[Sharkey]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Are you sure that your own worldview isn't biasing your opinion here? You can't fairly judge someone else's morality by your own belief system when they don't share it. For instance, someone might believe homosexuality is immoral using the christian worldview, but for a buddhist it wouldn't be immoral at all.

Yeah, I am sure. The thread ain't about atheism but you are obviously a strong believer of nothing that you keep bringing it up.

See, the thread is about radical Islam attacking American soil. I know it is hard to believe but it isn't always about you or in your belief in nothing.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

So, I'm still not seeing any instances of atheist suicide bombers. We have established that atheists are willing to kill for money and power (as are theists), but not for some absurd religious ideal (that will take their life too). My point being, atheists have one less reason to kill than do theists. Does that make us morally superior? No, of course not, but maybe we are a little less gullible.

And... Kamikazes, really? The name itself means divine wind.

You are looking at the world with blinders on, and splitting hairs.

Atheists have perpetrated mass murder on a scale that is rather large. The numbers vary, and approach 100 million dead. They are not unlike other people.

Kamikazes? You have a way to look into each of their hearts over 60 years ago? Go ahead and dish on that one.



What you are missing, is that people don't need a logical reason to kill in mass. In fact, an illogical one works better most of the time. Atheist communists have killed close to 100 million.


And yet you still claim that other religious beliefs (other than atheism) are the root cause of such bad behavior.

You're really not seeing it? Or are you being obtuse again?

It's really hard to tell.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by void *

Actually, they did it with power as a motivator. Which is also something that does not isolate itself to either the religious, or the nonreligious.

Is the guy blowing himself up because he believes that somehow, killing innocent people will be judged as holy and good in the eyes of his deity doing it with power as a motivator?

You might have a little bit of hope after all. How many people pretended religion was a motivator, but were really after power?



I've already gone over my discussions with failed suicide bombers. Most of them really intended to detonate, some were stopped by fires, some were stopped by running out of gas, some were stopped because of being caught in the act, some were stopped due to their pre-existing profound mental handicaps.

How many intended suicide bombers have you personally interviewed again?

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Sharkey

Yeah, I am sure. The thread ain't about atheism but you are obviously a strong believer of nothing that you keep bringing it up.

See, the thread is about radical Islam attacking American soil. I know it is hard to believe but it isn't always about you or in your belief in nothing.

Firm belief in the absence of a deity without proof.

Don't tell him that's faith. He hates that.

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

You are looking at the world with blinders on, and splitting hairs.

Atheists have perpetrated mass murder on a scale that is rather large. The numbers vary, and approach 100 million dead. They are not unlike other people.

What you are missing, is that people don't need a logical reason to kill in mass. In fact, an illogical one works better most of the time. Atheist communists have killed close to 100 million.

And yet you still claim that other religious beliefs (other than atheism) are the root cause of such bad behavior.

You're really not seeing it? Or are you being obtuse again?

It's really hard to tell.

Something that I've posted before...

Often when somebody attempts to play the Hitler/Stalin card there is the basic premise that (1) lack of belief in god causes people to act immorally, and (2) the inverse that belief in God, specifically the Christian God, causes people to act morally -- I recognize this isn't your agnostic view, but stay with me.

This is quickly contradicted by the fact that there are atheists that do not commit atrocities, and there are theists that do.

So we have:

(1) atheists that commit atrocities
(2) atheists that do not commit atrocities
(3) theists that commit atrocities
(4) theists that do not commit atrocities

This would seem to support your heroes and zeroes position.

The existence of people in (2) and (3) contradicts the 2 initial premises. If we cannot conclude that it was their belief in God that caused theists to not commit atrocities, then you cannot conclude that an atheists lack of belief in God caused them to commit their atrocities. So, there must be a difference between an atheist that commits atrocities and one that does not (and between a theist that commits atrocities and one that does not). The difference is clearly not the belief (or lack of belief) in God, so the difference must be something more personal like their own desires/values/morality.

The millions of people that died at the hands of these dictators did not die because the leaders had become too rational, too skeptical or too demanding of evidence supporting their core beliefs.

In fact, these totalitarian leaders have more in common with religion -- with the leader serving in the role of God -- and each having their own dogma and ideology that must be obeyed without question.

