Atheist-Bashing

5uspect

Almost as funny as conservapeida

Sapien

Talliesin wrote:

The only thing lost is the ability of those Atheists who are Evangelical to use similar bad logic in blaming genocides on religion. Atheists who do not wish to have a better recourse to bad logic an lazy thinking for Evangelical purposes cannot complain about the fact that Stalin is cited as an Atheist who committed genocide.

I don't understand. By denying a causal relationship between Stalin's atheism and his crimes, we do not deny that religious belief can cause a person to commit similar crimes.

Sapien

How about this:

You don't have to believe in a god to commit genocide, but it helps.

Scofflaw

Sapien wrote:

I don't understand. By denying a causal relationship between Stalin's atheism and his crimes, we do not deny that religious belief can cause a person to commit similar crimes.

That is, we don't deny that Stalin was an atheist who committed crimes, but we say that he did not commit those crimes for atheism, out of atheism, or in defence of atheism - neither actually nor nominally. Stalin would have committed such crimes either way - and indeed, come to that, there is a good deal of uncertainty over Stalin's personal beliefs.

The same is not the case for the Crusades/Inquisition/Albigensian Suppression etc etc.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Talliesin wrote:

Hmm. The Atheism article currently there seems a lot less biased, with considerable criticism of the citations of Stalin and Pol Pot (in other versions that have been up) in the discussion page. At the time when they had those two cited as examples of Atheists they also had Einstein cited, which is more inaccurate (he was a Theist) and Einstein is generally a well-respected figure (so much so that some Atheists have similarly tried to cite him as an example of an Atheist).

It is true that Stalin killed millions of people in the name of a philosophy which holds Atheism as a central component. You simply can't have Dialectic Materialism without Atheism - Christian Marxists and others that combine Communist political views with religious views other than Atheism (even Agnostic Communists) are not of the same philosphical view as Dialect Materialist Marxists such as espoused by Lenin and Stalin and in particular do not have the same basis for arguing that a Worker's Republic is historically inevitable.

It's not true that we know Stalin was definitely an Atheist (there is some historical evidence that he did not believe in the Atheism he espoused; though it is very thin it does cast a slight doubt) but he certainly espoused it as part of the same philosophy which justified his genocides.

The question is; does this tell us something about Atheism, or does this tell us something that people will do in the name of any given philosophy? Any survey of Atheists will find that the vast majority have not engaged in genocides. Any survey of genocides will show that the perpetrators do not have much commonality in the philosophy they espouse but do in how they apply that philosophy.

The fruitful lesson is that no religious philosophy guarantees moral behaviour on the part of those who espouse it.

Since most Atheists do not hold that Atheism has a spiritual value which will inevitably and mystically impart morality upon its believers it should not surprise them to find that some of their number have committed attrocities in its name.

The only thing lost is the ability of those Atheists who are Evangelical to use similar bad logic in blaming genocides on religion. Atheists who do not wish to have a better recourse to bad logic an lazy thinking for Evangelical purposes cannot complain about the fact that Stalin is cited as an Atheist who committed genocide.

1) Einstein was not a theist. He renounced his faith, though not particularly publically. The confusion comes from the fact that he used "god" as his shorthand for "the physical principals of the universe".

2) Stalin, though subscribing to an atheistic view, was first and formost a communist and second he was a tyrant bent on controlling his population through whatever means necessary. Ahteism has nothing to do with why so many people died and was not used as a justification for it.

3) Religion has been the driving influence behind many military and genocidal actions. Lest we forget the crusades, the wars between the Isrealities and the Caananites etc

4) Atheism does not lead to persecution on religious basis. It leads to secularism if anything at all. I defy anyone to show me an actual case where the central reason for going to war was LACK of belief.

Scofflaw

A splendidly funny joke from our friends in the US:

A United States Marine was attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan . One of the courses had a professor who was a vowed atheist and a member of the ACLU.

One day the professor shocked the class when he came in. He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, “God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I’ll give you exactly 15 minutes.” The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop.

Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, “Here I am God. I’m still waiting.” It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him; knocking him off the platform.

The professor was out cold. The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students were shocked and stunned and sat there looking on in silence. The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked, “What the hell is the matter with you? Why did you do that?”

The Marine calmly replied, “God was too busy today protecting America ’s soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid stuff and act like an a$$. So, He sent me.

What's not to like? Dissected here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Kevster

Atheists are [generally] the intellectuals of society; those that are devoutly religious are not. Allow me to rephrase actually: Atheists are the people who have spent more time thinking than their religious counterparts. This does not necessarly mean that we [Atheists] are better; it's simply stating a fact.

