Athiesm, Punishment and Killing

[S.A.M.]

Umm, no - that's not what I've said.
Again, not at all.

Try harder.

Its pretty clear

This god has sanctioned the slaughter of others on countless ocassions. As long as you believe in such an entity you can be motivated by the belief in it to slaughter people.

So if such a believer kills someone and one finds that killing under the circumstances he faced is sanctioned by his God, he is clearly motivated by his belief.

Now if he were an unbeliever who killed in the very same situation, its a personality defect.

 

[Michael]

Believing in one God constitutes theism - more specifically, monotheism. Not atheism.

I think this is part of the problem.

Anyway, a man who catches his wife cheating and kills the other guy certainly didn't kill because of religion.

BUT, some people do kill because of religion.

If that's the case, then his teachings aren't very practical or applicable to the standards of reality.

OR... maybe ... just maybe spending a few years in quite meditative contemplation gave him a little more insight into things.

That's not true at all. Muslims who are knowledgeable about their religion agree to its standards. It's the politicians who can never agree to anything.

I noticed you qualified your statement with knowledgeable about their religion. What SAM isn't knowledgeable about her religion? Come on. The truth is peering into the mud and decoding the Qur'anic-entanglements out of the murky Quranic-flux is impossible.

OK, think about it like this:
You say that the Qur'an is "Perfect" and that the only reason two people can't agree is because they are not "knowledgeable about their religion". Well Kadark, it's seems silly to me to suggest that the Buddhas "teachings aren't very practical or applicable to the standards of reality" and yet accept that most Muslims can't agree to what the Qur'an says because they haven't studied it well enough? Anyone that's not Muslim can see the statement is oxymoronic.

Obviously the Qur'an is not very practical or applicable to the standards of reality if two educated people can't open it up and at least agree on something as simple as when it's OK to kill and when it's not OK to kill.

What does this suggest?
Michael

 

[spidergoat]

In governments, intolerance of atheists appears to be a recurrent theme.

Yes. Polytheists don't have as much of a problem. I suppose if you have accepted many beings or spirits, different numbers of them aren't as much of a cognitive leap. That is probably why monotheism rose and conquered our mind-space. One God is a jealous God. He (why is it always a he?) gave the people justification for religious war.

 

[SnakeLord]

Its pretty clear

Apparently not and for that I apologise. I shall try to rephrase this..

One does not, and surely cannot, kill for a lack of belief. I think we will most likely agree that one can only kill for a belief. If we agree to this then in and of itself atheism cannot be a motivator for slaughter because it is, (although theists rarely understand it), a lack of belief, not a belief in.

So..

Exodus 32:27 ‘He said to them, ‘Yahweh, god of Israel, says this, “Buckle on your sword, each of you, and go up and down the camp from gate to gate, every man of you slaughtering brother, friend and neighbour,”‘

Whether this god ultimately exists or not is not the issue, what is the issue is that these people had a belief that he did and that he sanctioned the slaughter of many people. This slaughter can therefore be directly attributed to the order of or belief in a certain sky entity.

Now, it could be said that it is because of his atheism that a man goes around killing theists, but the direct cause would be his belief that theists are assholes, not his disbelief in sky beings. You would then try and work out where that hatred for theists comes from but you wont find it stems from the fact that he doesn't believe in gods unless you are willing to claim that Stalin etc killed people because he didn't believe in the Flying spaghetti monster.

You will ultimately find that the attributable cause is far removed from his atheism, (in the case of Stalin etc it would be a belief in communism). Lack of belief in something cannot be a direct cause.

Any better? Sorry, it's late

 

[S.A.M.]

Obviously the Qur'an is not very practical or applicable to the standards of reality if two educated people can't open it up and at least agree on something as simple as when it's OK to kill and when it's not OK to kill.

You're assuming that the Quran is some kind of static decree frozen in time.

No religion can be static and cater to the needs of society.

What the Quran is, is a guideline. If you follow its philosophy in entirety, there is very little dissent between Muslims. Its why there has never been a split in the religion even though there are numerous numerous sects. Because scholars agree on one thing and that is if there is a consensus between a group and it fulfils the requirements of scholarship (ie prededent in the values of the Quran), then there is no reason people should not be allowed to follow it. In other words, there are four Madhabs in Sunnis and God knows how many in the Shias, but they are all acceptable if that is what the people want.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes. Polytheists don't have as much of a problem. I suppose if you have accepted many beings or spirits, different numbers of them aren't as much of a cognitive leap. That is probably why monotheism rose and conquered our mind-space. One God is a jealous God. He (why is it always a he?) gave the people justification for religious war.

What polythiests?

 

[Kadark]

I think this is part of the problem.

Anyway, a man who catches his wife cheating and kills the other guy certainly didn't kill because of religion.

BUT, some people do kill because of religion.

Those events are few and far between. They tend to get lost in the shuffle, considering most of the killings in history have been committed for some type of power struggle.

OR... maybe ... just maybe spending a few years in quite meditative contemplation gave him a little more insight into things.

