Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Is Atheism Irrational? NYTimes Opinion Piece (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Klimtology
- Start date
joffer
Footballguy
I'd say belief is a mental state that something is true. It could be based on evidence or not. If it's not, I'd call that faith.
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
Jayrod
Footballguy
None. Just like the tenants of Islam that led to the Paris incident. Making an association of all religion to that is like making an association of Pol-pot's actions and atheism.
THERE ISN'T AN ASSOCIATION!!!
I thought people around here were smarter than this, but I guess when discussing a pre-conceived bias, its harder to get through.
I mean for Pete's sake, I'm a Christian defending Islam. That alone should give you guys some hesitation when reading my points.
Jayrod
Footballguy
mr roboto
Footballguy
jonessed
Footballguy
Certainly a portion of them. Cambodian Christians and Buddhist monks were targeted specifically because of their religion. Only a handful survived. Something like 80% were slaughtered.
matuski
Footballguy
Removing religion as an obstacle to indoctrination (nationalism) doesn't necessarily mean you are doing it in the name of atheism.
He also targeted anything and anyone educated or associated with education. He abolished marriage and money. Property.... books, music.
Last edited by a moderator:
mr roboto
Footballguy
I think I understand your point here and I may agree. But if you intentionally target and kill religious leaders because you want an irreligious society I'm not sure.
matuski
Footballguy
I added more after this.
I would agree with you if that were his only focus, or if it were differentiated from how he targeted everything else.
He was wiping the slate clean so to speak for his backwards ideology - anything and everything that was an obstacle to him.
[SIZE=13.63636302948px]He also targeted anything and anyone educated or associated with education. He abolished marriage and money. Property.... books, music.[/SIZE]
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed
Footballguy
They were slaughtered because religion is a threat to core communist ideals. I'm not going to try to draw the line between what was done in the name of atheism and what was done in the name of anti-religion.He targeted and killed these people because they were religious and did not discriminate between religions. You can twist that however you like.
Last edited by a moderator:
mr roboto
Footballguy
I'm not so sure the religious theocrats are that different in their motivation. The foot soldiers, suicide bombers are primarily motivated by religion. The leaders - I don't know.
matuski
Footballguy
Why you would argue I am twisting anything is beyond me.
He targeted ANYTHING he viewed as a threat to his ideals... which was apparently everything. Education and the educated. Books, music, culture, marriage, money.............................................
Saying he targeted religion without mentioning he targeted so many other areas would lead to the impression of religion being a sole agenda instead of part of the larger agenda.
Last edited by a moderator:
Franknbeans
Footballguy
jonessed
Footballguy
It obviously wasn't everything. There was a lot of killing, but the majority was concentrated on specific groups: ethnicities, religious, educated.He did not kill ethnic Chinese because they were Christian or Buddhist, he killed them because they were Chinese. He did not discriminate between religions (or lack thereof). Likewise, he did not kill Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. because they were Chinese, he killed them because he wanted to eradicate religion. He did not discriminate between ethnic background.
He certainly did not try to slaughter everyone that was married.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dexter
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
How can you say that?
Or maybe you should read your Marx, all of it went in a box together, but none of it was possible without eliminating religion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just catching up on the events of the day. The guy yells out, "This is to avenge our prophet Muhammad!" as he jumps in the car and speeds off. How is that not associated with Islam exactly? If the guy clearly yells out what he's doing it in the name of how can you possibly interpret it any other way?
matuski
Footballguy
You are nitpicking for some reason.
Of course he didn't slaughter married people, or those who owned property, or books, or money. He abolished their marriage, destroyed their books, took their property and money.
The point being is religion was not the target.. it was merely one facet of the plan to indoctrinate the children.
Last edited by a moderator:
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
I don't buy that. The only thing I think of that would be slightly similar is political motivation. Let's say that there was some political turmoil in France and this magazine published something that one side found offensive.proninja said:
What, in your opinion, did these terrorists "want to do anyway" if it wasn't about religion?
Sabertooth
Footballguy
zoonation
Footballguy
With all due respect, you aren't making any sense.
