Would you like to see the death of religion.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

One doesn't have to kill to confirm that a belief is an ideology. I still don't buy into equating atheism to 'not collecting stamps'. Off the top of my head, I could think of two posts from this fora that would lead me to believe that Atheism, in ideological terms, has tentative beginnings for some. Indeed, looking at the one of the driving forces behind the French Revolution, you could hardly state that Atheism wasn't an ideology for many. Enough people defined themselves by their Atheism to drive their agenda throughout that time.

So, you're saying that people said "I am an atheist, not a revolutionary", and killed in order to promote atheism?

Can you give some examples?

As to atheism becoming a group identity, as it is in the US currently for example, that's certainly possible. However, as I said, that's being driven by reaction to an overtly religious and apparently hostile society - and that kind of pressure can be used to make a group identity out of anything at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

estebancambias

I am catholic, but I feel that in all established(i.e not loony) religions there is an element of truth.

I am a follower of Religion more than I am a Catholic.

stereoroid

Yes, except for my religion.

I think I put the "natural causes" idea in the other thread, and still stand by it. I think it's funny that the major religions all preach humility, yet have the arrogance to declare that they know what's best for people, and the right to impose it on them.

My aim for a scientific attitude, which led me away from religion, has also led me to understand my limitations. I'm not trained in sociology, I don't know what's best for people, and have no right to coerce people in to doing (or not doing) anything.

Attempts to force people to abandon religion would be as arrogant as forcing people to adopt it, and just as ineffective. Religion is a symptom of a deeper disease, that of self-centred irrationality. However, if you ask my opinion, you're definitely going to get it.

5uspect

Yes - through proactive secularism

estebancambias wrote: »

I am catholic, but I feel that in all established(i.e not loony) religions there is an element of truth.

I am a follower of Religion more than I am a Catholic.

How would you define "loony"? Wouldn't an established religion, if it were first proposed today, be considered just as loony? Scientology springs to mind.

Fanny Cradock

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Scofflaw wrote: »

So, you're saying that people said "I am an atheist, not a revolutionary", and killed in order to promote atheism?

Can you give some examples?

As to atheism becoming a group identity, as it is in the US currently for example, that's certainly possible. However, as I said, that's being driven by reaction to an overtly religious and apparently hostile society - and that kind of pressure can be used to make a group identity out of anything at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Now, now - you are putting words in my mouth, Scofflaw. I said it was one of the primary factors involved. As for examples, I'll see what I can dig up.

In my experience the atheists give as good as they get. It's hardly a case of lambs to the slaughter, is it? They may be in the minority, but they are a vocal minority at that. In fact, simply from their posts (and that doesn't necessarily reflect real life), I would classify one or two posters here as belonging to that same aggressive, unyielding, fundamental atheism. Each to theri own, I guess!

jtsuited

Yes - through natural causes

estebancambias wrote: »

I am catholic, but I feel that in all established(i.e not loony) religions there is an element of truth.

Example please?

Zillah

Yes - through natural causes

estebancambias wrote: »

I am catholic, but I feel that in all established(i.e not loony) religions there is an element of truth.

I am a follower of Religion more than I am a Catholic.

You either entirely lack an understanding of the concepts that we're discussing, or you're insane. Seriously, you're either clueless or mad, there's no other explanation for the amazing nonesense you come out with.

Zombrex

estebancambias wrote: »

You are looking at matters with blinkers on!!! You are blinded by your dislike of religion. That is not an attempt to provoke you, but from what I can see it is true. It's complete hypocrisy, you will attack religion, for retards doing something bad ''in the name of God'' yet you will look past Atheist related attacks as nothing more than the individual.

It is purely from the point of clarity.

They are not "atheist related" attacks because, as has been done to death on this forum, atheism is not a philosophy or ideology.

What you are describing are are ideological attacks, and atheists like everyone else, can subscribe to a range of different ideologies.

Communism for example is an ideology which teaches (at least in some interpretations) that religion is inheriently dangerous and should be restricted or banned by the State.

That is an ideology

And I would be very opposed to that thinking. While I believe that religion is/can be dangerous, I don't believe in the Communist response which to my mind is just as bad as the dangers in religion itself.

People (mostly theists trying to find fault with atheism) bizarrely seem to think that what is in Communism is some how "atheist" thinking.

It isn't because there is no such think as "atheist thinking". Atheists think wildly different things about a wide range of subjects. I don't subscribe to any of the ideology of Communism, and I'm an atheist. How then can that thinking be atheist thinking. If I don't believe in the ideology in Communism wouldn't that make me a bad atheist?

