Secular and or Atheist violence

[hollyda]

This is a point another user made earlier. The dictionary defines atheism as "the belief / doctrine that there in no God". In other words, it presents atheism as an idea, not a fact. It also only defines what atheism is, not why people become atheists in the first place.

My post was a reply to another user who said that claiming God does not exist isn't atheism - which is ridiculous.

Yes, I would agree there.

I knew there was a chance I'd be repeating what someone else had said; I've read other posts where the assertion is "atheists claim there is no god" with the exclusion of the belief clause. It's a pet peeve, is all.

 

[Cabal]

An atheists wonder why they are seen as arrogant and rude ...

Yeah, you're right. Being compared to a militant Soviet organisation for quibbling over which action figures get put in a park really should just make me sweetness and light

Jews celebrate Hanukkah without taking down our nativities. They're quite happy to celebrate their holidays alongside ours. Atheists taking down nativities is a just petty.

Except they weren't "taking them down" - they bid for other spots in the lottery and happened to get a significant number of them. There are still three nativities present.

But hey, don't let that stop you.

I also find it strange that atheists are quite happy to celebrate an event commemorating a 5000 year old god they don't believe in (Cronus - celebrated during Saturnalia) but hate the idea of commemorating a 2000 year old God they don't believe in ...

No, I think you missed the point of that one - it's only brought up to make the point that Christianity has a rather unfortunate habit of hijacking other religion's customs.

Maybe the atheists winning the nativity lottery so well this year is just karma or whatever

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

No, I think you missed the point of that one - it's only brought up to make the point that Christianity has a rather unfortunate habit of hijacking other religion's customs.

Hardly "hijacking". When Chrsitianity was still new we let them keep most of their old customs - it was a way to integrate our religion. It was only the deity being worshipped that was replaced. Besides, when Christians abolish traditional religious customs (which sometimes might be justified, child sacrifice for example) we're accused of being violent and intolerant.

 

[Cabal]

Hardly "hijacking". When Chrsitianity was still new we let them keep most of their old customs - it was a way to integrate our religion. It was only the diety being worshipped that was replaced. Besides, when Christians abolish traditional religious customs (which sometimes might be justified, child sacrifice for example) we're accused of being violent and intolerant.

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

Nice non-answer.

Buuut I'm sure there are plenty of anti-Christmas threads in the Christians-only sections, so I won't go off topic.

 

[Cabal]

Nice non-answer.

Spin it as "integration" all you want - it's still been a pretty convenient tactic for Christianity to use, given how often it harps on and on about not letting false beliefs contaminate the faithful.

And I'm sure all the other believers were just fine with having your deity substituted in place of theirs - how magnanimous of you.

Buuut I'm sure there are plenty of anti-Christmas threads in the Christians-only sections, so I won't go off topic.

There's a decent amount of the usual apologists spinning history, certainly.

 

[JGG]

So let's look closely: If we take your rather liberal 20 million deaths (15 to 17 is the more common estimate) and take out at least 9 million, or more like 10 million of those are people who died of famine and disease. A big chunk are also Germans and other war-related deaths, and another big chunk is ethnic cleansing. The majority of those who are left were in gulags.

Gulags were the prisons for those did not "contribute" to the "dictatorship of proletariat" in deed and thought. Religious people would have made a big chunk of that, but so did political opposition, rebels, "the socially dangerous," or "suspicious," or anyone who Stalin or his cronies believed did not contribute enough to the state.

So when you say that 20 million deaths were the result of Stalin killing "in the name of atheism," I'm sorry, but you're just grasping at straws.

My point is you credit 20 million deaths to Stalin and say he killed them all in the name of atheism, when he clearly did not, (you also credit up to 8 million deaths to Lenin and say he killed in the name of atheism, when all of those deaths are the result of civil war and famine). You then compare that to only those major Christians regimes and attrocities who killed in the name of God. They are not comparable statistics.

Of course they're not comparable statistics. These statistics aren't mean to be fair, they're meant to produce a scapegoat. They're meant to point the finger at atheists and say "they're evil." They're meant to remind Christians why atheists are their hated enemies. Making the statistics comparable would seriously undermine that. No Christian would ever verify the claims to make sure they're reasonable, as they already produce the desired result: Atheists are just evil.

 

[Tiberius]

Peachy,

K. Later.

Tiberius,

I cannot see how crimes that were committed with the specific intent to promote atheism and destroy that which was contrary to atheism is not a crime in the name of atheism. Seeing that people were killed at the occasion not being atheist and due to that information alone and seeing that atheism was taught in the school systems and promoted by other organizations and Stalin had plans called "The five year plans of Atheism" says to me that these crimes were heavily influenced by a desire to promote atheism. That sounds like a crime in the name of Atheism.

