Are theists more violent than atheists?

[PruePhillip]

Unfortunately, it's derived from a series of letter from general Jeffrey Amherst who used such a tactic to help defeat Pontiac's alliance which were revoltin against british prices and behavior in the fur trade after they seized the area from the French 3 years prior. That's one of the reason many places named after Amherst have started to change their names and remove his statue. While the man was an apt governer of the recently conquered Canada, his cruelty toward Natives is very well known. This incident illustrates it nicely.

Thanks, that's interesting. It's sad though when someone says Christianity is corrupt
because of a general Amherst's behavior in some war.
On the subject of statues being removed - it's becoming quite the fashion now. In my
country we have to defend statues of Captain Cook. George Orwell spoke of people
defacing statues one day - wonder why he didn't think the thought police would just
tear statues out of the ground.

 

[ppp]

Today no Nth American
Indian engages in tribal warfare, or slavery.

Wait a minute? Is this supposed to be some sort of justification for Christians engaging in genocide and slavery? Seriously?

But this doesn't have much to do with Christianity.

The standard that you have been using is that all of a person's actions are motivated by their position on God. If all of the actions that an atheist takes are motivated by his non-belief, then all of the actions that a theist takes are motivated by his belief in God.

 

[epronovost]

Thanks, that's interesting. It's sad though when someone says Christianity is corrupt
because of a general Amherst's behavior in some war.
On the subject of statues being removed - it's becoming quite the fashion now. In my
country we have to defend statues of Captain Cook. George Orwell spoke of people
defacing statues one day - wonder why he didn't think the thought police would just
tear statues out of the ground.

I personaly wouldn't like a statue of a genocidal tyrant like Amherst and frankly someone defending monuments in honor to such man are a bit wrongheaded in my opinion.

PS: nobody said Christianity is corrupt because of the actions of Amherst and the like. We are saying Christianity has a long and sordid history of violence and intolerence that continues to this day.

 

[PruePhillip]

Wait a minute? Is this supposed to be some sort of justification for Christians engaging in genocide and slavery? Seriously?


The standard that you have been using is that all of a person's actions are motivated by their position on God. If all of the actions that an atheist takes are motivated by his non-belief, then all of the actions that a theist takes are motivated by his belief in God.

No, not justification - just saying that Western civilization (note - no mention of Christianity) abolished
many of these practices and helped promote the same changes in African, Arab and many native
civilizations. A clear example was the outlawing of cannibalism.

When I refer to a religious standard I refer to Christianity - not how someone "practices" it but it's
doctrine. To me the idea of two 'Christian' nations like Britain and Germany WW1 at war is absurd,
particularly when they both 'pray' to the same God. Both sides openly violate Christian tenants.

There are many good atheists - my issue is that an atheist draws his or her values from themselves.
Nietzsche believed this would lead to nihilism, his contemporary Dostoevsky thought it would lead to
totalitarianism - both proved true. My Gallop figures below show this self-centered morality.

 

[epronovost]

There are many good atheists - my issue is that an atheist draws his or her values from themselves.

As do Christians as evidence by their behavior which isn't much different than any other human being in similar circumstances. Plus, from an atheist point of view, religion is nothing more than the sacralisation of the morals of a civilisation. It's just as "made up" as any other form of morality and ethics.

 

[PruePhillip]

As do Christians as evidence by their behavior which isn't much different than any other human being in similar circumstances. Plus, from an atheist point of view, religion is nothing more than the sacralisation of the morals of a civilisation. It's just as "made up" as any other form of morality and ethics.

It's hard to defend something from the examples of those who breach its principles.
It's like me questioning democracy because of Donald Trump.
I don't think the bible is 'made up' and it does take the point of view that few people
live by its standards. Dismissing such standards is the aim of many atheists - most
do not say "The bible's standards are fine, let's embrace them without the god." No,
the attacks on the bible are not about it being "made up" but because its values
offend.

 

[ppp]

No, not justification - just saying that Western civilization (note - no mention of Christianity) abolished
many of these practices and helped promote the same changes in African, Arab and many native
civilizations. A clear example was the outlawing of cannibalism.

The absolutely worst thing about Christianity is that when Christian beliefs and doctrines and tenants and scripture produce horrific results, that Christians pretend it was something else. Anything else. Including, but not limited to, blaming their victims.

Christianity can never grow better as long as its members refuse to own the faults of that belief system.

 

[ppp]

It's hard to defend something from the examples of those who breach its principles.
It's like me questioning democracy because of Donald Trump.

Why wouldn't you question democracy because of Donald Trump? When systems break down and produce bad results, they should be questioned. That is the right thing to do. You question it, examine it, and decide if it is completely broken, partially broken, or minorly impaired. And then you do something to fix or replace it. But you don't close your eyes and pretend that its perfect.

 

[ppp]

I don't think the bible is 'made up' and it does take the point of view that few people
live by its standards. Dismissing such standards is the aim of many atheists - most
do not say "The bible's standards are fine, let's embrace them without the god."

Actually, I say that the Bible is a mixture of moral positions and immoral positions. I say let us keep the moral positions that we can demonstrate are moral, and ditch the rest. The Bible is irrelevant as to whether or not any given position is moral.

 

[PruePhillip]

Actually, I say that the Bible is a mixture of moral positions and immoral positions. I say let us keep the moral positions that we can demonstrate are moral, and ditch the rest. The Bible is irrelevant as to whether or not any given position is moral.

What do you think the 'immoral' position is with regards to Christianity?

 

[epronovost]

It's hard to defend something from the examples of those who breach its principles.
It's like me questioning democracy because of Donald Trump.
I don't think the bible is 'made up' and it does take the point of view that few people
live by its standards. Dismissing such standards is the aim of many atheists - most
do not say "The bible's standards are fine, let's embrace them without the god." No,
the attacks on the bible are not about it being "made up" but because its values
offend.

No I attack the Bible as being largely just a collection of laws and morals from early Hebrews all wraped in pseudohistory because it bears all the trademarks of such a text from it's very chronistic morals and laws and the numerous errors, inventions and conflations in its chronic of events.

I reject the morals of the Bible because many of them are completely awful like it's tolerance of slavery, misogyny, hatred toward sexual and gender minorities, it's authoritarian bent and its millenialism. All of these have prevented humanity to flourish and prosper to its fullest. It does contain good stuff like it's defense of charity and peace for example, but the Bible isn't exactly original in espousing those virtues.

In the the end, ood Christians are often those who favor the more demonstrably pro-social and humane virtues espoused by the Bible and reject or simply ignore the more problematic ones.

 

[PruePhillip]

The absolutely worst thing about Christianity is that when Christian beliefs and doctrines and tenants and scripture produce horrific results, that Christians pretend it was something else. Anything else. Including, but not limited to, blaming their victims.

Christianity can never grow better as long as its members refuse to own the faults of that belief system.

For sure, the problem though is your word, "Christians" - everybody in Western society is somehow
a "Christian" in the same way every German soldier in WWII was a "Nazi."
Many would judge the New Testament by the practices of the Roman Catholic Church, for example.
The RCC would have been unrecognizable to the early Apostolic church - and to think future generations
would judge us by Catholics would have been horrendous.

 

[ppp]

For sure, the problem though is your word, "Christians" - everybody in Western society is somehow
a "Christian" in the same way every German soldier in WWII was a "Nazi."

Why did you say that? If you are just going to get mean and cranky and start faking things that I said, we can stop now. I came no where close to saying that everyone in the Western world is a Christian. Now did I, @PruePhillip?

 

[ppp]

What do you think the 'immoral' position is with regards to Christianity?

I gave you the first thing on the list in post 187.

