S
ShivKC
Guest
I have shown this to be the case in my previous post. I condemned those mass murderers you often cite. Now, it is the turn of theists to do so if they can.
you and i may condemn, but polpot may not condemn stalin, why? or on what authority/ideology nazis would get the right to condemn pol pot?
these kind of eg of luther/inquisitions/mutts or even my counter with pol pot/stalin are just a shooting arrows, but dont lead to a discussion in a broader angle.
here we need to move a step further.
luthers jewish remarks/catholic church's inquisition/madhams supporting varna/jihad etc all can always be reconciled with their scriptures. how many true hindu's practice madham's idea of caste? haven't you seen people here many standing up against untouchablity, and imam's often issuing press statement condemning kaffirs. the beauty of following religion is, these nit pick issues of religion and scriptures, always has an a option to get reconciled, by referring to its central theme, like 'no to killing/ love ' etc, which is a core theme of all religions.
where as, pls have a look at the dangerous precedence what atheism could lead to .. atheism only can say 'love,compassion and altruism is a product of evolution' as already codified in DNA. for argument sake, let me temporarily buy this statement. then why this evolution, which has universally given the skills of walking upright/stero vision has failed to mandate the traits of altruism/love equally in all men? hope you wont throw a rejoinder quoting born handicapped and color blind.
even if i have to buy yours, does atheism or evolutionary trait, can force mandate other to do good deeds, apart from citing good karma? you may be good, but on what basis, other than referring divinity, you get the right to condemn pol pot. luther/pope/imams/mutts/ or any wrong in corners of the world, can be condemned by the scriptures, but an atheist looses the right to condemn, cos he who believes no divine authority, gets no authority over other person, than whats given by the law of the land. in nutshell, an atheist who lives in USA get no right to condemn Nazi's, cos, the law of USA cannot be applied in germany, and he has to be content, where as a theist can say, this world is gods, and nazi's lands is also god's land, and god said killing is wrong, and hence a theist in india gets a right to condemn germans, but an atheist looses such right.
i can condemn any religious heads and say, your killing is wrong, because god said so! no law can catch me, other than god, if i looked down upon my fellow men. this shouldn't be troubling atheists, cos i have still not violated the law of land. this is the dangerous thing, atheism could bring it. that's one reason, inspite of the tremendous growth of science, atheism still remains at fractional percentages globally, indicatively for the last 1000 years.
remember, some time i asked this question in this forum, ie, before blaming religions, lets quantify (with scholarly back up) the killing done in the name of god Vs others. some one responded with a big 'NO'. whats your take on this?.
will touch upon evolution Vs Altruism in the next post.
PS: re your ref to my personal attack, i thought it would be an accepted norm with you, since in few posts, yourself called nacchinarkininiyan as 'thotta chinungi' (i know how he was hurt,when i read his PM) and recently you gave a 'home work' to another member weeks ago. let there be light, but no two-yardsticks or holier than thou attitudes. having said that, hence forth i would be extra careful in not letting the cat out of the bag and use such words. i promise you
Last edited by a moderator: