Couldn't have said it better myself...

[John D. Brey]

Quite wrong, as usual. I have made it a lifetime practice not to hurt others when I can help it -- and when I've erred (I'm human), I have done my level best to make amends.

But "hell?" Maybe I do believe in hell in one sense -- because I've seen what we humans can create to PUNISH those we think don't believe as correctly as we do. Yes, our religions have created hells -- and unleashed them, too -- and mostly seem proud to have done so.

In the last century, three atheists were responsible for creating living hells on earth. Hitler, the Holocaust. Stalin, the USSR and its gulags. And Mao and the death of umptine millions.

These three atheist, who didn't believe in hell, are in Hell's Hall of Fame for creating hell on earth.



John

 

[Brian2]

I think the existence of guilt and conscience points to most humans recognising bad behaviour. It all depends probably upon how honest one is with oneself and as to how one monitors one's own behaviour as to these two having any effects. And this requires no spiritual or religious beliefs - just the usual being honest, having some abilities of control, and probably having a decent set of morals.

I do believe in forgiveness - of oneself as much as others - but purely from a practical point of view, given that I have observed what not doing so often does to people who cling to such things. Not believing in an afterlife is a completely separate issue to me, and such would still not affect what I believed as to conscience and guilt. Just rather too simple to expect forgiveness from some higher being - and is why I'm not particularly enthused with Catholicism.

Some people feel overwhelming guilt for what they have done in life and have a weight lifted off them when those whom they have wronged forgive them. There also is a weight lifted off us when we realise that if the creator has forgiven us then we don't have to carry our guilt around in our life.
But if people don't believe in a creator then they would carry that guilt around or come up with some other way to try to deal with it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Some people feel overwhelming guilt for what they have done in life and have a weight lifted off them when those whom they have wronged forgive them. There also is a weight lifted off us when we realise that if the creator has forgiven us then we don't have to carry our guilt around in our life.
But if people don't believe in a creator then they would carry that guilt around or come up with some other way to try to deal with it.

Perhaps, but I still think the better way is to truly understand one's actions and behaviour, put them into context, and hopefully find the means to deal with them. Which is possible for probably most - and without religions doing so for us - given that it is, to me, rather too simple and something that might come back to haunt a person (loss of belief), whereas what I and others would advocate should be more of a permanent solution to any such issues.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What is evil or horrible if we are just intelligent animals?
Nothing.

Well, I doubt most would agree, and citing their own moral natures as to why. Which, if one did look at non-human behaviour and comparing with our own long history, we might adjudge that such formed over a long period of time, and probably related to our social natures and our intelligence.

 

[Mock Turtle]

In the last century, three atheists were responsible for creating living hells on earth. Hitler, the Holocaust. Stalin, the USSR and its gulags. And Mao and the death of umptine millions.

These three atheist, who didn't believe in hell, are in Hell's Hall of Fame for creating hell on earth.



John

"Twas atheism that drove me to it!" Somehow doesn't ring true.

 

[John D. Brey]

"Twas atheism that drove me to it!" Somehow doesn't ring true.

Even as darkness is merely a lack of light, while light is something more than a lack of darkness, I'd be more inclined to frame it not that atheism drove them to it, but that a lack of God did. Like darkness, atheism is merely a lack of belief in God. Belief in God is much more than merely a lack of atheism; it lightens the load and shines on the path to freedom and eternity.



John

 

[Mock Turtle]

Even as darkness is merely a lack of light, while light is something more than a lack of darkness, I'd be more inclined to frame it not that atheism drove them to it, but that a lack of God did. Like darkness, atheism is merely a lack of belief in God. Belief in God is much more than merely a lack of atheism; it lightens the load and shines on the path to freedom and eternity.



John

I very much doubt that believing or not believing would have done much for any of these.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In the last century, three atheists were responsible for creating living hells on earth. Hitler, the Holocaust. Stalin, the USSR and its gulags. And Mao and the death of umptine millions.

These three atheist, who didn't believe in hell, are in Hell's Hall of Fame for creating hell on earth.



