Would you like to see the death of religion.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

pH wrote: »

But scofflaw concedes this too easily - it's not about throwing straw-men around it's about certain claims made (mainly) by theists.

I have outlined elsewhere my own views in relation to the "Mao/Stalin were atheists, and their ideology promoted atheism, therefore the millions they killed were killed for atheism", and they are fairly obvious. I am quite willing to argue those views against anyone who genuinely thinks that the syllogism is true.

However, I have equally little time for the claim that "religion is the source of all evil/root of all wars", which is equally patently untrue - and, as PDN says, generally involves lumping all religion together. Similarly, the claim that "Christians are responsible for the Inquisition" is true, but unless you can actually show how the Christians here were involved, it seems irrelevant - worse, it ignores the other side of the coin, that Christians were responsible for the Sistine Chapel.

Both attacks are usually used as little more than ritual slurs, and as a thinly veiled ad hominem (don't listen to my opponent, yer honour - he's a murdering bastard like all a/theists). Unfortunately, they are also sufficiently irritating misrepresentations, and sufficiently complex claims, that once they enter the discussion, it is hard not to enter the lists either pro or anti - and as I said, it's tedious. Such discussions appear to change no-one's mind - and worse, are regularly started by trolls.

If someone wishes to actually argue the case, then I'm willing to join such a discussion, but I'm very weary of seeing the Crusades (fundamentally about Norman expansionism) and Maoist enormities (fundamentally about Mao's ego) dragged up time and again as cheap attacks. They're the equivalent of likening your opponent to Hitler - and Godwin's Law should apply to them equally.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

pH wrote: »

Oh well at least you now seem to accept Hitler as one of your own.

I don't think Hitler was necessarily an atheist. Neither was he a Christian. I didn't mention Hitler in my previous points, but then again atheists are becoming very fond of arguments from silence on these boards lately.

The first claim is that religion (and belief in God) is a force for good in society.

Who is making that claim? This is yet another tiresome straw man. Most religion is bad religion. Most belief in God is twisted. Therefore both are bad for society. That does not mean that all religion is bad for society.

Where exactly can you find the claim that somehow a lack of a belief in God makes people love each other?

Where exactly can you find the claim that somehow any belief in God makes people love one another? Some forms of belief in a god obviously make people hate each other.

We all know anyway that the Mao/Stalin claims are tenuous at best, they did what they did for their ideologies - the atheism was of secondary importance.

And I can say exactly the same about the Crusades and the Inquisition. They were about institutional power, not faith. BTW, the for the victims of Mao & Stalin, particularly those who were persecuted solely on account of their faith, the atheism was not of secondary importance.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

PDN wrote: »

Who is making that claim? This is yet another tiresome straw man. Most religion is bad religion. Most belief in God is twisted. Therefore both are bad for society. That does not mean that all religion is bad for society.

BrianCalgary? wolfsbane? kelly1? Presuming the claim to be that their religion (and belief in their God) is a force for good in society - nearly every theist poster?

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

PDN wrote: »

I don't think Hitler was necessarily an atheist. Neither was he a Christian. I didn't mention Hitler in my previous points, but then again atheists are becoming very fond of arguments from silence on these boards lately.

Well you're not the only poster here, "Hitler was an atheist and he was really mean" is a common theme here - I just just commenting that it's refreshing to find a theist who's throwing 'evil atheists' around who doesn't use Hitler.

Who is making that claim? This is yet another tiresome straw man. Most religion is bad religion. Most belief in God is twisted. Therefore both are bad for society. That does not mean that all religion is bad for society.

If you can't be bothered to Google then allow me! You cannot seriously expect me to believe that you have never heard one of the many lamentations that loss of faith is causing moral decay and the destruction of society and how it wall all be so much better if we believed and worshipped God?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/07/nfaith07.xml

Where exactly can you find the claim that somehow any belief in God makes people love one another? Some forms of belief in a god obviously make people hate each other.

See above - and Scofflaw's point stands - I'll bet you're convinced that your own personal dogma is both the truth and good for society - as your own missionary work proves.

And I can say exactly the same about the Crusades and the Inquisition. They were about institutional power, not faith. BTW, the for the victims of Mao & Stalin, particularly those who were persecuted solely on account of their faith, the atheism was not of secondary importance.

Fine but even if they were about institutional power, they were conducted by devout Christians whose hearts were filled with the love of Christ. This simply should not *ever* happen if the claims of religion/Christianity are true. Clearly devoutly religious people can murder, torture, lie, steal, abuse kids and commit genocide - if accepting Christ into your heart means you can still do the above then it means nothing.

