The fallacy of saying religion causes violence.

Kaon said:

Religion is a set of beliefs and faith.

Click to expand...

And atheism is a lack of one belief. Therefor, atheism isn't a religion.

Kaon said:

But, more importantly atheists believe in EGO, which may not be deified in the atheists immediate mind, but if you think YOU are the master of your universe, you have accepted yourself as your own god.

Click to expand...

You're confused.

I believe in exactly zero gods, and I reject the role of 'godhood'. I'm not merely saying that I don't believe there is anyone at the top of the ladder. I'm saying the ladder doesn't even go that high. So I certainly can't put myself up there.

Kaon said:

Science is a religion

Click to expand...

Nope. It's easy to make crappy, hackneyed analogies between the two, but you can't actually equate them.

Eight Foot Manchild said:

believe in exactly zero gods, and I reject the role of 'godhood'. I'm not merely saying that I don't believe there is anyone at the top of the ladder. I'm saying the ladder doesn't even go that high. So I certainly can't put myself up there.

Click to expand...

Yea, verily, there is no ladder.

JerseyChristianSuperstar said:

Among atheists and anti-theists, there is perhaps no greater card they like to pull out in their petulant crusade against religion than the idea that religion supposedly inspires people to commit gruesome acts

Click to expand...

So have atheism and "anti-theism."

... or has been the most frequent instigator of violence in history.

Click to expand...

Technically, that's hard to determine. Marxism--which is atheist and anti-religion by definition--can count about 100,000,000 victims in the twentieth century alone. None of the crusades or inquisitions in the Christian past came close to that kind of total.

Albion said:

So have atheism and "anti-theism."


Technically, that's hard to determine. Marxism--which is atheist and anti-religion by definition--can count about 100,000,000 victims in the twentieth century alone. None of the crusades or inquisitions in the Christian past came close to that kind of total.

Click to expand...

No marxists ever did it "for atheism!" in the way crusaders did it "for Jesus!" Atheism simply doesnt get many people riled up beyond internet discussions. There's no power in it.

durangodawood said:

No marxists ever did it "for atheism!"

Click to expand...

Of course they did. It is true that Marxism has a bigger program than that (but so also does Christianity), but the imposition of atheism is an inherent part of the Marxist world view.

Did you know, for example, that back in the Stalinist era, there were massive road building and military preparedness programs called, respectively, the "Five Year Plan for (this or that)" and among them was also the Five Year Plan for Atheism. Sounds strange to our ears today, but it shows that your hopeful distinction isn't a distinction at all.

Stalin's five-year-plan for atheism

Albion said:

Of course they did. It is true that Marxism has a bigger program than that (but so also does Christianity), but the imposition of atheism is an inherent part of the Marxist world view.

Did you know, for example, that back in the Stalinist era, there were massive road building and military preparedness programs called, respectively, the "Five Year Plan for (this or that)" and among them was also the Five Year Plan for Atheism. Sounds strange to our ears today, but it shows that your hopeful distinction isn't a distinction at all.

Stalin's five-year-plan for atheism

Click to expand...

I understand that atheism was a significant component of marxist ideology, but its nowhere near center stage. The real motivating element was the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution. Absent that, there'd be no "for atheism" the way we'd hear a crusader cry "for Jesus!" You give atheism too much credit. Its not got much power.

durangodawood said:

I understand that atheism was a significant component of marxist ideology, but its nowhere near center stage.

Click to expand...

It is a component in the basic Marxist worldview and inseparable from the destruction of all the other traditional values that Marxists believe hold back the march of civilization (as they define it, of course)--family, private property ownership, religion, etc. Imposing Atheism in place of theism of all varieties is part of the whole for Marxists.

Albion said:

It is a component in the basic Marxist worldview and inseparable from the destruction of all the other traditional values that Marxists believe hold back the march of civilization (as they define it, of course)--family, private property ownership, religion, etc. Imposing Atheism in place of theism of all varieties is part of the whole for Marxists.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with all that.

The destruction of religion was seen as essential to opening up space for the revolution. But atheism itself was not the goal. Just to be blunt about it, we can compare the two rallying cries: "workers of the world unite!" and "God wills it!" to get at the central ideological motivation of each movement.

Nithavela said:

I agree, religion is not that often the origin of violence. It's just the tool the perpetrators of violence use to silence their conscience.

Click to expand...

Well put.

durangodawood said:

The destruction of religion was seen as essential to opening up space for the revolution. But atheism itself was not the goal.

Click to expand...

It was essential to the revolution, but that doesn't make Marxism any less hostile towards religion and determined to eliminate it. There certainly is no expectation on the part of Marxists that after the withering away of the state, religion can come back since there is no more a practical necessity for it to be opposed. No, the expectation is that mankind will have gotten past religion just as it supposedly will have gotten past the idea of personal property.

Eight Foot Manchild said:

And atheism is a lack of one belief. Therefor, atheism isn't a religion.



You're confused.

I believe in exactly zero gods, and I reject the role of 'godhood'. I'm not merely saying that I don't believe there is anyone at the top of the ladder. I'm saying the ladder doesn't even go that high. So I certainly can't put myself up there.



Nope. It's easy to make crappy, hackneyed analogies between the two, but you can't actually equate them.

Click to expand...

I get it. As you know, you have the choice as a sovereign human being to ignore whatever you want, and to wear any color tint glasses you choose. I am not going to try to convince you to change your mind with sophomoric insults and not so subtle language.

