Fresh Outbreak of Religion-Bashing Threads

[drogulus]

It's so tedious to have to repeat statements already made:

   So I won't.

[Xenophanes]

I don't think it's merely for entertainment. Religions lead people to believe and do a number of things, some of them admittedly harmless (I'm OK with people gathering to sing and have some bread and wine), but things like not using condoms because that's a "sin", or refusing blood transfusions (or modern medicine altogether), or opposing human embryonic stem cell research because those 3-days-old-150-cells-embryos "have souls", etc, etc... It could be a rather long list... To the eyes of any reasonable non religious person these things are (at least) idiotic.

Luckily, at least Catholics don't burn people anymore, but there you have Muslims setting embassies on fire because they found some cartoons offensive, or crashing planes into buildings so they'll get their share of virgins in Heaven... Maybe, 400 years from now, Muslims will "moderate" themselves too, but where Catholics had torches Muslims have planes and modern weapons, so I'm not sure if we should "respect their beliefs" and patiently wait until they "evolve" and begin to see the atrocities written in their "holy" books as "stories meant to teach a moral lesson but not intended to be taken literally".

So, again, I don't think this "anti-religion-movement" is just for entertainment. It's no fun when your neighbour is a delusional idiot.

Well, of course, killing a few thousand people over religious issues over 3 centuries is a bad thing.  But the secular state has been many, many times more deadly.

[Iconito]

Well, of course, killing a few thousand people over religious issues over 3 centuries is a bad thing.  But the secular state has been many, many times more deadly.

I’m not sure your comment has a lot to do with my post (you seem to be talking about the past, right?), but thanks for sharing. 

As a side note, I think the word “secular” should be used with caution. Take the USA as an example: They have a secular government, Right? But the President says “God” in every sentence. This man’s religious beliefs do influence his judgements and acts. And we’re here, year 2008, talking about things like stem-cell research. Talking about “secular state”, for example, in the times of the Inquisition is (IMHO) ridiculous.

[Brian]

Well, of course, killing a few thousand people over religious issues over 3 centuries is a bad thing.  But the secular state has been many, many times more deadly.

That's right. When you look at the real killers in the world today, the top of your list would be Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Canada, California ... 

[Wanderer]

That's right. When you look at the real killers in the world today, the top of your list would be Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Canada, California ...

Just updating your list. These are not strictly speaking états laïcs, as they have constitutional links between church and state.

[Brian]

Just updating your list. These are not strictly speaking états laïcs, as they have constitutional links between church and state.

Very good point, thanks; I made the mistake of judging by religiosity of the populace - hence excluding the secular United States from the list.

[karlhenning]

What would they do for entertainment otherwise?

Yup, yet another! How exciting!

[drogulus]

    Some states that severed connections with religion have behaved in a strikingly similar way to states that in the past conducted religious wars or internal repressions based on religious affiliation.. The Communist states in particular have done so. All of these are officially atheistic, though they reject the humanism and democracy that accompany atheism in advanced Western countries. The Communists are true believers in the religious sense, even down to persecuting "kulaks" and stamping out herisies of various kinds.

    I have yet to see a state go all murderous on an intellectual diet of Jefferson and Paine. The Communists are not motivated by an excess of pluralism, tolerance, or respect for the rights of minorities. Their behavior is prototypically that of the religious fanatic.

    Just being an atheist does not buy forgiveness for any crimes committed, any more than being religious, or a scientist, or a democrat. What you call yourself is less important than how you behave, and if your behavior involves the fanatical persecution of anyone with a different opinion than you resemble those who've done so in the past. There's no reason why we can't oppose religious oppressors and atheistic ones as well, and recognize that the habits of thought they share, of absolutism and hostility to disinterested inquiry, make them more alike than different.

   

[Christo]

Quote from: Bunny on May 17, 2008, 06:00:27 PM
So what if your neighbor is a delusional, idiotic, proselytizing Christian who isn't happy unless everyone conforms to his view of God and the universe? 

Right. So what if your delusional idiot neighbor is an atheist/agnostic? Who has a compulsive urge to vent his personal problems with his private caricature of "religion" at every turn?

Seems a fair summary of the whole debate with me 

[Christo]

That's right. When you look at the real killers in the world today, the top of your list would be Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Canada, California ... 

No. The top of the list would be: Mao, Stalin, Hitler, perhaps Pol Pot.

As regards their religion, personal convictions and/or ideological background, some useful observations have been made on that, already.

[DavidRoss]

No. The top of the list would be: Mao, Stalin, Hitler, perhaps Pol Pot.

As regards their religion, personal convictions and/or ideological background, some useful observations have been made on that, already.

Exactly...and so bloody (literally!) obvious that only a complete idiot would claim otherwise.

As for the recent outbreak of such hate-mongering threads:  well, let's be grateful that the narrow-minded bigots are venting their hate-filled ignorance on internet forums instead of following the example of the Godless, Statist religions that spread so much misery and suffering throughout the 20th Century.

[Al Moritz]

Exactly...and so bloody (literally!) obvious that only a complete idiot would claim otherwise.

But a lot of atheists these days try to downplay this. Which is one of the reasons why I can impossibly take the New Atheism seriously (while atheism strictly as a philosophical world view deserves some respect, even though its flaws are glaringly obvious to any non-atheist).

[DavidRoss]

Well, as I patiently explained on the Religion thread a few weeks ago, atheism is itself irrational (unlike agnosticism), as is bigotry of all sorts, including the hate-filled hypocrisy that compels some to attack people of faith for crimes dwarfed by the magnitude of crimes by the faithless.

[Brian]

But a lot of atheists these days try to downplay this. Which is one of the reasons why I can impossibly take the New Atheism seriously (while atheism strictly as a philosophical world view deserves some respect, even though its flaws are glaringly obvious to any non-atheist).

Actually, I saw a fellow named Dan Barker (itinerant preacher and speaker-in-tongues who became an atheist and founded the "Freedom from Religion Foundation") speak at my college this year; a member of the audience got up and mentioned Hitler, Stalin, and the rest, and he (Barker) apologized for them. He said Stalin & Co. were a shame to their brand of unbelief in the same way that, say, Osama should be shameful to Islam or the Children's Crusade to Christianity. He said it was his responsibility to express shame for their actions and wish they hadn't been atheists. He did, however, draw the line at Hitler - as does Richard Dawkins, incidentally, and most of the "New Atheists" - because Hitler really wasn't much of an atheist at all; Mein Kampf spewed Christian pretensions and the ridiculous quasi-Wagnerian cult of the Nordics and whatnot can hardly be called atheism. Rationalism, certainly not.

In any case, as evil atheists Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are most remarkable for their uniqueness/rareness. And for all being Communist.

I take Christianity seriously despite its track record of producing people like D. James Kennedy and Jerry Falwell. (Note: Not examples of evil, obviously, but of other unlovable traits.)

[head-case]

I would generally agree.  Although Mao didn't kill that many people on purpose, mostly people got sent to labor camps.   The countless deaths were mostly caused by starvation after his hair brain economic schemes caused famines and economic collapse on an unprecedented scale. 

Actually, I saw a fellow named Dan Barker (itinerant preacher and speaker-in-tongues who became an atheist and founded the "Freedom from Religion Foundation") speak at my college this year; a member of the audience got up and mentioned Hitler, Stalin, and the rest, and he (Barker) apologized for them. He said Stalin & Co. were a shame to their brand of unbelief in the same way that, say, Osama should be shameful to Islam or the Children's Crusade to Christianity. He said it was his responsibility to express shame for their actions and wish they hadn't been atheists. He did, however, draw the line at Hitler - as does Richard Dawkins, incidentally, and most of the "New Atheists" - because Hitler really wasn't much of an atheist at all; Mein Kampf spewed Christian pretensions and the ridiculous quasi-Wagnerian cult of the Nordics and whatnot can hardly be called atheism. Rationalism, certainly not.

In any case, as evil atheists Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are most remarkable for their uniqueness/rareness. And for all being Communist.

I take Christianity seriously despite its track record of producing people like D. James Kennedy and Jerry Falwell. (Note: Not examples of evil, obviously, but of other unlovable traits.)

[david johnson]

'It would be something like this:

1. The Bible is the word of God.
2. The Bible says kill the heretics.
3. Someone goes ahead and begins killing heretics.

Sorry if it was confusing.'

nothing confusing, incognito.  you will find no justification in the bible for the inquisition.
you will have to look the the catholic authorities of the era for that.  their use or misuse of scripture is upon their own heads.

where were heretics marked for death in the new testament?
where in the o/t?

we may not be using the term 'heretic' in the same way.

dj

[PSmith08]

nothing confusing, incognito.  you will find no justification in the bible for the inquisition.
you will have to look the the catholic authorities of the era for that.  their use or misuse of scripture is upon their own heads.

Don't forget the secular Spanish authorities, for whom the Inquisition served a useful political purpose, and under whose jurisdiction it found its nastiest expression (which, except for the oft-cited pathological examples, was not all that terrible in contrast with later jaunts down the repression trail).

[bwv 1080]

Don't forget the secular Spanish authorities, for whom the Inquisition served a useful political purpose, and under whose jurisdiction it found its nastiest expression (which, except for the oft-cited pathological examples, was not all that terrible in contrast with later jaunts down the repression trail).

The inquisition always and everywhere served a political purpose.  In a society organized around the Church, heresy is treason and the authorities had every right to supress it.  By the judicial standards of the time, the inquisiton was quite civilized.  Common criminals would often blaspheme to get tranferred from the criminal courts  to the ecclesiastical ones.

[DavidRoss]

I have yet to see a state go all murderous on an intellectual diet of Jefferson and Paine.

Given that both were men of deep faith in God and respect for what they considered God-given natural rights, why would anyone expect otherwise?

[bwv 1080]

   
    I have yet to see a state go all murderous on an intellectual diet of Jefferson and Paine.
 

The French Revolution?

Although Jefferson and Paine were lesser figures there