Likewise you mention the idea that evolution some how teaches us that human life has no value. This idea seems to only really exist with theists, who apparently cannot imagine human life as having any value beyond a proclamation from their god that he has decided to hold life as valuable.

I can and have come up with a different view, one I would say is far superiour from a moral point of view, that human life is valuable independantly of the opinions of the theist god. It is valuable because of what it is, not because of what some god says.

Which is why I look at the genocide described in the Old Testament with such utter disgust and anger, while a Christian, who proclaims they have utmost respect for life, simply nods their head in agreement with what they are reading and says that what God did was just and holy.

So again how can the position you put forward be the atheist position if I'm an atheist and I disagree with all of it?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

One doesn't have to kill to confirm that a belief is an ideology. I still don't buy into equating atheism to 'not collecting stamps'. Off the top of my head, I could think of two posts from this fora that would lead me to believe that Atheism, in ideological terms, has tentative beginnings for some. Indeed, looking at the one of the driving forces behind the French Revolution, you could hardly state that Atheism wasn't an ideology for many. Enough people defined themselves by their Atheism to drive their agenda throughout that time.

Define the ideology one has to believe in to be an "atheist"

And consider this, if someone doesn't subscribe to this ideology, is a person still considered an atheist

Stercus Accidit

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

I would like to see it treated as a religion, never fact, but beliefs.

Better education in science would be nice, I've never had a spiritual dilemma thanks to physics and chemistry.

Schuhart

Yes - through proactive secularism

Wicknight wrote: »

People (mostly theists trying to find fault with atheism) bizarrely seem to think that what is in Communism is some how "atheist" thinking.

It isn't because there is no such think as "atheist thinking".

I haven't read the thread from the start, so profoundest apologies if I'm raising something already dealt with.

It would strike me that we cannot pretend Communism is nothing to do with atheism, in much the same way as Christianity can't pretend the Spanish Inquisition was nothing to do with them.

That said, I'm not suggesting the parallel is exact and I'm sure everyone will understand that. But if (without getting too pedantic about it) we accept that the world 'atheism' describes something, it seems to me no more than realistic to say that, while many atheists are just folk who don't believe in a God, other atheists are and have been Communist.

Yes, we can play all kinds of silly buggers with it, and even point out that some Christians have pulled Marxist ideas into their theology. However, at some level, I think we do need to acknowledge that, indeed, a group of atheists took communism to be a logical outcome of their position and set out to (as they would see it) free mankind from tyranny. The parallels to setting out to save souls hardly needs to be laboured.

So, indeed, there's no moral highground on which we can stand and say 'all the **** happens because of people with your outlook'. Atheists and theists are both in the position of saying 'people with similar mindsets to us have done all kinds of nasty stuff, and we cannot deny that, but we don't see the mindset inevitably leads to nasty stuff'.

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Wicknight wrote: »

Define the ideology one has to believe in to be an "atheist"

And consider this, if someone doesn't subscribe to this ideology, is a person still considered an atheist

Define the ideology one has to believe in to be a Christian.

Several posters (if my memory serves me correctly, including you, Wicknight) have argued that anyone who thinks they are a Christian is a Christian. Therefore they are Christian even if they don't subscribe to an ideology. Therefore there is no such thing as a Christian ideology.

Fair enough?

Zombrex

Schuhart wrote: »

It would strike me that we cannot pretend Communism is nothing to do with atheism, in much the same way as Christianity can't pretend the Spanish Inquisition was nothing to do with them.

I'm not saying it is nothing to do with atheism. They were all atheists for a start. I'm saying that what communism taught is not atheist thinking or ideology (because such a thing does not exist).

Its like saying not all Russians are Communists. That doesn't mean Russians and Communism have no connection, they have a massive connection. But Communism isn't a Russian ideology. Its perfectly possible to be Russian and not follow or agree with anything in Communism.

Russian, like atheism, is a description, not an ideology.

Schuhart wrote: »

But if (without getting too pedantic about it) we accept that the world 'atheism' describes something, it seems to me no more than realistic to say that, while many atheists are just folk who don't believe in a God, other atheists are and have been Communist.

Certainly. "Atheism" describes someone who does not believe in theist concepts like gods. That is it. That atheist can be a communist, fascist, anarchist, hippy, peacenick, serial killer.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Define the ideology one has to believe in to be a Christian.

Well one doesn't have to do anything. But the following are common in Christian ideologies that I'm aware of -


There is an all powerful deity who created everything including human life

This God loves us and wants us to join him in the afterlife, but one must want to join him.

