I have, on occasion, made reference to made plans for re-education camps when I become dictator of the world. Alas, it would probably not be practical, since even a dictator must retain the loyalty of the army and police, and theists are everywhere. But let's assume for a moment that I have enough fanatically atheist storm troopers to enforce my will. One of them is holding a gun to your head. Would you deny your faith, and live? Or would you say "Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me", and die, and send your family off to the camps?
Of course, it is a hard question to answer; so if you would, tell me what you'd like to do, and also what you think you'd actually do.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I hope I would rather die than deny what I know to be true.
I also believe I would.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If you kill me for standing by my faith, I get a free pass through the pearly gates.
NOT a hard choice at all. Since I will then use my otherworldly powers to make you think you're being rectally invaded by an army of fanatical, cthonic lemmings.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Hmmm, I say we start with children by desensitization of the meaning of this so called God.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I like to think I would stand for my beliefs with a gun held to my head, no matter what beliefs were being questioned, religious or not. In actuality, it would depend on which I thought would do more good towards overthrowing you and returning freedom to the land, standing and dying or living to fight another day. If I could be sent to your camps and run a Hogan's Hero's type resistance, I would do that. But if it came to a point where my choices were to lose my integrity and live or keep it and die, or where my death would be a rallying point against your regime, I do believe I would take the bullet.
(Added: Note that I think I could renounce God without losing my integrity, if I was actively working to overthrow you and needed the cover. I do not believe that honesty and integrity are the same thing.)
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
How would you answer your own question, KoM? If you lived in a theocracy devoted to the worship of the Invisible Pink Unicorn -- may Her hooves never be shod -- and someone held a gun to your head and instructed you to devote yourself to a life of worshipping the IPU or die on the spot, how would you like to reply? How would you reply?
Added: Incidentally, I don't think I would die for my atheism. I'd play along, and then probably try to flee the country later.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I wouldn't be satisfied with merely dying in protest. I'd start (or join) an underground, and hunt you down like a dog.
Uh... was that what you were looking for?
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Where the heck are the other atheists? We need backup darn it!
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Religion aside, I think there are beliefs worth dying for.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
You'd get a lot more "converts" to atheism if you offered them money and secure positions in the bureaucracy for denouncing their beliefs.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: Hmmm, I say we start with children by desensitization of the meaning of this so called God.
Wait, then it's all already begun???
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Does that mean that you are willing not to believe in God? If so then welcome to the team that will be proven right in the end. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'd sign up for ElJay's Heros. Hurry up, would you? I think that Christianity works better as an underground religion anyway. Constantine did us no favors.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You mentioned something about my family. What would happen to them, exactly, if I stood by my faith or denounced it under threat?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: Does that mean that you are willing not to believe in God? If so then welcome to the team that will be proven right in the end.
end of what?
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
That you will be nothing more than nutrience for the Earth when we die.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
And how would you know? If we atheists are right, there probably won't be many messages coming from beyond the grave saying "Hey! Everyone! The atheists were right!"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you were an atheist, why wouldn't you renounce Atheism and sign on with the IPU(mHHnbs)?
If it's just between you and the regime, I mean. Excepting threats to friends and loved ones, why not renounce it and live, if you're an Atheist? Pride?
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Well, lets see. Why would it be so bad if we are right?
I mean I know that if I'm wrong God probably won't be to pissed off. After all I still live a good and helpful life. I just choose not to do kind acts for fear that I will end up in hell. I do them because that is just who I am.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
twinky, are you discounting the possibility of ghosts if there is no god? Couldn't some people's life essense hang around in some way and communicate from beyond the grave but not from heaven/hell/purgatory/limbo?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
ElJay, Yes, but happens after that?
Advent, Who are you talking to? I don't get where half of your questions and answers are coming from.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Couldn't some people's life essense hang around in some way and communicate from beyond the grave but not from heaven/hell/purgatory/limbo?
Two words: lemming wrangler
Just sayin', is all.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I could do more good by renouncing my faith and living. Eventually your reign of terror will end. In the mean time I shall teach my faith to my children, and their children in secret.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: I mean I know that if I'm wrong God probably won't be to pissed off. After all I still live a good and helpful life. I just choose not to do kind acts for fear that I will end up in hell. I do them because that is just who I am.
To paraphrase someone I like and respect: if you're going on about how you're taking the high road, you aren't actually taking the high road.
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: twinky, are you discounting the possibility of ghosts if there is no god? Couldn't some people's life essense hang around in some way and communicate from beyond the grave but not from heaven/hell/purgatory/limbo?
I was indeed discounting that possibility for the purposes of my little joke.
But yes, given that I don't believe in souls, I do also discount the possibility of "life essence" hanging around after death.
Added: I'd say that when it comes to my sense of self, I'm very Euclidean.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
Advent, Who are you talking to? I don't get where half of your questions and answers are coming from.
I was answering you camus.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I was answering you camus.
Well, if that's the case, you still didn't answer my question. Not that it's important, though.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Wups, a whole bunch of replies. OK, so I see it wouldn't be that useful to actually ask, then; it would have to be thought police. Still, perhaps the opportunity to recant could be out in public, for everyone to see; that should make it more difficult to lie about it. Then the thought police could watch for secret prayer meetings and whatnot.
Rakeesh, children whose parents were shot for refusing to recant are obviously rather dangerous. I mean, talk about making the state unpopular in the theist demographic! So concentration camps are really the best option, from my point of view. I have to take into account the feelings of my storm troopers; nobody likes shooting children, after all. But a brain-dirtying camp (this is, of course, the opposite of brain-washing) could perhaps solve the problem. Though of course, even if released, the thought police will have to be keeping an eye on them.
And yes, I don't see why I shouldn't bow down before the IPU, if it was that or die; though, like most of you, I'd be taking to the hills with my trusty "Anarchist Manual" right afterwards.
quote:You'd get a lot more "converts" to atheism if you offered them money and secure positions in the bureaucracy for denouncing their beliefs.
Damn, he's on to us!
quote: wouldn't be satisfied with merely dying in protest. I'd start (or join) an underground, and hunt you down like a dog.
Actually, you would not get the chance, as you already have a fairly high place on my little list. Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I think your hypothetical needs a bit of refining, KoM. Really, the price of a bullet to the head is actually fairly low.
A reverse-inquisition would probably be quite a bit more effective in terms of reeducation.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Glad to see you took my idea of desensitizing the children to heart.
But I think the camps are going a little to far.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
What happens to the agnostics? Do they get probation or something?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: I think your hypothetical needs a bit of refining, KoM. Really, the price of a bullet to the head is actually fairly low.
A reverse-inquisition would probably be quite a bit more effective in terms of reeducation.
Perhaps so, but it would also be much more expensive to run. Lead is cheap. Besides, hard as I try, I'm just naturally a nice guy. Inquisitions are so, I dunno, theist.
More seriously, I'm not really that interested in whether the theist converts or not; that's more the concern of people who believe in immortal souls. All I want is freedom from religion; a dead theist is as good as a former theist in this connection, and probably much easier to accomplish.