Atrocities committed by these leaders, even when perpetuated against religion and the religious, were not committed in the name of atheism. The organization and power of religion was the threat, and threats to totalitarianism must be dealt with harshly.

Of course I would be more than willing to explore any argument of causation between atheism and these atrocities that anybody would care to advance.

-ArtificialGrape

[Beware Owner]

So you're saying that religion was NOT the cause of these mass killings? *gasp*

[void *]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

You might have a little bit of hope after all. How many people pretended religion was a motivator, but were really after power?

Quite a few, I suspect, but your question is not relevant to the question "How many suicide bombers are doing it because they believe blowing themselves up and dying will get them power?". The people who used religion as a tool to gain political power, or who banned religion as a tool to gain political power, were not suicide bombing, they were exercising the political power thus gained.

I've already gone over my discussions with failed suicide bombers. Most of them really intended to detonate, some were stopped by fires, some were stopped by running out of gas, some were stopped because of being caught in the act, some were stopped due to their pre-existing profound mental handicaps.

I didn't ask about how they were stopped. How many of them that actually intended to detonate were motivated because of power, and not religious belief?

How many intended suicide bombers have you personally interviewed again?

It doesn't matter, I'm asking you a question. Do you care to answer, or even explain how blowing one's self up, and therefore being dead, can possibly gain power? It might gain power for *someone*, in the sense that I think it is currently the case that certain radical Islamist leaders are using the fact that they can get people to blow themselves up for their religion to attempt to gain power - but that person is *certainly* not the detonated suicide bomber, and the question here is the motivation of the bomber.

So again, how many radical Islamist suicide bombers, with actual intent to detonate, were *not* motivated by their religious beliefs?

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape

Something that I've posted before...

Often when somebody attempts to play the Hitler/Stalin card there is the basic premise that (1) lack of belief in god causes people to act immorally, and (2) the inverse that belief in God, specifically the Christian God, causes people to act morally -- I recognize this isn't your agnostic view, but stay with me.

This is quickly contradicted by the fact that there are atheists that do not commit atrocities, and there are theists that do.

So we have:

(1) atheists that commit atrocities
(2) atheists that do not commit atrocities
(3) theists that commit atrocities
(4) theists that do not commit atrocities

This would seem to support your heroes and zeroes position.

The existence of people in (2) and (3) contradicts the 2 initial premises. If we cannot conclude that it was their belief in God that caused theists to not commit atrocities, then you cannot conclude that an atheists lack of belief in God caused them to commit their atrocities. So, there must be a difference between an atheist that commits atrocities and one that does not (and between a theist that commits atrocities and one that does not). The difference is clearly not the belief (or lack of belief) in God, so the difference must be something more personal like their own desires/values/morality.

The millions of people that died at the hands of these dictators did not die because the leaders had become too rational, too skeptical or too demanding of evidence supporting their core beliefs.

In fact, these totalitarian leaders have more in common with religion -- with the leader serving in the role of God -- and each having their own dogma and ideology that must be obeyed without question.

Atrocities committed by these leaders, even when perpetuated against religion and the religious, were not committed in the name of atheism. The organization and power of religion was the threat, and threats to totalitarianism must be dealt with harshly.

Of course I would be more than willing to explore any argument of causation between atheism and these atrocities that anybody would care to advance.

-ArtificialGrape

Atheism and agnosticism certainly do not negate the possibility of morality, personal courage, good behavior etc.

Integrity, honesty, and courage are individual traits that are separate from reported religious beliefs.

I've met plenty of atheists on battlefields that were fine men to serve with in those situations. They could be trusted to do their best in any situation.

I think the root cause is human nature. Deep down inside, some people just aren't very nice, in a murderous sort of way. Humans commit all sorts of atrocities upon one another many times every day in just our country alone. Rape, murder, kidnapping, child molestation etc etc etc.

If you want to understand how that happens in large numbers, one just need to understand that humans are more effective when they cooperate. It's much easier to do bad things to people that you do not identify with. So, families, clans, tribes, political parties, unions, ethnicity, religious belief, race, gender..... all are used to create an US vs. THEM mentality.

