Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 19:54:33 GMT -5
ask Mao Tse-tung and his lackeys... As is often usual with some Christians, they will name Hitler, Stalin or Mao Tse-tung and others who have committed atrocities as Atheists as the reason for their committing such atrocities. It is not relevant to the question and is not the reason for their actions.
My questions for you:
Was Mao Tse-tungs being an atheist causally instrumental in carrying out such atrocities? Are these atrocities different in any particular and important way to those carried out by religious predecessors?
"The main dogmatic teachings of communism, that we find were responsible for the atrocities committed under the various communist regimes, namely:-
-The idea that individual property ownership is inherently evil (i.e. the evil bourgeoisie) -The belief that collectivization is the key to efficient production -The complete hatred of people who were opposed to the ideas of communism
had nothing to do with, and were not in any way derived from, atheism."
from: THE REJECTION OF PASCAL'S WAGER A Skeptic's Guide to the Bible and the Historical Jesus
mao was directly responsible, my great uncle henry(a worker) had to flee china as they were rounding up nationalist and christians under his orders...the only thing casual about mao was his disregard for life... no they weren't different which is to my point that atheist can and have threaten christians the same as christians have threaten others
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 14, 2014 20:10:51 GMT -5
As is often usual with some Christians, they will name Hitler, Stalin or Mao Tse-tung and others who have committed atrocities as Atheists as the reason for their committing such atrocities. It is not relevant to the question and is not the reason for their actions.
My questions for you:
Was Mao Tse-tungs being an atheist causally instrumental in carrying out such atrocities? Are these atrocities different in any particular and important way to those carried out by religious predecessors?
"The main dogmatic teachings of communism, that we find were responsible for the atrocities committed under the various communist regimes, namely:-
-The idea that individual property ownership is inherently evil (i.e. the evil bourgeoisie) -The belief that collectivization is the key to efficient production -The complete hatred of people who were opposed to the ideas of communism
had nothing to do with, and were not in any way derived from, atheism."
from: THE REJECTION OF PASCAL'S WAGER A Skeptic's Guide to the Bible and the Historical Jesus
mao was directly responsible, my great uncle henry(a worker) had to flee china as they were rounding up nationalist and christians under his orders...the only thing casual about mao was his disregard for life...no they weren't different which is to my point that atheist can and have threaten christians the same as christians have threaten others Wally, I never said the Mao was NOT responsible!
You inferred that he did what he did because he was an "atheist!"
Although he probably was an Atheist, THAT wasn't the reason he did what he did!
He did what he did because of his belief in COMMUNISM.
So your answer was not an answer to my query, "do any of we atheists "threaten" Christians as they 'threaten" us just because of our atheistic beliefs?
Are you saying that atheists have no disregard for life?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Dec 14, 2014 20:13:35 GMT -5
My question is, "Are his views that much more intolerant than most Christians concerning the views of we atheists?
DMG, I regret, I am unable to answer your question. My statement pertains to a personal opinion about specific views of a specific person. Perhaps you disagree with my opinion about that person. As I have mentioned on other occasions I believe differences of opinion on a variety of issues is a wholesome and healthy state-of-affairs. I would be interested in you point of view as to how Professor Dawkins manifests a spirit of tolerance and openness towards the ideas and concepts of those who hold opinions different from his own regarding the existence of God. I am unable to answer your broad and general question about "most Christians concerning the views of we atheists". I have not personally reviewed any data regarding "most Christians". I am unfamiliar with a class of individuals characterized by the attribution "we atheists". For the way I think and form opinions, it would be most imprudent to venture into a non-specific question such as the one you pose above. Based on my limited exposure to the views of individuals such as Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, Stephen Hawkins, Stephen Pinker, Michael Shermer and a few others I am aware of considerable scholarly progress amassing philosophical and scientific knowledge that does not rely on a transcendent entity for explanation or comprehension. I am also aware of phenomena for which facile explanations have yet to be found. Based on this personal knowledge and awareness I adhere to a philosophical position that I am unable to know (at this point in time) whether or not a transcendent entity exists. I am comfortable living with that ambiguity, I do not require of my self a firm conviction pro or con. If I were to be pressed for one position or another, I acknowledge that I lean toward the existence of a consciousness and cognition beyond the current capacity of the species homo sapiens.In part, my philosophical leaning toward the existence of a transcendent consciousness, is the consequence of my perception that homo sapiens have yet to master the capacity for open-mindedness. It is my fear that the development of a viable theory to guide the exploration of mechanisms for the processing of information impinging on the brain by processes other than the recognized physical senses (sight, touch, smell, etc.) is being retarded by modern man's reluctance to venture beyond the comfortable confines of empirical data derived from the physical senses. As there have been epochs of revolutionary advancement in human cognition in the past, I anticipate that there will again be revolutionary advances in the cognitive capacity of homo sapiens in the future. It is not unreasonable to anticipate that the emergence of new reasoning capacity will render the dogmatic pronouncements of today's entrenched ideologies baseless and trite.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 20:17:13 GMT -5
mao was directly responsible, my great uncle henry(a worker) had to flee china as they were rounding up nationalist and christians under his orders...the only thing casual about mao was his disregard for life...no they weren't different which is to my point that atheist can and have threaten christians the same as christians have threaten others Although he probably was an Atheist, THAT wasn't the reason he did what he did!