As for agnostics, eh, whatever. Weak sisters that they are, they're at least unlikely to bother me by making a church. Anyway, not everyone can be a stormtrooper.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:All I want is freedom from religion
Is that even possible? Once your stormtroopers tire of your regime, won't some other type of religion just naturally evolve?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, I suppose it's possible, but I think the experiment worth running. I find it interesting in a purely anthropological sense : Would people with access to modern technology and science develop their own religion? Now, I know that there are modern cults, but several things are worth noting : The only one with any really major following in the west, Scientology, offers very considerable monetary rewards for the people running it. The rest seem limited to a few hundred people in a hill commune somewhere; and even at that, they tend to pray on people who have believed some religion from birth, they're just changing which one. If there was no pool of people convinced of the existence of a god, but unsatisfied with their current church, would such cults be able to form?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Guys, Peter renounced the big guy 3 times and he's the rock upon which god built his church. You won't go to hell for renouncing god whilest secretly crossing your fingers.
So lie, and make your resistance. Heck, I might even join you. Though I won't renounce The FSM. I've been touched by his noodly appendage.
Pix
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
An Atheist Fundamentalist. Pushing your belief system on others, wouldn't that make you guilty of your own laws?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Would people with access to modern technology and science develop their own religion?
I think they would, but obviously not because of the same reasons [that you might assume]. Instead of being based on superstition, fear, or ignorance, it would be based on the desire to believe in something greater than the perceived reality set before a person.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Pretty sure that is my reason now. At least a major one.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
...and that is why I don't think religion will ever not exist.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
KoM,
Well then my answer would depend on the nature of the camp, really. Is anything going to happen to my children and loved ones in response to my refusal? How intense would this 'reeducation' be?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Depends, if I can get a high place in the Party then I'll recant whatever it is is illegal and join you.
Though it'ld have to be logical/reasonable, like you can't get me to give up having sex kind of thing (not like i get any anyways )
Though sometimes there are things worth dying for it all depends how the circumstances go, if I believe that my cause is best sevred with you then that is where I'll go. World Order, Peace, contentment, security, food. What more can one ask for?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It would depend...I would probably recant, although it would be a lie in my heart of hearts, and I think that God would forgive me sooner than I would forgive myself.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: World Order, Peace, contentment, security, food. What more can one ask for?
You sound like you would make a good pet.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Oh heck, I'd probably just strap a bomb to myself, load my trailer with fertilizer and diesel fuel, and visit your headquarters.
Or...maybe I'd do something really crazy.
hype-pathetically speaking of course.
Seriously, though, I'd love to hear this regime's ideas on how to combat domestic terrorists who would be gunning for you at every turn.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
I just remembered that National Atheists Day is coming up. April Fools' Day, indeed...
I'll just say something before I leave to class again, if I die before you guys, I'll make sure to post from the beyond to let you guys know that there is a God. I trust Hatrack will still be going on by then.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Oh heck, I'd probably just strap a bomb to myself, load my trailer with fertilizer and diesel fuel, and visit your headquarters.
See, now that's just plain silly. Why use yourself up with one attack?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well, I heard I get seven versions when I get to heaven.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Im must KoM, this is a great thread. I myself, would deny it, since I really don't have a religion, but gradually let science explain everything. All (in my very controversial opinion, that none should heed) religion does, is give people a false beliefe so that they aren't afraid their entire lives. It also causes hatred, predjudice and war. It have its good sides though.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Part of me really just wants to understand why you'd want to shoot someone in the head for disagreeing with you.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I'd like to think I would die for my beliefs. However, since your pathetic little regime would start somewhere that is not here, good luck catching me or my kin alive.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Altariel of Dorthonion: if I die before you guys, I'll make sure to post from the beyond to let you guys know that there is a God. I trust Hatrack will still be going on by then.
A. How would we know it was really you?
B. How would we know you weren't some mischevious ghosty-thing, embittered and disillusioned, and trying to lessen your immortal grief by spreading it around?
C. If it all does come through though, be sure to let us know about the moose situation over there. Sometimes, I look into their big moosey eyes and see nothing but soulless drooling, but other times, I see a spark of crazy. That suggests personality, and the theistic implications have been driving me crazy. No biggie, or anything, but if blissing gets boring one day, drop a line.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Reticulum,
Science will never explain EVERYTHING. If it did, it'd become engineering.
I personally find great comfort in the unknown.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Really? What comforts you about the unknown?
I ACCEPT the unknown, but I regard it as a blank space to be filled in. I don't look to it for satisfaction.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Alas, it would probably not be practical, since even a dictator must retain the loyalty of the army and police, and theists are everywhere.
A simple solution to that would be to set yourself up as a God figure (with or without a promise of the afterlife).
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Tom,
The fact there is MORE to know is a source of great joy to me. That's the sense in which I meant "comfort." Not freedom from anxiety, but positive joy at the anticipation of there being more to learn...eventually.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: Part of me really just wants to understand why you'd want to shoot someone in the head for disagreeing with you.
Not so much for disagreeing, as for just being completely alien. I don't see how theists can possibly think as they do; I'm half convinced there are extra-terrestrial parasites sitting in their brains and making them spout absolute nonsense. I also find their obtuseness remarkably annoying. Also, it is not so long ago that atheists were fair game; it might be best to get 'em before they get me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm half convinced there are extra-terrestrial parasites sitting in their brains and making them spout absolute nonsense.
It's a very small leap from believing this to believing in a God, you know.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Well, I heard I get seven versions when I get to heaven.
Let's see:
Windows 3.1 Windows 3.11 Windows 95 Windows 98 Windows 2000 Windows NT Windows XP
Is that what you mean? I left off Windows ME, because I assume that'd be in the other place.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
And if your act displeases God, you only get one version - Windows ME
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Not so much for disagreeing, as for just being completely alien. I don't see how theists can possibly think as they do; I'm half convinced there are extra-terrestrial parasites sitting in their brains and making them spout absolute nonsense.
Interestingly, many men have said something similar to this regarding their understanding of women. Thankfully they didn't go around shooting everyone that refused to renounce their femininity.
quote:I don't see how theists can possibly think as they do
Isn't that a failing on your part?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I will never renounce my femininity!
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Your hypothetical reminded me of this story (starts in the third paragraph), which has always impressed me. Of course, its positive effect me is only possible because the threat of death wasn't carried out. Hmm. Also from the article, there is this quote:
quote:It may not always be easy, convenient, or politically correct to stand for truth and right, but it is always the right thing to do.
There are lots of examples of Mormons (particularly missionaries) who were killed for not renouncing their religion.
I don't think I'd renounce my religion in your hypothetical. I would lament the effect, not the least the effect on you, my murderer, but I think I'd still stay true. I've been in difficult situations before, not where my life was in danger, but certainly where I felt threatened. I was surprised how easy it was to remain true to my beliefs.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:There are lots of examples of Mormons (particularly missionaries) who were killed for not renouncing their religion.
I heard a lot of "examples" of this while on my mission, but nothing actually verified. Do you have any sources? I ask because there is a huge body of Mormon Urban Legend lore. They even teach about it as part of a BYU humanities course.
NOTE: I'm not disputing that Mormons have been persecuted and even killed simply for being Mormon. I'm just skeptical of stories of the gun-to-your-head, renounce-or-die variety.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In general, studies have shown that people are remarkably stubborn when it comes to making conscious moral decisions. If you give them a "convert or die" choice, a surprising number will choose to die.
When people deviate or abandon their stated morals, they usually do so in situations where the choice is not so clear-cut, or where they are not AWARE that this choice is being presented to them. Few people knowingly sacrifice their principles when it's actually put that way.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
So you're saying be subtle about it. Except that "de-conversion" process is already happening.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I'm half convinced there are extra-terrestrial parasites sitting in their brains and making them spout absolute nonsense.
It's a very small leap from believing this to believing in a God, you know.
Well, I dunno. After all, you can in principle cut up their heads and do a physical check for parasites. Nothing supernatural about 'em.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
KoM--busted. You closet theist you.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty: So you're saying be subtle about it. Except that "de-conversion" process is already happening.
If a "de-conversion" process is already happening, it's in people's own heads as a reaction to current society. In other words, I don't think there's any grand conspiracy to de-convert people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It occurred to me that I didn't actually answer the question: if a loaded gun was to my head and the threat of death hanging over me if I refused, would I renounce my religion if that was the only choice at hand?
Of course not. First of all, I believe that some principles are worth dying for and a few are even worth killing for. Second, as the saying goes, "To die would be an awfully big adventure," and since I'm going to face that adventure one way or another, I'd really rather go out with a helpful finale.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, it depends on what you consider a grand conspiracy Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty: So you're saying be subtle about it. Except that "de-conversion" process is already happening.
No, actually, Tom is saying that either method would be effective for my stated goals. Shooting people might be quicker, though.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you have any sources? I ask because there is a huge body of Mormon Urban Legend lore. They even teach about it as part of a BYU humanities course.
I was thinking specifically about examples like Jedidiah Grant and Parley Pratt, both of whom were killed by mobs while on missions, but maybe it's stretching it to consider it a "renounce or die" situation. I specifically wasn't thinking about the abundant Mormon legends of missionaries refusing to renounce and then being saved by Three Nephites (for example). <edit> Check that, Jedidiah Grant died of pneumonia he contracted on a mission</edit> <edit> and Parley's story isn't exactly glamorous, although I do like the record that his final words were a testimony of the truthfulness of the church </edit>
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
Oh, Parley's story is very glamorous. Just not in a renounce or die sort of way.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:No, actually, Tom is saying...
Um. What I'm actually saying is that violent conversion is more likely to create fanatically dedicated opponents unless you actually DO manage to kill off the entire opposition.
But please don't attempt to speculate on my opinions regarding your baffling little genocidal crusade, no matter how hypothetical and tongue-in-cheek it may be. I consider it in poor taste.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Dying is easy, I've done it several times.
j/k
King of Men: Getting to the heart of the question, you are already free of religion. If I were in your shoes, I'd tire quickly of theists and just leave them alone and fill my life with other endeavors. Some theists let atheists alone. Others feel that they have a mandate from God to preach to atheists. But, what possible reason do you have to "re-educate" theists. Live and let live.
In your philosophy what do you care what others believe? Is it to lead them to a happier life? Is it because you are scared of the very few theists who would kill you for not believing as they do? Why kill almost all of the world just to get rid of a few dangerous people?
This has always been my difficulty with you from the beginning. I think that I would like and respect you a lot if it were not for your constant attempts to tear theists down. I cannot respect that in a person. It is utterly unattractive.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
You know, considering his stated goal is something akin to the Anti-Christ in the Left Behind series, I wondered for a second if that might not be KOM's real identity. But I figure the real Anti-Christ would actually be charming and persuasive, at least superficially.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Someday, I'm going to have to order that whole series and read it. I read the first book, and the writing was pretty cruddy, but I figure if I can make it through all ten books of L. Ron Hubbard's Mission Earth series, I should be able to tackle Left Behind, too. And I liked the book The Seven Last Years, so this could be fun as well.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I'm not sure the writing ever does get that much better. I was reading it more for the premise than for the writing ability of the authors. I'm a sucker for post-apocolyptic earth stories, and for religious stories. Can you get it from the library?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, presumably the Anti-Christ is going to be lying low for a while before the Rapture, figuring out which tactics work and which don't, sending the creeping tentacles of his influence through American society. Kind of like Peter.
quote:you are already free of religion
Yes, but not free from religion. And as for your live-and-let-live approach, well, that's very nice, to be sure. But the historical record of Christianity does not fill me with confidence that the other side is willing to do the same. I would prefer to get them before they get me.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Lisa, Left Behind gets worse as the series goes on, at least the books that I read. Painfully bad, though I'm not sure they're bad enough to read in a group like Eye of Argon was at KamaCon.
But there are quite a few people who believe it's a relatively accurate portrayal of what the "last days" will be like. (I don't). So in the interest of learning what other people think, people might want to read the first few.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
(to KOM)
I agree that it's an interesting analysis and fictionalization, but I'm not going to use it as my guide, should I get stuck down here.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I read the first six Left Behind books. If the events in those books actually happened, I think I would become a Christian in the sense of believing the theology to be true. However, I would loathe and despise God.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty: I'm not sure the writing ever does get that much better. I was reading it more for the premise than for the writing ability of the authors. I'm a sucker for post-apocolyptic earth stories, and for religious stories. Can you get it from the library?
I assume so. You can get graphic novels from the library. Anything in print, just about.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I think the storyline is cool. But then, I'm a science fiction fan. Dark fantasy, too. And yes, I do get a little frisson of terror from knowing that there are people who don't see it as any kind of fiction, but that's probably the case with other stories as well. I prefer not to consider such things.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Amanecer, then you wouldn't be a Christian. There were people in the book that absolutely believed in Christ. They just didn't like him.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I read all Ten Books and I find them deeply disturbing (Mission Earth) at times and I wished that the Voltar Confederacy finds an enemy civilization capable of destroying them.
Also the constant freudian and homosexuality referances were part of the disturbingness. C'mon no one wants to hear of a situation where a psyco lesbian tortues you until you agree to become openly gay.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
If God fits my definition of the devil then it really doesn't matter whether he's God or not, or if I'm right or wrong, he's still the Devil to me
As far as re-education and all that, I doubt you'd be able to organize and maintain such an authoritarian regime. It does take a certain measure of charisma you know, and I'm not sure insulting potential allies (agnostics) is a good way to start.
*Seizes power from KoM and turns the regime into a theocracy just to spite him* Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
When the books started gathering up a lot of hype a few years back, I picked up the first. I got through it but didn't attempt any of the others. I couldn't invest myself in it at all, probably because my personal beliefs differ dramatically from, well, the premise of the series.
