood that his antitheism is not the same as atheism – not that they are antithetical to each other – but that isn't on topic and I'm not sure I want to keep watching for another 193 posts to see if you might finally respond.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on December 31, 2011, 10:12:54 PM
No, m8, I don't, because there are tens of thousands of Christians in Iran, Egypt, Iraq, and Syria today.  There are hundreds of thousands of Christians in India today.  You were born in a country that was once a majority Christian and look at you - you are an atheist.  Even many Muslims in Muslim countries are nominal and not practicing Muslims (ie not True Believers in their own religion).



In countries with more than a billion people living in them  I'm sure there are but you wouldn't be one of them any more than you would be one of the 7,000,000 muslims in America. You're a 100% go with the majority guy. You're a christian because the people in your street, town, city, country are mostly christian. Probably your parents are. You are bombarded with christian symbolism constantly and I think you are probably still young and keen. That's why you're here.

There has been many before you and no doubt there will be many more to come. All filled the the eagerness to defend God from us atheists. I have been posting here for a good few years now and I have yet to hear of any of my fellow atheists being converted because of the postings of someone like you.

Who do you think you are convincing here anyway? us or yourself? Do you feel the need to prop up your beliefs with these daily sojourns into the midsts of the godless? Doing your bit of anonymous crusading amongst the heathen and scoring a few brownie points with the guy upstairs. Or maybe you're having doubts and this is your way of seeking reassurance that you're not wasting your time and life on a foolish belief system that can't be supported by facts.

Just what is your justification for your visits here if your so convinced that we are wrong and you are right?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: natlegend on December 31, 2011, 10:13:21 PM
And I am overwhelmed by knowing the God who made all of the galaxies, who named all the stars, and knows me so well that He knows how many hairs are on my head.  He endowed me with an immortal soul, so that when my time is up here I will continue to exist.  So will you.  This life is not all that there is.

Um, evidence? &) Otherwise, you're dribbling sh!t.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: MadBunny on January 01, 2012, 01:09:58 AM
And I am overwhelmed by knowing the God who made all of the galaxies, who named all the stars, and knows me so well that He knows how many hairs are on my head.  He endowed me with an immortal soul, so that when my time is up here I will continue to exist.  So will you. This life is not all that there is.  Materialism is so overrated.  You and I can agree, this life is piffling, boring, and the blink of an eye compared to living in eternity. How will you spend the rest of your life?

(bold mine)

It's interesting that you think this life is not all there is, yet you also simultaneously believe that this live determines the rest of eternity.
Don't you see the inherent problem with that line of thinking?



Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Hatter23 on January 01, 2012, 03:54:25 AM


What convoluted horse crap to avoid the basic question "Does this increase freedom, or decrease freedom of sapient beings?"


It's not horse crap if you actually understood the government in the USA.  The federal government has no law forbidding gay marriage.  It's a state law issue.  Individual states can pass the law, others may not.  It really has nothing directly to do with natural-rights declared in the founding documents which was my initial conversation.

First of all you are talking to someone who is called on regularly to make law interpretations on these sort of issues...DOMA hamstrings me.

Second, doesn't matter, once again you dance around the issue "Does this increase freedom, or decrease freedom of sapient beings?" state or federal doesn't matter.

You are being, once again, dishonest
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 10:55:42 AM
Ok, so then you disagree then with all of the founders of the usa.

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

So yes, I disagree with them. People are not endowed by anything with those rights, nor are they created.
The right to life isn't even an actual right, it's merely the ability to survive along with dumb luck. The other two can only exist if other people cooperate. Hence, not "god-given" or "natural-given".

Ok.  So you think it would be fine if the Declaration said "they are endowed by 'temporary government officials' with certain 'alienable' Rights"

So in other words, the citizens only have the right to freedom if a government official decides that's the case, and of course could take that right away since they are the decider. 
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 11:02:05 AM
  So you think a country which declares no god-given rights, or 'natural-rights' if you prefer,  would make no difference?   Ok, so then you disagree then with all of the founders of the usa.  That, they must of had no conception of what they were doing or why, when they wrote such rights into the founding documents?

Well since I don't live in America I would disagree with these all knowing founders of yours. I live in the UK and I have just as much practicle freedom as you do. In fact I would argue that I actually have more freedom than you do.

Rights grow over millenia. America came late into the world so you had the 1700 years of english common law to fall back on. What? Did you think these founding fathers came up with all that stuff themselves? I think not. You've heard of the Magna Carta? Well two clauses from Magna Carta became the fifth and sixth amendments of the American Constitution.



The founders created the USA to get away from the tyranny of Englands king.   So if you're country is 'more free' than the US, this must be a recent development.

*btw  ,  England is probably more free considering all the socialists trying to run the usa right now...but that's a whole other story.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on January 01, 2012, 11:13:26 AM
Ok.  So you think it would be fine if the Declaration said "they are endowed by 'temporary government officials' with certain 'alienable' Rights"

To be honest, I couldn't care less what your declaration of independence says.
Your own country's inhabitants don't give a shit about what it says. If they did, homosexual marriage would be illegal everywhere and women and African-Americans would have been able to vote since your country was founded. Atheists would not be discriminated against on just about everything, et cetera.

So in other words, the citizens only have the right to freedom if a government official decides that's the case, and of course could take that right away since they are the decider. 

Democracy. Look it up.

The founders created the USA to get away from the tyranny of Englands king.   So if you're country is 'more free' than the US, this must be a recent development.

My country is over 800 years old. We were one of the first countries in the world to get rid of the death penalty, the eighth to recognize homosexual marriage on a national scale and we have "arguably the most liberal laws concerning possession of illicit drugs in the Western world."[1]

The last two happened in the past ten years. Your country doesn't have either one. So yes, this is a recent development. But not because your country is "more free" than ours. Quite the opposite, in fact.

We also abolished slavery (in the mainland) in 1761. Your country hadn't even been founded.
EDIT: We had abolished slavery in all our territories "in the first half of the 19th century after Brazil".[2]
 1. From Wikipedia.
 2. Once again, from Wikipedia.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 11:17:03 AM
Ok.  So you think it would be fine if the Declaration said "they are endowed by 'temporary government officials' with certain 'alienable' Rights"

To be honest, I couldn't care less what your declaration of independence says.
Your own country's inhabitants don't give a shit about what it says. If they did, homosexual marriage would be illegal everywhere and women and African-Americans would have been able to vote since your country was founded. Atheists would not be discriminated against on just about everything, et cetera.


Yeah, people do care about what it says, if they have any interest in living in a free society.  Those who don't care, blindly allow the government to chip away at more and more of their freedoms as they elect socialist leaders. 



The founders created the USA to get away from the tyranny of Englands king.   So if you're country is 'more free' than the US, this must be a recent development.
Quote
My country is over 800 years old. We were one of the first countries in the world to get rid of the death penalty, the eighth to recognize homosexual marriage on a national scale and we have "arguably the most liberal laws concerning possession of illicit drugs in the Western world."[1]

The last two happened in the past ten years. Your country doesn't have either one. So yes, this is a recent development. But not because your country is "more free" than ours. Quite the opposite, in fact.

We also abolished slavery (in the mainland) in 1761. Your country hadn't even been founded.
 1. From Wikipedia.

I'm not going to get into some debate over what country is 'more free',  totally off point.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on January 01, 2012, 11:21:33 AM
Yeah, people do care about what it says, if they have any interest in living in a free society.

Tell that to the theists who want to turn the USA into a theocracy.

Those who don't care, blindly allow the government to chip away at more and more of their freedoms as they elect socialist leaders. 

I wasn't aware that a socialist president had ever been in the White House. I always thought it was either Republican or Democrat. Please show me these socialist leaders.

I'm not going to get into some debate over what country is 'more free',  totally off point.

Don't say "debate". You make it sound as if you had a shot. You don't.
There are countries far older than the USA which are a lot "more free" than it.
EDIT: Also, you're the one who brought it up.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Omen on January 01, 2012, 11:24:13 AM
I'm willing to bet the same number of people who do not believe in god that committed mass murder is equal to the number of people who do not believe in leprechauns and committed mass murder. ( Actually, less than )
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 11:33:01 AM
Yeah, people do care about what it says, if they have any interest in living in a free society.

Tell that to the theists who want to turn the USA into a theocracy.

lol, maybe there are people that way, but that will never happen.

Those who don't care, blindly allow the government to chip away at more and more of their freedoms as they elect socialist leaders. 
Quote

I wasn't aware that a socialist president had ever been in the White House. I always thought it was either Republican or Democrat. Please show me these socialist leaders.

Most liberal democrats are socialist.

I'm not going to get into some debate over what country is 'more free',  totally off point.
Quote

Don't say "debate". You make it sound as if you had a shot. You don't.
There are countries far older than the USA which are a lot "more free" than it.
EDIT: Also, you're the one who brought it up.

No, I never did try to argue that the USA is 'more free' than anyone.  I brought up the point of the importance of defining sovereignty to the citizens over government officials to support freedom.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: jetson on January 01, 2012, 11:36:52 AM

Most liberal democrats are socialist.


bwa ha ha ha ha ha... :o
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on January 01, 2012, 11:39:24 AM
lol, maybe there are people that way, but that will never happen.

Thanks to the atheists it won't.

Most liberal democrats are socialist.

You do know that FOX News is about as reliable as my farts, right? Actually, it's LESS reliable than my farts. At least you have proof that they came out of MY ass. With FOX News you never know whose ass their "facts" came out of.

No, I never did try to argue that the USA is 'more free' than anyone.  I brought up the point of the importance of defining sovereignty to the citizens over government officials to support freedom.

You mean like... in a democracy? This was the opposite of what you were arguing, actually. You said we should define sovereignty to a "higher authority" over the citizens and governments officials to support freedom, like in a theocracy.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 11:40:41 AM
It's not funny jetson, it's the truth.  Most liberal democrats support big government programs and regulations.  Their philosophy is that the government knows best for you.   The conservative on the other hand, starts with the premise of the founders, which is that the individual knows best for himself.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Hatter23 on January 01, 2012, 11:40:47 AM

Most liberal democrats are socialist.


bwa ha ha ha ha ha... :o

Well he is right...if you compare it to the  alternative in the US. By worldwide 1rst world standards....well, no.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: caveat_imperator on January 01, 2012, 11:41:07 AM
I wasn't aware that a socialist president had ever been in the White House. I always thought it was either Republican or Democrat. Please show me these socialist leaders.
Any politician who doesn't coddle the ultra rich of the American aristocracy is considered 'socialist' by many in the U.S. :(
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 11:44:35 AM
lol, maybe there are people that way, but that will never happen.

Thanks to the atheists it won't.

Eh, no.  The majority of people in the USA are not atheist, yet are still against a theocracy.

Most liberal democrats are socialist.
Quote
You do know that FOX News is about as reliable as my farts, right? Actually, it's LESS reliable than my farts. At least you have proof that they came out of MY ass. With FOX News you never know whose ass their "facts" came out of.

What does FOX news have to do with anything?  I don't get all my information about government from them.   I read about the history of this country and the different political philosophies.

No, I never did try to argue that the USA is 'more free' than anyone.  I brought up the point of the importance of defining sovereignty to the citizens over government officials to support freedom.
Quote
You mean like... in a democracy? This was the opposite of what you were arguing, actually. You said we should define sovereignty to a "higher authority" over the citizens and governments officials to support freedom, like in a theocracy.

No,  I wasn't, but I'm getting tired of repeating myself.   
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Omen on January 01, 2012, 11:46:47 AM
It's not funny jetson, it's the truth.  Most liberal democrats support big government programs and regulations.

Which isn't the definition of socialism.

Quote
The conservative on the other hand, starts with the premise of the founders, which is that the individual knows best for himself.

Which contradicts what conservatives actually do; use the government to encroach on the personal lives of individual citizens by banning women's medical health, sex education, abortion, homosexual rights, and nothing but favor large corporate interest with government regulation destroying economic competition as well as burdening a populace with the economic hardships.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: jetson on January 01, 2012, 11:48:35 AM
It's not funny jetson, it's the truth.  Most liberal democrats support big government programs and regulations.  Their philosophy is that the government knows best for you.   The conservative on the other hand, starts with the premise of the founders, which is that the individual knows best for himself.

No it's not funny.  It's completely sad that so many Americans would rather have a country where everyone is "on their own", and no social programs existed at all.  The philosophy that you describe is not what you think it is, it's just a reflection of the bigotry towards any form of helping out people in need.  After all, every American citizen has the same opportunity, so why can't they get on their feet and do something, instead of leeching off of social programs?

While it is certainly true that there is a distinction in the approach of liberal versus conservative views, neither of those views has more power than the other, and neither gets to call the shots in our democracy.

This is off-topic, but I had to say something, because your statement is simply laughable.

It's the same thing as me claiming that most conservative republicans want a theocracy...wait?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: caveat_imperator on January 01, 2012, 11:50:51 AM
The conservative on the other hand, starts with the premise of the founders, which is that the individual knows best for himself.

Quote
Eligibility to vote for representatives would be based on each state's rules for voting on the state legislature's lower house. For example, the 1777 New York State Constitution required that a man have considerable wealth to be able to vote for the state Assembly - he had to pay taxes as well as own property worth at least 20 pounds or pay an annual rent of 2 pounds. Ten of the original 13 states had property and/or tax requirements when the U.S. Constitution came into effect.
From here- http://www1.cuny.edu/portal_ur/content/voting_cal/the_constitution.html

Most individuals in the various States weren't allowed to vote because the wealthy thought they knew what was best for them.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 11:51:59 AM
It's not funny jetson, it's the truth.  Most liberal democrats support big government programs and regulations.

Which isn't the definition of socialism.

It's directed towards that philosophy.

Quote
The conservative on the other hand, starts with the premise of the founders, which is that the individual knows best for himself.
Quote
Which contradicts what conservatives actually do; use the government to encroach on the personal lives of individual citizens by banning women's medical health, sex education, abortion, homosexual rights, and nothing but favor large corporate interest with government regulation destroying economic competition as well as burdening a populace with the economic hardships.

Well you're just targeting one particular philosophical group,  Social Conservatism.   Conservatism in general,  is for less government and more personal freedom.   So as far as your comment about favoring government regulation, that would be a socialist or liberal philosophy, not conservative.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Omen on January 01, 2012, 11:52:13 AM
What does FOX news have to do with anything?  I don't get all my information about government from them.   I read about the history of this country and the different political philosophies.

Your positions are informed by stereotypical uses of rhetoric that defies the notion that you actually know the definition or meaning of the terms themselves, which is the normal for fox news.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: caveat_imperator on January 01, 2012, 11:55:01 AM
The philosophy that you describe is not what you think it is, it's just a reflection of the bigotry towards any form of helping out people in need.

Wouldn't it ironically be an ANTI-christian philosophy at that?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on January 01, 2012, 11:55:26 AM
Eh, no.  The majority of people in the USA are not atheist, yet are still against a theocracy.

And the atheists compose 95% of the "smart people" in the USA. Thanks to rational debate, the "moderates" are against the theocracy.
Or maybe not, I really don't give a shit. The point is that the theists are always the ones trying to take away other people's rights.

What does FOX news have to do with anything?

They have a reputation for lying about everything when it suits them and being the republican party's bitch.

I don't get all my information about government from them.

You shouldn't get ANY information from them, because it's not information. Would you get information about particle physics from a small child who just learned how to speak? Obviously not; although the child can make up a lot of things about particle physics, they won't know what the fuck they're talking about. Same thing with FOX News.

I read about the history of this country and the different political philosophies.

Apparently you didn't read enough, judging from your previous statement about the USA being "more free" than Frank's country, even though you know nothing about his country.

No,  I wasn't, but I'm getting tired of repeating myself lying.   

I'm also getting tired of your lies. At first they were amusing, but now... They're just a minor inconvenience.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Omen on January 01, 2012, 11:57:07 AM
Which isn't the definition of socialism.

It's directed towards that philosophy.

If you can't get the definition correct, you can't then insist its directed towards that philosophy.  You're reducing the qualification for 'socialism' to a degree where any existence of functional government would be considered 'socialist'.

Quote
Well you're just targeting one particular philosophical group,  Social Conservatism.   Conservatism in general,  is for less government and more personal freedom.   So as far as your comment about favoring government regulation, that would be a socialist or liberal philosophy, not conservative.

Begging the question, what liberal socialist philosophy?

As I pointed above you've reduced the meaning of socialism to a vague qualification so stupid that when someone points it out in political groups in opposition to your fantasized 'socialist liberal' you then redefine those political parties under 'socialist liberal'.  The qualification of socialism is a pleaded qualifier that carries no self evident explanation, its being used to identify things you do not like but without the correct usage of the term itself.  You then deny it when it applies to your own examples as well as falling back on making the pleaded qualification again so vague that it can apply to the very existence of government itself.  That's the problem with fallacies related to pleading, you lose all ability to coherently explain anything.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 12:01:58 PM
Eh, no.  The majority of people in the USA are not atheist, yet are still against a theocracy.

And the atheists compose 95% of the "smart people" in the USA. Thanks to rational debate, the "moderates" are against the theocracy.
Or maybe not, I really don't give a shit. The point is that the theists are always the ones trying to take away other people's rights.


Atheist are the smartest people in the country? lol.  I can't even justify an answer to that.

I don't get all my information about government from them.
Quote
You shouldn't get ANY information from them, because it's not information. Would you get information about particle physics from a small child who just learned how to speak? Obviously not; although the child can make up a lot of things about particle physics, they won't know what the fuck they're talking about. Same thing with FOX News.

Whatever, all the news outlets have political bias.   So what?  You watch NBC you're getting a liberal bias. 


No,  I wasn't, but I'm getting tired of repeating myself lying.   
Quote
I'm also getting tired of your lies. At first they were amusing, but now... They're just a minor inconvenience.

Nope, never lied. And I'm getting tired of people who say that, so i'm don't interacting with you, not worth my time.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 12:05:07 PM
Which isn't the definition of socialism.

It's directed towards that philosophy.

If you can't get the definition correct, you can't then insist its directed towards that philosophy.  You're reducing the qualification for 'socialism' to a degree where any existence of functional government would be considered 'socialist'.

Quote
Well you're just targeting one particular philosophical group,  Social Conservatism.   Conservatism in general,  is for less government and more personal freedom.   So as far as your comment about favoring government regulation, that would be a socialist or liberal philosophy, not conservative.

Begging the question, what liberal socialist philosophy?

As I pointed above you've reduced the meaning of socialism to a vague qualification so stupid that when someone points it out in political groups in opposition to your fantasized 'socialist liberal' you then redefine those political parties under 'socialist liberal'.  The qualification of socialism is a pleaded qualifier that carries no self evident explanation, its being used to identify things you do not like but without the correct usage of the term itself.  You then deny it when it applies to your own examples as well as falling back on making the pleaded qualification again so vague that it can apply to the very existence of government itself.  That's the problem with fallacies related to pleading, you lose all ability to coherently explain anything.

You're just over analyzing what I said.   I made a general statement that liberal philosophies are socialist.   I could break it down to each individual issue and say they are less socialist on this or that, but why,  most people don't need such an analysis to understand what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 12:07:14 PM
It's not funny jetson, it's the truth.  Most liberal democrats support big government programs and regulations.  Their philosophy is that the government knows best for you.   The conservative on the other hand, starts with the premise of the founders, which is that the individual knows best for himself.

No it's not funny.  It's completely sad that so many Americans would rather have a country where everyone is "on their own", and no social programs existed at all.  The philosophy that you describe is not what you think it is, it's just a reflection of the bigotry towards any form of helping out people in need.  After all, every American citizen has the same opportunity, so why can't they get on their feet and do something, instead of leeching off of social programs?

While it is certainly true that there is a distinction in the approach of liberal versus conservative views, neither of those views has more power than the other, and neither gets to call the shots in our democracy.

This is off-topic, but I had to say something, because your statement is simply laughable.

It's the same thing as me claiming that most conservative republicans want a theocracy...wait?

No, I don't think anyone, even conservative is for zero social programs.   They are just for less, or reforming one's which aren't working, in general.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on January 01, 2012, 12:07:25 PM
Atheist are the smartest people in the country? lol.  I can't even justify an answer to that.

Unless you're gonna make stuff up or agree, you CAN'T answer that.

Whatever, all the news outlets have political bias.   So what?  You watch NBC you're getting a liberal bias.

Assuming that to be true; no respectable news outlet lies about the news themselves. FOX News does. What does that tell you?

Nope, never lied.

Of course not... I must've misread where you said something along the lines of "recognizing a higher authority assures god-given freedoms". What you actually meant is what we've all been saying - people are the highest authority. How stupid of me. &)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 12:10:03 PM
Nope, never lied.

Of course not... I must've misread where you said something along the lines of "recognizing a higher authority assures god-given freedoms". What you actually meant is what we've all been saying - people are the highest authority. How stupid of me. &)

That's your own interpretation of what I said, that you think it's inconsistent.  See, a lie, is when a person intentionally tries to deceive someone, which I have never done here.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Omen on January 01, 2012, 12:12:09 PM
Begging the question, what liberal socialist philosophy?

As I pointed above you've reduced the meaning of socialism to a vague qualification so stupid that when someone points it out in political groups in opposition to your fantasized 'socialist liberal' you then redefine those political parties under 'socialist liberal'.  The qualification of socialism is a pleaded qualifier that carries no self evident explanation, its being used to identify things you do not like but without the correct usage of the term itself.  You then deny it when it applies to your own examples as well as falling back on making the pleaded qualification again so vague that it can apply to the very existence of government itself.  That's the problem with fallacies related to pleading, you lose all ability to coherently explain anything.

You're just over analyzing what I said.

Dismissive pleading.

Quote
  I made a general statement that liberal philosophies are socialist.

That is a claim, you're claim misuses the definition for socialism and does not have any applicable examples that meet that literal definition.   You are using the label of 'socialism' as a pejorative, not really intended to mean or be an applicable use to mean anything useful.

Socialism is an economic system where the state actually owns economic production/management.  The regulation of industry is not the ownership of industry, there is no 'true' example of total capitalism on this planet ( with maybe the exception of Hong Kong before the turn over to China in 97 ) and any government imposes regulation of industry out of necessity, so either all governments are socialist using you're horrifically stupid qualification or no government is capable of being capitalist and capitalism is interchangeable with anarchy.

Quote
   I could break it down to each individual issue and say they are less socialist on this or that, but why,  most people don't need such an analysis to understand what I'm talking about.

Actually, for your claim to have any rational application to reality you're going to have to break it all down.  You can drop the condescending dismissive crap too. -1 for that.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 12:17:29 PM

Quote
  I made a general statement that liberal philosophies are socialist.

Socialism is an economic system where the state actually owns economic production/management. 

Right.  And so if a liberal is usually for large government programs, institutions, and control of otherwise private industry, then they are promoting socialist ideas.   So I don't see the confusion really.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on January 01, 2012, 12:20:30 PM
That's your own interpretation of what I said, that you think it's inconsistent.  See, a lie, is when a person intentionally tries to deceive someone, which I have never done here.

=D
I knew you couldn't keep yourself from talking to me. Next thing you know you'll be proposing. ;)

Seriously though, explain this:
I'd have a problem with anyone who doesn't recognize a higher authority than himself, being a leader of the country.   I live in the u.s.a., so if an atheist recognizes 'natural given rights' , instead of 'god given rights',  I suppose then they would be recognizing a higher authority.   But,  I just see this to be less likely in other parts of the world.

And so you have some people in my country who think; 'why do we need god in the constitution, etc.'.  Well, to prevent tyranny you have to start with the premise that there is an authority greater than any elected official, that's why......

Not only do you claim that there is an authority greater than any elected official (which I think we can all agree with), you claim that it's a deity, not people (this is where we will always disagree). So, am I "over analyzing" like Omen? Or are you lying?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 12:24:05 PM
I'd have a problem with anyone who doesn't recognize a higher authority than himself, being a leader of the country.   I live in the u.s.a., so if an atheist recognizes 'natural given rights' , instead of 'god given rights',  I suppose then they would be recognizing a higher authority.   But,  I just see this to be less likely in other parts of the world.

And so you have some people in my country who think; 'why do we need god in the constitution, etc.'.  Well, to prevent tyranny you have to start with the premise that there is an authority greater than any elected official, that's why......
Quote

Not only do you claim that there is an authority greater than any elected official (which I think we can all agree with), you claim that it's a deity, not people (this is where we will always disagree). So, am I "over analyzing" like Omen? Or are you lying?

As I said in another post,  one doesn't have to claim it's a deity for the law to still work.   One could say people have 'natural-given' rights.   It's just the point of trying to take the authority off any elected official which is why such a concept of 'god' was introduced in the documents.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on January 01, 2012, 12:26:48 PM
As I said in another post,  one doesn't have to claim it's a deity for the law to still work.   One could say people have 'natural-given' rights. It's just the point of trying to take the authority off any elected official which is why such a concept of 'god' was introduced in the documents.

The point is that you claimed that the concept of a higher authority is necessary. One higher than people. Now you said you didn't say that.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Omen on January 01, 2012, 12:27:51 PM

Quote
  I made a general statement that liberal philosophies are socialist.

Socialism is an economic system where the state actually owns economic production/management. 

Right.  And so if a liberal is usually for large government programs, institutions, and control of otherwise private industry, then they are promoting socialist ideas.   So I don't see the confusion really.

None of which falls into the definition of an economic system where the state actually owns economic production/management.

The confusion is nested in your bias.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 12:31:07 PM
As I said in another post,  one doesn't have to claim it's a deity for the law to still work.   One could say people have 'natural-given' rights. It's just the point of trying to take the authority off any elected official which is why such a concept of 'god' was introduced in the documents.

The point is that you claimed that the concept of a higher authority is necessary. One higher than people. Now you said you didn't say that.

I don't see why that higher authority couldn't be considered 'Nature', in place of 'Creator', in the documents and still work.   Call them 'natural-rights', instead of 'god-given', fine.   I think god-given sounds more fundamental than 'natural', which is probably why it was originally defined in such a way. 
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 12:32:55 PM

Quote
  I made a general statement that liberal philosophies are socialist.