Whether a guy driving a VBIED slams into your vehicle because of allah, depression, poor possibility of a good life due to disease, for family honor, due to extortion, for money for his desperately poor family, or just because he was mentally impaired and his family saw him as expendable, really doesn't matter to the victims of the attack. I've seen all of those. Most of the guys we had and talked to were social misfits for one reason or another. Geeky kids mostly. Not wild eyed soldiers for allah. Terrorism is a political tactic, not a religious one. The actual bombers may be convinced by religion, but that's not always true. The down syndrome kid we had was so cognitively impaired that I doubt he would know what a virgin was. Best we can tell, his family sold him for cash, and they just told him to walk to a checkpoint, and tried to remote detonate the explosives.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by void *

Quite a few, I suspect, but your question is not relevant to the question "How many suicide bombers are doing it because they believe blowing themselves up and dying will get them power?". The people who used religion as a tool to gain political power, or who banned religion as a tool to gain political power, were not suicide bombing, they were exercising the political power thus gained.



I didn't ask about how they were stopped. How many of them that actually intended to detonate were motivated because of power, and not religious belief?



It doesn't matter, I'm asking you a question. Do you care to answer, or even explain how blowing one's self up, and therefore being dead, can possibly gain power? It might gain power for *someone*, in the sense that I think it is currently the case that certain radical Islamist leaders are using the fact that they can get people to blow themselves up for their religion to attempt to gain power - but that person is *certainly* not the detonated suicide bomber, and the question here is the motivation of the bomber.

So again, how many radical Islamist suicide bombers, with actual intent to detonate, were *not* motivated by their religious beliefs?

Power can be different depending on the individual, and it can be seen differently by an individual. Take a young man, 26 years old, with a severe cardiomyopathy, his wife left, he is a burden to his family, probably has a couple of years to live at best. His brother was involved with suspected car bomb makers. Whether or not he believed in allah and the 72 virgins, he gains the power to change his reputation with his family by carrying out a bombing. It's not like he has much to lose. I got the sense that he was not very devout, he didn't answer the call to prayer, never spoke of religion, or even dislike of Americans. He was really interested in whether I could fix his heart.

Is that a good enough example for you?

[FriarTuck]

Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape

... lack of belief in god causes people to act immorally...

Actually, the Bible says that ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Everybody is in need of the salvation that Jesus provided for at Calvary. One obtains this grace by believing in Jesus and by trying to live by God's laws, including no murdering.

Suppose you were walking down a dark street in L.A. one night and saw a group of young men heading your way. Would it relieve you to know that they were just setting out for home from their Bible study class?

Of course it would.

That demonstrates that Biblical religion mitigates evil in this world.

God-denying secularists, OTOH, have caused more violence and suffering than any other ideology, with the exception of Islam, which is actually about 85% POLITICAL and only 15% religious.

Consider France beginning in 1789; atheists there murdered about 1 million fellow Frenchmen, largely because of their Revolution's anti-church, anti-clerical agenda. Their guillotine was too slow: they resorted to mass drownings to kill all the people they wanted to kill.

Atheistic Nazis murdered 6 million Jews and millions of others, especially Polish Christians.

Atheistic communists murdered 100 million (at least -they destroyed many records) in Eastern Europe, Africa, Central and South America, SE Asia, Korea, and China.

Legalistic hair-splitting aside, the fact is that cruel, despotic atheist governments who rejected Christianity and strongly promoted atheist ideologies have led to the enslavement and murder of untold millions.

Back to the Islam alluded to in this thread's title. Yesterday, in Denmark, still a somewhat Christian country with God-given freedom, Lars Hedegaard, an advocate of free speech answered a knock at his door. Two Pakistani (Muslim) men were there offering a package. One then pulled a gun and fired, fortunately missing. Lars, age 70, grabbed the 25 year-old miscreant and they wrestled. The gun seems to have jammed, and the jihadists ran off. The word 'mosque' derives from Arabic language for 'submission', a political concept, as opposed to 'church', meaning a place of peace for contemplating the Divine. Too many Leftist Atheists today support Islam's attempt to make all of us submit to sharia, involving slavery and murder for us. But as the brave Lars shows us, resistance can make the bad guys run off. God bless him.

[void *]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Is that a good enough example for you?

Is your answer to my question of "How many of them that actually intended to detonate were motivated because of power, and not religious belief?" this single guy, given with a proviso requiring that it not be political power, but the "the power to change his reputation with his family"?