Man has an inherient ability to sin, sin being an action that goes against the wishes or commandments of God.

Sin makes God upset/angry/sad/displeased. If one loves God as he loves us one must attempt to steer clear of sin and the temptation to sin. If one doesn't love God they won't get to join him in heaven.

etc etc .. I could go on but it is getting late. I imagine you get the idea.

PDN wrote: »

Several posters (if my memory serves me correctly, including you, Wicknight) have argued that anyone who thinks they are a Christian is a Christian. Therefore they are Christian even if they don't subscribe to an ideology. Therefore there is no such thing as a Christian ideology.

They subscribe to what ever ideology they think is "Christianity", even if that is a really wacky one that involves Jesus having sex with the Eastern Bunny.

Ideology simply means a set or system of connected ideas and beliefs.

Everyone has ideologies. I'm not saying ideology is bad. I'm saying some ideologies are bad, including but not exclusively, the religious ones that i've encountered

Schuhart

Yes - through proactive secularism

Wicknight wrote: »

"Atheism" describes someone who does not believe in theist concepts like gods. That is it. That atheist can be a communist, fascist, anarchist, hippy, peacenick, serial killer.

But is it fair to say there's a little bit more to it than that. Indeed, someone can be an atheist and say 'all that means is I don't believe in a god - any other thing I do or am is unconnected to that'. But there was also an identifiable movement where commitment to that political ideal was a natural outcome of the atheism - or (at the risk of mangling the point) where the natural outcome of the political outlook was atheism. Hence, I don't think we can categorise the link between atheism and communism as being as accidental as, say, an atheist who collects stamps or runs a sandwich bar.

As I see it, there's a family of thought that can be pragmatically labelled 'atheist'. The collected works of Marx would be there. Some Buddhist stuff might be in there. You might be part of a branch that might be called 'full stop atheism', where people hold that all their atheism amounts to is a simple statement that there is no god.

The situation is, as I see it, a little like if you consider the view of a fundementalist Christian who believes that Catholicism is so much in error that it doesn't qualify as Christianity. Hence, if someone hit him with some 'whataboutery' regarding the Inquisition, in his mind he could sidestep it by saying 'they weren't Christians, they were Catholics' nothwithstanding that, as far as we are concerned, anyone who professes an outlook where Jesus forms a central part is a Christian.

You appreciate the match isn't exact, as there's no atheist Moses who got the core message handed down by the void. At the same time, I don't see how we can pretend that a movement with an outlook built around an atheist conception of the world belongs in some other category of thought.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

PDN wrote: »

Define the ideology one has to believe in to be a Christian.

Several posters (if my memory serves me correctly, including you, Wicknight) have argued that anyone who thinks they are a Christian is a Christian. Therefore they are Christian even if they don't subscribe to an ideology. Therefore there is no such thing as a Christian ideology.

Fair enough?

More often, we argue that we cannot tell who is 'really' a Christian and who is not. I certainly can't say that a Catholic is not a 'real Christian', although it appears that some of our Christian posters feel they can (and vice-versa, of course). Similarly, I can't tell whether a Shiite or a Sunni is the "real Muslim".

Since we cannot judge between the competing claims of the various Christians, we tend to adopt an approach that views a Christian as someone who says of their own free will that they're a Christian. There are limits, of course - if someone who has never heard of Christ, or appears to never have heard any of what Christ is supposed to have said, claims to be a Christian, that is not a claim I would take at face value. On the interpretation of what Christ's message actually is, though, we are usually unwilling to offer a judgement.

Now, you may have noticed that the atheists here are at least as likely to disagree with each other as they are with theists - but all of us appear to accept that someone who says "I don't believe in God" of their own free will is an atheist, however much we may disagree with everything else they say.

So, in a sense there is a coherence to the atheist position, but since the above constitutes the entirety of the orthodoxy of atheism, it's a bit of a stretch to call it an ideology.

I am sure that I will be met with the "argument from Communism" at this point, but Communism is an ideology in itself, and one that regards belief in God as incompatible with itself, because it sets up the godhood of "the people" as the only acceptable focus of veneration. Communism does not spread itself to further atheism, but weeds out theism as a competitor.

Where I think atheism crosses the border into ideology is when an atheist says "people should not believe in God". By doing so, the atheist moves from making a personal statement about their own lack of faith to dictating what is best for other people - and, more importantly, out of that statement flows a whole series of corollaries - "people should not go to church", "people should not be instructed in religion", "people should not possess personal faith" - which are the flesh and bones of ideology.

