Originally posted by sonhouse"Such deadly consequences"
This is the most terse statement I can come up with regarding the
insane following of religions, especially when it leads to such
deadly consequenses as we all see today.
Which are?
And are these "consequences" less, more or as deadly as those of the followers of atheistic philosophies such as Nazism and Communism?
Cheers,
LH
Originally posted by lucifershammerWell the communists at least don't claim some innate superiority
"Such deadly consequences"
Which are?
And are these "consequences" less, more or as deadly as the followers of atheistic philosophies such as Nazism and Communism?
Cheers,
LH
because of some supposed relation to a god. They claim superiority
of their own philosophy with no link to a god. There is a clear
distinction of concepts there. They make no claim to a god given
mandate. They are more like the mafia, I am the biggest dude in
the valley and don't mess with me and thats fine, may the best
system win, just don't think in your mind that when such a system
is defeated its because God was on our side and therefore they lost
out because it was God's will. Thats the deadly consequence I am
talking about, using deadly force in the name of some proported
god and being self-rightous about it. Its just another name
for insanity.
Originally posted by sonhouseLet me see if I'm getting this correctly:
Well the communists at least don't claim some innate superiority
because of some supposed relation to a god. They claim superiority
of their own philosophy with no link to a god. There is a clear
distinction of concepts there. They make no claim to a god given
mandate. They are more like the mafia, I am the biggest dude in
the valley and don't mess w ...[text shortened]... e of some proported
god and being self-rightous about it. Its just another name
for insanity.
A religious person using force in the name of God to kill (say) 100 people and being self-righteous about it is deadlier than a Nazi killing 100 Jews and being self-righteous about it.
Correct?
LH
EDIT: For the moment, I'm not going into the actual numbers killed by either philosophy; or the charitable activities of either. Right now, I'm just trying to guage your philosophy.
Originally posted by lucifershammerGood question, I have to think about that. For now I have to say
Let me see if I'm getting this correctly:
A religious person using force in the name of God to kill (say) 100 people and being self-righteous about it is [b]deadlier than a Nazi killing 100 Jews and being self-righteous about it.
Correct?
LH
EDIT: For the moment, I'm not going into the actual numbers killed by either philosophy; or the charitable activities of either. Right now, I'm just trying to guage your philosophy.[/b]
both are wrong but you can put down nazi's by pure force and when
its over its over and if a recurrance happens ala whats going on with
neonazi crap showing up, its still group A vs group B or maybe most
of the rest of the world in their case but I actually don't know all that much about nazi philosophy, don't they claim some godly rights also?
Don't they have some component in their philosophy tied to religion?
I think its an absolute horror nazi's could stray so far from basic
human values as to think they could justify killing millions of jews like
they did but I think the balance has to go to religious wars for
absolute numbers of dead.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt's easy to make a case for Nazism, communism and Maoism being religions (see any dictionary definition of "religion"đ especially with their personality cults. I think they add to Son House's case rather than detracting from it.
"Such deadly consequences"
Which are?
And are these "consequences" less, more or as deadly as those of the followers of atheistic philosophies such as Nazism and Communism?
Cheers,
LH
Hitler & the gang apparently believed in the old Norse gods. Christian hatred for Jews was not confined to Germany, nor was it unique to the 20th century.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou know very well that communism and nazism are not atheistic, since atheism is solely a lack of belief in god(s). You are attmepting to sully atheism by using examples of periods of history where men (Mao for example) claimed their beliefs rested on an atheistic base. This is a particularity of these people, not of atheism, which carries no other belief structure. And besides, as I recall Hitler claimed to be a Christian didn't he?
"Such deadly consequences"
Which are?
And are these "consequences" less, more or as deadly as those of the followers of atheistic philosophies such as Nazism and Communism?
Cheers,
LH
sonhouse is equally perverse in his original statement, but I'm surprised you are stooping to such levels.
Originally posted by StarrmanInteresting you as an atheist would think my statement perverse.
