Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
It is funny that you are now discussing the leadership of this children's crusade, 3 days after telling us it didn't happen.
@ JoC
Once more you have difficulty looking things up. Childrens' Crusade led by Stephen of Cloyes, and Germany, led by Nicholas.
Children were systematically exploited across christian Europe until they reached Brindisi in Catholic Italy where they were sold into slavery. Another great example of objective morality being practised by good Catholics. .
So wars can and have been caused by religious beliefs, but this need not always be the case?
It's hard to disagree, though I'm not sure this needs a thread of its own.
There are already multiple threads dealing with morality and religions claims to moral ascendancy.
The fact religions are likely to cause wars at The very least destroys the idea that there is objective religious morality, if it's objectively wrong to commit murder why do so many theists ignore this and go to war? The number of religious dissenters has been miniscule after all.
Why are both the biblical deity and the koranic deity so often depicted as encouraging and reveling in war and murder?
Power trip by those who don't read either.
Not so much the old Testament but the New is against war.
The Koran has ' vengence is mine sayeth the Lord' more than the Bible actually.
The war mongers pick out isolated verses to promote their power trip and ignore the theme of the whole.
This may be hard for you to believe that murder and war are not the same thing. There is no case that I can think of where murder is reasonable.
War, on the other hand, I can. Killing someone who attacked you (self-defense), I can as well. The result of all of these (the loss of human life) is the same. The difference being the situation the person (or in war, the people) are in.
Look at Just War doctrine. It actually limits the violence to combatants only. Non-comabatants should not be harmed. This is actually shown in some Biblical stories as well.
A great example of situational ethics. Of course, situational ethics is a form of subjective morality. Congratulations JoC, you have finally abandoned this objective morality non-sense!
Yeah right; I'm sure you'll managed to believe you can have your cake and eat it too.
This actually isn’t situational ethics. Situational ethics actually says that no action can ever be judged to be right or wrong unless all information is available (which is never the case).
This still actually falls in line with objective morality as it says certain actions are objectively wrong or objectively right even in times of war.
Yes, JoC, you are engaging in a subjective morality. As I've long said: I've met plenty of people who pay lipserves to objective morals, but I've never met anyone who lived their life that way.
I'm curious. Do you know what we mean when we say objective morality? It seems from your post that you do not. So what do you think objective morality means?
For me, objective morality means a moral code exists independent of human involvement. Meaning, even if everyone in a certain locale agrees that rape is the fault of the woman, we can say that they are objectively wrong. Now, if a person who believes that rape is wrong, actually commits rape, his action would still be objectively wrong even if he did it. Self-defense would always be morally acceptable and would not be considered "murder" as it upholds your own right to live. The death of the attacker is but an unfortunate effect of you protecting your own life. The same goes for someone who has the power to kill an aggressor to another person. Even if they are not the one being attacked but they see that someone is attacking another.
However, if a person were to plot to kill someone else, we'd say that action is immoral regardless of what the victim did to the killer. In the case of war, it's simply putting the logic of self-defense to a bigger scale and applies to groups of people. War may be justified if it aims to protect the rights of another group of people (look at slavery or child sacrifice) or to protect their own rights (self-defense).
That is not what most people mean by objective morality. For example: a council of super space aliens in some other galaxy that has never heard of Earth. They decided that smoking floobie juice is an evil act one day. Then decide smoking floobie juice is a good things tomorrow. Since that is independent of human involvement ---according to you---that would be an objective morality. But by EVERY other standard I've ever seen it would not be considered objective. Clearly your use of the word is problematic.
I suspect this is yet another symptom of your desire to have your cake and eat it too.
Actually, it doesn't follow from your argument. Whatever this intelligent race as decided in their council, smoking floobie juice is evil, or good or morally neutral. their decision on the matter would not affect that truth. In fact, even if man were to influence them and tell them that smoking floobie juice is evil (or good), it would not affect it's being evil or good.
That is the point. Your definition is ludicrous. So ludicrous in fact that you don't use it yourself.
UH...to wage war is very different then self defense.
I agree, in self defense, (or national defense,) killing of an attacker determined to kill you can be much more justified, then what we normally consider murder.
But I think we can all agree where in war the invading army is commiting murder through brute force, and the invader frequently tries to justify their attack, but I personally believe an invading force can never fully justify their invasion war where they murder defenders that agree to surrender or civilians.