Now, if you show me a Christian who does not believe that others should believe in God, who feels that people should not be instructed in religion, then, equally, you are showing me a non-ideological Christian.

I would argue, though, that the vast majority of atheists are uninterested in arguing believers out of their personal faith, whereas the majority of Christians (particularly evangelicals!) believe that others should share their faith, and down the ages have supported missionary activities to that effect.

cordially
Scofflaw

jtsuited

Yes - through natural causes

Zillah wrote: »

Seriously, you're either clueless or mad, there's no other explanation for the amazing nonesense you come out with.

.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Schuhart wrote: »

But is it fair to say there's a little bit more to it than that. Indeed, someone can be an atheist and say 'all that means is I don't believe in a god - any other thing I do or am is unconnected to that'. But there was also an identifiable movement where commitment to that political ideal was a natural outcome of the atheism - or (at the risk of mangling the point) where the natural outcome of the political outlook was atheism. Hence, I don't think we can categorise the link between atheism and communism as being as accidental as, say, an atheist who collects stamps or runs a sandwich bar.

We can, because most early experiments in 'communism' were undertaken by Christian communities. To this day, there are plenty of Christian communities where property is held in common, and where the individual is totally subordinate to the group - and that's without specifically being Christian communists.

If it is possible to be communist and Christian, then communism's link to atheism is not a necessary one.

When Adam delved, and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?

cordially,
Scofflaw

karen3212

Yes - through natural causes

Scofflaw wrote: »

1. certain people are nutjobs - morally deficient, viewing human (and any) life of no account except presumably their own.

Are there any statistics on the % of people who are born with certain conditions that would mean they are likely not to have empathy with other human beings?

Scofflaw wrote: »

5. strong convinction of an ideology, whether religious or not, is often sufficient to overcome this internal resistance - "for the cause", "for the nation", "for the glory of God" - if, and only if, the individual can be convinced that the cause, the nation, God, or whatever, requires the killing.

Would it be fair to say, that most commonly the cause is for the good of the greater number - creating a wonderful world - justifying the killings by getting rid of a dangerous element/group in society. Couldn't atheists just as easily use that ideology if of course they believed that essentially they would be able to save more 'souls' in the long run, by getting rid of a few million people now?

Didn't Christain missionaries use that kind of justification, when they used to set tribes against each other, and give guns to one side if they promised they'd make their Island Christain when they were done - essentially by killing people they felt they'd save more souls for Christ and create a wonderful world in the long run. In Christain teaching, is it more important to save the souls of as many as possible, or refrain from killing? Edit, cause I think if Christain teaching says it's more important not to kill, then they surely wouldn't even kill as a soldier of Christ to defend their religion. Nor I assume would they go out setting up tensions via conversion in countries of other religions - if those tensions seemed to lead to war and killing in those places.

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

karen3212 wrote: »

Didn't Christain missionaries use that kind of justification, when they used to set tribes against each other, and give guns to one side if they promised they'd make their Island Christain when they were done - essentially by killing people they felt they'd save more souls for Christ and create a wonderful world in the long run.

As a student of the history of missions I would be very interested in hearing more of this. Could you cite a source for this remarkable behaviour?

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would argue, though, that the vast majority of atheists are uninterested in arguing believers out of their personal faith, whereas the majority of Christians (particularly evangelicals!) believe that others should share their faith, and down the ages have supported missionary activities to that effect.

You mean like where atheists log on to Christianity discussion boards to argue with believers?

Schuhart

Yes - through proactive secularism

Scofflaw wrote: »

We can, because most early experiments in 'communism' were undertaken by Christian communities.

.Indeed, except presumably those early experiments didn't involve people seeing religion as a delusion. Marxism, as I understand it, was basically an attempt to explain the world, with the clear understanding that religion was a delusion and whatever makes stuff happen is a material process.

You'll understand, I'm not suggesting that 'full stop atheists' necessarily have any interest in repeating the experiment. But it does seem a bit much to pretend Marxism has nothing to do with atheism.

Scofflaw wrote: »

If it is possible to be communist and Christian, then communism's link to atheism is not a necessary one.

If an atheist celebrates Christmas as a holiday, it would seem a step too far to conclude that Christmas has nothing to do with religion.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Schuhart wrote: »

.Indeed, except presumably those early experiments didn't involve people seeing religion as a delusion. Marxism, as I understand it, was basically an attempt to explain the world, with the clear understanding that religion was a delusion and whatever makes stuff happen is a material process.

Hmm. Well, if we're specifically dealing with Marxism, I think you'll find that Marx was not himself an atheist, and rejected organised religion, not God.

