Torture and Atheist Morality

[Mr.Spock]

So questioning why 17,000 plus farmers are committing suicide due to trade practices that favor first world farmers is an indication of hatred?

I hear the words bandied about, but the evidence does not support the assertion.

if you questioned maybe, but clearly you do more then that, and quite often.

 

[S.A.M.]

if you questioned maybe, but clearly you do more then that, and quite often.

Its an abstract concept for you, but its harsh reality for many

Since the late 1990s (about when industrial agriculture took hold in India),166,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide and 8 million have left the land.

The faint concept of distant brotherly love seems odd in this context.

 

[Bells]

Atheists continuously insist that they have a sense of Morality. Well, yes, a sense. They remember the difference between good and evil. However, there is nothing outside of law and peer pressure that could enforce this sense of morality into any action that could inconvenience an Atheist. They are willing to do good as long as it is conducive to their self interest, but, equally, they are willing to do evil also, if it is in their self interest and if they can keep it hushed up. Cheating on taxes, cheating on tests, cheating on their wives. Competition in the workplace – screwing people over on the excuse that the rules are the same for everybody – not finding a problem with making real life into some kind of a child’s game.

But sometimes they don’t even bother to keep it secret. Here we have America’s and Britain’s advocacy for Torture. They KNOW it is wrong. But it is so darn in their Self Interest to do it. Well, not really in their self interest if they look at all the calculations involved. But for those in the Intelligence Community, all the nasty tools of the Inquisition come out in a celebration of useful Barbarism.

You fail to take into account the fact that the leaders of these nations (the US and the UK), especially in recent times, who support and/or commit acts of torture are strict and strong Christians. Not atheists. You will also find many strict believers on this site who find no problems at all with torturing people if it is to serve their own self interest. On the contrary, atheist human rights organisations have been voicing their opposition against the conduct of these Governments quite strongly.

Your hatred of anything not Catholic is well known on these boards Leo. And attempting to portray atheism as being the danger to civilisation is neither knew or original.

Atheists and Protestants are willing to aim their Moral Sense outward when they themselves can support themselves in the roll of the Victim… when the Self Interest of Morality is on their own side, when the restraints of Morality are intended only to hold back the other guy. It reminds me of how the British and the American’s had a Holocaust going of their own, firebombing civilian population centers in both Europe and Japan… even the first Nuclear Bombs were not aimed against military targets but were set to incinerate women and children.

Oh you have got to be kidding me! I see you failed to take into consideration the Catholic Church played in the War, resulting in the deaths of Jews and other person's not Catholic. But that's alright, isn't it? It's ok so long as it's them who are dying.

Also, the British and American’s enforced a Food Embargo against Europe, again aimed against the Civilian Populations, and it is a little known fact that nearly every ‘Concentration Camp’ started out as Food Rationing Centers, and those who starved there were not killed by Adolf Hitler but by the American and the British Food Embargos. But the War Crimes Trials did not even bother to discuss these issues.

So you are advocating a position that it was the American and British who killed the millions who perished in the concentration camps because of a food embargo? Are you serious? I guess the gas chambers and incinerators were just personal pest control and heaters that went wrong, eh Leo? You have evidence that it was not the Nazi's, but the Allied forces, who killed the 11 million people Leo? Because your claim is not only hateful, but downright idiotic. Are you a Nazi sympathizer Leo?

I cannot believe that any intelligent and rational human being could even attempt to excuse or defend Hitler's actions and that of his forces during the War.

 

[§outh§tar]

Come now, Bells

 

[iceaura]

After all, the US is currently occupying two countries while supplying 50% of the worlds arms. It does not recognise several UN resolutions covering basic human rights or the jurisdiction of the ICC.

The US also uses trade practices that bankrupt third world farmers while subsidising its own and uses military force to avoid accountability for its actions. All this while supporting dictators, using death squads to destabilise elected governments and enabling conflicts in countries that hold resources.

And all of this backed by the most theistic administrations and most religious citizenry of any major Western country - especially concentrated in the factions within the US that most wholeheartedly support those bad things.

When you see the effects of corporate capitalism on family life in the US, you are seeing the effects of institutional power dominated by devoutly theistic people (as well as the effects of simple wealth) - in many US corporations (Cargill, for example, since you mention the effects of international agribusiness on Indian farmers) not only theistic obeisance but belonging to one of the right churches is almost necessary for corporate advancement.

Do you see why many Americans, with personal experience of the motivations and justifications of people who do such things, are deeply suspicious of religion given power ?

You admire the kind and intelligent treatment shown jihadists - we ask where the jihadists came from. They remind us of abortion clinic bombers - another product of theistic religion. You admire the close knit families - we note that they are necessary in defense against other close knit families amid the absence of economic foundation and opportunity; we see the feuds and nepotism, the similarities to the Hatfields and McCoys or the dynasties of inherited wealth, and we estimate how much coercion is buried in such a system.

 

[S.A.M.]

And all of this backed by the most theistic administrations and most religious citizenry of any major Western country - especially concentrated in the factions within the US that most wholeheartedly support those bad things.

When you see the effects of corporate capitalism on family life in the US, you are seeing the effects of institutional power dominated by devoutly theistic people (as well as the effects of simple wealth) - in many US corporations (Cargill, for example, since you mention the effects of international agribusiness on Indian farmers) not only theistic obeisance but belonging to one of the right churches is almost necessary for corporate advancement.

Do you see why many Americans, with personal experience of the motivations and justifications of people who do such things, are deeply suspicious of religion given power ?

This is hardly something new, is it?

After all, most secular countries in Europe follow the same trade practices, and US policy has been the same through both Democrats and Republicans.

You admire the kind and intelligent treatment shown jihadists - we ask where the jihadists came from. They remind us of abortion clinic bombers - another product of theistic religion. You admire the close knit families - we note that they are necessary in defense against other close knit families amid the absence of economic foundation and opportunity; we see the feuds and nepotism, the similarities to the Hatfields and McCoys or the dynasties of inherited wealth, and we estimate how much coercion is buried in such a system.

You forget, I have lived there. And yes, there are several problems associated with an autocratic rule, but the family and social support systems among the people are real.

 

[iceaura]

This is hardly something new, is it?

After all, most secular countries in Europe follow the same trade practices, and US policy has been the same through both Democrats and Republicans.

WTF does Democrat and Republican have to do with any of this ?

You say atheists don't feel guilt, and admire the theisms that produce jihadists and beat women with sticks for driving cars. You blame the behaviors of wealthy theists on atheism, and the evils of powerful and violent theists on "secular societies". Hello ?

 

[S.A.M.]

WTF does Democrat and Republican have to do with any of this ?

You say atheists don't feel guilt, and admire the theisms that produce jihadists and beat women with sticks for driving cars. You blame the behaviors of wealthy theists on atheism, and the evils of powerful and violent theists on "secular societies". Hello ?

Atheists come in all sorts of guises. It can be argued that many politicians are atheists, especially if one looks at the propensity of so many at the top to treat the religious in ways that do not appear very devoted to the cause.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/14/usa.midterms2006

And as I said, the US is not alone in the practices which defy explanation as secular or immoral. One cannot compare the prohibition of car driving to driving entire economies into poverty and starvation, while simultaneously arming them in conflicts.

 

[iceaura]

Atheists come in all sorts of guises. It can be argued that many politicians are atheists, especially if one looks at the propensity of so many at the top to treat the religious in ways that do not appear very devoted to the cause.

Well if bad behavior labels the atheist, then atheism is going to be associated with bad behavior, I can understand that.

I can also understand how behavior and attitudes closely associated with professed theistic belief and the influence of theistic religion and accountability to a deeply theistic constituency can be instead attributed to lack of such religion - - since if the behavior itself indicates lack of religious feeling by all concerned, the conclusion follows immediately.

But that is more informative as explication of viewpoint than convincing as argument.

One cannot compare the prohibition of car driving to driving entire economies into poverty and starvation, while simultaneously arming them in conflicts.

If they are both being done by strongly religious people, who justify their actions (if pushed on the matter) by reference to their religion, the comparison is not so farfetched.

But that was not intended as a comparison of incommensurable evils, in the first place.

The evils of US imperialism are admitted. The fact that such use of Western Industrial power is most closely identified with the more theistically religious factions of the most theistically religious Western power is worth noticing, IMHO. Especially if such evils are supposed to be a product of some kind of atheistic foundation for secular Western societies.

 

[S.A.M.]

The evils of US imperialism are admitted. The fact that such use of Western Industrial power is most closely identified with the more theistically religious factions of the most theistically religious Western power is worth noticing, IMHO. Especially if such evils are supposed to be a product of some kind of atheistic foundation for secular Western societies.

Sure, and it would be a cogent argument, if the rest of the secular societies were also not using similar methods to advance their own. However, as the purported center of science and technology, which is frequently touted as the hotbed of atheism, one wonders how many of those atheists contribute to the technology that drives this engine. And where their morals have gone.

 

[Bells]

Come now, Bells

Oh come come Southstar, what else is one to assume when someone claims Hitler was not responsible for the death of the Jews and others in Nazi concentration camps, but that it was the actions of the Allied Forces that resulted in those deaths? Do you honestly think they all died of starvation because of a food embargo imposed by atheists and protestants?

I did not call him a Nazi. I asked him if he was a Nazi sympathiser. He was the person who brought Hitler and the Nazi's into the discussion with his claims about them in his opening thread. I asked him how he could defend Hitler and the Nazi's when their own actions in causing millions of deaths is documented by proof and the testimony of the survivors. The survivors did not say all who perished did so due to starvation. They saw people being led into gas chambers, they saw them being led into incinerators, they saw them having to dig ditches and then lined up and shot. There is documentary proof of the genocide committed by the Nazi's. So when someone comes forth and claims that they were not killed by Hitler and the Nazi's but were in fact killed by a food embargo, I think others should be allowed to question his beliefs and ask for proof, don't you?

So far, Leo has offered no proof to back up his own statements. His is based in rhetoric and an attempt to defend a murderous tyrant, who was, for all intents and purposes, a Catholic. Kind of striking, don't you think?

Leo claimed that all the Jews were rounded up and placed into "Food Rationing Centres", which later became concentration camps and the people who supposedly "starved" there were killed by the Allies with a food embargo. Should we not be able to question his beliefs or his motives in making such claims?

 

[iceaura]

Sure, and it would be a cogent argument, if the rest of the secular societies were also not using similar methods to advance their own.

Some much more than others - and the methods seem more closely associated with capability than theistic deficiency, as a scan of Indonesia's or Pakistan's or Argentina's behaviors hint.

However, as the purported center of science and technology, which is frequently touted as the hotbed of atheism, one wonders how many of those atheists contribute to the technology that drives this engine.

Many of these atheists will be found arguing that technology does not drive this engine, that their work does not contribute to the driving technology, that the engine is inevitable and their work ameliorates its effects, that the engine is not really behaving like that, that nothing is perfect and the mistakes of the engine can be corrected, etc.

Of course they do have to justify themselves, if confronted, since they have no authority to do that for them.

And occasionally an argument will take hold - the story of the atom bomb being given to the deeply theistic and family values oriented Truman and his strongly Christian generals, for example, and what that crowd did with it, has a certain resonance. The comment that the person who gives a chimp a shotgun has some responsibility for the holes in the ceiling sometimes carries weight.

And so to the extent that you do find people in genuine opposition to the engine, you may find them disproportionately atheistic. Because the role of theistic religion in setting up and defending this engine makes the workings of it easier for the atheist inside it to see. They have less personal investment, even if complicit otherwise.

 

[glaucon]

Atheists continuously insist that they have a sense of Morality. Well, yes, a sense. They remember the difference between good and evil. However, there is nothing outside of law and peer pressure that could enforce this sense of morality into any action that could inconvenience an Atheist.
...

Thankfully.

Morality is derived from "law and pee pressure".

It's certainly preferable to making use of an imaginary entity to support an ethical system.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

thats my feeling exactly,and Im atheist,whats it with these religious nuts making atheists into some kind of monsters without compassion? :shrug:

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html

That about sums it up.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

i dont believe you. i do think you hate and despise the west, particularly israel and Israelis. and jews.

but ISREAL,Israelies and jews are north-african arabs not westerner's???????????????

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

Oh come come Southstar, what else is one to assume when someone claims Hitler was not responsible for the death of the Jews and others in Nazi concentration camps, but that it was the actions of the Allied Forces that resulted in those deaths? Do you honestly think they all died of starvation because of a food embargo imposed by atheists and protestants?

I did not call him a Nazi. I asked him if he was a Nazi sympathiser. He was the person who brought Hitler and the Nazi's into the discussion with his claims about them in his opening thread. I asked him how he could defend Hitler and the Nazi's when their own actions in causing millions of deaths is documented by proof and the testimony of the survivors. The survivors did not say all who perished did so due to starvation. They saw people being led into gas chambers, they saw them being led into incinerators, they saw them having to dig ditches and then lined up and shot. There is documentary proof of the genocide committed by the Nazi's. So when someone comes forth and claims that they were not killed by Hitler and the Nazi's but were in fact killed by a food embargo, I think others should be allowed to question his beliefs and ask for proof, don't you?

So far, Leo has offered no proof to back up his own statements. His is based in rhetoric and an attempt to defend a murderous tyrant, who was, for all intents and purposes, a Catholic. Kind of striking, don't you think?

Leo claimed that all the Jews were rounded up and placed into "Food Rationing Centres", which later became concentration camps and the people who supposedly "starved" there were killed by the Allies with a food embargo. Should we not be able to question his beliefs or his motives in making such claims?

The Jews were killed for their failure to ecconomicaly support germany in ww2 their claim being we are not german we are jewish?
Considering the financial problems Germany had and the large amount of financial pull the Jews had, it was only right that the government interviened, taking what they refused to give. The downside for the Jews is that hitler was a loony and decided that because of the arrogance of the religious leaders in there failiure to commit as german citizens, they were treated like the enemy????????

 

[Bells]

The Jews were killed for their failure to ecconomicaly support germany in ww2 their claim being we are not german we are jewish?
Considering the financial problems Germany had and the large amount of financial pull the Jews had, it was only right that the government interviened, taking what they refused to give. The downside for the Jews is that hitler was a loony and decided that because of the arrogance of the religious leaders in there failiure to commit as german citizens, they were treated like the enemy????????

Errr I would suggest you go back and actually revise your history.

Do you think the handicapped and disabled children and adults he had killed during 'Action T4' in the name of racial hygiene had not contributed enough of their wealth?

Firstly, the Jews were killed by the Nazi's in World War 2. So your first comment is vastly incorrect.

Secondly, Hitler was known to have been a confirmed anti-Semite well before World War 1. It may have commenced while he was in his first year of high school. He even admitted himself that he was an anti-Semite well before he returned to Germany. Jews were his scapegoat and he viewed them as being almost sub-human and an insult to his beloved Aryan race.

His 'intervention' was not because they were rich but because they were Jews.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

Errr I would suggest you go back and actually revise your history.

Which cultures/countries or which account of what happened???

Do you think the handicapped and disabled children and adults he had killed during 'Action T4' in the name of racial hygiene had not contributed enough of their wealth?

Hitler was a loon and i was only commenting on Jews and the cause of the persecution (anti-semitism may have pushed towards the killing but it wasn't the cause of their persecution) I said he was a loon he did many stupid things

Firstly, the Jews were killed by the Nazi's in World War 2. So your first comment is vastly incorrect.

Check out the ecconomic balance and financial troubles that hit germany after ww1 and before ww2, they were told to invest they didn't just say no but claimed not to be german but Jewish. don't see how it is vastly incorrect?

Secondly, Hitler was known to have been a confirmed anti-Semite well before World War 1. It may have commenced while he was in his first year of high school. He even admitted himself that he was an anti-Semite well before he returned to Germany. Jews were his scapegoat and he viewed them as being almost sub-human and an insult to his beloved Aryan race.

He was also part Jew?????
and mad

His 'intervention' was not because they were rich but because they were Jews.

I didn't say because they were rich (you are twisting words)
I said because they denounced their status as germans because they were Jewish and in fact refused to put german money back into germany during a time of war.
And you hit the nail on the head with because they were Jews. they were Germans and refused this identity.

Hitler was a loon

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

The Jews were killed for their failure to ecconomicaly support germany in ww2 their claim being we are not german we are jewish?

No, no. This is not supported by historical documents or testimony. The Jews in Germany were the targets of rabid hatred long before the start of WW2. Further many jews did in fact consider themselves German and this was part of why they did not leave a fiercely anti-semitic environment and were slow to realize how severe the threat was.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Americans, especially Catholics, approve of torture

http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/arch...06/032406h.htm

Which should not be surprising since the Catholic Church has depended on it at various periods for its marketing.