He did what he did because of his belief in COMMUNISM.
that would be pure conjecture on your part my point that he was an atheist and committed atrocities becuase of it is just as valid...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 14, 2014 20:32:23 GMT -5
One consolation that people on either side of the debate, theism vs atheism, is that nobody can prove the other wrong. You can point to all the good and bad people, governments, wars, genocides, etc etc etc and you have not proved anything one way or the other. Sometimes we make bold statements like" prove it and I'll believe it" as a defence or offense, but I think everybody believes in ideas, ideals, etc etc that cannot be proven. Everybody's a,believer of one sort or another, and we criticize each other because we have a different belief. Of course fear mongering, always points out that the "other " group is a danger to you. There are dangerous people in every group, of course, but doesn't prove too much. Anyway, enuf rambling, personally I choose to believe in God. Sure can't prove it to those who believe differently or non belief in that concept. Do you believe your spouse or boyfriend or mom or dad or.........loves you or hates you? PROVE IT. Alvin True, some things can't be proved one way or the other.
However, there is the element of PROBABILITY.
Some beliefs are such that, as Dawkins states , some hypothesis are not on "equal footing" as other hypothesis. He had just been speaking about such beliefs as unicorns, tooth fairies & such. (that someone here on this thread thought was not very intellectually argued)
I think that most of us would say that an PROBABILITY of there BEING a "tooth fairy" certainly doesn't have equal footing with the PROBABILITY AGAINST there being a "tooth fairy."
For me, a PROBABILITY of there being a god just isn't on equal footing with the PROBABILITY that there isn't a god.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 14, 2014 20:39:33 GMT -5
I think it is fair for you to say "for me". It is unfair to not allow that"for me" to another person. "For me ", I simply do not share your belief that a"higher power" , God, is non existent. I appreciate your agnostic stance, of probabilities . Alvin
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 14, 2014 20:43:41 GMT -5
Although he probably was an Atheist, THAT wasn't the reason he did what he did!
He did what he did because of his belief in COMMUNISM.
that would be pure conjecture on your part my point that he was an atheist and committed atrocities becuase of it is just as valid... No, it isn't pure conjecture. Perhaps you could read more about him before you decide as to why Mao did what he did. Also, maybe you should read the definition of atheism again. Are you attempting to color all atheists with the same wide brush?
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 14, 2014 22:32:00 GMT -5
Oh, them rotten atheists anyhow. !!! Richard Branson donated ,what, some billions to charity, and again a large amount today I think. So, how can we somehow twist it to prove atheists are bad people or something like that. Forget it. He is outspoken about his atheism, not militant though, it seems. Thank you Richard. You have helped many and I thank you. You're doing lots of good and I applaud you. Alvin. Adding that Branson must have learned the wisdom of " don't let religion stand in the way of relationships". When asked in moncton, in 2012, who he admired, he named a retired Anglican preacher - Desmond Tutu. Mature comes to mind. Desmond says "an enemy is a friend waiting to happen "
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 23:54:44 GMT -5
that would be pure conjecture on your part my point that he was an atheist and committed atrocities becuase of it is just as valid... No, it isn't pure conjecture. Perhaps you could read more about him before you decide as to why Mao did what he did. Also, maybe you should read the definition of atheism again. Are you attempting to color all atheists with the same wide brush? why read anything about mao when i have my great uncles memories to go on, he was there he should know... no more than you brushing christians with the same wide brush...
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 15, 2014 0:03:33 GMT -5
Curious now, wally. I'm sure your uncle experienced or witnessed terrible stuff. Did he blame atheism itself, or somehow make that connection , or did he just view Mao as terrible person? Was your great uncle a believer and did he suffer persecution because of that? If too personal, just leave my questions alone. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 15, 2014 0:06:38 GMT -5
My question is, "Are his views that much more intolerant than most Christians concerning the views of we atheists?
