Secular and or Atheist violence

[hollyda]

Hitler was a religious skeptic (a term which does not equate to atheist) who used Christianity to advance political ends.

I've never heard this -- religious skeptic versus deranged individual who identified as Christian. Would you provide some links or sources? I'd like to read up on it.

(Not doubting the veracity of the statement, but rather just wanting to learn more)

 

[Cabal]

Hitler was a religious skeptic (a term which does not equate to atheist) who used Christianity to advance political ends. The Founders were mainly Deists.

I wish atheists would just accept their history, learn from it, and resolve not to repeat that history nor do anything that even remotely smacks of it. Instead, they make futile attempts to sanitize their image while taking steps down the slippery slope that led to those democides. They exhibit enormous zeal for their rights and when that goes to excess, you get tyranny. With tyranny eventually comes persecution and then democide. These are big reasons why I kave a kink about them...

See, I would have thought many are "learning from that bit of history".

If what you're saying about Hitler is correct, then the obvious lesson is - watch very carefully when religion is brought into politics, as it can easily be used to manipulate its followers.

Which is what many atheists have been saying all along, but imagine the thanks we get when we try and get religion out of politics in some places

And as for revising - I and many other atheists easily accept that Stalin was an atheist - among other things. Not sure what bearing it has on me (and if we're going to swap death totals, atheists just got unlucky - their tyrants came to power as our technology allowed us to kill more), but you try getting a Christian to admit that the Crusaders or the Catholics who prosecuted Galileo were "true Christians".

It seems that every generation of Christians is doomed to be mostly written off by the next one.

 

[rsduncan]

I've never heard this -- religious skeptic versus deranged individual who identified as Christian. Would you provide some links or sources? I'd like to read up on it.

(Not doubting the veracity of the statement, but rather just wanting to learn more)

"Closely related to his support of education was his tolerant skepticism concerning religion. He looked upon religion as a series of conventions and as a crutch for human weakness, but, like most of his neighbors, he insisted that the women of his household fulfill all religious obligations. He restricted his own participation to donning his uniform to take his proper place in festivals and processions. As he grew older Alois shifted from relative passivity in his attitude toward the power and influence of the institutional Church to a firm opposition to "clericalism," especially when the position of the Church came into conflict with his views on education."

http://books.google.com/books?id=If67AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA27&img=1&pgis=1&dq=%22Closely+related+to+his+support+of%22&sig=ACfU3U2yjsQgff_-l4KsrJh_UoNR35d1_A&edge=0

...

 

[hollyda]

...

Thanks.

 

[rsduncan]

See, I would have thought many are "learning from that bit of history".

If what you're saying about Hitler is correct, then the obvious lesson is - watch very carefully when religion is brought into politics, as it can easily be used to manipulate its followers.

Which is what many atheists have been saying all along, but imagine the thanks we get when we try and get religion out of politics in some places

And as for revising - I and many other atheists easily accept that Stalin was an atheist - among other things. Not sure what bearing it has on me (and if we're going to swap death totals, atheists just got unlucky - their tyrants came to power as our technology allowed us to kill more), but you try getting a Christian to admit that the Crusaders or the Catholics who prosecuted Galileo were "true Christians".

It seems that every generation of Christians is doomed to be mostly written off by the next one.

I don't think atheists intend to stop at getting religion out of politics. I believe many atheists would like to see it eradicated from society, as well. What else can I think when I see an orginization named "Freedom from Religion Foundation". The name smacks of "League of the Militant Godless"...

...or when I hear of something like this cute little incident...

 

[jayem]

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?

 

[hollyda]

I don't think atheists intend to stop at getting religion out of politics. I believe many atheists would like to see it eradicated from society, as well. What else can I think when I see an orginization named "Freedom from Religion Foundation". The name smacks of "League of the Militant Godless"...

...or when I hear of something like this cute little incident...

There are some who would like to do this, yes...but they hardly make up the majority in my experience. In the years I've been active in the skeptic community, I have never met anyone who advocated removing religion entirely. I'd be inclined to say the number of atheists who want religion eradicated completely is equivalent to the percentage people like Fred Phelps in the religious community. And I don't know any rational person who says in all seriousness, "All Christians are crazy! Look at the Westboro Baptist Church!" Has it been said? I'm guessing so...but by no one I or anyone I know would call credible.