I don't care if he would have meditated until he died. His solutions are impractical. I don't care if killing is prohibited by Buddha - if I'm a Buddhist, and somebody is out to kill me, then I'll be damned if I don't try to kill them first.

I noticed you qualified your statement with knowledgeable about their religion. What SAM isn't knowledgeable about her religion? Come on. The truth is peering into the mud and decoding the Qur'anic-entanglements out of the murky Quranic-flux is impossible.

I didn't say she wasn't knowledgeable. We simply have different interpretations of certain things - most of them stemming from our cultural differences. I'm pretty sure we can agree that direct threats to you or your loved ones' lives, or living under oppression, warrant the permission to fight.

OK, think about it like this:
You say that the Qur'an is "Perfect" and that the only reason two people can't agree is because their are not "knowledgeable about their religion". Well Kadark, it's seems silly to me to suggest that the Buddhas "teachings aren't very practical or applicable to the standards of reality" and yet accept that most Muslims can't agree to what the Qur'an says because they haven't studied it well enough? Anyone that's not Muslim can see the statement is oxymoronic.

Muslims believe in the concept of self-defense. According to you, Buddha forbade violence under any and all circumstances. To me, the former is more practical and suitable to everyday life. There may be minor discrepancies between Muslims, but it is known by all of us that killing is allowed when innocent lives depend on it.

Obviously the Qur'an is not very practical or applicable to the standards of reality if two educated people can't open it up and at least agree on something as simple as when it's OK to kill and when it's not OK to kill.

We do agree on that.

 

[S.A.M.]

Now, it could be said that it is because of his atheism that a man goes around killing theists, but the direct cause would be his belief that theists are assholes, not his disbelief in sky beings. You would then try and work out where that hatred for theists comes from but you wont find it stems from the fact that he doesn't believe in gods unless you are willing to claim that Stalin etc killed people because he didn't believe in the Flying spaghetti monster.

You will ultimately find that the attributable cause is far removed from his atheism, (in the case of Stalin etc it would be a belief in communism). Lack of belief in something cannot be a direct cause.

Any better? Sorry, it's late

Unless of course, the lack of belief itself is a belief. The term lack of belief assumes a void where nothing exists. What is the status of atheists in this regard?

What do you suppose those atheists who were shooting 1000 people a day were thinking of?

 

[SnakeLord]

What do you suppose those atheists who were shooting 1000 people a day were thinking of?

Communism.. or their lack of belief in Marduk perhaps..

 

[spidergoat]

What polythiests?

Like the Japanese.

 

[S.A.M.]

Communism.. or their lack of belief in Marduk perhaps..

Ah so when they were shooting monks/priests/nuns/Jews/gypsies/untermenschen etc, when they were distributing pamphlets about the evils of religion and the scientific superiority of godlessness, they were not doing it because they were eugenicist atheists, but because it was in the name of communism. But communism is not a religion, its an ideology about a socio-political system. So you would expect to find several communists doing the shooting who were not atheists, who were deeply religious, in fact. Is that right? Maybe Muslims, Jews, Catholics? Some priests and nuns too?

 

[iceaura]

"Chinese punishment hasn't changed too much since ancient times, thus their famous cruelty is a cultural phenomenon, not a religious one"
Before: - - -
- --
After: - - -
- - - -

You are comparing atheistic and theistic rulers and regimes before, with an officially atheistic regime after. Some persectued religions, some didn't. Some of the religious ones persecuted other religions, some didn't.

The recent officially atheistic one has persecuted atheistic religions as well as theistic ones, showing that its concern has not been with theism per se.

Likewise with Stalin, who persecuted all religions regardless of theistic stance.

The hostility of Communist (modern wave, capital C) government to established religions is one of the indicators that it is a religion itself - the hostility of religions toward rival religions, even rival sects of the same religion, is legendary. There is no need to distinguish atheistic from theistic religions in this context - Hoffer's " The True Believer" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer does not distinguish even nominal "religion" from other essentially identical belief systems.

Since power normally employs religion (and theistic religion is most useful), revolts against tyranny commonly employ rival religions, with strong hostility toward the oppressive one. And revolts against tyranny commonly involve extreme violence and persecution of the agents of that tyranny. Institutionalized theism has been the right hand of tyranny for thousands of years now - are revolts against it so mysterious ? Or the violence they commonly employ ?

If Stalin was brought up as a theist, does that make his atheism more prone to violence somehow?

He was brought up under theistic tyranny - quite brutal theistic tyranny. And he was trained in the use of religious justification for brutality. So - - - -

In governments, intolerance of atheists appears to be a recurrent theme.

For a second I misread you as having made a true statement.
In governments, oppression of rival religions is a recurrent theme.

You're assuming that the Quran is some kind of static decree frozen in time.

I'm not. I'm being told, repeatedly and by numerous well-informed and interested people, that my assumption of flexibility and manipulability in the Quran is in error and reveals great disrespect for the last and perfect teaching of Allah.

What do you suppose those atheists who were shooting 1000 people a day were thinking of?

Those probably weren't atheists, SAM. Those were lifelong theists, for the most part, doing the actual shooting - not an easy habit of mind to break, even if you want to. And of course they had a cause, a belief, a higher purpose and goal, that justified the shooting.