No one is arguing that atheism is a force for good, merely that it is true (in the sense that God is a delusion) - and that religion is not a force for good - and that *some* religion is a force for evil.

So we're left with the fact that some atheists also murder, torture, lie, steal, abuse kids and commit genocide - I'm not sure what this proves except than "Not believing in God doesn't necessarily make you a good person" - who'd have thunk it?

robindch

Yes - through natural causes

PDN wrote:

What a revealing little rant.

Good heavens, PDN, I hadn't realized that you were still unclear about my opinion of religion! You should have said something earlier and I'd have revealed all to you

Anyhow, replying to your posts - firstly, I didn't claim that any of the guys I listed were atheists, so I'm mystified to see you spending two posts rebutting something I didn't claim. Your original post implied that courage was somehow innate to religious (presumably christian) belief, and I pointed out, brusquely, that it required far more courage to dissent from an overwhelming cultural force than it did to agree with it.

Incidentally, I'm also surprised by the basic inaccuracy of just about everything you wrote about Gibbon. He was as scathing of protestantism as he was of catholicism, and he abandoned both religions in his early life (before reconverting to protestantism at which point he "suspended his religious inquiries"). His Decline and Fall condemns christianity as a whole and the "convincing evidence of the doctrine" quote is taken from the first deliciously ironic couple of paras of the 15th chapter. Read them (here) -- if you haven't already done so -- and tell me whether you think that he was writing straight or crooked.

To the topic at hand -- christianity most certainly does have to account for the evil done in its name. Quite aside from innumerable examples in the rest of the world, christian posters in these forums endlessly claim that christianity does exist to guide peoples' actions and we're all familiar with the posters who have said, publicly, that they're ok with mass-murder, as long as it's done with religious backing.

Atheism makes no claim to guide people's actions and it's only the religious, who've already bought into the idea of religion guiding action, who believe in its rejection of religion, that atheism must therefore make such a claim. You are free to rebut what's generally known as "humanism" if you wish to disagree with the moral code that generally accompanies atheism, but that's not any part of atheism.

PDN wrote:

Most religion is bad religion. Most belief in God is twisted. Therefore both are bad for society. That does not mean that all religion is bad for society.

I could have written something very similar to this sentence myself and find myself surprised to see it coming from you.

Do you mean, therefore, that on balance, you believe that religion is a bad thing?

.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow, replying to your posts - firstly, I didn't claim that any of the guys I listed were atheists, so I'm mystified to see you spending two posts rebutting something I didn't claim. Your original post implied that courage was somehow innate to religious (presumably christian) belief, and I pointed out, brusquely, that it required far more courage to dissent from an overwhelming cultural force than it did to agree with it.

Yes, but when Christians dissent from an overwhelmingly atheist/Islamic/whatever culture they are courageous and principled - when we atheists dissent from an overwhelmingly Christian culture it is because we are lazy and materialistic. Also, the majority of people claiming to be Christians are not really Christians anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, but when Christians dissent from an overwhelmingly atheist/Islamic/whatever culture they are courageous and principled - when we atheists dissent from an overwhelmingly Christian culture it is because we are lazy and materialistic. Also, the majority of people claiming to be Christians are not really Christians anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

There is a difference between having your toenails pulled out in a Chinese jail and waxing indignant every time a Catholic bishop mentions materialism and secularism in the same sentence.

Dissenting from 'Christian' cultures in the Twenty First Century is hardly courageous since those are (entirely coincidentally of course ) the very cultures that tend to have inculcated values of tolerance and freedom of speech. If I see a significant number of atheists in hostile environments standing up for their beliefs and risking imprisonment or death then I will readily applaud their courage. I am very ready to acknowledge courage in those from whom I differ ideologically. For example, I detest the faulty hermeneutics and dishonest Bible mistranslations of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but their courage, both in the face of Nazism and Communism, has been quite incredible.

Tertullian said that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. Could it be said that the enjoyment and security of intellectual freedom and tolerance in modern 'Christian' societies is the seedbed of atheism? Maybe I am wrong, and there are rapidly growing atheist communities in really hostile environments (eg the Islamic world)?

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

PDN wrote: »

There is a difference between having your toenails pulled out in a Chinese jail and waxing indignant every time a Catholic bishop mentions materialism and secularism in the same sentence.

Perhaps that's why I didn't mention China? I don't know whether I'd be an atheist under the Inquisition, but then I don't know if you'd be a Christian if you were Chinese. I suspect we both would be what we are, although I have a slight advantage in that atheism does not carry any mandate to 'witness' publicly, nor necessarily prevent me from going to church.