Socialism is an economic system where the state actually owns economic production/management. 

Right.  And so if a liberal is usually for large government programs, institutions, and control of otherwise private industry, then they are promoting socialist ideas.   So I don't see the confusion really.

None of which falls into the definition of an economic system where the state actually owns economic production/management.

The confusion is nested in your bias.

Government run healthcare.  Is that not a socialist concept, since the government is owning and controlling an otherwise private industry?  And, of course, supported by most liberals.   One example of many....
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on January 01, 2012, 12:33:58 PM
I don't see why that higher authority couldn't be considered 'Nature', in place of 'Creator', in the documents and still work.   Call them 'natural-rights', instead of 'god-given', fine.   I think god-given sounds more fundamental than 'natural', which is probably why it was originally defined in such a way. 

You keep avoiding the issue, which is: you lied for the umpteenth time and I showed it to you beyond reasonable doubt. The only other option is that you realized you were wrong.
Either way, a retraction would prove that you have some degree of intellectual honesty.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 12:36:33 PM
I don't see why that higher authority couldn't be considered 'Nature', in place of 'Creator', in the documents and still work.   Call them 'natural-rights', instead of 'god-given', fine.   I think god-given sounds more fundamental than 'natural', which is probably why it was originally defined in such a way. 

You keep avoiding the issue, which is: you lied for the umpteenth time and I showed it to you beyond reasonable doubt. The only other option is that you realized you were wrong.
Either way, a retraction would prove that you have some degree of intellectual honesty.

No, you just misinterpret what I've said.  If you read back through the topic, I mentioned one could call 'god-given' rights as 'natural-rights'  to serve the same purpose,  many times. 
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on January 01, 2012, 12:40:05 PM
No, you just misinterpret what I've said.  If you read back through the topic, I mentioned one could call 'god-given' rights as 'natural-rights' just as well. 

Let me restate this as clearly as possible.

You claimed that we needed to recognize a higher authority; one higher than people. The very highest authority, which assured "god-given"/"natural" rights for everyone.
Later on, you claimed that people should be the highest authority, not governments.

So, you lied or realized that you were wrong. Either way, a retraction would show some degree of intellectual honesty.


Your move.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Omen on January 01, 2012, 12:56:21 PM
Government run healthcare.

The government doesn't own healthcare.

Quote
since the government is owning

Not only does the government not own it, but the government also doesn't own the insurance provided to members of congress.  Instead, privately contracted insurance/management companies fill the role.  In fact, my employer provides the vast majority of insurance to government officials.

Quote
and controlling an otherwise private industry?

This renders your qualification for 'socialism' moot, a government can't exist without regulating something that could be done privately.  Either all governments are socialist by necessity or socialism has no useful meaning in the manner you're using it.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: naemhni on January 01, 2012, 01:08:01 PM
No, I don't think anyone, even conservative is for zero social programs.

Ever heard of Ayn Rand, or the Cato Institute?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 01, 2012, 01:29:34 PM

Quote
  I made a general statement that liberal philosophies are socialist.

Socialism is an economic system where the state actually owns economic production/management. 

Right.  And so if a liberal is usually for large government programs, institutions, and control of otherwise private industry, then they are promoting socialist ideas.   So I don't see the confusion really.

None of which falls into the definition of an economic system where the state actually owns economic production/management.

The confusion is nested in your bias.

Government run healthcare.  Is that not a socialist concept, since the government is owning and controlling an otherwise private industry?  And, of course, supported by most liberals.   One example of many....

I understand that you prefer it that a person go bankrupt when their child is treated for cancer for years and they can't get health insurance because their kid has cancer and it's their own damned fault for not getting an abortion, which you are against as well. But there are those of us who think that the cost of health care, if spread fairly across the society, can make disease and injury and chronic health problems a smaller concern, moneywise. Pardon us for caring.

One half of the bankruptcies in this country are caused by medical costs. I know, I know, you don't want the government to interfere with a lawyers right to rip people off, but there are those of us who look at humans who are suffering with a little more compassion than jesus freaks do. No idea why, but that seems to be the case. Medical care costs are way beyond what many in our population can pay. Someone making minimum wage or even twice that can't afford health insurance. An emergency appendix operation (is there any other kind) costs at least ten grand these days, fully one third of the average income of one person. People die because of this. But no biggie, some get to heaven, some go to hell, but that's the way it is. Or am I putting words into your mouth.

There are those of us who would like to see something besides the free market control medical costs. Nobody is saying all doctors should work for the government and all hospitals should be owned by the government and all nurses should be drafted into the army. If private health insurance is an instance where people who can afford is spread the cost of medical care around, why is doing so through the government suddenly the work of the devil. If the military is there to serve and protect, including our corporations, why can't the government also be there to protect civilians. Medically.

And as Omen says, this is liberal stuff, not socialism. There is a reason we have two words instead of one.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 02:35:48 PM
No, you just misinterpret what I've said.  If you read back through the topic, I mentioned one could call 'god-given' rights as 'natural-rights' just as well. 

Let me restate this as clearly as possible.

You claimed that we needed to recognize a higher authority; one higher than people. The very highest authority, which assured "god-given"/"natural" rights for everyone.
Later on, you claimed that people should be the highest authority, not governments.

So, you lied or realized that you were wrong. Either way, a retraction would show some degree of intellectual honesty.


Your move.

No, I said the government needed to recognize a higher authority than the government officials themselves.   Therefore they declared natural-rights.   Which,  then gives the citizens a higher authority than the government officials to base their rights on.

I was never wrong, you just again, misinterpret.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 01, 2012, 02:45:30 PM
The people are a higher authority than the government itself.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 02:45:38 PM
Government run healthcare.

The government doesn't own healthcare.

Quote
since the government is owning

Not only does the government not own it, but the government also doesn't own the insurance provided to members of congress.  Instead, privately contracted insurance/management companies fill the role.  In fact, my employer provides the vast majority of insurance to government officials.



Quote
and controlling an otherwise private industry?
Quote

This renders your qualification for 'socialism' moot, a government can't exist without regulating something that could be done privately.  Either all governments are socialist by necessity or socialism has no useful meaning in the manner you're using it.

So you're basically saying that until a government takes complete ownership and regulation of a company,  it is not socialism.    So then if the government owns and regulates 90% of General Motors,  this is still capitalism, since they don't have full ownership/control.

I don't think socialism has to be seen an either/or situation.   There are degrees of socialism.   And liberals, tend to lean towards the socialist side of the spectrum.

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 01, 2012, 02:50:42 PM
Gill, you didn't address what Omen actually said.

Instead, you pretended he said something other than what he actually said.

That's flagrantly dishonest.  But typical of your behaviour in most of your threads.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 02:53:47 PM
Gill, you didn't address what Omen actually said.

Instead, you pretended he said something other than what he actually said.

That's flagrantly dishonest.  But typical of your behaviour in most of your threads.

Yeah I did address it, if my answer is not something you agree with, then state why.  It has nothing to do with dishonesty.   There's no secret intent to deceive here.  It sounds like paranoia when people keep saying this.   Just state why you disagree....
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 02:55:47 PM
It's actually getting kind of amusing, I've never experienced this debating anywhere else, where when people disagree with a comment, they often claim the person is being dishonest, instead of just stating their disagreement and reasoning.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: jetson on January 01, 2012, 03:07:09 PM
It's actually getting kind of amusing, I've never experienced this debating anywhere else, where when people disagree with a comment, they often claim the person is being dishonest, instead of just stating their disagreement and reasoning.

Yeah, this forum is funny like that.  If you look closely, you will see atheists calling out other atheists.  Honesty, and being prepared to admit when you make a mistake, are good traits, not something one should shy away from - no matter their worldview.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 03:16:28 PM
It's actually getting kind of amusing, I've never experienced this debating anywhere else, where when people disagree with a comment, they often claim the person is being dishonest, instead of just stating their disagreement and reasoning.

Yeah, this forum is funny like that.  If you look closely, you will see atheists calling out other atheists.  Honesty, and being prepared to admit when you make a mistake, are good traits, not something one should shy away from - no matter their worldview.

Agreed, but I don't think dishonesty has much to do with any of these discussions.   It's just different people with different views on many topics who will have disagreements over interpretations and implications of what people say.   And this is just natural.....
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on January 01, 2012, 03:18:14 PM
No, I said the government needed to recognize a higher authority than the government officials themselves.   Therefore they declared natural-rights.   Which,  then gives the citizens a higher authority than the government officials to base their rights on.

I was never wrong, you just again, misinterpret.

A higher authority even higher than people. It was OUR point that people elected officials and voted on important matters. This is the very basis of democracy. If your argument was that countries should be democratic, then you have a really funny way of showing it.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 01, 2012, 04:13:23 PM
Yeah I did address it, if my answer is not something you agree with, then state why.  It has nothing to do with dishonesty.   There's no secret intent to deceive here.  It sounds like paranoia when people keep saying this.   Just state why you disagree....

You mischaracterized what he was saying and addressed the mischaracterization.

Stop pretending innocence.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 04:58:17 PM
Yeah I did address it, if my answer is not something you agree with, then state why.  It has nothing to do with dishonesty.   There's no secret intent to deceive here.  It sounds like paranoia when people keep saying this.   Just state why you disagree....

You mischaracterized what he was saying and addressed the mischaracterization.

Stop pretending innocence.

No, I just gave my opinion on the implications of what he said.   If he disagrees with that, then fine, he can say why.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 05:14:35 PM
No, I said the government needed to recognize a higher authority than the government officials themselves.   Therefore they declared natural-rights.   Which,  then gives the citizens a higher authority than the government officials to base their rights on.

I was never wrong, you just again, misinterpret.

A higher authority even higher than people. It was OUR point that people elected officials and voted on important matters. This is the very basis of democracy. If your argument was that countries should be democratic, then you have a really funny way of showing it.

Yea, I agree people ultimately decide who to vote on and to argue legal issues. 

I was just going further to say why it was necessary for the founders to declare certain god-given rights.  "rights endowed by a Creator" to be specific.

Some people say it doesn't make a difference to make such a declaration.   I disagree, as i've said why.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: jetson on January 01, 2012, 05:55:07 PM

Yea, I agree people ultimately decide who to vote on and to argue legal issues. 

I was just going further to say why it was necessary for the founders to declare certain god-given rights.  "rights endowed by a Creator" to be specific.

Some people say it doesn't make a difference to make such a declaration.   I disagree, as i've said why.

I take that quoted set of words to be completely secular.  In other words, the writers could have cared less how people believed they were "created", or what god, if any, they may have believed in.  In the end, all people are equal, no matter their "imagined" origin.  And notice, they use the word "men" instead of people.  Which of coursed paved a nice path for slavery and women's lesser rights when the country started out.

We know so much more about how humans got here, and we know it had nothing to do with the imaginary gods invented by ancient humans who had no idea they were floating on a sphere, around a sun, within a galaxy, which is one in a billion or more galaxies.  Creator is a secular term that allows all belief systems to play, IMO.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 06:15:36 PM

Yea, I agree people ultimately decide who to vote on and to argue legal issues. 

I was just going further to say why it was necessary for the founders to declare certain god-given rights.  "rights endowed by a Creator" to be specific.

Some people say it doesn't make a difference to make such a declaration.   I disagree, as i've said why.

I take that quoted set of words to be completely secular.  In other words, the writers could have cared less how people believed they were "created", or what god, if any, they may have believed in.  In the end, all people are equal, no matter their "imagined" origin.  And notice, they use the word "men" instead of people.  Which of coursed paved a nice path for slavery and women's lesser rights when the country started out.

We know so much more about how humans got here, and we know it had nothing to do with the imaginary gods invented by ancient humans who had no idea they were floating on a sphere, around a sun, within a galaxy, which is one in a billion or more galaxies.  Creator is a secular term that allows all belief systems to play, IMO.

Totally agree.   One's creator can be 'the universe' if that's how they see it.   

But I think it was still a necessary component to include in order to displace the powers from temporary government officials, which was my main point so many seemed to miss....
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 01, 2012, 06:16:43 PM
^^ Gill, if it can just be "the universe" then why do you make the distinction between theists and atheists?

Both believe in the universe.  You've just negated your original reason for trusting theists in government more than atheists in government.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 06:21:05 PM
^^ Gill, if it can just be "the universe" then why do you make the distinction between theists and atheists?

Both believe in the universe.  You've just negated your original reason for trusting theists in government more than atheists in government.

Well, if the atheist believes that the universe endowed the citizens certain natural-rights, which cannot be taken by anyone, then I would trust an atheist I suppose as a government leader.

But, if the atheist does not see the universe endowing the citizens those rights,  that they are given by the government officials, that would be a problem.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 01, 2012, 06:26:41 PM
Those are not the only two options.

But anyway, what about, say, Christians who don't believe that their god endows anyone with rights?  Where do they sit with you?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: rickymooston on January 01, 2012, 06:31:55 PM
Most liberal democrats support big government programs and regulations.

Which regulations do you specifically1 oppose?
-- I'm in favor of some anti-trust regulations
-- I'm in favor of regulating the banking industry. After years of deregulation, some people looking to make
a big buck did.
-- I'm in favor of safety based food inspection regulations
-- I'm in favor of safety based regulations on fire arms, tobacco and drugs
-- I'm in favor of safety based industry specific regulations; e.g., practices by say mines and factories to
ensure workers are safe
-- I'm in favor of regulations of dangerous goods such as pollutants and radioactive materials
-- I'm in favor of trading regulations to prevent investment fraud
-- I'm in favor of driving regulations
-- I'm in favor of some basic pollution control regulations such as requiring all cars to have certain features
-- I'm in favor of hunting and fishing regulations to prevent depletion of wild life stock
Which government services do you oppose?
-- I think public education is a necessity. The system in place isn't perfect
-- I think some level of social assistance may be necessary in some cases where we don't want people to die
-- I think some level of medicare may be necessary in some cases where we don't want people to die
-- think the coast guard has a role
-- think the military has a role
-- think we need border protection
-- we need various levels of policing
-- probably its beneficial to have bodies that deal with trade with other countries...
Which isn't the definition of socialism.

Which defintion of socialism are you working from Omen? Do you consider socialism a good, bad or indifferent thing? I consider it a scale but as a general principle to involve transfer of wealth from the wealthy to the collective.

As I understand it, our system has elements of socialism (distribution of wealth by the state) and elements of capitalism (private ownership).

Being socialist isn't in my opinion necessarily good or bad. It goes without saying that "socialistic" doesn't mean Stalin's Russia.

1- I'm a liberal "democrat" but being Canadian am not a member of the democratic party.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 06:33:19 PM
Those are not the only two options.

But anyway, what about, say, Christians who don't believe that their god endows anyone with rights?  Where do they sit with you?

I certainly wouldn't want them to be a government leader, that's for sure. 
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 01, 2012, 06:39:22 PM
So why did you start off by saying that you'd trust Christians more than atheists in government, if there's no difference between their respect for rights?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 06:40:29 PM
Most liberal democrats support big government programs and regulations.

Which regulations do you specifically1 oppose?

Yes, there's many good programs, but overall, there needs to be cutting of many and a re-organization of the bigger ones  (considering the debt)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 06:43:56 PM
So why did you start off by saying that you'd trust Christians more than atheists in government, if there's no difference between their respect for rights?
  I can't say that every individual who is an atheist or Christian will all share the same ideas in their group when it comes to rights.  But I think in general, my impression was there is a difference.

And apparently, that impression has be somewhat strengthened considering there have been many atheists here saying it makes no difference if the country declares natural or god-given rights.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: rickymooston on January 01, 2012, 06:48:43 PM
But I think in general, my impression was there is a difference.

Show an example where American atheists advocated less rights than American Christians?

Note: using communists as an example is cheating because most American atheists are not communists.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: rickymooston on January 01, 2012, 06:50:56 PM
Yes, there's many good programs, but overall, there needs to be cutting of many and a re-organization of the bigger ones  (considering the debt)

Ah, we may make a liberal democrat of you yet.  ;)

You are therefore interested perhaps in wasteful spending?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 06:55:00 PM
But I think in general, my impression was there is a difference.

Show an example where American atheists advocated less rights than American Christians?

Note: using communists as an example is cheating because most American atheists are not communists.

That's a hard question because I'm not too familiar with many specific people's spiritual beliefs, if any.

My initial opinion, of trusting a christian more than an atheist in government, was based on the assumption that the atheist was less likely to recognize the concept that people have innate rights, natural, or 'god-given' rights, independent of what the government gives them.

Maybe this is a unrealistic assumption, but I have to say, so far, I'm seen several people on here that have confirmed it, so I'm not giving up that assumption yet.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 01, 2012, 07:00:53 PM
Perhaps, Gill, because you made sure to interpret their positions in such a way as to reinforce your anti-atheist bigotry?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: rickymooston on January 01, 2012, 07:03:32 PM
Maybe this is a unrealistic assumption, but I have to say, so far, I'm seen several people on here that have confirmed it, so I'm not giving up that assumption yet.

The people you've been dealing with here likely support the principals of democracy, free speech and the rest.

What they are saying is, nature doesn't make it so.

Many societies have existed where those rights didn't exist and in fact many Christian societies are included here. Consider the fact that the New Testament tells slaves to be nice to their masters, even if those masters are Christian. It doesn't tell Christian slave masters to free their slaves although I believe at least one case is recorded where a Christian slave was freed.

The order of the monarchy is used as the main analogy of the relationship between man and God. No suggestion is made that that order is wrong.

Is essence, American democracy is not following biblical principals but principals that evolved in
American society over time. Some Christian values may have had a positive impact but several of the founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson were not even Christians by any serious definition of the word.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 07:04:53 PM
Perhaps, Gill, because you made sure to interpret their positions in such a way as to reinforce your anti-atheist bigotry?

heh, no, not a bigot, just yet anyway.  I was just interested to understand where people were coming from.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 07:11:35 PM
Maybe this is a unrealistic assumption, but I have to say, so far, I'm seen several people on here that have confirmed it, so I'm not giving up that assumption yet.

The people you've been dealing with here likely support the principals of democracy, free speech and the rest.

What they are saying is, nature doesn't make it so.

Many societies have existed where those rights didn't exist and in fact many Christian societies are included here. Consider the fact that the New Testament tells slaves to be nice to their masters, even if those masters are Christian. It doesn't tell Christian slave masters to free their slaves although I believe at least one case is recorded where a Christian slave was freed.

The order of the monarchy is used as the main analogy of the relationship between man and God. No suggestion is made that that order is wrong.

Is essence, American democracy is not following biblical principals but principals that evolved in
American society over time. Some Christian values may have had a positive impact but several of the founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson were not even Christians by any serious definition of the word.

I don't doubt anyone here supports * democracy.    I think,  this is an innate desire of all people, which is why it should be recognized as a natural-right, which it rightfully is.

What if the founding documents said something like: 'all men are made equal by the government,  endowed with rights from the government'.  This is the philosophy of the communist.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: rickymooston on January 01, 2012, 07:42:26 PM
What if the founding documents said something like: 'all men are made equal by the government,  endowed with rights from the government'. 

The real authority in the system is "we the people". And indeed, it was the people with the common belief in the "natural rights" that put them in place by force of arms. That is to say, people were bound by a common belief in 'freedom'.

The checks and balances include a right to free speech; i.e., to disagree with the system. Jury of one's peers. Laws of evidence, etc, etc. Regular elections and more importantly, the right of assembly. Even the right to bear arms. The right to create political parties. There is even a limit on the power of the president and a way to get rid of him.

Serving under God, natural rights (from God) and so on are all rhetoric. The substance is a system with checks and balances to reduce abuses.

George III of England served "God", "Ich Dein" was his official motto and it meant I serve. God save the king was the anthem of the UK at the time, wasn't it? I believe so.

Quote
This is the philosophy of the communist.

The communists have several aspects which make the idea of rights suspect. First there is the idea of a
"counter revolutionary".  Further more it is a one party system.

Now, I'm unsure which came from Marx/Engels and which from Lenin/Stalin/Mao/Pot Pol etc. Its been more
than 20 years since I've been well read on this.

Granted the communists consider themselves a "democracy" but one isn't allowed to assemble. One isn't allowed to form other parties.

The main thing about communism is that wealth is shared and there is no "capitalist" owning production. Everthing is in the hands of the 'workers'.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on January 01, 2012, 07:43:51 PM

I don't doubt anyone here supports * democracy.    I think,  this is an innate desire of all people, which is why it should be recognized as a natural-right, which it rightfully is.

What if the founding documents said something like: 'all men are made equal by the government,  endowed with rights from the government'.  This is the philosophy of the communist.

I don't believe people have an "innate" desire to live in a democracy at all. The only innate desire people have, besides procreation, is the desire to be part of the herd however that herd may be governed. Why do you think religion exists? Why do you think we're always looking for a strong leader. I'm sure there are millions of people in america who would have been quite happy for Dubya to have been president for life.
People like regimented, ordered lives, and that's what religion and the state represent. Give us your compliance and we will give you law, order, and a sense of belonging.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: rickymooston on January 01, 2012, 07:57:50 PM
I don't believe people have an "innate" desire to live in a democracy at all.

It doesn't seem hard to convince people its a good idea unless they are in the priveledged group.

The only innate desire people have, besides procreation, is the desire to be part of the herd however that herd may be governed.

The "only"? how can you be sure? I certain agree we have social instincts.

Quote
Why do you think religion exists?

Many theories have been proposed. I think you are on to something but is that everything? A sense of
belonging to the order of the universe?  :o

Quote
Why do you think we're always looking for a strong leader.

Having  strong leader isn't incapatible for having a reason to choose one. And further more, a strong
leader isn't enough. Very few Americans would vote for Joseph Stalin.

Quote
I'm sure there are millions of people in america who would have been quite happy for Dubya to have been president for life.
People like regimented, ordered lives, and that's what religion and the state represent. Give us your compliance and we will give you law, order, and a sense of belonging.

Really? When he exited office his numbers were at an all time low.

I've met people who felt a theocracy was better because they believed a theocracy would follow God's principles. I think members of the aristocraacy like Goering believed in an aristocracy but democracy certainly has wide appeal
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on January 01, 2012, 08:26:40 PM
 author=rickymooston link=topic=21064.msg468800#msg468800 date=1325465870]


Quote
Having  strong leader isn't incapatible for having a reason to choose one. And further more, a strong
leader isn't enough. Very few Americans would vote for Joseph Stalin.



If you go by Americam elections only 50% actually vote for anybody. I doubt Stalin would get many votes but I'll bet in the current climate Hitler would. All that Master race/American exceptionalism would go down a treat. It's only after he was elected that you find out what he is really like. By then of course it's too late. How many rights have you lost because of Patriot act 1+2? Do I see armed masses decending on Washington to demand those rights be reinstated. Obama has just signed into law indefinite detention FFS.

For 95% of human history democracy has barely existed. All we've had are absolute monarchs/emperors/pharoas etc supported by whatever religion held sway in that part of the world. None of these people were elected and there was no apparent mass movement to change it.

Generally speaking all people want is a roof over their heads, enough to eat, and enough money to pay the bills. Give them those things and they don't care who is in charge.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: violatedsmurf80 on January 01, 2012, 08:29:49 PM
Is essence, American democracy is not following biblical principals but principals that evolved in
American society over time. Some Christian values may have had a positive impact but several of the founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson were not even Christians by any serious definition of the word.

Although your point is is true there are also things that are called blue laws  (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-blue-laws.htm)and which thay are still in practice  (http://articles.dailyamerican.com/2011-06-11/news/29645740_1_blue-laws-hunting-pennsylvania-farm-bureau)today (http://www.helium.com/debates/216675-are-blue-laws-constitutional/side_by_side).
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 08:41:59 PM

I don't doubt anyone here supports * democracy.    I think,  this is an innate desire of all people, which is why it should be recognized as a natural-right, which it rightfully is.

What if the founding documents said something like: 'all men are made equal by the government,  endowed with rights from the government'.  This is the philosophy of the communist.

I don't believe people have an "innate" desire to live in a democracy at all. The only innate desire people have, besides procreation, is the desire to be part of the herd however that herd may be governed. Why do you think religion exists? Why do you think we're always looking for a strong leader. I'm sure there are millions of people in america who would have been quite happy for Dubya to have been president for life.
People like regimented, ordered lives, and that's what religion and the state represent. Give us your compliance and we will give you law, order, and a sense of belonging.

No, most people do have an innate desire to be free from government oppression.   Which is why, all the most modern civilizations are democratic to a degree.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 08:42:45 PM
If you or someone else doesn't have such a desire though, that is okay, you are free to join a slave community.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on January 01, 2012, 09:00:20 PM
If you or someone else doesn't have such a desire though, that is okay, you are free to join a slave community.

Maybe you should include the 50% who won't bother vote in the presidential election this year. Yet the guy who wins with his slightly more than 25% will take that as a mandate to govern. If any country in the west is heading for dictatorship it's America. Voter apathy, rightwing politics, and billionaires paying for political parties.
We'll see which one of us ends up in a slave community first.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 01, 2012, 09:09:44 PM
No, most people do have an innate desire to be free from government oppression.   Which is why, all the most modern civilizations are democratic to a degree.

Recognizing an innate desire for something doesn't entail believing that thing to be a good idea.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 09:17:55 PM
If you or someone else doesn't have such a desire though, that is okay, you are free to join a slave community.

Maybe you should include the 50% who won't bother vote in the presidential election this year. Yet the guy who wins with his slightly more than 25% will take that as a mandate to govern. If any country in the west is heading for dictatorship it's America. Voter apathy, rightwing politics, and billionaires paying for political parties.
We'll see which one of us ends up in a slave community first.

No it's actually the right wing conservatives who favor personal liberty.   The liberal democrats are the best to vote for if one wants to encourage a further socialist nation, as they already are....
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 01, 2012, 09:40:15 PM
Then why are they always ragging on the ACLU as an evil organization?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on January 01, 2012, 09:48:39 PM
If you or someone else doesn't have such a desire though, that is okay, you are free to join a slave community.

Maybe you should include the 50% who won't bother vote in the presidential election this year. Yet the guy who wins with his slightly more than 25% will take that as a mandate to govern. If any country in the west is heading for dictatorship it's America. Voter apathy, rightwing politics, and billionaires paying for political parties.
We'll see which one of us ends up in a slave community first.

No it's actually the right wing conservatives who favor personal liberty.   

Yeah. For them not for you. You're not rich enough. All they want from you is your vote. Then you can go away be poor because I doubt you have a pot to piss in.
I'll bet you can't wait for November so you can vote for one of bible thumping loonies they're lining up to run against Obama or are you waiting to see which one of them will promise to bring in the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions.
I mean after all the right to an abortion shouldn't be part of any americans personal liberty now should it?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 01, 2012, 09:58:48 PM
^^ Forget abortion.  How about the right to sexual education in the first place?  Gotta oppose that.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on January 01, 2012, 10:18:50 PM
^^ Forget abortion.  How about the right to sexual education in the first place?  Gotta oppose that.

Exactly. Gill, and others of his ilk, have a very blinkered view of what "personal liberty" actually entails.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Brakeman on January 01, 2012, 10:22:44 PM
I'd like to see a comparative list, with one column being freedoms a secular government prohibits due to atheism, and a column of freedoms a theocratic government prohibits.

I'm sure it'd be a close race ..............................Not!
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on January 01, 2012, 11:29:13 PM
Yeah, people do care about what it says, if they have any interest in living in a free society.

Tell that to the theists who want to turn the USA into a theocracy.

lol, maybe there are people that way, but that will never happen.

You haven't been paying attention to the Tea Party and their manipulation of the Republican Party.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 11:29:46 PM
If you or someone else doesn't have such a desire though, that is okay, you are free to join a slave community.

Maybe you should include the 50% who won't bother vote in the presidential election this year. Yet the guy who wins with his slightly more than 25% will take that as a mandate to govern. If any country in the west is heading for dictatorship it's America. Voter apathy, rightwing politics, and billionaires paying for political parties.
We'll see which one of us ends up in a slave community first.

No it's actually the right wing conservatives who favor personal liberty.   

Yeah. For them not for you. You're not rich enough. All they want from you is your vote. Then you can go away be poor because I doubt you have a pot to piss in.
I'll bet you can't wait for November so you can vote for one of bible thumping loonies they're lining up to run against Obama or are you waiting to see which one of them will promise to bring in the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions.
I mean after all the right to an abortion shouldn't be part of any americans personal liberty now should it?

I really don't see how abortion or the death penalty is a major concern for most anyone when we have a government now which is spending itself into oblivion and taking all the citizens with it.   So yeah,  I don't think I'll be voting for someone who believes that spending more tax money will grow the economy.   
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 01, 2012, 11:33:54 PM
I really don't see how abortion or the death penalty is a major concern for most anyone when we have a government now which is spending itself into oblivion and taking all the citizens with it.

It's a major concern to right-wing Ameican conservatives.  Much more of a concern than the debt is.

So yeah,  I don't think I'll be voting for someone who believes that spending more tax money will grow the economy.

So you'll be part of the ~50% who don't vote then, right?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 11:40:14 PM
So yeah,  I don't think I'll be voting for someone who believes that spending more tax money will grow the economy.

So you'll be part of the ~50% who don't vote then, right?

No, I'll vote for any republican, since they believe in free-market economics.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 11:43:30 PM
.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 01, 2012, 11:46:46 PM
No, I'll vote for any republican, since they believe in free-market economics.

Which is far more important than preserving your rights.  Okay.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 11:47:56 PM
Yeah, people do care about what it says, if they have any interest in living in a free society.

Tell that to the theists who want to turn the USA into a theocracy.

lol, maybe there are people that way, but that will never happen.

You haven't been paying attention to the Tea Party and their manipulation of the Republican Party.

The Tea Party is for smaller government, I haven't heard much about religious issues.  Sounds like a good idea to me.  Unless of course, one enjoys a massive government putting it's hands into all aspects of people's lives.  Some people don't mind that I suppose....
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 01, 2012, 11:51:01 PM
A true free-market economy would allow the trading of slaves.  After all, laws forbidding the keeping and trading of slaves are an oppressive government regulation.  The market will sort it out.  Do you really want the government to get involved?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 01, 2012, 11:56:57 PM
A true free-market economy would allow the trading of slaves.  After all, laws forbidding the keeping and trading of slaves are an oppressive government regulation.  The market will sort it out.  Do you really want the government to get involved?

It doesn't have to be a 'true free-market', zero regulation,  but,  certainly less regulation.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on January 01, 2012, 11:58:26 PM
Government run healthcare.  Is that not a socialist concept, since the government is owning and controlling an otherwise private industry?  And, of course, supported by most liberals.   One example of many....

If you are talking about Medicare then you are completely wrong. What happens with Medicare is that you sign up with an insurance company who gets money from you (your premiums) and deals with paying your medical bills. Does the government participate in this process? Yes basically by limiting what the health care provider can charge through regulations and by subsidizing a portion of your health care.

Do you have a problem with the government subsidizing things? Be careful – oil companies and other big businesses are subsidized and don't want the government to stop. And the conservatives will fight you tooth and nail to keep the subsidies going.

So, "government is owning and controlling an otherwise private industry"? No – totally wrong. Regulating and subsidizing it, yes.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 02, 2012, 12:03:36 AM
A true free-market economy would allow the trading of slaves.  After all, laws forbidding the keeping and trading of slaves are an oppressive government regulation.  The market will sort it out.  Do you really want the government to get involved?

It doesn't have to be a 'true free-market', zero regulation,  but,  certainly less regulation.

This would be less regulation.  Isn't that supposed to be good?

After all, if consumers truly object to slave labour, then they won't buy the cheaper products of slave labour, will they?  The market will balance it.  There will only be as much slavery as there is a market for slave-produced goods.

Right?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 02, 2012, 12:05:46 AM
By the way, do you really want a government-run police force?  Is this something the government should really be getting involved in?  If consumers want certain laws enforced, then they will be willing and eager to pay for them.  And that will create a market for law-enforcement companies to fill this demand.

Is there something wrong with that, Gill?  Are some kind of pinky socialist?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 02, 2012, 12:08:19 AM
By the way, do you really want a government-run police force?  Is this something the government should really be getting involved in?  If consumers want certain laws enforced, then they will be willing and eager to pay for them.  And that will create a market for law-enforcement companies to fill this demand.

Is there something wrong with that, Gill?  Are some kind of pinky socialist?

No clue what you're talking about,  this police force.    If that's something a conservative said, well,  I'm not going to agree with everything every conservative says, but I think they're pretty spot on with economic issues, that's for sure.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 02, 2012, 12:09:37 AM
I'm just talking about free market economics.  You said they were a good thing.  Well, here's your opportunity to own that statement.  What's wrong with free market economics?  I'm promoting free market ideals here!
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 02, 2012, 12:10:26 AM
Well there's always exceptions, but exceptions aren't the rule.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 02, 2012, 12:12:33 AM
So...so...free market economics aren't always a good idea?   :o
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 02, 2012, 12:18:16 AM
Yes, there's many good programs, but overall, there needs to be cutting of many and a re-organization of the bigger ones  (considering the debt)

Anyway, you said you were for deregulation.  That's empty lip-service unless you can think of any actual stuff to deregulate.  Ricky gave you a good long list, and you couldn't even pick one from it.

So it's pretty safe to say that you aren't actually in favor of deregulation, but have been conditioned to say that you are.  Because if you really wanted deregulation, then you'd have some idea of what it was and could relate that to the rest of us.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on January 02, 2012, 12:19:29 AM
No, I said the government needed to recognize a higher authority than the government officials themselves.   Therefore they declared natural-rights.   Which,  then gives the citizens a higher authority than the government officials to base their rights on.

I was never wrong, you just again, misinterpret.

You keep making the bogus claim that a government needs to "recognize a higher authority than the government officials" and you claim that the US government does so but you have never actually showed this. You reference "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." But that is a statement about being endowed with some rights. It does not indicate (as you imply) that the creator is a higher authority than any member of the government. Nowhere is it stated by any US government document that the creator is recognized as a higher authority. If I am wrong, just provide a link to the offical US gov. page presenting that document.

You also make spurious claims that any government official can take away a person's rights on a whim (your implication). That is not true since every government official has to document what they do and justify it with the existing laws and rules. Can they find obscure rules or laws to try and screw someone over? Sure. But they do have to find a reason. Unless they are a part of Congress who can make new laws – like the Patriot Act – that does remove rigths.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 02, 2012, 12:22:39 AM
^^ Lest we make the mistake of thinking that Obama is some sort of protector of rights, either:

http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-salt-lake-city/obama-signs-ndaa-into-law-dismantles-bill-of-rights

EDIT:  Removed Facebook link.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 02, 2012, 12:23:48 AM
Yes, there's many good programs, but overall, there needs to be cutting of many and a re-organization of the bigger ones  (considering the debt)

Anyway, you said you were for deregulation.  That's empty lip-service unless you can think of any actual stuff to deregulate.  Ricky gave you a good long list, and you couldn't even pick one from it.

So it's pretty safe to say that you aren't actually in favor of deregulation, but have been conditioned to say that you are.  Because if you really wanted deregulation, then you'd have some idea of what it was and could relate that to the rest of us.

Nah, Im just too lazy now to go through every issue.   And there's all kinds of issues since the government is such a behemoth, which is my main point.  Thousands of regulations.

I could name a few though.  How about government mandated healthcare?  Is the government going to throw me in jail because if I don't buy it, what if I can't afford it? Will the government pay for it, and if so who's money?

There's just all sorts of things which are complex if gotten into.  But that's the thing, we could talk for days the government is so much into everything.

Hmmm,  the government trusts me that I can pick a president with my vote, but they don't think I'm smart enough to pick the right light bulb, hehe
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on January 02, 2012, 12:24:06 AM
Yeah I did address it, if my answer is not something you agree with, then state why.  It has nothing to do with dishonesty.   There's no secret intent to deceive here.  It sounds like paranoia when people keep saying this.   Just state why you disagree....

You mischaracterized what he was saying and addressed the mischaracterization.

Stop pretending innocence.

Dude, if he didn't do this, he wouldn't have anything to post.      &)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 02, 2012, 12:29:07 AM
I could name a few though.  How about government mandated healthcare?  Is the government going to throw me in jail because if I don't buy it, what if I can't afford it? Will the government pay for it, and if so who's money?

If that's accurate, then it's a silly law.  Is it accurate?  And who told you so?

There's just all sorts of things which are complex if gotten into.  But that's the thing, we could talk for days the government is so much into everything.

I disagree, because you don't seem to have much to actually talk about on the issue.  I mean, you can only proclaim your desire for deregulation so many times before it gets old, at least without actually advocating deregulation.

Hmmm,  the government trusts me that I can pick a president with my vote, but they don't think I'm smart enough to pick the right light bulb, hehe

Well, are you?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 02, 2012, 12:29:45 AM
No, I said the government needed to recognize a higher authority than the government officials themselves.   Therefore they declared natural-rights.   Which,  then gives the citizens a higher authority than the government officials to base their rights on.

I was never wrong, you just again, misinterpret.

You keep making the bogus claim that a government needs to "recognize a higher authority than the government officials" and you claim that the US government does so but you have never actually showed this. You reference "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." But that is a statement about being endowed with some rights. It does not indicate (as you imply) that the creator is a higher authority than any member of the government. Nowhere is it stated by any US government document that the creator is recognized as a higher authority. If I am wrong, just provide a link to the offical US gov. page presenting that document.


Well, if you personally believe that your Creator is a member of government, then I guess it is.   The Creator is generic, like Jetson said, so people can be free to determine what that is for themselves, but it's not the government for most.

Quote
You also make spurious claims that any government official can take away a person's rights on a whim (your implication). That is not true since every government official has to document what they do and justify it with the existing laws and rules. Can they find obscure rules or laws to try and screw someone over? Sure. But they do have to find a reason. Unless they are a part of Congress who can make new laws – like the Patriot Act – that does remove rigths.

Not that they can just take rights away on a whim.  But that they would have a more legitimate argument for taking away a right,  if that right was declared as a right given to citizens by the government instead of endowed by a creator.   
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Hatter23 on January 02, 2012, 12:33:25 AM
No, I don't think anyone, even conservative is for zero social programs.

Ever heard of Ayn Rand, or the Cato Institute?

Two favorites of Penn and Teller, who are atheists. Even if they seem to agree with the "supply Side Jesus"
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 02, 2012, 12:33:35 AM
Well, if you personally believe that your Creator is a member of government, then I guess it is.   The Creator is generic, like Jetson said, so people can be free to determine what that is for themselves, but it's not the government for most.

How do you do that?  How do you read a post with a specific point...

Quote
... But that is a statement about being endowed with some rights. It does not indicate (as you imply) that the creator is a higher authority than any member of the government. Nowhere is it stated by any US government document that the creator is recognized as a higher authority. If I am wrong, just provide a link to the offical US gov. page presenting that document.

...and then blatantly ignore it while pretending to make a post that addresses it?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 02, 2012, 12:37:30 AM
Well, if you personally believe that your Creator is a member of government, then I guess it is.   The Creator is generic, like Jetson said, so people can be free to determine what that is for themselves, but it's not the government for most.

How do you do that?  How do you read a post with a specific point...

Quote
... But that is a statement about being endowed with some rights. It does not indicate (as you imply) that the creator is a higher authority than any member of the government. Nowhere is it stated by any US government document that the creator is recognized as a higher authority. If I am wrong, just provide a link to the offical US gov. page presenting that document.

...and then blatantly ignore it while pretending to make a post that addresses it?

The Declaration doesn't specifically indicate that the Creator is a higher authority than the government because this is an obvious implication.  Why would your Creator be a government official? 

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 02, 2012, 12:38:59 AM
Who said anything about it being a government official?  It could be Zeus Almighty Himself.  But why assume that Zeus (or whoever) is a higher authority than the government?  Because of his powers of destruction, or what?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 02, 2012, 12:44:09 AM
Who said anything about it being a government official?  It could be Zeus Almighty Himself.  But why assume that Zeus (or whoever) is a higher authority than the government?  Because of his powers of destruction, or what?

You don't have to assume anything.  If you want, you can assume that a government official is your highest authority in life.   But, most people don't wish to do that, which is why the Declaration was written the way it was. 
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Hatter23 on January 02, 2012, 12:47:19 AM


No it's actually the right wing conservatives who favor personal liberty.   

Rightwing Conservatives:

Against ACLU
Against woman's right to choose
Against sex ed
For Mandatory prayer
For specifically singling out Christianity to give special privilege to in opposition of bill of rights
For Censorship
For the continuation of Guantanamo prison
For the seizure of private property to give to developers
For the expansion of prison terms
For the "war on drugs"


So, as usual, you are wrong.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on January 02, 2012, 12:53:06 AM
Tell that to the theists who want to turn the USA into a theocracy.

lol, maybe there are people that way, but that will never happen.

You haven't been paying attention to the Tea Party and their manipulation of the Republican Party.

The Tea Party is for smaller government, I haven't heard much about religious issues.  Sounds like a good idea to me.  Unless of course, one enjoys a massive government putting it's hands into all aspects of people's lives.  Some people don't mind that I suppose....

If you haven't heard about the religious issues then you haven't been listening – at all. So you're saying you are for a government putting its hands into all aspects of your life since the Tea Party is very pro-religion including such things as teaching cretinism, er, um, creationism, banning abortion, etc.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 02, 2012, 12:53:50 AM


No it's actually the right wing conservatives who favor personal liberty.   

Rightwing Conservatives:

Against ACLU
Against woman's right to choose
Against sex ed
For Mandatory prayer
For specifically singling out Christianity to give special privilege to in opposition of bill of rights
For Censorship
For the continuation of Guantanamo prison
For the seizure of private property to give to developers
For the expansion of prison terms
For the "war on drugs"


So, as usual, you are wrong.

 You can cherry pick particular issues on either side which seem to contradict the overall premise of a political ideology.  But , when you look at conservatism overall, it's primary focus is smaller government regulation.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on January 02, 2012, 12:55:43 AM
A true free-market economy would allow the trading of slaves.  After all, laws forbidding the keeping and trading of slaves are an oppressive government regulation.  The market will sort it out.  Do you really want the government to get involved?

It doesn't have to be a 'true free-market', zero regulation,  but,  certainly less regulation.

Ah, so you want more activities like the derivatives trading that caused the recent major economic downturn. You might have heard of it - our current recession?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 02, 2012, 12:57:39 AM
You don't have to assume anything.  If you want, you can assume that a government official is your highest authority in life.

Or that I am.  Or that the people as a group are.

Anyway, it's good to see you concede that the rights weren't actually written in as coming from a higher authority in the first place.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 02, 2012, 12:58:31 AM
You can cherry pick particular issues on either side which seem to contradict the overall premise of a political ideology.  But , when you look at conservatism overall, it's primary focus is smaller government regulation.

...of the market.  Absolutely nothing else.

EDIT:  Except for guns.  Those have to remain free, too.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on January 02, 2012, 01:06:27 AM
^^ Lest we make the mistake of thinking that Obama is some sort of protector of rights, either:

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.examiner.com%2Findependent-in-salt-lake-city%2Fobama-signs-ndaa-into-law-dismantles-bill-of-rights&h=-AQGJYgPZ

That bill makes my skin crawl.

I know Obama's not perfect (far form it) but he's doing a reasonable job in general. After all he inherited a ton of crap from W - sorry I wasn't being respectful - George W B- wait, I forgot something, he likes religion stuffed into the middle of everything so I must include the cross - George double-cross-u Bush. Huge deficit, 2 wars, recession - a whole lot of crap. And Obama's own party doesn't support him enough. But then he goes and wusses out at times versus the republicans. And now he's signed that crap bill.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 02, 2012, 01:07:56 AM
In terms of economics, he did inherit an awful situation.  But that's absolutely no excuse for him signing that bill.  No excuse at all.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 02, 2012, 01:08:31 AM
You don't have to assume anything.  If you want, you can assume that a government official is your highest authority in life.

Or that I am.  Or that the people as a group are.

Anyway, it's good to see you concede that the rights weren't actually written in as coming from a higher authority in the first place.

A higher authority than the government , yes,  I interpret it that way.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 02, 2012, 01:10:11 AM
Of course you do.  So do I.  We use our authority to do that.

Funny how it comes back to our authority to declare the document's meaning, eh?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on January 02, 2012, 01:16:25 AM
Well, if you personally believe that your Creator is a member of government, then I guess it is.

LIAR – I never said what you claim above.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 02, 2012, 01:17:47 AM
Of course you do.  So do I.  We use our authority to do that.

Funny how it comes back to our authority to declare the document's meaning, eh?

I see it as a good thing.  If the document would have said something specific, such as 'the government officials give you your rights', then we wouldn't be able to form much of an argument about what that means, as we are now, so then I think those officials would have much more control over us...
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 02, 2012, 01:19:55 AM
Or if it had specifically indicated the creator in question, then we could argue that those of different beliefs have already given up their rights by not following, say, Christ.  That would serve most the current crop of Republican hopefuls quite nicely.

Instead, they left it to us, meaning that we the people are the ones that end up giving ourselves rights.

EDIT:  That's a heavy responsibility, and we can't put that responsibility off to a creator - or the government - and let down our guard.  Case in point:  Patriot Act and the law Obama just signed.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 02, 2012, 01:22:12 AM
Or if it had specifically indicated the creator in question, then we could argue that those of different beliefs have already given up their rights by not following, say, Christ.  That would serve most the current crop of Republican hopefuls quite nicely.

Instead, they left it to us, meaning that we the people are the ones that end up giving ourselves rights.

Yep, I agree.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Hatter23 on January 02, 2012, 08:53:32 AM
You can cherry pick particular issues on either side which seem to contradict the overall premise of a political ideology.  But , when you look at conservatism overall, it's primary focus is smaller government regulation.

...of the market.  Absolutely nothing else.

EDIT:  Except for guns.  Those have to remain free, too.

There are 10 rights laid out in the bill of rights, conservatives regularly vote against 8 of them...hardly cherry picking.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Add Homonym on January 02, 2012, 09:50:20 AM
Has Gill won any arguments, yet?

It's a good thing he has gills.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 02, 2012, 10:43:12 AM

 You can cherry pick particular issues on either side which seem to contradict the overall premise of a political ideology.  But , when you look at conservatism overall, it's primary focus is smaller government regulation.

Only in regards to businesses. When it comes to people's personal lives, the current conservative movement in America is ALL ABOUT government regulation. Anyone who pays any attention at all to the current political situation and yet doesn't understand that can only be ignorant. There really is no other excuse. Wanting to teach Creationism as fact, limiting the rights of women and homosexuals, declaring that this is a Christian Nation are all examples of the ways in which the Conservatives (particularly the Tea Party types) support extensive government regulation.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Anfauglir on January 03, 2012, 06:25:03 AM
My initial opinion, of trusting a christian more than an atheist in government, was based on the assumption that the atheist was less likely to recognize the concept that people have innate rights, natural, or 'god-given' rights, independent of what the government gives them.

Maybe you need to be specific. 

What rights do you believe are actually given to us by the Christian god?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 03, 2012, 10:36:27 AM
My initial opinion, of trusting a christian more than an atheist in government, was based on the assumption that the atheist was less likely to recognize the concept that people have innate rights, natural, or 'god-given' rights, independent of what the government gives them.

Maybe you need to be specific. 

What rights do you believe are actually given to us by the Christian god?

IDK the specifics.   But considering many of the founders were Christian,  I'm sure they would likely be aligned with the idea of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, as was initially recognized.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: naemhni on January 03, 2012, 10:42:21 AM
What rights do you believe are actually given to us by the Christian god?

IDK the specifics.   But considering many of the founders were Christian,  I'm sure they would likely be aligned with the idea of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, as was initially recognized.

ROFL.  Those are just about the last rights in the world that Yahweh would say that we have or would want us to have.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Anfauglir on January 03, 2012, 10:55:25 AM
My initial opinion, of trusting a christian more than an atheist in government, was based on the assumption that the atheist was less likely to recognize the concept that people have innate rights, natural, or 'god-given' rights, independent of what the government gives them.

Maybe you need to be specific. 

What rights do you believe are actually given to us by the Christian god?

IDK the specifics.   But considering many of the founders were Christian,  I'm sure they would likely be aligned with the idea of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, as was initially recognized.

I'm not interested in what the founders thought.  I'm asking YOU what rights you believe are actually given to us by the Christian god.

You have stated you would prefer a Christian because of the rights they believe their god has granted to man.  So I'm asking you to name them.  You have an opinion as to why you support a Christian over an atheist - I'm wondering if you actually know WHY you do?

Or is this simply another knee-jerk reaction you've not thought through, in the same way as your opinion on market regulation?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on January 03, 2012, 10:59:02 AM
My initial opinion, of trusting a christian more than an atheist in government, was based on the assumption that the atheist was less likely to recognize the concept that people have innate rights, natural, or 'god-given' rights, independent of what the government gives them.

Maybe you need to be specific. 

What rights do you believe are actually given to us by the Christian god?

IDK the specifics.   But considering many of the founders were Christian,  I'm sure they would likely be aligned with the idea of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, as was initially recognized.

More like. No life, No liberty, and the pursuit of misery. Every move weighed against the christian self help book. AKA the Bible. All those do's and don'ts with emphasis on the don'ts.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: plethora on January 03, 2012, 11:17:36 AM
Sorry to come back to this so late in the thread ... only just catching up ...

Those dictators you mentioned were not motivated by a lack of belief in a god. They were motivated by active belief in certain ideologies. These ideologies happened to be non-religious... and I denounce them as much as I denounce religious ideologies.

"Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.[86]
bold-red-mine

You just proved my point, dumbass. He was motivated by an active belief in a particular communist ideology.
He was following the steps that he actively believed were necessary to build said 'ideal' communist society.

He was never motivated purely by lacking belief in the existence of a god. That in itself does nothing to inform a person's actions. A positive belief in a particular set of ideas is required to arrive at the point of action.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: jaimehlers on January 03, 2012, 12:01:11 PM
I think this thread shows that the strength of an ideology is the danger, not the specifics of it.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 03, 2012, 01:02:19 PM
My initial opinion, of trusting a christian more than an atheist in government, was based on the assumption that the atheist was less likely to recognize the concept that people have innate rights, natural, or 'god-given' rights, independent of what the government gives them.

Maybe you need to be specific. 

What rights do you believe are actually given to us by the Christian god?

IDK the specifics.   But considering many of the founders were Christian,  I'm sure they would likely be aligned with the idea of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, as was initially recognized.

More like. No life, No liberty, and the pursuit of misery. Every move weighed against the christian self help book. AKA the Bible. All those do's and don'ts with emphasis on the don'ts.

I've never met anyone who takes the Bible so literally, so.....  But yeah, you do need 'don'ts' in order to have liberty.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 03, 2012, 01:05:54 PM
My initial opinion, of trusting a christian more than an atheist in government, was based on the assumption that the atheist was less likely to recognize the concept that people have innate rights, natural, or 'god-given' rights, independent of what the government gives them.

Maybe you need to be specific. 

What rights do you believe are actually given to us by the Christian god?

IDK the specifics.   But considering many of the founders were Christian,  I'm sure they would likely be aligned with the idea of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, as was initially recognized.

I'm not interested in what the founders thought.  I'm asking YOU what rights you believe are actually given to us by the Christian god.

You have stated you would prefer a Christian because of the rights they believe their god has granted to man.  So I'm asking you to name them.  You have an opinion as to why you support a Christian over an atheist - I'm wondering if you actually know WHY you do?

Or is this simply another knee-jerk reaction you've not thought through, in the same way as your opinion on market regulation?

I don't study Christianity so I don't know specific details of their religion.   But I don't think it's necessary to know the specifics.  The fact that they recognize a higher authority than man, the idea of a Creator,  is in line with the country's governmental premise.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: naemhni on January 03, 2012, 01:19:26 PM
The fact that they recognize a higher authority than man, the idea of a Creator,  is in line with the country's governmental premise.