PDN

Kevster wrote:

Atheists are [generally] the intellectuals of society; those that are devoutly religious are not. Allow me to rephrase actually: Atheists are the people who have spent more time thinking than their religious counterparts. This does not necessarly mean that we [Atheists] are better; it's simply stating a fact.

Of course it depends what you've been spending your time thinking about.

Scofflaw

Kevster wrote:

Atheists are [generally] the intellectuals of society; those that are devoutly religious are not. Allow me to rephrase actually: Atheists are the people who have spent more time thinking than their religious counterparts. This does not necessarly mean that we [Atheists] are better; it's simply stating a fact.

It might be slightly more accurate to characterise 'intellectuals' as 'those who tend to trust and use their own reasoning faculties above all else' - and I would say that these people are indeed more prone to be atheists.

However, it's worth noting that just because you "trust and use your own reasoning faculties above all else" doesn't necessarily mean you're good at using them, or that they're necessarily good faculties to begin with. It is quite possible to be a stupid intellectual - I can think of a couple of examples straight away.

I don't know whether I would necessarily claim to spend more time thinking than does, say, PDN, or Excelsior - clearly they have both thought long and hard about their respective religions (and in PDN's case, about one-liners).

cordially,
Scofflaw

indough

Scofflaw wrote:

That is, we don't deny that Stalin was an atheist who committed crimes, but we say that he did not commit those crimes for atheism, out of atheism, or in defence of atheism - neither actually nor nominally. Stalin would have committed such crimes either way - and indeed, come to that, there is a good deal of uncertainty over Stalin's personal beliefs.

The same is not the case for the Crusades/Inquisition/Albigensian Suppression etc etc.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The book on war was literally written by an atheist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War

Wars are not fought for religion, but religion is often used as an excuse.

Scofflaw

indough wrote:

The book on war was literally written by an atheist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War

Wars are not fought for religion, but religion is often used as an excuse.

Sun Tzu was an atheist? That's news...he was more probably an adherent of the Chinese polytheism of that era, if he existed. He might also, just about, have been a Taoist.

What leads you to conclude that he was an atheist?

cordially,
Scofflaw

lostexpectation

hitler wasn't an atheist he was fascist!



god had a theory on gravity, who knew

Galvasean

I like how everyone who has done bad things in the past, whether the be pagan, polytheist or even in some cases Catholic* get thrown in with the bad ol' atheists so more shocking statistics can be formed.

*I saw a video on Godtube that said said Atheists were responsible for the Crusades.

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

A splendidly funny joke from our friends in the US

What's not to like? Dissected here.

That's a great story, and a very interesting commentary. Nice one.

Ekancone

funny

PDN

Galvasean wrote:

I like how everyone who has done bad things in the past, whether the be pagan, polytheist or even in some cases Catholic* get thrown in with the bad ol' atheists so more shocking statistics can be formed.

*I saw a video on Godtube that said said Atheists were responsible for the Crusades.

I think we all have a tendency to form our definitions in a self-serving way. For example, according to Christopher Hitchens, Rev Martin Luther King Jr wasn't a Christian.

robindch

IIRC, Hitchens point about Martin Luther King was that he had a native respect for the fundamental equality and rights of all human beings, two things which are heavily circumscribed by the vast majority of chrisitians. It is in this sense that King was not a christian.

.

Sapien

PDN wrote:

Of course it depends what you've been spending your time thinking about.

As in, whether the Emperor's new clothes are made from aubergine taffeta with cerise embroidery, or purple damask with a crimson sateen weft. Or whether, in fact...

robindch

...at the risk of stealing thunder, the excellent and full (original?) Courtier's Reply is here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

Zombrex

indough wrote:

Wars are not fought for religion, but religion is often used as an excuse.

Wars are often fought for religion.

While someone might have an argument that the leaders of armies do not genuinely believe in the cases they instigate war for, they still at the end of the day need an army to match into battle for them.

So if you say that say the Popes started the Crusades for economic and power reasons, the men who matched under the Christian banner for them marched very much due to religious belief.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Wars are often fought for religion.

While someone might have an argument that the leaders of armies do not genuinely believe in the cases they instigate war for, they still at the end of the day need an army to match into battle for them.

So if you say that say the Popes started the Crusades for economic and power reasons, the men who matched under the Christian banner for them marched very much due to religious belief.

Or did they get paid for it?

Speaking of which, "a booke of days" by stephen rivelle (or translated by him, can't remember) is an interesting read

PDN

robindch wrote:

IIRC, Hitchens point about Martin Luther King was that he had a native respect for the fundamental equality and rights of all human beings, two things which are heavily circumscribed by the vast majority of chrisitians. It is in this sense that King was not a christian.

.