As for the Freedom From Religion Foundation -- I would be further inclined to visit the website and go to the "About the Foundation FAQ" before drawing conclusions.

Atheists do bad things. No one has said otherwise. So do Christians. So does everyone. I can refer to this incident just as easily and say it demonstrates the mindset of all theists, Christian or otherwise, but that hardly makes it true.

 

[rsduncan]

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?

OK, you want to hear it?

I'll be pleased to acknowledge that the Crusades were evil and done in the name of Christianity. I am resolved never to kill an atheist nor to eradicate atheism from society, nor to even attempt to do so.

I don't think that atheists can say the same thing, however. It would be inconsistent with the way they are behaving these days. They think they are as pure as the wind-driven snow..

 

[Cabal]

I don't think atheists intend to stop at getting religion out of politics. I believe many atheists would like to see it eradicated from society, as well.

Except all the examples you gave involve questioning religion's involvement in the public sphere, and technically there isn't supposed to be favouritism there.

What else can I think when I see an orginization named "Freedom from Religion Foundation". The name smacks of "League of the Militant Godless"...

It is true that all you have to do as an atheist today to be labelled militant is write a book or a webpage sternly criticising major religions.

...or when I hear of something like this cute little incident...

Oh boy, nativity scenes? That Christians still got to put up anyway?

The poor hard-done by Christians only getting to put up a whole three(!) cribs that year - yup, that's right up there with the great purges and the gulags, isn't it?

 

[rsduncan]

Except all the examples you gave involve questioning religion's involvement in the public sphere, and technically there isn't supposed to be favouritism there.



It is true that all you have to do as an atheist today to be labelled militant is write a book or a webpage sternly criticising major religions.



Oh boy, nativity scenes? That Christians still got to put up anyway?

The poor hard-done by Christians only getting to put up a whole three(!) cribs that year - yup, that's right up there with the great purges and the gulags, isn't it?

...the displaying of which American Atheists does not seem to be able to cope with very well. They just can't dig people believing in G-d. It may not be up there with purges, but where will it lead???

 

[Cabal]

...the displaying of which American Atheists does not seem to be able to cope with very well. It may not be up there with purges, but where will it lead???

Probably a modification of the city's rules for allocating nativity scenes?

Sorry, I meant CONCENTRATION CAMPS. Eleven of them.

Was that the answer you wanted?

Come off it, this is hardly reminiscent of "if you have two coats, give one to he who has none", now is it? It's more like if you have 14 coats with big signs on them saying LOOK HOW AWESOME MY COAT IS, YOU SHOULD BUY MY BRAND and then whining and sulking when someone decides to leave you with, er, three.

It's understandable to be this reactionary. I get it. You had most of the influence for the longest time because of sheer weight of numbers and social norms. But that's changing. Just because you don't get as much representation now doesn't mean we all want to send you to the salt mines, we promise

And Christians wonder why no-one takes them seriously anymore

 

[rsduncan]

Probably a modification of the city's rules for allocating nativity scenes?

Sorry, I meant CONCENTRATION CAMPS. Eleven of them.

Was that the answer you wanted?

Come off it, this hardly "if you have two coats, give one to he who has none", now is it? It's more like if you have 14 coats with big signs on them saying LOOK HOW AWESOME MY COAT IS, YOU SHOULD BUY MY BRAND and then whining and sulking when someone decides to leave you with, er, three.

It's understandable to be this reactionary. I get it. You had most of the influence for the longest time because of sheer weight of numbers and social norms. But that's changing. Just because you don't get as much representation now doesn't mean we all want to send you to the salt mines, we promise

And Christians wonder why no-one takes them seriously anymore

You haven't done it again, yet, so we will have to see. There is still all those years of atheist history in thre last century to deal with. Have you really learned from it? Personally, I doubt it. You are too convinced of you inherent goodness for me not to be skeptical...

 

[Cabal]

You haven't done it again, yet
, so we will have to see.

And you haven't gone on a killing spree, yet, so we will have to see there too, won't we?