This is false.  There is no such premise anywhere in our Constitution.  Religion and religious concepts are mentioned almost nowhere in our Constitution.  In the very few places where it is, all it says it what the government does not have the power to do.

Do not bring the Declaration of Independence into the discussion; that document was nothing other than a declaration that we were separating ourselves from the crown and giving reasons for the separation.  It has no force of law and is not part or parcel of the Constitution, therefore its mention of a Creator is irrelevant.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 03, 2012, 02:01:36 PM
The fact that they recognize a higher authority than man, the idea of a Creator,  is in line with the country's governmental premise.

This is false.  There is no such premise anywhere in our Constitution.  Religion and religious concepts are mentioned almost nowhere in our Constitution.  In the very few places where it is, all it says it what the government does not have the power to do.

Do not bring the Declaration of Independence into the discussion; that document was nothing other than a declaration that we were separating ourselves from the crown and giving reasons for the separation.  It has no force of law and is not part or parcel of the Constitution, therefore its mention of a Creator is irrelevant.

The Declaration is very relevant.  It's the first document which explains how the government will be constructed.   It's the basis for even forming a constitution to begin with..
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: jaimehlers on January 03, 2012, 02:09:45 PM
The Declaration is very relevant.  It's the first document which explains how the government will be constructed.   It's the basis for even forming a constitution to begin with..
No offense, but have you read the whole Declaration?  It's a justification for the then-English colonies to sever their ties with the crown of England; the parts you refer to are leading up to the list of abuses by the King of England to show why he hadn't been doing his duty to the colonies and thus why they were right to go their own way.  That's all it is; it certainly isn't an outline of how they were intending to construct a replacement government.  They had to win the war first.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 03, 2012, 02:16:20 PM
^^ Which may be part of why it's called...umm..."The Declaration of Independence", rather than something involving a new nation.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 03, 2012, 02:20:17 PM
The Declaration is very relevant.  It's the first document which explains how the government will be constructed.   It's the basis for even forming a constitution to begin with..
No offense, but have you read the whole Declaration?  It's a justification for the then-English colonies to sever their ties with the crown of England; the parts you refer to are leading up to the list of abuses by the King of England to show why he hadn't been doing his duty to the colonies and thus why they were right to go their own way.  That's all it is; it certainly isn't an outline of how they were intending to construct a replacement government.  They had to win the war first.

Right.  So they are stating a philosophy of how the government should be constructed as opposed to the king's philosophy.   If they weren't , why would they even bother to list ideas such as rights?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: naemhni on January 03, 2012, 02:22:47 PM
The Declaration is very relevant.  It's the first document which explains how the government will be constructed.   

Please quote any passage in the Declaration of Independence that "explains how the government will be constructed".  I've read the Declaration in its entirety several times and have never seen any such thing therein.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 03, 2012, 02:29:05 PM
The Declaration is very relevant.  It's the first document which explains how the government will be constructed.   

Please quote any passage in the Declaration of Independence that "explains how the government will be constructed".  I've read the Declaration in its entirety several times and have never seen any such thing therein.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

'institute a government'   ,  'construct' one,  same difference.

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: naemhni on January 03, 2012, 02:35:28 PM
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

'institute a government'   ,  'construct' one,  same difference.

Those are only principles upon which a government is to be constructed, not an explanation of how the government is to be constructed.  Would you also say that the laws of physics are an explanation of how to build a bridge?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 03, 2012, 02:39:37 PM
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

'institute a government'   ,  'construct' one,  same difference.

Those are only principles upon which a government is to be constructed, not an explanation of how the government is to be constructed.  Would you also say that the laws of physics are an explanation of how to build a bridge?

No, it's not a specific explanation of how the government is to be constructed, but I think they are stating the principles of what that construction is based on,  so this is not an irrelevant declaration.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: naemhni on January 03, 2012, 02:51:38 PM
No, it's not a specific explanation of how the government is to be constructed, but I think they are stating the principles of what that construction is based on,  so this is not an irrelevant declaration.

The Declaration is very relevant.  It's the first document which explains how the government will be constructed.

1)  Open mouth.
2)  Insert foot.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: screwtape on January 03, 2012, 02:58:35 PM
Hmmm,  the government trusts me that I can pick a president with my vote, but they don't think I'm smart enough to pick the right light bulb,

I have doubts you are smart enough to pick you own nose, let alone make decisions about the direction of our country.

Gill,

There are two a problems here:
1. you are an ignoramus.
2. you do not recognize there is a problem.

You feel qualified to have opinions on topics of which you are entirely ignorant.  You cannot name any regulations you are against, you cannot define socialism, you cannot define what rights are, you cannot explain how you know rights exist or whether they are "correctly defined", etc, ad infinitum.  In short, you are talking out your ass. 

And the most startling part is, you are not even aware of of just how uninformed you are.  You keep talking and talking when people like Azdgari and Omen point out how wrong you are.  I would think a sentient person would occasionally stop and consider the possibility that he might be wrong about something.  But you don't.  You keep going on dodging points and regurgitating dogma apparently without even realizing it. You never pause a moment and try to assimilate new information. It is as if you think your internal model of the universe is complete and perfect and no new information matters.

I suspect there is something wrong with you.  I suspect some kind of mental disorder or possibly brain damage.  It could be you are a troll engine, a computer virus written to annoy people.


In my stupid optimism I hold out hope that you are not someone's cocker spaniel randomly pawing the keyboard despite all affirmative evidence[1].  In the spirit of that optimism let me ask a question of you.  If your higher power[2] were to revoke a right - let's say the right to bear arms - how would you know?



 1. call it faith if you want
 2. whatever that is supposed to mean
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 03, 2012, 03:05:20 PM
No, it's not a specific explanation of how the government is to be constructed, but I think they are stating the principles of what that construction is based on,  so this is not an irrelevant declaration.

The Declaration is very relevant.  It's the first document which explains how the government will be constructed.

1)  Open mouth.
2)  Insert foot.

Those quotes are taken totally out of context.   I just said I agree with you that the Declaration doesn't explain a construction, in the sense of defining branches and specific laws and what not,  but the Declaration is explaining what principles those specific laws will be based on, which I'm sure you would agree....
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 03, 2012, 03:08:15 PM
Hmmm,  the government trusts me that I can pick a president with my vote, but they don't think I'm smart enough to pick the right light bulb,

I have doubts you are smart enough to pick you own nose, let alone make decisions about the direction of our country.

Gill,

There are two a problems here:
1. you are an ignoramus.
2. you do not recognize there is a problem.

You feel qualified to have opinions on topics of which you are entirely ignorant.  You cannot name any regulations you are against, you cannot define socialism, you cannot define what rights are, you cannot explain how you know rights exist or whether they are "correctly defined", etc, ad infinitum.  In short, you are talking out your ass. 

And the most startling part is, you are not even aware of of just how uninformed you are.  You keep talking and talking when people like Azdgari and Omen point out how wrong you are.  I would think a sentient person would occasionally stop and consider the possibility that he might be wrong about something.  But you don't.  You keep going on dodging points and regurgitating dogma apparently without even realizing it. You never pause a moment and try to assimilate new information. It is as if you think your internal model of the universe is complete and perfect and no new information matters.

I suspect there is something wrong with you.  I suspect some kind of mental disorder or possibly brain damage.  It could be you are a troll engine, a computer virus written to annoy people.


In my stupid optimism I hold out hope that you are not someone's cocker spaniel randomly pawing the keyboard despite all affirmative evidence[1].  In the spirit of that optimism let me ask a question of you.  If your higher power[2] were to revoke a right - let's say the right to bear arms - how would you know?
 1. call it faith if you want
 2. whatever that is supposed to mean

lol.  Whatever.  I'm not claiming to be an expert. But,  I have read books about the government's founding so I'm far from ignorant on the subject.

 So  if people want to name call instead of state their reasons for disagreement,  this just shows me they have no reasonable points to make of disagreement.

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 03, 2012, 03:17:59 PM
...  In the spirit of that optimism let me ask a question of you.  If your higher power[1] were to revoke a right - let's say the right to bear arms - how would you know?
 1. whatever that is supposed to mean

And as far as your question;  The right's aren't revocable ,  which is why they are declared 'unalienable'.     
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: velkyn on January 03, 2012, 03:48:21 PM
...  In the spirit of that optimism let me ask a question of you.  If your higher power[1] were to revoke a right - let's say the right to bear arms - how would you know?
 1. whatever that is supposed to mean

And as far as your question;  The right's aren't revocable ,  which is why they are declared 'unalienable'.   

to humans who made such things up.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: jaimehlers on January 03, 2012, 03:51:57 PM
Right.  So they are stating a philosophy of how the government should be constructed as opposed to the king's philosophy.   If they weren't , why would they even bother to list ideas such as rights?
Because it justifies their position that they should rule themselves instead of being ruled as colonies.  The Declaration is a statement of intent, not a governmental blueprint.  It wasn't even a statement of the basic principles of government.  It was a statement that they weren't willing to be ruled by England anymore, nothing more.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 03, 2012, 03:53:22 PM
...  In the spirit of that optimism let me ask a question of you.  If your higher power[1] were to revoke a right - let's say the right to bear arms - how would you know?
 1. whatever that is supposed to mean

And as far as your question;  The right's aren't revocable ,  which is why they are declared 'unalienable'.

Wait a minute...the higher power that gives the rights doesn't have the right to take them away?  :o

Well, fine then.  One could just as easily say that the humans who give the rights don't have the right to take them away, either.  In either case, it's the delcaration that the rights can't be taken away, not the giver's status (or lack thereof) as a "higher power", that makes the rights irrevokable.

Right?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 03, 2012, 05:45:15 PM
...  In the spirit of that optimism let me ask a question of you.  If your higher power[1] were to revoke a right - let's say the right to bear arms - how would you know?
 1. whatever that is supposed to mean

And as far as your question;  The right's aren't revocable ,  which is why they are declared 'unalienable'.

Wait a minute...the higher power that gives the rights doesn't have the right to take them away?  :o

Well, fine then.  One could just as easily say that the humans who give the rights don't have the right to take them away, either.  In either case, it's the delcaration that the rights can't be taken away, not the giver's status (or lack thereof) as a "higher power", that makes the rights irrevokable.

Right?

Yeah, the declaration had to be made to make formal the precedent.  But the declaration, using the word 'endow' instead of 'give', I think they meant the right was naturally acquired somehow, as opposed to something 'given', which implies a more human-type interaction.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 03, 2012, 06:03:40 PM
Gill, that doesn't address the point of my post.

If no creator gave us any rights, then what role does "the creator" supposedly play in the first place?  It's completely superfluous.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on January 03, 2012, 07:28:28 PM
lol.  Whatever.  I'm not claiming to be an expert. But,  I have read books about the government's founding so I'm far from ignorant on the subject.

 So  if people want to name call instead of state their reasons for disagreement,  this just shows me they have no reasonable points to make of disagreement.

Oh, yes, you have so deftly refuted my posts – oh, wait, no you haven't.

#329 – your reply distorts things far enough to be a huge lie even considering the conditional statement.

#s 318, 326, 338, 340 – no reply at all
And this is just a list of MY posts that you haven't answered – at all. It ignores other people's posts you've refused to answer. Everyone else – including those who might support you in other discussions – have been making tons of reasonable points and delineating how you twist what we say (if you even address it) to avoid posting a cogent reply.

Are you a politician? Is that why you post such slippery and slimy replies?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 03, 2012, 07:37:56 PM
Gill,Gzuzfreke,,,,why did Christians,Muslims,Jews or any other religious sect do anything to STOP these nut-jobs? Why,because these nut-jobs were killing their own people,within their borders. Much like when they killed off the Indians within the borders of Canada and the USA.

 Now a nut like Qaddafi or Saddam,and others who were killing their own,also threatened oil resources in the area,so in the "interest" of stopping these monsters from killing they went in and ended the regimes.....like they did in Iran in the 80's. Ever wonder why they did nod invade countries like North Korea,Russia and China during these BRUTAL regimes?.....no resources,perhaps?

 As long as a resource like oil is involved the other leaders of the world have an interest in stopping genocidal leaders....non resource area leaders can kill as they please.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 03, 2012, 08:46:27 PM
Gill, that doesn't address the point of my post.

If no creator gave us any rights, then what role does "the creator" supposedly play in the first place?  It's completely superfluous.

The creator endows, not really gives,  'gives' could be used, but I think 'gives' suggests a more entity-like thing, which the creator doesn't have to be.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 03, 2012, 08:52:57 PM
lol.  Whatever.  I'm not claiming to be an expert. But,  I have read books about the government's founding so I'm far from ignorant on the subject.

 So  if people want to name call instead of state their reasons for disagreement,  this just shows me they have no reasonable points to make of disagreement.

Oh, yes, you have so deftly refuted my posts – oh, wait, no you haven't.

#329 – your reply distorts things far enough to be a huge lie even considering the conditional statement.

#s 318, 326, 338, 340 – no reply at all
And this is just a list of MY posts that you haven't answered – at all. It ignores other people's posts you've refused to answer. Everyone else – including those who might support you in other discussions – have been making tons of reasonable points and delineating how you twist what we say (if you even address it) to avoid posting a cogent reply.

Are you a politician? Is that why you post such slippery and slimy replies?

I can't address every point ,  that would be excessive, but try to address the main ones.   But, I'll look back at those you posted.   

One of the things about me is I usually try not to make my posts too lengthy either because I know people won't have the patience to read something excessive, so I can leave things out because of that too.....
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: rickymooston on January 03, 2012, 08:55:46 PM
If you go by Americam elections only 50% actually vote for anybody.

That doesn't actually mean that they want a dictator. Its more of a case of not seeing the difference between the candidates that are there or not feeling their vote matters very much or that their own candidates have a chance.


Quote
I doubt Stalin would get many votes but I'll bet in the current climate Hitler would.

If you listen to somebody like say Michael Moore, you might think so sometimes. I mean, certainly there have been some strong feelings against illegal immigrants as the economy gets worse. One can also consider that the Nazi's lied a lot in getting elected and that Hitler was portrayed as not being "that bad".

All the same, in fact, Hitler was associated with violence and further more in the US, even mildly off mainstream candidates: Pat Buchanan, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc, etc, don't get elected or at least they don't get very far in the process; they may become congressmen in pocket areas

And as for the tea party, while the democrats may vilify them, they definitely are not looking for a "dictator". Indeed, their main platform is against corruption in the form of bailouts to companies. In the scheme of things, their candidates are a "bit extreme" but not that extreme.

Then you have the occupy guys, mostly serial non-voters. These people protest. Some of them may have voted in previous elections. In any case, definitely expressing their views.

When issues have come to head such as the Vietnam issue, more people voted. Some politicians got more people to vote.

Quote
All that Master race/American exceptionalism would go down a treat. It's only after he was elected that you find out what he is really like. By then of course it's too late. How many rights have you lost because of Patriot act 1+2? Do I see armed masses decending on Washington to demand those rights be reinstated. Obama has just signed into law indefinite detention FFS.

The Patriot act aimed mostly at non-Americans and there was some opposition to it. Indeed there is still opposition to it which is why you know about the issue in the first place.

Quote
For 95% of human history democracy has barely existed.

Sounds about right, yes.

Quote
All we've had are absolute monarchs/emperors/pharoas etc supported by whatever religion held sway in that part of the world. None of these people were elected and there was no apparent mass movement to change it.

Untrue. A whole range of systems existed. (We are ignoring tribal systems that were often semi-democratic). Absolute monarchs were rare. People tended to be in camps. Typically the powerful struggled amongst themselves.

Quote
Generally speaking all people want is a roof over their heads, enough to eat, and enough money to pay the bills. Give them those things and they don't care who is in charge.

There is some truth to this.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: jetson on January 03, 2012, 08:57:35 PM
Gill, that doesn't address the point of my post.

If no creator gave us any rights, then what role does "the creator" supposedly play in the first place?  It's completely superfluous.

The creator endows, not really gives,  'gives' could be used, but I think 'gives' suggests a more entity-like thing, which the creator doesn't have to be.


We are alone in this mess.  There is no creator, there is only us, and we have to collectively figure out how to live with each other, and grant each other the freedom to live among us, without harming each other.  This takes collective organization and agreement, something that religion cannot do, by definition.  Religion is incapable of uniting everyone, because it is divisive.

It may be that we simply are not evolved enough to do this in a secular way either, I have to admit.  But I can't see it happening at all when gods are invoked.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 03, 2012, 08:57:45 PM
A true free-market economy would allow the trading of slaves.  After all, laws forbidding the keeping and trading of slaves are an oppressive government regulation.  The market will sort it out.  Do you really want the government to get involved?

It doesn't have to be a 'true free-market', zero regulation,  but,  certainly less regulation.

Ah, so you want more activities like the derivatives trading that caused the recent major economic downturn. You might have heard of it - our current recession?

Ok, I didn't reply because I think this can get pretty complex.    Yeah,  trading those junk derivatives are a big part of the problem.  But, didn't the government also pass some law, Idk the specific one,  where banks were forced or at least encouraged to give loans to unqualified buyers?  So there's a lot of blame to go around there.   That can get complicated....
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 03, 2012, 09:04:28 PM
The creator endows, not really gives,  'gives' could be used, but I think 'gives' suggests a more entity-like thing, which the creator doesn't have to be.

Regardless.  If it can endow, then it can revoke.  If it can give, then it can take away.  If it has the authority to provide, then it has the authority to withold.

It is humans that have declared the rights to be irrevokable.  Who gave us the authority to do so?[1]
 1. This question is not rhetorical.  I do not mean to imply that no-one did.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 03, 2012, 09:07:57 PM
The creator endows, not really gives,  'gives' could be used, but I think 'gives' suggests a more entity-like thing, which the creator doesn't have to be.

Regardless.  If it can endow, then it can revoke.  If it can give, then it can take away.  If it has the authority to provide, then it has the authority to withold.

It is humans that have declared the rights to be irrevokable.  Who gave us the authority to do so?[1]
 1. This question is not rhetorical.  I do not mean to imply that no-one did.

People discovered the 'self-evident' truth, as they say.   Just like people discovered laws of physics,  over time they also realized people naturally want to live, be free, and pursue happiness, therefore identified them as natural-rights....
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 03, 2012, 09:12:13 PM
People naturally want to have sex with those they find to be attractive.  I suppose the right to have sex with whomever one pleases is also a natural right.

By the way, you are directly contradicting the DOI now.  I guess it's really only important to you when you find it useful.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: screwtape on January 03, 2012, 11:37:54 PM
lol.  Whatever.  I'm not claiming to be an expert. But,  I have read books about the government's founding so I'm far from ignorant on the subject.

What books?  The books you read - ie sources of information - matter.  Garbage in, garbage out.  If you are going to say "the 5000 year leap", punch yourself in the nuts for me.  Twice.  It was written by a crackpot so weird and so far into the lunatic fringe of the right wing, even republicans called him a crackpot.  And that is something you just don't see every day - republicans saying "wow, man.  You are too conservative."  It did not get popular again until Glenn "dumbest dumbfuck in dumbfuckistan" Beck started sneaking his mormonism into his rants.  The author was a mormon too.  But too many teabagger types are too ignorant and lazy to recognize that and read whatever Glenn told them too. 

So  if people want to name call instead of state their reasons for disagreement,  this just shows me they have no reasonable points to make of disagreement.

People have been telling you all along why you are wrong[1]. You have just dodge the points, rather inconsiderately.  I call you names because of your inconsideration.  I also hope it will call you dumb behavior to your attention.

And when you use "lol", it makes you look like an idiot.  Stop doing that, for your own good.

Yeah, the declaration had to be made to make formal the precedent.  But the declaration, using the word 'endow' instead of 'give', I think they meant the right was naturally acquired somehow, as opposed to something 'given', which implies a more human-type interaction.

This is an example of what I'm talking about, Gill.  This bullshit right here is your brain scrambling to avoid being wrong.  You are dead-in-the-water, no-two-ways-about-it wrong.  Yet you do these mental gymnastics to dodge the point.  What declaration are you talking about?  What "formal precedent" are you talking about?  Are you saying rights don't count until some guy in a powdered wig calls dibs?  And all this fumpfering about given vs acquired or endowed is more bullshit to avoid the point. 

Answer the question, Sunny Jim.  If a right was somehow magically erased from "nature" or whatever, how would you even know?

People discovered the 'self-evident' truth, as they say.   Just like people discovered laws of physics,  over time they also realized people naturally want to live, be free, and pursue happiness, therefore identified them as natural-rights....

This is the basis for [wiki]Secular Humanism[/wiki].  Under a god, or higher authority, rights are granted - given, endowed, whatever - and can be revoked, because gods have that right and power.  The rights are discovered through revelation, handed down to us from on high, not through reason and intellect.  Under Secular Humanism - the moral and ethical system most atheist abide by whether they know it or not - morality and ethics are improved through reason and knowledge.  Congratulations.  You, Thomas Jefferson, and Azdgari all argue rights and ethics on the same basis and without any gods.   You are a closet atheist.

 1. I took pains to avoid saying "why they disagree with you" because that makes it sound like a matter of opinion.  It is not.  You are factually wrong. 
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Anfauglir on January 04, 2012, 05:19:36 AM
You have stated you would prefer a Christian because of the rights they believe their god has granted to man.  So I'm asking you to name them.  You have an opinion as to why you support a Christian over an atheist - I'm wondering if you actually know WHY you do?

I don't study Christianity so I don't know specific details of their religion.   But I don't think it's necessary to know the specifics.  The fact that they recognize a higher authority than man, the idea of a Creator,  is in line with the country's governmental premise.

Not necessary?  So you are fine with WHATEVER that "higher authority" stands for, just because it is a higher authority?  Sounds like you havemn't considered the issue at all, just displaying yet another knee-jerk reaction.

So - as far as you know - that higher authority might as one of its edicts claim that people called Gill should have no rights.....and just because it is a higher authority you would be okay with that?

And you claim that dictatorships are bad.....
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: natlegend on January 04, 2012, 08:22:44 AM
Gill, are you aware that the current Australian Prime Minister identifies as being atheist? Does this mean Australia has turned its back on 'god-given natural rights'?

Funny that. Australia is on the brink of legalising[1] same-sex marriage. Wow. A new right 'bestowed' by an atheist, one that your god would deny. Freedom, anyone?
 1.  Not that it's currently illegal per say, it's just not legally recognised with regards to things like child custody and inheritance
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 09:37:58 AM
lol.  Whatever.  I'm not claiming to be an expert. But,  I have read books about the government's founding so I'm far from ignorant on the subject.

What books?  The books you read - ie sources of information - matter.  Garbage in, garbage out.  If you are going to say "the 5000 year leap", punch yourself in the nuts for me.  Twice.  It was written by a crackpot so weird and so far into the lunatic fringe of the right wing, even republicans called him a crackpot.  And that is something you just don't see every day - republicans saying "wow, man.  You are too conservative."  It did not get popular again until Glenn "dumbest dumbfuck in dumbfuckistan" Beck started sneaking his mormonism into his rants.  The author was a mormon too.  But too many teabagger types are too ignorant and lazy to recognize that and read whatever Glenn told them too. 


You angry? 

So  if people want to name call instead of state their reasons for disagreement,  this just shows me they have no reasonable points to make of disagreement.
Quote

People have been telling you all along why you are wrong[1]. You have just dodge the points, rather inconsiderately.  I call you names because of your inconsideration.  I also hope it will call you dumb behavior to your attention.

And when you use "lol", it makes you look like an idiot.  Stop doing that, for your own good.

 1. I took pains to avoid saying "why they disagree with you" because that makes it sound like a matter of opinion.  It is not.  You are factually wrong. 

Yeah, like I'm supposed to address every single point people make.  I don't think so, I'll address people's main points, if they can even form a main point.

Yeah, the declaration had to be made to make formal the precedent.  But the declaration, using the word 'endow' instead of 'give', I think they meant the right was naturally acquired somehow, as opposed to something 'given', which implies a more human-type interaction.
Quote

This is an example of what I'm talking about, Gill.  This bullshit right here is your brain scrambling to avoid being wrong.  You are dead-in-the-water, no-two-ways-about-it wrong.  Yet you do these mental gymnastics to dodge the point.  What declaration are you talking about?  What "formal precedent" are you talking about?  Are you saying rights don't count until some guy in a powdered wig calls dibs?  And all this fumpfering about given vs acquired or endowed is more bullshit to avoid the point. 

Answer the question, Sunny Jim.  If a right was somehow magically erased from "nature" or whatever, how would you even know?

  If you want to believe that elected officials give you your rights, that's fine.  Most people would call that tyranny though.

People discovered the 'self-evident' truth, as they say.   Just like people discovered laws of physics,  over time they also realized people naturally want to live, be free, and pursue happiness, therefore identified them as natural-rights....
Quote

This is the basis for [wiki]Secular Humanism[/wiki].  Under a god, or higher authority, rights are granted - given, endowed, whatever - and can be revoked, because gods have that right and power.  The rights are discovered through revelation, handed down to us from on high, not through reason and intellect.  Under Secular Humanism - the moral and ethical system most atheist abide by whether they know it or not - morality and ethics are improved through reason and knowledge.  Congratulations.  You, Thomas Jefferson, and Azdgari all argue rights and ethics on the same basis and without any gods.   You are a closet atheist.

If the rights can be taken away, then why did the founders declare the rights 'unalienable'?  I'm not talking about a particular philosophical group, I'm talking about the Declaration.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: velkyn on January 04, 2012, 10:05:34 AM
Yeah, like I'm supposed to address every single point people make.  I don't think so, I'll address people's main points, if they can even form a main point.
  Ah, the usual claim of a theist who wants to avoid questions, to declare that they aren't really "main points" so the theist can run away from them.   I could set my watch by what theists do on this website. 

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 10:06:34 AM
Gill, are you aware that the current Australian Prime Minister identifies as being atheist? Does this mean Australia has turned its back on 'god-given natural rights'?

Funny that. Australia is on the brink of legalising[1] same-sex marriage. Wow. A new right 'bestowed' by an atheist, one that your god would deny. Freedom, anyone?
 1.  Not that it's currently illegal per say, it's just not legally recognised with regards to things like child custody and inheritance

I don't believe in a god that denies gay marriage.   

