Eminem

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 1:23 pm

Originally posted by EMINEM:
Sorry, Sleep. I had an errand to run and just got back home.

Do I listen to rap/pop?

Not really. I don't even listen to Eminem that much - I got none of his records. The only time I do so is when I'm in the car and tuned into a radio station that happens to be playing a particular song by him. I'm more into Mozart and Bach, actually, and a number of talented but largely unknown Christian artists outside the evangelical sphere of influence.

Name a few i might have heard of them. In case you are wondering why my Bro is a Christian and he also listens to christian artists that are outside of the evangelical sphere of influence

ps thanks for answering my question

[ 07-29-2001: Message edited by: Mr Sleep ]

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 2:33 pm

Oh boy.... Now we're into the Christian rock...

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 2:36 pm

It is just the same as any rock.... most rock is crap anyway.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 2:52 pm

Well, there's Jars of Clay, Bob Carlisle (remember "Butterfly Kisses?") Creed, Collective Soul, Sixpence None The Richer, Chevelle, and Kendall Payne to name a few.

Anyway, to get back to the original topic, I just wanted to add that it is difficult to predict what future generations will admire about the music we are listening to right now, so consigning any artist to the dustbin of history because you disagree with what he or she has to say or the kind of genre in which he expresses it, is premature at best, ignorant at worst.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 2:55 pm

Rock?? What ever happen to Poison?????

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 2:58 pm

I need to make this clear from the start, I am NOT a rapper, more a rocker. But I do listen to Eminem. Maybe it's the teenager still in me and there is not a lot of new rock with attitude around right now.

However I think his attitudes stink, I think his excessive swearing hides the fact that he could actually have quite a fair handle on the English language (?!) - even if his accent makes him sound stupid.

I remember being told once that one of the few words that could not be rhymed with another was orange. Well Eminem did rhyme orange (though don't ask me the song title - I am not THAT much of a fan!) but he rhymed orange juice with door hinge loose and four inch screws. It made me laugh anyway.

If you really listen to his stuff you get the gratuitous violence and drugs and shooting up bullies, which is then occasionally offset with the odd "I only said it I did not know if you would do it or not"

And all those mentions of killing his wife and sharing diseases then

My baby's mam's not dead
she's still alive and b!tching
and I don't have herpes
my d***s just itching

Personally I find him amusing. I do not take him seriously. But then I am apparently a grown up.

He needs to be careful, if his stuff is only ever read at surface value he could be blamed for the next kid going into school with a shotgun.

The problem is not Eminem per se but peoples fear of attitude music. We have had many rock bands blamed for teenage suicide where perhaps we should be looking more at society - how do these kids grow up to take such music so literally? There must be a little more that is not right here. We were all that age once.

Would I approve my kids listening to him? Absolutely not! Well not the album anyway.

My six year old heard Stan on the radio (the censored version) and asked me to explain the story to him. I did and he found it quite saddening. But then it was a story, there is worse on the news every day that my 6 year old questions.

What really spoils Eminems stuff for me is the profanities, but then that is a big part of his story - shock tactics. Parents are not supposed to approve!

As an individual I like Eminem.

As a parent I worry....

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 3:01 pm

Posted by Weasel

Rock?? What ever happen to Poison?????

LMAO!!

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 8:56 am

Originally posted by EMINEM:
I get your point and still must disagree. I think popularity IS one indication of success.

Thanks for replying, MM. But I don't object to popularity and sucess as connected, in commercial terms the two words are sort of synonymous, I think. What I objected to was that your wrote you didn't Eminem would be so popular if he wasn't the best rapper. As I stated in the post above, I object to the idea that something that is popular is necessary also good.

Take William Shakespeare. "He was not only of an age, but for all time," meaning his theater company (The Lord Chamberlain's Men) was the most popular theater company during his time.

Shakespeare was very popular during his life time, as was the other writers you mention. But the man you are quoting about Shakespeare was almost as popular in the Elizabethan time, his theatre company had the next highest status in the court, and yet, how many people even know his name or have seen or read his plays?

