|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
posted August 12, 2007 05:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
No, it doesn't.
But if you attack someone because they are a different religion to you, then it does. That includes atheism.
Then atheism must be included in both ways. Attacking those who are religious because you're atheist is also a pure religion-based attack. Such as Stalin's.
His atheism has nothing to do with it though. He could have been religious, buddhist, muslim, Anglican, Methodist, or anything, and done the same thing.
He wasn't attacking because he was atheist.
He was attacking because the church was in his way.
If you attack someone for being a different religion to you, then religion is involved and therefore responsible.
And if there were no such thing as religion, then it would not have occured.
If atheism did not exist, then it still would have.
See?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Shadey
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 06:09 AM |
|
|
Convienent cop-out to justify the evils commited by atheists.
Take away all the religion in the world and when the next mass genocide occurs what will your excuse be then?
Man is evil, man uses any excuse to justify their evil actions. Relgion just happens to be the most convienent. Remove relgion from the equation and people will still have 1001 reasons why they needed to rob and murder some old lady to purchase their hdtv.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 06:15 AM |
|
|
I'm not saying it would get rid of all killings.
I'm saying it would negate some. 
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 09:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Convienent cop-out to justify the evils commited by atheists.
Take away all the religion in the world and when the next mass genocide occurs what will your excuse be then?
Man is evil, man uses any excuse to justify their evil actions. Relgion just happens to be the most convienent. Remove relgion from the equation and people will still have 1001 reasons why they needed to rob and murder some old lady to purchase their hdtv.
i may not agree with everything you do, shadey... actually never before, but this post i think deserves something. its a thought that has been going round peoples heads for ages.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 12:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Convienent cop-out to justify the evils commited by atheists.
Take away all the religion in the world and when the next mass genocide occurs what will your excuse be then?
Man is evil, man uses any excuse to justify their evil actions. Relgion just happens to be the most convienent. Remove relgion from the equation and people will still have 1001 reasons why they needed to rob and murder some old lady to purchase their hdtv.
this is not true.
Stalin was atheist yes,but they removed religon from communism becouse of the unbalancy that it coused among people.
secondery.
humenity is evil,its true that they use any excuse ,but relgion is justifed by atheists.
I have a frinde who moved to israel 10 years ago from charlot.
she tells me her perents a strict christians,when she was in her teens,becouse of u know aruging with perents and all,they actually had her excoised,which is a physical painfull ritual..
the're own perents beat her silly becouse they thought she was possed..she was just having up her hormons..
isent that idiotic?
NOTHING CAN EXCUSE SUCH BEHIVOR.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 02:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
He wasn't attacking because he was atheist.
He was attacking because the church was in his way.
In the same logic, catholics didn't attack muslims cause they were muslims, but cause they were in their way (aka held Jerusalim).
It's a circle, dude.
Quote:
the're own perents beat her silly becouse they thought she was possed..she was just having up her hormons..
isent that idiotic?
Of course it's idiotic. Fanatics exist everywhere. They are mentally unstable and deserve to be sent to an asylum. That is hardly the Bible's fault though.
Jesus "banished demons" with words, not brute force. Using physical methods to achieve a spiritual cleaning is completely retarded.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 02:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
He wasn't attacking because he was atheist.
He was attacking because the church was in his way.
In the same logic, catholics didn't attack muslims cause they were muslims, but cause they were in their way (aka held Jerusalim).
It's a circle, dude.
These are fights involving religion.
If religion is involved, then religion is at fault.
It's like attacking someone because they have, say, weapons of mass destruction  And that's the only reason, in this hypothetical case.
Even if the attacker has no said weapons himself (atheist), the weapons could be said to be responsible for the attack, because otherwise the attack would not have been made.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 03:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Man is evil, man uses any excuse to justify their evil actions.
Read my post, Shadey. Nothing is objectively evil. Things are considered evil because they are harmful to some group. And yes, man is often selfish, but is not nearly as selfish as you make the human race look.
Quote:
Relgion just happens to be the most convienent. Remove relgion from the equation and people will still have 1001 reasons why they needed to rob and murder some old lady to purchase their hdtv.
Very few people will rob and murder some old lady to purchase an HDTV. Why? The social contract. In the basic form, if they don't do it, then they won't encourage others to do it. When they become old, they don't want someone to rob and murder them. So they don't do it. That is basically what the social contract is..
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 03:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Very few people will rob and murder some old lady to purchase an HDTV. Why? The social contract. In the basic form, if they don't do it, then they won't encourage others to do it. When they become old, they don't want someone to rob and murder them. So they don't do it. That is basically what the social contract is..
do you live in utopia? LOL..
it happens in my country quite often.. social contract.. rotfl, who cares about it if you're a thief or murderer..
so many old people get killed and robbed in Poland.. even if they had 10$ in their wallets.. or in their house.. easy prey..
