Question: Wars, Executions, and Violence in the name of

[thesometimesaint]

Did you bother to read the link I provided?

Did he? Here's what he said:

 

Time: Are you religious?

 

McVeigh: I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.

 

Time: Do you believe in God?

 

McVeigh: I do believe in a God, yes. But that's as far as I want to discuss. If I get too detailed on some things that are personal like that, it gives people an easier way [to] alienate themselves from me and that's all they are looking for now.

 

- See more at: http://www.ethicsdaily.com/an-accurate-look-at-timothy-mcveighs-beliefs-cms-15532#sthash.MSEybRVg.dpuf

 

Edited March 6, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[flameburns623]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Not according to him.

He identified himself as an "agnostic" the day before the bombing.  I don't have any reason to disbelieve him.  The fact that McVeigh was influence by "The Turner Diaries" does not make him a Christian.  I take him at his word as he had no reason to lie. 

The Turner Diaries were vehemently anti-Christian: the author, William Pierce, was a sort of pantheist who tried to start his own religion called "Cosmotheism".

Hitler made some pretty definitive public statements about being a Catholic and a Christian. Officially he promoted a vehemently anti-semitic theology called "Positve Christianity".

However, he was seldom known to attend church and he is recorded as having made numerous anticlerical statements in private meetings. "Anticlerical" does not equate to non-Christian.

I'm trying to recall if Mussolini self-identified as an atheist or as an agnostic.

Edited March 6, 2016 by flameburns623

[TheSkepticChristian]

Okay, I will put it easier. 

Has there ever been a group (two or more) of Agnostics that killed innocent people? 

[flameburns623]

Taoism, as well as Confucianism, are agnostic faiths.

The Shaolin monks whose fighting style we know as Kung Fu, were supposed to be defenders of righteousness.

It's been awhile since I have read about them, but I believe various Emperors feared their potential for destabilizing a given ruler's regime. Whether the Shaolin always acted only on the side of Confucian righteousness, I don't know.

The counterparts to the Shaolin in Japan were the Ninja--who were primarily Amidists (a sect of Buddhism). I don't know if Ninja "count" as agnostic though. Amidism is much closer to a theistic brand of Buddhism. Beside this, the Japanese generally juggled two or more religious belief systems simultaneously: Shintoism, along with Confucianism, and/or Buddhism.

The Ninja ideal was to be assassins in behalf of righteousness. In practice they were reputedly corruptible and often were assasins for hire to the highest bidder.

It has also been a long time since I read about the Chinese "Tongs" or mafia: but if memory serves, their original raison d'etre had some roots in Confucianism as well. 

I think at some point the question starts to shift to a debate about "by whose standards" do we judge this or that person to be unjustly violent?

[Russell C McGregor]

On 3/4/2016 at 6:50 AM, TheSkepticChristian said:

Many kings, presidents, and dictators that believed in God or Atheism killed millions (genocide). 

I just wonder, has there ever been an agnostic that killed millions (genocide)?

Or non-political violence started by agnostics (group)?     

Or simply unfair executions made by agnostics (group)? 

Is this a question in the sense that you are asking for information, or are you trying to make some kind of point?

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 3/4/2016 at 10:50 AM, TheSkepticChristian said:

Many kings, presidents, and dictators that believed in God or Atheism killed millions (genocide). 

I just wonder, has there ever been an agnostic that killed millions (genocide)?

Or non-political violence started by agnostics (group)?     

Or simply unfair executions made by agnostics (group)? 

Agnostics base their belief on lack of certainty, suggesting that they are indecisive and uncertain people -- hedging their bets and ignoring Pascal's Wager.  Such people are not likely to lead nations or armies into killing sprees or systematic genocide.

[TheSkepticChristian]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Agnostics base their belief on lack of certainty, suggesting that they are indecisive and uncertain people -- hedging their bets and ignoring Pascal's Wager.  Such people are not likely to lead nations or armies into killing sprees or systematic genocide.

Okay, but how about

 

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Okay, I will put it easier. 

Has there ever been a group (two or more) of Agnostics that killed innocent people? 

 

[flameburns623]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Agnostics base their belief on lack of certainty, suggesting that they are indecisive and uncertain people -- hedging their bets and ignoring Pascal's Wager.  Such people are not likely to lead nations or armies into killing sprees or systematic genocide.

There are several kinds of agnosticism.

One sort affirms the absolute impossibility of any person knowing anything about the existence of God or of an afterlife. The very way that the Divine Being and the afterlife are defined put them outside of anything humans have actually experienced or could actually experience.

(This is true even of the Mormon deity of flesh-and-bones btw: what "is" a "glorifed"  Divine Body? It is not subject to entropy, is not limited by ordinary barriers such as distance or of walls, etcetera).