Also Mozart, Michelangelo and da Vinci were popuar during their lifetimes. The examples are many. But I didn't say popularity is a contraindication of quality, just that it's not necessarily an indication either. The examples of people who are regarded geniuses in their respective fields who were not at all popular, are also countless. But examples are of no use, I will explain below since you yourself point out something very important.

I'm willing to bet that if the music of Beethevon, Chopin, and the rest were available to the contemporary masses in the same way the Backstreet Boys and Brittany Spears works are available to us through mass media, they would indeed have been as popular. As it was, only the upper classes were able to enjoy the music of these classic artists. The majority of the populace were too busy ploughing fields and harvesting crops to worry about listening to music.

Here, I think you are really on to something. Selection mechanisms. Becasuse of the 18th century social class selection mechanisms, we will never know whether the masses would have enjoyed Mozart as much as the Burgoise class did. But, do you really believe there are less selection mechanisms around today? No, I think they are equally strong, they just occur at another point in the process. Record companies, producers, radio and TV channels, press, are all part of the selection mechanisms that decide what music will reach the masses and not. Also, attention is drawn to various artists because of other issues than their music. Thus, popularity in term of selling a lot of records, might not reflect the music is good, is could as well reflect people find the artist attractive, or the artist's personal life interesting.

Lastly, I think it is unfair to compare the record sales of classical composers with modern day pop artist. Our musical sensibilities and preferences have changed over the past 300 years.

We can make some contemporary comparisons also. Alfred Schittke hasn't sold many records compared to BSB

Or just compare TV-programs, as I did in my former post.

RE: The Internet is the root of all evil thread. I just wanted to state the fact that more deaths have occurred under Communist/Atheist regimes than under governments ruled by men with even a semblance of religiosity. Seeing that the discussion was becoming a debate for/against the existence of God, I figured Theological Quandries had already covered that topic anyway, and I had no desire to begin a parallel thread.

Firstly, I think one should follow up a post where one state that other people are amoral or "fail to see the truth". That's accusations, and as such, they should be followed up if posted at all.

Secondly, it is not correct that more deaths has occured during atheist regims that religious regimes. If you believe this, I strongly recommend reading some more history. Stalin killed many people, so has China, but this is nowhere near the amount of people killed in the name of religion, any religion. Hitler, for instance, always an opportunist wanting to appeal to the masses, stated many times that he was "fulfilling the will of the lord" and that he was always a catholic.(I you haven't read "Mein Kampf", do so.) Now, nobody knows whether Hitler did or did not believe in a god, but since he made public statements of faith, he can't be called an atheist.

Thirdly, to return to your moral-post, even if it was correct that more people have died in atheist regimes than religios regimes, this is not a argument that atheist views lead to more killing or is less moralic than religious views. The killings might not at all be connected to the atheism, it might be connected to something completely else.
Just because two things occur at the same time, does not mean there is a casual correlation.

Personally, I would say that all believes, religious or not, that include value discrimination (we are better than them), exclusivity mission (we know the truth and our truth is true for everybody, thus we shall enlighten the others) have basic moral flaws. Monopoly of truth and right, is IMO a foundation for for the idea of viewing humanity as "we" and "them", and thus, it's a foundation for an objectifying view of other people. (I didn't mind killing those people, they where negroes, less worth than us, and at a lower level of development to quote a Colonialist)

EDIT: I'm sorry the last sentence is deeply offending and racist, it's a quote from a history book about the colonisation of Africa in the 19th century. I used it here to illustrate how objectification and discrimination leads to justification of unthinkable atrocities.

[ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 11:02 am

@C. Elegans: Really kicking some ass today.

His listeners aren't stupid,

Thats a new one..

In a hundred years time, will people even remember who the Backstreet Boys were?

They're already forgotten

Rap gets too similar. Most of emienem's songs are about his alter egos or trying to kill his wife or his mother.
It kinda exciting when he came ut, but then again they're all thses artists who come out with a song that ends up being the song of the summer or something, but then they die away. Emienem is just more of that krap.

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:10 pm

Originally posted by EMINEM:
Kind of strange isn't it? The best rapper in America (the world?) is white, while the best golfer in the world is black (Tiger Woods).