The crimes were committed with the specific intent to promote the state and destroy that which was contrary to the state. Therefore, it was a crime in the name of the state.

Atheism is not the state. Very few places have the religion and the state as one and the same.

Stalin never said, "Let's promote atheism because I think it would be beneficial to the people." He promoted atheism simply for the fact that it would give him greater power. Because it benefited the state.

So any killings that were done were not done to increase the power of atheism, they were done increase the power of the state.

Sure it is. ARe you saying that there has never been an athiest who has done anything bad? That all the worlds evil was caused by people of faith?

Sure, atheists can do bad things. But they don't do it because they are atheists. How can you say that everything a person does is motivated by their religious beliefs or non-beliefs? If that is true, shouldn't the fact that the majority of prison are believers inmates tell us that religion also motivates people to be bad? Of course not. Just because a thief is a Christian doesn't mean that he is a thief BECAUSE he is Christian. Likewise, just because a thief is an atheist shouldn't mean that he is a thief BECAUSE he is an atheist.

Don't confuse correlation with causality.

 

[Belk]

The crimes were committed with the specific intent to promote the state and destroy that which was contrary to the state. Therefore, it was a crime in the name of the state.

Atheism is not the state. Very few places have the religion and the state as one and the same.

Stalin never said, "Let's promote atheism because I think it would be beneficial to the people." He promoted atheism simply for the fact that it would give him greater power. Because it benefited the state.

So any killings that were done were not done to increase the power of atheism, they were done increase the power of the state.



Sure, atheists can do bad things. But they don't do it because they are atheists. How can you say that everything a person does is motivated by their religious beliefs or non-beliefs? If that is true, shouldn't the fact that the majority of prison are believers inmates tell us that religion also motivates people to be bad? Of course not. Just because a thief is a Christian doesn't mean that he is a thief BECAUSE he is Christian. Likewise, just because a thief is an atheist shouldn't mean that he is a thief BECAUSE he is an atheist.

Don't confuse correlation with causality.

True, but a lot of the grief thrown at Christianity is of the same form. The first crusades where only in small part about religious fervor. The vast majority of it was a cynical political ploy. While I do not entirely agree with the OP I do think he has a valid point that there is a double standard at play.

 

[Tiberius]

The Crusades are a perfect example of religious violence. From Wiki...

"The Crusades were a series of religious wars, blessed by the Pope and the Catholic Church with the main goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem."​

This isn't a case of people using religion as an excuse to start a war over land or power. This is a case where the desired outcome was religious in nature.

There is no such parallel in nature.

 

[Phred]

An atheists wonder why they are seen as arrogant and rude ...

I don't wonder. How dare I not believe in your God! Why, that's an affront to God! And he died for me you know. It's just the ultimate in rudeness for me to scoff at God. And it would be if God actually existed. But God isn't taking offense over my disbelief. Only religionists are. They take offense FOR God. And they decide I'm rude and arrogant. A puny human who dares to stand up the creator of the universe! Imagine!

Jews celebrate Hanukkah without taking down our nativities.

They learned a long time ago to shut up and accept being the minority. They've been vilified for centuries. Mostly for killing your Christ as I recall...

They're quite happy to celebrate their holidays alongside ours.

Are they really? Or do they just feel they have no choice in the matter?

Atheists taking down nativities is a just petty.

If it was just atheists taking down nativities "just 'cause" well then I'd agree with you. But there's a larger issue at play here. There always is but you wouldn't know it from listening to Christians these days. You see, the public square is there for everyone. If you and your band of Christians want to put up a Christmas tree there, by all means. If a band of Jews want to put up a menorah then that too should be allowed. What shouldn't happen is that the town or city PAYS for your tree. Because then to be fair the town would have to pay for EVERYONE's celebratory nonsense. And that's not right. That also is the LAW under which nativities and such are being removed from public forums. It's giving one religion preference over another.

Now, since there are so many more of you than there are of any other religion, quit being so petty yourself and go buy a nativity scene and put it up in the town square. Or is the real reason you're complaining that you're just cheap?

I also find it strange that atheists are quite happy to celebrate an event commemorating a 5000 year old god they don't believe in (Cronus - celebrated during Saturnalia) but hate the idea of commemorating a 2000 year old God they don't believe in ...