Schuhart wrote: »

You'll understand, I'm not suggesting that 'full stop atheists' necessarily have any interest in repeating the experiment. But it does seem a bit much to pretend Marxism has nothing to do with atheism.If an atheist celebrates Christmas as a holiday, it would seem a step too far to conclude that Christmas has nothing to do with religion.

Marxism has a lot to do with anti-clericalism, and with opposition to any form of established religion, which was part of the social order of Marx's day. However, opposition to established religion hardly qualifies one as an atheist - does it, PDN?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

PDN wrote: »

You mean like where atheists log on to Christianity discussion boards to argue with believers?

Good heavens - I certainly don't want to 'convert' you. Who would I argue with then?

But yes, we have some ideological atheists here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Scofflaw wrote: »

Good heavens - I certainly don't want to 'convert' you. Who would I argue with then?

I'm sure there's one (or is it two?) posters who'd engage with you Scofflaw.

Schuhart - it's been a while!

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

karen3212 wrote: »

Are there any statistics on the % of people who are born with certain conditions that would mean they are likely not to have empathy with other human beings?

"Antisocial personality disorder appears in 3.6 percent of the adult US population, or approximately 7.6 million people. The condition appears to be more common in men than women, although this may be because the male sociopath is more likely to receive a diagnosis.

Sociopaths and psychopaths make up a high percentage of inmates in US prisons. An estimated eighty percent of male inmates have antisocial personality disorder. Female sociopaths are thought to make up 65 percent of the populace in women's prisons."

I believe the 3.6% figure is sometimes criticised as too low.

karen3212 wrote: »

Would it be fair to say, that most commonly the cause is for the good of the greater number - creating a wonderful world - justifying the killings by getting rid of a dangerous element/group in society. Couldn't atheists just as easily use that ideology if of course they believed that essentially they would be able to save more 'souls' in the long run, by getting rid of a few million people now?

Anyone can justify killings 'for the greater good' (or self-defence, or nationalism, etc). For it to be atheism that provides the ideology, though, you need to have identified atheism with the 'greater good'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Dades wrote: »

Good heavens - I certainly don't want to 'convert' you. Who would I argue with then?

I'm sure there's one (or is it two?) posters who'd engage with you Scofflaw.

Hmm...yes, I might amend that to "who would I enjoy arguing with?".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

::Edit::

Whoops! My bad - supposed to be a PM.

Schuhart

Yes - through proactive secularism

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. Well, if we're specifically dealing with Marxism, I think you'll find that Marx was not himself an atheist, and rejected organised religion, not God.

I was (you hopefully will understand) appropriately surprised when you said that Marx was not an atheist, and truly had a ‘there’s sure are layers to Marx that escaped me’ feeling.

Through the kindness of Google, I found this article which seems pretty much to confirm that he was, for all intents and purposes, an atheist but rejected the label. He saw religion as a manifestation of human misery that would ultimately become irrelevant once the cause of material human suffering was addressed. His beef seemed to be that fixating on the negation of god was as deluded as practicing a religion – his position seems to be that the question of there being a god is ultimately an irrelevance. (Would you welcome him as an Alatrist?)

His problem with atheism per se seems to have been that he saw it as too limited – the linked article refers to him saying its “reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogey man”. But Marx was indeed a godless person, and rejection of religion is an important part of his work. I would feel that Marxism must surely fit into that loose category of stuff that we might broadly call atheist thought along with Northern Lights and the God Delusion. By the same token, if we’re sitting on a chair far enough away, we’d broadly lump those ‘God Hates Fags’ people in with Pope Benedict and call them all Christian, no matter how uneasy they’d be to find themselves in the same category.

On the other hand, if JR Hartley was an infidel, I’d agree there would be no reason to include his esteemed work ‘Fly Fishing’ as an example of atheist thought.

Dades wrote:

Schuhart - it's been a while!

Indeed, and congratulations on your new name. I’ve actually been browsing now and again, but I just haven’t had anything to say worth posting, or read any book recently that gave rise to a thought worth putting out for comment.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I might amend that to "who would I enjoy arguing with?”

Just to give a handle to it, would you be able to estimate how many of your 1000+ posts on the creationism thread were enjoyment?

[EDIT]I've no idea how that wanky smiley thing appears in the subject line of my post - I actually hate the little bastards, so I'm not attempting some subliminal message[/EDIT]

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Schuhart wrote: »

I’ve actually been browsing now and again, but I just haven’t had anything to say worth posting, or read any book recently that gave rise to a thought worth putting out for comment.

That doesn't stop most of the other posters here.