PDN wrote: »

Dissenting from 'Christian' cultures in the Twenty First Century is hardly courageous since those are (entirely coincidentally of course ) the very cultures that tend to have inculcated values of tolerance and freedom of speech. If I see a significant number of atheists in hostile environments standing up for their beliefs and risking imprisonment or death then I will readily applaud their courage. I am very ready to acknowledge courage in those from whom I differ ideologically. For example, I detest the faulty hermeneutics and dishonest Bible mistranslations of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but their courage, both in the face of Nazism and Communism, has been quite incredible.

Do we require actual state-mandated torture here, or will ostracism, threats and beatings by the local community suffice? Have you ever even been (personally) punched in the face for being a Christian? Is loss of business and opportunities personal, commercial and political insufficient to count as requiring any courage?

I'm quite tempted to be rude here, and say that while you visit other countries in which Christians are a discriminated-against minority, you come home again to a country in which the atheist is the discriminated-against minority, and you don't as a result, really know what you're talking about.

PDN wrote: »

Tertullian said that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. Could it be said that the enjoyment and security of intellectual freedom and tolerance in modern 'Christian' societies is the seedbed of atheism? Maybe I am wrong, and there are rapidly growing atheist communities in really hostile environments (eg the Islamic world)?

Why rapidly growing? Yes, there are atheists all over the world, including under restrictive religious regimes - but "atheist communities"? Is there an "atheist community" in Ireland, even? If there is, I think you'll find that none of us are members of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

robindch wrote: »

Your original post implied that courage was somehow innate to religious (presumably christian) belief, and I pointed out, brusquely, that it required far more courage to dissent from an overwhelming cultural force than it did to agree with it.

No, I implied that courage is not, as far as I can see, an obvious quality of atheism when compared to the rest of the population. I agree that it takes courage to dissent from an overwhelming cultural force - which makes JC a very courageous person indeed.

I found the mention of Galileo particularly strange since Galileo was a committed Christian and, according to Dava Sobel (author of the excellent Galileo's Daughter) it was his Christian beliefs that were the prime motivation for his scientific research. That he was treated so badly by Catholicism hardly makes him a poster child for atheism.

Incidentally, I'm also surprised by the basic inaccuracy of just about everything you wrote about Gibbon.

You may well be right, and I am probably wrong, concerning Gibbon. It is many years since I read the Decline and Fall, and as I was not a Christian at the time I probably paid less attention to his discussion of Christianity than I would now. Maybe I'll have to read it again.

To the topic at hand -- christianity most certainly does have to account for the evil done in its name. Quite aside from innumerable examples in the rest of the world, christian posters in these forums endlessly claim that christianity does exist to guide peoples' actions and we're all familiar with the posters who have said, publicly, that they're ok with mass-murder, as long as it's done with religious backing.

Not so, no more than Socialism should account for what Hitler did in the name of National Socialism.

Do you mean, therefore, that on balance, you believe that religion is a bad thing?

No. Most education throughout history has involved physical abuse of children, the teaching of a lot of wrong concepts, and other bad stuff. However, this does not mean that education, on balance, is a bad thing.

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Do we require actual state-mandated torture here, or will ostracism, threats and beatings by the local community suffice? Have you ever even been (personally) punched in the face for being a Christian? Is loss of business and opportunities personal, commercial and political insufficient to count as requiring any courage?

Yes, I have been punched in the face for being a Christian, but since I was being particularly condescending at the time I probably deserved it.

I would say that incurring loss of business and personal, commercial and political opportunities certainly counts as courageous.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I have been punched in the face for being a Christian, but since I was being particularly condescending at the time I probably deserved it.

I would say that incurring loss of business and personal, commercial and political opportunities certainly counts as courageous.

Thanks - plus being punched in the face purely for being known as an atheist (by someone I didn't know). I didn't even get a chance to be condescending...

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Thanks - plus being punched in the face purely for being known as an atheist (by someone I didn't know). I didn't even get a chance to be condescending...

Yes, but I had to turn the other cheek. At least you're allowed to hit him back. (Although if he's bigger & nastier than you then that all becomes rather academic)

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

PDN wrote: »

Yes, but I had to turn the other cheek. At least you're allowed to hit him back. (Although if he's bigger & nastier than you then that all becomes rather academic)

Actually he hit me and went away while I was still working out where the wall had sprung from. If he'd stuck around - well, he'd probably have got to hit me on the other cheek too. I think it was his stop though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

I'm going to play devils advocate here and suggest that, in both of your cases, it had nothing to do with your beliefs - maybe you just have one of those face that people like to punch.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm going to play devils advocate here and suggest that, in both of your cases, it had nothing to do with your beliefs - maybe you just have one of those face that people like to punch.