DMG, I regret, I am unable to answer your question. My statement pertains to a personal opinion about specific views of a specific person. Perhaps you disagree with my opinion about that person. As I have mentioned on other occasions I believe differences of opinion on a variety of issues is a wholesome and healthy state-of-affairs. I would be interested in you point of view as to how Professor Dawkins manifests a spirit of tolerance and openness towards the ideas and concepts of those who hold opinions different from his own regarding the existence of God. I am unable to answer your broad and general question about "most Christians concerning the views of we atheists". I have not personally reviewed any data regarding "most Christians". I am unfamiliar with a class of individuals characterized by the attribution "we atheists". For the way I think and form opinions, it would be most imprudent to venture into a non-specific question such as the one you pose above. Based on my limited exposure to the views of individuals such as Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, Stephen Hawkins, Stephen Pinker, Michael Shermer and a few others I am aware of considerable scholarly progress amassing philosophical and scientific knowledge that does not rely on a transcendent entity for explanation or comprehension. I am also aware of phenomena for which facile explanations have yet to be found. Based on this personal knowledge and awareness I adhere to a philosophical position that I am unable to know (at this point in time) whether or not a transcendent entity exists. I am comfortable living with that ambiguity, I do not require of my self a firm conviction pro or con. If I were to be pressed for one position or another, I acknowledge that I lean toward the existence of a consciousness and cognition beyond the current capacity of the species homo sapiens.In part, my philosophical leaning toward the existence of a transcendent consciousness, is the consequence of my perception that homo sapiens have yet to master the capacity for open-mindedness. It is my fear that the development of a viable theory to guide the exploration of mechanisms for the processing of information impinging on the brain by processes other than the recognized physical senses (sight, touch, smell, etc.) is being retarded by modern man's reluctance to venture beyond the comfortable confines of empirical data derived from the physical senses.As there have been epochs of revolutionary advancement in human cognition in the past, I anticipate that there will again be revolutionary advances in the cognitive capacity of homo sapiens in the future. It is not unreasonable to anticipate that the emergence of new reasoning capacity will render the dogmatic pronouncements of today's entrenched ideologies baseless and trite. I will try to take some of your statements one at a time.
It isn't a matter of whether I agree or disagree with your view about Dawkins intolerance of others beleifs. I only wondered why you found him so.
You may consider my post a "broad and general question about how most Christians concerning the views of we atheists". However, like your own view of Dawkins's "intolerance," my statement expressed how I have found most Christians to treat my views as an atheist.
You express a "fear that the development of a viable theory to guide the exploration of mechanisms for the processing of information impinging on the brain by processes other than the recognized physical senses (sight, touch, smell, etc.) is being retarded by modern man's reluctance to venture beyond the comfortable confines of empirical data derived from the physical senses."
I see our increased exploding knowledge about the brain as not retarded, but exhilarating.
If I fear anything, it is that information will again be hy-jacked by, dare I say it, another religious element of some kind, into theories adverse to advancement of the human condition.
You express that you "anticipate that there will again be revolutionary advances in the cognitive capacity of homo sapiens in the future."
Good luck with that!
Since that is not how evolution has worked in the past, I wouldn't lay any bets on it.
I would indeed love to see some of the dogmatic pronouncements of today's entrenched ideologies fall by the wayside.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 15, 2014 0:15:11 GMT -5
Oh, them rotten atheists anyhow. !!! Richard Branson donated ,what, some billions to charity, and again a large amount today I think. So, how can we somehow twist it to prove atheists are bad people or something like that. Forget it. He is outspoken about his atheism, not militant though, it seems. Thank you Richard. You have helped many and I thank you. You're doing lots of good and I applaud you. Alvin. Adding that Branson must have learned the wisdom of " don't let religion stand in the way of relationships". When asked in moncton, in 2012, who he admired, he named a retired Anglican preacher - Desmond Tutu. Mature comes to mind. Desmond says "an enemy is a friend waiting to happen " Very i nteresting.
So Branson's admired Desmund Tutu?
Could it possibly be, I wonder , that the two had something in common rather than a belief in a supernatural being?