It looks like someone watches Late Night with Conan O'Brien

(Chris Rock was the one who originally brought up the white rapper/black golfer issue as one of the signs of the Apocalypse

).

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 2:05 pm

@ Elegans
Secondly, it is not correct that more deaths has occured during atheist regims that religious regimes. If you believe this, I strongly recommend reading some more history. Stalin killed many people, so has China, but this is nowhere near the amount of people killed in the name of religion, any religion.

"Many" people? How can you brush off 100 million deaths so easily? The evidence is obvious if you would only look at it: 100 million people have died within the brief lifespan span (70 years) of Communistic/
Atheist governments in Russia, China and Cambodia alone. The 20th century is history's bloodiest century precisely because it witnessed for the first time ever a people ruled with no concept of God. If you can produce evidence or statistics of a religion-inspired genocide approaching this level of brutality, I will be willing to altar my views. Until then, permit me to continue to strongly disagree.

Hitler, for instance, always an opportunist wanting to appeal to the masses, stated many times that he was "fulfilling the will of the lord" and that he was always a catholic.(I you haven't read "Mein Kampf", do so.) Now, nobody knows whether Hitler did or did not believe in a god, but since he made public statements of faith, he can't be called an atheist.

Hitler (I never once mentioned him by the way) was no Christian. If anything, he was pagan, held to a pre-Christian worldview, and was deeply involved in occult practices.
It really doesn't matter whether Hitler made statements of faith or not. I for one would question anything that came out of the mouth of Adolf Hitler. A man who says he believes in God, or is beholden to a higher power, and then condemns 6 million Jews, is not one whose words should be taken at face value.

Personally, I would say that all believes, religious or not, that include value discrimination (we are better than them), exclusivity mission (we know the truth and our truth is true for everybody, thus we shall enlighten the others) have basic moral flaws. Monopoly of truth and right, is IMO a foundation for for the idea of viewing humanity as "we" and "them", and thus, it's a foundation for an objectifying view of other people. (I didn't mind killing those people, they where negroes, less worth than us, and at a lower level of development to quote a Colonialist)

Truth, by definition, is exclusive. For example, if I were to disagree with everything you just wrote, doesn't that make me a "truth monopolizer" with an "inherently flawed" moral philosophy? Are you not then becoming what you just condemned? Either way, by stating that "there is no truth" or that there should be no monopoly on truth," you contradict yourself. If there is no truth, then there is also no truth is the phrase "There is no truth!" What you just wrote is meaningless. Therefore, if Eminem cannot have the truth, then neither can C Elegans, to follow your reasoning.

I question your association of the "we and them" view and objectifying people. You seem to think that this in or of itself is bad thing, or even unusual. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela were absolutely convinced that they were right and their opponents were wrong about equal rights for black people as well as white. If they had believed otherwise, their movements would have faded into doubt. Christ himself saw people as saved and going to heaven or unsaved and going to hell. If he didn't, he never would have came to earth in the first place, and his disciples would have remained a minor Jewish sect. What motivated them to spread out? The Great Commision to see people of all nations come to a knowledge of the truth. The "we and them" worldview is one of the foundations of evangelical Christianity. Does that make then discrimate and objectify people? On the contrary. I think it is the first step in engaging others in illuminating discussions like this one.

I used it here to illustrate how objectification and discrimination leads to justification of unthinkable atrocities.

I question whether these variables are causally related. There are other extraneous variables that account for unthinkable atrocities other than objectification and discrimination. Your argument is too simplistic.

Looking forward to your response. If I failed to be clear or relevant in some of my answers, please let me know and I'll do my best to rectify it.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 2:05 pm

@ Elegans
Secondly, it is not correct that more deaths has occured during atheist regims that religious regimes. If you believe this, I strongly recommend reading some more history. Stalin killed many people, so has China, but this is nowhere near the amount of people killed in the name of religion, any religion.

"Many" people? How can you brush off 100 million deaths so easily? The evidence is obvious if you would only look at it: 100 million people have died within the brief lifespan span (70 years) of Communistic/
Atheist governments in Russia, China and Cambodia alone. The 20th century is history's bloodiest century precisely because it witnessed for the first time ever a people ruled with no concept of God. If you can produce evidence or statistics of a religion-inspired genocide approaching this level of brutality, I will be willing to altar my views. Until then, permit me to continue to strongly disagree.