Could it also be genetically associated with sarcasm and condescension?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Nah, that's crazy talk

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Scofflaw wrote: »

Thanks - plus being punched in the face purely for being known as an atheist (by someone I didn't know).

Whoa, I better be careful where I wear my "Jesus Is Coming (look busy!)" T-shirt.

condra

Yes - through natural causes

Its gas. After being "not religious" for years to more recently coming out as an atheist, the amount of people who have tried picking holes in my views is astounding.

People really get hot under the collar about it, but the amount of people who appearantly have never bothered giving it (life, the universe, everything) serious thought is worrying.

I have great craic winding my best friend up, calling him a "closet atheist".. ahh good times.

Asiaprod

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I have been punched in the face for being a Christian, but since I was being particularly condescending at the time I probably deserved it.

Honesty is such a turn on:)

Schuhart

Yes - through proactive secularism

PDN wrote:

Most education throughout history has involved physical abuse of children, the teaching of a lot of wrong concepts, and other bad stuff. However, this does not mean that education, on balance, is a bad thing.

Is the comparison to education valid here?

I’ll try not to labour the point, as you’ll undoubtedly have seen it many times. But if the Christian message is meant to be the once-in-an-eternity opportunity to achieve salvation, how is it seemingly so unobtainable to so many? Never mind what happened to people before Jesus arrives. Even after his death it takes a few hundred years before anyone in Ireland, for the sake of argument, even has a chance of hearing the message. Then, even a few decades ago, apparently the most likely source you’d have to get the message from here would presumably be seen as seriously flawed.

We’d expect the quality of education to relate just to general human understanding. But surely every person has to have an equal chance of accessing the pure Christian message, which seems inconsistent with the ready acceptance that this message will be corrupted along the way and be wrongly presented to many.

Put another way, if the argument is that religion, like any other human activity, is subject to human failings, have we not essentially arrived just a few steps from the position of agreeing that there is no god with any substantial interest in human affairs?

SASQUATCH

Yes, except for my religion.

Sure , the gods are the biggest messers of all.
They love causing trouble , because they like the attention

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

karen3212 wrote: »

And one day I hope the compassion and courage of atheists will pressure Christians into abandoning the idea of converting people to a different religion just because part of the culture is destructive.

The pressure is on!

China Aid Association wrote:

Pastor Liu Huiwen was sentenced to 18 months of prison by Gansu Dongxiang Nationality Autonomous County People’s Court on October 25, 2007.

Liu was detained on April 28, 2007 after distributing flyers at a funeral and was arrested on May 31, 2007. The bill of indictment from Dongxiang County Procuratorate charges that defendant Liu Huiwen committed the crime of publishing a discriminating work and insulting people of ethnic minorities when he distributed a flyer called “A Letter to Our Muslim Friends.”

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

PDN wrote: »

And one day I hope the compassion and courage of atheists will pressure Christians into abandoning the idea of converting people to a different religion just because part of the culture is destructive.

The pressure is on!

Pastor Liu Huiwen was sentenced to 18 months of prison by Gansu Dongxiang Nationality Autonomous County People’s Court on October 25, 2007.

Liu was detained on April 28, 2007 after distributing flyers at a funeral and was arrested on May 31, 2007. The bill of indictment from Dongxiang County Procuratorate charges that defendant Liu Huiwen committed the crime of publishing a discriminating work and insulting people of ethnic minorities when he distributed a flyer called “A Letter to Our Muslim Friends.”

Let us cast our minds back, friends, to when a certain poster claimed he only trotted out Maoism/Stalinism and other forms of state-enforced atheism/social control in response to naughty atheistic trolls citing the Crusades as the work of his type of Christian.

Can we remember the name of this poster? Do we remember that his religion killed and tortured in the name of their sects and their God for centuries? Can we remember why he doesn't think that's a fair comment? Can he?

much less than cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let us cast our minds back, friends, to when a certain poster claimed he only trotted out Maoism/Stalinism and other forms of state-enforced atheism/social control in response to naughty atheistic trolls citing the Crusades as the work of his type of Christian.