Why then do you do it? Jesus wasn't born in December. The early Christian co-opted the pagan holidays that happened around this time. Pine trees have nothing at all to do with Jesus. Doesn't the Bible prohibit putting up trees? The mid-winter holiday, whatever you call it, was a festival to welcome back the sun. I've always liked summer better than winter so... Yay sun! And Yay Santa! Yay presents and yay fireplaces and yay being close to people I love. Jesus? eh... not so much. At least, not the Jesus the Republican right wing would have you believe lived. The one that hates gays and had blonde hair and white skin... you know, the marketing Jesus. Don't talk to me about atheists not being true to reality.

 

[briareos]

Going back to the OP, if one believes in the concept of moral absolutes, is it at all meaningful when one attempts to quantify evil with numbers? Does it matter that Tyrant A had the means to kill 10,000,000 people, whereas Tyrant B was only able to kill 10,000? Does that make Tyrant B not a murderer?

That answer is no and I never said anything to the contrary.

 

[briareos]

The crimes were committed with the specific intent to promote the state and destroy that which was contrary to the state. Therefore, it was a crime in the name of the state.

Atheism is not the state. Very few places have the religion and the state as one and the same.

Stalin never said, "Let's promote atheism because I think it would be beneficial to the people." He promoted atheism simply for the fact that it would give him greater power. Because it benefited the state.

So any killings that were done were not done to increase the power of atheism, they were done increase the power of the state.



Sure, atheists can do bad things. But they don't do it because they are atheists. How can you say that everything a person does is motivated by their religious beliefs or non-beliefs? If that is true, shouldn't the fact that the majority of prison are believers inmates tell us that religion also motivates people to be bad? Of course not. Just because a thief is a Christian doesn't mean that he is a thief BECAUSE he is Christian. Likewise, just because a thief is an atheist shouldn't mean that he is a thief BECAUSE he is an atheist.

Don't confuse correlation with causality.

It simply does not matter that his plans involved nationalism... it is undeniable that he was promoting atheism and that is enough to substantiate my points and I will not defend arguments that I have not made such as a person did something because they were an atheist.

 

[briareos]

Hey guys let's stop arguing over atheism and what it means, doesn't mean or if it's good or bad or malicious or not or what atheists will or will not admit to or want or don't want.

This thread is not specifically about atheism. I have no quarrel with atheism or atheists.

I do though appreciate everyone who contributed to this thread whether you agreed with the OP or not.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The crimes were committed with the specific intent to promote the state and destroy that which was contrary to the state. Therefore, it was a crime in the name of the state.

Atheism is not the state. Very few places have the religion and the state as one and the same.

Stalin never said, "Let's promote atheism because I think it would be beneficial to the people." He promoted atheism simply for the fact that it would give him greater power. Because it benefited the state.

So any killings that were done were not done to increase the power of atheism, they were done increase the power of the state.

This sums it up very well.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[briareos]

Do you deny that when a person is murdered at the occasion of not being atheist and based on that information alone... it is a crime in the name of atheism? It may not sum up the situation entirely but it is still accurate.

Do you deny that Stalin was promoting atheism? When he had atheism taught in the school systems, had plans called "The five year plans of atheism" and he prohibited religion under penalty of death?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do you deny that when a person is murdered at the occasion of not being atheist and based on that information alone... it is a crime in the name of atheism?

Yes, I deny that. You have not provided evidence (that I have noticed in this thread) that the reason for the murder is the advancement of atheism, as opposed to the advancement of the State against its perceived enemies.

Do you deny that Stalin was promoting atheism?

No, I deny that Stalin was promoting atheism for the sake of atheism. It was always for the sake of the State.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[briareos]

Eudaimonist

Yes, I deny that. You have not provided evidence (that I have noticed in this thread) that the reason for the murder is the advancement of atheism, as opposed to the advancement of the State against its perceived enemies.

I don't deny his ultimate cause may not have been the promotion of atheism, but the fact that he killed people based on the information of them not being atheist and prohibiting religion, requiring his people to be atheists is enough to substantiate that the crimes were done to promote atheism... and some other things too... but those things don't deny the previous claimed characteristic.

No, I deny that Stalin was promoting atheism for the sake of atheism. It was always for the sake of the State.

I agree with you, it doesn't deny what I am saying.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't deny his ultimate cause may not have been the promotion of atheism

Good. Atheism is cleared of the charges. [/thread]


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[briareos]

Eudaimonist

Yes, I deny that. You have not provided evidence (that I have noticed in this thread) that the reason for the murder is the advancement of atheism, as opposed to the advancement of the State against its perceived enemies.

You think those purposes must be exclusive? I don't.