Could it just possible be a love for humankind! I wonder?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 0:19:50 GMT -5
Curious now, wally. I'm sure your uncle experienced or witnessed terrible stuff. Did he blame atheism itself, or somehow make that connection , or did he just view Mao as terrible person? Was your great uncle a believer and did he suffer persecution because of that? If too personal, just leave my questions alone. Alvin my great uncle was a worker in china and my uncle had to flee to hong kong otherwise he would have been rounded up with the rest and imprisoned or shot because he was a missionary. he blamed both communism and atheism for the plight of the chinese poeple.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 15, 2014 2:43:12 GMT -5
Curious now, wally. I'm sure your uncle experienced or witnessed terrible stuff. Did he blame atheism itself, or somehow make that connection , or did he just view Mao as terrible person? Was your great uncle a believer and did he suffer persecution because of that? If too personal, just leave my questions alone. Alvin my great uncle was a worker in china and my uncle had to flee to hong kong otherwise he would have been rounded up with the rest and imprisoned or shot because he was a missionary. he blamed both communism and atheism for the plight of the chinese poeple. Would you uncle's name be Willie Jamieson?
I have a letter of his dated April 1, 1927 giving details of the problems they were having soldiers invading the house where they were staying, and how he had to hide himself for several hours.
I have several letters similar to that from workers in certain countries at historic times.
One about from a worker in Germany his comments on Hitler.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 4:04:29 GMT -5
Man "originally" was created in the divine image of God. Man was very naughty and disobeyed God and fell away from his divine nature. God is trying to restore us to our original condition. Jesus came in the express "image of God and it is through him that we are restored to our divine state. When Man was very naughty in the Garden of Eden he lost that divine condition and came to know "good and evil," a nature that knew BOTH good and evil. So this explains how man can do many good things and many naughty things. We follow our own will for good or bad. Our human nature is a "corrupt" nature. God created us with an uncorrupt nature, but with our own free will to obey him or otherwise. The battle between God and the Devil is really about corruption and incorruption, or righteousness vs unrighteousness. God wants a pure offering not a corrupt offering which is what human nature offers. In winter time there is nothing more beautiful and pure as the driven Snow, but after a while it gets corrupted, etc. God wants us to choose his righteousness not anything that is corrupted. That which is divine cannot be corrupted. Man was originally made in the image of God, but was not divine as God. Man was given the freedom to choose the tree of life or the tree of the KOGAE -- which man was clearly told results in death -- and man chose corruption - death - over life. From that time forward, all of mankind was born into death. This explains how man can do so many naughty things. Being born of the stock, the root of Adam, how could it produce anything else? Can an evil tree give forth good fruit, or a good tree, evil? But an escape was provided, through Christ. Even though all of mankind after Adam was born into death, by accepting the work of the Redeemer Christ, man could reap eternal life. As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. "That which is divine cannot be corrupted?" That's a a new one on me. Man was created with the divine nature but also with his freewill, I suppose the same as Satan. Being created in the image of God is not the same as actually being God. The divine nature is living by every word which prodeedeth out of the mouth of God. Through man following his own will he chose death over life. Cert mostingly! Our escape in Christ is by being born again of the Spirit of God (divine Spirit) to walk in newness of life. Thou sayest well, Gene. The divine nature/Spirit comes from God. He is the source which he sheds forth to us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 4:51:26 GMT -5
Thanks, ram, bert....... would you consider yourself divine? Alvin Not, not by a Long Shot. Do you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 5:10:04 GMT -5
[According to the Gospel authors, and those of the Old Testament, the Messiah was the "expressed image" of His heavenly Father. Some skeptics cast God in an image of their own making, thus God, who is omnipotent, cannot rage against His own creation. But God gave free agency to man, and man's behavior can illicit behavior of God. This makes little sense, Bert. An omniscient being's behavior is already a fait accompli to that being. As are all events for all of time. We can't say that. It's one thing to foresee all events in the universe (though that position is currently disputed) but if you give people free will then by definition you no longer can predict. By way of example - the Legate Gallus nearly broke through the gates of Jerusalem AD 66. Had he done so he could have swiftly subdued the rebellion. But at the last moment he withdrew, for reasons unknown, and his column was massacred at Beth Horon on dusk. This was the trigger for the ultimate war to destroy the Jews. Many, including the author of that account, saw God's intervention. Similar things happened throughout the Roman Jewish war, such as the temple gates opening of themselves, Halley's comet appearing, a lighting storm which frightened seasoned Roman soldier into releasing the radical prisoners who were pursuing this war etc.. Thus its possible that most things in the universe happen as they will. But God can override.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 15, 2014 6:23:18 GMT -5
