Do you believe in God?

[Dondrei]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Ah, but both are you are forgetting that omniscience is an attribute of God for most people in the United States. If you are a true believer, then you know you WILL be punished for your transgressions no matter if no one else knows you did them and no matter how insulated you are from the wrath of others or the authorities.

You don't seriously think that someone about to commit an act of senseless violence or cruelty stops before they do and rationally weighs up the consequences of their actions, whereupon they realize that what they're about to do could cause them to be punished decades into the future in some metaphysical land no-one has ever seen, and then suddenly think "goodness me, what a terrible choice I'm making! I'm going to set my life back on the straight and narrow!", do you?

I believe that there is. The recent track record of atheistic governments (as opposed to secular governments) reveals a high level of inhumane treatment of at least some of the people they govern. How many people died under the regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.?

Oh, please.

Even conservative estimates have his regime killing 20 million people during that time.

No, that's the exact opposite of a conservative estimate, that's the high estimate. Generally it's 5-10 million, plus another 8 or so if you include people dying in famines.

How many died in the Crusades? 9 million? And this was back when the world's population was a fraction of what it was during WWII. I mean, what was it, less than 500 million?

Anyway, stupid line of argument, the regimes you mention are ideologies which claim to have all the answers, set out strict principles by which every aspect of people's lives should be governed, demand uniformity of belief and attempt to annihilate all competition. This sort of virulent ideology is indistinguishable from a religion, whether or not they have a god is a triviality.

Religion is a subset of ideology and it is from there that all of these problems truly arise.

 

[Lynchgrinch]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Is anyone else around here a mormon. i am, and it seems theres a lack of others around here.

c'mon if there are others round here im starting to get a bit lonely lol.

 

[Nazdakka]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Nations who enforce a given spiritual position on their populations generally don't have great human rights records, regardless of what that position is.

 

[KillerAim]

Re: Do you believe in God?

PFSS

I agree that societies that suppress religion tend to be ****ty places to live, but I don't think that is because the people suppressing are atheists but because they are bad people who see religion as a threat to their power. And as history, and modern day examples, show - you can still have bad people who are religious and religious people who do bad things.

Then it looks like we agree on my basic point; that religion acts as counter power base that helps to minimize the totalitarian tendencies of governments. I really don't see any merit in a continued discussion of how religious atrocities in the past compare to atheistic societies' atrocities in the near past except to mention one thing. The atrocities done that can be directly attributed to religious societies in the past occurred when much of Western civilization was ruled by virtual theocracies. So if what you are trying to say is that societies where religion is in sole charge are as dangerous to personal liberty as societies where a Government is in sole charge, then I am in total agreement.

- - -

Dondrei:

You don't seriously think that someone about to commit an act of senseless violence or cruelty stops before they do and rationally weighs up the consequences of their actions, whereupon they realize that what they're about to do could cause them to be punished decades into the future in some metaphysical land no-one has ever seen, and then suddenly think "goodness me, what a terrible choice I'm making! I'm going to set my life back on the straight and narrow!", do you?

I don't know, do you believe that the threat of prison or capital punishment stops at least some people from doing violent acts? If not, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. If so, then you'll have to explain how a person will refrain from doing a violent act because he knows that there is a chance that he will get caught by the authorities and punished, while a true believer will not refrain from doing the same violent act when he 'knows' that he will be punished for it in the future. Please note that I am talking about true believers, not about people who are religious in name only.

Oh, please.

Typical non-responsive Dondrei retort. What purpose does saying you disagree with someone else do if you don't explain and support your reasons for disagreeing? Do you really believe that just the fact that you state an opinion in anyway gives that opinion credence or in anyway rebuts the other point of view? (Well, at least you didn't resort to childish name-calling.) :thumbup:

No, that's the exact opposite of a conservative estimate, that's the high estimate. Generally it's 5-10 million, plus another 8 or so if you include people dying in famines.

Did you actually read the article I cited? From it:

Here are a few illustrative estimates from the Big Numbers school:
Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these: Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s.

Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin.

Gold, John.: 50-60 million.

Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939.

Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into:
1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
1939-45: 18,157,000
1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine

William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and Eastern Europe: 50M+

Wallechinsky: 13M (1930-32) + 7M (1934-38)

Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million.

Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: 60 million.

MEDIAN: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during the 1930s.

The author further states how he derived his 20 million number.

Although it's too early to be taking sides with absolute certainty, a consensus seems to be forming around a death toll of 20 million. This would adequately account for all documented nastiness without straining credulity.

You will notice that the 20 million mentioned by the historians the author listed directly below this comment almost always is their low estimate; thus, my use of the term 'conservative'.

How many died in the Crusades? 9 million?

