GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by Aegis:
<STRONG>Sorry Fable, I think the thread is dead...</STRONG>

@Aegis, Eminem has, with the best will in the world, made attacks on the beliefs of several people who frequent SYMville. He's also posted a variety of other statements that are factually inaccurate about the gods of other religions. It only seems fair that, since he says he's going to answer the points CE and I have posted, he does so.

I honestly don't want to put him on the spot--but hell, how do you think this leaves other people feeling, like several atheists who were basically told they were immoral? To post that and walk away from it without dealing with the aftermath one's caused is wrong.

[ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>I honestly don't want to put him on the spot--but hell, how do you think this leaves other people feeling, like several atheists who were basically told they were immoral? </STRONG>

@Fable but you don't think the atheists believed it, do you? IMO Eminem's failure to support these arguments just strains their credibility even more...

@Georgi: I didn't believe one bit of it. But personally, I'm not even going to bother listening to him until he knows what the hell he is talking about..

All of you obviously failed or didn't bother to read the long essay I posted to C Elegans on why I consider atheism to be morally bankrupt. Not once since I posted my reply has anyone quoted a single line of the text or raised a logical inconsistency in my argument. Fable wanted me to discuss beastiality and Bhaalsim even though this has nothing to do with the original subject.
Frankly, I wonder why he (and the rest of you) focus on these picadalloes instead attempting to provide an anti-thesis on why YOU believe atheism to have any moral value.
The silence thus far has only strengthened my conviction.

All of you obviously failed or didn't bother to read the long essay I posted to C Elegans on why I consider atheism to be morally bankrupt. Not once since I posted my reply has anyone quoted a single line of the text or raised a logical inconsistency in my argument. Fable wanted me to discuss beastiality and Bhaalsim even though this has nothing to do with the original subject.
Frankly, I wonder why he (and the rest of you) focus on these picadalloes instead attempting to provide an anti-thesis on why YOU believe atheism to have any moral value.
The silence thus far has only strengthened my conviction.

@Eminem: Two things.

First: Learn to control that double posty thing that happens a lot. Just saves forum space, for more posts.

Second: If you look back on the pages of one of these topics dealing with religion. I went into a big rant, against your little comment about Atheists having no morals. Maybe if you bothered to search for it, you might've found it, and spared yourself some undue stress.

*EDIT*

I did some searching, and here it is...

Originally posted by Aegis:
<STRONG>@Eminem: So what your saying is that Atheists are people who cause all the problems? Them and Communists! What the hell kind've thought is that! If it's anything, it is pretty discriminatory of belief! By saying Atheists and Communists can go around, kill hundreds of thousands of people, and claim they had good cause for it, your adopting a pretty strong belief of Nazism. It was the Nazi's who first said that, namely Hitler (Read "Mein Kompf" written by Hitler during his jail years). Only, instead of Atheists and Communists, he blamed it on the Jews and Communistd! Now, when did Atheism become such a bad thing, bad enough to be put in with the same Communist beliefs that Joseph Stalin (Even though his were misguided) had ruled over the Soviet Union with!

Do you find Atheists can do that because they don't have a god that they must be weary of? Well, you seem to forgot that we, Atheists, still of morales, a conscience, and doubts! Just because we choose not to beleive, or have faith in any religion, that does not meen were a bunch of pagan murderers out to kill the world with our Communist friends! Even though I'm Atheist, I still think that some of the morale stand points of the Christian philosphy are worth listening to, I just choose not believe/hae faith in a man I do not know really exists. I personally up-hold of few of those morales, and many other Atheists do as well.

I'm starting to get tired of this rant, but know this Eminem, this has severly pissed me off, and it is not the last you'll hear of it.</STRONG>

[ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: Aegis ]

[ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: Aegis ]

Hmmmm, this is becoming very deep. Methinks I will avoid this topic, there seems to be too much.........ahhh,what's the word? I shall now go admire the pretty colors of the wall and have a chat with Katie.

For the last time Aegis, read my post!

You'll understand that my position on atheism is this: not that atheists cannot live moral lives (they can!), but that the philosophy to which they hold lends itself to the morally bankrupt worldview in which the kind of horrors witnessed in the German concentration camps can be completely
"justified."

Guess what, the Germans during WW2 were not atheists! Wanna know something? They big time, fundamentilist Christians, that followed Nazism! The Germans did the same thing in their concentrations camps that christians have done for 2000 years! Don't go blaming it on atheism, and saying we live morally bankrupt lives! In most situations, the atheists have been the ones who have not been involved!

