Is Peeing on Jesus Really Funny?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]pat wrote:
I was illustrating a point based on something that happened. Would prefer I used the example of the time when Lenin brought out all the Christian school children and had them shot during the Bolshevik Revolution?

The bottom line religious people were killed or persecuted because they were religious and not atheist. You cannot spin this to me particularly, my parents escaped from Czechoslovakia in 1969. They saw this shit first hand, my family had everything taken from them and force to farm because they were religious. They were lucky in that many of their friends didn’t. The stories of the horrors due to religious persecution in the eastern block are endless.
[/quote]

I am sorry about what happened to your family, but our discussion on this topic has gone as far as it can go. I have told you why I don’t consider this killing in the name of atheism and you simply don’t agree.

[quote]pat wrote:

Correct, you have no scripture but you do have dogma. For instance, do you not believe that ‘Religion is the opiate of the masses’? Do you not believe that religious people are brainwashed and programmed. Do you not believe we’re stupid for believing in God. Do you not believe that religion makes people do evil shit? Ever heard of the ‘Flying Spaghetti monster’?Bet you have.
Basically, you have a set of beliefs that if you did not hold them would not be considered atheist.
In fact aren’t you right now defending atheism as being guiltless because people haven’t done evil in ‘it’s name’ and is therefore superior?
[/quote]

You don’t have to believe in any of those things to be an atheist. Those are just common things atheist activists like to talk about. I’m just discussing my opinion with you and others in this thread. I’m not angry, or think you’re stupid or whatever else.

[quote]
Sure you do…You have groups that advertise, political groups defending ‘atheist rights’, you have protest groups…You folks have all kinds of groups. Little groups with in a larger group are sects…[/quote]

The dictionary on my mac has sects defined as only a religious term but dictionary.com also has your definition, so you’re right sects can be used in the secular world.

282

My edit didn’t take:

Minorities groups have political groups defending minority rights, have protest groups and small sects in larger groups. Does being a minority make you part of a religion as well? What is your definition of a religion?

283

we can say “communists mass murdered religious people because communists were atheists and therefore were against religion”.
It’s true.
But it miss the point.

Communists did not mass murder religious people because they believed there is no god.
This so-called belief is neither sufficient nor necessary to legitimize these killings.

They mass murdered religious people because they believed that after the Revolution, religion, would became a “thing of the past” and would dissappear all by itself.
Obviously Reality disagreed.
And they tried to correct Reality.

they were not killing religious people, they were killing “relics of the Past” and they were trying (really hard) to erase the living proofs of their political failures and ideological errors.

Communists did not mass murder religious people because they were atheists, but because they were positivists.
they believed in Progress. They were confident that Communism was the end and the sense of History.

They could have been theists. They could have believed in, say, the “Great Proletarian Architect of the Universe”. They would still have killed the believers of all other (and older) religions. For the very same ideological “reasons”.

284

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Here’s the thing, and the reason the brand of hot-headed atheism we normally encounter on internet message boards is labeled a religion in its own right: To claim the existence of God is an absurdity (or that belief in him is) creates an equally absurd assumption on the part of the claimant. That is, if there is no God, then all of existence as we know it was created from absolutely nothing at all. There is a thread already dedicated to it so I’m not going to delve into it any further here, but NO MATTER WHAT, theist or so-called atheist, when you peel away every layer and get down to the very core of what we can know, ALL OF US make assumptions of the nature of existence based on pure faith.

[/quote]

That depends on the definition of “faith” being used…but it doesn’t matter, and here’s why:

The sort of thing that we all do that might be labeled “faith”, at that rudimentary level, is definitely not the same sort of “faith” that religious people are attempting to justify. It’s a dishonest word game to make their ridiculously unjustified beliefs seem to be more plausible.

It’s like saying “When you really get down to it, we all occasionally have a desire for something that isn’t good for us…” in an attempt to make eating feces appear to be as justified as eating too much ice cream.