Well, the vast majority of sites I visited said that there is no reliable sources that exist to come up with any credible number of people that died during the crusades. So, how did you come up with that number? Remember, also that Stalin was in power for only around 30 years while the crusades lasted for around 200 years.

Anyway, stupid line of argument, the regimes you mention are ideologies which claim to have all the answers, set out strict principles by which every aspect of people's lives should be governed, demand uniformity of belief and attempt to annihilate all competition. This sort of virulent ideology is indistinguishable from a religion, whether or not they have a god is a triviality.

Religion is a subset of ideology and it is from there that all of these problems truly arise.

There is nothing wrong with private organizations that claim to have all the answers. As long as they cannot force people to join and they cannot force their beliefs on others, then who cares? The Government, however, is a totally different kettle of fish.

Oh, by the way, using you're definition, I would define Al Gore and his ilk as people who "claim to have all the answers, set out strict principles by which every aspect of people's lives should be governed, demand uniformity of belief and attempt to annihilate all competition."

 

[Johnny]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Being atheist had nothing to do with Stalin killing a lot of people. He did it because he was paranoid.

But being a cold war baby you just can't let go of the red fear can you?

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Being atheist had nothing to do with Stalin killing a lot of people. He did it because he was paranoid.

Being Christian had nothing to do with The Crusades killing a lot of people. The pope needed to preserve his tax base and cement his position against other christian leaders, and got more than he bargained for. It was fundamentally political, not religious.

Pretty much every war is motivated by money. Its just that here in the beating west we want to disguise our avarice with moral causes like bringing in democracy, saving the holy hand, change we can believe in, and so on.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Being Christian had nothing to do with The Crusades killing a lot of people.

Which is Dondrei's whole point in the first place. people argue that atheist leaderships are bad because they kill a lot of people with no religious morals guiding them. Meanwhile Dondrei argues that even with religious morals to guide them leaderships still kill people and so it has more to do with leaderships wanting to push their beliefs on the people regardless of ideology. "KillerAim" then wants to counter this by proclaiming that the evil commies killed a whole lot of people and the crusaders killed just somewhat whole lot of people.

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Atheist, and theistic countries are both bad. Let's agree on this point. Secular government is the way to go.

Now, that isn't to say that if the overwhelming majority want to pass laws based on their particular religion that a secular government has to ignore it. The difference is it's the entire country that sets the tone in a secular government, not one or two unchecked individuals.

So when the majority of people in the US want the words "under God" in their pledge, if the government removes them simply to avoid religion, that puts them in with the atheistic governments.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Do you believe in God?

So when the majority of people in the US want the words "under God" in their pledge, if the government removes them simply to avoid religion, that puts them in with the atheistic governments.

How so? Either the government must cater to a particular religion, or it's an atheistic dictatorship?

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Do you believe in God?

The government must do what the majority of its citizens want. To go against the majority and the sole reason is "religion", that makes it either an atheistic government, or a theocratic government - depending on the direction it's taking.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Do you believe in God?

The government must do what the majority of its citizens want. To go against the majority and the sole reason is "religion", that makes it either an atheistic government, or a theocratic government - depending on the direction it's taking.

Cool. We should have had a vote on topless fridays then back in the 1800 when women couldn't vote and we could all watch boobs on fridays.

or we could go ahead today and vote black people back into slavery. We could combine it with lowered taxes and call it the "free work and lower taxes bill"

2 wolves and a sheep cant vote on what's for dinner

 

[stephan]

Re: Do you believe in God?

The government must do what the majority of its citizens want. To go against the majority and the sole reason is "religion", that makes it either an atheistic government, or a theocratic government - depending on the direction it's taking.

Not catering to specific religions is exactly what a secular government should do, even if that religion belongs to the majority. And no, a goverment must not always do what the majority wants. Your country is not the well known dictatorship of majority.

I'm not really familiar with the pledge and the "under God" discussion, but if the pledge is an official state ceremony and the "under God" would be a required part, then a secular government would have to rule against it, as having those words in there is catering to a specific religion. That goes against the very meaning of the word 'secular'.

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Ok, I'll bite. If a secular government comes down against religion every time, how does that differ from an atheist government?

And Johnny - you can't use "we" when referring to America and its history or policies.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Do you believe in God?

And Johnny - you can't use "we" when referring to America and its history or policies.

So your idea that a majority vote should rule only applies to the united states and everywhere else it would be wrong?

 

[KillerAim]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Johnny:

Being atheist had nothing to do with Stalin killing a lot of people. He did it because he was paranoid.

It doesn't matter whether or not Stalin was atheistic. What mattered was that the Government under Stalin was atheistic to the point that it suppressed religion. Throughout history, there has been two basic sources of a society's moral code: civil law and religion. The problem occurs in societies where only one source is allowed to exist.

But being a cold war baby you just can't let go of the red fear can you?

Nope. Not with the track records of communistic societies.