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 03:38 PM |
|
|
No, I don't live in a utopia. In poorer countries (and poor areas in general), the social contract isn't as strong. And if you're a thief or a murderer, you might still care about the social contract: making it work for you, exploting it. However, if you're a thief or murderer, you've broken the social contract. But it helps prevent theft and murder.
Quote:
so many old people get killed and robbed in Poland.. even if they had 10$ in their wallets.. or in their house.. easy prey..
It's a relatively poor country. It has a higher crime rate. The social contract is still there, though, just not as powerful as it is in some very rich country.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 03:44 PM |
|
|
it's not a relatively poor country, it's a very special country where every second car on the street is an expensive mercedes or bmw, yet ppl earn 500$ per month on average..
The "social contract" you mention doesn't exist, at least here, the majority of the thieves that rob or even torture/kill old people are youngsters, 16-20 years old, none of which thinks "uh-oh, if I get old, I don't want to get robbed..".. They don't care.. Who the heck cares about others when he tortures/kills them for money.. LOL.. "I won't hurt old ppl, I will go and burn the face of that 30yo man, cuz I'm a righteous murderer".. oh, please.
even in the ultra-rich US people are gunning down each other at no reason, and the crime rate is one of the biggest, so I really don't get your "social contract" stuff..
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 03:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
it's not a relatively poor country, it's a very special country where every second car on the street is an expensive mercedes or bmw, yet ppl earn 500$ per month on average..
If people earn $500 on per month on average, it's certainly not a rich country. For example, Albania: it has the highest amount of Mercedeses per capita of any country, but no one would call it rich.
Quote:
The "social contract" you mention doesn't exist, at least here,
When's the last time you've robbed and killed someone? The last time you were hungry, did you hold a gun to the head of someone with food? When's the last time you personally saw anyone do that? Why don't people do that kind of thing more often? They're raised not to is one reason, and the other is that they might get caught. Why might they get caught? Because the social contract has created a government that punishes those who break the contract.
Quote:
the majority of the thieves that rob or even torture/kill old people are youngsters, 16-20 years old, none of which thinks "uh-oh, if I get old, I don't want to get robbed..".. They don't care..
Many who follow the social contract don't think about it either.
Quote:
Who the heck cares about others when he tortures/kills them for money..
That's the beauty of the social contract. You don't have to care about others, but it will often prevent you from doing harm.
Quote:
LOL.. "I won't hurt old ppl, I will go and burn the face of that 30yo man, cuz I'm a righteous murderer".. oh, please.
That's not what I'm talking about.
Quote:
even in the ultra-rich US people are gunning down each other at no reason, and the crime rate is one of the biggest, so I really don't get your "social contract" stuff..
Mostly it's poor people doing that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 04:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
They're raised not to is one reason, and the other is that they might get caught. Why might they get caught? Because the social contract has created a government that punishes those who break the contract.
Ever heard of psychopathic nature? A psychopath never considers being caught someday. He is absolutely sure he won't get caught. Even a basic psychology manual can confirm my words.. therafore,the "social contract" you mention is useless.
and most of the people who do really bad things are partially or totally psychopathic.
Aww, why do I have to give any examples.. just look around, check how many ppl had been killed for no reason in your country today.. where's your social contract? Why didn't they care about it?...
Quote:
Many who follow the social contract don't think about it either.
Do you imply that the "social contract" is doing nothing that breaks the law?
Let's leave aside the "you have been raised not to kill" paragraph here, and let's imagine you have not been raised that way..
Why not to legalize slavery, then.
If you don't care for others.. why not?
Since slavery is extremely beneficial for every nation (in the economical aspect, ofc..), without caring for others you marked as not necessary the government would most likely legalize slavery.
It benefits OUR nation, right?
-.-
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 04:21 PM |
|
|
There goes again, everyone with their constant stories... MVas with his social contract...
Quote:
These are fights involving religion.
If religion is involved, then religion is at fault.
Wtf are you on about dude? If religion is involved, it's religion's fault; but if atheism is involved, it isn't atheism's fault? Well that sure makes sense
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 04:24 PM |
|
|
Looks like TA is trying to prove something like "atheism doesn't exist".
Like the "there is no darkness, only the lack of light", you can say "there is no atheism, only the lack of believeing".
And you can't blame something that does not exist..
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 06:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ever heard of psychopathic nature? A psychopath never considers being caught someday. He is absolutely sure he won't get caught. Even a basic psychology manual can confirm my words.. therafore,the "social contract" you mention is useless.
My social contract isn't useless. It is useless in the case of a psychopath, but the vast majority of people are not psychopaths, so the social contract works to protect them.
