I am not religious but admire/respect spirituality, art, and history. I find stories interesting (be it ancient Greeks, Norse or those of minor civilisations).
I tend to take the view if there is a god. He would simply want us to be ethical, love, care and try make the world a better place. I don’t believe he would want us to pray, sing songs, fight for him, or wear special clothes.
I view religion as a construct. One with a basis in good. Constructed to provide values and mental models often before there was laws. These values are the basis for humanitarian aid and charities.
Over time however religions have frequently been corrupted for money, power or manipulation. From Medieval kings to the Taliban. I would argue they still influence politics to much in western countries (eg US).
In the name of religion horrible crimes/wrongs have been committed. From wars, terrorism, to outdated values and influence. There is a certain absurdity to say catholic and protestant wars when they are 99.99% the same. The reason for conflict was not religion but men. Men using it as a means to achieve their goals.
The thing is that you can discredit the existence of Roman emperors, you can call into question the existence of the greek philosophers. Doesn’t alter the fact that ancient Rome existed as did ancient Greece. The teachings of the Greeks (as passed down) are wonderful things. We won’t care one jot nor tittle if it can be proven that Socrates didn’t exist because the words attributed to him make absolute sense. He doesn’t need to be divine for us to respect his teachings. Again, what’s your stance on this?
More on Lemaitre, this time from the American Museum of Natural History
It is tempting to think that Lemaître’s deeply-held religious beliefs might have led him to the notion of a beginning of time. After all, the Judeo-Christian tradition had propagated a similar idea for millennia. Yet Lemaître clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate, treating them as different, parallel interpretations of the world, both of which he believed with personal conviction. Indeed, when Pope Pius XII referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith, Lemaître was rather alarmed. Delicately, for that was his way, he tried to separate the two:
“As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.”
Are you willing to admit you are wrong, and I have given two significant examples of atheist regimes that are responsible for large scale human atrocities, both historic and current?
As for Hitler, I said he was an atheist but I’m happy to retract that as it is more complicated than that. He was undoubtedly a madman so trying to box him into a tight definition is probably a fools errand.
On Stalin, my main point about him is that he was an atheist, and you seemed to be contending that.
If you are trying to correct me on whether or not Stalin sought to eradicate religion, there may be a debate to be had on that, as at different times he formed alliances to suit. But that doesn’t alter my point that he was an atheist who was responsible for many millions of deaths.
I only brought this stuff up because the unquestioned thrust of most on the thread is that religion is responsible for atrocity, when it’s not entirely true.
On Lemaitre, I gave him as an example of a theist who made a significant scientific contribution. There are many such people.
I’m not sure why the continued conversation on him tbh.
I obviously read it since I quoted the thing and argued the merit of its points. You must have missed that. You’re basically saying that there is more documentary evidence of Jesus, of whom evidence outside of the Bible has been notoriously difficult to find, than there is if Caesar, one of the most well known and documented figures in history on the basis of an article that is using a flawed premise as its reason to state the above.
Apart from Cesar’s military exploits there is much known about his life from his familial connections to Gaius Marius which forced him to go into hiding when Sulla defeated Marius to his return after being vouched for, if I may put it that way, which was the direct cause for Caesar to begin his military career having been stripped of his priesthood and inheritance by Sulla. We know his wives including Sulla’s granddaughter and Pompey’s daughter , his children adoptive (Augustus, well Octavian) and his own (Caesarion and Julia) , his roles as Tribune and Quastor, being Governor of Hispania, being elected Consul, his relationship with Crassus (i.e.being in great debt to the man) and more and more and more. Not all sources paint Caesar in a good light and he is notorious in many of them for corruption and bribery in gaining his elective positions and gaining his power.
Your article blatantly ignores all of this known history by various contemporary sources who lived during Caesars time such as Cicero, Cato and Sallust. They, and their writings, are not hundreds of years removed and neither are Suetonius and Plutarch. You’re holding up your article and saying ‘but look at this’ when the article itself is blatantly flawed and biased in order to try and gain its credibility. This is getting ridiculous. I can appreciate you’re trying to argue your point across but you’re using an avenue that is demonstrably biased and skewed to the point of being a complete falsehood.
The problem is that I have, I think patiently, explained, about six times now, why I don’t think it’s reasonable to talk about ‘Atheist Regimes’. You haven’t offered anything that counters my argument, and you have repeated the same point over and over again.
When you can show something that counters my argument, then I’ll admit I was wrong. I don’t think I am wrong which is why you can’t argue back.
It’s lazy to leap from Stalin was an Atheist to therefore Atheism killed 10m people, just as it would be lazy to leap to the conclusion that if Stalin had been religious that would be the cause of the deaths.
However, in the case of religious persecutions and genocides, we are left in absolutely no doubt that these horrors were commuted in the name of religion.
Nope, never suggested Stalin wasn’t probably an Atheist. Only that his legalisation of religion, restablishment of the Russian Orthodox Church and setting up of an official state religion caused some with the party to suspect he might not be.
There isn’t a debate to be had. He didn’t seek to eradicate religion. He did the exact opposite.
That Stalin was probably an atheist is not the issue. You have to show that Atheism was responsible for those deaths. That the deaths were in the name of Atheism, in the same way that religious genocides were clearly commuted because the perpetrators believed their religion compelled them to murder non believers.
It was yet another example of you throwing a name and an idea into the discussion that you didn’t fully understand. Lamaitre was a devout catholic who was also a scientist. But he was also very diligent about not mixing those paradigms, and his religious faith had little to do with his science - to the point where he got annoyed of people tried to. I’ve put articles in this thread to back this.
And of course, he did not use the tools of his faith - prayer, study of scripture, contemplation, revelation - to theorise the Big Bang. He used the scientific method and the scientific process.
You are just latching onto the fact that he was religious and trying to use this to make a point. Ironically, Lemaitre himself would be the first to tell you to stop it.
Why this conversation is frustrating is because you are giving off the impression that you are not listening or even trying to understand the points that a being put to you.
Also, atheism isn’t a belief structure. Saying that atheism killed millions is equivalent to saying aunicornism or alocknessmonsterism killed millions. I’m pretty sure that millions have been killed by people who don’t believe in pixies, do we need to give them a name too?
The problem, that you and your Christian apologist friend fail to grasp is that quantity does not equal quality. Just because you have several hundred copies of the same witness does not make that witness any more reliable. They are not independent testimonies; they are simply copies of copies of copies etc.
For example, The Book of Acts is found in 573 [Greek] manuscripts. Should we count this as 573 witnesses or one; does the fact that there are 573 copies make it a more reliable witness?
While it is true, that there are many manuscripts, over 5000 in Greek [the original language of the New Testament] at the last count, , this should come as no surprise when you have a powerful organisation [the church] dedicated to promoting its beliefs and disseminating its holy writings.
Through the centuries the church employed thousands of monks making copies of the various books contained in the New Testament. At the same time it busied itself destroying any writing it considered heretical or unworthy.
Little wonder then that copies of biblical works outnumber the rest.
And with regards to these manuscripts, as is usual with fundamentalist claims, once one looks beneath the surface, cracks appear.
In his book, “The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission Corruption and Restoration” Bruce Metzger, adds the following caveat:
Lest, however, the wrong impression be conveyed from the statistics given above regarding the total number of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, it should be pointed out that most of the papyri are relatively fragmentary and that only about fifty manuscripts (of which the Codex Sinaiticus is the only Uncial manuscript) contain the entire New Testament.
To put this in context, there is only one manuscript containing the entire New Testament prior to the 9th century.
I was in a coin shop in the Cayman Islands (as you do) on our Honeymoon. Rich Americans looking at really old coins. Older the better. Straight faced I asked the seller if he had any marked BC. Without missing a step he said he’d sold the last one yesterday. The American tourists were in awe……
@Mascot I know you have said about six times, as have I!
I do think it is right to talk about atheist regimes.
Earlier in the thread I think I read a phrase like isolated instances of wrongdoing, or something like that, to describe the atheist contribution to human misery and suffering.
It was laughably understated. I think I may have used the word tomfoolery or ballyhoo, as that’s the extent of what was being admitted.
So in light of that I continue to give you the atheist regime of Stalin, and it’s mass atrocities. Then I updated to the officially atheist Chinese government and what they are doing today. If you want me to add atheist North Korea, since you name checked them, let’s. Technological advancement and science? Nope. Look at a map at night of the globe. The lights are off and they are living lives at the level of many yrs ago. But the worst of it, in terms of human atrocity, is that millions are starving.
So my contention remains, atheist regimes are responsible for large scale human atrocity, regimes both past and present.
For Lawton, and wild at heart, thanks for engaging too.
I do not have the bandwidth to engage fully, but started the documentary conversation as just one aspect to offer to Mascot as evidence that Jesus actually existed.
My viewpoint is he is as entrenched as he is unreasonable, on that point.
Documentary evidence for Jesus stacks up very well, in relation to other people of antiquity, both in eye witness accounts, contemporary references, extra biblical sources, quantity of documents, and dating of documents in relation to the events they describe.
Unfortunately, on the whole, the conversation lacks adequate focus, the topic is too broad to do properly, and if it is viewed as a debate, it currently feels like me against the world, which is not how debates work.
Final comment on Hitchens, the apparent poster boy that several have cited. His own brother thought he was a cock, and he was right.
Atheist atrocities aplenty, three atheist nation states named in this post for example, but that is ignored while the poster boy sticks the boot in on Mother Teresa? Charming.
@RedOverTheWater I’m not sure why you’re ascribing horrendous acts by Stalin, for example, as being committed by Atheist Regimes. These acts weren’t committed in the name of atheism or to promote atheism.
They can’t be attributed to a non-belief in God or Gods.
That is not the case with the majority of religious wars that have occurred throughout history. Those were committed precisely to advance or defend a faith, precisely to punish non-believers, to uphold the teachings of their respective holy texts.
Eye witness accounts? Who’s would these be please?I’m no biblical scholar but pretty sure neither Matt Mark Luke nor John (great Hebrew names) saw any of it?
My mum is intellectually honest enough to admit that she won’t listen to argument nor discussion about the truth (or lack thereof ) of religion as it makes her really uncomfortable. Could this be a theme?