THERE ISN'T AN ASSOCIATION!!!
I thought people around here were smarter than this, but I guess when discussing a pre-conceived bias, its harder to get through.
I mean for Pete's sake, I'm a Christian defending Islam. That alone should give you guys some hesitation when reading my points.
matuski
Footballguy
I would go down the middle and say they are obviously violent people, but that they would need a justification to do something this heinous. Religion seems to fit the bill nicely, certainly better than politics and likely nationalism or the like.
Hard to trump "an invisible god told me to"... as we see here, claims regarding invisible beings are hard to pin down for debate.
jonessed
Footballguy
It wasnt the target, it was a target. He didn't just murder indiscriminately. He had specific targets.He declared the eradication of religion as a goal and targeted religious people for death (and was very successful at it). The idea that those people weren't actually targeted for their religion just seems silly to me.
I guess we are just never going to agree.
Last edited by a moderator:
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Could be. But then you have to ask "what do their colleagues" believe?Kill a bunch of people to gain the respect of their colleagues?
matuski
Footballguy
I have fairly clearly stated and agreed that they were targeted for their religion.It wasnt the target, it was a target. He didn't just murder indiscriminately. He had specific targets.
He declared the eradication of religion as a goal and targeted religious people for death (and was very successful at it). The idea that those people weren't actually targeted for their religion is just silly.
I guess we are just never going to agree.
I think you are missing the why... which is what we are after here. It wasn't an atheist decree - it was simply to gain control over the hearts and minds of his people (specifically the children). In other words he targeted religion for the same reason he targeted everything else, he eradicated Buddhism for the same reason he burned books, ended Christian life for the same reason he abolished marriage and property rights... they stood between him and his ideals so he removed them.
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed
Footballguy
One of which is atheism. He was a communist dictator. Atheism is a core tenet of communism. Oppression and slaughter of religious people was part of Stalin's reign, Mao's reign, and Pol-Pot's reign. The Chinese government is still devoutly atheist. Thankfully they don't murder people for it anymore, but you won't find a party official that isn't atheist.When nationalism is concerned lack of religion can be just as powerful a force as religion. It can be used as a force of oppression on a populace in the same way.I have fairly clearly stated and agreed that they were targeted for their religion.It wasnt the target, it was a target. He didn't just murder indiscriminately. He had specific targets.He declared the eradication of religion as a goal and targeted religious people for death (and was very successful at it). The idea that those people weren't actually targeted for their religion is just silly.
I guess we are just never going to agree.
I think you are missing the why... which is what we are after here. It wasn't an atheist decree - it was simply to gain control over the hearts and minds of his people (specifically the children). In other words he targeted religion for the same reason he targeted everything else, he eradicated Buddhism for the same reason he burned books, ended Christian life for the same reason he abolished marriage and property rights... they stood between him and his ideals so he removed them.
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu
Footballguy
Wrong, it's a tenet of Marxism. For example, the Jewish kibbutz is religious communism, as are the Amish. Communism has almost always become totalitarianism and totalitarian governments don't want the threat of people worshiping something greater than the state, which religion represents.
Last edited by a moderator:
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
I have something supernatural in my pants.
msommer
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Agreed, Jayrod comes in here and drops the Pol Pot reference, runs off like a little biych and the next 24 hours are spent on the single worst case against athism that ever existed.
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
Regarding this Pol Pot, Marxism discussion, isn't it possible to be an atheist and not be anti-religion?
The Commish
Footballguy
Ok....care to get any more specific with what "written and preached works" are? Never heard that term before.
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Footballguy
Of course.Regarding this Pol Pot, Marxism discussion, isn't it possible to be an atheist and not be anti-religion?
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Of course. Most atheists go through their lives peacefully without worrying too much about the religious people around them. A few -- like Mao for example -- go off the rails and kill a bunch of people, but those are the minority. Similarly, some religious folks go nuts and murder a bunch of people. Theoretically, nobody should have any problem acknowledging any of this.Regarding this Pol Pot, Marxism discussion, isn't it possible to be an atheist and not be anti-religion?
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
And I don't believe in God or the Bible and I desire that all people come to the realization that it's all a big fantasy. Basically because I care about my fellow human beings and want them to live in reality, not fantasy.
You believe what you want, I'll believe what I want. I only jumped in because you started to proselytize to Maurile. So, I returned the favor.
The Commish
Footballguy
And thus part of the problem of these threads. I'm not saying one definition is better than another. I'm just saying we need to understand where the other is coming from when they use the terms. To me, what you describe is "opinion". To me it's incorrect to say "I believe the earth is flat". It's demonstrably wrong and can be proven within the realm of science. Rather, it's your opinion that the earth is flat and you're ignoring the mounds of evidence to the contrary. Again, not an argument for one over the other. Just trying to explain what the difference between belief and opinion are in these discussions when you're talking to someone of faith. Faith is typically a confidence level in one's belief and is generally really only needed in discussions like this. It would probably help if I used "confidence" in statements rather than faith. "I have faith that God exists" vs "I have confidence that God exists" etc.
The term "written" is the past particle of write. Have you heard of write? The definition of write is to form text in letters or numbers on a surface with a pen or pencil etc., to produce a writing.
The term "works" used and a noun is the result of work. Have you heard of work? The definition of work is the physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something.
You put those two terms together to form the phrase "written works". Here are some examples: click here
Do the same thing for the term "preached". Preached is the past tense of preach. The definition of preach is to proclaim or make known by sermon, to advocate or inculcate.
The Commish
Footballguy
I can't help but pick up on the ironyThe term "written" is the past particle of write. Have you heard of write? The definition of write is to form text in letters or numbers on a surface with a pen or pencil etc., to produce a writing.
The term "works" used and a noun is the result of work. Have you heard of work? The definition of work is the physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something.
You put those two terms together to form the phrase "written works". Here are some examples: click here
Do the same thing for the term "preached". Preached is the past tense of preach. The definition of preach is to proclaim or make known by sermon, to advocate or inculcate.
I didn't figure you'd want to talk about actual sceanrios...keep on keepin' on 
If you want a specific example take Ether 9:19 of the Book of Mormon; "And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms: all of which were useful to man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms."tonydead said:The term "written" is the past particle of write. Have you heard of write? The definition of write is to form text in letters or numbers on a surface with a pen or pencil etc., to produce a writing.The Commish said:
The term "works" used and a noun is the result of work. Have you heard of work? The definition of work is the physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something.
You put those two terms together to form the phrase "written works". Here are some examples: click here
Do the same thing for the term "preached". Preached is the past tense of preach. The definition of preach is to proclaim or make known by sermon, to advocate or inculcate.
Science proves that the only elephant species to have existed in the Americas, the mammoth and mastodon, died out centuries before Book of Mormon time line. Ironically, surviving accounts of the circus in Colonial America document that wild animals were first brought over from Africa and put on display for an admission change in the 1800s. The same time period as the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon.
I ask myself what is more probable; that our scientists and historians completely missed herds and species of elephants in our archaeological record or Joseph Smith became aware of these fascinating new wild animals and decided to include them in his fantastic story?
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
Wow. That is a spectacularly wrong statement.Jayrod said:
The Commish
Footballguy
Ok...I'll take your word for it. I know nothing about the Book of Mormon. Thanks for the input
It's not about the Book of Mormon. It was about probability. The entire discourse was trying to help you understand my statement below. Remember? You don't have to know anything about the truth of the example I provided. You just have to be able to conceptualize how it illustrates my statement.Ok...I'll take your word for it. I know nothing about the Book of Mormon. Thanks for the input
[SIZE=10.5pt]“Hey! We avenged the Prophet Muhammad! We killed Charlie Hebdo,” one of the men shouted in French, according to a video shot from a nearby building and broadcast on French TV. Other video showed two gunmen in black at a crossroads who appeared to fire down one of the streets. A cry of “Allahu akbar!” — Arabic for “God is great”— could be heard among the gunshots.[/SIZE]