Quote:
and most of the people who do really bad things are partially or totally psychopathic.
Not necessarily. What if Hitler wasn't a psychopath? What if he was looking out for his own good, and killing Jews was the only way he could stay in power. After his campaign to get into power, he couldn't turn around and say, "Ok, forget about the Jews and Communists." He would immediately fall. And maybe he saw his anti-Semitic campaign as simply a way to power. After all, Karl Lueger, Hitler's inspiration, was only publicly anti-Semitic (to get into power and stay there). Privately, Lueger was tolerant. Perhaps Hitler didn't really hate Jews, he only pretended to in order to stay in power and control the country completely. Of course, the end result would have been the same regardless of whether he was a psychopath or not, but it's still sommething to consider. I, of course, don't know if Hitler was insane or simply lost control of the things he needed to do to stay in power. However, killing 6 million people was a major breach of the social contract, and it benefitted only a few people. That's why we should be careful of all such people, regardless of whether they are psychopaths or not.
Quote:
Do you imply that the "social contract" is doing nothing that breaks the law?
The social contract is the law, in a way. The law comes from the social contract, but sometimes it becomes independent of it. Sometimes they even contradict each other.
Social Contract: Act in a way that causes the greatest amount of good to the greatest amount of people.
Law: Comes from the social contract, yet often twisted by those in power.
Quote:
Let's leave aside the "you have been raised not to kill" paragraph here, and let's imagine you have not been raised that way..
Why not to legalize slavery, then.
If you don't care for others.. why not?
Since slavery is extremely beneficial for every nation (in the economical aspect, ofc..), without caring for others you marked as not necessary the government would most likely legalize slavery.
It benefits OUR nation, right?
Do you know why we no longer have slavery (besides the humanitarian reasons (which stem from the social contract))? It is not economically benefitial. Sure, you don't have to pay slaves, but think about how they work. You have to feed them and keep them alive. You can whip them for working poorly, but if you killed them, you would only be harming yourself. In slavery, there isn't enough correlation between how hard a slave works and how much rewards he gets. In capitalism or feudalism, a man who works hard earns more (money or food). In slavery, how hard one works doesn't matter that much; one still gets fed (or killed, but that's ultimately harmful to the owner. Would you smash your computer if it ran slowly? It's the same with a slave).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 07:36 PM |
|
|
Not that it's on-topic but...
Slavery was abolished because, well, most of the civilizations which used them (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Persian) were destroyed. Instead came Germanic, Slavic and other tribes which later institued feudalism as they didn't have the need for slaves as classic societies. Feudalism isn't much different, though - lords didn't GIVE anything to those that worked more hardly; it's just that they TOOK a certain amount of goods, and peasants were left with what was left. The leftovers were sometimes bigger, and sometimes smaller. That's the point of feudalism. Still, it is a little better than slavery.
But, as you see, those who invented slavery had great use of it; until they were annihilated and their empires shattered.
The exception is the USA which used slaves much, much later. But mankind was so changed in the meantime that they overthrew that system themselves; because it was neither human nor economically good at the time. So if you thought only on that example, you are right.
About the entire Hitler thing, my friend has a theory about that; Hitler wasn't insane - he was in fact really smart. He killed all those people and buried them; in a few thousands of years, he knew that would turn to oil and he would be the richest man on the planet... Weird, huh
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 07:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What if he was looking out for his own good, and killing Jews was the only way he could stay in power.
He hated the Jews long before he even began DREAMING about having any power. Check Mein Kampf.. he discribes his ideology there.
Quote:
Social Contract: Act in a way that causes the greatest amount of good to the greatest amount of people.
Philantrophy?
It doesn't work. The people (capitalistic people) will realize that you are soft and will drain you off everything.
Ok I was joking. Ofc I know what you mean.
Quote:
It is not economically benefitial. Sure, you don't have to pay slaves, but think about how they work. You have to feed them and keep them alive. You can whip them for working poorly, but if you killed them, you would only be harming yourself. In slavery, there isn't enough correlation between how hard a slave works and how much rewards he gets.
If they die, you just get more cheap slaves. It's extremely beneficial, you think why confederates wanted to retain slavery THAT badly? It's just inhuman, but extremely potent.
Quote:
In capitalism or feudalism, a man who works hard earns more (money or food).
I love your utopian views. In capitalism, people who work the hardest are the poorest (usually..). Miners and such. Those who earn more work LESS. So it's exactly opposite.
Feudalism wasn't that different from slavery actually. Serfs had to work extremely hard all the day, just like slaves (well, slightly less hard, because they weren't that, umm, expendable), and they meant less then trash.