No Scripture can be with certainty ascribed to the divine, no one can be certain that any professed direct experience of the supernatural is not an error, a self-deception,  a manifestation of their own psyche, or a result of enculturation.

For this sort of philosophical agnostic, even Pascal's Wager cannot resolve the matter: to wager on the triune Christian God is to have ignored the competing truth claims of the Mormon God, the Arian/Jehovah's Witnessses God, the Islamic Allah, the Zoroastrian God, the Hindu Gods, etcetera.

Having decided that we cannot settle with certainty the existence or nature of God, the agnostic must then work out some schema for living happily and with mraning in this world. Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Confucius all established faith traditions which generally leave the God question unresolved.

To say that we cannot know what we absolutely cannot know does not make one indecisive. Indeed, at least three world religions were postulated on agnostic principles. Followers of these faiths have included leaders at all levels of the societies to which they are indigenous.

It does seem that these agnostic faith traditions have produced fewer manifest perpetrators of absolute evil, of crimes against humanity. I am not certain they are inherently incapable of serving as the philosophical justification for such wickedness, however.

[thesometimesaint]

14 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Okay, I will put it easier. 

Has there ever been a group (two or more) of Agnostics that killed innocent people? 

The binding principles of Agnosticism  is not religion or anti-religion, killing or not killing innocents. It makes no sense.to ask such a question.

[JLHPROF]

On 3/4/2016 at 0:09 PM, TheSkepticChristian said:

My goodness, nothing to do with my questions. I am asking about AGNOSTICS, not atheists. 

[USU78]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

The whole notion of agnostic people as a group being incapable of atrocities is too absurd to credit. Take any cross section of humanity, and some of that group will be capable of atrocities, most will not. Some political movements, however, tend to be favored by the irreligious. In the 20th century, the  irreligious dominated political systems, largely totalitarian in nature, and committed vast atrocities. Singling out agnostics as being somehow incapable of atrocities makes no sense. Show us some historic evidence, then perhaps we could credit the assertion the op makes here.

Edited March 6, 2016 by USU78

[TheSkepticChristian]

12 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The binding principles of Agnosticism  is not religion or anti-religion, killing or not killing innocents. It makes no sense.to ask such a question.

Just forget about anti-religion, has there ever been a group of agnostics (two or more) that attacked others without a good motive?  

Edited March 7, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[flameburns623]

30 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Just forget about anti-religion, has there ever been a group of agnostics (two or more) that attacked others without a good motive?  

I have answered you several times. You have not responded indicating that my observations either answer your question or are somehow unsatisfactory.

[TheSkepticChristian]

8 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

I have answered you several times. You have not responded indicating that my observations either answer your question or are somehow unsatisfactory.

because I don't see how Taoism and  Confucianism are agnostic faiths, isn't agnostic faith an oxymoron?

Agnostic is - "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena;" 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/agnostic

Taoism and Confucianism can't be agnostic faiths because the word agnosticism was first publicly coined in 1869

 

 

 

[flameburns623]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

because I don't see how Taoism and  Confucianism are agnostic faiths, isn't agnostic faith an oxymoron?

Agnostic is - "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena;" 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/agnostic

Taoism and Confucianism can't be agnostic faiths because the word agnosticism was first publicly coined in 1869

 

 

 

 

http://www.britannica.com/topic/agnosticism

Your definition of agnosticism is too narrow IMHO. Agnosticism as an idea has ancient roots. Unfortunately, the article linked does not include a survey of Eastern/Asian agnosticism, but Western atheist and agnostic organizations happily point to the three faiths I cites as well as to some forms of Hinduism as clearly agnostc or even atheistic philosophies.

1869 would date the period from which a disinterest in god-talk was codified into a system actively hostile to organized religion. The word implied concepts which have existed from time immemorial.

Lao Tzu, Buddha, and Confucius are widely recognized as agnostics regardless of when the specific word was coined. Confucius was particularly secular in his approach, Buddha nearly so much, Lao Tzu--it is hard to say, with so little record apart from the one work attributed to him.

None were interested in questions of God or of gods, tended towards non-supernatural systems of resolving problems etcetera. Taoism had elements which sometimes predisposed to mystical or magical practices, and some forms of Buddhism shade toward making the Buddha a messiah or deity.

But Buddha himself apparently warned his followers on his deathbed, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, slay him". Meaning that his followers should not seek him in visions, expect his second advent or any similar future encounter.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Taoism and Confucianism can't be agnostic faiths because the word agnosticism was first publicly coined in 1869

That is a stupid argument. A word being coined for something does not mean it did not previously exist. 

[gclayjr]

THeSkepticChristian,

 

I have to give you credit for doggedly sticky to a point without ever supporting your assertion. How many different ways have people pointed out there are no Agnostic political leaders with any power to  to murder their own citizens. Others point out that since agnostics believe in nothing their is nothing there. I will challenge you in the opposite.

