Atheists never...

Post Reply New Topic

It may be because I have in fact been sick, but again I am sensing some kind of semantic discontinuity. Let me probe:

Suppose the Roman Empire executes as dangers to the state people who refuse to offer sacrifice to the emperor's portrait. THAT is / is not an example of religion crime because it is done in the name of the state religion?

Suppose the atheist Communist regime of a certain Balkan country systematically purges Christians and Muslims as dangers to the state. THAT is / is not an example of religion crime because it is done in the name of the state ideology?

These are / are not the same thing?

Also, if the group in power be atheist, how is it corrct to say atheists have not the opportunity to abuse power?

You could but it would be like listing the sins of the Abrahamic religions as one, aka as those organizations are not seen as the same, people would not accept an argument based on classifying them as part of the same culture.(This is arguably justified)

Last edited by ikorack on 03 Jan 2011, 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Atheists never truely die. We just clone ourselves. :p ( /troll)

ikorack - if I get you [which I do not assert strongly] you are saying that atheists qua atheists have never had supreme state power.

In which case, no more have Christians by virtue of Christianity has supreme state power.

Catholics in some cases, yes - Puritans in parts of early New England, arguably - Muslims in some countries probably, though Sunni and Shiites are more common I believe.

It aprrearas, though, that some here contrary to your statement do see not only Abrahamic religions but all religions as tarred with the same brush.

love times a googolplex!

No one has ever had supreme power over a territory. I do believe that certain Communist countries are atheists and have done bad things.(which would mean atheists have committed crimes from a position of power.)

But I and the general masses, don't hold separate denominations of a 'philosophical system' regardless of whether or not it is atheist or theist.(and when I refer to Atheists(with a capital) I am referring to the subset of American atheists, whom i sometimes refer to as fundys) Christianity is cohesive enough to usually share responsibility between denominations. Abrahamic religions are not, the category is too general, while encompassing too many different cultures for the general population to feel OK putting the blame on. (A Christian isn't ever going to accept that his religion is responsible for the actions of a Muslim suicide bomber(well, not without an unreasonable amount of pain, and effort on whoever is trying to push the blame on them), the same goes for a Muslim and a Christian terrorist.)

The same foes for atheism as a whole(at least for the moment). When the Atheist group has become dogmatic enough for atheists to realize the group is akin to organized religion, a name for them that is more suitable and recognizable might be made for now though I'll just use a capital.

I do not completely respect the position of generalizing all religions as inherently flawed, while I can understand using the similarities as a tool for supporting the position that religions are somehow morally wrong, its use beyond that is for the most part non-existant. Its also one of the traits these fundies I speak of have, they generalize all religions as evil, while never bothering to learn enough about any religion to do anything but slander it. Religions are diverse enough that even if you believe that all of them are wrong from the get go it doesn't excuse ignoring(not trying to obtain) any detailed understanding of the worlds many religious systems.

Meh, I've forgotten if there was something else I was supposed to explain so I'll just post this and hope I didn't miss anything.

Part of it is the Yankee thing. The gulf between a Vatican II Catholic church and a Conservative Baptist church [my exposure to the Conservative Baptists was frankly shocking to a former warmer of an Episcopalian pew] seems very real and deep - but perhaps not viewed from the outside.

The only thing Christianity has holding it together is the Nicene Creed - and a lot of those using the term Christian could not fully endorse that.

A LOT of the nasty violence blamed on religion is in fact stuff like the joy in England post Henry VIII - which had nothing to do with Christianity and evrything to do with Henry's dictatorship. And the relatede Irish stuff - tracing back to Scots protestants moved in to run the place.

Atheists may have other ideologies.

That doesn't make atheism an ideology.

The Atheist Fundy subset I am describe share an ideology or at the very least are forming their own. I am aware that atheism as a whole hasn't been intertwined with an ideology and I doubt it ever will.

If morality isn't intrinsic to human beings, then humanity is a lost cause to begin with. I don't need to fear being punished after I die just to conduct myself as a decent human being.

morality is not solely a human concept

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M[/youtube]

The problem with claiming that no violence has ever been done in the name of atheism is that atheism lacks a moral code: people will refrain from murdering someone because they are christian, but people won't refrain from murdering someone because they are atheist. Thus, whenever an atheist does (bad thing) it CAN be attributed to atheism, because if they had a moral code, they might have not done (bad thing), assuming their moral code both a. said (bad thing) was wrong and b. They took their moral code seriously.

That said, I believe that, if atheism ever gets big enough, people WILL commit violent actions in the name of atheism. There is already a culture among atheists that demeans and belittles theists at every opportunity, and I certainly get the impression that some atheists think we are lesser human beings. Richard Dawkins, in one of his books, even said that he believed some theists needed to be killed because of their beliefs!

As for Stalin, Stalin firmly believed that religion was evil and a way of oppressing the people (hypocrisy FTL!) He believed that, in order to build his utopian society, everyone needed to be atheist. That sounds like killing people in the name of atheism to me.

Yeah and? This thread is about religion, so why would I even consider animals relevant?

@ Tensu: Yeah, dying in the name of something goes both ways.

you asked if morality was intrinsic to humanity.

What is interesting is the many historical and current offensive actions against basic decency of religious organizations with their moral codes and frequently in defense of what they consider their morality.

Atheism is merely a disbelief in a supernatural power that controls the universe. No doubt there are atheists who are vicious and brutal, just as there are many known people of strong religious belief who are equally offensive. But the lack of a belief in a supernatural power does not deprive a decent person from acting decently. There are other sources of morality than religious dogmas and very frequently these sources are stronger and kinder than religious ones.

I never said religion was the only source of morality in existence, or at least, this is not how I intended it to come across. I'm saying that people who do lot have moral codes are less moral. Atheism is a lack of one type of moral code. If someone is atheist but still has some moral code guiding them, then atheism won't make them do bad things (it also won't make them do go things) however, if an atheist lacks any moral fiber and does something bad because of this, atheism is partially to blame.