Quote:
In slavery, how hard one works doesn't matter that much;
Oh, it does. If you do not work at 100% potential, you get whipped, or killed. Fear is the best motivation.
Quote:
one still gets fed (or killed, but that's ultimately harmful to the owner. Would you smash your computer if it ran slowly? It's the same with a slave).
And in capitalism, you have to PAY your slow comp to make him WORK or he tells you to screw off, and you have to pay the tax for having the comp, and accept that he doesn't work when he is on sick leave (while still paying him.). No sir, slavery IS better for those who own the slaves, there is no point to discuss that.. and just by obeing the laws, the
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 08:15 PM |
|
|
It appears that people aren't understanding what I'm saying.
Quote:
Slavery was abolished because, well, most of the civilizations which used them (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Persian) were destroyed. Instead came Germanic, Slavic and other tribes which later institued feudalism as they didn't have the need for slaves as classic societies. Feudalism isn't much different, though - lords didn't GIVE anything to those that worked more hardly; it's just that they TOOK a certain amount of goods, and peasants were left with what was left. The leftovers were sometimes bigger, and sometimes smaller. That's the point of feudalism. Still, it is a little better than slavery.
But, as you see, those who invented slavery had great use of it; until they were annihilated and their empires shattered.
The exception is the USA which used slaves much, much later. But mankind was so changed in the meantime that they overthrew that system themselves; because it was neither human nor economically good at the time. So if you thought only on that example, you are right.
I think that the ancient Greek/Roman system of slavery was different from the Imperialistic Era slavery.
Quote:
About the entire Hitler thing, my friend has a theory about that; Hitler wasn't insane - he was in fact really smart. He killed all those people and buried them; in a few thousands of years, he knew that would turn to oil and he would be the richest man on the planet...
Lol.
Quote:
Quote:
What if he was looking out for his own good, and killing Jews was the only way he could stay in power.
He hated the Jews long before he even began DREAMING about having any power. Check Mein Kampf.. he discribes his ideology there.
You clearly missed what I said. What if he was only pretending to hate Jews? And think about when and where he wrote Mein Kampf. In jail. Why was he in jail? Because he tried to make a revolution. That means he already had aspirations for power. And what's to stop him from lying about his views? Politicians do it all the time.
Quote:
Philantrophy?
Not quite. Perhaps I should have defined it as "act in a way that prevents the greatest amount of harm to the greatest amount of people".
Quote:
If they die, you just get more cheap slaves.
Er, what? If they die, you have just wasted a slave. And slaves were by no means cheap.
Quote:
It's extremely beneficial, you think why confederates wanted to retain slavery THAT badly?
1. It was long part of their way of life.
2. They believed that the superior should own the inferior.
3. Their economy was dependent on cheap mass unskilled labor. Slaves filled that niche.
Quote:
I love your utopian views. In capitalism, people who work the hardest are the poorest (usually..). Miners and such. Those who earn more work LESS. So it's exactly opposite.
I mean working at the same job. If you are hardworking, you will get more assuming that all other conditions are the same.
Quote:
Feudalism wasn't that different from slavery actually. Serfs had to work extremely hard all the day, just like slaves (well, slightly less hard, because they weren't that, umm, expendable), and they meant less then trash.
Except those who worked hard harvesting wheat had more bread for the winter. They were directly dependent on their work for their food.
Quote:
Oh, it does. If you do not work at 100% potential, you get whipped, or killed. Fear is the best motivation.
If you are dead, you can't work for your master. He realizes that, and it would be harmful for him to kill you. And fear is the best motivation? No. Think about Stalin's time. Think about the productivity of the Kolkhoz compared to a capitalist farm of the same size. The Kolkhoz workers are intimidated, yes, but they see no profit coming to them from their work. The farmers, though, see a direct correlation between their harvest and the food on their table.
Quote:
And in capitalism, you have to PAY your slow comp to make him WORK or he tells you to screw off,
Or you can fire him and find a better comp.
Quote:
and you have to pay the tax for having the comp,
You can be taxed for slaves just as well.
Quote:
and accept that he doesn't work when he is on sick leave (while still paying him.).
If the quality of his work is worth it, then you will give him sick leave. If it's ulimately unprofitable, don't offer him sick leave when hiring.
Quote:
No sir, slavery IS better for those who own the slaves, there is no point to discuss that.. and just by obeing the laws, the
Not necessarily. And way to finish your sentences .
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted August 12, 2007 08:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What if he was only pretending to hate Jews?
lololololololololololololol
Sure. Concentration camps were actually imaginary... And those millions of people he killed, that was just for the heck of it, right? He didn't really hate them... I mean, of course it was rational to think that people will like him more if he killed tens of millions of other people, right? Otherwise they might throw him off... No one likes a leader who isn't a homicidal maniac.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