So no I think you are wrong and being dishonest when you call us “so-called atheists”[/quote]

Sorry, wait, why?

Why is your belief that all matter, energy, space, time, everything just poofed into existence from absolute nothingness in any way more rational than my belief in an Uncaused Cause?

That’s what you are saying here, right? Because that’s what I was talking about.

[/quote]

If that uncaused cause is a hypothetical, supernatural agent which is entirely untested and unsupported by evidence, then yes, it’s more rational to accept scientific explanations…though that wasn’t at ALL what I was saying.

Look at my last response. Do you see anything about the origins of the universe in that? So your confusion about my response lead you to ask a question that ASSUMES a position that I didn’t state and frames it in a way that makes it sound less plausible. If you’d have stated it like this:

“Are you saying that tentatively accepting the scientific, naturalistic explanation that is supported by physics and proposes that it may be possible for a universe to arise from ‘nothing’ is more rational than believing that a magical, transcendent being created everything?”

That would have been a more accurate representation of my position.

But the original discussion was about the nature of faith and how that term is used…what a strange distraction from that.
[/quote]

I guess you missed the whole discussion we’ve been having here about epistemology.

285

[quote]therajraj wrote:
“Are you saying that tentatively accepting the scientific, naturalistic explanation that is supported by physics and proposes that it may be possible for a universe to arise from ‘nothing’ is more rational than believing that a magical, transcendent being created everything?”
[/quote]

I almost feel like we should have a cosmological argument sticky.

Surely you must know that, if you choose to debate someone, you should at least understand the opposition’s points and not just make shit up.

Also I’d love to see your explanation or even a link to one of the “scientific, naturalistic explanation that is supported by physics and proposes that it may be possible for a universe to arise from ‘nothing.’”

286

[quote]kamui wrote:
They could have been theists. They could have believed in, say, the “Great Proletarian Architect of the Universe”. They would still have killed the believers of all other (and older) religions. For the very same ideological “reasons”.
[/quote]

In other words, atheists are no better than theists when it comes to mass murder and destruction, and just going by pure numbers, they are far worse.

Heh.

287

[quote]kamui wrote:
we can say “communists mass murdered religious people because communists were atheists and therefore were against religion”.
It’s true.
But it miss the point.

Communists did not mass murder religious people because they believed there is no god.
This so-called belief is neither sufficient nor necessary to legitimize these killings.

They mass murdered religious people because they believed that after the Revolution, religion, would became a “thing of the past” and would dissappear all by itself.
Obviously Reality disagreed.
And they tried to correct Reality.

they were not killing religious people, they were killing “relics of the Past” and they were trying (really hard) to erase the living proofs of their political failures and ideological errors.

Communists did not mass murder religious people because they were atheists, but because they were positivists.
they believed in Progress. They were confident that Communism was the end and the sense of History.

They could have been theists. They could have believed in, say, the “Great Proletarian Architect of the Universe”. They would still have killed the believers of all other (and older) religions. For the very same ideological “reasons”.

[/quote]

No it’s not missing the point, your just flat wrong…

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/anti.html

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~geary20d/worldpolitics/maozedeng.html

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/07/08/the-belated-khmer-rouge-trials/

I mean fuckin’ a, man, how much evidence do you need?

289

[quote]therajraj wrote:
pat wrote:
I was illustrating a point based on something that happened. Would prefer I used the example of the time when Lenin brought out all the Christian school children and had them shot during the Bolshevik Revolution?

The bottom line religious people were killed or persecuted because they were religious and not atheist. You cannot spin this to me particularly, my parents escaped from Czechoslovakia in 1969. They saw this shit first hand, my family had everything taken from them and force to farm because they were religious. They were lucky in that many of their friends didn’t. The stories of the horrors due to religious persecution in the eastern block are endless.

I am sorry about what happened to your family, but our discussion on this topic has gone as far as it can go. I have told you why I don’t consider this killing in the name of atheism and you simply don’t agree.
[/quote]
No, history does not agree. I posted a dick load of link for Kamui, feel free to peruse. The plain fact of the matter many of these countries executed tremendous atrocities in the name of religious persecution. They were killed because they did not agree with atheism. In the end, the facts are there.

290

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
pat wrote:
I was illustrating a point based on something that happened. Would prefer I used the example of the time when Lenin brought out all the Christian school children and had them shot during the Bolshevik Revolution?

The bottom line religious people were killed or persecuted because they were religious and not atheist. You cannot spin this to me particularly, my parents escaped from Czechoslovakia in 1969. They saw this shit first hand, my family had everything taken from them and force to farm because they were religious. They were lucky in that many of their friends didn’t. The stories of the horrors due to religious persecution in the eastern block are endless.

I am sorry about what happened to your family, but our discussion on this topic has gone as far as it can go. I have told you why I don’t consider this killing in the name of atheism and you simply don’t agree.
[/quote]
No, history does not agree. I posted a dick load of link for Kamui, feel free to peruse. The plain fact of the matter many of these countries executed tremendous atrocities in the name of religious persecution. They were killed because they did not agree with atheism. In the end, the facts are there. [/quote]

I skimmed through. Where does it say they were killing in the name of atheism?

292

to pat :
i don’t see how your links makes me wrong. Care to explain ?

to pusharder :
if you got an argument, feel free to phrase it.

to clarify, step by step :

an atheist does not believe in God.
this opinion doesn’t imply that he has to kill all those who believe in God.
to become a mass murderer of believers, an atheist need something more than atheism.
he need to think that :
-his ideal is an universal and absolute truth
-reality CAN and MUST be reshaped in the name of his ideal.
-the end justify the means.
-the end (of History) is near.

In other words, he need a universalist ideology, a totalitarian political practice, an eschatological vision of history.

this specific mindset, not atheism, is what killed so many people in the 20th century.

And this specific mindset is not a monopoly of atheists.
It can be found among theists as well. See islamism for some recent examples.

actually, abrahamic religions were among the first to exhibit this kind of universalism and this eschatological vision of history. It’s quite unknown among polytheists, animists or believers of eastern philosophies.

You can glorify yourself because your “bodycount” is inferior. Or you could try to medidate the fact that, in more than a way, monotheism planted the philosophical seeds that directly led to this barbary.

293

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
I think Pat makes a good point. While it’s likely untrue that atheism per se has caused more deaths than religion per se, there’s no question that people have been persecuted and killed by atheists specifically for having religious beliefs. Had they been fellow atheists, they would have been left alone.[/quote]

These people were killed by Communists for having religious beliefs as they veiwed them as being the tool of Western colonialism.
The communnits killed anyone who got in their way.
The range for agnostics and non-religious in China was/is about 40%-60%, atheists about 14%. They were killed as well if found to be “detrimental to socialist reconstruction.”

The Communists under Mao had no Qualms about killing atheist, agnostic, taoist,christian, confucian, non-religious, animist, and Shenist alike.

For political aims…not religious ones.[/quote]

So like historical facts mean nothing? Yes, it’s true it was a political agenda and a political policy to eradicate religion by eradicating the religious. Ergo, they killed believers because they were believers and not atheists…
This is a matter of plain stubborn historical fact. No amount of spin is going to make this not a fact.[/quote]

I got accused of shovelling bullshit a while back…but some of y’alls shovels are about as large as the front scoop on a bulldozer.

Your “historical facts” have more spin from your bias than an f5 tornado.

“Yes, it’s true it was a political agenda and a political policy to eradicate religion by eradicating the religious.”

Yes, this was ONE policy amongst many…not the main overiding policy of the communist party at the time and not specific to the religious…like they were all special and stuff…they tried to get rid of EVERBODY that stood in their way.

Part of your spin seems to be to completely ignore what I just posted about them killing atheists and agnostics and non-religious people indiscriminately along with the religious because they were…

“detrimental to socialist reconstruction.”