 

Can you Identify 5 agnostic leaders of major countries throughout history who have been benevolent good, and have NOT murdered their own citizens?

 

If you cannot even name 5 Agnostic leaders of great countries who have NOT murdered their own citizens. I must conclude that all of those many Agnostic leaders out there were murderous thugs.

 

Regards,

 

George Clay

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Just forget about anti-religion, has there ever been a group of agnostics (two or more) that attacked others without a good motive?  

Agnostics are too weak-willed to organize. They join other violent groups instead when they want to attack people.

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

That is a stupid argument. A word being coined for something does not mean it did not previously exist. 

but it shows that Agnosticism is modern. 

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Agnostics are too weak-willed to organize. They join other violent groups instead when they want to attack people.

All I am asking is two or more. 

47 minutes ago, gclayjr said:

If you cannot even name 5 Agnostic leaders of great countries who have NOT murdered their own citizens.

I did change the questions, forget about leaders. 

48 minutes ago, gclayjr said:

Others point out that since agnostics believe in nothing their is nothing there. I will challenge you in the opposite.

People like Stalin believed there was no God, there is a difference. 

[gclayjr]

Quote

Quote

People like Stalin believed there was no God, there is a difference. 

I recognized this right off. By your limiting it to Agnostics, the problem becomes both that there are so few of them out there that you cannot make any effective comparison of the results of their life, versus people of either some religious belief, or Atheists.

and

There are data problems on the other side also. Since Agnosticism, is the lack of belief as to whether is any sort of deity or not. By nature they rarely so self identify, because "what is the point". By the very nature of this belief, most don't even talk about it.

Regards,

 

George Clay

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but it shows that Agnosticism is modern. 

All I am asking is two or more. 

I did change the questions, forget about leaders. 

People like Stalin believed there was no God, there is a difference. 

Agnosticism is not modern. Even the Bible acknowledges that people could doubt the existence of God. It was around long before the word showed up. The word homosexual showed up first in history in 1869 so therefore you would conclude that homosexuality did not exist before the 19th century.

Or is it possible they just used different words or phrases to describe it at the time? Nah, you are probably right. It is brand new.

[TheSkepticChristian]

On 3/7/2016 at 1:38 PM, The Nehor said:

Agnosticism is not modern.

VS 

Quote

Modern agnosticism is new.

 

On 3/7/2016 at 11:58 AM, gclayjr said:

By your limiting it to Agnostics, the problem becomes both that there are so few of them out there that you cannot make any effective comparison of the results of their life, versus people of either some religious belief, or Atheists.

There are more agnostics than LDS. 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

VS 

 

There are more agnostics than LDS. 

No contradiction. Agnosticism is not new but our modern conception of agnosticism is.

There are more idiots then geniuses too. Better side with the idiots I guess.

[Kemara]

On ‎7‎/‎03‎/‎2016 at 8:32 PM, TheSkepticChristian said:

Taoism and Confucianism can't be agnostic faiths because the word agnosticism was first publicly coined in 1869

You have come up with real humdingers in other threads and this one is right up there with the best of them. By your reasoning there were no Christians before Paul and Barnabas went to Antioch and the event recorded in scripture. By your reasoning Paul wasn't a Christian until the word was first publicly coined at this time. None of Jesus Christs followers were Christians until the word Christian was first publicly coined. Is this a case of old vs. modern Christianity? Followers of Christ were not Christians on Tuesday but were on Wednesday when the word was first publicly coined? Old vs. modern by the timeframe of a day?

Skeptic what was the highest mountain in the world before Mt. Everest was discovered?

[TheSkepticChristian]

13 minutes ago, Kemara said:

You have come up with real humdingers in other threads and this one is right up there with the best of them. By your reasoning there were no Christians before Paul and Barnabas went to Antioch and the event recorded in scripture. By your reasoning Paul wasn't a Christian until the word was first publicly coined at this time. None of Jesus Christs followers were Christians until the word Christian was first publicly coined. Is this a case of old vs. modern Christianity? Followers of Christ were not Christians on Tuesday but were on Wednesday when the word was first publicly coined? Old vs. modern by the timeframe of a day?

Skeptic what was the highest mountain in the world before Mt. Everest was discovered?

The reason why the word agnosticism was first coined in 1869 is because almost no one was teaching Agnosticism in 6th century BC when Taoism was created. If agnostic philosophy was relevant, then what took them so long to make a word for it? Did it have a different name or what?

More than 1,000 years for someone to make a word for that philosophy? Give me a break!  

The definition of Agnosticism is - "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

Tell me, who was teaching that in 600 BC? Give me  some evidence that a significant number of people were teaching that? 

Funny how you come after me. I am no longer going to allow you to create a straw-man of me. 

Now Back off! Get a life! 

Edited March 10, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian