Which part of the God Delusion did you find most offensive? (beliefs, experience)

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Stalin acted in the name of an atheistic ideal. Should I therefore blame atheism? How about a little consistency from BFX?

I'm in basic agreement with you.

And, as I said in the other thread, there is no such thing as an atheistic ideal. Atheism is the lack of belief in God, that's all. Beyond that there is nothing that is inherently atheistic. You might find a correlation between some other beliefs and atheism, but that doesn't mean they are intrinsically connected. If you mean the abolition of religion by him, then the problem is that he basically set up a new religion to replace the others. He set himself basically in Jesus's place, and it worked just like such a religion where one was expected to worship and obey without question. That has nothing to do with atheism.

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Stalin acted in the name of an atheistic ideal. Should I therefore blame atheism? How about a little consistency from BFX?

I'm in basic agreement with you.

When have I been inconsistent? You believe all of these atrocieties had atheism at their core. Here you mention stalin. Your wrong. Stalin acted in the name of dogmatic Marxist and communist ideas and beliefs. He was was raised religious. So was hitler. Hitler never renounced catholism and was never an atheist. Article 24 of Hitler's Nazi party programs calls for "Positive Christianity".

Originally Posted by Hitler in 1938

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."

What history book do you read from?

You imply that you believe these atrocities to be the result of an atheistic belief system. You provide no basis for this belief. You just assert it as true.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

When have I been inconsistent? You believe all of these atrocieties had atheism at their core. Here you mention stalin. Your wrong. Stalin acted in the name of dogmatic Marxist and communist ideas and beliefs. He was was raised religious. So was hitler. Hitler never renounced catholism and was never an atheist. Article 24 of Hitler's Nazi party programs calls for "Positive Christianity".

Even if true, even if done in the name of religion, does doing it in the name of religion a religious act? Most people have more sense than that.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

(I find your comments juvenile. Most people have sense enough to know that something said to be done in the name of religion doesn't make it so. Politics and power--secularism, in other words--often use religion as an excuse.)

What you are overlooking is why religion is used as an "excuse" by politicians. It is used as an "excuse" or motivator by politicians precisely because it indeed works as one. That is, significant numbers of people will do good or bad things if they are told their religion demands those things of them. If that were not so, politicians would not -- they could not -- use religion as an "excuse" or motivator for people to do things.

[BalanceFx]

Egads... You declare statement after statement as fact with no justification. You insult me and assert yourself as an authority not only on history and religion but all of religion.

Lets delve for a moment:

You assert that Stalin and Hitler were atheist and because of their atheistic principles committed great atrocities against the human race. I assert your making blind statements with no basis in fact and have never even researched the subject. I even provide a few facts for you to go hunt down and get your story straight. Do you debate this? No. You respond with this ditty which you must be quite proud of.

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

So juvenile. Even if true, even if done in the name of religion, does doing it in the name of religion a religious act? Most people have more sense than that.

Your first two words are an attack on me. Not my argument. They also set the stage for you to speak as an authority. What are you an authority on? What are your degrees? Do you have a list of references or literary works by you? Why paint yourself as an authority when you obviously are not? If you have an opinion then state it as your opinion and your belief. Its not true because you really believe it. No matter how hard you believe.

Your next three words... Even if true... LOL. This implies that you simply do not know nor care to know and think its irrevalent to the argument as to whether Hitler or Stalin acted on atheistic principles. This also means your original assertion that Atheim is the root of Facism, Nazism and Comminism is just something you spit out with no actual knowledge as to whether it is true or not. Your just making it up. For what? Who knows... To get the last word... To wear the other person down with pointless falsehoods? I don't know but it speaks volumes about your personal character. Next you assert that if someone does something in the name of religion it is not a religion act. Really? So if a catholic chooses to get baptized this is not a religious act? Its an out right false statement. Then you speak from authority and assert knowing such should be common sense for most. What is most? Where do you assume this from?

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

So what? Religion, real religion, isn't about beliefs.

Originally Posted by A dictionary

re·li·gion –noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Sorry I couldn't find REAL religion. Your just wrong again. Its a fallicious argument. Religion *IS* a set of beliefs. You might as well said the moon is made of cheese. But wait... you have a link... maybe this clarifies REAL religion:

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

RF is all about ideas, but religion, real religion, is about relationship. This isn’t something new. It’s not even up for debate. Rationalism is simply wrong to suppose that religion is first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by corresponding values. Rather, religion is first and foremost a felt relationship with cosmos; interpretative concepts come only later. The ideas religions employ don’t have to be factual in order to be true because the message they attempt to convey is relational. Concepts are only the vehicle. The criticism of religion by rational argument and a demand for evidence is therefore absurd.

First you define real religion. Its not about beleifs at all... its about relationship. Sheesh... Did you write webster, britanicca, wikipedia and the rest of the globe and tell them they got it all wrong... or should we come up with a new word for real religion? You assert its not new and can not be debated. LOL. Religion, according to you, is a felt relationship with the cosmos. I am reading Sagan's Cosmos right now... funny he doesnt mention that but I am not done yet.... maybe in the next 100 pages. Tell me what does the cosmos feel like? What sense do you use to feel the cosmos?

You then spout more nonsense that religions dont have to be factual in order to be true. You can look up true in the dictionary for yourself.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

So juvenile. Even if true, even if done in the name of religion, does doing it in the name of religion a religious act? Most people have more sense than that.

So juvenile. Yes, that's exactly what doing something in the name of religion means. It never helps your case when you insult your opponent, especially when you accuse them of things that are clearly perpetrated by you rather than them.

P.S.- I'm OK with this being ignored. I know it's hard to respond to, so I guess that's the only answer I can expect.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Yes, that's exactly what doing something in the name of religion means.

So if I do something in the name of Matt, is that a Matt act? Better example, if I do something in the name of a corporation, is that a corporate act?

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Willamena

So if I do something in the name of Matt, is that a Matt act? Better example, if I do something in the name of a corporation, is that a corporate act?

If you do those things because they're what I taught you or what you learned from a corporation, then sure.