Okay, so what's the breakdown of people who were killed because of atheist ideology? Per year if you could.
No worries. Just as soon as you've done the same for your side. I'd like to make sure this is a good faith argument (pun intended).
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Okay, so what's the breakdown of people who were killed because of atheist ideology? Per year if you could.
Meanwhile the LNP continues to have issues with female candidates
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...-candidates-this-century-20190103-p50pdq.html
Yeah no surprises. Make a stupid claim then dodge out of it any way you can.No worries. Just as soon as you've done the same for your side. I'd like to make sure this is a good faith argument (pun intended).
Yeah no surprises. Make a stupid claim then dodge out of it any way you can.
It is, it deliberately is because you can't provide deaths motivated by a lack of a belief in a God.I'm sorry. You wanted a year by year breakdown of deaths due to atheist ideology. That's a stupid request by any standard.
Hey, heres an idea, you made the claim so you provide evidence of it. If your only backing is, "The Soviet Union had no state religion so any deaths under it are attributable to atheism", then we can stop.I'm on here for social interaction, mostly about footy, but occasionally venturing into these other subjects. But I've done this kind of thing before. Spent hours providing evidence of a matter only to have the goalposts shifted or the terms of the debate unilaterally changed. So if you want the breakdown, and remember it was your request, then in good faith you provide the same. You set the delineations between the geopolitical and the religious ideology so we're arguing on the same terms.
Read Pospielovsky.
Read up on the Red Terror.
Read up on Mao’s Great Leap Forward.
Read up on Pol Pot.
Assume I'm completely ignorant of all of that. What killings occurred in the name of a lack of a belief in a deity? Plenty of famine, plenty of crushing of resistance to totalitarian states, a bit of sparrow killing. Where's the atheism-based violence?
I
No mass killings have their causes defined down to a single issue, religious or otherwise. You are playing and old and boring game here of putting religious perpetrated violence down solely to religion but other violence against the religious will have a multitude of causes. It’s garbage..
I'm not talking about violence against the religious, I'm talking about atheism-based violence. At this point you've all but admitted that there has been no violence with atheism at its core, but I'm interest in what you consider to be violence with atheism as a contributing factor.
Any violence perpetrated by an atheist on a religious person because of their religion.
That's a very loose definition. You could count the Holocaust as vegetarian violence under the same parameters.
No looser than than the definition applied to religious based violence. The point is, my point was never about that. You made it about that. My point was that atheists don't necessarily make better leaders, especially when the religious are specifically excluded, which was the position I was responding to advocated by Bloodied.
My problem with religioids in positions of power is their tendency to give primacy to their religious beliefs in the application of power. Abortion law reform, recognition of gays, euthanasia etc have long been held up by politicians adhering to strange belief systems. Australia is a good example of a country where the delays and obstacles to reform on social questions can be put down to religioids who were out of step with what the population wanted.
For people like Abbott, Kevin Andrews and ScuMo, their first loyalty is to their religious beliefs and constituents - be these be Pell or the Hillsong huckster.
There would be merit to a constitutional change requiring any candidate for political office to declare if they are religious and if successful, they will not make decisions or vote on the basis of their religious beliefs.
So what kind of belief system do you think should inform our elected representatives. Whilst not particularly religious myself, I reckon the 10 Commandments are not a bad foundation for a functioning society.
Hi BfB,
Personally I think some of the Ten are ok and line up against positive values that can be extracted from other ideologies and religions/superstitions. (personally, I always had a problem complying with the concept of not coveting thy neighbours wife)
What I look for in elected reps above all is the ability to be empathic, to stand in another's shoes or imagine what it is like to be shoeless, to (in your terms) do unto others...
Decades ago I was involved in a Parliamentary Inquiry into psychopathy. It had been prompted by public debate about whether a particular Victorian prisoner was mad or bad. A key marker of psychopathy is the absence or near absence of empathy for others. Another marker is narcissism. Psychopathy is not a mental illness (like bi-polar disorder) but more a failure of personality construction.
In the course of the Inquiry I watched an incredibly bright tory MP go on a journey of self discovery. As he read, debated, discussed and quizzed he gradually developed insights into why he was not liked by some of his colleagues. It dawned on him that he, like many other pollies, captains of the economy etc had found socially and legally validated means of expressing their psychopathy.
Then as now, most folk believe 'psychopaths' only denote people of the serial killer class.. They are wrong.
So to cut to the chase one value I look for in politicians is their capacity to empathasise with the human condition, without recourse to superstitions.
Hi BfB,
Personally I think some of the Ten are ok and line up against positive values that can be extracted from other ideologies and religions/superstitions. (personally, I always had a problem complying with the concept of not coveting thy neighbours wife)
What I look for in elected reps above all is the ability to be empathic, to stand in another's shoes or imagine what it is like to be shoeless, to (in your terms) do unto others...
Decades ago I was involved in a Parliamentary Inquiry into psychopathy. It had been prompted by public debate about whether a particular Victorian prisoner was mad or bad. A key marker of psychopathy is the absence or near absence of empathy for others. Another marker is narcissism. Psychopathy is not a mental illness (like bi-polar disorder) but more a failure of personality construction.
In the course of the Inquiry I watched an incredibly bright tory MP go on a journey of self discovery. As he read, debated, discussed and quizzed he gradually developed insights into why he was not liked by some of his colleagues. It dawned on him that he, like many other pollies, captains of the economy etc had found socially and legally validated means of expressing their psychopathy.
Then as now, most folk believe 'psychopaths' only denote people of the serial killer class.. They are wrong.
So to cut to the chase one value I look for in politicians is their capacity to empathasise with the human condition, without recourse to superstitions.
So the belief system (which was the question I asked) that best informs our elected representatives is Christianity? It does, after all, as you point out, have empathy as its central value.
nup .... you asked about the shibboleths of the Ten Commandments. There are heaps more secular and superstition based homilies that express similar expressions of empathy and civility. A favourite of mine is the Brehan Laws (Irish from the middle ages).
Another is the imprecation, 'From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs' (prolly not the accurate quote) For me the expression encaptures duty to do one's best, including for the benefit of others. Work out who wrote that.
No. And it is there for all to see. I asked what belief system should inform our elected representatives. And I gave my opinion that a not bad answer was the 10 Commandments.
The Brehon Laws were informed by religion (or at least administered by those who were informed by religion). Moreover, they worked because those who followed them lived in small communities in which individuals were answerable to each other. And the Brehon Laws didn't prevent kingdoms going to war against each other.
True. Still I liked the notion of generosity at the base of the old Laws. The Laws were not adminstered by external authorities, but self administered.
Did you work out the source of the quote I gave?
By the wayI am delighted you knew of the Brehon Laws.
History is a thing for me. Not sure of the quote, sounds Marxist. It's an admirable notion. The problem with it is it ignores a fundamental element of the human condition, and that element can only be overcome at the point of a gun.
Oh well done BfB. It was a then youngish Karl Marx who came up with the axiom.
Around the same time Marx who had been writing about the materiality of life and history, came up with another great thought - (it is) man who makes history, but not always as he would wish. He had been putting paid to Hegelian dialectics (dominant force in philosophical thought at the time) and the Hegelian approach to history why saw history as an unfolding seamless carpet.
Later writers extended and adapted the Marx critique, noting history is filled with ruptures, discontinuities and conjunctures (the Hegelian carpet unravels)
Do not accept your third sentence and tbh, its meaning is not clear.
For me notions of the 'human condition' are rooted in the materiality of lives that give rise to the experience of life and its contingencies that in turn prompt consideration of the human condition.