If that's the case, I guess '1' is a good enough answer. Are you really intending to state that out of the thousands of suicide bombers and intended suicide bombers, only one of them did it for (putatively, since the reason it would raise his reputation is likely religious) nonreligious reasons? Or were you attempting to avoid answering by giving a single example?

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by void *

Is your answer to my question of "How many of them that actually intended to detonate were motivated because of power, and not religious belief?" this single guy, given with a proviso requiring that it not be political power, but the "the power to change his reputation with his family"?

If that's the case, I guess '1' is a good enough answer. Are you really intending to state that out of the thousands of suicide bombers and intended suicide bombers, only one of them did it for (putatively, since the reason it would raise his reputation is likely religious) nonreligious reasons? Or were you attempting to avoid answering by giving a single example?

That was one guy. There was another down's syndrome kid that was just pointed toward a checkpoint, and he was so cognitively impaired that I doubt he would understand the concept of god. There was evidence of previous head trauma too, it wasn't just the down's syndrome.

The guy in the attack on the Embassy in Turkey was reportedly a marxist, a group which aren't known too well for being very religious, but who knows?

Militarily, you seem to be equating suicide bombing with an effective technique. Usually, it's not. Of all the suicide bombers in Iraq, which ones made us give back a piece of ground that we owned? As a military strategy, it's a tactic used by the poorly equipped. Well equipped people have ways of getting an explosive payload to a target without personal risk to personnel.

What I will say, is that there is a myriad of reasons people kill one another. Many of them aren't even reasonable, and yet it still happens. If you want to believe that religion is the root cause of war, you will be wrong, and in this day and age, being wrong can be a very dangerous thing.

[void *]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Militarily, you seem to be equating suicide bombing with an effective technique. Usually, it's not.

You seem to be again attributing things to me that I have never stated. I wouldn't consider it an "effective military technique" to begin with because the targets chosen aren't chosen to be militarily effective. Civilians aren't military targets, for instance, and even when the targets happen to be military, they don't seem to be chosen for military purposes. (This is independent of whether a suicide bomber is a particularly effective explosives delivery system. I would expect there are a ton of better delivery systems, too).

I am merely pointing out that plenty of radical islamic religious fanatics commit suicide bombings because they are radical islamic religious fanatics. (this is not to say that all islamics would do so, but it's pretty damn clear the radical islamics do). If they're not doing it for their deity, why do many of them yell his name, etc, before triggering?

You can continue to make stuff up about what I'm claiming if you'd like, though, you seem to enjoy it.

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by FriarTuck

Actually, the Bible says that ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Everybody is in need of the salvation that Jesus provided for at Calvary. One obtains this grace by believing in Jesus and by trying to live by God's laws, including no murdering.

If the Bible says it then it must be true?

Originally Posted by FriarTuck

Suppose you were walking down a dark street in L.A. one night and saw a group of young men heading your way. Would it relieve you to know that they were just setting out for home from their Bible study class?

Of course it would.

And any other group would represent a threat?

Originally Posted by FriarTuck

That demonstrates that Biblical religion mitigates evil in this world.

No, that represents pride.

Originally Posted by FriarTuck

God-denying secularists, OTOH, have caused more violence and suffering than any other ideology, with the exception of Islam, which is actually about 85% POLITICAL and only 15% religious.

More pirde.

Originally Posted by FriarTuck

Consider France beginning in 1789; atheists there murdered about 1 million fellow Frenchmen, largely because of their Revolution's anti-church, anti-clerical agenda. Their guillotine was too slow: they resorted to mass drownings to kill all the people they wanted to kill.

And the Christian nobels didn't do anything to deserve it? You need a history lesson.

Originally Posted by FriarTuck

Atheistic Nazis murdered 6 million Jews and millions of others, especially Polish Christians.

One more time. http://ahquotes.tripod.com/

Originally Posted by FriarTuck

Atheistic communists murdered 100 million (at least -they destroyed many records) in Eastern Europe, Africa, Central and South America, SE Asia, Korea, and China.

Any hard evidence?

Originally Posted by FriarTuck

Legalistic hair-splitting aside, the fact is that cruel, despotic atheist governments who rejected Christianity and strongly promoted atheist ideologies have led to the enslavement and murder of untold millions.

And cruel, despotic Christian governments didn't? Ever hear of the "Thirty Years War"? How about Oliver Cromwell? Henry VIII? Do you really think the indigenous Mexicans willingly gave up their religion in favor of Christianity?