That which is divine cannot be corrupted. Man was originally made in the image of God, but was not divine as God. Man was given the freedom to choose the tree of life or the tree of the KOGAE -- which man was clearly told results in death -- and man chose corruption - death - over life. From that time forward, all of mankind was born into death. This explains how man can do so many naughty things. Being born of the stock, the root of Adam, how could it produce anything else? Can an evil tree give forth good fruit, or a good tree, evil? But an escape was provided, through Christ. Even though all of mankind after Adam was born into death, by accepting the work of the Redeemer Christ, man could reap eternal life. As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. "That which is divine cannot be corrupted?" That's a a new one on me. Man was created with the divine nature but also with his freewill, I suppose the same as Satan. Being created in the image of God is not the same as actually being God. The divine nature is living by every word which prodeedeth out of the mouth of God. Through man following his own will he chose death over life. Cert mostingly! Our escape in Christ is by being born again of the Spirit of God (divine Spirit) to walk in newness of life. Thou sayest well, Gene. The divine nature/Spirit comes from God. He is the source which he sheds forth to us. But Satan did not have any part of the divine nature -- he had/has the angelic nature. Divine, Angelic, Human -- separate and distinct. Man can achieve 'god-ness' (divinity) -- angels cannot.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 15, 2014 6:23:58 GMT -5
Thanks, ram, bert....... would you consider yourself divine? Alvin Not, not by a Long Shot. Do you?same Not by a long shot. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 15, 2014 6:25:23 GMT -5
Curious now, wally. I'm sure your uncle experienced or witnessed terrible stuff. Did he blame atheism itself, or somehow make that connection , or did he just view Mao as terrible person? Was your great uncle a believer and did he suffer persecution because of that? If too personal, just leave my questions alone. Alvin my great uncle was a worker in china and my uncle had to flee to hong kong otherwise he would have been rounded up with the rest and imprisoned or shot because he was a missionary. he blamed both communism and atheism for the plight of the chinese poeple. Thanks, wally. Interesting. Alvin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 7:54:51 GMT -5
"That which is divine cannot be corrupted?" That's a a new one on me. Man was created with the divine nature but also with his freewill, I suppose the same as Satan. Being created in the image of God is not the same as actually being God. The divine nature is living by every word which prodeedeth out of the mouth of God. Through man following his own will he chose death over life. Cert mostingly! Our escape in Christ is by being born again of the Spirit of God (divine Spirit) to walk in newness of life. Thou sayest well, Gene. The divine nature/Spirit comes from God. He is the source which he sheds forth to us. But Satan did not have any part of the divine nature -- he had/has the angelic nature. Divine, Angelic, Human -- separate and distinct. Man can achieve 'god-ness' (divinity) -- angels cannot. Gene, I see you are having difficulty discerning what is divine and what is not. You can get little tools to help you. Here is something to consider? I use them all the time. They are a great aid to my Bible studies! www.google.co.uk/search?q=divining+rods&rlz=1C1CHMO_enGB516GB516&espv=2&biw=1440&bih=763&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=odmOVNJNy7ruBsCOgfAG&sqi=2&ved=0CGMQsAQ
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 7:57:05 GMT -5
"Divine" ? Wasn't that Hugh Grant's er... girlfriend?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 8:00:00 GMT -5
"Divine" ? Wasn't that Hugh Grant's er... girlfriend? Yeah Bert. Wasn't she a rod for his back?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 8:02:22 GMT -5
I use the story of Hugh Grant and Divine Brown to make the point: you can have the best in the world (in this case, Elizabeth Hurley) and still not be satisfied.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 8:04:45 GMT -5
I use the story of Hugh Grant and Divine Brown to make the point: you can have the best in the world (in this case, Elizabeth Hurley) and still not be satisfied. But if you have the divine nature you will be satisfied!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 15, 2014 12:00:07 GMT -5
I don't know. I would think if there is a divine source of everything and we are part of that divine source, then we cannot help but be divine too? If God being divine can do atrocities that we see in the OT without losing his divinity, then we should be capable of doing the same things and not lose our divinity either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 12:37:05 GMT -5
I don't know. I would think if there is a divine source of everything and we are part of that divine source, then we cannot help but be divine too? If God being divine can do atrocities that we see in the OT without losing his divinity, then we should be capable of doing the same things and not lose our divinity either. Snow, as the element you are named after "melts," so did "man" thaw in his divine relationship with God. God is sovereign. He makes the rules. All the laws of the universe are subject to him, not the other way round. As thou rightly sayeth, God is the "source" of that which is divine. The divine nature, divine purpose, etc all proceed from God.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 15, 2014 13:41:45 GMT -5
Can anyone who speaks to the term "divine" "divinity" (not the candy ) define what they mean by the term?
|
|