Truth Or Relevance?

[Guest KSS]

Antlerman and everyone,

 

There is some great stuff on this thread about mythology and societies.

 

I'd really like to read more on this: it seems to explain a great deal.

 

Is there one decent, readable book that you recommend on mythology and societies, that expands on the ideas in this thread?

 

thanks!

 

-- KSS

[Antlerman]

Antlerman and everyone,

 

There is some great stuff on this thread about mythology and societies.

 

I'd really like to read more on this: it seems to explain a great deal.

 

Is there one decent, readable book that you recommend on mythology and societies, that expands on the ideas in this thread?

 

thanks!

 

-- KSS

I think a good book would be to read Who Wrote The New Testament by Burton Mack. Of all of his, this one seems the best laid out so far (not that I've read all of them). It is by far the most reasonable, rational, scholarly approach to the origins of Christianity and faith of any that I've encountered. It really brings to light the things I've been focused on for some years now, backing it up with a formidable wealth of knowledge and research.

 

I'm hoping for things to settle a little for me in my life at this time in order to devote some time to some responses to those who made good points in this thread. Soon I'm hoping....

[shantonu]

What forms of atheism? Atheism is merely a disbelief in God. Saying that there's different violent forms of atheism is like saying there's different violent forms of not believing in fairies. Atheism has no commandments or rules that say you have to be violent or force atheism on others, so atheism in itself cannot be blamed for violent communist regimes, as atheism is merely the disbelief in God. I don't always agree with everything Sam Harris says, but I think he brings up a good point in The End Of Faith that people like Pol Pot and Mao etc didn't do their immoral actions because they were atheists but because they were irrational and had irrational beliefs about politics and the government but who commits such atrocities because they were too rational?

 

I don't see how your statement is any different from Christians who say that the Inquisition was just a perversion of Christianity and that "Christiany cannot be blamed for violent Christian regimes." Go back and just substitute "Christian" for "atheism" in your sentence above.

 

Atheism is not merely a disbelief in God. It's a belief that it is irrational to believe in God.

 

The Reign of Terror is a great example of how rationality got completely out hand. Atheism does not in of itself disavow violence. So long as it does not--and it does not--then atheism can be just as violent and perverse as any other human invention. Atheism and rationality are products of humanity. They bear the stamp of humanity; they are not levers that not stand outside of humanity. As products of the human mind, atheism and rationality are neither more nor less susceptible to abuse and the tendency towards atrocity. Homo homini lupus. Man is wolf to man.

 

Are we to say that "Man is Wolf to Man, unless we are rational"? I don't think so. Rationality is not the same thing as good will, as non-violence, as loving-kindness, as charity

[shantonu]

The virus analogy is a good one. This girl has been poisoned. But there's nothing in the Christian faith itself that mandates this outcome.

 

Surely it depends on how you interpret "Christian faith". To say there is "nothing" is certainly not true by the experience of the Christian faith I was raised with. That is too broad a statement.

 

Surely there were people under the Khemer Rouge and during the Cultural Revolution and other totalitarian states that were equally poisioned by atheism. There are forms of atheism that are virulent, there are forms of Christianity that are benign--and even helpful. The good forms of atheism tend to look a lot like the good forms of theism. The good forms are characterized by non-violence, openess, tolerance and good manners. The bad forms don't have these qualities.

 

I don't deny that atheism was part of these totalitarian states. I would say, though, that this type of militant atheism that outlaws religion in any form; bullying, spoiling for a fight and dictating what people should believe and think is an extreme. I do not think it is representative of most atheists, who simply want to live in peace.

 

Of course I could list a bunch of repressive Christian states for you.

 

I have no personal experience with benign or helpful forms of Christianity that I would say were not also dishonest intellectually.

 

As a humanist, I'm sort of ambivalent about human potential. Humans have great capacity for good and an equal capacity for evil. As I mentioned above, I don't think rationality, or really anything, is fool-proof for keeping the capacity for evil in check. The Christian religion is a great failure in this regard. But I don't think that atheism will turn out to be any resounding success. France and Sweden are more or less atheist states. They are much more civilized and genteel than Afghanistan or Texas. How much of that owes to their rejection of theism and how much of it reflects their enormous wealth is hard to say. They are non-violent because they have created circumstances that don't require them to be violent--at least not directly.