Hitler, for instance, always an opportunist wanting to appeal to the masses, stated many times that he was "fulfilling the will of the lord" and that he was always a catholic.(I you haven't read "Mein Kampf", do so.) Now, nobody knows whether Hitler did or did not believe in a god, but since he made public statements of faith, he can't be called an atheist.

Hitler (I never once mentioned him by the way) was no Christian. If anything, he was pagan, held to a pre-Christian worldview, and was deeply involved in occult practices.
It really doesn't matter whether Hitler made statements of faith or not. I for one would question anything that came out of the mouth of Adolf Hitler. A man who says he believes in God, or is beholden to a higher power, and then condemns 6 million Jews, is not one whose words should be taken at face value.

Personally, I would say that all believes, religious or not, that include value discrimination (we are better than them), exclusivity mission (we know the truth and our truth is true for everybody, thus we shall enlighten the others) have basic moral flaws. Monopoly of truth and right, is IMO a foundation for for the idea of viewing humanity as "we" and "them", and thus, it's a foundation for an objectifying view of other people. (I didn't mind killing those people, they where negroes, less worth than us, and at a lower level of development to quote a Colonialist)

Truth, by definition, is exclusive. For example, if I were to disagree with everything you just wrote, doesn't that make me a "truth monopolizer" with an "inherently flawed" moral philosophy? Are you not then becoming what you just condemned? Either way, by stating that "there is no truth" or that there should be no monopoly on truth," you contradict yourself. If there is no truth, then there is also no truth is the phrase "There is no truth!" What you just wrote is meaningless. Therefore, if Eminem cannot have the truth, then neither can C Elegans, to follow your reasoning.

I question your association of the "we and them" view and objectifying people. You seem to think that this in or of itself is bad thing, or even unusual. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela were absolutely convinced that they were right and their opponents were wrong about equal rights for black people as well as white. If they had believed otherwise, their movements would have faded into doubt. Christ himself saw people as saved and going to heaven or unsaved and going to hell. If he didn't, he never would have came to earth in the first place, and his disciples would have remained a minor Jewish sect. What motivated them to spread out? The Great Commision to see people of all nations come to a knowledge of the truth. The "we and them" worldview is one of the foundations of evangelical Christianity. Does that make then discrimate and objectify people? On the contrary. I think it is the first step in engaging others in illuminating discussions like this one.

I used it here to illustrate how objectification and discrimination leads to justification of unthinkable atrocities.

I question whether these variables are causally related. There are other extraneous variables that account for unthinkable atrocities other than objectification and discrimination. Your argument is too simplistic.

Looking forward to your response. If I failed to be clear or relevant in some of my answers, please let me know and I'll do my best to rectify it.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 2:24 pm

Eminem writes:
The 20th century is history's bloodiest century precisely because it witnessed for the first time ever a people ruled with no concept of God.

I haven't much time at the moment, but I did want to comment upon this error of logic. You haven't stated, much less proven, any link between the absence of religion in a given culture and the bloodletting of the 20th century. On the other hand, I think it can be conclusively shown that the sheer quantity of deaths caused by 20th century wars are due to the industrial efficiency and scientific investments by various nations, whose religious proclivities are all over the place.

Will you maintain that these investments are proof of an atheistic culture? Years before Hitler and Stalin took office, the US, the UK, France, Germany and Russia all had invested in enormous supplies of armaments, and none had atheistic governments or cultures. The gassing of the trenches in WWI which provoked such an outcry that its echo still lingers in efforts to get biological warfare outlawed (and which that fine, upstanding religious man, George W Bush, refused recently to agree to) were entirely caused by nations who were horrified of atheism.

The Chinese, long before they were taken over by the Communists, attempted repeatedly to conquer and wipeout the native population and culture of Tibet. Again, an atheistic culture was not necessary to create an atmosphere favorable to cultural genocide.