I don't deal in paranoia, sorry.

There is still all those years of atheist history in thre last century to deal with.

Have you really learned from it? Personally, I doubt it.

Again, you claim that Hitler manipulated Christians. Ok.

That's a problem for Christians, not atheists. Christianity has demonstrated itself to be very...adaptable. So what exactly is the problem with requiring political decisions (which does include even the minutiae like nativities, if they're publicly backed) to be kept separate from religion? I mentioned this, but you seemed to want to QQ over some cribs and make slippery slope arguments.

Suppose Hitler was an atheist. So to learn from history we should not repeat his mistakes - so we shouldn't manipulate religion for political ends. That's what we're working towards. You can't have it both ways here.

You are too convinced of you inherent goodness for me not to be skeptical...

....nope, haven't claimed anything like that. I've never said it's impossible for history to repeat itself, all I've commented on is how quick some religionists are to engage their flourishing persection complex.

Might want to back that up with something there, champ.

 

[Belk]

You haven't done it again, yet, so we will have to see. There is still all those years of atheist history in thre last century to deal with. Have you really learned from it? Personally, I doubt it. You are too convinced of you inherent goodness for me not to be skeptical...

How about instead of telling me what I believe you ask me? Don't worry, Us 2-5 percent of the population have no concrete plans to rise up and murder the 95% in their sleep in a great purge.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

How about instead of telling me what I believe you ask me? Don't worry, Us 2-5 percent of the population have no concrete plans to rise up and murder the 95% in their sleep in a great purge.

Wait so does that mean our secret weekly conspiracy meeting next friday underneat the whitehouse is canceled?

 

[jayem]

OK, you want to hear it?

I'll be pleased to acknowledge that the Crusades were evil and done in the name of Christianity. I am resolved never to kill an atheist nor to eradicate atheism from society, nor to even attempt to do so.

I don't think that atheists can say the same thing, however. It would be inconsistent with the way they are behaving these days. They think they are as pure as the wind-driven snow..

No need to be testy. I think you're attacking a stereotype. All of the non-believers I know--myself included--have no intention to ever kill Christians, or Jews, or Muslims, or anybody. I realize that religious belief of some kind or another is deeply ingrained in people, and it would be absurd to think it could be eliminated from society. My point was just that evil is evil--whether on a large or small scale. Human beings can commit horrific acts of violence against our own kind. I don't think that either religious belief or non-belief are the primary motives in most large scale violent conflicts. The real issue is whether religion inhibits such conflicts better than the lack thereof. I know there is a lot of literature on this, and my familiarity with it is rudimentary. My 2 cents is that personal religious faith does, for the most part, keep people from behaving badly. But organized religion can make people do nasty things they wouldn't do on their own.

 

[Belk]

Wait so does that mean our secret weekly conspiracy meeting next friday underneat the whitehouse is canceled?

Of course not. When else are we all going to get together for beer and pretzels? The whole genocide thing was more of an excuse for a party then anything else.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You haven't done it again, yet, so we will have to see. There is still all those years of atheist history in thre last century to deal with. Have you really learned from it? Personally, I doubt it. You are too convinced of you inherent goodness for me not to be skeptical...

I might have missed part of the conversation earlier, but when have the athiests rounded you all up? Keep in mind, that atheism is a non-affirmative position so you can't just find one bad group that happened to be atheists and call it crimes in the name of atheism. Keep in mind as well, being anti-"insert religion here" isn't the same as atheism so using something like the holocaust wouldn't be valid.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Did you see how there was more than one definition? It can mean: there is no god. Does it have to? No. I have never said, "There is no god." And I won't. Why? I don't and can never know whether or not god(s) exist. I simply don't believe one or many do. And yet, here I am. An atheist.

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.

Oh boy, nativity scenes? That Christians still got to put up anyway?

The poor hard-done by Christians only getting to put up a whole three(!) cribs that year - yup, that's right up there with the great purges and the gulags, isn't it?
...
And Christians wonder why no-one takes them seriously anymore

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

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.

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 ...

 

[fenix144]

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.


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

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.

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 ...

I don't care..... I just want the cookies and presents D: