I'm an aethist....

If you contend that those who believe in an afterlife have an association with those who also believe in an after life and fly planes into buildings.... then the same holds true of those who do not fear or look forward to an after life having an association with murderers who are of the same mind.

Bartikus wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

sure, why not.

Ok. How many have you told were guilty by association based upon the belief of an afterlife with those who flew the planes into the twin towers?

How many loved ones have you told this? Honestly.

Well to start off with, I don't have any "loved ones" that believe in an afterlife.

Any family or friends that do?

I wouldn't go so far as to say they are exactly "guilty" for it, but they are definitely enablers.

And I have many family members who are believers. I would never bring this up with them.

Intrepid wrote:

If you contend that those who believe in an afterlife have an association with those who also believe in an after life and fly planes into buildings.... then the same holds true of those who do not fear or look forward to an after life having an association with murderers who are of the same mind.

No, the inverse of a belief does not hold to the original statement. What I am hearing fresco say is that those who share a belief system can be seen as 'supporting' of the actions of the lunatic fringe of the belief system. If someone doesn't share in the belief system then they are not rendering support.

You take murder as a possible belief (believing in murder). Anyone who supports murder by way of capital punishment could also be seen as providing 'support' to the concept of murder. The lack of belief in an afterlife is irrelavent to the belief of murder.

Do you feel comfortable saying Mother Theresa is guilty by association based on her beliefs.....with a terrorist who goes to slaughter helpless children and elderly?

Quote:

Do you feel comfortable saying Mother Theresa is guilty by association based on her beliefs.....with a terrorist who goes to slaughter helpless children and elderly?

How about a naval cook on a nazi warship during ww2. Never fired a weapon.
Is he guilty by association of the crimes commited by his fellows?

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

Do you feel comfortable saying Mother Theresa is guilty by association based on her beliefs.....with a terrorist who goes to slaughter helpless children and elderly?

How about a naval cook on a nazi warship during ww2. Never fired a weapon.
Is he guilty by association of the crimes commited by his fellows?

Did he join or was he conscripted? What crimes were commited by his fellows on that warship? They were at war. Men and women from both sides were on ships as cooks etc. What is your point with this analogy?

Quote:

Do you feel comfortable saying Mother Theresa is guilty by association based on her beliefs.....with a terrorist who goes to slaughter helpless children and elderly?

How about a naval cook on a nazi warship during ww2. Never fired a weapon.
Is he guilty by association of the crimes commited by his fellows?

That's entirely possible, intrepid. This topic is a little deeper than I usually venture, but I hear what fresco is saying.

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

Do you feel comfortable saying Mother Theresa is guilty by association based on her beliefs.....with a terrorist who goes to slaughter helpless children and elderly?

How about a naval cook on a nazi warship during ww2. Never fired a weapon.
Is he guilty by association of the crimes commited by his fellows?

Tolstoy states that only the Mennonites and Quakers are true Christians in his book, "The Kingdom of God is Within You". The premise being that only outright refusal to participate can shield you from the guilt of association. From this perspective only the conscientious objector would be innocent of war crimes.

Intrepid wrote:

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

Do you feel comfortable saying Mother Theresa is guilty by association based on her beliefs.....with a terrorist who goes to slaughter helpless children and elderly?

How about a naval cook on a nazi warship during ww2. Never fired a weapon.
Is he guilty by association of the crimes commited by his fellows?

Did he join or was he conscripted? What crimes were commited by his fellows on that warship? They were at war. Men and women from both sides were on ships as cooks etc. What is your point with this analogy?

Seems your only trying to confuse my point without ever answering....just like young thinker pointed out I might add. Dok

Bartikus wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

Do you feel comfortable saying Mother Theresa is guilty by association based on her beliefs.....with a terrorist who goes to slaughter helpless children and elderly?

How about a naval cook on a nazi warship during ww2. Never fired a weapon.
Is he guilty by association of the crimes commited by his fellows?

Did he join or was he conscripted? What crimes were commited by his fellows on that warship? They were at war. Men and women from both sides were on ships as cooks etc. What is your point with this analogy?

Seems your only trying to confuse my point without ever answering....just like young thinker pointed out I might add. Dok

How am I trying to confuse it. If it was solid... it could not be confused. If we take your senario as fact then nobody on this earth is completely innocent of anything. Unless they never do anything.

J_B wrote:

That's entirely possible, intrepid. This topic is a little deeper than I usually venture, but I hear what fresco is saying.

Let me try this. If the folks in question that fly the plane into the building do not believe in an afterlife. They believe in satanism. Does that mean that every person that believes in satanism is in support of those flying the planes?

If you disagree.... tell me how that is different from those who believe in an afterlife are any differently being accused of being associated with radicals who believe in an afterlife flying planes into buildings.

...............or

Out of nowhere there was a big bang. Then the universe began in a trillionth of a second. Then there was another big bang (inflation). An then the universe started.

They both sound pretty odd from a neutral point of view. The Big Bang theory has evidence and math behind it. Creationism does not, it's a theory with out proof.

Discuss.

Intrepid wrote:

J_B wrote:

That's entirely possible, intrepid. This topic is a little deeper than I usually venture, but I hear what fresco is saying.

Let me try this. If the folks in question that fly the plane into the building do not believe in an afterlife. They believe in satanism. Does that mean that every person that believes in satanism is in support of those flying the planes?

If you disagree.... tell me how that is different from those who believe in an afterlife are any differently being accused of being associated with radicals who believe in an afterlife flying planes into buildings.

No, I don't disagree. But I agree based on the part of the concurrence of belief. Not all people who don't believe in an afterlife are satanists, so the first part of the statement doesn't hold, but the second part does.

If the folks in question that fly the plane into the building believe in satanism, then every person who believes in satanism can be accused of providing support of the actions of the lunatic fringe of the belief group.

I like Kicky's use of the word enable vs guilty because the enablers do not prevent the action of the lunatic fringe of their belief group.

Intrepid wrote:

J_B wrote:

That's entirely possible, intrepid. This topic is a little deeper than I usually venture, but I hear what fresco is saying.

Let me try this. If the folks in question that fly the plane into the building do not believe in an afterlife. They believe in satanism. Does that mean that every person that believes in satanism is in support of those flying the planes?

If you disagree.... tell me how that is different from those who believe in an afterlife are any differently being accused of being associated with radicals who believe in an afterlife flying planes into buildings.

No, I don't disagree. But I agree based on the part of the concurrence of belief. Not all people who don't believe in an afterlife are satanists, so the first part of the statement doesn't hold, but the second part does.

If the folks in question that fly the plane into the building believe in satanism, then every person who believes in satanism can be accused of providing support of the actions of the lunatic fringe of the belief group.

I like Kicky's use of the word enable vs guilty because the enablers do not prevent the action of the lunatic fringe of their belief group.

And... not all people who believe in an after life are Christians.