John

You forgot the Crusades and the medieval torture devices of the Catholic Church.

Not to mention those mass Graves of Indigenous children.

Hell is a well refined trade for many.

 

[John D. Brey]

You forgot the Crusades and the medieval torture devices of the Catholic Church.

. . . I like to think that yes, I've forgotten more about the Medieval Church than many have learned about it. And yes. There's a lot that's forgettable about it.

For instance, many, if not most, of the Popes of the Medieval Church, were avowed atheists and world-class womanizers and murderers. The really dangerous atheists garbed themselves in disguise as theists so that they could recruit from the masses (most of whom were theists). Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, rose in the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, of the atheistic-class and were able to dispense with the formalities practiced by the Renaissance Popes.



John

 

[Wildswanderer]

Well, I doubt most would agree, and citing their own moral natures as to why. Which, if one did look at non-human behaviour and comparing with our own long history, we might adjudge that such formed over a long period of time, and probably related to our social natures and our intelligence.

Animals don't have true morality.
And if it's just whatever I come up, with it's changing ever moment. That's opinion not morality.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Animals don't have true morality.
And if it's just whatever I come up, with it's changing ever moment. That's opinion not morality.

I'm sure most wouldn't expect them to have what we call morality, but what they (some) do have might be something like what we had earlier in our development. And hence helping to understand where our morality probably has come from. Given that many species do show intelligence and social behaviour.

 

[metis]

Given that many species do show intelligence and social behaviour.

Absolutely correct, and this even applies to some bacteria as recent studies have shown. IOW, there's a "pecking order" of sorts.

BTW, there are also "deviants" even with some bacteria who don't completely fall in line with the "pecking order".

 

[Quagmire]

Guess what you like, and I generally give a great deal of thought to my responses.

Whether or not you meant to, you're endorsing propaganda here:

I said:

This kind of cartoon is in the same genre as political cartoons: it's meant to point out a contradiction or an absurdity (something that contradicts logic) that's none-the-less widely held, and enough so to make the commentary relevant.

Otherwise it's based on a strawman and it's just propaganda. It may still appeal to people, but it's not going to appeal to much other than their prejudices

You replied:

And that sort of humour is a perfectly acceptable -- and often quite effective -- means of communication.

That's all you need to know

How is that not endorsing propaganda? Unless you were responding to the first paragraph in my quote and ignoring the second (the relevant) paragraph, although I can't imagine why you would consider that necessary. Nobodies saying there's anything wrong with editorial cartoons in general, just dishonest and misleading ones.

And why quote the second paragraph if you were just going to ignore it? I mean you're already cherry-picking my posts when you quote them, seems strange to go to the trouble of cherry picking a paragraph and then pretending it isn't there.

As your response is written, whether you meant to are not, you're endorsing propaganda.

I even asked you if that's what you meant, but instead of answering you just called my responses "ill considered". That seems like evasion to me.

But tell me, what do you mean by "being fair" in this context (which was a cartoon discussing a social issue)?

Fair as in not making assumptions about a whole group of people based on a stereotype.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Whatever happens it is the revenge that God will give, so it will be just and for the good of all whether we want to see that revenge or not.

Yes .. Almighty God is the Fairest of All Judges.

I don't see people as bad from the get go and don't see that taught in the Bible, but do see that evil exists in people and I can see it in how people behave. That is what the Bible teaches.

Aye

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Whether or not you meant to, you're endorsing propaganda here:

I said:

You replied:



How is that not endorsing propaganda? Unless you were responding to the first paragraph in my quote and ignoring the second (the relevant) paragraph, although I can't imagine why you would consider that necessary. Nobodies saying there's anything wrong with editorial cartoons in general, just dishonest and misleading ones.

And why quote the second paragraph if you were just going to ignore it? I mean you're already cherry-picking my posts when you quote them, seems strange to go to the trouble of cherry picking a paragraph and then pretending it isn't there.

As your response is written, whether you meant to are not, you're endorsing propaganda.

