Perhaps the most senseless violence on this planet is violence inspired by religious fervor.

And I guess to prove this, Communist nations have shown how atheism is the most cruel of them all.

The hypocriscy would be almost funny, if it wasn't so pitiable.

This just in!

*FLASH* Christian makes snarky comment, Sam Harris writes "Letter to a Christian Nation" in response.  *FLASH*

Methinks he dost post too much! 

http://gatorgop.blogspot.com/2008/11/crazy-lefties-attack-old-lady-at-no-on.html

Probably my favorite part of this was the very last sentence talking about the 'hate' on both sides.

And if that doesn't put the T in tolerance for you, try this one out:

http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2008/11/10/13335/904

Hey, if one minute you have a cut in the eye and the next you have the tremendous dangerous of religious extremism, what do these show?  From cross stomping to..... from church raiding to.....

heh

So what is your response?  It's the old "et tu" tactic.  You dig up examples of peaceniks, lefties, and non-believers behaving badly.  It's just that...well...isn't the Christian faith supposed to work better than that?  Brawling monks.  That is hypocrisy squared!

Bwhahahahahaha! The hypocrisy in this is under your belief you have nothing to condemn such behavior as 'better' or 'worse' to begin with. The Christian faith has no illusion that such behavior is inappropriate when it's not justified by the circumstances, but people naturally being flawed (and thus the reason why Christ was needed) will fall short of the perfect standard just like all the other peaceniks, lefties, and non-believers. Yours holds their isn't an objective standard of how appropriate such behavior is either way. Yet it's telling how you argue as if there was one.

Right there is your escape clause.  No behavior is ever inappropriate, because it is always "justified by circumstances".

Uhh, it's not an escape clause but more the simple fact that circumstances dictate morality. Say for example one of them had a gun and was threatening people Taking action and responding with physical force would then be very much appropriate.

In this case, each side of the brawling monks felt that its behavior was justified by circumstances.

Doesn't matter how they or anyone feels.

Torquemada felt that his use of torture was justified by circumstances.  Every atrocity ever perpetrated by any human being was justified by circumstances.  And what was Christ complaining about?  Didn't he understand that bad behavior is sometimes necessary because it is justified by circumstances?

Hehehehe! Again that hypocrisy. Unfortunately when it's justified by the circumstances it's no longer 'bad behavior'. Though incidently a conversation I had with an atheist reflects that point more than Christianity, as he asserted that rape was appropriate if the human race was ever in danger of extinction.

This isn't about using violence in self-defense, but I'm not aware that Christ recommended that course of action, either.

Problably because it was self-evident.

Christians who promote nonviolence praise the Pacifist Jesus who "turns the other cheek", whereas those who feel it necessary to justify violence talk in glowing terms about the Fighting Jesus who kicked the moneylenders out of the Temple.

What? The only physicality in that situation was towards the animals (which is needed in order to get livestock to move). However as Christ claimed to be the same God of the OT and promises more violence in Revelation (with Christ personally slaying an army), you can see why this idea of complete pacifisim is unfounded. Which is good as complete pacifisim is dangerous.

Both sides have the Bible cut-and-pastes ready for a scripture-laced rationalization of their doctrine.

How nice it is then that it all fits together perfectly when taken as a whole.

Then why would it matter if someone had a gun?

Because a gun exists in reality and is not dependent on subjective feelings.

You are really trying to tempt me to treat you like a child with questions like that Cop.

Exactly so.  I'm quite sure that Torquemada could argue the point, although he might prefer to argue with someone whom he could apply divine instruments of persuasion to--just to make sure that both of you were on the same page, you understand.

And again we come to the fact that 'feelings' don't matter.

Sometimes circumstances demand a little something extra to get others to agree with you...

Yes, communist countries have shown that attitude to help "educate" religious people. How unfortunate then that argueing is a good thing, and 'agreement' is not necessarily right.

....and his God was a big believer in torture.  Torquemada, as an instrument of God, was not engaging in bad behavior.  He was just starting the process of divine punishment off, just as God wanted him to.

Hehehehe You mean as he claimed God wanted him to. Which is why Christian's are seperated from atheists in that we can rationally disbelieve such claims because the attestation is weak, while you do based off of presupposition. There is nothing wrong with inflicting pain by itself (doctors do it every day to save lives), but the circumstance is that Torquemada does not have the authority to perform such acts, and claims of being given such authority is weak and presumptious at best. God has already promised to bring pain to the world without the aid of a middle-man.

Atheists, like Christians, believe that circumstances sometimes dictate bizarre behavior.  They just don't try to bolster the argument with claims of divine backing.

How unfortunate then that just leaves you with your own subjective authority, which is meaningless and egotistical. Not that I'm suprised as it was more his contention that such a circumstance allowed carte blanche behavior and rape falls under it. What's telling is how we are always in danger of becoming extinct (thus proving too much) and atheism allows such sociopathic behavior now.

I find it a little more difficult to talk reason with an individual who has the nod of approval from the creator of the entire universe--an omnipotent, omniscient force that can't be detected or contradicted or opposed.

Hehehe. You can do those things, but for the last two the result isn't encouraging. Of course your statment amounts to "I can't talk reason with an individual who has the approval with any authority figure." Which is, of course, silly. Your problem is you presuppose the Authority in question doesn't exist.

 

Atheists can be bad people, but they don't have anyone to blame for their behavior but themselves.

And thus we have the theistic element that is needed in order for 'bad' to even exist. And even more hypocriticial as atheism doesn't hold that there is a higher authority to be blamed under. Thus why the communist nations were free to "educate" people with the same methods. You can see why I would find it difficult to talk reason with one so blind to their own contradicting belief and arguements.

Edit: Another point to make on this is that atheist's do have others to blame: their upbringing, their society, their parents, their very genetic makeup, etc. etc. So I quite frankly have to laugh outright at the notion that atheist's take responsibility for themselves when the reality is that when it comes to owning up, many (note not all) atheist's are little more than children pointing fingers.

In truth, the brawling monks story is one of my favorite stories of the year, so I'm glad that you've decided to spread it around with your Christian friends.  I'm sure they'll enjoy it as much as atheists do. 

In truth, the brawling monks story is one of my favorite stories of the year, so I'm glad that you've decided to spread it around with your Christian friends.  I'm sure they'll enjoy it as much as atheists do.

heh the brawling monks wasn't the story I'd be passing around.