Kaon said:

Science is a religion; you have a set of beliefs and faith (theorems, theories, postulates, axioms and proofs). The force and knowledge itself is the higher entity. People are the laity; scientists are the priests. Notable scientists are the biships and archons. And, the most heralded scientists of the time would be the Vicor of the Force.

Click to expand...

Reasons why science is not a religion:

1. Science by its very nature can not address the spiritual or supernatural realm and as a result cannot make claims about the supernatural.

2. Science has no sacred places, objects or times.

3. Science has no rituals based on sacred places, objects or times.

4. Science has no moral code based on supernatural origin or religious authority.

5. Science has no prayer or appeal to the supernatural.

6. Scientific theories are derived from observation and experiment not from revelation or religious authority as are doctrines or dogmas.

7. Scientific theories are not fixed for all time but can be refuted or modified on the basis of new evidence.

This being said, individual scientists frequently have religious beliefs including Christianity.

Albion said:

Technically, that's hard to determine. Marxism--which is atheist and anti-religion by definition--can count about 100,000,000 victims in the twentieth century alone. None of the crusades or inquisitions in the Christian past came close to that kind of total.

Click to expand...

Come on. You're an intelligent guy. You must know that an argument invoking absolute numbers is specious. For one thing, the population was much larger in the 20th century than in the 11th, or 12th, or 14th. And from a moral perspective does it even matter? Suppose we stipulate that atheist Tyrant A had the technology, and a large enough victim pool to kill 10 million people. Religious Tyrant B--from centuries past, lacking modern weapons, and operating when the victim pool was much smaller--killed 10,000 people. Does than mean Tyrant B is not a murderer?

Religious extremists have been responsible for violence over the centuries. This is particularly true of the Christian and Islamic religions. The Biblical god, if it exists, is reputed to be a violent entity and has no doubt been the excuse the Christian extremists have used when committing their dastardly crimes.

durangodawood said:

No marxists ever did it "for atheism!" in the way crusaders did it "for Jesus!" Atheism simply doesnt get many people riled up beyond internet discussions. There's no power in it, is there?

Click to expand...

True, but we might want to assert, at the least, that the 'atheism' of Lenin and Stalin, and those like them, did very little to inhibit their murderous proclivities, even as those proclivities were attached to and expressed through their respective Communist Ideologies. As you've said, there's no power in atheism. Or is there?

Of course, the same kind of dynamic could be said to apply, in parallel fashion, to many of the supposed 'Christians' who participated in the various Crusades and Inquisitions several centuries ago (and some other abusive instances before that, even). We could say this, but then we'd also have recognize that not all Christians have thought it appropriate to be actualized militants in our world ...

Quackduck said:

Religious extremists have been responsible for violence over the centuries. This is particularly true of the Christian and Islamic religions. The Biblical god, if it exists, is reputed to be a violent entity and has no doubt been the excuse the Christian extremists have used when committing their dastardly crimes.

Click to expand...

Quackduck, I know you don't intentionally mean to poke at all Christians across the board since we both know that some folks who are Christian are fairly nice folks. You might want to consider that your comments above reflect an informal fallacy known as the 'Fallacy of Composition,' and if you're interested in being relevant, even logical, you'll need recognize this fact.

Peace.

2PhiloVoid said:

True, but we might want to assert, at the least, that the 'atheism' of Lenin and Stalin, and those like them, did very little to inhibit their murderous proclivities, even as those proclivities were attached to and expressed through their respective Communist Ideologies. As you've said, there's no power in it.

Of course, the same kind of dynamic could be said to apply, in parallel fashion, to many of the supposed 'Christians' who participated in the various Crusades and Inquisitions several centuries ago (and some instances before that, even).

Click to expand...

For sure. Atheism itself is totally impotent. Religion is incredibly powerful. Really I dont even know how people can compare the two.

The atheist element of communist ideology merely clears intellectual space for the hopes and activities of the workers revolution. It doesnt actually do anything of itself.... not the way religion does as a root motivating force and actual cultural presence

durangodawood said:

For sure. Atheism itself is totally impotent. Religion is incredibly powerful. Really I dont even know how people can compare the two.

The atheist element of communist ideology merely clears intellectual space for the hopes and activities of the workers revolution. It doesnt actually do anything of itself.... not the way religion does as a root motivating force and actual cultural presence

Click to expand...

True, but then we'd really have to get into what actually divides one atheist who is ideologically passive and willing to work with others from another atheist who is thoroughly anti-christian ...

2PhiloVoid said:

True, but then we'd really have to get into what actually divides one atheist who is ideologically passive and willing to work with others from another atheist who is thoroughly anti-christian ...

Click to expand...

Revolutionary communism wasnt anti-Christian for the sake of atheism. It was for the sake of the all-consuming ideology of revolutionary communism, for the workers paradise basically.

The comparison that makes sense to me is ideology vs ideology. Like Christianity vs revolutionary communism. Or Islam vs Ayn Rand capitalism. The latter in each comparison are atheist, but only in the sense of clearing out the ideological competition.

jayem said:

Come on. You're an intelligent guy. You must know that an argument invoking absolute numbers is specious.

Click to expand...

I didn't invoke absolute numbers! I used a very round figure but one that is based upon well-established estimates. Would it make Marxism look a lot more attractive if we cut the estimated number of its victims by, let's say, half--down to 50 million dead!?