 

[PruePhillip]

I gave you the first thing on the list in post 187.

This?
Quote - The absolutely worst thing about Christianity is that when Christian beliefs and doctrines and tenants and scripture produce horrific results, that Christians pretend it was something else. Anything else. Including, but not limited to, blaming their victims.
Christianity can never grow better as long as its members refuse to own the faults of that belief system.

If by this you mean things like the Inquisition, Crusades and the like then again, that's not Christianity -
it's a mockery of it.
The doctrine of Christianity is best explained in Matt 5,6 and 7 - the Sermon on the Mount. The abuses
of many churches is in direct violation of this sermon.

 

[ppp]

If by this you mean things like the Inquisition, Crusades and the like then again, that's not Christianity -
it's a mockery of it.

We are not going to agree on that. I say it is. I say that the only Christianity that matters are the real actions of the real people in the real world who call themselves Christians.

And actually I wasn't talking about the Crusades. I was talking about the denial that real Christians take part in things like the Crusades, or gay beating, or the slave trade. They did. They do. And they will.

 

[firedragon]

For context:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

1 Corinthians 6:9-12

Paul is speaking to members of a Church in Corinth and saying that some of them used to identify with such behaviours but now they are followers of Christ they should avoid their past behaviours.

Do these verses resonate with me or do I condemn them? They are words written nearly two thousand years ago to assist with the building of the Christian Church in that locality. However the principle of encouraging and admonishing members of a faith community to live by the laws of God should always remain at the forefront of any Abrahamic Faith community. So although I wouldn't be reading Paul in the first instance when looking for guidance, if seen in context much of what Paul has to say is universal and applicable from age to age.

You are absolutely avoiding the question Adrian. Read 1 Timothy 1 as well. Homosexuals condemned vehemently.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Morsl bsnkupcy and great evil, yes.

Belief is absolute morality is presented as
the absolute and only barrier to the horrors
of moral relativism, and the skipprry slope
to total depravity.

A recent example of moral absolutist
thinking was in the response to "thou shalt
not steal" a god given absolute.

" So would you steal a penny- that you
could soon pay back-if it could save a
child from slavery and torture."

Of course the answer was no.

Yep, just like the cliché example of the absolute of "don't lie" and then having to answer the gestapo question "where are the jews hiding?", knowing full well what will happen to said human beings if you answer the question honestly.

 

[capumetu]

Unfortunately that rule was not respected on several instance. I posted a small wikipedia article that presents many of the cases of concealment of such abuse as well as the rules within several Jehovah Witnesses communities that stifle any denounciation of sexual abuse, especially sexual abuse toward children. Like the Catholic Church, the Watchtower society and various other organisation of hte Jehovah Witness have pledged to improve in this regard, but only time will tell.

Simply put sir, Jehovah's witnesses do not abuse their children, if they do and are caught then they are revealed are they not. We cannot prevent you or anyone else from attending our meetings and even becoming one of us if you meet the qualifications, but once you become a serious sinner, then you will no longer be allowed to be one of us. It is as simple as that. Once again Jehovah's witnesses do not abuse or accept that as conduct becoming a Christian. If you believe otherwise show the publication that it is acceptable, as all of our teachings are in writing.

Oh by the way, that is what I thought.

 

[Audie]

Simply put sir, Jehovah's witnesses do not abuse their children, if they do and are caught then they are revealed are they not. We cannot prevent you or anyone else from attending our meetings and even becoming one of us if you meet the qualifications, but once you become a serious sinner, then you will no longer be allowed to be one of us. It is as simple as that. Once again Jehovah's witnesses do not abuse or accept that as conduct becoming a Christian. If you believe otherwise show the publication that it is acceptable, as all of our teachings are in writing.

Oh by the way, that is what I thought.

They don't but when they do? ;D

To me, its child abuse to impose a faith
that embraces such tpregressive anti intellectual beliefs on an innocentbchild.