 

France and Sweden participate in a global economic system that in many ways does enormous damage to poor people around the world. The Swedes and French very rationally pursue their own self-interest. And while they do not stone people for adultery, they are all on the coco board. They dictate the prices for coco. Poor coco farmers in Ghana still get screwed so that Nestle can reap huge profits. Is this progress? Of course it is. But let's not get too swell-headed about it because those good atheists in Amsterdam and Belgium are quite capable of starting a little coup in Ghana if the farmers get out of line. If the bottom line is threatened, I don't see how atheism would prevent any of them from drawing swords.

[shantonu]

I should also add that I do think that atheism can lead to progress. Truth often leads to progress--and I'm pretty confident that God does not exist. But truth does not neccessarily lead to progress. And rationality may not lead to the highest ethics. Some ethical principles are simply handed down by fiat. One of the highest ethical principles was enunciated by Jesus: "Do no violence. Love your enemies. Seek their good. Do not return hatred for hatred."

 

I don't know of any "rational" system of ethics that says this, yet intuitively I think we can all see that it's an extraordinarly fine principle (just as we can all see how hard it would be to actually follow this rule and how most self-professed Christians have ignored it down through the ages).

[Vigile]

I don't see how your statement is any different from Christians who say that the Inquisition was just a perversion of Christianity and that "Christiany cannot be blamed for violent Christian regimes." Go back and just substitute "Christian" for "atheism" in your sentence above.

 

You don't?

 

Let me help you out. Inquisitions were driven by Christian belief, regardless of the brand, you can't separate belief from the action.

 

Stalinist Russia was not driven by atheistic belief. It was driven by ideology that argued equality. The purges occurred in part to rid Soviet society from anyone who appeared to be above equal in order to create a society with the same wants and needs. If anything this could be considered a perversion of Marxism, not of atheism. Disbelief in god was not a driving force, Marxism was.

 

In other words, you have two ideologies that can be blamed in the purges and in the inquisition. Marxism and Christianity. Show me where atheism was a major component of this ideology. Here's a link to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism

 

Likewise, Cambodia was also driven by one man's extremist application of an ideology. Show me where atheism was a driving force in the ideology that led to the killing fields: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

 

Last time I checked atheism was merely a disbelief in god/s. I have never read an atheist manifesto that argues for an egalitarian society. Both of these events were perversions of Marxism pure and simple.

[Deva]

I should also add that I do think that atheism can lead to progress. Truth often leads to progress--and I'm pretty confident that God does not exist. But truth does not neccessarily lead to progress. And rationality may not lead to the highest ethics. Some ethical principles are simply handed down by fiat. One of the highest ethical principles was enunciated by Jesus: "Do no violence. Love your enemies. Seek their good. Do not return hatred for hatred."

 

I don't know of any "rational" system of ethics that says this, yet intuitively I think we can all see that it's an extraordinarly fine principle (just as we can all see how hard it would be to actually follow this rule and how most self-professed Christians have ignored it down through the ages).

 

That is fine and dandy, Shantonu, there is nothing wrong with the above expressed ethic. But when you make a statement that there is nothing in Christianity that mandates a negative outcome on a person, I must disagree. I said that was too broad a statement. There are a lot of doctrines in Christianity, and depending upon how they are presented, it can be enough to poison a person's mind for life. Do you actually think, for example, that the negative view of women as property, can be a positive influence on a person? Do you think that the notion of a substitutionary atonement for sin is a good influence? I just don't see it, and these things are in Christianity, whether we like it or not.

[Vigile]

there is nothing wrong with the above expressed ethic.

 

I'm going to disagree a little. An ethic like this is a recipe for getting walked all over. It's just not how the world works or can work. It sounds nice if you don't think about it's implications but it is merely a poorly thought through platitude. I'm not implying that the opposite is true though.

[Neon Genesis]

I don't see how your statement is any different from Christians who say that the Inquisition was just a perversion of Christianity and that "Christiany cannot be blamed for violent Christian regimes."

Isn't that you were saying earlier in this thread? That there was nothing in the Christian faith to mandate a negative outcome in a person? So am I imagining things when Jesus said you were supposed to hate your families if you wanted to be his follower or all that stuff about how non-believers are going to hell or how about when Jesus said we're supposed to beat our slaves in Luke 12:47-48? Have you even read the bible yourself? And how is it anything like the Christians saying that this isn't "true" Christianity? Nowhere in my post did I say people like Stalin and Mao weren't "true" atheists. The point I was bringing across is that atheism itself was not responsible because atheism is merely the disbelief in gods and your argument is like saying since there are people who don't believe in big foot that go around and murder people, then disbelieving in big foot must lead to immorality.