Not specifically because they were believers.

You are trying hard to make it sound like a wholly religious persecution. Mao veiwed organised religion as antithetical to the communnist movement…but also veiwed intellectuals, teachers, etc. etc. and a few million other people this way as well…WHO WEREN’T RELIGIOUS.

[quote]pat wrote:
Ergo, they killed believers because they were believers and not atheists…
[/quote]

They killed atheists too…why? because they “believed” in atheism?
That is an absurd statement.

Why would Atheists kill other atheists for religious reasons?

294

[quote]pat wrote:
So, this makes killing religious people because they are not atheists, not really killing them because they are religious how?
If they were atheists they would have lived, but because they were religious they were killed, period.

And I am so glad the soviets gave it some thought before they blew them away. That makes it better. And when is killing a whole swath of people, not about control? I mean seriously.[/quote]

Once again…spin for Africa.

Once again… they killed lots of people, religious AND non-religious alike because they were…

“detrimental to socialist reconstruction.”

once again…They were not killed specifically “because they were not atheists”.

“If they were Atheists they would have lived…” BULL.SHIT

Once again…atheists were killed too.

The only pre-requisite for being killed in Mao’s communist China was him deeming you not being part of Mao’s communist China. or deemed to be a hinderence to it’s progress…

NOT secifically because you were not atheist.

As far as I know, he did not round up all the atheists and non-religious into a containment pen somewhere so as to spare them.

295

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
They could have been theists. They could have believed in, say, the “Great Proletarian Architect of the Universe”. They would still have killed the believers of all other (and older) religions. For the very same ideological “reasons”.
[/quote]

In other words, atheists are no better than theists when it comes to mass murder and destruction, and just going by pure numbers, they are far worse.

Heh. [/quote]

Yes, being a Theist with morals from a higher authority does not seem to prove a hinderence to mass murder, ignorance, destruction…though you would hope it would make you less inclined to sin and act with no moral compass like an atheist, the reality of the world would show this is not the case.

Do you have a quote or stats lined up for us on those “pure numbers” I would genuinely like to see them, because this seems to be a real point of contention historically and hard to pin point down accurate numbers.

296

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
They could have been theists. They could have believed in, say, the “Great Proletarian Architect of the Universe”. They would still have killed the believers of all other (and older) religions. For the very same ideological “reasons”.
[/quote]

In other words, atheists are no better than theists when it comes to mass murder and destruction, and just going by pure numbers, they are far worse.

Heh. [/quote]

Yes, being a Theist with morals from a higher authority does not seem to prove a hinderence to mass murder, ignorance, destruction…though you would hope it would make you less inclined to sin and act with no moral compass like an atheist, the reality of the world would show this is not the case.

Do you have a quote or stats lined up for us on those “pure numbers” I would genuinely like to see them, because this seems to be a real point of contention historically and hard to pin point down accurate numbers.
[/quote]

Being a HUMAN does not seem to prove a hindrance to mass murder, ignorance, destruction. The numbers have been thrown up about a hundred times now and to be honest I’m not inclined to go digging for them again because in the end it doesn’t matter.

The very root of this contention is the oft-repeated atheist, ahem, dogma that religions are responsible for the lot of death and destruction throughout history. But the plain fact of the matter is that HUMANS will work together to find ways to utilize power and manipulate people, and it doesn’t matter what the institution at hand is. If someone has a mind to murder a million people or however many it takes in the first place, he’s probably not the sort to have any kind of qualms about using an established religious institution to achieve these means.

I’ve been going to church a lot of years now and I have yet to hear my priest advise me to convert my neighbor at knife or gunpoint, if I have to.

297

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
They could have been theists. They could have believed in, say, the “Great Proletarian Architect of the Universe”. They would still have killed the believers of all other (and older) religions. For the very same ideological “reasons”.
[/quote]

In other words, atheists are no better than theists when it comes to mass murder and destruction, and just going by pure numbers, they are far worse.