So Hitchens argument goes something like this:
1. Christians, by definition, are intolerant and have no interest in equality or justice.
2. Therefore all those people who claim to be Christians yet are tolerant and passionate about equality or justice are not really Christians at all.
3. Now look at all the Christians who are left after you subtract those who are passionate about equality and justice. Guess what? They are intolerant and have no interest in equality or justice.
4. This proves that Christians, by definition, are intolerant and have no interest in equality and justice.

Jesus wept!

Ekancone

PDN wrote:

So Hitchens argument goes something like this:
1. Christians, by definition, are intolerant and have no interest in equality or justice.
2. Therefore all those people who claim to be Christians yet are tolerant and passionate about equality or justice are not really Christians at all.
3. Now look at all the Christians who are left after you subtract those who are passionate about equality and justice. Guess what? They are intolerant and have no interest in equality or justice.
4. This proves that Christians, by definition, are intolerant and have no interest in equality and justice.

Jesus wept!

Its funny that some christians are intolerant and dont believe in equality, isnt tolerance and equality the very thing that Jesus preached? Why dont these people see their own contradictions?

Zombrex

bluewolf wrote:

Or did they get paid for it?

Well I imagine some of them did, but Pope Urban II called on people to join the 1st crusade by promising that if they died they would get a remission of their sins, which seem to be a motivating factor. And the second crusade was started by preachers persuading kings and noble men to wage the crusade.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

So Hitchens argument goes something like this:
1. Christians, by definition, are intolerant and have no interest in equality or justice.
2. Therefore all those people who claim to be Christians yet are tolerant and passionate about equality or justice are not really Christians at all.
3. Now look at all the Christians who are left after you subtract those who are passionate about equality and justice. Guess what? They are intolerant and have no interest in equality or justice.
4. This proves that Christians, by definition, are intolerant and have no interest in equality and justice.

Jesus wept!

Actually that wasn't his argument

1 - Christians, by definition, believe in God's justice and punishment, and that they are the only ones who will be saved. Evil will be punished. Evil doers will be punished. They will be saved.
2 - King never seems to believe, or state that he believed, that God would punish those who enslaved the black man in America.
3 - King was not a Christian because he didn't didn't believe in divine retribution

Not saying I agree, but at least get the argument right.

indough

Scofflaw wrote:

Sun Tzu was an atheist? That's news...he was more probably an adherent of the Chinese polytheism of that era, if he existed. He might also, just about, have been a Taoist.

What leads you to conclude that he was an atheist?

cordially,
Scofflaw

He was definitely an atheist. Taoism as a religion didn't exist in those days afaik, it was a philosophy which was later developed into a religion by some.

Edit: I'm not trying to come down on atheists, just think it's a total copout to blame war on religion.

indough

Wicknight wrote:

Wars are often fought for religion.

While someone might have an argument that the leaders of armies do not genuinely believe in the cases they instigate war for, they still at the end of the day need an army to match into battle for them.

So if you say that say the Popes started the Crusades for economic and power reasons, the men who matched under the Christian banner for them marched very much due to religious belief.

You have no way of knowing what the soldiers were fighting for. Are you saying then that the people doing the fighting of the war decide what the war is being fought for rather than those who instigate the war?

Scofflaw

indough wrote:

He was definitely an atheist. Taoism as a religion didn't exist in those days afaik, it was a philosophy which was later developed into a religion by some.

Edit: I'm not trying to come down on atheists, just think it's a total copout to blame war on religion.

Well, I think the idea that "religion is the main cause of war" is complete rubbish. A quick listing of the major wars in history demonstrates immediately that the majority of them were wars between territorial states.

I just find it really odd that you claim Sun Tzu was an atheist - what do you call the standard Chinese polytheism of the time? There's no biography of Sun Tzu, and he may not even have existed, so it's a bit like claiming that Robin Hood was an atheist.

I would have thought that, in the absence of information, the assumption would be that he conformed to the standard public religion of the time, giving due worship to the various gods and the Emperor of Heaven. I don't know about you, but that hardly constitutes atheism to me.

puzzled,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

I would have thought that, in the absence of information, the assumption would be that he conformed to the standard public religion of the time, giving due worship to the various gods and the Emperor of Heaven. I don't know about you, but that hardly constitutes atheism to me.

That would be my take on it.

Zombrex

indough wrote:

You have no way of knowing what the soldiers were fighting for.

Sure you do. If a whole bunch of people go to war after a Pope says "You will get into heaven" you can be pretty sure most of them are doing it to get into heaven.

I think the problem today is that people find it hard to believe that anyone actually believe things like that.

indough wrote:

Are you saying then that the people doing the fighting of the war decide what the war is being fought for rather than those who instigate the war?

No, I'm saying that saying without religion promising things such as heaven and eternal afterlife, you would have had a lot less people willing to kill or die in wars.

Personally I would have thought that would have been obvious.