(Sorry, KoM. I realize that this has little to do with your initial post.)
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty: So you're saying be subtle about it. Except that "de-conversion" process is already happening.
Is it? Got any data to back that assertion up? It's certainly happening in Canada -- Statistics Canada's data shows that the percentage of non-religious people in Canada is growing (over 16% now). I have not seen data that indicates a comparable trend in the U.S.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I have, on occasion, made reference to made plans for re-education camps when I become dictator of the world. Alas, it would probably not be practical, since even a dictator must retain the loyalty of the army and police, and theists are everywhere. But let's assume for a moment that I have enough fanatically atheist storm troopers to enforce my will. One of them is holding a gun to your head. Would you deny your faith, and live? Or would you say "Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me", and die, and send your family off to the camp
You know what? I'm getting a little tired of hypotheticals and snide advocacy of genocide and/or use of concentration camps by posters (or, more specifically, a single poster) on this board.
Some things aren't funny, and to hear constantly from someone that, if they could order the world as they would, the vast majority of people in the world would be forced to deny their faith or be shot or "re-educated" is one of them.
The hypothetical question "would you die rather than deny your faith" is certainly a valid one for discussion. And the way it was phrased wouldn't necessarily be bad if the poster hadn't made it very clear in numerous threads that he's actually serious about it.
Can we please stop pretending that expressing desires to commit genocide is a polite form of discussion?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
While I largely agree, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a moment:
Is it substantively different from professing a belief in the Book of Revelations? IIRC, all of the non-believers are supposed to die horrific deaths, and since it's a Christian text, "all of the non-believers" constitute more than two-thirds of the present population of the world.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is it substantively different from professing a belief in the Book of Revelations?
Yes, it is. The belief that something in particular will happen is not the same as the desire to send ones stormtroopers around putting bullets in the brains of all theists.
It should also be noted that lots of believers will die horrific deaths as well. And also that the meaning of Revelation is one of the most disputed aspects of Christianity.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
At least one poster on this board has repeatedly advocated working to hurry the End Times along. Would you put that poster in this category?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, or close to it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Okay.
You're drawing a distinction between hoping that God will bring about genocide soon and wishing to be able to perpetrate it oneself -- am I reading you right?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes. (Edit: Actually, I was drawing a distinction between believing it will happen and helping it to happen, but I also draw the distinction between hoping (because I really believe what is being hoped for is the second coming, not the evil that predates it) and carrying out.)
Minor wording question: Are you equating "hoping that God will bring about genocide soon" with "professing a belief in the Book of Revelations"?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
No, but I'm equating the first statement with professing a desire for those events to happen soon (or a desire to witness them personally).
Added: Er, you edited. Give me a sec to parse that one or two more times.
Added 2: Okay. I don't draw the distinction with hope that you do.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That being said, you said you largely agree with my original post. Does this Revelation analysis mean that you don't think someone should constantly write on the board about how they want to help bring about the End Times? Or that the presence of one excuses the other?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The user agreement contains specific protections for religious beliefs but contains no such protections for atheists or agnostics. If I take the agreement as written, someone writing about wanting to help the End Times along is not in violation, whereas someone advocating genocide against theists is in violation. I think that's an oversight and that the user agreement should be amended; I don't think it's okay to advocate genocide of nonbelievers any more than it's okay to advocate genocide of believers, and I do think that trying to hurry the End Times along or professing a desire for them to arrive soon is advocating genocide. As I've said here before, we have laws about very extreme instances of advocating genocide (and hate speech in general) here in Canada, and I support those laws.
I also think that the user agreement as written is violated frequently on this forum, and not just by the obvious names that may come to your mind. However, I have no way of knowing what kind of private action Pop may or may not take in each case, and I'm also aware that the interpretation and application of the user agreement is up to kacard, OSC, and Pop. It isn't my place to tell them how to run their forum. On the other hand, I'm entitled to express my opinion provided I don't violate the user agreement, so I think there's a balance to be struck between freedom of expression and tact when it comes to public discussion and/or criticism of the forum itself.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You know, considering his stated goal is something akin to the Anti-Christ in the Left Behind series, I wondered for a second if that might not be KOM's real identity. But I figure the real Anti-Christ would actually be charming and persuasive, at least superficially.
I'm semi-convinced that KOM is actually a rabid Christian who posts as he does to discredit atheists, that being just about the only effect of his postings.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'd like to point out that Revelation also includes quite a few mass killings of believers too. Lots of people die in Rebvelation, some sooner some later. Not that many actually survive.
AJ
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hunnert.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
AJ:
Dagonee already mentioned that. I don't think that makes it remotely okay. Added: Presumably some of KoM's stormtroopers would die in his genocide, too. There's also that whole hellfire thing.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Nope, not saying it does. Revelation is pretty equal-opportunity as far as bloodthirstiness goes, and the "survivors" will probably be so shell-shocked from PTSD that it *would* take a miracle for them to recover either way. AJ
P.S. sorry Dagonee for reiterating a point you already made.... I left my posting window open too long.
Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
there's a blog at something like "slacktivist.com" that rips the left behind series to shreds at pretty much every opportunity. It's kinda funny but got a little too gleeful in insulting the authors (to me) after a while so I quit reading.
One of his major criticisms, Twinky, is exactly what you are talking about-- the almost gleeful, "told ya' so", "you're going to hell (and I'm not!)" arrogance that Christians can sometimes exhibit. I think most Christians find that sort of thing despicable, but how often are we unaware of how we, ourselves, might appear? You can see that the "slacktivist" author actually turned me off for the same basic attitude that angered him in LaHaye and Jenkins.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well Dag, as someone who apparently believes in eternal punishment, I really don't think you have any room to look down on someone who merely advocates a quick bullet to the head and that's it. Genocide or none, I'm really quite nice compared to eternal hellfire.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well Dag, as someone who apparently believes in eternal punishment, I really don't think you have any room to look down on someone who merely advocates a quick bullet to the head and that's it. Genocide or none, I'm really quite nice compared to eternal hellfire.
You advocate doing it, KoM. You want to implement a totalitarian regime. Given the power to do so, you would execute me. If you can't see the difference between that and believing that someone else is going to do something, I question your ability to reason at all.
Your clever little rationalizations aside, you have declared your desire to act in a manner far worse than almost anyone who has ever lived. You are kept from achieving this goal by the fact that you are a powerless grad student without the charisma, intelligence, or strength to actually achieve this goal. That doesn't make your intent any less murderous or your constant expression of it any less disgusting, though.
quote:The user agreement contains specific protections for religious beliefs but contains no such protections for atheists or agnostics.