I'm not sure what Australia's constitution says,  but if the atheist believes in some natural-rights, then as I said before,  I don't see the problem.  It's when leaders start seeing themselves as the givers and takers of things like freedom, when you have the problem.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 10:07:33 AM
Yeah, like I'm supposed to address every single point people make.  I don't think so, I'll address people's main points, if they can even form a main point.
  Ah, the usual claim of a theist who wants to avoid questions, to declare that they aren't really "main points" so the theist can run away from them.   I could set my watch by what theists do on this website.

No, I just figure people don't want to read some long essay I'll have to write if I address every point all the time.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: velkyn on January 04, 2012, 10:11:50 AM
No, I just figure people don't want to read some long essay I'll have to write if I address every point all the time.

seems that what you figure isn't true much of the time here on this website. 
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 10:12:15 AM
You have stated you would prefer a Christian because of the rights they believe their god has granted to man.  So I'm asking you to name them.  You have an opinion as to why you support a Christian over an atheist - I'm wondering if you actually know WHY you do?

I don't study Christianity so I don't know specific details of their religion.   But I don't think it's necessary to know the specifics.  The fact that they recognize a higher authority than man, the idea of a Creator,  is in line with the country's governmental premise.

Not necessary?  So you are fine with WHATEVER that "higher authority" stands for, just because it is a higher authority?  Sounds like you havemn't considered the issue at all, just displaying yet another knee-jerk reaction.

So - as far as you know - that higher authority might as one of its edicts claim that people called Gill should have no rights.....and just because it is a higher authority you would be okay with that?

And you claim that dictatorships are bad.....

My interpretation is the higher authority just means that certain rights are not given by the government official, but the official is supposed to try to secure the right.   So, then the official really can legitimately argue to take away those rights.

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: jaimehlers on January 04, 2012, 10:14:51 AM
Seriously, Gill, think about it.  Why in the world would the founding fathers have traded one higher authority, the King of England, for another, God?  At least what the King of England did could be clearly understood as being actions by the King of England that they could hold him responsible for.  Invoking God as the higher authority instead would have been even worse, because anyone could have claimed that some natural event was an expression of God's will based on a false correlation.  We see that a lot in the modern world, all it serves is to stampede credulous individuals into some poorly thought-out course of action because they're reacting emotionally.  Now, imagine how much worse it would have been if the founding fathers had actually set God up as a higher authority to replace the King of England, so someone like Pat Robertson could be taken seriously when he declares that a natural disaster is an expression of God's will and intent.

The natural rights listed in the Declaration are put there to justify the statement that a government which starts violating them can be replaced by the people so affected, and that no human authority has the right to simply trample on the natural rights of people because it is the government.  You have to remember, kings were long believed to be divinely appointed and acting with the authority of God behind them; even though England had put some limits on what its king could do by then, there was still that belief...  So the Declaration was a rebuttal of the idea that the ruler of a country had the authority to rule because of God, and instead placing that authority contingent with the consent of the ruled.

Now do you see why your idea that the writers of the Declaration were invoking God to justify changing their system of government doesn't work?[1]
 1. Or that those rights were endowed by God, same difference really, it still amounts to invoking God to justify coming out from under the authority of the King of England in favor of the "higher authority" which actually gave those rights
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 10:34:39 AM
Now do you see why your idea that the writers of the Declaration were invoking God to justify changing their system of government doesn't work?

Maybe that's why they used the term 'Creator', instead of God.   That way, no one could claim their God to be more right than another persons.  The Creator could be 'the universe' for someone if they choose.   
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: naemhni on January 04, 2012, 10:45:47 AM
Now do you see why your idea that the writers of the Declaration were invoking God to justify changing their system of government doesn't work?

Maybe that's why they used the term 'Creator', instead of God.   That way, no one could claim their God to be more right than another persons.  The Creator could be 'the universe' for someone if they choose.

That is, in fact, exactly why Jefferson (not "they") chose the term Creator... he was attempting to avoid any religious entanglements.  Like many, if not most, of the founding fathers, Jefferson was a deist and was thus sensitive to such issues.
 
Mostly irrelevant aside, by the way -- if you can find earlier drafts of the Declaration, they make for interesting reading, as does review of the reasons for the various changes that were made before the final version was released.  (I studied this in a college course I took on expository writing.)  In one earlier version, for example, Jefferson said something about the colonies "bidding an everlasting adieu" to the Crown.  Others in Congress opined that this should be removed (and other similar language toned down) because relations with Britain might improve in the future -- which, of course, they did.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: jaimehlers on January 04, 2012, 11:23:08 AM
Maybe that's why they used the term 'Creator', instead of God.   That way, no one could claim their God to be more right than another persons.  The Creator could be 'the universe' for someone if they choose.
In other words, it was used because it sounded good and was something that people would not find objectionable.  That suggests that it was not intended as a serious statement of how the government would be formed, but instead a way to get other Americans who were not as upset over Britain's actions towards the colonies behind the revolution.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: screwtape on January 04, 2012, 11:57:37 AM

You angry? 

Dodge.  no, I am not angry. 

Yeah, like I'm supposed to address every single point people make.  I don't think so, I'll address people's main points, if they can even form a main point.

Dodge.  you did not address any of Omen or Azdgari's points.

  If you want to believe that elected officials give you your rights, that's fine.  Most people would call that tyranny though.

Dodge.  Does not address my point or answer the question.


If the rights can be taken away, then why did the founders declare the rights 'unalienable'?  I'm not talking about a particular philosophical group, I'm talking about the Declaration.

Dodge.   Because they felt strongly about them.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 04, 2012, 12:08:24 PM
Answer the question, Sunny Jim.  If a right was somehow magically erased from "nature" or whatever, how would you even know?

Or if one was added.  That would work too.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on January 04, 2012, 12:48:10 PM
Well, I see this thread was lively while I was away. Skimming a bunch of posts, so I apologise for responding to some of the older ones.



I don't think it's very meaningful to talk about rights out of the context of people's government,

If rights require a government to be meaningfully talked about, how can they possibly be God-given, or even Natural?

Well, if you personally believe that your Creator is a member of government, then I guess it is.

And here I thought my parents created me! In a literal sense.

Or in a more general sense: My biological ancestors and social upbringing created me!

You can cherry pick particular issues on either side which seem to contradict the overall premise of a political ideology.  But , when you look at conservatism overall, it's primary focus is smaller government regulation.

Well give us some examples to show how conservatives are for personal liberty in ways the liberals are not...



Complete and total subjective fantasy. Maybe YOU would treat people with different beliefs as equals, but you can't say with any sort of  honesty that any or all atheist LIKELY thinks that way.

Did I say "all" atheists?

And "likely" means "likely". It doesn't mean certain, it refers to the logical extension of not viewing humans as god's special little creation, which means your beliefs cannot raise you above someone else. I certainly didn't imply that I think all atheists are logical, did I? If you actually read what I was replying to, you'll notice I was giving a counter-example to Gill's generalisation.

Your own strawman getting thrown into the mix does not help anyone.



Fruit loops?  Ad hominem attacks instead of meaningful dialogue doesn't help your cause,

That was an insult, not an ad hominem. An ad hominem requires him to attack your argument through you instead of just outright attacking you. Also, an ad hominem doesn't actually have to be an insult. I could say your argument is invalid because you're a doctor and it would be considered an ad hominem. You just don't see that as often.

Especially if you are posting your acidic tirades in "family-friendly forums".

Wait... "fruit loops" is considered an acidic tirade? What?

And since when was this forum advertised as "family-friendly"? We eat babies, y'know... :p
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 01:15:01 PM
I don't think it's very meaningful to talk about rights out of the context of people's government,

If rights require a government to be meaningfully talked about, how can they possibly be God-given, or even Natural?

It's not about finding an absolute truth.  It's about forming a premise to base society on.   People of course, are free to believe if they wish that their natural-right to freedom is given by transient government officials.   But, I think the majority of people, (including the founders), realized that this premise can promote tyranny.   

If a government official tries to take away my right to freedom, and the Declaration were to say that my freedom was given to me by the government, then he has a pretty valid argument to take away my freedom, doesn't he?   On the other hand, if my right to freedom is a natural-right, as it is defined, then how can he argue to take it away, since I was born with it?  Cant.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on January 04, 2012, 01:16:46 PM
If a government official tries to take away my right to freedom, and the Declaration were to say that my freedom was given to me by the government, then he has a pretty valid argument to take away my freedom, doesn't he?   On the other hand, if my right to freedom is a natural-right, as it is defined, then how can he argue to take it away, since I was born with it?  Cant.

Explain how the USA is probably one of the "less free" countries in the developed world.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 01:19:27 PM
If a government official tries to take away my right to freedom, and the Declaration were to say that my freedom was given to me by the government, then he has a pretty valid argument to take away my freedom, doesn't he?   On the other hand, if my right to freedom is a natural-right, as it is defined, then how can he argue to take it away, since I was born with it?  Cant.

Explain how the USA is probably one of the "less free" countries in the developed world.

I really don't see it as less free.   
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on January 04, 2012, 01:26:42 PM
I really don't see it as less free.   

Usage of drugs that affect nobody except the person using them? Nope.
Slavery? Probably one of the last countries on Earth to abolish it.
Women voting? Once again, probably one of the last countries on Earth to allow this.
African-Americans voting? See above.
Atheists in any position of power? See above.
Homosexual marriage or adoption rights? Hell will freeze over before this happens!

I could go on.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 01:33:15 PM
I really don't see it as less free.   

Usage of drugs that affect nobody except the person using them? Nope.
Slavery? Probably one of the last countries on Earth to abolish it.
Women voting? Once again, probably one of the last countries on Earth to allow this.
African-Americans voting? See above.
Atheists in any position of power? See above.
Homosexual marriage or adoption rights? Hell will freeze over before this happens!

I could go on.

Points 2-4 are irrelevant since slavery and non-voting was abolished a long time ago.       
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: velkyn on January 04, 2012, 01:34:58 PM
It's not about finding an absolute truth.  It's about forming a premise to base society on.   People of course, are free to believe if they wish that their natural-right to freedom is given by transient government officials.   But, I think the majority of people, (including the founders), realized that this premise can promote tyranny.
you may think that but can you show it to be true.  I for one do not think that this premise can or does promote tyranny.  I do find that claiming some magical being is the only arbiter of "rights" does promote tyranny, especially in the idea that there is some divine right of "kings".  Anyone can claim that this "being" is what backs his or her claim to power.   

Quote
If a government official tries to take away my right to freedom, and the Declaration were to say that my freedom was given to me by the government, then he has a pretty valid argument to take away my freedom, doesn't he?   On the other hand, if my right to freedom is a natural-right, as it is defined, then how can he argue to take it away, since I was born with it?  Cant.
  Define "natural right", Gill.  You sould like a Catholic with their claism of "natural law" and how that makes their version of morality "right".   

As for your first assertion, I don't see how one follows the other.  An official is not the government, especially in a representative democracy like the US.   If the gov't tries to take away a priveledge, unless it is a dictatorship, it must have a reason.  If the people don't agree, no argument that "the creator can do what it wants with its creation" will stand.   And the idea that anyone is born with the priveldges we enjoy in the US is simply ridiculous and does need some magical being to put them inplace.  Funny how this being didn't bother with such "rights" for most of human history.

It's pretty amusing for you to try to wave away the very real restrictions we've had in this country to freedoms. There was more time under those restrictions than not.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on January 04, 2012, 01:40:21 PM
Points 2-4 are irrelevant since slavery and non-voting was abolished a long time ago.       

Not long enough, trust me. And even if 2-4 are irrelevant, the others are not, and you have acknowledged it by avoiding the issue. You have acknowledged that the USA is "less free" than other developed countries.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 01:40:43 PM
...  If the gov't tries to take away a priveledge, unless it is a dictatorship, it must have a reason.  If the people don't agree, no argument that "the creator can do what it wants with its creation" will stand.   And the idea that anyone is born with the priveldges we enjoy in the US is simply ridiculous and does need some magical being to put them inplace. 

Yes, the government has to have a reason.  But the fact that the founders declared natural-rights, gives the citizens more leverage in such arguments.

For instance, people complain about the Patriot Act infringing on their rights to freedom.   Well, if the founding documents, declared that members of the government give people their right to freedom,  I don't think people arguing against such an Act, would have much of an argument to stand on.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 04, 2012, 01:42:22 PM
I really don't see it as less free.

In how many other developed countries can the government legally imprison and/or execute any citizen it wishes?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: velkyn on January 04, 2012, 01:47:30 PM
...  If the gov't tries to take away a priveledge, unless it is a dictatorship, it must have a reason.  If the people don't agree, no argument that "the creator can do what it wants with its creation" will stand.   And the idea that anyone is born with the priveldges we enjoy in the US is simply ridiculous and does need some magical being to put them inplace. 

Yes, the government has to have a reason.  But the fact that the founders declared natural-rights, gives the citizens more leverage in such arguments.
Thre's a reason that no one uses this as a defense in court.  It doesn't work.  The gov't doesn't care about some magical "natural right".  And again, define that term. 

Quote
For instance, people complain about the Patriot Act infringing on their rights to freedom.   Well, if the founding documents, declared that members of the government give people their right to freedom,  I don't think people arguing against such an Act, would have much of an argument to stand on.
I'd refer you to the US Constitution.  It has the actual laws of the US and the privledges and laws protecting them are there, not invoking any magical being.  So again you fail in your attempts of using the DoI in your attempt to invoke some woo as giving us "rights". 

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: jaimehlers on January 04, 2012, 01:51:04 PM
Points 2-4 are irrelevant since slavery and non-voting was abolished a long time ago.
Not all that long.  Slavery was only abolished about 150 years ago.  Women were given the right to vote about a century ago.  And the right to vote was effectively withheld from black people in a sizable part of the country until barely fifty years ago.  It wasn't that long ago, and pretending it was makes no sense and sets the stage for it to come back.

Also, you need to stop pretending to yourself that those rights can't disappear.  All it would take is 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of all the states, and any of the rights enumerated in the Constitution could go "poof!"  Or they could put things in the Constitution to restrict freedoms.  The people of this country ultimately are the arbiters of whether those rights stay rights, and many of them aren't doing a particularly good job of it.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 04, 2012, 02:19:12 PM
I really don't see it as less free.   

Usage of drugs that affect nobody except the person using them? Nope.
Slavery? Probably one of the last countries on Earth to abolish it.
Women voting? Once again, probably one of the last countries on Earth to allow this.
African-Americans voting? See above.
Atheists in any position of power? See above.
Homosexual marriage or adoption rights? Hell will freeze over before this happens!

I could go on.

Points 2-4 are irrelevant since slavery and non-voting was abolished a long time ago.       
if 50 years is a long time ago,why have Jews not stopped talking about what Germans did to them during WW2?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 04, 2012, 02:27:25 PM
I really don't see it as less free.   

Usage of drugs that affect nobody except the person using them? Nope.
Slavery? Probably one of the last countries on Earth to abolish it.
Women voting? Once again, probably one of the last countries on Earth to allow this.
African-Americans voting? See above.
Atheists in any position of power? See above.
Homosexual marriage or adoption rights? Hell will freeze over before this happens!

I could go on.

Points 2-4 are irrelevant since slavery and non-voting was abolished a long time ago.       

Ironically, this is in contrast to the Bible, which supports slavery and denying women equal rights. It took secular advances to change this. The Bible has stayed the same.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 03:34:19 PM
...  If the gov't tries to take away a priveledge, unless it is a dictatorship, it must have a reason.  If the people don't agree, no argument that "the creator can do what it wants with its creation" will stand.   And the idea that anyone is born with the priveldges we enjoy in the US is simply ridiculous and does need some magical being to put them inplace. 

Yes, the government has to have a reason.  But the fact that the founders declared natural-rights, gives the citizens more leverage in such arguments.


There's a reason that no one uses this as a defense in court.  It doesn't work.  The gov't doesn't care about some magical "natural right".  And again, define that term. 

A natural-right is something a person is born with,  the government didn't give it to them.    The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, are natural-rights.   I don't believe I have a right to live because some government official says so.   But if that's the premise one wants to live by, go for it, but it sounds like one is allowing some unknown government official to determine their right to life and freedom.   That's tyranny to me.

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 03:38:03 PM
Points 2-4 are irrelevant since slavery and non-voting was abolished a long time ago.

Also, you need to stop pretending to yourself that those rights can't disappear.  All it would take is 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of all the states, and any of the rights enumerated in the Constitution could go "poof!"  Or they could put things in the Constitution to restrict freedoms.  The people of this country ultimately are the arbiters of whether those rights stay rights, and many of them aren't doing a particularly good job of it.

You believe the government gives you all your rights, such as the right to live?  I don't.  I think that's a premise which is putting excessive power onto the government.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 04, 2012, 03:46:36 PM
Gill, you're very eager to dismiss the idea that the government can take away our rights.

I suppose that's a useful tack to take, given your desire for dictatorship.  Can't have people realizing the danger their government might pose!  Then they might resist it taking away their rights, if they realize it can...
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 03:48:48 PM
Gill, you're very eager to dismiss the idea that the government can take away our rights.

I suppose that's a useful tack to take, given your desire for dictatorship.  Can't have people realizing the danger their government might pose!  Then they might resist it taking away their rights, if they realize it can...

Surely people in government can try to take away rights.   But, I think they have a much bigger hurdle to get over in arguing to do so since the founders recognized natural rights.    As opposed to defining everything as a government-given right.   All I'm sayin.....
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on January 04, 2012, 03:50:12 PM
I don't think it's very meaningful to talk about rights out of the context of people's government,

If rights require a government to be meaningfully talked about, how can they possibly be God-given, or even Natural?

It's not about finding an absolute truth.  It's about forming a premise to base society on.   People of course, are free to believe if they wish that their natural-right to freedom is given by transient government officials.   But, I think the majority of people, (including the founders), realized that this premise can promote tyranny.   

If a government official tries to take away my right to freedom, and the Declaration were to say that my freedom was given to me by the government, then he has a pretty valid argument to take away my freedom, doesn't he?   On the other hand, if my right to freedom is a natural-right, as it is defined, then how can he argue to take it away, since I was born with it?  Cant.

Does that even answer the question?

I don't think it's very meaningful to talk about rights out of the context of people's government,
A natural-right is something a person is born with,  the government didn't give it to them.

These are in conflict. If it is meaningless to talk about rights outside of the context of people's government, then the government must have a major role in defining the rights.

If you had natural rights simply because you were born, you would have them if whether a government was around to give it context or not.

Or are you trying to say you have natural rights because the government defines your rights that way? In which case they can take it away just by redefining it... which means that your rights are in fact government granted.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 03:58:27 PM
I don't think it's very meaningful to talk about rights out of the context of people's government,
A natural-right is something a person is born with,  the government didn't give it to them.

These are in conflict. If it is meaningless to talk about rights outside of the context of people's government, then the government must have a major role in defining the rights.

If you had natural rights simply because you were born, you would have them if whether a government was around to give it context or not.

Or are you trying to say you have natural rights because the government defines your rights that way? In which case they can take it away just by redefining it... which means that your rights are in fact government granted.

People discovered natural-rights through years of civilization.  They recognized that most people what to live, be free, and pursue happiness.  It's not just some random idea they decided to define, and people started following it since it was written.   It's a recognition of something natural and innate that most people share.

Yes, the government defines them, so they can be clearly recognized, and formally established into the government. And yes, people may try to over-ride them.  But, the majority of people probably won't allow that most times, because they will agree with the original recognition. 
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: monkeymind on January 04, 2012, 04:18:07 PM
Throughout the thread mention of belief in a higher power is discussed as a positive thing. I don’t know why a non belief in a higher power would harm others, but here are some examples of how a positive belief in a higher power harms others.

Understand that there are consequences to our beliefs. Beliefs 'inform' and direct our actions and experiences. We don't live in a vacuum, and so our actions have an effect on ourselves and others.

Nearly everyday I am reminded of this fact. Did you hear about the man that died sitting in his chair? He believed that God would heal him, and so he refused to see a doctor.

http://www.ksn.com/content/news/also/story/Man-dies-after-sitting-in-recliner-for-eight/IYHyG3psmkWk6UgSGpq9Ww.cspx
 (http://www.ksn.com/content/news/also/story/Man-dies-after-sitting-in-recliner-for-eight/IYHyG3psmkWk6UgSGpq9Ww.cspx)
Should Tillman be applauded for his belief in a higher power? Should Webb have been held accountable for allowing him to die because of his belief in a higher power? What about this?

Should this Texas man be executed because of the juror's religious beliefs in a higher power? Should the judge have let it stand?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6338320/Texas-man-faces-execution-after-jurors-consult-Bible-to-decide-fate.html
 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6338320/Texas-man-faces-execution-after-jurors-consult-Bible-to-decide-fate.html)
take a look at how a belief in a higher power influence legislation in Uganda:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34331632/ns/world_news-africa/
 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34331632/ns/world_news-africa/)
Should the Wisconsin parents be excused because their belief in a higher power resulted in their daughter dying?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341869,00.htmlhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341869,00.html
 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341869,00.htmlhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341869,00.html)
Or should these parents be allowed to starve their child to death because of their belief in a higher power?

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Bellevue-couple-accused-of-starving-baby-daughter-82814757.html
 (http://www.king5.com/news/local/Bellevue-couple-accused-of-starving-baby-daughter-82814757.html)
Should Nigerian parents be excused for torturing and killing their children because they believe the pastor, when he directs them to do this?

http://www.decaturdaily.com/stories/Nigerian-children-tortured-killed-as-witches,45650
 (http://www.decaturdaily.com/stories/Nigerian-children-tortured-killed-as-witches,45650)
Don't think this is a an isolated incident, know that this is common place there. Thousands of children have experienced torture and death...and at the hands of their own parents. These are Christians that take their belief in a higher power seriously.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh.theobserver
 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh.theobserver)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/video/2007/dec/09/video
 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/video/2007/dec/09/video)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-10671790
 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-10671790)
If you don't think this is happening right now, and if you have the stomach for it, see a real live witch burning on Youtube. These are Christians burning their children because of their belief in a higher power. This is real and be forewarned, you will never get these images out of your mind:

http://vodpod.com/watch/2959909-witch-burnings-in-africa
 (http://vodpod.com/watch/2959909-witch-burnings-in-africa)

Belief in a higher power a good thing" I think not!

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: screwtape on January 04, 2012, 04:23:36 PM
Answer the question, Sunny Jim.  If a right was somehow magically erased from "nature" or whatever, how would you even know?

Or if one was added.  That would work too.

 I actually typed that out this morning but did not post it.  I figured it was redundant since he already answered that he is a Humanist and discovers rights via reason.  Spooky.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on January 04, 2012, 04:30:30 PM
People discovered natural-rights through years of civilization.  They recognized that most people what to live, be free, and pursue happiness.  It's not just some random idea they decided to define, and people started following it since it was written.   It's a recognition of something natural and innate that most people share.

So natural rights are supposed to be defined by what most people want? Does this go for everything most people want?

Yes, the government defines them, so they can be clearly recognized, and formally established into the government. And yes, people may try to over-ride them.  But, the majority of people probably won't allow that most times, because they will agree with the original recognition.

I'm not sure why this was included. I have no problem with the idea that government spells out what they believe to be the individual's rights. The question is if the government is what gives you your rights. You have given conflicting answers and still have not addressed the question I've brought forward. You said rights cannot be discussed meaningfully without the context of government. Ok, but that means that they practically don't exist without government, which means the government gives them simply by existing, and thus has the power to choose and/or revoke them. It doesn't matter if it is difficult or not, because it can. If it has the ability to do so - regardless of how difficult it is - then they must be considered government-given.

Alternatively, rights can be natural. This means that they always exist whether a government exists or not. Whether the government tries to prevent you from utilising those rights or not. As a result you can discuss rights outside the context of government, which will bring up topics like "what are the natural-rights of animals?".

These are mutually exclusive, and you keep dodging around the issue by going off on tangents. This isn't about poking a hole in your stance, but trying to figure out what it is, and making sure you can hold it consistently.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: screwtape on January 04, 2012, 04:33:48 PM
I don't believe I have a right to live because some government official says so.   

Right now a government offical[1] can declare you to be an "enemy of the state" and you can be legally executed anywhere on the planet, including your living room. 

So tell me, what is all this noise you are making about not getting rights from government officials?
 1. The President.  While he has the final decision, the information he gets on which to base that decision comes from a myriad of underlings, including military and intel agents
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 04:38:06 PM
People discovered natural-rights through years of civilization.  They recognized that most people what to live, be free, and pursue happiness.  It's not just some random idea they decided to define, and people started following it since it was written.   It's a recognition of something natural and innate that most people share.

So natural rights are supposed to be defined by what most people want? Does this go for everything most people want?

Yes, the government defines them, so they can be clearly recognized, and formally established into the government. And yes, people may try to over-ride them.  But, the majority of people probably won't allow that most times, because they will agree with the original recognition.

I'm not sure why this was included. I have no problem with the idea that government spells out what they believe to be the individual's rights. The question is if the government is what gives you your rights. You have given conflicting answers and still have not addressed the question I've brought forward. You said rights cannot be discussed meaningfully without the context of government. Ok, but that means that they practically don't exist without government, which means the government gives them simply by existing, and thus has the power to choose and/or revoke them. It doesn't matter if it is difficult or not, because it can. If it has the ability to do so - regardless of how difficult it is - then they must be considered government-given.

Alternatively, rights can be natural. This means that they always exist whether a government exists or not. Whether the government tries to prevent you from utilising those rights or not. As a result you can discuss rights outside the context of government, which will bring up topics like "what are the natural-rights of animals?".

These are mutually exclusive, and you keep dodging around the issue by going off on tangents. This isn't about poking a hole in your stance, but trying to figure out what it is, and making sure you can hold it consistently.

Yeah, there's rights you could call 'government rights',   like the right to bear arms, given by the government.   And then there's natural-rights, or 'god-given', which aren't given by the government.   A lot of government-given rights are derivatives of the naturals though.