You know very well that communism and nazism are not atheistic, since atheism is solely a lack of belief in god(s). You are attmepting to sully atheism by using examples of periods of history where men (Mao for example) claimed their beliefs rested on an atheistic base. This is a particularity of these people, not of atheism, which carries no other belief ...[text shortened]... equally perverse in his original statement, but I'm surprised you are stooping to such levels.
You think people like Mohammed and Paul are not perverse, just
deluded? Just curious where you are coming from here.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It's easy to make a case for Nazism, communism and Maoism being religions (see any dictionary definition of "religion"đ especially with their personality cults. I think they add to Son House's case rather than detracting from it.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion
re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
The philosophies mentioned certainly do not satisfy (1) and (2). For (3) to apply you would have to consider Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Mao etc. "spiritual" leaders - which IMO is a bit of a stretch. (4) is too general and could apply to any enthusiastic movement.
So, I would have to conclude - no, these are not religions in any common sense of the term.
Hitler & the gang apparently believed in the old Norse gods. Christian hatred for Jews was not confined to Germany, nor was it unique to the 20th century.
The question of Hitler's religious belief is an interesting one (A reasonably non-propagandist article can be found at http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html ) - but ultimately irrelevant. The question is whether the Nazi movement was religious in nature. I think not - there is no comparable "religious mission" with the Nazi party as with, say, Al Qaeda.
When you say "Christian hatred of Jews", what do you mean? Are you referring to Christianity (as a religion) hating the Jews or the Christian population of Europe hating the Jews? The two are very different.
Originally posted by sonhouseAtheism doesn't cover my political views on religion as an institution, but purely, as I said to LH, my lack of belief in the supernatural. The actions of men like Mohammed and Paul is of little importance to me as an atheist as they are just men acting for an institution. Politcally on the other hand I obvjously have opinions on them.
Interesting you as an atheist would think my statement perverse.
You think people like Mohammed and Paul are not perverse, just
deluded? Just curious where you are coming from here.
Originally posted by StarrmanAre communism and Nazism theistic, then?
You know very well that communism and nazism are not atheistic, since atheism is solely a lack of belief in god(s). You are attmepting to sully atheism by using examples of periods of history where men (Mao for example) claimed their beliefs rested on an atheistic base. This is a particularity of these people, not of atheism, which carries no other belief ...[text shortened]... equally perverse in his original statement, but I'm surprised you are stooping to such levels.
It is funny you should accuse me of "attempting to sully atheism" in using people as Mao as an example (I never did - I only cited the movements); and then go on to mention Hitler. Aren't you attempting to sully Christianity then?
In any case, I never mentioned personalities - only the philosophies and the philosophical movements themselves.
Originally posted by lucifershammer(4) is your personal opinion. Since the definition exists in the online dictionary you chose, everyone *else* concludes that they are.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
(4) is too general and could apply to any enthusiastic movement.
So, I would have to conclude - no, these are not religions in any common sense of the term.
Originally posted by lucifershammer
Are communism and Nazism theistic, then?
No of course not and I never alluded to such either.
It is funny you should accuse me of "attempting to sully atheism" in using people as Mao as an example (I never did - I only cited the movements); and then go on to mention Hitler. Aren't you attempting to sully Christianity then? In any case, I never mentioned personalities - only the philosophies and the philosophical movements themselves.
My point had nothing to do with sullying christianity, I was showing that the philosophies you brought to the debate are not atheistic by nature. Christians can be communists too. I believe you know this full well and as such were using the example of Mao (who claimed to link atheism to his political ideology) to suggest that communism and atheism have a link. Political ideologies are neither theistic or atheistic be nature.
Originally posted by David CI concur, especially if "zeal" is preceded by the adjective "fanatical".
(4) is your personal opinion. Since the definition exists in the online dictionary you chose, everyone *else* concludes that they are.
Was Ghandi a spiritual leader, a political leader, or a bit of both?
I don't think there's any question that Mao's followers regarded him as a spiritual leader, comparable even to Confucius. Here's one link supporting my assertion:
http://www.china.org.cn/english/culture/82677.htm
One does not have to belong to a religion or believe in a personal God to have a spiritual life.