Heh. [/quote]

Yes, being a Theist with morals from a higher authority does not seem to prove a hinderence to mass murder, ignorance, destruction…though you would hope it would make you less inclined to sin and act with no moral compass like an atheist, the reality of the world would show this is not the case.

Do you have a quote or stats lined up for us on those “pure numbers” I would genuinely like to see them, because this seems to be a real point of contention historically and hard to pin point down accurate numbers.
[/quote]

Being a HUMAN does not seem to prove a hindrance to mass murder, ignorance, destruction. The numbers have been thrown up about a hundred times now and to be honest I’m not inclined to go digging for them again because in the end it doesn’t matter.

The very root of this contention is the oft-repeated atheist, ahem, dogma that religions are responsible for the lot of death and destruction throughout history. But the plain fact of the matter is that HUMANS will work together to find ways to utilize power and manipulate people, and it doesn’t matter what the institution at hand is. If someone has a mind to murder a million people or however many it takes in the first place, he’s probably not the sort to have any kind of qualms about using an established religious institution to achieve these means.

I’ve been going to church a lot of years now and I have yet to hear my priest advise me to convert my neighbor at knife or gunpoint, if I have to. [/quote]

I only asked because you made the bold assertion “that just going by numbers they are far worse” all the stats I have ever seen place it firmly around the other way, but then again these stats are probably promulgated by “lying atheists”

I actually agree that arguing over who has killed the most is pretty pointless.

It’s all very well to plead “but everyone else does it”, but what sticks in everyone else’s craw is being preached to about moral behaviour and moral codes from a higher authority by people who don’t follow them.

Historically ruthless killers following a doctrine of “thou shall not kill.”

And your last point, for the purposes of this argument, works both ways.

I have not been going to church and neither have many of my friends for alot of years now and we have not preformed any atheist, agnostic or any other ist-ism-tics conversions at gun or knife point.

I mean fuuuuucccckkkk…I don’t equate any modern christain with his/her medieval counterpart, that is just stupid…things have changed.

Torquemada and co would not be discussing their faith using epistemology, quantum mechanics or Leibniz’s philosophy.

298

I am still trying to work out if the guy in the video was intentionally taking the piss (forgive the pun) to make some point about double standards…or is just a fuckwit.

I’m leaning towards fuckwit.

I actually saw the exhibition (piss christ) at the Barbican in London when I was living there.

It wasn’t funny at all, nor was it particularly shocking or educational.

There are probably much better ways to get across a message of christianity + commercialism than that.

The strange thing was, from the point of aesthetics, just judging the formal values of the image apart from meanings – real or perceived-- it was actually a beuatiful image.

299

[quote]pat wrote:

Correct, you have no scripture but you do have dogma. For instance, do you not believe that ‘Religion is the opiate of the masses’? [/quote]

WTF? Now your saying atheists all adhere to a Marxist doctrine?

Ha ha.

The original quote from Karl Marx is “Religion is the opium of the people”
BTW.

Hey why not go the whole hog and say that they do have scriptures and that those are the Communist Manifesto and the Neue Rheinische Zeitung?

Or perhaps his mate Engel’s contributions to feminist theory or his book The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.

300

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:

It’s all very well to plead “but everyone else does it”, but what sticks in everyone else’s craw is being preached to about moral behaviour and moral codes from a higher authority by people who don’t follow them.

[/quote]

For a look at the numbers, this was thrown up by Pat earlier in the thread.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

Not sure why I have to clarify that neither I nor any Christian I have ever encountered has ever been encouraged to murder anyone. If that’s not what you’re trying to do here it sure looks like it is.

Not even sure why I’m continuing to respond, as I think the whole argument is based upon false premises.

Once again, certain people will use existing power structures to their advantage, if they are able to. These people are often megalomaniacal sociopaths of extraordinary charisma. Sometimes it will be groups of people. If religion was the reason people were killing other people, then we should expect to see a LOT more of it, as the vast majority of the humans now and throughout history have followed some religion.