Can we remember the name of this poster? Do we remember that his religion killed and tortured in the name of their sects and their God for centuries? Can we remember why he doesn't think that's a fair comment? Can he?

much less than cordially,
Scofflaw

"The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Matthew 26:41)

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

PDN wrote: »

"The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Matthew 26:41)

Sometimes it's funny. Sometimes it's hypocrisy.

regards,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Yes - through proactive secularism

I’m confused, and not chiefly by why there seems to be sensitivity about Marxism having an atheist outlook.

What really confuses me is if ‘regards’ is more or less friendly than ‘cordially’.

Zombrex

Schuhart wrote: »

I’m confused, and not chiefly by why there seems to be sensitivity about Marxism having an atheist outlook.

Well people seem to be really missing the point.

The argument is that if religion is responsible for terrible wars etc then atheism isn't any better because sure look at Stalin's Russia. They were atheists, they did lots of terrible things. It is hypocritical to complain about religion.

The point that is being missed is that it isn't just religion that people complain about when they complain about religion. It is in fact a faith in the authority of a group that should be obeyed without question because of the belief that doing so will produce really great things.

Religion is the most obvious example of this (follow God and ye shall be rewarded), but there are other secular examples, such as Communism (the State is above the individual, we must follow the Party because they know what is best for the State)

Stalinist Russia was terrible but not because it was atheist. Being an atheist doesn't compel someone to do anything. The reason it was terrible was because of the devotion constructed around the concept of the State. The State and the Party replaced concepts of "God" and the "Church"

When people compare oppression involving religion and wars involving Communism they are actually talking about the same thing simply with different details. Catholics worshiped at the command of the Pope. Anglicans worshiped at the command of the King. Stalinist Russians worshiped at the command of the Party.

It is the organization of the individual and society in general around systems like this (and that includes religion) that is bad, not simply religion. I am opposed to the "atheist" Communist system in Russia as I am to religion.

* I would point out just as an end note though, it is interesting how many theists who like to lambaste atheism as just as bad if not worse than theism, really don't get this point and as such really don't get what the actual objection to religion is in the first place. But I suppose when you are in the box its hard to see the outside. The response is often "I agree, unquestioning faith in the wrong thing is bad. I have unquestioning faith in the right thing though, so you can't criticize me"

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Schuhart wrote: »

I’m confused, and not chiefly by why there seems to be sensitivity about Marxism having an atheist outlook.

What really confuses me is if ‘regards’ is more or less friendly than ‘cordially’.

Definitely less friendly.

The sensitivity isn't really over whether Marxism has an atheist outlook, but a 'sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander' problem. PDN, and indeed the rest of the theists, get hot under the collar if one says 'hey, you lot did the crusades/inquisition/whatever' - their point being that those weren't really Christians, they are not those Christians, or in PDN's case, not even the same type of Christian. I don't think that's unfair (except possibly in one or two cases, where I think they probably are exactly that kind of Christian).

If that's acceptable, is the same not true (and truer) of most of us and Marxist/Stalinist/Maoist atheism? I don't agree with atheism being forced on people, I don't agree with the suppression of religion, I'm not Marxist, Maoist, or Stalinist - why then should I allow PDN to tar me with the brush he rejects for himself? It's rank hypocrisy - from a man who decries the hypocrisy of others.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Yes - through proactive secularism

Wicknight wrote:

The point that is being missed is that it isn't just religion that people complain about when they complain about religion.

In fairness, frequently it is. There’s frequently an apparent assumption that things will go sweeter once people work things out on the basis of reason. To which a reasonable response would seem to be ‘Marxism worked out a whole load of stuff based on reason, and it didn’t seem to hold up too well for them’.

I’m still happily thick about the whole thing, while it is of abiding interest to me. I don’t actually know what’s correct, but I’m open to the possibility that humans operate best when deluded about the nature of their existence. After all, persistence for thousands of years in the face of reason must suggest the possibility that religious faith confers some evolutionary advantage.

Wicknight wrote:

I am opposed to the "atheist" Communist system in Russia as I am to religion.

Indeed, but that leads into the obvious question of ‘what are you for’? Let me say, I’m on as much of a cop-out myself at present. Maybe we should aim to innoculate people with mild religion, in the hope of making them immune to the hard stuff. Or maybe that would just give them a taster, and make them candidates for the hard stuff when the vaccine wore off.

I even wonder, and would hope, that the correct response is actually to invite people to consider reality to the extent that we are able to perceive it and pragmatically work it out from there. Maybe I’m utterly wrong, but I can be a bit of a romantic about that.

What do you think?

Asiaprod

Schuhart wrote: »

but that leads into the obvious question of ‘what are you for’?

Very nice question for all here. ‘what are we for’