Originally Posted by FriarTuck

Back to the Islam alluded to in this thread's title. Yesterday, in Denmark, still a somewhat Christian country with God-given freedom, Lars Hedegaard, an advocate of free speech answered a knock at his door. Two Pakistani (Muslim) men were there offering a package. One then pulled a gun and fired, fortunately missing. Lars, age 70, grabbed the 25 year-old miscreant and they wrestled. The gun seems to have jammed, and the jihadists ran off. The word 'mosque' derives from Arabic language for 'submission', a political concept, as opposed to 'church', meaning a place of peace for contemplating the Divine. Too many Leftist Atheists today support Islam's attempt to make all of us submit to sharia, involving slavery and murder for us. But as the brave Lars shows us, resistance can make the bad guys run off. God bless him.

Now that's just nonsense. Am I to believe that Christians never kill other Christians? Would that have made it better? Do Christians never kill innocent Muslims?

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by void *

You seem to be again attributing things to me that I have never stated. ...
...

No problem, just say that what it seems, it is not.

We can move on then.

[FriarTuck]

Originally Posted by muscogee

If the Bible says it then it must be true?
Now that's just nonsense.

The Bible has stood the test of time.

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet" -Matthew 10:14

[FriarTuck]

Oh, I forgot about muscogee's link claiming Hitler was a Christian. The Bible provides the best answer to that bit of deception: "Ye shall know them by their fruits" -Matthew 7:16

'Nuff said.

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by FriarTuck

The Bible has stood the test of time.

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet" -Matthew 10:14

What test wold that be?

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by FriarTuck

Oh, I forgot about muscogee's link claiming Hitler was a Christian. The Bible provides the best answer to that bit of deception: "Ye shall know them by their fruits" -Matthew 7:16

'Nuff said.

Can you be more specific? You're not preaching to the choir here. You're going to have to support your statements. Do you concede my other points? Do you admit you were mistaken?

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by FriarTuck

Oh, I forgot about muscogee's link claiming Hitler was a Christian. The Bible provides the best answer to that bit of deception: "Ye shall know them by their fruits" -Matthew 7:16

'Nuff said.

So, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is scriptural?

Originally Posted by FriarTuck

The Bible has stood the test of time.

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet" -Matthew 10:14

As is the "Appeal to Popularity"?

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by FriarTuck

You're right, he wasn't a Marxist, in the sense of 'looking out for working people'. The only working-class person he knew was his servant, Helen Demuth, whom he never paid any wages, and whom he adulterously used as his mistress. How convenient that he loathed Judeo-Christian religion and its morality. Their illegitimate son, Freddy, was only allowed in the back door. When his wife found out, she was devastated. Marx was a bum too: he never seriously tried to get a job, but lived off loans which were never repaid. His sugar-daddy, Engels, covered for him. His family lived in squalid conditions, which caused a legitimate son to die young of gastroenteritis. One daughter died of opium overdose and another committed suicide. Marx smoked and drank heavily, and stunk because he seldom bathed.

But selfish Marx didn't let any of this worry him: he envisioned massive destruction, the end of history, when his proletariat would rise up in class warfare and destroy the capitalist world. He was a hypocrite, immensely selfish and bloody-minded, like Mohammed. He preached envy of "the rich", theft of their property, and murder described as 'class warfare' and 'revolution'. His communism, one of the greatest failures in human history, murdered 100 million innocents in the 20th century.

You're Snowbird... you write just like him and your slanted view of history is the same.

Funny how his posts in RI stopped on 12-02-12 and your very first post as a member was 12-04-12.

[kirgi08]

[hooligan74]

Originally Posted by FriarTuck

Oh, I forgot about muscogee's link claiming Hitler was a Christian. The Bible provides the best answer to that bit of deception: "Ye shall know them by their fruits" -Matthew 7:16

'Nuff said.

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. That card gets played every single time, it's just a question of when.

[FriarTuck]

Originally Posted by hooligan74

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. That card gets played every single time, it's just a question of when.

Are you saying that murdering 6 million Jews and likely an equal number of Christians, is a Christian act?

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by FriarTuck

Are you saying that murdering 6 million Jews and likely an equal number of Christians, is a Christian act?

Sure.. if they're the "Wrong" kind of Christians or aren't Christian enough.