Which is Dondrei's whole point in the first place.

Nope. This whole aspect of the discussion started when Dondrei extolled the potential benefits of a society in which religion doesn't exist:

Also [a belief in life after death with consequences for actions taken in this life] kind of encourages complacency though. If you believe that this is all there is and you don't get second chances, pre-established meanings to everything or magical help via prayer then you're strongly motivated to make your life count, treasure what you have while you have it and do things for yourself.

Not to mention find/make a meaning to it all for yourself. Instead of thinking life is one giant surprise party where any minute everyone's going to spring up from behind the furniture and it'll all be explained to you.

I responded that such a belief (err, non-belief?) could lead to the attitude that Might makes Right with the only thing preventing someone from doing evil is his fear of getting caught and punished. I then mentioned that such attitudes in recent history tend to support my position over his. After that, the discussion took off.

- - -

Tanooki:

So when the majority of people in the US want the words "under God" in their pledge, if the government removes them simply to avoid religion, that puts them in with the atheistic governments.

I can't support you on this statement. Substitute the phrase "under Jesus Christ" for "under God"; would you still believe the same?


stephan :

I'm not really familiar with the pledge and the "under God" discussion, but if the pledge is an official state ceremony and the "under God" would be a required part, then a secular government would have to rule against it, as having those words in there is catering to a specific religion. That goes against the very meaning of the word 'secular'.

How is the term 'under God' referring to a specific religion?

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Do you believe in God?

If a vast majority of Americans want "under Jesus Christ" then it should be thus. If, later on, a vast majority want to drop the "under [insert name here]" line, then it should be dropped. That's how a democracy works.

The problem is we added "under God" when a vast majority wanted it, and now there's a vocal minority who object - but they aren't a vast majority YET. Once they are, the words ought to be dropped.

 

[PFSS]

Re: Do you believe in God?

It doesn't matter whether or not Stalin was atheistic. What mattered was that the Government under Stalin was atheistic to the point that it suppressed religion. Throughout history, there has been two basic sources of a society's moral code: civil law and religion. The problem occurs in societies where only one source is allowed to exist.

I think a fuller description of what you are saying is that societies with a religious/moral code that is rigorously enforced where dissenting views are brutally crushed tend to be ****ty places to live. It's not a lack of a belief in God that drive these societies to do terrible things but a lack of tolerance for any other belief system - something that religious societies are more than capable of.

Ok, I'll bite. If a secular government comes down against religion every time, how does that differ from an atheist government?

There is a BIG difference between a government coming down on religion in government and a government coming down on religion in peoples lives. When you have a government basing laws on religion, then enforcing those laws on people who do not believe in that religion, then you have a theocracy.

 

[Dondrei]

Re: Do you believe in God?

In reality, the Purge and the Crusades and pretty much all of those internecine bloodbaths in history are examples of the same thing, consolidation of power by a nervous ruling class. But since we're talking about this in a fairly superficial manner I'd like to point out that the Crusaders explicitly used religion as a justification, but Stalin never said they had to invade foreign countries and wipe out the heathen deists. His justification was the spread of a political and economic system, not a system of religious belief.

It doesn't matter whether or not Stalin was atheistic. What mattered was that the Government under Stalin was atheistic to the point that it suppressed religion. Throughout history, there has been two basic sources of a society's moral code: civil law and religion. The problem occurs in societies where only one source is allowed to exist.

The problem occurs when any society attempts to exterminate a school of thought; religious, secular or otherwise.

Nope. This whole aspect of the discussion started when Dondrei extolled the potential benefits of a society in which religion doesn't exist:

Never mentioned anything about society or compulsion of belief. I highlighted the personal virtues of a lack of belief in certain kinds of afterlives and/or deities. To an individual, if it's what they choose to believe.

 

[stephan]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Ok, I'll bite. If a secular government comes down against religion every time, how does that differ from an atheist government?

Making a pledge secular, and meaningful to *all* the members of your country is not 'coming down on religion'. I think you should look up the meaning of secular. Learn about modern democracy too if you can. I don't think you understand it quite yet.

:
How is the term 'under God' referring to a specific religion?

You are going to deny that 'God' is generally used to refer to the (Judeo/)Christian god? I don't know any muslims that don't refer to their god as 'Allah'. Even if they would accept it, and I'm not arguing they wouldn't, it caters at least specificly to monotheistic religions. Why should a person that doesn't believe in one God (that could be one less, or a few more) be forced to say something like that?

If in the pledge the words 'under ...' were optional and open to the interpretation of the individual then it would be no problem. Making it required and 'under God' for everyone, and you are not a secular government anymore. You are force-feeding religion.

 

[Dondrei]

Re: Do you believe in God?

The term "under God" at the very least refers to a specific class of religions, and explicitly excludes a vast array of them.