Let me try to put in another way, I think some people are over-analyzing this....

Do you desire to live?  If so, who or what gives you that desire?  If you think it is something you naturally have, then in the legal-context you would be arguing that it is a 'natural-right' to live.

Unless, of course, you lived in North Korea, then the leader would be giving you that right, regardless of your innate desire.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on January 04, 2012, 04:47:43 PM
Do you desire to live?  If so, who or what gives you that desire?  If you think it is something you naturally have, then in the legal-context you would be arguing that it is a 'natural-right' to live.

Unless, of course, you lived in North Korea, then the leader would be giving you that right, regardless of your innate desire.

...

So you think desire = natural-right?

Unless you live in North Korea...


There are so many things wrong with that, I don't even...
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 04:51:11 PM
Do you desire to live?  If so, who or what gives you that desire?  If you think it is something you naturally have, then in the legal-context you would be arguing that it is a 'natural-right' to live.

Unless, of course, you lived in North Korea, then the leader would be giving you that right, regardless of your innate desire.

...

So you think desire = natural-right?

Unless you live in North Korea...


There are so many things wrong with that, I don't even...

/sigh.   You're just over-analyzing it.    No,  not every desire=natural-right.    The few common desires that most all humans have are usually considered as the basis for a natural right.   Life, freedom...

Not, I desire to play a computer-game, obviously.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on January 04, 2012, 04:56:39 PM
The few common desires that most all humans have are usually considered by me as the basis for a natural right.

Fixed.
If it were natural law, shouldn't it be common for all humans and not just "most"? Or are some humans "unnatural"?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 04:57:43 PM
The few common desires that most all humans have are usually considered by me as the basis for a natural right.

Fixed.
If it were natural law, shouldn't it be common for all humans and not just "most"? Or are some humans "unnatural"?

Some people are suicidal, or maybe even enjoy enslavement, so I guess they wouldn't desire life or freedom now would they?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on January 04, 2012, 04:58:30 PM
Some people are suicidal, I guess they wouldn't desire life now would they?

Dodge. Answer the question:
If it were natural law, shouldn't it be common for all humans and not just "most"? Or are some humans "unnatural"?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 05:00:05 PM
Clearly , a small minority of people do not naturally have such desires.  And so?  Should law be based on an all or nothing philosophy, is that what you're saying?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on January 04, 2012, 05:00:44 PM
Clearly , a small minority of people do not naturally have such desires.  And so?  Should law be based on an all or nothing philosophy, is that what you're saying?

Dodge. Answer the question:
If it were natural law, shouldn't it be common for all humans and not just "most"? Or are some humans "unnatural"?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 05:04:37 PM
I just answered it.  No.  Laws aren't based on absolutes, they're based on majorities.   Do I have to state this again?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on January 04, 2012, 05:05:47 PM
/sigh.   You're just over-analyzing it.    No,  not every desire=natural-right.    The few common desires that most all humans have are usually considered as the basis for a natural right.   Life, freedom...

Not, I desire to play a computer-game, obviously.

Well why shouldn't it be a right to play computer-games?



Look, what I'd like to see is your definition of what a right is and how these rights came to exist in the first place. Something consistant and thought-out that we can hold you to while this discussion progresses. You've been giving conflicting statements which make it hard to figure out if we even agree or disagree with you, much less talk about it in a meaningful way.

What are the limits to rights? What can they do? What can they not do? Who or what do they apply to? Can new rights begin to exist or can old rights disappear, or are the rights you have now the rights you will always have? Who or what determines these rights, or do they simply exist?

You accuse us of over-thinking it, but these are all base pieces of information - really I can only say in response the cliched "You are under-thinking it!"
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on January 04, 2012, 05:06:41 PM
I just answered it.  No.  Laws aren't based on absolutes, they're based on majorities.   Do I have to state this again?

This isn't just ANY law, this is a NATURAL law/natural-right/god-given right. So, do you concede that the laws/rights you consider natural are based on what the majority decides like regular laws?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: monkeymind on January 04, 2012, 05:08:35 PM
Quote
Yeah, there's rights you could call 'government rights',   like the right to bear arms, given by the government.   And then there's natural-rights, or 'god-given', which aren't given by the government.   A lot of government-given rights are derivatives of the naturals though.

The statement that atheists have committed mass murders has not been show to be correct.

The idea that natural rights are god-given rights (which requires a belief in a higher power) has not been shown to be correct.

The idea that people do a lot of harm to themselves and others because of a belief in a higher power (god given rights) has been illustrated clearly, however.

Gill, why do you hold so dearly this idea of god given rights? I don't get it. And why do you argue so vigorously expecting to convince an atheist of this?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 04, 2012, 05:14:59 PM
The few common desires that most all humans have are usually considered by me as the basis for a natural right.

Fixed.
If it were natural law, shouldn't it be common for all humans and not just "most"? Or are some humans "unnatural"?

Well, there's the blacks.  And the hispanics.  And the gays.  And the atheists.  They're all kind'a unnatural, so they don't get the same rights.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 05:19:04 PM
/sigh.   You're just over-analyzing it.    No,  not every desire=natural-right.    The few common desires that most all humans have are usually considered as the basis for a natural right.   Life, freedom...

Not, I desire to play a computer-game, obviously.
Look, what I'd like to see is your definition of what a right is and how these rights came to exist in the first place. Something consistant and thought-out that we can hold you to while this discussion progresses. You've been giving conflicting statements which make it hard to figure out if we even agree or disagree with you, much less talk about it in a meaningful way.


The irony is that I think most people here already agree with me,  but they think I'm trying to somehow make this religious, so they argue, but I'm not.

Quote
What are the limits to rights? What can they do? What can they not do? Who or what do they apply to? Can new rights begin to exist or can old rights disappear, or are the rights you have now the rights you will always have? Who or what determines these rights, or do they simply exist?

You accuse us of over-thinking it, but these are all base pieces of information - really I can only say in response the cliched "You are under-thinking it!"

All those questions can be answered easier if you have some premise for defining what a natural-right or government-right is.  Do you? 

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 04, 2012, 05:19:36 PM
Gill, you're very eager to dismiss the idea that the government can take away our rights.

I suppose that's a useful tack to take, given your desire for dictatorship.  Can't have people realizing the danger their government might pose!  Then they might resist it taking away their rights, if they realize it can...

Surely people in government can try to take away rights.   But, I think they have a much bigger hurdle to get over in arguing to do so since the founders recognized natural rights.    As opposed to defining everything as a government-given right.   All I'm sayin.....

Not really.  All the government has to do is convince people that giving up (or "neglecting/ignoring" if you must) a right is needed for some supposed greater good.  Boom, justified, and they take away the right (in practice, if you must).

This is what actually happens.  It is why personal liberty is in such danger these days.  A "natural" right can be ignored as easily as an equivalent "artificial" one can.  And what's what happens.

As I said, though, it's useful to argue that it can't happen, for people - like you - who yearn for dictatorship.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 04, 2012, 05:23:05 PM
The idea that rights are somehow divinely endowed, promotes a false sense of security, especially among a religious population.  If rights are handed down from an authority greater than that of humanity, then they are inviolable, and humanity doesn't need to protect them.

What a dangerous attitude.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 05:25:05 PM
As I said, though, it's useful to argue that it can't happen, for people - like you - who yearn for dictatorship.

what?  lol, no I don't yearn for that.

I think this convo is about played out.   How about, we all agree that it's a nice thing to live in a democracy, if you do so?  Ok.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: jaimehlers on January 04, 2012, 05:28:21 PM
You believe the government gives you all your rights, such as the right to live?  I don't.  I think that's a premise which is putting excessive power onto the government.
I'm not talking about rights the government gives, I'm talking about rights it can take away.  If you don't think government can take away rights, such as the right to live, you aren't living on the same planet as I am.  What do you think the death penalty is, if not the government legally taking away someone's right to live?  What do you think prison is, if not the government legally taking away someone's right to their freedom?

What gives those rights - the right to live, the right to one's freedom, is the social compact we live under.  Do not doubt for a second that if we did not live in a country where those rights were protected, that they could be taken away by anyone so minded.  No matter how much you say that they're natural rights, the fact is that without laws and government, they wouldn't be rights at all, because anyone could take them at any time if they wanted.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on January 04, 2012, 05:28:35 PM
I think this convo is about played out.

Translation: I realized that I'm wrong, but I won't admit it because I'm intellectually dishonest.

How about, we all agree that it's a nice thing to live in a democracy, if you do so?  Ok.

Translation: How about we all agree that I was wrong? Ok.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on January 04, 2012, 05:30:20 PM
All those questions can be answered easier if you have some premise for defining what a natural-right or government-right is.  Do you?

Of course not; because as I mentioned earlier I don't consider rights to be given by either the government or nature. Since you do consider one of those as the giver, then you need to present your premise and definition.

A reminder on my position, because it was a while ago.
Post 90:
We gain our rights not from the government, but from society - of which the government is only a part.

Humans are social animals - it is a primary factor in our survival mechanisms. We benefit tremendously from our societies when they do well, and suffer horribly when our societies fail. Our rights come out of mutual respect for those within our society. A healthier society is the ultimate goal; and when an individual's rights are respected, that individual can contribute to society more. When everyone contributes to society, they gain more back from society. The rights themselves form based on what society as a whole deems beneficial in that place and time period. Your rights in the modern day would not be the same rights you would have had 500 years ago (although there would likely be overlaps).
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 04, 2012, 05:33:44 PM
what?  lol, no I don't yearn for that.

Your protests of not wanting a dictatorship are made less convincing by your repeatedly expressed sentiments of wanting a dictatorship:  A higher authority, against which no human can disagree.  And by your repeated promotion of attitudes which would help enable a dictatorship, as I've just explained.

I think this convo is about played out.   How about, we all agree that it's a nice thing to live in a democracy, if you do so?  Ok.


You're not very graceful in defeat, Gill.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: monkeymind on January 04, 2012, 05:34:02 PM

All those questions can be answered easier if you have some premise for defining what a natural-right or government-right is.  Do you?

Here are some definitions. Which do use?

natural right
any right that exists by virtue of natural law.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural+right
 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural+right)
Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed on to a person by the law of a particular political and legal system, and therefore relative to specific cultures and governments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights)
1. General: Fundamental human rights based on universal natural law, as opposed to those based on man-made positive law. Although there is no unanimity as to which right is natural and which is not, the widely held view is that nature endows every human (without any distinction of time or space, and without any regard to age, gender, nationality, or race) with certain inalienable rights (such as the right to 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness') which cannot be abrogated or interfered with by any government. And that, whether or not these rights are enshrined in a national legal code, no government is lawful if it fails to upholds them. See also human rights.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/natural-rights.html
 (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/natural-rights.html)
rights which persons possess by nature: that is, without the intervention of agreement, or in the absence of political and legal institutions. Natural rights are therefore attributable to individuals without distinction of time or place. A contrast may be drawn with positive rights: that is, those rights conferred or guaranteed by a particular legal system. Natural rights have been derided as nonsensical (by Bentham) on the ground that it is impossible to speak of rights without enforceable duties, and enforceability exists only when a potentially coercive legal system exists. Furthermore, there has been no unanimity even amongst those who recognize natural rights as to their content. Natural rights have been seen as gifts of God, as correlative to duties imposed on man by God, and as concomitants of human nature or reason. We might distinguish: (1) natural rights; (2) moral rights; and (3) legal rights. The third are those recognized by positive law. The first are those asserted to be universal and thus guides to the proper content of any legal system. The second are those which, it is claimed, should be recognized by particular legal systems or which, while not universal, should be recognized under existing conditions. The classification of rights will depend in part on understandings of their purpose and of their consequences.
http://www.answers.com/topic/natural-right
 (http://www.answers.com/topic/natural-right)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 05:43:31 PM
I think this convo is about played out.   How about, we all agree that it's a nice thing to live in a democracy, if you do so?  Ok.


You're not very graceful in defeat, Gill.

Not defeated.  There's not much else more to say, so tired of repeating myself.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: monkeymind on January 04, 2012, 05:50:10 PM
^^^OK in that case I'll go with Avatar of Belial's explanation.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 04, 2012, 05:53:17 PM
Not defeated.  There's not much else more to say, so tired of repeating myself.

Democracy is defeat for you, because democracy is the rule of the people, not the rule of the Creator.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 04, 2012, 05:54:48 PM
Not defeated.  There's not much else more to say, so tired of repeating myself.

Democracy is defeat for you, because democracy is the rule of the people, not the rule of the Creator.

I'm not against democracy and  I'm not ruled by a Creator either.   So, you've got me wrong.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 04, 2012, 05:55:20 PM
So you're saying that the Creator doesn't determine which rights you have or don't have?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on January 04, 2012, 06:16:04 PM
Ah, so you want more activities like the derivatives trading that caused the recent major economic downturn. You might have heard of it - our current recession?

Ok, I didn't reply because I think this can get pretty complex.    Yeah,  trading those junk derivatives are a big part of the problem.  But, didn't the government also pass some law, Idk the specific one,  where banks were forced or at least encouraged to give loans to unqualified buyers?  So there's a lot of blame to go around there.   That can get complicated....

Nice dodge of the issue/question: do you want deregulation or not? I'm not sure if you brought it up directly or if it was brought up in response to your position about republicans but it is one of the issues about republicans that you were asked about and you dodged. Yes, there was a law meant to help people by encouraging/forcing loans. But lack of regulation let the banks create toxic loans and then compound the problem by bundling the toxic loans and selling them so someone else would be poisoned by them. But even dealing with it this vaguely is too complex for you. Okay.

With that in mind, shall we let you know when things are too complex for you? It would shorten the pointless exchanges.

 
No, I just figure people don't want to read some long essay I'll have to write if I address every point all the time.

If you bothered to address the points when they were made without evasion and using words with their standard meanings intact then you wouldn't need to supposedly "address every point all the time."

Now do you see why your idea that the writers of the Declaration were invoking God to justify changing their system of government doesn't work?

Maybe that's why they used the term 'Creator', instead of God.   That way, no one could claim their God to be more right than another persons.  The Creator could be 'the universe' for someone if they choose.   

Translation for the rational: No, I don't understand since I want to hang onto my idea so I'm engaging in some cognitive dissonance.

If a government official tries to take away my right to freedom, and the Declaration were to say that my freedom was given to me by the government, then he has a pretty valid argument to take away my freedom, doesn't he?   On the other hand, if my right to freedom is a natural-right, as it is defined, then how can he argue to take it away, since I was born with it?  Cant.

I am amazed, seriously. You are truly obsessed with this idea and do not see that you have managed to finally reiterate it in an almost perfectly wrong way. Your freedom can be taken away quite easily. Go up to a police officer – a government official, no matter what you say – and slap/hit him/her. Your freedom will be gone pretty much instantly. You will, no doubt, try to claim several things which are not true: that a police officer is not a government official; that you never said violators of the law get to keep their freedom (although it is implied in your statements).


For instance, people complain about the Patriot Act infringing on their rights to freedom.   Well, if the founding documents, declared that members of the government give people their right to freedom,  I don't think people arguing against such an Act, would have much of an argument to stand on.

Translation for the rational: While I sound like I have finally gotten a clue, I haven't – I'm just rewording my unsupportable argument in an awkward way.


People discovered natural-rights through years of civilization.  They recognized that most people what to live, be free, and pursue happiness.  It's not just some random idea they decided to define, and people started following it since it was written.   It's a recognition of something natural and innate that most people share.

Yes, the government defines them, so they can be clearly recognized, and formally established into the government. And yes, people may try to over-ride them.  But, the majority of people probably won't allow that most times, because they will agree with the original recognition.

But this isn't true. As someone else pointed out (sorry but I don't remember who) sex is something pretty much everyone wants and by your logic should be included as a 'natural right'. But unless you are dodging the point by including it as part of "pursuit of happiness", you have a contradiction. The US federal government does not guarantee sex either separately or as part of the "pursuit of happiness": states are allowed to criminalize sex acts even between two consenting adults in private. So there is a natural right which is not recognized and not given. In fact some sex acts have been frequently criminalized throughout history.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on January 04, 2012, 06:17:22 PM
lol.  Whatever.  I'm not claiming to be an expert. But,  I have read books about the government's founding so I'm far from ignorant on the subject.

And when you use "lol", it makes you look like an idiot.  Stop doing that, for your own good.

I haven't participated in a board like this for quite a few years – heck, haven't even lurked. Is "lol" no longer acceptable on some (or all) boards or are you referring to how he is using it: as a lame attempt at expressing ridicule? (Also inappropriate usage and somewhat redundant considering the "whatever".) I'm guessing his usage.


Mostly irrelevant aside, by the way -- if you can find earlier drafts of the Declaration, they make for interesting reading, as does review of the reasons for the various changes that were made before the final version was released.  (I studied this in a college course I took on expository writing.)  In one earlier version, for example, Jefferson said something about the colonies "bidding an everlasting adieu" to the Crown.  Others in Congress opined that this should be removed (and other similar language toned down) because relations with Britain might improve in the future -- which, of course, they did.

Interesting and cool. I think tidbits like this should be in middle and high school courses to make history more interesting – allow the students to see the names in the textbooks as real people rather than data to temporarily memorize.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Alzael on January 04, 2012, 06:18:48 PM
I'm not against democracy and  I'm not ruled by a Creator either.   So, you've got me wrong.

No, he's simply going by your own admissions.

Your entire position is that rights are handed down to us by a higher authority. An authority that we cannot argue, question, or reason with, and who's dictates we must accept. We have no say over our most basic rights, they are decided for us.

This is exactly  what a tyrannical rule is. It is a system where a single unchallengeable authority can make decisions in regards to everyone else.

The fact that you can't even begin to recognize takes Dunning-Krueger to amazing new heights.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on January 04, 2012, 06:19:00 PM
almost forgot this one as I was trying to group things:

We are alone in this mess.  There is no creator, there is only us, and we have to collectively figure out how to live with each other, and grant each other the freedom to live among us, without harming each other.  This takes collective organization and agreement, something that religion cannot do, by definition.  Religion is incapable of uniting everyone, because it is divisive.

It may be that we simply are not evolved enough to do this in a secular way either, I have to admit.  But I can't see it happening at all when gods are invoked.
Bold mine

While religions are divisive because each claims to be the only real one, each religion is capable of uniting people – even huge numbers of people. But it is a totalitarian unification which naturally engenders conflict with those who don't believe in that specific religion. Religion's ability to unify is one of its attractive points; you get to belong to something larger (and more powerful) than you. Which again leads to one of the problems with religion: it can be a guided mob out for blood.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on January 04, 2012, 06:26:35 PM
The fact that you can't even begin to recognize takes Dunning-Krueger to amazing new heights.

I hadn't heard of the Dunning–Kruger effect before but having just read the beginning of the Wiki article I think you've hit it right on the head. It also helps me understand someone I know IRL.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: jetson on January 04, 2012, 06:33:24 PM
almost forgot this one as I was trying to group things:

We are alone in this mess.  There is no creator, there is only us, and we have to collectively figure out how to live with each other, and grant each other the freedom to live among us, without harming each other.  This takes collective organization and agreement, something that religion cannot do, by definition.  Religion is incapable of uniting everyone, because it is divisive.

It may be that we simply are not evolved enough to do this in a secular way either, I have to admit.  But I can't see it happening at all when gods are invoked.
Bold mine

While religions are divisive because each claims to be the only real one, each religion is capable of uniting people – even huge numbers of people. But it is a totalitarian unification which naturally engenders conflict with those who don't believe in that specific religion. Religion's ability to unify is one of its attractive points; you get to belong to something larger (and more powerful) than you. Which again leads to one of the problems with religion: it can be a guided mob out for blood.

I see what you are saying, and I did intend to indicate that the problem lies with the fact that there are just too many religions, and people choose their favorite, or are born into it, and that's that.  NI the end, the idea that religion can unite people, is overshadowed completely by the divisiveness it ultimately creates between competing religions.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Alzael on January 04, 2012, 06:42:31 PM
The fact that you can't even begin to recognize takes Dunning-Krueger to amazing new heights.

I hadn't heard of the Dunning–Kruger effect before but having just read the beginning of the Wiki article I think you've hit it right on the head. It also helps me understand someone I know IRL.

It was what came into my mind over and over again while I was reading his posts last week. After I finished repairing the holes my head had made in the wall.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on January 04, 2012, 06:52:29 PM
I see what you are saying, and I did intend to indicate that the problem lies with the fact that there are just too many religions, and people choose their favorite, or are born into it, and that's that.  NI the end, the idea that religion can unite people, is overshadowed completely by the divisiveness it ultimately creates between competing religions.

Given your other posts, I was guessing as much but wanted to give you the opportunity to say what you meant.

It was what came into my mind over and over again while I was reading his posts last week. After I finished repairing the holes my head had made in the wall.

Aside from the property damage, hitting your head into the wall is a very bad idea. It hurts and we already have Gill, jtp56, and gzusfreke. Anyone know enough about linguistic analysis to determine if those three aren't really three distinct people?    &)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: velkyn on January 09, 2012, 01:03:38 PM
A natural-right is something a person is born with,  the government didn't give it to them.    The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, are natural-rights.   I don't believe I have a right to live because some government official says so.   But if that's the premise one wants to live by, go for it, but it sounds like one is allowing some unknown government official to determine their right to life and freedom.   That's tyranny to me.

You don't have a "right" to live at all, given by "nature"(I'm guessing you really mean god) or gov't.  I'm seeing you try to assume that some force gave people such a right and yet to see you show that this is the case at all.  People die all of the time through no fault of their own and no magic to save them, just like a gazelle under the fangs of a leopard.     
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: screwtape on January 09, 2012, 01:30:32 PM
lol.  Whatever.  I'm not claiming to be an expert. But,  I have read books about the government's founding so I'm far from ignorant on the subject.

And when you use "lol", it makes you look like an idiot.  Stop doing that, for your own good.

I haven't participated in a board like this for quite a few years – heck, haven't even lurked. Is "lol" no longer acceptable on some (or all) boards or are you referring to how he is using it: as a lame attempt at expressing ridicule? (Also inappropriate usage and somewhat redundant considering the "whatever".) I'm guessing his usage.

Opinions vary.  In my opinion, it looks stupid in such a large percentage of contexts and usages that it approaches 100%.  In Gill's case, his usage does not help his case.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 09, 2012, 11:28:51 PM
^^ It depends partly on whether you want what you've said to be taken seriously.  When joking, "lol" can be used to make sure people don't take you seriously.

When it's put in a post that's supposedly to be taken seriously, it just looks idiotic.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 11, 2012, 04:54:26 PM
A natural-right is something a person is born with,  the government didn't give it to them.    The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, are natural-rights.   I don't believe I have a right to live because some government official says so.   But if that's the premise one wants to live by, go for it, but it sounds like one is allowing some unknown government official to determine their right to life and freedom.   That's tyranny to me.

You don't have a "right" to live at all, given by "nature"(I'm guessing you really mean god) or gov't.  I'm seeing you try to assume that some force gave people such a right and yet to see you show that this is the case at all.  People die all of the time through no fault of their own and no magic to save them, just like a gazelle under the fangs of a leopard.   

Of course a right doesn't stop the physical laws.    It's a governmental concept.  Looking at rights in any other context doesn't have much meaning.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 11, 2012, 05:00:32 PM
I'm not against democracy and  I'm not ruled by a Creator either.   So, you've got me wrong.

No, he's simply going by your own admissions.

Your entire position is that rights are handed down to us by a higher authority. An authority that we cannot argue, question, or reason with, and who's dictates we must accept. We have no say over our most basic rights, they are decided for us.

This is exactly  what a tyrannical rule is. It is a system where a single unchallengeable authority can make decisions in regards to everyone else.

The fact that you can't even begin to recognize takes Dunning-Krueger to amazing new heights.

Life, liberty, happiness,  those are basic naturally defined rights.   You want to argue against those?  And I'm the one who wants tyranny?...ok.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 11, 2012, 05:06:29 PM
If a government official tries to take away my right to freedom, and the Declaration were to say that my freedom was given to me by the government, then he has a pretty valid argument to take away my freedom, doesn't he?   On the other hand, if my right to freedom is a natural-right, as it is defined, then how can he argue to take it away, since I was born with it?  Cant.

I am amazed, seriously. You are truly obsessed with this idea and do not see that you have managed to finally reiterate it in an almost perfectly wrong way. Your freedom can be taken away quite easily. Go up to a police officer – a government official, no matter what you say – and slap/hit him/her. Your freedom will be gone pretty much instantly. You will, no doubt, try to claim several things which are not true: that a police officer is not a government official; that you never said violators of the law get to keep their freedom (although it is implied in your statements).

 Missed my point.  Of course people can be arrested.   I've never said that rights stop people from being arrested or harmed.   Yeah, a person can walk up to me and shoot me,  and so then my right to life hasn't protected me.   But I never said rights could counteract physical realities.

They're only meaningful in the context of government,  law making.   

Basically,  who do you want to have the leverage in a legal argument,  the government or you , the citizen?  I personally want the leverage, therefore having naturally defined rights, gives me that.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Alzael on January 11, 2012, 07:13:57 PM

Life, liberty, happiness,  those are basic naturally defined rights.   You want to argue against those?  And I'm the one who wants tyranny?...ok.

No. I argued against your ill-thought and,as of yet unsubstantiated, attempts to assert that these rights are handed down by a higher authority as opposed to created by us. I also argued against your misinformed assertion that such a thing had any connection with democracy. I made no argument against whether those rights were good or in existence.

It is noteable that nothing you said in all of that refuted my point that what you truly are describing, and implicitly supporting, is a totalitarian world order. There is simply no other way to describe a world in which our rights are determined by an outside force that we cannot argue with or appeal to. It does not matter how "good" or "bad" those rights might be. The nicest tyrant on earth is still a tyrant. It does not change the fact that we have no say in what our rights are, which are imposed upon us by a being that has assumed a "higher" position over us (I don't recall you ever even giving a justification for why this authority is "higher" than us either,much like many things that you have left out of your line of thought).