The pogroms of the Tsars against Jews and Gypsies are celebrated; they continued, like slave ownership in Russia, until nearly the 1917 revolution. Once again, the bloodletting and misery which occured on a massive scale over history was premeditated by a religiously devout culture.

In short, the atheism of a particular culture is completely incidental to the amount of death and horror it causes. With respect, my proofs are above; let's hear yours.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 3:39 pm

Eminem, I really appreciate that you reply to my posts. I will continue this discussion later, right now I'm at work at will only address a couple of problems briefly:

Originally posted by EMINEM:
"Many" people? How can you brush off 100 million deaths so easily? The evidence is obvious if you would only look at it: 100 million people have died within the brief lifespan span (70 years) of Communistic/
Atheist governments in Russia, China and Cambodia alone.

My paragraph 2 and 3 are meant to be read together, I'm sorry you misunderstood me. Of course I did not mean 100 million people killed under the Communist regimes are a small amount, but only a small part of those people were killed for atheist reasons. As my paragraph 3 stated, there is no connection between Stalin being an atheist and Stalin killing off lots of people. Actually, most of the people Stalin sent to camps and executions were not at all in the name of atheism, but in the name if "formalism". As I suggested, read some documentary history about the era, and you will learn that atheism played very little part in Stalin's politics. I can give you some references if you like.

If you can produce evidence or statistics of a religion-inspired genocide approaching this level of brutality, I will be willing to altar my views. Until then, permit me to continue to strongly disagree.

I'll give you some references later on

 question anything that came out of the mouth of Adolf Hitler. A man who says he believes in God, or is beholden to a higher power, and then condemns 6 million Jews, is not one whose words should be taken at face value. 
So if it doesn't matter Hitler said he believed in god, why does it matter Stalin said he did not believe in god? Shouldn't the both terror dictators be judged equally? Or do you mean you find Stalin more trustworthy? The KGB had secret churches where they were allowed to go all through the time of the Terror. One such secret church is actually in one of the inner yards of the Lublanka prison.

 Truth, by definition, is exclusive. For example, if I were to disagree with everything you just wrote, doesn't that make me a "truth monopolizer" with an "inherently flawed" moral philosophy? Are you not then becoming what you just condemned? 
I know you disagree with my views, if you didn't, this interesting discussion would not exist. Of course disagreement is not at all the same as wanting to monopolise truth. There is a difference between having an opinion, expressing it and disagree with others, and to claim a religious belief is more true than another and therefore view those others as "wrong". I don't believe in any gods. I know you do. I don't believe you are wrong, more stupid or less enlightened than me, I just don't agree.

I question your association of the "we and them" view and objectifying people. You seem to think that this in or of itself is bad thing, or even unusual.

Hundreds of books have been written on this subject, scientific studies have been carried out and interviewed with former SS-guards, Vietnam soldiers etc support the theory that what I shortly described above as objectification of other people. I'll post references later, do you prefer books or scientific papers?

I'm sorry for my sloppy reply, I just wanted to post my first thoughts. I'll be working late today, so I post more tomorrow.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 4:09 pm

Originally posted by fable:
I haven't much time at the moment, but I did want to comment upon this error of logic. You haven't stated, much less proven, any link between the absence of religion in a given culture and the bloodletting of the 20th century. On the other hand, I think it can be conclusively shown that the sheer quantity of deaths caused by 20th century wars are due to the industrial efficiency and scientific investments by various nations, whose religious proclivities are all over the place.

Will you maintain that these investments are proof of an atheistic culture? Years before Hitler and Stalin took office, the US, the UK, France, Germany and Russia all had invested in enormous supplies of armaments, and none had atheistic governments or cultures. The gassing of the trenches in WWI which provoked such an outcry that its echo still lingers in efforts to get biological warfare outlawed (and which that fine, upstanding religious man, George W Bush, refused recently to agree to) were entirely caused by nations who were horrified of atheism.

The Chinese, long before they were taken over by the Communists, attempted repeatedly to conquer and wipeout the native population and culture of Tibet. Again, an atheistic culture was not necessary to create an atmosphere favorable to cultural genocide.

