No, it doesn't. Nowhere within any of those regimes was atheism, reason, or logic cited as a justification to kill people. There is no "twisting" being done. Atheism/Non-belief has nothing to do with materialism. You cannot prove the causal link, so you should not say such things. The only "twisting" being done is you trying to paint them as related when you have no such evidence.
1) Because you use your own mind and free will to make the decision. Figure out your own justification for treating them how you like. Why do you need some arbitrary reason based on religion? Figure it out for yourself and live with the consequences. 2) Because you'd probably regret it, and more than likely get your own self killed in the process? Like I said before, figure that moral question out for yourself. If it takes God or a religion to tell you that going around killing people isn't a good idea, then maybe you should check yourself into a clinic somewhere. 3) Like I said before, show me the causal link. Those men did not commit their acts because of or in the name of reason, logic, or atheism. No point in bringing up anecdotes until you can show me a causal link, it's worthless.
American slave history came to mind. But, slavery was common sense for Man for thousands of years by MOST nations around the world--btw, slavery was not exclusive to African Americans in the history of the world. If I included slavery, then I could pick any nation in the world. If you recall, God sent Moses to get the Jews out of slavery in Egypt. I think if the Jews were free citizens of Egypt of if slavery was a good thing in God's eye, He would not asked Moses to lead them out of it. Anyway, do you have something that is exclusively American?
Exclusively American? I wouldn't exactly call the examples you listed exclusive to their relevant countries either. History does repeat itself. Or rather, people tend to repeat themselves.
It is believed that American slaves were treated the worst. (intentionally not allowed to be with their families or anyone else who spoke the same native language, not allowed to learn to read or write and could be killed for just learning to read, etc.)
Yes, because every human being has unlimited political powers to commit genocide. Obviously, it's not "common sense" that stops me from going out onto the street and get people to kill everyone I don't like. Because if I want to, I can obviously do it, right? Let's see, all I have to do is rise to power and become a dictator that can manipulate the minds of millions into doing my bidding. No biggie. I'm sure the only reason no one bothers is because God tells them not to. There's no way "common sense" could possibly factor into the equation.
Not sure what your point is. How does religion, or lack thereof, factor into how Mao wants to run a country? I mean, do American companies lack materialism because our country is made up of mostly religious people? With mainly Christians running our country? You don't do these things because there are consequences. That you can't get away with them. You don't buy a gun and shoot someone in the head because God tells you not to, but because it's harmful to your own health. It's for the same reason that Americans commit adultery all the time even though it's a sin. Because there are very few Earthly consequences. Our brains are not trained to weigh the cost/benefit of religious consequences, but rather those under our society's law.
I see your points. But, if I said Americans thought slavery was common sense, then I could replace Americans with hundreds of other nations or groups of people throughout history. I could not think of hundreds of Hitlers or Stalin's. However, since you guys make a vaild point, I will add to the list: "Man history shows that slavery was only common sense.... "
It's not about what God "tells" anyone. Those who understand His Words in the Bible will know what truth is concerning right and wrong. I will give you an example about giving to charity as one illustration--since liberals use common sense and conservative christians use God's Word as their moral compass: http://www.ipa.org.au/library/59-1_WhoReallyCares.pdf "What emerges from this study is that a vibrant democratic society is one in which people willingly give in order to help others. People give because they see giving as the flip-side of achieving. In other words, the stereotypical picture painted by the Left of entrepreneurs and business people as a collection of gradgrinds could not be further from the truth. The really miserable and sour members of modern society are those on the Left who are too mean to give, but who spend much of their time arguing why the state should spend other peoples’ money." So you see, it's not common sense to give to charity. But God's Word asks believers to give--therefore, conservatives give more to charity than liberals. Also, go check out just how much your liberal leaders have given to charity due to their "common sense", anti-conservative ideology: http://tsfiles.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/charity-donations-and-liberal-hypocricy/ "[...] Barack Obama has a rather poor track record when it comes to charitable contributions. He consistently gave 1 percent of his income to charity. In his most charitable year, 2005, he earned $1.7 million (two and a half times what George W. Bush earned) but gave about the same dollar amount as the President." "This evidence of liberal hypocrisy is damning enough, but what really amazes is how poorly these liberals do in comparison to so-called “heartless conservatives.” President Ronald Reagan, for instance, was often called heartless and callous by liberals. Unlike Roosevelt or JFK, Reagan was not a wealthy man when he became president. He had no family trust or investment portfolio to fall back on. And yet, according to his tax returns, Reagan donated more than four times more to charity — both in terms of actual money and on a percentage basis — than Senator Ted Kennedy. And he gave more to charities with less income than FDR did. In 1985, for example, he gave away 6 percent of his income. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have continued this Reagan record. During the early 1990s, George W. Bush regularly gave away more than 10 percent of his income. In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney gave away 77 percent of his income to charity. He was actually criticized by some liberal bloggers for this, who claimed he was getting too much of a tax deduction." So you see from just this small example of giving to charity, you don't want Man's common sense running society. It's God Word and His Laws that prevent us from being reduced to the lowest common denominator of human nature.
Ok. It was 2:00am. I should have left out the part where I called out all liberals. The point I am making is that those who follow God's Word tend to have a different sense of what is "common sense" than those that don't believe in God. True Christians are more giving and caring of others than non-believers. I prefer my leaders that rely on Conservative Christian principals to define what is "common sense" than someone who decides based on his own life experiences to determine what should be common sense. As everyone should know by now, without a moral compass (aka, God's Word), common sense is just whatever is in the mind of the beholder.
^^^ I know one thing God expects us to have a better handle on forgiveness and tolerance than this cat has that's for damn sure! True Christians are more giving and caring of others than non-believers. who the **** are you to make statements like that?
i'm getting some lulz out of this discussion, thanks. conservative christians more giving and caring...please, you're going to make me spit my drink everywhere.
I don't make these claims based on my opinion only. I offered research that validates my arguments: http://www.ipa.org.au/library/59-1_WhoReallyCares.pdf and also see my post above. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showpost.php?p=5285029&postcount=111 However, I doubt you even bothered to read the whole post and clicked on the links to see why I made those statements. You guys simple offer lip service with no research or documentation to support your rhetoric. But, that's just par for the course for some of you.
Coming late back to this thread. Thos regimes specifically embraced a materialistic and atheistic philosophy. Mao himself talked about smashing religion. You are doing exactly what you criticize the religious people for doing. You are ignoring what those regimes specifically state. How is stating what those regimes themselves say not evidence?
Show me the causal link. Where did Mao say that his lack of belief in God, or non-acceptance of other beliefs, is what caused him to do those things? You have shown nothing but random correlation, not causation.