That you resorted to twin fallacies instead of even attempting to address what I said speaks volumes about the decrepit foundations on which your whole supposition rests. Not to mention what it says about your ability to engage in an honest discussion. If your position had any merit at all to it, why not argue those merits instead of constructing fallacies and using back-alley attempts at slander?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on January 11, 2012, 08:23:31 PM
Basically,  who do you want to have the leverage in a legal argument,  the government or you , the citizen?  I personally want the leverage, therefore having naturally defined rights, gives me that.

While I want the leverage, the law states who has the leverage depending upon the circumstances. And unfortunately it is often the government that has the leverage – no matter what you or I want regardless of any rights, natural or not.



A natural-right is something a person is born with,  the government didn't give it to them.    The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, are natural-rights.   I don't believe I have a right to live because some government official says so.
AND
Of course a right doesn't stop the physical laws.  It's a governmental concept.  Looking at rights in any other context doesn't have much meaning.

These two statements – both from you – contradict each other.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 11, 2012, 08:45:05 PM
A natural-right is something a person is born with,  the government didn't give it to them.    The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, are natural-rights.   I don't believe I have a right to live because some government official says so.
AND
Of course a right doesn't stop the physical laws.  It's a governmental concept.  Looking at rights in any other context doesn't have much meaning.

These two statements – both from you – contradict each other.

I don't see how so,  in both cases I'm talking about how rights relate to government.     
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 11, 2012, 09:05:55 PM

Life, liberty, happiness,  those are basic naturally defined rights.   You want to argue against those?  And I'm the one who wants tyranny?...ok.

No. I argued against your ill-thought and,as of yet unsubstantiated, attempts to assert that these rights are handed down by a higher authority as opposed to created by us. I also argued against your misinformed assertion that such a thing had any connection with democracy. I made no argument against whether those rights were good or in existence.

It is noteable that nothing you said in all of that refuted my point that what you truly are describing, and implicitly supporting, is a totalitarian world order. There is simply no other way to describe a world in which our rights are determined by an outside force that we cannot argue with or appeal to. It does not matter how "good" or "bad" those rights might be. The nicest tyrant on earth is still a tyrant. It does not change the fact that we have no say in what our rights are, which are imposed upon us by a being that has assumed a "higher" position over us (I don't recall you ever even giving a justification for why this authority is "higher" than us either,much like many things that you have left out of your line of thought).

That you resorted to twin fallacies instead of even attempting to address what I said speaks volumes about the decrepit foundations on which your whole supposition rests. Not to mention what it says about your ability to engage in an honest discussion. If your position had any merit at all to it, why not argue those merits instead of constructing fallacies and using back-alley attempts at slander?


I never said natural-rights were imposed on people by a being.    So then you misinterpret my point.

There's certain desires that people recognized, that most people have, such as the desire to live, be free, and pursue happiness.

The government didn't give them the desire to be free.   So then, if one wants to argue for their right to be free, why would they start with premise that it's a 'government right'?

To me that would be like saying;  'I should be free because the government declares that I should'.  Well then, could not government officials simply declare one should not be free, since they are the givers of the freedom?

Certainly they may try, but if one stands on the premise that it's a natural-right to be free, and to be protected not given,  they will definitely have a much stronger argument to stand on, imo.

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 11, 2012, 09:30:46 PM
"I should be free because I declare that I should" is more accurate, Gill.  Your complaints of being misrepresented would carry more weight if you didn't persist in lying about the position you're confronting.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on January 11, 2012, 09:36:54 PM
A natural-right is something a person is born with,  the government didn't give it to them.    The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, are natural-rights.   I don't believe I have a right to live because some government official says so.
AND
Of course a right doesn't stop the physical laws.  It's a governmental concept.  Looking at rights in any other context doesn't have much meaning.
These two statements – both from you – contradict each other.
I don't see how so,  in both cases I'm talking about how rights relate to government.   

In the first quote you say the government doesn't give rights and in the second you say rights are only a governmental concept. So how is 'a governmental concept that the government doesn't give' not a contradiction?

And before you lie about them being taken out of context, no they weren't. Both were directly or indirectly about 'natural-rights'.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Alzael on January 11, 2012, 09:47:09 PM

I never said natural-rights were imposed on people by a being.    So then you misinterpret my point.

From you...

.....the principle that there's a higher authority than man which gives people some of their rights.  And so one could call that higher authority 'nature' instead of 'god', but I still see it necessary to believe in such an authority to have such a government.

No, I have not misinterpreted anything. Your entire position has been stated as a belief that rights are given to us by a higher authority.



 That's why the founders of the country recognized that people are 'endowed with rights from their creator'.  To take the full power off the government.

[...]

And so if one doesn't believe in such an authority, then I think they'd be less respecting of such a governmental premise.    Then you have tyrants, trying to control everyone.

They recognized and defined what they were, yes.  But the definition was built on the premise that those rights are god-given, or 'natural' if that's preferable to you, and cannot be taken away by the government. 

Furthermore you have openly stated that when you say "natural" you actually mean that as a synonym for "god-given". So yes, you are talking about a higher authority when you speak of natural rights. Which brings us back to my initial point about it being tyrannical.

In fact, that was what started all of this. You stated that you would not vote for an atheist because they recognized no higher authority.

I'm curious, you do realize that your words don't just disappear from the thread when you type them?

Certainly they may try, but if one stands on the premise that it's a natural-right to be free, and to be protected not given,  they will definitely have a much stronger argument to stand on, imo.

This however is irrelevant to reality and to the discussion at hand. Your argument here is that you like the implications of natural rights better. It has nothing to do with whether it is true.  Furthermore nothing about what you said in anyway responds to my previous point that your position is inherently tyrannical.

You're simply attempting to evade the point because you got caught in your own limited reasoning and your poor attempts at fallacies failed to pass unnoticed or unchallenged.

The simple fact remains, that if rights are handed down by a higher authority that cannot be contrdicted, it is a tyrannical system. If rights are determined by us, then that would be a democratic/free system. Perhaps you should take the time to look up what a democracy means?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 11, 2012, 09:49:40 PM
A natural-right is something a person is born with,  the government didn't give it to them.    The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, are natural-rights.   I don't believe I have a right to live because some government official says so.
AND
Of course a right doesn't stop the physical laws.  It's a governmental concept.  Looking at rights in any other context doesn't have much meaning.
These two statements – both from you – contradict each other.
I don't see how so,  in both cases I'm talking about how rights relate to government.   

In the first quote you say the government doesn't give rights and in the second you say rights are only a governmental concept. So how is 'a governmental concept that the government doesn't give' not a contradiction?

And before you lie about them being taken out of context, no they weren't. Both were directly or indirectly about 'natural-rights'.

Whether or not one's talking about 'government given' or natural rights, yes, I'm saying rights are only meaningful in the context of government. 
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 11, 2012, 10:03:06 PM

I never said natural-rights were imposed on people by a being.    So then you misinterpret my point.

From you...

.....the principle that there's a higher authority than man which gives people some of their rights.  And so one could call that higher authority 'nature' instead of 'god', but I still see it necessary to believe in such an authority to have such a government.

No, I have not misinterpreted anything. Your entire position has been stated as a belief that rights are given to us by a higher authority.



 That's why the founders of the country recognized that people are 'endowed with rights from their creator'.  To take the full power off the government.

[...]

And so if one doesn't believe in such an authority, then I think they'd be less respecting of such a governmental premise.    Then you have tyrants, trying to control everyone.

They recognized and defined what they were, yes.  But the definition was built on the premise that those rights are god-given, or 'natural' if that's preferable to you, and cannot be taken away by the government. 

Furthermore you have openly stated that when you say "natural" you actually mean that as a synonym for "god-given". So yes, you are talking about a higher authority when you speak of natural rights. Which brings us back to my initial point about it being tyrannical.

In fact, that was what started all of this. You stated that you would not vote for an atheist because they recognized no higher authority.

I'm curious, you do realize that your words don't just disappear from the thread when you type them?

Certainly they may try, but if one stands on the premise that it's a natural-right to be free, and to be protected not given,  they will definitely have a much stronger argument to stand on, imo.

This however is irrelevant to reality and to the discussion at hand. Your argument here is that you like the implications of natural rights better. It has nothing to do with whether it is true.  Furthermore nothing about what you said in anyway responds to my previous point that your position is inherently tyrannical.

You're simply attempting to evade the point because you got caught in your own limited reasoning and your poor attempts at fallacies failed to pass unnoticed or unchallenged.

The simple fact remains, that if rights are handed down by a higher authority that cannot be contrdicted, it is a tyrannical system. If rights are determined by us, then that would be a democratic/free system. Perhaps you should take the time to look up what a democracy means?

I never claimed natural rights were an absolute truth. 

Also, yeah, the rights are declared by people.  But, the point is, certain rights are called natural, or god-given, so that no person, government official, can claim to be the giver of that right, to take that power off them.    Dont see what's tyrannical about that, actually quite opposite.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 11, 2012, 10:14:26 PM
So as long as the people are the ones who claim (without any logical justification) that the rights are tyrannically absolute, it's a democracy?

Somehow the emptiness seems a little too obvious for it to legitimately stand up in an argument for rights.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: velkyn on January 12, 2012, 09:59:55 AM
A natural-right is something a person is born with,  the government didn't give it to them.    The right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, are natural-rights.   I don't believe I have a right to live because some government official says so.   But if that's the premise one wants to live by, go for it, but it sounds like one is allowing some unknown government official to determine their right to life and freedom.   That's tyranny to me.

You don't have a "right" to live at all, given by "nature"(I'm guessing you really mean god) or gov't.  I'm seeing you try to assume that some force gave people such a right and yet to see you show that this is the case at all.  People die all of the time through no fault of their own and no magic to save them, just like a gazelle under the fangs of a leopard.   

Of course a right doesn't stop the physical laws.    It's a governmental concept.  Looking at rights in any other context doesn't have much meaning.
but you've repeatedly claimed that we have some kind of "natural rights" and you have insisted that gov't can't give them.   Seems that you are trying to now change your claim, by now claiming that you've "never" did "x", "y" and "z".   Sad, but entirely expected. 
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 12, 2012, 10:35:53 AM
boy you guys are tearing Gill a new one
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: screwtape on January 12, 2012, 11:39:55 AM
boy you guys are tearing Gill a new one

I try to look at is as poking holes in ideas that Gill has.  It isn't personal.  Gill just has some ideas that are not very robust.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on January 12, 2012, 03:35:23 PM
boy you guys are tearing Gill a new one

Yes but not really - it seems like we are but all we feel is a slippery sensation and suddenly the hole is there and we're deep in it but he's content to keep going like he wanted it all along. Makes me wonder if we're just widening it for him so he has a huge ginormous one - a vaginormous one.    :o
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 12, 2012, 03:49:54 PM
Doesn't bother me much.  This all challenges me to question my beliefs, and I've learned much since coming here.   Hopefully others get similar out of it.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 12, 2012, 04:49:56 PM
Doesn't bother me much.  This all challenges me to question my beliefs, and I've learned much since coming here.   Hopefully others get similar out of it.
How can anybody have beliefs that are based on pure nonsense,contradiction and a God that is,if not EVIL would be arrested or institutionalized for his behaviour?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 12, 2012, 05:03:49 PM
Doesn't bother me much.  This all challenges me to question my beliefs, and I've learned much since coming here.   Hopefully others get similar out of it.
How can anybody have beliefs that are based on pure nonsense,contradiction and a God that is,if not EVIL would be arrested or institutionalized for his behaviour?

Not sure.  How can anyone believe that someone has such beliefs?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: voodoo child on January 12, 2012, 05:16:44 PM
Um, I don't get it, how can human rights come from a god. when god had nothing to do with the rights humans wrote down?
That's like the other dumb ass argument that god invented time.

shakes head and walks away.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 12, 2012, 05:25:58 PM
Um, I don't get,  how can someone argue their right to live comes from the government?  I can live because the government says so?  What is this, communist Russia?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: voodoo child on January 12, 2012, 05:49:05 PM
Um, I don't get,  how can someone argue their right to live comes from the government?  I can live because the government says so?  What is this, communist Russia?

?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Dante on January 12, 2012, 05:50:15 PM
Gill, look at it this way.

You believe you have a god-given, natural right to live, yes?

What happens to that "right to live" if your stalked and killed by lions on the Serengetti? Where did that "right" go?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 12, 2012, 05:58:21 PM
Gill, look at it this way.

You believe you have a god-given, natural right to live, yes?

What happens to that "right to live" if your stalked and killed by lions on the Serengetti? Where did that "right" go?

That right doesn't have to do with overriding the laws of nature.    It's a legal premise.   I desire to live.  One wants to have a right to their life then.  Does one want to argue from the premise that the right comes from the government, or that it comes from their innate desire, natural desire, to live?

I vote for the latter.   But, if people so choose they can hold the premise that's it's the government who gives them that right to live.    Sounds like a pretty self-defeating premise to me though....
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: MadBunny on January 12, 2012, 06:07:43 PM
Um, I don't get,  how can someone argue their right to live comes from the government?  I can live because the government says so?  What is this, communist Russia?

If 'the government' wanted to kill you, could it?


Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 12, 2012, 07:23:57 PM
Um, I don't get,  how can someone argue their right to live comes from the government?  I can live because the government says so?  What is this, communist Russia?

If 'the government' wanted to kill you, could it?

A lightening bolt could kill me.   Never suggested a natural-right blocks death.  It's a philosophical starting premise for arguing for one's power in a society.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 12, 2012, 07:51:04 PM
Gill, look at it this way.

You believe you have a god-given, natural right to live, yes?

What happens to that "right to live" if your stalked and killed by lions on the Serengetti? Where did that "right" go?

That right doesn't have to do with overriding the laws of nature.    It's a legal premise.   I desire to live.  One wants to have a right to their life then.  Does one want to argue from the premise that the right comes from the government, or that it comes from their innate desire, natural desire, to live?

I vote for the latter.   But, if people so choose they can hold the premise that's it's the government who gives them that right to live.    Sounds like a pretty self-defeating premise to me though....
is this natural right apply to those who starve 4000 an hour at last count
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: MadBunny on January 12, 2012, 07:56:53 PM
A lightening bolt could kill me.   Never suggested a natural-right blocks death.  It's a philosophical starting premise for arguing for one's power in a society.

I'm not talking about a lightning bolt.  I'm talking about "the government".
If they wanted to kill you, could they?

Our Government, here in the USA.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Dante on January 12, 2012, 09:02:25 PM
Gill, look at it this way.

You believe you have a god-given, natural right to live, yes?

What happens to that "right to live" if your stalked and killed by lions on the Serengetti? Where did that "right" go?

That right doesn't have to do with overriding the laws of nature.

That's because rights are man made constructs.

Quote
   It's a legal premise.

Yup.

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 12, 2012, 09:25:22 PM
Gill, look at it this way.

You believe you have a god-given, natural right to live, yes?

What happens to that "right to live" if your stalked and killed by lions on the Serengetti? Where did that "right" go?

That right doesn't have to do with overriding the laws of nature.

That's because rights are man made constructs.

Quote
   It's a legal premise.

Yup.

Rights are declared and defined by people, yeah, but not all rights are just arbitrarily made up.   People recognized an innate desire to live in most people, and constructed the natural-right around that desire.   They didn't just pull the idea out of thin air for no particular reason.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 12, 2012, 09:27:14 PM
Gill, look at it this way.

You believe you have a god-given, natural right to live, yes?

What happens to that "right to live" if your stalked and killed by lions on the Serengetti? Where did that "right" go?

That right doesn't have to do with overriding the laws of nature.    It's a legal premise.   I desire to live.  One wants to have a right to their life then.  Does one want to argue from the premise that the right comes from the government, or that it comes from their innate desire, natural desire, to live?

I vote for the latter.   But, if people so choose they can hold the premise that's it's the government who gives them that right to live.    Sounds like a pretty self-defeating premise to me though....
is this natural right apply to those who starve 4000 an hour at last count

It applies to whoever wants to accept it as their natural-right.   Those who want to freely give that right over to the government, argue for their own tyrannical rule.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Alzael on January 12, 2012, 09:49:32 PM

I never claimed natural rights were an absolute truth. 

Interestingly enough, I never claimed that you did. Funny how that works out.

This is just a strawman created so that you can nimbly dodge away from actually addressing what was said in the post that you quoted and, more specifically, the section that you bolded. That your entire position rests on a foundation of nothing more than your own desire to see the world that way. It has no other basis that you can show, rendering it entirely arbitrary. You believe that labelling a right as "natural" somehow makes it harder to take away. However that has no bearing on whether the right actually is "natural" which you have yet to show is even applicable to any human rights that we hold as a society.

Not coincidentally, this is strikingly similiar to what the atheists are saying about rights. The primary difference being that they are admitting to it's arbitrary nature.

As a sidenote, might I point out that you're about as nimble as a five hundred pound amputated gymnast with rapidly failing eyesight. You should likely start really answering people soon.

Also, yeah, the rights are declared by people.  But, the point is, certain rights are called natural, or god-given, so that no person, government official, can claim to be the giver of that right, to take that power off them.   

This is why your position fails so spectacularly. If the rights are only called "natural" or "god-given" by people then they remain just as arbitrary as rights given by the government or any other group of humans. If your criteria is that people only need call them natural rights, there is nothing stopping people from coming to the decision that those rights are no longer natural and thus altering its status. This "higher authority" is simply a fabrication to give the illusion of authority without actually possessing any.

As I pointed out previously, you are a very sad example of the Dunning-Krueger effect.

Dont see what's tyrannical about that, actually quite opposite.

Then you should have little difficulty with ceasing your constant avoidance and actually refuting the point. Something which I am still waiting on. I'm sure you'll have something to provide that is absolutely brilliant and suitable earth-shaking.

People recognized an innate desire to live in most people, and constructed the natural-right around that desire.   They didn't just pull the idea out of thin air for no particular reason.

Gill......allow me to help you out with this. You have to actually provide justification for the things you say. Or at least provide a logical train of thought that leads to that conclusion. Otherwise you're just making random and ultimately useless claims that serve only to illustrate an inability to engage on an adult intellectual level.

Prove that people recognized these desires and used it to create this right. Also show how this "higher authority" actually exists, as well as why it should be adhered to. Then you might be taken semi-seriously. Also try to make a consistent set of points.

As a sidenote, your above statement serves as a claim that natural rights are an absolute truth. So all I can assume is that you were either being misleading before, are being misleading now, or my earlier theory about your Dunning-Kruegerness is correct.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 12, 2012, 10:07:25 PM
The natural rights are not arbitrary though, they were based on reason and experience involving what people wanted, when they were formulated.  But no, they aren't necessarily some absolute truth, but they are certainly based on what a majority of people would consider true desires.

Prove that people recognized these desires and used it to create this rights?   Okay,  the Declaration of Independence.   Which, is what I'm basically echoing in my posts, this isn't just my original idea.....
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: MadBunny on January 13, 2012, 03:03:34 AM
Gill, do you understand the basic difference between wanting something to be a universally held truth and that thing actually being a universal truth?



Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Anfauglir on January 13, 2012, 07:29:30 AM
.....the point is, certain rights are called natural, or god-given, so that no person, government official, can claim to be the giver of that right, to take that power off them.   

By who?

Could it be - gasp - that people declare them to be "natural rights"?

Question: have these "natural rights" been unanimously agreed throughout history?  If not, how do you know that the ones we are calling "natural rights" today, really ARE "natural rights"?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: ungod on January 13, 2012, 09:10:58 AM
.....the point is, certain rights are called natural, or god-given, so that no person, government official, can claim to be the giver of that right, to take that power off them.   

By who?

Could it be - gasp - that people declare them to be "natural rights"?

Question: have these "natural rights" been unanimously agreed throughout history?  If not, how do you know that the ones we are calling "natural rights" today, really ARE "natural rights"?

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51kgo5j05uL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)

    What is strong wins: that is the universal law. If only it were not so often what is stupid and evil!

    — Nietzsche, Notes (1873)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: velkyn on January 13, 2012, 10:35:11 AM
so now rights, when convenient for Gill, beome legal premises, except for the rights that he wants to claim are from "nature" aka his god.   ;D 
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: misssueis on January 13, 2012, 01:20:42 PM
I wonder if Jesus would have been so called crucified if the people who crucified him were atheists. Hmmmmm If my memory serves me right they were believers in GOD! They surely were not self proclaimed Atheists...Duh! Let us remember creationists kill other creationists. You sure don't hear of Atheists going around killing other atheists and the reason why is they are all in agreement that GOD is not real. Even the bible actually tells you to stay away from religion. Think about it. It states in Luke 21 many will come saying I am he but, don not go after them. Well gee, I haven't run into a religion that says I am not he. Also if there is only one true GOD why so many religions? It's so nice I don't have to take my pick as far as atheism is concerned. At least we all are in agreement with each other. We don't go around killing each other in atheists name for the true atheist. lolol
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Alzael on January 13, 2012, 05:33:03 PM
The natural rights are not arbitrary though, they were based on reason and experience involving what people wanted, when they were formulated.

Which is what makes them arbitrary. They are based on factors that are entirely subjective.
By your own admission, "natural" rights are defined by people based on what they want to be considered "natural". Rights are only "natural" because people decided to call them "natural" and as soon as people decide to call them something else they will stop being "natural". Since the only criteria you have yet presented as to why a right is "natural" is the collective will of the people, then it is indeed entirely arbitrary which rights are natural as they and will change with the peoples whim.

And you still have yet to present a single argument otherwise. Just pointless dodging and reassertions of claims that were ill-thought out and demonstrably wrong the first time around.

If you want to actually make an argument that they aren't arbitrary, feel free. However as it stands every point I've made so far remains unchallenged by you.

But no, they aren't necessarily some absolute truth, but they are certainly based on what a majority of people would consider true desires.

Still a base assertion, as well as being largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Again, reasserting poor points does not make them any less poor. It is also without support to back up the claim.


Prove that people recognized these desires and used it to create this rights?   Okay,  the Declaration of Independence.   Which, is what I'm basically echoing in my posts, this isn't just my original idea.....

Just saying "Declaration of Independence" is not a justification. It's an indication of mental laziness or, possibly, dishonesty on your part. You have to connect it to a coherent set of thoughts. HOW does the Declaration indicate any of this? How does it support your claims? You know, actually make a case for your position.

While we're on the subject, before you go into supporting your claim about the Declaration, why don't you attend to some of the others points that I raised that you are obviously ignoring.

I have to admit to being curious as to the reason that you seem unable to make a single reasonable defense of, or substantiation, of anything that you've said so far in this whole thread.

Well, let's be honest here, we all know the reason.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: DumpsterFire on January 14, 2012, 12:47:16 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...
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: rickymooston on January 14, 2012, 11:24:04 AM

This still suggests creation.

Moose edit:

We think that people should be treated equally and held responsible for their actions. At birth, they should therefore have a clean slate.

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 14, 2012, 11:54:23 AM
The natural rights are not arbitrary though, they were based on reason and experience involving what people wanted, when they were formulated.
Which is what makes them arbitrary. They are based on factors that are entirely subjective.
By your own admission, "natural" rights are defined by people based on what they want to be considered "natural". Rights are only "natural" because people decided to call them "natural" and as soon as people decide to call them something else they will stop being "natural". Since the only criteria you have yet presented as to why a right is "natural" is the collective will of the people, then it is indeed entirely arbitrary which rights are natural as they and will change with the peoples whim.

And you still have yet to present a single argument otherwise. Just pointless dodging and reassertions of claims that were ill-thought out and demonstrably wrong the first time around.

If you want to actually make an argument that they aren't arbitrary, feel free. However as it stands every point I've made so far remains unchallenged by you.

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.

And the rights aren't entirely subjective since they were agreed upon by multiple observers.


Prove that people recognized these desires and used it to create this rights?   Okay,  the Declaration of Independence.   Which, is what I'm basically echoing in my posts, this isn't just my original idea.....
Quote from: Alzael
Just saying "Declaration of Independence" is not a justification. It's an indication of mental laziness or, possibly, dishonesty on your part. You have to connect it to a coherent set of thoughts. HOW does the Declaration indicate any of this? How does it support your claims? You know, actually make a case for your position.

How? The Declaration lists natural rights.   They didn't list these things arbitrarily.   Such rights were declared to take power off the government and give leverage to the citizens.   A  pretty common interpretation I'm giving here, don't see how it's very debatable.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 14, 2012, 11:58:21 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?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill on January 14, 2012, 11:59:54 AM
.....the point is, certain rights are called natural, or god-given, so that no person, government official, can claim to be the giver of that right, to take that power off them.   

By who?

Could it be - gasp - that people declare them to be "natural rights"?

Question: have these "natural rights" been unanimously agreed throughout history?  If not, how do you know that the ones we are calling "natural rights" today, really ARE "natural rights"?

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.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: MadBunny on January 14, 2012, 12:28:07 PM

Here you pose a question...

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

and here you answer it.

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.
(Bold by me.)

What we have chosen to collectively call 'Human Rights'  are a fictional construct.  Outside of these fictional constructs, that we call laws, civilization and society you have none of these rights.  They are not natural in anyway, nor are they respected by nature. 

The government that you hold so dear is held together by a common belief and desire.  The problem as demonstrated is that that belief and desire is subject to change over time.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Alzael on January 14, 2012, 01:32:35 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.

And the rights aren't entirely subjective since they were agreed upon by multiple observers.

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.

How? The Declaration lists natural rights.

Still an assertion, you have yet to attempt to actually justify this.


 They didn't list these things arbitrarily.   Such rights were declared to take power off the government and give leverage to the citizens.   A  pretty common interpretation I'm giving here, don't see how it's very debatable.

Does not address the point. Which was that you were to demonstrate that people recognized an innate desire to live and constructed the "natural" right around that idea. To repeat again, simply saying "The Declaration of Rights" is not an argument that offers any explanation or evidence or support for your conclusion. You have to actually think and make a real response that displays a coherent trail of logic. Not a series of assertions.

As it stands all this does is demonstrate laziness, incompetence, and a lack of understanding.