I even asked you if that's what you meant, but instead of answering you just called my responses "ill considered". That seems like evasion to me.



Fair as in not making assumptions about a whole group of people based on a stereotype.

I'm amazed how over-fussed you are at a cartoon.

But the sentiment it contains has been made many times in these very forums -- most often in dialogue. It has been the subject of books ("Can We Be Good WIthout God" - Dr. Robert Buchman, 2002). (By the way, Buckman, now deceased was a friend of mine, President of the Canadian Humanist Association, a member of my book club, a Jew by ethnicity but non-practicing. Rob Buckman - Wikipedia)

Theists in these forums have argued, quite aggressively, in these forums that atheists have "no reason to be good, because they don't have the fear of God as a basis for absolute morality." I've participated in those debates, but can't be bothered trying to seach for them now (the search capabilities in PHPBB forums is pretty atrocious).

But the argument often goes like this:

Theist: "Without God you have no reason to be good."
Atheist: "I don't need God to be good, and if you do, then I question whether you are in fact good. I mean, if you lost your faith tomorrow, would you feel better about stealing or murdering somebody?"

Thus, no strawman, and no propaganda.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I'm sure most wouldn't expect them to have what we call morality, but what they (some) do have might be something like what we had earlier in our development. And hence helping to understand where our morality probably has come from. Given that many species do show intelligence and social behaviour.

Like my dog killing a chicken because I showed it attention?

 

[Heyo]

I'm sure most wouldn't expect them to have what we call morality, but what they (some) do have might be something like what we had earlier in our development. And hence helping to understand where our morality probably has come from. Given that many species do show intelligence and social behaviour.

And remember that we don't "have morality" from birth on. Morality is a spectrum and it depends on the ability to think about ones actions. Most animals have the thinking abilities of children who we wouldn't make responsible for their actions.
Except cats, of course. They know what they do and they are pure evil.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the last century, three atheists were responsible for creating living hells on earth. Hitler, the Holocaust. Stalin, the USSR and its gulags. And Mao and the death of umptine millions.

These three atheist, who didn't believe in hell, are in Hell's Hall of Fame for creating hell on earth.



John

Hitler was not an atheist. In fact it is more correct to call Hitler a "Christian" than to call him an atheist. Just because he did not follow your particular brand of Christianity does not make him an atheist.

And neither Mao or Stalin killed din the name of atheism. They killed for their political beliefs. We would have seen the same from Christians in the past but they had neither the technology nor the populations that those countries had.

 

[Subduction Zone]

. . . I like to think that yes, I've forgotten more about the Medieval Church than many have learned about it. And yes. There's a lot that's forgettable about it.

For instance, many, if not most, of the Popes of the Medieval Church, were avowed atheists and world-class womanizers and murderers. The really dangerous atheists garbed themselves in disguise as theists so that they could recruit from the masses (most of whom were theists). Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, rose in the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, of the atheistic-class and were able to dispense with the formalities practiced by the Renaissance Popes.



John

I sincerely doubt your claim. How are you going to support it? And once again, just because someone does not follow your particular version of Christianity does not make him an atheist. he may be as devout of a Christian as you are. He just has a different interpretation of the Bible. There is no group that can lay claim to the Bible and if on could it would probably be the Catholics. I have a feeling that you would not like that.

Second, I know how you love to focus on Hitler (who was more Christian than atheist) Stalin and Mao. You did not do so properly. What you should have done was to calculate deaths as a percentage of the population. When one does that the Christians may be the "winners" when it comes to killing the most people. In the wars of the Reformation alone upwards of 18 million people were killed in those Christian against Christian wars. I have a feeling that was a higher percentage of the population of Europe than Hitler's war. though I could be wrong.

European wars of religion - Wikipedia

 

[Mock Turtle]

Like my dog killing a chicken because I showed it attention?

Could be, given many animals do have more than the basics as to emotions, and often will display such. We wouldn't get along with so much non-human life - often as pets but not exclusively - if they didn't have a lot in common with humans.