Originally posted by EMINEM:
All of you obviously failed or didn't bother to read the long essay I posted to C Elegans on why I consider atheism to be morally bankrupt.

More than a bit unfair, really. I certainly read it, but I didn't consider then, and don't consider now, that it answers several of her most telling points. I always assumed you meant to answer more fully at some future date.

Not once since I posted my reply has anyone quoted a single line of the text or raised a logical inconsistency in my argument. Fable wanted me to discuss beastiality and Bhaalsim even though this has nothing to do with the original subject.
Frankly, I wonder why he (and the rest of you) focus on these picadalloes

I beg your pardon. Posting major factual errors about the worship of an important deity doesn't grant much credibility. Sluffing it off as unworthy of discussion once pointed out lowers that credibility still more.

@Eminem, I invite you once more to reply factually to my remarks above, concerning your posts about Bhaal worship.

[ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Originally posted by Aegis:
<STRONG>Guess what, the Germans during WW2 were not atheists! Wanna know something? They big time, fundamentilist Christians, that followed Nazism! The Germans did the same thing in their concentrations camps that christians have done for 2000 years! Don't go blaming it on atheism, and saying we live morally bankrupt lives! In most situations, the atheists have been the ones who have not been involved!</STRONG>

Aegis, this topic has already been covered. Go back a few posts and read what I had to say about Hitler's practice of occult relgion and devotion to Paganism, as well as the influence the great 19th century atheist Friedrich Nietzche had upon the German Chancellor.

Let me repeat myself yet again: atheists CAN live moral lives, but the philosophy of Atheism, taken to its logical conclusion, lends itself to a morally bankrupt worldview. Aegis, I'm not attacking you - I am attacking what you believe. I have nothing against you personally, and think you're a welcome addition to the Gamebanshee Forums.

In response to your comment about those
"fundamentalist Christians," let me just say they were NOT living according to the teachings of Christ. Christ would never have condoned the actions of those who perpetrate crimes in his name, either during WW2, the Crusades, or the Inquisition.

Now this is where Christianity and Atheism irrevocably part company. A true Christian would never approve of murder or genocide because such crimes contradict the core principles of the New Testament, whereas a true atheist is bereft of any sense of right or wrong, good and evil, and can only shrug his shoulders at the holocaust, and pronounce it the triumph of the strong over the weak.

Fable, what "major factual errors" are you talking about? What "telling points" have I failed to answer?

Elegans and I were debating whether some religions are better and truer than others. I wrote that some religions ARE better than others and cited Bhaalism as an extreme example of a "bad" religion since it involved beastiality, child sacrifices, and ritual prostitution, whereas Judaism and Christianity strongly prohibits these things.

Do you disagree with this conclusion? If so, please explain why you do so, and I'll be glad to debate the subject with you.

@Eminem: So what your saying is that even though the church had full knowledge of the pillaging, the rape, and the murder that europeon armies did on the "holy" crusade to Jerusalum, they didn't condone it? That is crap! They encouraged it! As did Hitler during WW2, and Stalin!

Now, by you saying you think my beliefs are wrong... That is an extremlly powerful thing to say! How is not holding faith in Religion wrong? The fact that we don't care how much those who study Christ, and his teachings (Which were, by the way, not his teachings. The Bible was supposedly inspired by god, and written by the four Gospels) screw up the world! (No offense or anything to Christians, just saying to get a point across) If anything, we know what's going on, and we got the right idea! Why? Because We think for ourselves! We don't believe that there is one spiritual driving force!

One last thing... By you saying Hitler killed all those people because he was Atheist... That is just wrong... Hitler was not atheist, he was christian. By blaming all the problems of the world on Atheists, that is discriminatory, and racist. I personally will not abide by it.

Originally posted by EMINEM:
<STRONG>Elegans and I were debating whether some religions are better and truer than others. I wrote that some religions ARE better than others and cited Bhaalism as an extreme example of a "bad" religion since it involved beastiality, child sacrifices, and ritual prostitution, whereas Judaism and Christianity strongly prohibits these things.

Do you disagree with this conclusion? If so, please explain why you do so, and I'll be glad to debate the subject with you.</STRONG>

Read up higher. Here's a recap of my remarks:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eminem writes:
There is strong archaelogical evidence supporting the kind of worship I described above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But with respect, you haven't stated any of it, here. Let me restate your remarks, from above:

"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."

So let's please have this strong archaelogical evidence that Bhaal was indeed worshipped through bestiality, ritual prostitution, and child sacrifices.

"The manner in which the Canaanites worshipped Bhaal apparently elicited no shame on their part, judging by the number of statuettes and figurines depicting various forms of animal and human intercourse..."

You seem to be arguing that because the Canaanites possessed statues depicting humans and animals in intercourse, they worshipped Bhaal via bestiality. I don't see how these two thoughts are even remotely related. If you have evidence that the worshippers of Bhaal indulged their worship via bestiality, post it.

"...in addition to the excavated bronze idols with cupped hands into which naked infants were placed for burning."

I notice that you don't mention Bhaal's name. Is that because the above remarks don't refer to the worship of Bhaal, but to another deity?

Let's also have some sources for the idea that ritual prostitution was involved in the worship of Bhaal.

"I've been studying the Bible for five years, and not once have I come across a passage in the OT where idols are considered to be demons."

This is arguing through misdirection, however unintentionally. Here's what I wrote, and what I requested an answer in reply to:

Do you have any sources for this beyond the obviously prejudicidal biblical accounts of some people who considered everybody else's gods as demons?

I wrote that the OT demonizes the gods of other peoples, not their idols.

@Eminem, I look forward to your response.

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Fable, if you must know, my main sources of reference regarding Bhaalism is Walter A. Elwell's Encyclopedia of the Bible (Baker Book House, 1989), one of those "obviously prejudicial" texts you mentioned (BTW, that was an unfair anticipatory attack I find surprising coming from you. I found this Encyclopedia remarkably objective). At any rate, I drew heavily from the the articles concerning Bhaalism and Canaanite Deities and Religion, some of which I will quote here:

Baal: The name of the most prominent Canaanite deity [another one of my sources (the NIV Bible Commentary) explains that because Baal was so popular, his name was often used as a generic title for all the local gods]. As the god of fertility in the Canaanite pantheon, Baal's sphere of influence included agriculture, animal husbandry and human sexuality (p.239).

... Baal worship became prominent in the northern Kingdom of Isreal during the days of King Ahab when he married Jezebel of Tyre.
Places of worship of Baal were often high places in the hills consisting of an altar and a sacred tree, stone, or pillar (p. 239)

... Four principal festivals associated with agriculture seem to have been celebrated by the Canaanites, invariably occasions of revelry, drunkenness, and sexual excess. Canaanite religion was evidently the most sexually depraved of any in the ancient world (p. 410).

... Deuteronomy 20:17-18 gives the reason why the Isrealites were told to exterminate the Canaanites: "You shall annihilate them as the Lord your God commanded you, so that they may not teach you to imitate all the abominable things they have done for their gods and so cause you to sin against the Lord you God." The most obvious of those abominable things was the worship of images. Reprehensible practices of Canaanite religion included the sacrifice of human adults and children, ritual prostitution, the mutilation of the human body, sorcery and divination, and the practise of beastiality (p. 413).


@Aegis, Hitler was not a Christian, as I have already explained. He hated Christians with a passion. Had he been influenced by Christ the way Paul, Luther, Whitfield, and Tolstoy (whose Christian writings influenced Ghandi), as much as he was influenced by Friedrich Nietsche, I believe the Nazi party never would have existed.

Eminem writes:
Fable, if you must know, my main sources of reference regarding Bhaalism is Walter A. Elwell's Encyclopedia of the Bible (Baker Book House, 1989), one of those "obviously prejudicial" texts you mentioned (BTW, that was an unfair anticipatory attack I find surprising coming from you. I found this Encyclopedia remarkably objective).

@Eminem, no offense was intended; but I have yet to find any objective account of Bhaal or the Mesopotamian gods that refers to them in the terms you have described, so I suspected your sources were what they eventually proved to be--drawing in their turn from unstated by clearly predjudical sources. I'd like to know Elwell's specific source documents of his remark that you quoted, for instance:

... Canaanite religion was evidently the most sexually depraved of any in the ancient world (p. 410).

Did he do a survey? How does he measure the relative "sexual depravity" of a given god whose worship was not open to non-believers? And isn't an encyclopedia supposed to state it sources, and avoid drawing conclusions while giving as many facts and leads as possible?

... Deuteronomy 20:17-18 gives the reason why the Isrealites were told to exterminate the Canaanites: "You shall annihilate them as the Lord your God commanded you, so that they may not teach you to imitate all the abominable things they have done for their gods and so cause you to sin against the Lord you God." The most obvious of those abominable things was the worship of images. Reprehensible practices of Canaanite religion included the sacrifice of human adults and children, ritual prostitution, the mutilation of the human body, sorcery and divination, and the practise of beastiality (p. 413).

The bias is so blatant in the above that I can only marvel at how it's passed off as part of an "encyclopedia." There's no extent evidence of "the worship of images;" the problem was that the Jews, like the Muslims, were an anti-iconic people, who considered any representation of God or Gods to be blasphemous--and the argument used against all those who focused their worship through images is the same whether in the mouths of Jews or Muslims, too: those who use images are worshipping idols.

All the evidence points to the fact that these civilizations, like the Babylonian, were certainly sophisticated enough to know the difference between a large, symbol-laden rock and their god.

Bestiality? I have to repeat: what are Elswell's sources? Were there some rabbis hanging around busily taking notes after digging their way through tons of rock into some private temple?

Ritual prostitution is a misunderstanding of social context. Sexual prostitution--the exchange of sexual favors for some material recompense--was not a part of these religions.

Sorcery and divination? Like Moses with his staff-to-serpent, or the Red Sea parting, or the prophets of the Old Testament? Wasn't it Elijah who magically killed the children that laughed at him? It would seem that sorcery and divination are okay when they're performed by the people on one's side, while they're evil and demonic when performed by one's enemies. I have to question this.

Human sacrifice? The charge was laid specifically by you at Bhaal--and there was no human sacrifice to Bhaal. Was this worship performed for some other gods? Definitely. But it's much harder to assess to what point a religion is corrupted by such practices. The Mayans sacrificed enormous numbers of their enemies to their Solar God. Medieval Roman Catholicism offered perfect absolution to those who destroyed the nation and culture of the Albigensians, in modern day Provence, which was (at the time) a separate country. Yet it can be said that medieval Christianity also offered a link with a Greco-Roman past, with a more sophisticated culture, and with rituals that included that priceless jewel, the Eucharist.

I would not go to scholars who are strongly biased to one side of an issue for a non-partisan view. I'm not suggesting you give up your religion. I am recommending that if you want the facts on other religions, try books written by researchers who have no vested interest in the material, and who are not recommended by biblical sources.

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

@Eminem: I'm getting really tired of hearing your same point over and over... SO, before I begin, I would like to ask one... Have you ever read "Mein Kampf". In that book, it has Hitler declaring many times to GOD that he would like to be free, that he was made to lead the German people, and what not. A book that he wrote, depicts him to be of the fundamentalist Christian Faith!

Anyway, Hitler isn't the argument here. I'm still pissed about the fact you said I followed the wrong Beliefs" because I choose to have none, and that my "beliefs" are immoral, and have caused all the worlds problems! Now, I have offered so much against the statement, and you just choose not to listen to it. So, as of right now, I don't give a damn! You can spout as much Religious Dogma as you like, I no longer care, because you obviously have no clue as to what your talking, and obviously you hate those not of your religion.


Just one minor note. Animal Husbandry was not bestiality. It was a technique to breed and raise animals on a farm.

@Fable: Do me a favour, kick this guys ass... He's really starting to bother me...

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Aegis ]

@Aegis, calm down. I think most of us SYM citizens respect you. I know I do. Don't let one person's views so expand across your field of vision that you lose perspective.

As for Eminem, I think he's devout, honorable, and doing the best to live up to what he perceives as the high standards he's set himself. Try to keep that in mind while he's writing things that make you want to shoot bolts through your computer at him. It's the opposite of demonizing your opponent: humanizing them. It helps keep conversation alive, and knives safely in pockets.

Ever read Bertrand Russell? He was an atheist, and among the most moral men whose works I've ever come across.

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

@Fable: Thanks... I needed that...

@fable
Human sacrifice? The charge was laid specifically by you at Bhaal--and there was no human sacrifice to Bhaal.

I would not go to scholars who are strongly biased to one side of an issue for a non-partisan view.


An article in the Encyclopedia Brittanica (whose editors are hardly bias towards Christianity) states there is no doubt that human sacrifice was practiced in Canaanite religion, as well as temple prostition by both male and female adherents. (Syrian and Palestinian Religions, page 969). The bibliography is quite extensive, but I'll post it if you wish. Suffice it to say, your above contention is not supported by the archaelogical research.