 

Atheism is not merely a disbelief in God. It's a belief that it is irrational to believe in God.

Where's your proof of this? I don't know a single atheist who defines atheism as this. You're confusing atheism with anti-theism which are not the same thing. Anti-theism is the belief you're speaking of. Atheism itself is simply the disbelief in God. Tell me who the creator of atheism is and where's this grand atheist bible they made you seem to have convinced yourself exists that says to be a true atheist you have to go around suppressing religious people? You can't because no such thing exists. -a means without, theism means beliefs in God. Hence it is without beliefs in God and has nothing to do with anti-theism in itself.

 

The Reign of Terror is a great example of how rationality got completely out hand.

How is that rational in any sense of the word? Do you even understand what the word rational means? According to dictionary.com, the word rational means

having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense

How was the Reign of Terror sound judgment or good sense in any sense of the word?

 

Atheism does not in of itself disavow violence. So long as it does not--and it does not--then atheism can be just as violent and perverse as any other human invention.

Atheism in itself does not disavow violence but neither does it condone it either because as I said before, atheism simply means disbelief in God. That's like saying since the disbelief in fairies doesn't disavow violence then the disbelief in fairies is just as violent and perverse as any other human invention. Again, atheism is not a religion or a belief. It is a disbelief in god. To say that atheism is a belief is like saying that not belonging to a club is the same thing as belonging to a club and that if you don't belong to a club, then you're evil and immoral

 

As products of the human mind, atheism and rationality are neither more nor less susceptible to abuse and the tendency towards atrocity. Homo homini lupus. Man is wolf to man.

When did anyone say that atheists cannot be immoral? What we are saying is that atheism itself is not responsible for immorality because atheism is again merely the disbelief in gods and unless you can present evidence of an atheist bible that the creator of atheism made that says you have to behave in a certain way to be a true atheist, then you must take back your claims, but you apparently seem to hate thinking.

 

Rationality is not the same thing as good will, as non-violence, as loving-kindness, as charity

How is non-violence, loving and kindness and charity not rational? Again, do you understand what the word rational means? Perhaps you should try thinking rationally yourself before you start ranting about things you obviously don't understand?

[shantonu]

I don't see how your statement is any different from Christians who say that the Inquisition was just a perversion of Christianity and that "Christiany cannot be blamed for violent Christian regimes." Go back and just substitute "Christian" for "atheism" in your sentence above.

 

You don't?

 

Let me help you out. Inquisitions were driven by Christian belief, regardless of the brand, you can't separate belief from the action.

 

Stalinist Russia was not driven by atheistic belief. It was driven by ideology that argued equality. The purges occurred in part to rid Soviet society from anyone who appeared to be above equal in order to create a society with the same wants and needs. If anything this could be considered a perversion of Marxism, not of atheism. Disbelief in god was not a driving force, Marxism was.

 

In other words, you have two ideologies that can be blamed in the purges and in the inquisition. Marxism and Christianity. Show me where atheism was a major component of this ideology. Here's a link to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism

 

Likewise, Cambodia was also driven by one man's extremist application of an ideology. Show me where atheism was a driving force in the ideology that led to the killing fields: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

 

Last time I checked atheism was merely a disbelief in god/s. I have never read an atheist manifesto that argues for an egalitarian society. Both of these events were perversions of Marxism pure and simple.

 

You're splitting hairs and using definitions to artificially draw lines so as to exclude your beliefs. It's very easy to do that, and Christians are experts at it. Using this technique, we can just as easily say that the Inquisition was not driven by Christian belief but by Spanish desire for racial purity--after the the Inquisition did not target Jews but Jews who (in the view of the Inquisitors) tried to pass themselves off as Christians. I don't know how you judge whether the Inquisition was driven by "Christian belief" since what is and what is not "Christian belief" depends on who is asking the question.

 

Atheism doesn't have to be a "driving force" for it to be liable for atrocities, just as Christian belief does not have to be a "driving force" for it to be liable. By defining it that way you're protecting your beliefs simply because they happen to be yours and "sacred" to you. Like I said, you're inadvertently mimicking Christian apologists. You can attempt to define the problem away, but it won't save your argument from serious counterexamples from the French Revolution to the Cultural Revolution. At the end of the day, I don't see how atheists--or those that profess atheism--are any better at dealing with the apparently very difficult task of not butchering their fellow human beings.

[shantonu]

Rationality is not the same thing as good will, as non-violence, as loving-kindness, as charity

How is non-violence, loving and kindness and charity not rational? Again, do you understand what the word rational means? Perhaps you should try thinking rationally yourself before you start ranting about things you obviously don't understand?

 

You should ease up on the personal attacks and cheap shots at my intelligence. It's bad form. If you want to have a decent discussion, let's do that. I think I can match the sophistication of anyone here.

 

Speaking of which, you haven't provided any basis for your implicit assertion that non-violence grows out of rationality. Here's a syllogism:

 

1. I want to make sure that coffee bean prices are low because I own shares in Starbucks.

2. Repressive and violent governments in Central America ensure that coffee bean prices remain low.

3. Therefore, I support repressive and violent governments in Central America.

 

Is this irrational? Doesn't it make good sense? When U.S. corporations reasoned thus in the 1980s, were they not cited as the very models of rational self-interest?

 

If you have evidence to the contrary, set it forth. Don't give me dictionary definitions. These issues are very complicated. Definitions don't resolve these issues any more that looking up the word "good" in the O.E.D. resolves ethical issues.

[shantonu]

Neon Genesis wrote:

 

"When did anyone say that atheists cannot be immoral? What we are saying is that atheism itself is not responsible for immorality because atheism is again merely the disbelief in gods and unless you can present evidence of an atheist bible that the creator of atheism made that says you have to behave in a certain way to be a true atheist, then you must take back your claims, but you apparently seem to hate thinking." emphasis added.

 

Is this your argument? That's surprisinng becuase it indistiguishable from the following argument: "Christians can be immoral, but Christianity itself is not responsible for immorality because Christianity is merely the belief in Jesus Christ as one's personal savior."

 

But, of course, that is bullshit. Yet if that is bullshit, then what you have said is also bullshit. Or do I just hate thinking?

[Vigile]

You're splitting hairs and using definitions to artificially draw lines so as to exclude your beliefs. It's very easy to do that, and Christians are experts at it. Using this technique, we can just as easily say that the Inquisition was not driven by Christian belief but by Spanish desire for racial purity--after the the Inquisition did not target Jews but Jews who (in the view of the Inquisitors) tried to pass themselves off as Christians. I don't know how you judge whether the Inquisition was driven by "Christian belief" since what is and what is not "Christian belief" depends on who is asking the question.

 

 

How am I splitting hairs? I will credit your theory that there was likely a greater motivation than the xian faith behind the inquisition but it was clearly done in the name of the church. What Stalin and Pol Pot did was not done in the name of atheism but in the name of their own forms of Marxism. There is no parallel here.

 

Atheism doesn't have to be a "driving force" for it to be liable for atrocities, just as Christian belief does not have to be a "driving force" for it to be liable.

 

This is a red herring. Clearly the inquisition was justified by the xian faith. Marxism, not atheism was used to justify a twisted attempt to create egalitarian societies in Russia and Cambodia. I don't know why you want there to be a parallel so badly here. It seems to me you are accepting xian apologetic in doing so. Atheism is not a belief. It was beliefs that were the driving forces in all three events we are discussing.

 

By defining it that way you're protecting your beliefs simply because they happen to be yours and "sacred" to you.

 

I resent the accusation. I am fully aware of the errors that can be caused by cognitive dissonance. Nothing is sacred to me. I am not perfect but I question everything and constantly examine my positions to the best of my ability. All things are open to question. It is you that appears to me to be apologizing and scape goating here.

 

Like I said, you're inadvertently mimicking Christian apologists.

 

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I happen to have a degree in IR and have studied Stalinism in great detail and am fairly familiar with the Khmer Rouge. Moreover, I'm married to a girl whose father was a communist party leader. I have discussed in detail the subjects of atheism and communism with Russian friends and family. Russians were indoctrinated with their own form of Marxism. Yes they were taught there is no god as well. They were also taught physics, mathematics, biology, etc... What does one have to do with the other?

 

I don't see how atheists--or those that profess atheism--are any better at dealing with the apparently very difficult task of not butchering their fellow human beings.

 

Whoever said they were? Humans are humans and humans are capable of shit. But you sure as hell don't see large masses of people running around killing people just because they don't believe in god. OTH, you sure can find a lot of people killing each other because they do. It's ideology that is the monster here, not a lack of a sky daddy that looks over our shoulders.

[Vigile]

Speaking of which, you haven't provided any basis for your implicit assertion that non-violence grows out of rationality. Here's a syllogism:

 

1. I want to make sure that coffee bean prices are low because I own shares in Starbucks.

2. Repressive and violent governments in Central America ensure that coffee bean prices remain low.

3. Therefore, I support repressive and violent governments in Central America.

 

Is this irrational? Doesn't it make good sense? When U.S. corporations reasoned thus in the 1980s, were they not cited as the very models of rational self-interest?

 

If you have evidence to the contrary, set it forth. Don't give me dictionary definitions. These issues are very complicated. Definitions don't resolve these issues any more that looking up the word "good" in the O.E.D. resolves ethical issues.

 

It's a nice analogy and one I happen to agree with. I happen to agree with Neon, however, in his assertion that both Pol Pot and Stalin acted irrationally. Stalin was paranoid and felt everything and everyone a threat to his power. The purges resulted from strong ideological beliefs, fear, and as a consequence of too much unchecked power both in the hands of Stalin himself and the NKDV and even those who guarded the zeks.

 

And Pol Pot acted as follows:

 

Pol Pot imposed a version of agrarian collectivization, forcing city dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labour projects, toward a goal of "restarting civilization" in "Year Zero". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

 

Starting back at the year zero may be a rational application of the ideological creed he followed by the theory itself was wholly irrational and had no basis in valid statistical analysis.

[Neon Genesis]

At the end of the day, I don't see how atheists--or those that profess atheism--are any better at dealing with the apparently very difficult task of not butchering their fellow human beings.

Nobody said that atheists are better than Christians. The point is that there are no teachings in atheism that support immorality because atheism is not a teaching. Christianity does have teachings that do support immorality and for you to claim it doesn't shows your ignorance of the bible and is insulting to our experiences with the Christian religion.

 

Speaking of which, you haven't provided any basis for your implicit assertion that non-violence grows out of rationality. Here's a syllogism:

Isn't it kind of obvious to anyone with common sense that a society who behaves immorally as a whole is more chaotic and dangerous than a society that doesn't? They've also proven through actual research that people who don't return an eye for an eye live much more satisfied lives than those who don't: http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/03/26/an-e...ye-doesnt-work/ So I don't get your claim that the teachings of Jesus work because they're stupid to follow. The teachings of Jesus to not return an eye for an eye work because they're rational. Are you suggesting that the key to world peace is for everyone to be stupid? That's what it sounds like you're saying that being stupid is better than being smart.

 

Is this irrational? Doesn't it make good sense? When U.S. corporations reasoned thus in the 1980s, were they not cited as the very models of rational self-interest?

No, that is not irrational because as the definition of rationality says, rationality is making sound judgment and good sense. If it was sound judgment and good sense, why don't we still do that? Because we realized suppressing people is NOT sound judgment or good sense and if you're suggesting that to save the day we have to be stupid, then you clearly don't understand rationality and are deliberately trying to confuse causation with correlation.

 

If you have evidence to the contrary, set it forth. Don't give me dictionary definitions. These issues are very complicated. Definitions don't resolve these issues any more that looking up the word "good" in the O.E.D. resolves ethical issues.

So, you're basically saying let's ditch our basic English language when we're making false accusations about atheists and let's start babbling when we speak instead? Given that you think we should be stupid to save the world, I shouldn't be surprised.

 

Is this your argument? That's surprisinng becuase it indistiguishable from the following argument: "Christians can be immoral, but Christianity itself is not responsible for immorality because Christianity is merely the belief in Jesus Christ as one's personal savior."

I will say this one more time and one more time only. ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF, IT IS THE DISBELIEF IN GOD. THERE ARE NO TEACHINGS IN ATHEISM TO BLAME IMMORALITY ON BECAUSE ATHEISM HAS NO TEACHINGS BECAUSE ATHEISM IS NOT A TEACHING. CHRISTIANITY DOES HAVE TEACHINGS THAT TEACH IMMORALITY SUCH AS THE EXAMPLES I GAVE THAT YOU IGNORED. This is not to say that all Christian teachings lead to immorality or that all Christians are immoral but to say the bible is some glorious perfect work that has no messages of hate is clearly showing your ignorance of the text and is an insult to our experiences in Christianity. This is my last time saying this and if you don't get it now, you never will and there's no point in debating with someone who thinks it's better to be stupid than to be smart.

 

. Or do I just hate thinking?

At this point, I think you're just an anti-atheist bigot that's trying to confuse causation with correlation in order to build straw man arguments.

[shantonu]

Humans are humans and humans are capable of shit. But you sure as hell don't see large masses of people running around killing people just because they don't believe in god. OTH, you sure can find a lot of people killing each other because they do. It's ideology that is the monster here, not a lack of a sky daddy that looks over our shoulders.

 

It's not just ideology. I don't know what it is, tribalism perhaps. And I just don't see how atheism is any cure for it, whatever it might be. And atheism is not the cure, how can theism be the disease? It's true that theists have killed each other over God, but that's nothing to do with belief in God because the same people would have killed each other over something else, such as language or ethnicity or nothing at all. The Rwandans didn't need difference of religion to butcher each other, they really needed no differences at all. The "Protestants" and "Catholics" in N. Ireland are not fighting over religion, they are fighting over culture, history, and identity. Martin Luther and the Pope having nothing to do with it. Shites and Sunnis are not fighting over succession to the Prophet, they are fighting because "they" did something to "us." Religion gets the blame for tribal conflict because it's often a marker and a way to distinguish different clans, but what is really going on is simple butchery for its own sake. Well over a million Bengali Sunni Muslims were killed by their fellow Pakistani Sunni Muslims for nothing more than seeking self-determination. The entire war was triggered by Bengalis speaking Bengali instead of Urdu. Is Urdu responsible for 1,000,000 deaths?

[Neon Genesis]

It's not just ideology. I don't know what it is, tribalism perhaps. And I just don't see how atheism is any cure for it, whatever it might be. And atheism is not the cure, how can theism be the disease?

I just dare you to tell me this shit has nothing to do with theism. I DARE YOU. http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2009/03/open-...d-of-directors/

[shantonu]

I will say this one more time and one more time only. ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF, IT IS THE DISBELIEF IN GOD. THERE ARE NO TEACHINGS IN ATHEISM TO BLAME IMMORALITY ON BECAUSE ATHEISM HAS NO TEACHINGS BECAUSE ATHEISM IS NOT A TEACHING. CHRISTIANITY DOES HAVE TEACHINGS THAT TEACH IMMORALITY SUCH AS THE EXAMPLES I GAVE THAT YOU IGNORED. This is not to say that all Christian teachings lead to immorality or that all Christians are immoral but to say the bible is some glorious perfect work that has no messages of hate is clearly showing your ignorance of the text and is an insult to our experiences in Christianity. This is my last time saying this and if you don't get it now, you never will and there's no point in debating with someone who thinks it's better to be stupid than to be smart.

 

Who made you the High Priest of Atheism? Why do you get to define it? Your bizarre and emotional rant is sort of proving my point. You seem to be rather intolerant of atheists who don't share your exact views. What makes you say that I'm an "anti-atheist bigot"? Of course I'm an atheist, but I don't meet your qualifications for "pure" atheism apparently.

 

You think that atheism is content free. I disagree. I think it implicates a specific worldview. Must I agree with you? Frankly your tirade is scaring me, and that speaks volumes about how atheism is no cure for ideology.

[shantonu]

It's not just ideology. I don't know what it is, tribalism perhaps. And I just don't see how atheism is any cure for it, whatever it might be. And atheism is not the cure, how can theism be the disease?

I just dare you to tell me this shit has nothing to do with theism. I DARE YOU. http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2009/03/open-...d-of-directors/

 

It has to do with one group's perverse view of theism, just as the Communist suppression of Christians was just one group's perverse view of atheism.

 

Now look, I'm not saying that Christianity doesn't have well deserved bad reputation. I'm just saying that there is nothing instrincially evil about Christianity. Some beliefs are more easily warped than others. Christianity seems to be very warpable, perhaps more so that Buddhism and probably much more so that animism. But Japanese Shinto priests and Zen priests did much to encourage war with America. Atheism hasn't been around long enough to develop the type of bad track record that theism has. But what's really to stop it? If atheism results in mere smugness, what profit is there in it?

[Vigile]

It's not just ideology. I don't know what it is, tribalism perhaps.

 

People can kill. On ideology people can kill a whole heck of a lot. Don't disregard the powerful effect a meme can have on human beings. Stalin killed between 60-80 million people. This was not just people being people. This was ideology. Terrorists strap bombs on and fly airplanes into buildings not because they are just being human. They do it because of ideological beliefs.

 

And I just don't see how atheism is any cure for it, whatever it might be.

 

Again, no one is saying that atheism makes people better. I am simply arguing that it doesn't make people worse. Ideology does.

 

This is the point you are not getting.

 

It's true that theists have killed each other over God, but that's nothing to do with belief in God because the same people would have killed each other over something else, such as language or ethnicity or nothing at all

 

 

This is just plain not true. Yes people do bad things on their own and for various reasons but people do things because of their ideological beliefs that they ordinarily just would not do. No one is going to strap a bomb on and walk into a crowded restaurant unless they believe they will get an afterlife reward for doing so. Russia would have never turned into a pool of blood had it not been for an ideological belief that in doing so they were making a better society.

 

The Rwandans didn't need difference of religion to butcher each other, they really needed no differences at all.

 

It's a logical error to say cite a case where ideological beliefs were not the driving force. Yes, people kill people for other reasons. No one is saying that ideological beliefs are the only things that drive people to do bad things. That doesn't discount the fact that many times ideological beliefs have caused people to do things they wouldn't have done otherwise.

[Vigile]

I get the feeling that you believe, or would like to believe that a more perfect world can be created Shantou. Am I off base to suggest that you believe that a good myth can make the world a better place and that this is why you are defending some forms of the xian myth?

[Vigile]

It has to do with one group's perverse view of theism, just as the Communist suppression of Christians was just one group's perverse view of atheism.

 

You seem to be willingly obtuse about this issue. Communism is not atheism. Communism is an economic theory. Lenin/Stalinism believed that religious belief hindered the proletariat revolution so they suppressed it for the purposes of communism. They didn't become communists because they were atheists and there is nothing about atheism that makes one lean toward communism. One is the driver and one is just the passenger. So no, communism is not a perverse form of atheism. Your political philosophy professor would have given you an F.

 

I'm just saying that there is nothing instrincially evil about Christianity

 

Xianity 101:

 

We were born evil and deserve punishment.

 

God is good/we are bad, god rescued us.

 

Natural instincts are sin.

 

The bible is god's word. The bible says:

 

Women are to obey their husbands but not vice versa.

 

Slaves are to obey their masters and should never rebel. We are god's slaves.

 

Masters may beat their slaves.

 

Need I go on?

 

Even if you discount the bible, you cannot discount the fact that xianity teaches us to hate ourselves. I spent more than 20 years hating myself and wracked in guilt. Was I just following bad xianity? What xianity could I have followed that would have allowed me to not feel like I was a sinner and unworthy?

 

Were you ever a Christian? I have my doubts.

 

Christianity seems to be very warpable

 

It's not more warpable. It's basic tenets are the problem.

[Neon Genesis]

It has to do with one group's perverse view of theism, just as the Communist suppression of Christians was just one group's perverse view of atheism.

 

Now look, I'm not saying that Christianity doesn't have well deserved bad reputation. I'm just saying that there is nothing instrincially evil about Christianity. Some beliefs are more easily warped than others. Christianity seems to be very warpable, perhaps more so that Buddhism and probably much more so that animism. But Japanese Shinto priests and Zen priests did much to encourage war with America. Atheism hasn't been around long enough to develop the type of bad track record that theism has. But what's really to stop it? If atheism results in mere smugness, what profit is there in it?

And I'm not saying Christianity is intrinsically evil either but nor will I say Christianity is intrinsically good which is the mistake that you're making. You yourself said that there is nothing in Christianity that leads to immorality and that homophobia is a perverse view of theism. I guess I'm just imagining things when Paul condemned it in Romans 1 or in 1 Corinthians 6:9 or when God commanded the stoning of gay people in Leviticus? I think it's hypocritical for you to say Christianity is intrinsically good but when I try to point out that atheism is intrinsically neutral then suddenly I'm the head priest of atheism. I can say the same thing of you, who made you the high priest of theism? The truth of the matter is that there is no such thing as true Christianity as the gospels have been edited and changed throughout history and whatever Jesus may have originally taught has been lost to time.