I disagree - although I agree that typical atheism and typical agnosticism is not a religion, I do think both atheists and agnostic beliefs are covered by the phrase "religious beliefs." Certainly OSC, kacard, and PJ's interpretations are far more authoritative, but I've seen nothing to the contrary from them.
quote: If I take the agreement as written, someone writing about wanting to help the End Times along is not in violation, whereas someone advocating genocide against theists is in violation. I think that's an oversight and that the user agreement should be amended; I don't think it's okay to advocate genocide of nonbelievers any more than it's okay to advocate genocide of believers, and I do think that trying to hurry the End Times along or professing a desire for them to arrive soon is advocating genocide. As I've said here before, we have laws about very extreme instances of advocating genocide (and hate speech in general) here in Canada, and I support those laws.
I don't see either side of this as a user agreement issue. I see it as being about modes of discourse. KoM expresses the heartfelt desire to be a new Hitler, Stalin, or Mao fairly often, and the general attitude seems to be, "That's just KoM. Ignore that and discuss the interesting topic he attached to his genocidal delusion."
My intent posting today was to try to get people to hold KoM socially accountable for his mode of expression. If he doesn't mean it, make him say it. If he does, treat him as the lunatic he is and don't dignify him by ignoring his advocacy of genocide and discussing the other aspects of his posts.
Enough is enough.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:You advocating doing it, KoM. You want to implement a totalitarian regime. Given the power to do so, you would execute me. If you can't see the difference between that and believing that someone else is going to do something, I question your ability to reason at all.
But, Dag, you have repeatedly said that you believe your god is doing all things for the best. Does that not mean you approve of hell? If you believed that someone else would start a genocide, and not only did nothing to stop him but actually approved, then I think you are equally morally culpable.
And before you say that you are doing your best to stop it, by witnessing the truth of your religion, I have precisely the same defense. My stormtroopers have extremely strict instructions only to kill those who refuse to recant. There needn't be any killings at all, really.
As an aside, I don't think it's genocide when you're not gunning for an ethnic group. Theocide? Democide?
Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
funny how someone so self-proclaimedly logical and superior in thought can't see the difference between believing in eternal destinies that we are free to choose and advocating the mass murder of all who disagree...
Not to mention that one can be a theist without believing all current atheists will burn in hell...
I conclude that you are either deliberately misrepresenting things or not as smart as you claim. Either way, you aren't inspiring anything but disdain.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:funny how someone so self-proclaimedly logical and superior in thought can't see the difference between believing in eternal destinies that we are free to choose and advocating the mass murder of all who disagree...
Well, actually both are eternal destinies, whether it be eternal damnation by God or eternal non-existence from a bullet, and in both scenarios, a person can choose his fate.
But really, KoM, there is a significant difference between trying to save people's lives and giving people the option to not be killed by you.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:As an aside, I don't think it's genocide when you're not gunning for an ethnic group. Theocide? Democide?
"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group [...]"
Although I'd hate to destroy a good flame war in the making, may I remind everyone that it is unlikely that KoM is seriously advocating shooting anybody...
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I personally find great comfort in the unknown.
I know this is delayed but me too.
If someone started interning people for their non-extreme beliefs, I would be first person to start providing them with safe houses and churches where they can practice.
What's with all the crazy repression today?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As an aside, I don't think it's genocide when you're not gunning for an ethnic group.
quote:Although I'd hate to destroy a good flame war in the making, may I remind everyone that it is unlikely that KoM is seriously advocating shooting anybody...
He has had ample opportunity to say otherwise and has chosen not to.
As I said, if this were an isolated incident, I could see it being overlooked. But it's not - he frequently expresses such wishes, and has stated he is serious about it.
If he's not serious, then he should know that the joke is old. We get it - he hates religion.
Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: Well, actually both are eternal destinies, whether it be eternal damnation by God or eternal non-existence from a bullet, and in both scenarios, a person can choose his fate.
One involves a choice inherent in the natural order, the other involves active interference and threats of violence against otherwise peaceful and uninvolved people.
I get that our gracious little dictator is trying to compare his proposal to the choice God gives us... but if that's as far as he can get with Christian thought (not to mention that he's pretty much leaving out a huge mass of other theism) he's, again, either deliberately miscasting things or not very smart.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tristan:
quote:As an aside, I don't think it's genocide when you're not gunning for an ethnic group. Theocide? Democide?
"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group [...]"
OK, I sit corrected. I still think their etymology is funny, though.
And no, I do not see any meaningful difference between 'worship me or burn eternally' and 'cease worshipping or die', except of course that eternal punishment lasts, like, forever. And please do not accuse me of 'not being that stupid'. I am not exaggerating for effect; I am not being wilfully obtuse; I really and literally do not see any moral difference. I understand that believers cannot very well accept this formulation of what their beliefs are; nonetheless, I think it highly accurate, and sophistries about being able to 'choose one's destiny' are just that - sophistries. A threat is a threat, whether made by my stormtroopers, or an immortal god. That you can choose to submit does not alter the fact of the threat.
I'm aware of the defense that 'turning away from god is your choice'; I call bullshit. An omnipotent god (I'll get to the Mormons in a minute) is certainly capable of making a non-unpleasant afterlife even for unbelievers. I don't say it is obligated to do so; but that takes us back to the bit about the threat. If nothing else, how about oblivion? This bit about hellfire is just gratuitous cruelty. (And even those of you who do not believe in literal hellfire, will hardly assert that hell is a pleasant place, not even as pleasant as this earth.)
As for the Mormon god, which is slightly less than omnipotent, it still operates a hell (if I understand the doctrine correctly) where the main punishment is the absence of its presence. Again, why not put the unbelievers back on earth, since oblivion is apparently beyond its capability? It is clearly quite possible for it to tolerate unbelievers here, where its presence is not withdrawn; I don't see why death should make a difference.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And no, I do not see any meaningful difference between 'worship me or burn eternally' and 'cease worshipping or die',
Good. When someone on this board starts telling you that they would, had they the power, implement a "worship me or die" policy, I'll fully support your complaints about them doing so.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:One involves a choice inherent in the natural order
No, it damn well doesn't. Is your god omnipotent, or not? I know for sure that Dag's is.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I disagree - although I agree that typical atheism and typical agnosticism is not a religion, I do think both atheists and agnostic beliefs are covered by the phrase "religious beliefs."
I'd like to see it made explicit. Even adding "or lack thereof" would suffice.
I do see the propriety or impropriety of this thread as a user agreement issue. Added: First and foremost, anyway. Not entirely.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Good. When someone on this board starts telling you that they would, had they the power, implement a "worship me or die" policy, I'll fully support your complaints about them doing so.
And do you support your god when it makes this threat?
Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And no, I do not see any meaningful difference between 'worship me or burn eternally' and 'cease worshipping or die', except of course that eternal punishment lasts, like, forever.
and you really believe that all theism implies (and evidently can be summarized as) 'worship me or burn eternally'?
You evidently really want to be known as that shallow a critic and that dissmissive of other people. As someone else said: "we get it, already."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'd like to see it made explicit. Even adding "or lack thereof" would suffice.
I would support that. I suggest reporting your own post to make this a formal request. At minimum, we could get clarification posted here.
quote:I do see the propriety or impropriety of this thread as a user agreement issue.
Do you think this thread violates the user agreement?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And do you support your god when it makes this threat?
I no longer discuss my religious beliefs with you, KoM. If I say something you find to be as bad as expressing a desire to commit genocide, call me on it then.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You are certainly at liberty to put your hands over your ears and go 'la-la-la' when someone calls you on approving things rather worse than mere genocide. I would appreciate it if you did it in another thread, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You haven't called me on anything, because your understanding of my beliefs is nonexistent.
I would appreciate it if you wouldn't post threads advocating genocide. At all. Ever.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:and you really believe that all theism implies (and evidently can be summarized as) 'worship me or burn eternally'?
It is certainly a major selling point, and also it is what this thread has become a discussion about. I trust you would not extrapolate from this thread to saying 'all atheism boils down to violent threats against churchgoers'; but it is certainly legitimate to discuss that particular aspect of atheism, insofar as it exists. If you want to start a discussion about other aspects of religion, the 'New Topic' button can be found above the first post on this page, towards the right of the screen.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Okay, I'll indulge you, KoM. I think this might be the first time I've ever talked to you on purpose on this board, and it will probably be the last. That's how I am with people who insist on being rude and mean.
Keep in mind, though, that I find you, and this argument, distasteful. Also keep in mind that this is the LDS point of view.
1. LDS doctrine teaches that there are laws in the universe that not even God can break. One of these is that God cannot do evil and remain God. God also cannot be in the presence of those who are evil and remain God. Therefore, I see the threat of hell not as something God is hanging over people's heads so much as a warning. You know, like parents give their children: Don't touch the stove or you will burn your hand. Don't walk into the street or you could get hit by a car.
God knows the way to happiness, and He has told us about it. If we choose unhappiness instead, He is disappointed for us. I don't believe that we do good works in this life so we can live somewhere pleasant in the next life; I believe that God knows that doing good works will make us happy.
It's not at all a "do this or die" scenario. It's a "If you do that, you will get hurt. I recommend that you stay here with me and have some cookies instead."
2. When you said all atheists should be sent to somewhere like Earth, you weren't far off from LDS doctrine. We believe that Earth as it is is roughly equivalent to the Telestial Kingdom, which is where sinners and evildoers (murderers, rapists, theives, etc.) will end up. Not bad, eh? Good people who weren't "valiant" will end up in the Terrestrial Kingdom, which will be quite a lot nicer than Earth (probably because all the nasty people won't be there). And the "valiant" ones will end up in the Celestial Kingdom with God and their families (providing their families also end up there).
The only ones who actually end up somewhere worse than Earth are those who knew of God's existence and actively went about doing exactly the opposite of His will, including misleading others. I don't imagine there have been many at all who fall into this category. Maybe several dozen?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Brinestone is right, KoM. Your statements about the LDS belief system are utterly wrong because they're founded-as usual, when it comes to religion-on ignorance.
Personally, I think Dagonee is right-it really is very crass of you to keep bringing up 'shooting the believers'-but I've long since chalked it up to your continuous intent to be a jackass on this subject.
Furthermore, your posts to Dagonee and in this thread in general only go to prove something I've been saying for a long time: you don't actually care about changing people's minds. You just want to crow about how smart you and slam the idiots who don't think like you do. It's nothing special, and neither are you, because lots of people do it. Your particular type is simply rarer, though, because there are fewer atheists.
You were actually doing alright, for you, in this thread with the exception of that whole 'murdering the believers' thing until Dagonee had the unmitigated gall to express displeasure with it.
Oh, and as for a track record about Christians? How stupid do you think people are again, exactly? Historically you wouldn't have lasted long spouting your bigotry against Christianity in particular (and as an afterthought, all religious belief at all). But today? The very fact that you go about crowing about how smart you are and what big idiots believers are just goes to show that you know you're lying when you talk about "get them before they get me". You're dead-wrong about that part of your statements in this thread, and it's just about the only thing you're obviously factually wrong about-so own up like a man, and admit it. Or squirm around and dodge and whine and maybe you'll end up praising the Orient as well.
Because believe me, if Christians were in the business of murdering those who offended them or insulted their religion in any systematic way anymore, you'd be dead.
--------
twinky,
You have a point. Sometime in the past, people have expressed a desire to see what comes after the End Times, which many believe involves a lot of blood and horror. However, unless they've said, "I will participate in that blood and horror to help move things along," it's not quite the same as what KoM is saying.
Furthermore, they don't usually go about shouting, "I WANT TO MURDER ALL OF YOU IDIOTS AND I'D DO IT IF I COULD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" so to me your point is pretty academic as far as this particular discussion is concerned.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I'd like to see it made explicit. Even adding "or lack thereof" would suffice.
I would support that. I suggest reporting your own post to make this a formal request. At minimum, we could get clarification posted here.
Good idea. I'll do that.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I do see the propriety or impropriety of this thread as a user agreement issue.
Do you think this thread violates the user agreement?
The thread itself, no. Some of the posts in it, yes.
--------
Added:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You have a point. Sometime in the past, people have expressed a desire to see what comes after the End Times, which many believe involves a lot of blood and horror.
I've seen the desire to help bring about the End Times, and witness them personally, stated on this forum without reference to what comes next.
quote: However, unless they've said, "I will participate in that blood and horror to help move things along," it's not quite the same as what KoM is saying.
Furthermore, they don't usually go about shouting, "I WANT TO MURDER ALL OF YOU IDIOTS AND I'D DO IT IF I COULD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" so to me your point is pretty academic as far as this particular discussion is concerned.
On that particular issue, I am largely agreement with KoM. I don't see a huge moral gulf between worshipping a god that you believe will perpetrate genocide and wishing you could perpetrate that genocide yourself. I don't think it's academic at all.
[ February 16, 2006, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The thread itself, no. Some of the posts in it, yes.
Sorry, I should have been more specific: Do you think the opening post, specifically, violates the user agreement?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Taken independently, or in conjunction with KoM's posting history? Added: I'm not dodging the question here, I just want to be clear what you're asking.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'd actually appreciate an answer for both scenarios, if you don't mind.
I'm not treating this as a user agreement issue myself, but I'm interested in your take on it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Taken independently, I think it's borderline but doesn't go far enough to violate the "disparagement clause." There isn't quite enough content to be sure of his intent in constructing the hypothetical scenario. Putting it in the context of KoM's posting history, it becomes clearer what his intent is, and I think that pushes it over the line. Of course, it's hard to consider it independently when the opening line contains "I have made reference to..."
Added: To be clear, I do think at least two or three of his subsequent posts in this thread violate the user agreement. Just not the first one on its own.
Also, I just reported my original post about the user agreement with an explanation and a request for an amendment or "ruling." Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ack. I did not intend that another thread should dissolve into acrimony.
quote:But today? The very fact that you go about crowing about how smart you are and what big idiots believers are just goes to show that you know you're lying when you talk about "get them before they get me". You're dead-wrong about that part of your statements in this thread, and it's just about the only thing you're obviously factually wrong about-so own up like a man, and admit it. Or squirm around and dodge and whine and maybe you'll end up praising the Orient as well.
Well, I'll at least try to avoid praising China, or at any rate its current policies. Apart from that, I don't quite understand your point here. Are you saying that if I were sincere about the 'get them before they get me' bit, I would not go around telling people about it? If so, well, Mein Kampf was published in 1923, and it's really quite explicit about Hitler's intentions. He relied on people not believing him; or possibly he didn't quite believe it himself, and only later found himself in a position to follow up his proclaimed policies.
(Incidentally, can one invoke Godwin's Law on someone who compares himself to Hitler? It is admittedly not a comparison I'm quite happy with, but for this thread at least, it seems accurate.)
About Mormon doctrine, I sit corrected. It is probably futile to put this thread back on a polite track, but I apologise to the Mormons reading this. The afterlife Brinestone describes is really quite fair and just, with one possible exception : Can people in the Telestial kingdom rise into the Terrestrial and Celestial ones by reforming? Eternity is a long time.
quote:You haven't called me on anything, because your understanding of my beliefs is nonexistent.
Let me take a deep breath, and try to explain my view of this; it is possible that you remember events differently, of course.
We have had discussions in the past about hell and justice. In these discussions, there has always been a point at which you said "I give up; you are only in this for insult, and you do not understand my beliefs at all." The latter may or may not be true; if so, I would suggest that the fault is not entirely mine. The former is not true. I am not wilfully obtuse, nor do I argue purely for the joy of insulting people; but if a belief appears to me to be either silly, evil, or just plain wrong, then I will say so.
Also, it always seems to me that this point of withdrawal comes at exactly the moment when a really telling point has been made. I assume it feels different for you; but to me, it looks as though you are precisely that stereotype, the theist who refuses to examine his beliefs, and retreats into a refusal to discuss their weaknesses, if he has no defense. If I have copmletely missed some fundamental point, why not point that out? I do not think you have ever done so, in these cases where - you say - I utterly misunderstand your beliefs. If the misunderstanding is indeed so unsubtle, surely it cannot be too hard to explain? We do not speak of subtle internal feelings, here, but of matters of doctrine, explainable in words.
As an aid to my understanding, let me ask you these questions :
Do you believe in a hell, where those who do not believe in your god are sent, after their deaths, for eternal punishment? (Perhaps mere unbelief is not enough, and you also need to be actively evil?)
Do you believe that this is unavoidable, even for an omnipotent god, or that it is the deliberate judgement of that god?
Do you believe that eternal punishment (assuming for a moment that it is indeed eternal) is reasonable for any crime?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
KoM, what about "I no longer discuss my religious beliefs with you, KoM" do you find difficult to understand? I have no interest in discussing theology with you. Right now, my sole concern is to get you to stop polluting the board with your trash.
quote:Taken independently, I think it's borderline but doesn't go far enough to violate the "disparagement clause." There isn't quite enough content to be sure of his intent in constructing the hypothetical scenario. Putting it in the context of KoM's posting history, it becomes clearer what his intent is, and I think that pushes it over the line. Of course, it's hard to consider it independently when the opening line contains "I have made reference to..."
Thanks, twinky.
quote:Also, I just reported my original post about the user agreement with an explanation and a request for an amendment or "ruling."
Excellent.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ack. I did not intend that another thread should dissolve into acrimony.
You've got a funny way of going about preventing that from happening. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Do you believe in a hell, where those who do not believe in your god are sent, after their deaths, for eternal punishment? (Perhaps mere unbelief is not enough, and you also need to be actively evil?)
Do you believe that this is unavoidable, even for an omnipotent god, or that it is the deliberate judgement of that god?
Do you believe that eternal punishment (assuming for a moment that it is indeed eternal) is reasonable for any crime?
My belief is that "hell" is separation from God and that rather then being "sent" we choose it ourselves by separating ourselves from God through sin.
I think that it is unavoidable in that the only way to avoid it would be for God to take that choice from us. I think that God does everything possible to avoid that separation short of denying us that choice.
I think that the "punishment" would continue as long as one continued to choose it. I don't believe that the choice one is making at the time of death is necessarily final.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
If this is where you wanted the discussion to go, you picked a hell of a creative way to get it there. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
twinky,
quote:On that particular issue, I am largely agreement with KoM. I don't see a huge moral gulf between worshipping a god that you believe will perpetrate genocide and wishing you could perpetrate that genocide yourself. I don't think it's academic at all.
I think if you examined the beliefs of people regarding what would happen to those who died, you might reconsider, but that's not what I was talking about...
I was talking about your complaint that this particular violation (if it is one) having happened before is pretty academic in my opinion because on the one hand we've got someone shrieking genocide on a regular basis, and on the other hand, some people in the past have expressed a few times they would like to see the End Times happen-and as for that, I'll keep my eyes open, but I certainly don't remember it.
It's as though the same guy is mugging people in broad daylight on a public street day after day...and you're bringing up some muggings that happened weeks ago, that weren't nearly as public or frequent. That's what I meant. I think the complaint on that basis is a bit...artificial, that's all.
If the situation was reversed-if we had a fundamentalist right now advocating hellfire and damnation for the nonbeliever today and expressing his heartfelt desire that heretics be writhing in torment-and someone brought up in defense of that the fact that KoM had a couple of times awhile ago expressed a desire to kill believers, I would think the defense on that basis was equally strained.
--------
KoM,
quote:Ack. I did not intend that another thread should dissolve into acrimony.
Yeah, right.
quote:Apart from that, I don't quite understand your point here. Are you saying that if I were sincere about the 'get them before they get me' bit, I would not go around telling people about it?
I think it's fairly clear what I meant. You're lying about the 'get them before they get me' part because they're not trying to get you. Christians are not gunning for your murder. Past track record aside (and atheists have done so well when they're in control in the modern world), Christians today are not out to get you...and so there is no 'before' they get me me part of your statement.
And you know they're not trying to get you, because you haven't been gotten yet, KoM. As I said, if Christians were in the business of murdering heretics in any systematic way these days, you'd be dead.
As for Dagonee...you're asking him for respectful tolerance. You give him none. Even a cursory look at religious discussions involving Catholicism would reveal to you that Dagonee has frequently answered questions and debated points about Catholicism. The difference between those times and this time isn't that Dagonee is cringing in fear at your awesome rhetorical might. It's that those times, there wasn't an insulting jackass involved.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, now I see. Let me then rephrase to 'before they acquire the political power they need to change the body politic, so that they can get me.' And I would back up my fear of such a happening by pointing to Pat Robertson; who, however much you dislike him, has a huge following. Not to mention Jack Chick. I understand that you do not believe as these people do; but nonetheless, they are powers in the land, and I do not think it unreasonable to fear that they will acquire more. What do you think would happen to atheists in a USA where Robertson, or one of his ilk, was president? I think second-class citizen status would be the absolute best we could hope for.