I'm curious, why would you post in a discussion forum that has as its rules the need to backup and support your arguments, when you are clearly unwilling to even make the slightest attempt to do so?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Alzael on January 14, 2012, 01:35:07 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.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on January 14, 2012, 01:44:02 PM

"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 inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

They forgot to add "unless you are a slave or female. In which case these inalienable rights are void. They're only for white males".
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on January 14, 2012, 01:47:56 PM

"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 inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

They forgot to add "unless you are a slave or female. In which case these inalienable rights are void. They're only for white males".

You also forgot a few things: "unless you are a slave, female, of foreign descent[1] or a non-christian".
 1. Note that "foreign" means anywhere except from the UK, unless you have an accent, in which case you're fucked.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on January 14, 2012, 01:53:33 PM
Lets rewrite it

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

Seems inalienable rights aren't quite as inalienable as Gill would have us believe.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 14, 2012, 02:07:02 PM
Gill, look at it this way.

You believe you have a god-given, natural right to live, yes?

What happens to that "right to live" if your stalked and killed by lions on the Serengetti? Where did that "right" go?

That right doesn't have to do with overriding the laws of nature.

That's because rights are man made constructs.

Quote
   It's a legal premise.

Yup.

Rights are declared and defined by people, yeah, but not all rights are just arbitrarily made up.   People recognized an innate desire to live in most people, and constructed the natural-right around that desire.   They didn't just pull the idea out of thin air for no particular reason.
Does this apply to the slaves owned by Christians and the slave owners who came before them?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 14, 2012, 02:10:12 PM
Gill, look at it this way.

You believe you have a god-given, natural right to live, yes?

What happens to that "right to live" if your stalked and killed by lions on the Serengetti? Where did that "right" go?

That right doesn't have to do with overriding the laws of nature.    It's a legal premise.   I desire to live.  One wants to have a right to their life then.  Does one want to argue from the premise that the right comes from the government, or that it comes from their innate desire, natural desire, to live?

I vote for the latter.   But, if people so choose they can hold the premise that's it's the government who gives them that right to live.    Sounds like a pretty self-defeating premise to me though....
is this natural right apply to those who starve 4000 an hour at last count

It applies to whoever wants to accept it as their natural-right.   Those who want to freely give that right over to the government, argue for their own tyrannical rule.
So because the Government has not built malls for them to shop or work at they are tyrannical Govenrments?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill 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.   
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill 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.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari 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).
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Alzael 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?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill 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.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Alzael 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.

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: rickymooston 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.


Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: joebbowers 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.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari 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.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: DumpsterFire 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.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Mr. Blackwell 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.



Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 16, 2012, 02:58:42 AM
The terms you've subbed in are not analogous to the terms they're replacing.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: joebbowers 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.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari 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.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys 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?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Gill 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.

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec 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.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 16, 2012, 08:25:22 PM
Kim-jon of North Korea could hardly be considered athiest.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: joebbowers 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.

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: joebbowers 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.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Mr. Blackwell 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.

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: velkyn 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". 
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: caveat_imperator 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.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Alzael 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.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Alzael 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?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys 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
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Alzael 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.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec 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
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec 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.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Brakeman on January 20, 2012, 07:04:49 AM
First on the list - Pol Pot of Cambodia.  Between 2 million and 4 million people were murdered under his regime, from 1963 to 1998.

Pol Pot fought a class warfare, he hated the educated. And since atheists tend to be concentrated among the highly educated, he killed a whole lot of them.

If atheism were important to Pol Pot, would he make war on his "base"? No, he just killed to balance his idea of a just society where the worker class ruled because he himself was nothing more than worker class. Of course the main reason he killed was because he was batshit insane, which is a problem for theists. What does god do with those people who are mentally ill? Does he send them to hell? God made Pol Pot crazy didn't he?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Anfauglir on January 20, 2012, 07:25:33 AM
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.

I agree with everything else, but not sure about this.  Objective (if we're in agreement as to its meaning) is something that is what it is, regardles or anyone's opinion about it.  I think it quite conceivable that there could be an objective morality - "this is right" - even though nobody could agree on what it is, or even recognise it when they saw it. 

It may be that due to our own subjectivity we may never be able to establish what the objective morality is, but I'm not sure that means there isn't one. 
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 20, 2012, 09:14:25 AM
If you can conceive of it, then what might it be?  How might it exist?  Details, Anfauglir.  How is the idea even coherent, aside from stringing the words together?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Hatter23 on January 20, 2012, 09:25:59 AM

I agree with everything else, but not sure about this.  Objective (if we're in agreement as to its meaning) is something that is what it is, regardles or anyone's opinion about it.  I think it quite conceivable that there could be an objective morality - "this is right" - even though nobody could agree on what it is, or even recognise it when they saw it. 

It may be that due to our own subjectivity we may never be able to establish what the objective morality is, but I'm not sure that means there isn't one.

Uh, did you forget Occams Razor?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Alzael on January 20, 2012, 04:26:57 PM
I agree with everything else, but not sure about this.  Objective (if we're in agreement as to its meaning) is something that is what it is, regardles or anyone's opinion about it.  I think it quite conceivable that there could be an objective morality - "this is right" - even though nobody could agree on what it is, or even recognise it when they saw it. 

It may be that due to our own subjectivity we may never be able to establish what the objective morality is, but I'm not sure that means there isn't one.

Note the bold. At this point the concept is effectively meaningless and beneath consideration then, isn't it?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on January 20, 2012, 05:26:59 PM
I think god keeps "objective morality" in the lower left hand drawer of his desk.

While the rational people can agree that killing people is a bad thing since we only have the one life, I don't think that anyone (sane) would complain if we kill the mass murderers - whether the mass murderer is atheist (if any really exist), theist or other (they think of themselves as god). Off hand, I can't think of anything everyone could agree on better than "killing people is bad" and make it prohibited. Yet we can also recognize a type of person (a genocidal maniac) who we will violate that prohibition for.

But that doesn't mean we can't reason out the best set of (subjective) morals to uphold.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on January 20, 2012, 08:45:30 PM
, I don't think that anyone (sane) would complain if we kill the mass murderers

I would and as far as I know I'm sane. I don't care who they are or what they've done. Outside of self defense killing is wrong period.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: joebbowers on January 21, 2012, 12:54:48 AM
, I don't think that anyone (sane) would complain if we kill the mass murderers

I would and as far as I know I'm sane. I don't care who they are or what they've done. Outside of self defense killing is wrong period.

How is killing a mass murderer not self defense?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on January 21, 2012, 01:59:58 AM
I would and as far as I know I'm sane. I don't care who they are or what they've done. Outside of self defense killing is wrong period.

So...you a vegan?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 21, 2012, 02:03:57 AM
How is killing a mass murderer not self defense?

When the mass murderer is already being held in custody, it's not self-defense.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on January 21, 2012, 02:05:13 AM
How is killing a mass murderer not self defense?

I believe it is in society's best interest to remove the influence of mass murderers. I also believe that a painful public execution is the best choice for that type of situation.

A thought is forming in my addled mind.

If it's possible, or becomes possible in the near future, to determine with any certainty that a person in power is headed towards genocidal tendancies...would it not make sense to conduct a preemptive strike?

Edit:

spelling and grammar

Edit:

stupid spell checker.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on January 21, 2012, 02:27:25 AM
Off hand, I can't think of anything everyone could agree on better than "killing people is bad" and make it prohibited.

Fucking babies.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on January 21, 2012, 02:35:07 AM
How is killing a mass murderer not self defense?

When the mass murderer is already being held in custody, it's not self-defense.

Assuming he is in custody. Assuming he will remain in custody. After all, genocidal maniacs have often gathered followers who will do anything to defend/support them - look at Osama Bin Laden.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on January 21, 2012, 02:37:24 AM
Off hand, I can't think of anything everyone could agree on better than "killing people is bad" and make it prohibited.

Fucking babies.

My thoughts didn't go there. My thoughts didn't even go there when I first read your post: I thought you were name-calling. Then I realized the plural didn't work for that.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Anfauglir on January 21, 2012, 03:30:19 AM
I agree with everything else, but not sure about this.  Objective (if we're in agreement as to its meaning) is something that is what it is, regardles or anyone's opinion about it.  I think it quite conceivable that there could be an objective morality - "this is right" - even though nobody could agree on what it is, or even recognise it when they saw it. 

It may be that due to our own subjectivity we may never be able to establish what the objective morality is, but I'm not sure that means there isn't one.

If you can conceive of it, then what might it be?  How might it exist?  Details, Anfauglir.  How is the idea even coherent, aside from stringing the words together?

Note the bold. At this point the concept is effectively meaningless and beneath consideration then, isn't it?

Uh, did you forget Occams Razor?

Ouch!  Triple tagged!  Now I know what the believers feel like!

Maybe I was off base, but I was working from the basis that there may be a moral truth that IS, regardless of whether individuals of groups could agree it.  Certainly most of our morals in the West today would be deemed ridiculous by at least one other culture/time.  So just because we, today, can't see it doesn't necessarily mean it don't exist - though point taken about Occam's Razor.

As to an exmple....tricky, but perhaps "where flies come from" would be a good example?  It is an objective truth that they grow from maggots, but for a long time everyone agreed that they spontaneously appeared - so an objective truth was obscured to everyone. 

I'm not saying that there definitely ARE objective morals that we are just too dumb to see - and I take Al's point that it we can't find them, then there can be no discussion!  So I'd agree that for anyone arguing that there ARE objective moral truths, the onus is very much on them to show that they exist, and set out clearly how they are truly objective.  I did say that I agreed with most of Adz's post, remember!  Just wasn't 100% behind that one little bit!
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Azdgari on January 21, 2012, 04:17:11 AM
Anfauglir, it's not just that there's no evidence for objective morality.  The concept itself is incoherent.  That's why I asked for specifics on how your idea might be real.  Not for specific moral details, but for some sort of explanation of what "objectively right" even means.  In all my time discussing the topic, I've yet to see a coherent description that didn't end up describing subjective morality instead.

On an unrelated note, only included in this post so that I don't make unnecessary extra posts...
Assuming he is in custody. Assuming he will remain in custody. After all, genocidal maniacs have often gathered followers who will do anything to defend/support them - look at Osama Bin Laden.

For those who we think are going to kill again, the solution is simple:  Don't let them out.  For those who have dangerous followers, it makes no sense to martyr them.  I don't think you've thought this through very well.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: ungod on January 21, 2012, 04:40:07 AM
Why can't we psychologically screen the psychopaths who like killing, and give them jobs in slaughterhouses? Wouldn't that reduce the incidence of war?

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Hatter23 on January 21, 2012, 08:57:23 AM
Why can't we psychologically screen the psychopaths who like killing, and give them jobs in slaughterhouses? Wouldn't that reduce the incidence of war?


Slightly, but not by much. Because, for the most part wars are fomented by societal leaders for their own goals. Those that rise to that place in power probably have either enough smarts, money, or connections to avoid/cheat on said test.

A perfect example of this tendency at work is GWB. If it wasn't for his family position, his drug use, going AWOL, string of money losing businesses, and so forth would have marked him as someone you wouldn't want to trust with more responsibility than managing a Wendy's. If he wasn't Republican you would have certainly heard about his incompetence and criminal behavior nightly on Fox. Yet he ends up through slimy and illegal means of his brother messing with the ballot box, becoming President and then being reelected.

If it wasn't being in the U.S.; the story would sound like something straight out of Junta in Central America.

Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: joebbowers on January 21, 2012, 09:27:18 AM
I would and as far as I know I'm sane. I don't care who they are or what they've done. Outside of self defense killing is wrong period.

So...you a vegan?

Plants are alive too.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: joebbowers on January 21, 2012, 09:33:41 AM
Why can't we psychologically screen the psychopaths who like killing, and give them jobs in slaughterhouses? Wouldn't that reduce the incidence of war?

This doesn't really make any sense. People don't just want to kill without a message or a target. Let's say for example Hitler wanting to kill Jews. If you give him a job in a slaughterhouse, how would that satisfy him? The political leaders who start wars typically don't want to get their hands bloody, so that wouldn't work for them. Religious leaders who incite wars believe their God wants the other guys dead, so it wouldn't work for them either.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on January 21, 2012, 11:47:42 AM
, I don't think that anyone (sane) would complain if we kill the mass murderers

I would and as far as I know I'm sane. I don't care who they are or what they've done. Outside of self defense killing is wrong period.

How is killing a mass murderer not self defense?

How is putting a mass murderer in prison not self defence? We are talking about after the act. Killing a killer is not a moral act regardless of how much judicial dressing up you may wish to give it. 

For those of you who appear to be worrying about animals and plants. We are talking about human life here so I will ignore such comments.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 21, 2012, 01:14:55 PM
Frank Frank Frank,,,,,,how are you better than a dolphin or a whale,how is your life more important to anybody outside your circles of friends and family?. How bout that tree? If you look closley at that tree,it has a blood stream breathes CO2,heals itselfs when it is injured.

 4000 children starve to death every hour of every day that's 4000X24  EVERY day,you concerned about a murderer being put to death .....how bout the kids who committed NO crime and were just born in the wrong place?

 You are sounding like a THEIST. Fuck the animals and the plants(without them there is NO survival) but lets let a mass murderer live because human life is precious. Would you have killed Hitler?Stalin?,Kim-Jon? or is prison good enough? Where do you live,USA? how bout the blood and bones of the Aboriginal people you walk over almost everyday?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on January 21, 2012, 02:07:01 PM
 author=12 Monkeys link=topic=21064.msg472699#msg472699 date=1327169695]
Quote
Frank Frank Frank,,,,,,how are you better than a dolphin or a whale,how is your life more important to anybody outside your circles of friends and family?. How bout that tree? If you look closley at that tree,it has a blood stream breathes CO2,heals itselfs when it is injured.

I don't remember saying I am better than a whale or a dolphin (although I am). If you wish to discuss the merits of animals compared to humans I suggest you start a thread about it.

Quote
4000 children starve to death every hour of every day that's 4000X24  EVERY day,you concerned about a murderer being put to death .....how bout the kids who committed NO crime and were just born in the wrong place?

Well how does killing or not killing a murderer help them?

Quote

 Would you have killed Hitler?Stalin?,Kim-Jon? or is prison good enough? Where do you live,USA? how bout the blood and bones of the Aboriginal people you walk over almost everyday?

No I would not.  The international court for war crimes is presently trying several ex-leaders for appalling acts of mass murder but there is no capital punishement if found guilty. So it would appear my view is prevailing. I live in the UK.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 22, 2012, 02:33:08 AM
AHHH the UK the mass murder originator

 The place where the murderers of Aboriginal people originated.....the place that now has a problem with Muslims taking over the place.

 I hate Europeans,but I hate the British EVEN more These FUCKERS are the worst. The original colonizers of North America and the world,where GENOCIDE starts

 Do your research,you are equal or less to a dolphin or whale
 
 What are YOU doing to make a difference for the starving of the world...if nothing you are NO better than a homicidal maniac

 Would you Stop Hitler Stalin or Pol Pot before they reached the million kill mark?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Samothec on January 22, 2012, 04:07:08 AM
Assuming he is in custody. Assuming he will remain in custody. After all, genocidal maniacs have often gathered followers who will do anything to defend/support them - look at Osama Bin Laden.
For those who we think are going to kill again, the solution is simple:  Don't let them out.  For those who have dangerous followers, it makes no sense to martyr them.  I don't think you've thought this through very well.
You are correct, I didn't. My original point was that even a moral almost everyone could probably agree upon, "killing is wrong", would potentially have exceptions and I threw one out there off the top of my head.

As for martyring a genocidal maniac - who says his followers are told he's actually dead? If he's proven to be dangerous and resourceful enough that even imprisonment would be dangerous, you kill him quietly, bury him in an unmarked potter's field and claim you've got him in solitary. Years later you start saying he's ill and eventually he "passes away from natural causes". As one possible solution.

Why can't we psychologically screen the psychopaths who like killing, and give them jobs in slaughterhouses? Wouldn't that reduce the incidence of war?
It probably wouldn't reduce the incidence of war but would potentially reduce the incidence of other killings – if their work in the slaughterhouse satisfied their blood lust.

Since serial killers and other psychopaths can behave themselves at least part of the time, if we do develop reliable enough testing to know who they are, why not train them to be military or police? Right now criminals don't respect the police in part because they know the police are going to go out of their way to arrest even the lowest, most vile piece of crap on the street rather than shoot them. If they know the police employ psychopaths who behave themselves only with law-abiding citizens and have been trained in what is acceptable with specific levels of criminal behavior, I think there would be less crime and more criminals would surrender easier when caught. Knowing that the psychopath cop is waiting for the criminal to pull a gun and watching, hoping for it, that will change the police/criminal dynamic. Hopefully for the better.

Yes, I am a fan of the heart-warming tale of a family man just trying to make his way in a world that doesn't understand him – the blood spatter analyst by day and hero by night, Dexter. I enjoy both the books and the Showtime series.

Slightly, but not by much. Because, for the most part wars are fomented by societal leaders for their own goals. Those that rise to that place in power probably have either enough smarts, money, or connections to avoid/cheat on said test.
A perfect example of this tendency at work is GWB. If it wasn't for his family position, his drug use, going AWOL, string of money losing businesses, and so forth would have marked him as someone you wouldn't want to trust with more responsibility than managing a Wendy's. If he wasn't Republican you would have certainly heard about his incompetence and criminal behavior nightly on Fox. Yet he ends up through slimy and illegal means of his brother messing with the ballot box, becoming President and then being reelected.
If it wasn't being in the U.S.; the story would sound like something straight out of Junta in Central America.
Or from the pages of the Onion.

I read the book The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson. He points out that some CEOs are psychopaths. If he/she has bought, gutted and sold the remains of a company you're probably looking at a psychopath. Although a few were hired to do the gutting of a company for someone else. Mr Ronson interviewed someone who he gave the test to surreptitiously during the interview. The man had enough of an ego (a common failing among them) that he saw the detrimental aspects he was questioned on and twisted them into virtues.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Frank on January 22, 2012, 02:15:54 PM
AHHH the UK the mass murder originator

 The place where the murderers of Aboriginal people originated.....the place that now has a problem with Muslims taking over the place.

 I hate Europeans,but I hate the British EVEN more These FUCKERS are the worst. The original colonizers of North America and the world,where GENOCIDE starts

 Do your research,you are equal or less to a dolphin or whale
 
 What are YOU doing to make a difference for the starving of the world...if nothing you are NO better than a homicidal maniac

 Would you Stop Hitler Stalin or Pol Pot before they reached the million kill mark?

I think you'll find us brits barely touched the Americas. The French and Spanish appear to have been far more successful than us so I suggest you save your vitriol for them. The rest is just a silly rant and I don't see any reason why I should give you any further opportunities to vent your spleen.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Colonization_of_the_Americas_1750.PNG) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Nouvelle-France_map-en.svg)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 22, 2012, 02:52:34 PM
woooooo you put on a graph,,,,that makes it true
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 22, 2012, 03:12:45 PM
Lets look at this,Canada-colonized by Britian,India-colonized by Britian,parts of China-colonized by Britian,Australia-colonized by Britian,as a prison no less,America,colonized by Britian,until the revolution

 These colinized coutries I remind you had the Queen  as their head of state,some still do,others have been given up.....to be explored by a particular group is one thing to be COLONIZED by a group is something completley different
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Alzael on January 22, 2012, 05:13:48 PM
Lets look at this,Canada-colonized by Britian

Actually colonized by Britain and France. The French were then booted out by the British.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 22, 2012, 05:27:56 PM
Lets look at this,Canada-colonized by Britian

Actually colonized by Britain and France. The French were then booted out by the British.
Colonized ......the Queen is on our money....the British won....the French are still a pain in the English ass here in Canada

 BTW I forgot to mention Ireland and Scotland as others COLONIZED by the Brits
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Alzael on January 22, 2012, 05:49:18 PM
Colonized ......the Queen is on our money....the British won....the French are still a pain in the English ass here in Canada


That's debatable. The french aren't really any worse than most of the other provinces and groups here. It's the downside into forming a country by legislation and treaty rather than by conquest.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 22, 2012, 05:57:41 PM
I meant politically,they are a pain in the English ass.


 The Canadian Government has on signed a handfull of treaties,,,,my people are still waiting
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: joebbowers on February 02, 2012, 10:41:09 AM
A great example of a thread derailed by off-topic crap.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: MadBunny on February 02, 2012, 03:54:50 PM
A great example of a thread derailed by off-topic crap.

Meh.  As a topic it comes up every now and then and tends to be quickly shot down.
There really are not any examples of mass murder and genocide being committed in the name of 'atheism'.

No real surprise then that it didn't stick very long.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: nogodsforme on February 02, 2012, 04:22:48 PM
Lets look at this,Canada-colonized by Britian

Actually colonized by Britain and France. The French were then booted out by the British.
Colonized ......the Queen is on our money....the British won....the French are still a pain in the English ass here in Canada

 BTW I forgot to mention Ireland and Scotland as others COLONIZED by the Brits

It's hard to deny that the British were the world's best colonizers. They owned 25% of the entire planet by WWI. Pretty damn amazing for a handful of pale, inbred, egotistical boat people from some cold, gray little islands.

Besides the destruction of indigenous communities in India, Africa and Australia, Brits are to blame for inventing the concentration camp during the Boer War, and for creating the mess that is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Hail, Britannia. They were pretty religious, too, btw. :P
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Anfauglir on February 03, 2012, 06:14:49 AM
It's hard to deny that the British were the world's best colonizers. They owned 25% of the entire planet by WWI. Pretty damn amazing....

Yay us!  Yay us!  Yay us!

....for a handful of pale, inbred, egotistical boat people from some cold, gray little islands.

Yay us!  Yay....what? 

Besides the destruction of indigenous communities in India, Africa and Australia, Brits are to blame for inventing the concentration camp during the Boer War, and for creating the mess that is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

I'll get me coat.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: One Above All on February 03, 2012, 08:18:22 AM
It's hard to deny that the British were the world's best colonizers. They owned 25% of the entire planet by WWI. Pretty damn amazing....

Yay us!  Yay us!  Yay us!

*Cough*PortuguesepeopledividedthewholeworldwiththeSpanish,effectivelyowning50%ofitbeforetheUKevenstartedcolonizing*Cough*
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: nogodsforme on February 03, 2012, 03:47:40 PM
It's hard to deny that the British were the world's best colonizers. They owned 25% of the entire planet by WWI. Pretty damn amazing....

Yay us!  Yay us!  Yay us!

*Cough*PortuguesepeopledividedthewholeworldwiththeSpanish,effectivelyowning50%ofitbeforetheUKevenstartedcolonizing*Cough*

Yes, the Treaty of Tordesillas,  but did they hev a fleg? (Eddie Izzard ref.)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: architect on February 11, 2012, 06:36:17 PM
ever heard of the crusades? knights in armor killing and pillaging in the name of god?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: theFLEW on February 11, 2012, 07:25:14 PM
OK, I simply had to read the first few posts of this topic to understand that it would spiral hopelessly out of control.  He's a "crazy" fact for you, if you as a Christian assume that God truly has the power over life and death, then God takes the life of over 50 million people EVERY SINGLE DAY!  I say this, as a Christian, to point out that the argument isn't truly "who's killed more people", but instead "where does authority to take life come from?"  Do I have a right?  Do you?  Did Pol Pot?  Does God?  Why are these lives taken to begin with?  Is there justification?  Anyways, just pointing out that these types of posts NEVER end well, trust me, I've been there ;)
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: naemhni on February 11, 2012, 07:57:53 PM
I say this, as a Christian, to point out that the argument isn't truly "who's killed more people", but instead "where does authority to take life come from?"

I think that most human beings with an ethical standard, regardless of their religious beliefs, would agree that that's a fair question.

Quote
Do I have a right?

Under certain circumstances, yes.

Quote
Do you?

Same answer.

Quote
Did Pol Pot?

Originally, he did.  However, he later forfeited that right as a result of his own behavior.  (q.v., the right to vote)

Quote
Does God?

Before asking whether Yahweh has any rights, it must first be established whether he exists.  Unless you want to debate the matter in a purely speculative "in universe" sense (e.g., "Did Han have the right to shoot first?")

Quote
Why are these lives taken to begin with?

Question too broad to be answered; which lives are taken would need to be specified before a response may be possible.
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: Alzael on February 11, 2012, 08:05:50 PM
OK, I simply had to read the first few posts of this topic to understand that it would spiral hopelessly out of control.  He's a "crazy" fact for you, if you as a Christian assume that God truly has the power over life and death, then God takes the life of over 50 million people EVERY SINGLE DAY!  I say this, as a Christian, to point out that the argument isn't truly "who's killed more people", but instead "where does authority to take life come from?"  Do I have a right?  Do you?  Did Pol Pot?  Does God?  Why are these lives taken to begin with?  Is there justification?  Anyways, just pointing out that these types of posts NEVER end well, trust me, I've been there ;)

I see you're still as vapid and shallow as ever NTS, or Flew, or whatever name you choose to use.

This is the one thing I've never understood about you. If you're not going to even bother putting the slightest bit of thought into what you're going to say or into the topic, (not to mention that you're completely intellectually unprepared to even begin an actual discussion with everyone here) why bother even posting it in the first place?
Title: Re: ATHEISTS who have committed mass murders and genocide in the 20th century
Post by: theFLEW on February 12, 2012, 01:38:35 AM
In both cases, after a rather massive hiatus (both times due to school), I find time to post, and thus, I do.  In the case of the former name, I don't remember the exact reason why a had to make a new name, I was either moderated to an insurmountable nth degree from posting, or I simply couldn't wade through the mass of then and now dead topics.  I think it was like half a year ago?  At any rate, I digress.  I'm going to be more choosing in what type of "debates" I willingly (or not so willingly) get myself into ;) So....that's the situation, take it or leave it, I'm fine with whatever the decision ultimately is.

I would just point out that I do not think one should think so superficially (yes, at times rudely) of another's intellectual level on these boards.  The inherent problem we all face on these boards is that it is immensely easy to say something, and by extension, to make judgements on someone, who is not in the same room, sharing the same space as