 

Unless you can present proof that you know the truth about what Jesus really meant for real, you can't say who is a true Christian and who isn't, and the fundies are just as legitimate Christians as the Unitarians are because nobody knows what legitimate Christianity is. But it's a mistake to say that theism has nothing to do with the immoral actions we pointed out, and you did too say theism has nothing to do with it. You only have to look at the gay marriage debate to see that theism does play a role. It might not be your preferred version of theism, but it's still theism. And I'm not going to keep playing ring around the rosey with you just because you can't figure out what disbelieving means to continue this ridiculous debate about what atheism is. And I don't think you have the right to talk about smugness when you've been nothing but smug about "true" Christianity since you've started posting in this thread. Are you basically saying that the majority of the forum members here were not "true" xtians because we were members of what you claim is a perversion of it? How is that any different than the fundies we get trying to tell us we just left the church because we hurt by false Christians? And don't play the martyr card here and act like you're being persecuted by our smugness. We were getting along just fine until we pointed out the fact that you were building straw man arguments and are misunderstanding what disbelief is. And what about all the other dozens of atheists here who haven't even posted in this thread? How can you lump all atheists that don't agree with you in one sweeping generalization just because one or two people dare to disagree with you?

[shantonu]

It has to do with one group's perverse view of theism, just as the Communist suppression of Christians was just one group's perverse view of atheism.

 

You seem to be willingly obtuse about this issue. Communism is not atheism. Communism is an economic theory. Lenin/Stalinism believed that religious belief hindered the proletariat revolution so they suppressed it for the purposes of communism. They didn't become communists because they were atheists and there is nothing about atheism that makes one lean toward communism. One is the driver and one is just the passenger. So no, communism is not a perverse form of atheism. Your political philosophy professor would have given you an F.

 

I'm just saying that there is nothing instrincially evil about Christianity

 

Xianity 101:

 

We were born evil and deserve punishment.

 

God is good/we are bad, god rescued us.

 

Natural instincts are sin.

 

The bible is god's word. The bible says:

 

Women are to obey their husbands but not vice versa.

 

Slaves are to obey their masters and should never rebel. We are god's slaves.

 

Masters may beat their slaves.

 

Need I go on?

 

Even if you discount the bible, you cannot discount the fact that xianity teaches us to hate ourselves. I spent more than 20 years hating myself and wracked in guilt. Was I just following bad xianity? What xianity could I have followed that would have allowed me to not feel like I was a sinner and unworthy?

 

Were you ever a Christian? I have my doubts.

 

Christianity seems to be very warpable

 

It's not more warpable. It's basic tenets are the problem.

 

And your religion professor would give you an F. You're taking an enormously complex phenomenon--Christian belief--and reducing it to a caricature. There are no "basic tenets" of Christianity other than the Creeds, and even credal Christianity would not capture the nuances of how Christians actually worship in churches as diverse as Roman Catholic to Quaker to Mormon to Nestorian to Slavic Othrodox. Not to mention the mystical Christianity of diverse authors like William Blake. You are filtering everything through the lens of your particular experience of Christianity, but those are not represenative of the whole. While the points you've referenced certainly would not be "Christianity 101" are unrepresentative to the point of intellectual dishonesty, that masks the more important point that there is no "Christianity 101."

 

Read Voltaire's Bastards or any book by Foucault and you'll see that the Enlightenment worldview--the worldview that gave rise to modern secular, Western atheism--is fraught with the exact same dangers, the same propensitity toward intolerance, the same reliance on power and violence, as medieval Christianity.

 

You are oversimplyfying these issues to the point of absurdity.

[mwc]

Atheism is not merely a disbelief in God. It's a belief that it is irrational to believe in God.

I'm not really following the thread as a whole but this caught my eye.

 

Atheism basically comes from atheos which is "a" meaning without and "theos" meaning god or "without god(s)" (depending on singular/plural usage of course). That atheism would be the disbelief in god(s) is an accurate statement though perhaps atheists hold no belief in god(s) might be better.

 

It makes sense that if you think you hold the rational position then the person with the opposite position must be irrational so if you're an atheist you would think you hold the rational position so theists must hold the irrational position and vice-versa. But then you could define theism as not only the belief in a god but that it's irrational to not believe in a god.

 

mwc