The pogroms of the Tsars against Jews and Gypsies are celebrated; they continued, like slave ownership in Russia, until nearly the 1917 revolution. Once again, the bloodletting and misery which occured on a massive scale over history was premeditated by a religiously devout culture.

In short, the atheism of a particular culture is completely incidental to the amount of death and horror it causes. With respect, my proofs are above; let's hear yours.

Ah, fable. I was wondering when you were gonna turn up. All right, give me time to collect some facts and info and I'll post my clarifications and rebuttal at the first opportunity.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 8:37 pm

Eminem writes:
Ah, fable. I was wondering when you were gonna turn up.

You honor me too much. There are quite a number of people in SYMtown who I'm sure could have pointed to the same concern with your post; and several of them probably would have phrased it better. I just happened upon it, first.

All right, give me time to collect some facts and info and I'll post my clarifications and rebuttal at the first opportunity.

That's fine; take your time. Besides, CE has precedence.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 10:13 pm

First off, C Elegans, let me expand on one of my previous statements: Hitler was no Christian. According to historian Paul Johnson, Hitler hated Christianity with a passion that rivaled Lenin's. Shortly after assuming power in 1933, he told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended "to stamp out Christianity root and branch," and also that "One is either a Christian or a German -you cannot be both."

Hitler was also no theist. In addition to Christianity, he also despised Judaism. Hitler reportedly claimed that conscience was a Jewish invention that had to be abolished. That's Christianity and Judaism down - we're quickly running out of theistic options.

Jehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at the University of Jerusalem, describes the real "god" of Hitler and the Nazis:

"They wanted to go back to a pagan world, beautiful, naturalistic, where natural heirarchies based on the supremacy of the strong [echoes of Nietzsche here?] would be established, because strong equalled good, powerful equalled civilized. The world did have a kind of God; the merciless God of nature, the brutal God of races, the oppressive God of heirarchies."

So much for Hitler being Christian, Catholic, or holding to a theistic worldview.

Now to my long awaited response to your question on atheism. IIRC, I wrote something to the effect that atheism lends itself to a morally bankrupt worldview. Let me say it again for the record: I believe that atheism lends itself to a morally bankrupt worldview. Please note that my emphasis is on a person's "worldview," NOT on his or her way of life. I am not denying that atheists can live good, upright lives. On a personal note, I am good friends with an outspoken atheist who I deeply love and respect - my father.

I also do not deny that atheists can construct moral systems or codify ethical rules and regulations. I understand that Immanuel Kant and J.S. Mill were two such philosophers who created moral systems which could judge good or evil without reference to God. This fact is not surprising, however, if human beings - whether atheists or not - have indeed been made in God's image (Genesis 1:27), and have the capacity for moral awareness.

On the other hand, although many atheists do believe in the existence of an objective morality, I believe that doing so is inconsistent with the materialistic naturalism usually embraced by atheists. For instance, why not be a nihilist or an amoralist instead of a moral objectivist?

More problematic for the atheist, however, is the significant lack of accounting for intrinsic human dignity, human rights, moral obligation, and moral responsibility, which must first be in place before we can even talk about the relevance of morality.

What most atheists who hold to an objective morality tend to do is confuse epistemology (knowing) with ontology (being) on this issue. They say something to this effect: "Certainly we can know that it is wrong to rape or murder without appealing to God. We can say that rape or murder is wrong because it violates universal human rights, is an affront to human dignity, and destroys the social fabric." But the question for the atheist still remains: What is the foundation for universal human rights or human dignity? How did we come to be this way? What accounts for humans' being moral or having worth and moral obligations when they are the result of the same impersonal forces that produced rats and hyenas?

The atheist has difficulty, not in KNOWING objective moral truths, but in GROUNDING this objective morality. It is hard to see how rape, murder, or torture would be wrong on an atheistic scale founded on some version of naturalism. The atheist can of course give the same reasons as theists as to why rape is wrong: "It violates the victim's rights!" or "It treats a person as a means rather than an end" or "It damages the social fabric." These reasons, however, PRESUPPOSE human dignity, human rights, moral obligations and responsibility.

The decisive issue with which the atheist must deal is this: Which worldview best accounts for intrinsic human dignity, morality and equal rights - a naturalistic, atheistic one in which human beings are ultimately no different from mosquitoes and mice, or a theistic one in which human beings have been made in the image of pure, just, and loving God and have been granted worth and moral responsibility?

If I had to wager on this question alone, I would (and have) side with theism. Theism has a lot less explaining to do in this regard than atheism. A moral world in which human dignity, moral responsibility, and human rights exist is natural and to be expected if there is a God, but un-natural, un-expected, and surprising if there is not.

Well, that is my diatribe on why I think atheism is morally bankrupt. I don't expect you to agree with me, but I did my best to answer some of your questions.

P.S.

fable, I'm still working on my response to your post. I felt it necessary to respond to Elegans first.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Wed Aug 01, 2001 6:22 am

@Elegans
Of course disagreement is not at all the same as wanting to monopolise truth. There is a difference between having an opinion, expressing it and disagree with others, and to claim a religious belief is more true than another and therefore view those others as "wrong".

In the Old Testament, there is a Canaanite deity by the name of Bhaal. Represented by a bull, symbol of strength and fertility, Bhaal was the god of rain and harvest whose adherants practiced bestiality, ritual prostitution, and child sacrifices. It takes no stretch of the imagination to understand TSR/Bioware's appropriation of Bhaal as the God of Murder of the Forgotten Realms fantasy world. In the New Testament, there is another deity by the name of Jesus Christ who taught his followers to love God with a sincere heart, to treat others the way they treat themselves, and to make sure their lives do not contradict their faith. Now on the basis of this comparison alone, I am willing to claim that Christ IS better than Bhaal, that the religion he founded is truer than the one practiced by the Canaanites, and that those Bhaal worshippers who had sex with animals and threw their infants into the flames were wrong, wrong, wrong.

NOTE: I use Bhaalism as as extreme example. I could have easily used Buddhism, Judaism or Islam to make my point that some religions (ie. Christianity) are better and truer than others, but I do not want to start another debate on this issue unless pressed to do so.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Aug 01, 2001 8:09 am

Eminem writes:
Jehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at the University of Jerusalem, describes the real "god" of Hitler and the Nazis:

"They wanted to go back to a pagan world, beautiful, naturalistic, where natural heirarchies based on the supremacy of the strong [echoes of Nietzsche here?] would be established, because strong equalled good, powerful equalled civilized. The world did have a kind of God; the merciless God of nature, the brutal God of races, the oppressive God of heirarchies."

Bauer's use of the word "pagan" (hence, his understanding of the term) is inaccurate. Pagan derives from "paynim," which meant a non-Christian, especially a Muslim. Pagan itself, in both current academic and common usage, refers today to a person who isn't a member of one of the three main branches of presentday monotheism (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

It has absolutely nothing to do with any "supremacy of the strong," Nor could there be a "return" or "going back" to such a condition, because it was no more a feature of the pre-monotheistic "Ancient World" than it is of the modern one. Military and economic might sometimes mattered, and sometimes didn't; just as during the Cold War, the US and the Soviet sometimes bolstered other nations, or bullied them into client states, or installed puppet regimes, or left them alone--depending upon their relevance to what was perceived as the most important internal priorities of each major power.

For Bauer to describe this as a condition peculiar to non-monotheistic times makes his entire argument (which hinges on that fact) suspect, IMO.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Wed Aug 01, 2001 8:49 am

@fable
Bauer's use of the word "pagan" (hence, his understanding of the term) is inaccurate. Pagan derives from "paynim," which meant a non-Christian, especially a Muslim. Pagan itself, in both current academic and common usage, refers today to a person who isn't a member of one of the three main branches of presentday monotheism (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

fable, I'm pretty sure the use of the word Pagan goes back to the beginning of the Latin language, as it is derived from the word Paganus, meaning rustic, which in turn is derived from Pagus, meaning village. Paynim by the way comes from Old French "paienimmer," which originated from the Latin word Paganus. I assume Bauer was using the word Pagan the way I understand it - as a slang to label non-Christians and (contextually) as any one of the pantheistic nature religions scattered throughout the Roman Empire before (and after) Christianity became its state religion.