As for Dag, really, I don't see where I've asked him for tolerance; only for actual replies to my objections. If the reply is of the form 'You don't understand,' then it should be followed by 'because of X, Y, and Z'. Just saying 'you are ignorant of my beliefs' is not an answer.
And I do not believe I have been insulting in this thread; nor, indeed, for a while back. Looks like evasion of difficult points to me. Or how would you answer the questions I asked?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As for Dag, really, I don't see where I've asked him for tolerance; only for actual replies to my objections. If the reply is of the form 'You don't understand,' then it should be followed by 'because of X, Y, and Z'. Just saying 'you are ignorant of my beliefs' is not an answer.
That might be the case were we having a discussion about this topic. But we're not. As it is, you are responding to my critique of particular behavior - your advocacy of genocide on Hatrack - with demands that I account for your mistaken understanding of my beliefs. My beliefs are irrelvant here.
You have stated you would like to have me shot in the head (assuming I have the constancy to resist denying my God). I would like you to not do that here. More to the point, I would like others to treat you as we would treat someone who advocated shooting any other group of people.
Your response that somehow my beliefs make such behavior by you acceptable are irrelevant, even if you were characterizing them correctly. You are a master at diverting discussion of the bald facts - your advocacy of genocide - to your pet topics.
I am not playing that game with you any more. You have done something on Hatrack I consider atrocious. You can't - at least, you haven't done so yet - back up a claim that I have done anything equivalent here.
You don't get rewarded for your advocacy of violence with rational discussion about my faith.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It pulled me in. I just read Dag's post.
KoM's advocating killing people? Sicko.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
OK Dag, sorry you feel that way. Have a nice day. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Oh, now I see. Let me then rephrase to 'before they acquire the political power they need to change the body politic, so that they can get me.' And I would back up my fear of such a happening by pointing to Pat Robertson; who, however much you dislike him, has a huge following. Not to mention Jack Chick. I understand that you do not believe as these people do; but nonetheless, they are powers in the land, and I do not think it unreasonable to fear that they will acquire more. What do you think would happen to atheists in a USA where Robertson, or one of his ilk, was president? I think second-class citizen status would be the absolute best we could hope for.
Well then, you're pretty damned ignorant. But that comes as no surprise. Anyone with a passing knowledge of American history knows how very, very unlikely it would be for Jack Chick-ites or Pat Roberson-ites to come to power on the basis of their beliefs with those two people.
They're not going to come to power in the way you fear. America isn't going to become a theocracy, any more than your delightful little genocide will come to pass, either. All the fundamentalism running in our government right now, courtesy of Dubya & Co.? Gone, in as little as two years...and very unlikely, as much as ten years. Much less than that, really, when you consider the extreme unlikelihood that the GOP will maintain its hold over Congress.
Yes, fundamentalism is something to watch out for and oppose. Just saying, "It'll never happen," and ignoring it would obviously be a mistake. But that doesn't equal "I gotta get them before they get me", either. And you know it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think if you examined the beliefs of people regarding what would happen to those who died, you might reconsider, but that's not what I was talking about...
I have done so. Given that I think they're all wrong, I'm somewhat uncomfortable about the fact that there are potentially billions of people who might, upon witnessing genocide that fit loosely in the Revelations mold, sanction it.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I was talking about your complaint that this particular violation (if it is one) having happened before is pretty academic in my opinion because on the one hand we've got someone shrieking genocide on a regular basis, and on the other hand, some people in the past have expressed a few times they would like to see the End Times happen-and as for that, I'll keep my eyes open, but I certainly don't remember it.
If you're really interested, I think I can provide a comparatively recent example. I won't do so in public, though, because I don't think that's appropriate in this case.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's as though the same guy is mugging people in broad daylight on a public street day after day...and you're bringing up some muggings that happened weeks ago, that weren't nearly as public or frequent. That's what I meant. I think the complaint on that basis is a bit...artificial, that's all.
I stated explicitly at the outset that I was playing Devil's Advocate.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If the situation was reversed-if we had a fundamentalist right now advocating hellfire and damnation for the nonbeliever today and expressing his heartfelt desire that heretics be writhing in torment-and someone brought up in defense of that the fact that KoM had a couple of times awhile ago expressed a desire to kill believers, I would think the defense on that basis was equally strained.
What you're missing is that I'm not defending KoM. I think if you re-read my posts, you'll see that.
I will say that I agree with some of the points he's raised and that outside of discussion about religion I quite like him. Lest you take that as a defence, however, I'll also note that I think he has violated the forum's user agreement many times with disparaging remarks about religion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, you're not.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:if a belief appears to me to be either silly, evil, or just plain wrong, then I will say so.
There is a bit of a difference between "I believe you are wrong" and "I wish I could shoot you unless you agreed with me."
Additionally, there is also a difference between "I'm having trouble understanding your beliefs" and "You're beliefs are wrong because I can't understand them."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, Rakeesh, I certainly hope you're right about Robertson. It does seem to me that it is a point on which reasonable men might differ. Although I've already invoked Godwin's Law once in this thread, I do think you might want to consider what the German intelligentsia and upper classes were saying about Hitler, as late as 1932.
Still, I'll admit that my hypothetical scenario doesn't have much to do with opposing that outcome; I started the thread from idle curiosity.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My major point here is that we (or most of us, anyway) wouldn't spend time answering a hypothetical from someone who asked if blacks would agree to stay away from white folk or if homosexuals would agree to stop having sex if either had a gun put to their head by the poster's soldiers. We would condemn the racist or homophobic S.O.B. who proposed doing so, especially if that person made a habit of proposing totalitarian methods of dealing with the particular groups.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I don't think there's any question as to whether KoM's comments about killing people violate the ToS. It seems clear to me that they do.
Edit: You're right Dag. We shouldn't have tolerated the thread this far.
Posted by password (Member # 9105) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I'm somewhat uncomfortable about the fact that there are potentially billions of people who might, upon witnessing genocide that fit loosely in the Revelations mold, sanction it.
Twinky, you've been rather reasonable, but I think this statement does an injustice to Christians. First off, many of them, perhaps even a majority, do not believe Revelations to be a literal prophecy. Secondly, of the ones who do, most view it as an undesireable but unavoidable event: "the tribulation." It's "a disaster of Biblical Proportions." It's possible (and, I'd say, likely) that people who buy into the whole tribulation message look forward to the time after without actually desiring the nasty events themselves.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What passages of Revelation are we talking about that advocate genocide?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm somewhat uncomfortable about the fact that there are potentially billions of people who might, upon witnessing genocide that fit loosely in the Revelations mold, sanction it.
Just because I believe that bad things in the book of Revelatios will happen doesn't mean that I believe that those things are good or that I should encourage them.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Hence my use of qualifiers.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
I believe that atheism and agnosticism implicitly fall under the "to convert people to your own religious beliefs, or to disparage others for their own religious beliefs" statement, and should be treated in that way. The decision whether or not to make it explicit is up to the Cards, but I've brought it to their attention.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)