And if I base things on my sense that doesn't tell me that human life, other than my own has any value. I agree that religion is arbitrary but most religions do provide a philosophical basis to the value of human life. You can determine that without religion but that is a faith judgement too since there is no way to absolutely prove with senses alone what value there is to any other life than your own. That goes to whether you can get away with it. Purely empiracally if I can get away with something then what basis is there to not do it? I have shown you the causal link. Those men stated their beliefs as much as Torquemada stated his. If you are going to ignore what they said themselves you are basically just ignoring evidence to the contrary to support your argument.
Last time I checked the God that so called christians believe in isn't short on cash, but you continue on with this whole "God is on our side and not on the side of Libruls" you disgust me
No, you haven't. Show me the directive. Show me the imperative. Show me the causal link and stop trying to substitute correlation. Here is an example of your argument. Hitler drank water. DonnyMost drinks water. Hitler killed people. Therefore, DonnyMost will be more inclined to kill people if he drinks water. Correlation != Causation.
Mao overthrew the traditional moral structure and argued for a materialistic view that debased human life except in regard to where it served the state, which was him. I would say most corporations do not base their practices on religious values no matter who is running them. In fact corporate practice in culture is a quantifiable exercise in materialistic values as the bottom line takes precedence. If I can get away with it how is harmful to my health? Short of the law or the relatives of the victim taking out vengeance what consequences are there? There are many unsolved murders just using empiracal based reasoning can you point to consequences that those murderers got away with. And that is my point that a materialistic world view, which Atheism is, can lead to solipistic existence where the only restraint is whatever you think you can get away with. THis isn't to say that you cannot have an atheism morality but I would say that is more precisely a humanistic morality where you acknowledg an apriori value to humanity even though you don't believe in a deity. From a purely empiracal standpont that is an act of faith also since there is no way to empiracally prove the value of another human other than what they can doo for me using senses alone.
If only people would just understand this, you wouldn't have Fox News making a mockery of free media. As someone who talked to many older Chinese who lived through the Cultural Revolution, I actually wanted to chime in on Mao's policies and Chinese people's feelings towards it. But there are enough China debates that I didn't really want to get off topic.
I have stated it repeatedly and just restated in my reply to Meh. Futher there are the words of Mao himself. "True power emanates from the barrel of a gun." If that isn't a purely materialistic statement that justifies the attrocities of his regime I don't know what is. You are free to ignore the evidence presented but in that case you are doing what you frequently criticize other.
Just to add another thought. If your argument is that correlation <> causation in that the words of Mao, Stalin and other self-avowed atheistic despots didn't cause them to debase human life then in that case how do the words of any self avowed religious despot equal causation of attrocities they committed? Your argument comes down to that words don't matter since I just see a corrrelation and believe that had nothing to do with cause. In that case why don't you apply that to those who commit attrocity in the name of religion?
Now, my feelings are hurt. How would you know? Aren't you an atheist? If so, how are you qualified to make this statement? Also, God's Word does not need me to speak for Him. The Bible should be the only “ambassador” to my faith and I am not here to convert people to Christianity. The best way I can represent Christianity is if someone points out a statement that I made that is not Bible based, I will clarify what was meant by the statement or retract it with an apology. I never claimed to be perfect or an authority on Christianity.
DonnyMost can answer for himself but allow me to state while I agree with him, and MadMax. Whether you realize it or not your statements reek of a smug moral superiority and self-righteousness. They are the anti-thesis of Christian humility but bespeak of a rigid absolutist world view that is bound to alienate not only those of other faiths but likely many Christians too. I am not saying that you aren't a good Christian or not sincere in your faith. As a non-Christian that is not my place to do so. I am relating the impression that you are giving particularly in comparison to other Christians.
So do you also agree with the following? Hitler started WW2, hence all Germans are Jew-hating warmongers. Dubya is not very bright, hence all American presidents are morons. Stephen Hawking is an atheist, hence all atheists are super geniuses with mad physics skills.
First, the study is comparing liberals vs conservatives. Also, the study showed that liberals make more money on average than conservatives. The study goes on to say that it's the strong religious lean of the conservatives that contribute to their increased giving. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html "-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227)." So, you should be disgusted at yourself for not donating more to charity!
So if you're equating a link between materialism and atrocity (which isn't even the argument here), where is the causal link between atheism and materialism? (In other words, what part of atheism directs people to be materialistic? I must have missed that day in atheism class, or skipped that chapter in the atheist handbook) You're skipping a step. You have not presented any evidence which shows causality between atheism and violence. So I'll keep ignoring whatever correlative evidence you present until I see something concrete. Show me the directive to violence comes from atheism. And further, stop claiming that I am "doing exactly what religious people do", because the one distinct difference is *I HAVE CAUSALITY ON MY SIDE*. There is no doctrine of atheism that is interpreted by people to justify violence. There *are* religious doctrines which are interpreted as violent directives. When someone points to a section of a religious text and say "this is why I killed that guy", THAT is causality. What you keep showing is correlation, and weak, outlying correlation at that.
Words of Mao != Atheism. Where did you get that I ever said "words don't matter? Sure words matter. Especially when in the context of what people perceive as "God". Judoka, you seem to not understand what atheism is. You have suggested things like hating religion is part of atheism, or that atheism is some kind of belief system that Mao or whoever operated under, that couldn't be further from the truth. Atheism isn't a belief that God doesn't exist. It isn't a belief that religion is bad. It seems like for you to understand correlation vs. causation in this discussion, you need to learn what atheism actually is. And maybe a little brush up on the logic of CVC would help, too. Definiton of Atheism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJIPJsqsv4k CVC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
I understand your views. But, the very nature of the Bible is about "absolutes truths" regarding morality and right vs. wrong. It's not about "all truth is relative and up to the mind of the beholder." I believe, this is why many are offended by my statements. Because I speak about absolute truths, in regards to conservative morals values. But, the difference is that I, as a Christian, am NOT to judge others or impose my beliefs onto others. It is up to God and God alone to Judge and up to the Holy Spirit to reveal God’s absolute truths to Man. However, I try to give a Christian perspective to the discussions. There is a huge difference between believing in absolutes (which Christians are supposed to do) and judging others. Now, I am sure some of my statements have been judgmental, but that was an error on my part and not me representing Christianity.
Indeed, the more media relies on correlation for news, the less informed we really become. Please do not shy away from sharing your feelings and experiences if they're relevant. If you hold specialized knowledge we'd all love to hear it I'm sure.