@JOC: Killing someone who attacked you (self-defense), I can as well.
Aren't you supposed to turn the other cheek, like Jesus and Gandhi?
If you’re slapped on the cheek. Not if someone is pointing a gun to you. Remember when Jesus was arrested? Jesus basically told them to arm themselves. He knew he would be arrested and just wanted his disciples to be safe by being armed (to be prepared for self-defense).
@JoC: f you’re slapped on the cheek. Not if someone is pointing a gun to you.
Your morality is getting all twisty and subjective again. I don't believe in turning the other cheek. I tend more toward nemo me impune lacessit. But if I believed in Jesus I would have to accept non-violence as part of the creed.
I was taught that Jesus meant any wrong done against you, not just a slap. Where did he tell the disciples to arm themselves? My recollection from Sunday school is that Peter grabbed a sword from one of the soldiers and cut off someone's ear. At that point Jesus told him to drop his weapon.
@Algebe. Re: nemo me impune lacessit
Dang. I really like that. I think I just found my next tattoo idea. *grin*
I know it has been used in other places, but I was first exposed to that phrase in The Cask of Amontillado.
Luke 22:36-38 actually tells of Jesus telling his disciples to arm themselves before his arrest.
"He said to them,* “But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, namely, ‘He was counted among the wicked’; and indeed what is written about me is coming to fulfillment.” Then they said, “Lord, look, there are two swords here.” But he replied, “It is enough!”"
In verse 36, he even says, "... one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one."
Actually, if you look at the entire discourse of Jesus teaching about offering the other cheek, the entire discourse is full of hyperbole - exaggeration to make a point. Even included in the same chapter as that verse is the one where you should pluck out your eye if it causes you to sin.
JoC,
According to the fairy tale it's silly to be concerned with saving your life. A certain number of believers MUST BE KILLED before Yeshua returns. He demands it. So why would he want his believers to protect themselves from someone who is going to kill them for their faith? Don't believers want Yeshua to return? If so then they should want to be killed for their faith, especially when in church. Can't you imagine being the last victim and Yeshua come riding in on the clouds with his band of angels? That'll be the biggest jackpot of all time, if you believe in such things.
The main thing that was wrong with the Crusades was that most were poorly organized and lacked the means to achieve and hold the objective. They were limited in scope. A group like the Mongols would have been far more successful and could have defeated the muslims.
The main thing wrong with the crusades was that they were barbaric and immoral.
Sheldon,
The Crusades were attempts by the Christians to ensure travel to the "holy land". They were limited in scope. Besides, they got pissed off at the muslims for continually raiding and raping Europe.
Sheldon, I thought you believed in subjective morality. Is it possible that these people simply acted on what they thought was moral during their time and given their situation?
Short term. The Muslims were pretty well organized. The Mongols really started because they were looking for pasture for their horses. The raids started during a bad drought and they just kept riding.
Wrong..... on both counts.....
1/ Initially the Muslims were a chaotic force...... It wasn't until the appearance of Nur e din that the concept of unity was even debated ....... but even then it wasn't until Saladin made his entry onto the stage that the Muslims finally had a general capable of overcoming their shortcomings...... but that wasn't until the 3rd Crusade.
2/ The Mongol Empire stretched from the Pacific to the Danube , they conquered China..... they conquered the Kwarezmid Empire...
It became the largest contiguous land empire in history........
this did not happen because they were looking for fresh pastures.....
this did not happen because "they just kept riding".
You need to review your research....
But what of their intent?
I would say the main thing wrong with the crusades was that thousands, if not millions of people were killed for no good reason.
Really? Millions? And no good reason? Please do some research before claiming this. Do you at least know the reason why the crusades even happened at all?
Diotrephes: The main thing that was wrong with the Crusades
The main thing wrong with the Crusades was that the Pope unleashed an army of murderers, thieves, rapists and cannibals to commit unspeakable atrocities on innocent people, including Christians. He gave them a free pardon for any sin committed while on Crusade.
I remember in Terry Jones' wonderful documentary on the Crusades, he said that the people of Constantinople enjoyed a peaceful, cultured and pleasant existence until they were invaded by cannibals---from France.
Pages