 

[S.A.M.]

Like the Japanese.

Uh the Japanese are a pluralistic society?

Have you ever met a Japanese?

 

[S.A.M.]

The recent officially atheistic one has persecuted atheistic religions as well as theistic ones, showing that its concern has not been with theism per se.

Do they believe those religions to be atheistic or are they following your lead?

Likewise with Stalin, who persecuted all religions regardless of theistic stance.

And distributed pamphlets promoting atheism (not Marxism or Leninism or Stalinism, but atheism)

"On Press Day: Long Live the Bolshevik Godless Press!" A Soviet magazine depicts propagandists dropping newspapers, magazines, and pamphlets form an airplane. "Ko dniu pechati," by D. Mel'nikov, in the September 1931 issue of Bezbozhnik u stanka ("The Godless at the Workbench"). Reproduced with kind permission of the Hoover Institution Library​

Can one promote a lack in belief? Is that possible?

The hostility of Communist (modern wave, capital C) government to established religions is one of the indicators that it is a religion itself - the hostility of religions toward rival religions, even rival sects of the same religion, is legendary. There is no need to distinguish atheistic from theistic religions in this context - Hoffer's " The True Believer" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer does not distinguish even nominal "religion" from other essentially identical belief systems.

Exactly, so atheism as a lack in belief is also a belief system. Apparently one can promote godlessness.

Since power normally employs religion (and theistic religion is most useful), revolts against tyranny commonly employ rival religions, with strong hostility toward the oppressive one. And revolts against tyranny commonly involve extreme violence and persecution of the agents of that tyranny. Institutionalized theism has been the right hand of tyranny for thousands of years now - are revolts against it so mysterious ? Or the violence they commonly employ ?

And yet, atheistic demagogues have overtaken all known atrocities by theists. Why?

He was brought up under theistic tyranny - quite brutal theistic tyranny. And he was trained in the use of religious justification for brutality. So - - - -

So were the people he destroyed. However, he believed in the superiority of a godless society which is what set him apart from them.

For a second I misread you as having made a true statement.
In governments, oppression of rival religions is a recurrent theme.

Is it? Do all governments oppress a rival religion?

I'm not. I'm being told, repeatedly and by numerous well-informed and interested people, that my assumption of flexibility and manipulability in the Quran is in error and reveals great disrespect for the last and perfect teaching of Allah.

How do they reconcile the Madhabs and the position of the Islamic scholars in relation to those Madhabs?

Those probably weren't atheists, SAM. Those were lifelong theists, for the most part, doing the actual shooting - not an easy habit of mind to break, even if you want to. And of course they had a cause, a belief, a higher purpose and goal, that justified the shooting.

How do you know what they believed? Did they not do what they did because they all believed in the same godless society? What other motivation did they have for killing hundreds of thousands of people?

 

[Michael]

You're assuming that the Quran is some kind of static decree frozen in time.

It is - hence Islamic Apologists.
(the same is true of the Bible)

Look at your arguments for Good Homosexual Muslims
Look at the apologist reinterpretation of Slavery to mean "volunteering" follower.

Its why there has never been a split in the religion even though there are numerous numerous sects.

That's not true the Baha'i are a split.

Also, this argument could be made about any beleif. Buddhism has never been split there are just a bunch of different splits Xiatianity has never been split just a bunch of sects and a few heretics like the Mormons

Haaa Mormons...

I don't care if he would have meditated until he died. His solutions are impractical.

To you I suppose they are.

Also, note, I'm not Buddhist.

Michael

 

[spidergoat]

Unless of course, the lack of belief itself is a belief. The term lack of belief assumes a void where nothing exists. What is the status of atheists in this regard?

What do you suppose those atheists who were shooting 1000 people a day were thinking of?

Going to church with their children on Sunday, maybe wondering what their wives are making for dinner... Noticing the sun reflect off the words "god is with us", on their belt buckles...

 

[spidergoat]

Uh the Japanese are a pluralistic society?

Have you ever met a Japanese?

They accept new religions and new ideas readily. They were less enthusiastic about other western influences, but their religious practices are diverse. I think it's because they were originally animist.

 

[S.A.M.]

They accept new religions and new ideas readily. They were less enthusiastic about other western influences, but their religious practices are diverse. I think it's because they were originally animist.

Their religious practices were based on what the king of the day thought good. Ask any Chinese or Korean how accepting the Japanese are as a culture (naijin vs gaijin)

Took a couple of A-bombs for them to reconcile their philosophy, remember?

 

[James R]

SAM:

You ought to realise that the tyrant Stalin, for example, did not promote atheism per se. What he promoted, essentially, was the idea of himself as a God-king.

 

[Michael]

Uh the Japanese are a pluralistic society?

Have you ever met a Japanese?

No that was to polytheistic.

Most Japanese are not real believers in the mountain and sky and sea gods anymore. But they like their heritage and do support it. Also, there are a lot of good luck things associated with Shinto and so they tend to figure - hey, can't hurt.