Religion
Related: About this forumWhy We are Mad At You by an Atheist
That Atheist being me...
Why are we mad at you?
The you here is theists, but in many cases, and in my case, it is more towards the Christians.
We are mad because...
Historically you have always fought science, whether it was the torture of Gallileo, the rejection of the "round Earth" theory, the rejection of Evolution, and the dismissive tone you still take when mentioning science.
You have always been duplicitous and a hypocrite. "Hate the sin, not the sinner" means the exact opposite, "I'll pray for you" is code for "Fuck you," The Beatitudes lay out a clear mandate to care for the poor, yet you guys use weasel words to get out of that ("Jesus was talking about spiritually feeding, not real food...get a job hippie!"
We have to prove our cases with evidence, which is good - but you guys get a free pass because it's "faith."
You have absolutely no idea what the word "theory" means.
More people have been killed in human history over religion than any other cause.
More people have been killed in human history over religion than any other cause.
You can get away with anything because God will forgive you if you ask.
You trust a bronze-age fable over evidence.
Your school poison the minds of the young, giving them an unhealthy dose of fear of hell, an us vs them mentality, and intolerance of anyone who disagrees with you.
Your schools also love to beat the hell out of any student that disagrees with you.
You condemn homosexuals to hell, yet Ted Bundy became a Christian, and gets to go to Heaven.
Your own leader (Jesus) tells you that he brings not peace, but a sword. He also tells you to hate your parents and family.
Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Annie Semple, Bernardo De Guy, Mel Gibson, Osama Bin Laden, Sayyid Qutb, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron...(I could go on for hours, but you get the point.)
Children who were born hermaphrodites had their genitals burned off so they could clearly be one sex or another.
Circumcision, both male and female.
The original sin isn't murder, theft or battery, but wanting to learn.
You burned every book the Mayans had except the Popol Vuh, and you would have burned that if the Mayans hadn't hid it.
You killed Hypatia.
.....
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
gateley
(62,683 posts)way to control the masses. Not science -- God -- OUR God! Same with burning books, forcing conversions -- all control to keep the money rolling in. I think that's what's behind the anti-birth control, too.
I was raised Catholic and attended 12 years of Catholic schools, and we were never encouraged to really study the Bible on our own. They wanted to interpret it for us and again, tell us what to think.
Warpy
(114,686 posts)and were supposed to rely on what the hierarchy passed down to the priests as the truth.
My own mother didn't sit down and read it until she was in her 60s and the explosion of rage could be felt all the way from Florida to New Mexico. "THAT is what they made me afraid to read all my life? What a load of utter CRAP that thing is!"
I don't think she ever got guilted into stepping foot into a church again.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)too bad hate is the way they greet hate.
ret5hd
(22,588 posts)
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Says it all...
struggle4progress
(126,683 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)"More people have been killed in human history over religion than any other cause."
"More people have been killed in human history over religion than any other cause."
Over religion or in the name of religion?
The reason I mention it is because more have died under atheist dictators and by atheists than any religious war. As a matter of fact it is recorded as the largest mass murder in human history AND all in the 20th century alone. Now was that over religion? A huge part of it was against religion.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)But let me just say quickly that those people weren't killed for Atheism, but every person killed during the crusades was killed for religion.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)
Orrex
(67,404 posts)Really? Was every concentration camp guard an atheist? Or were the great majority of them Christians, acting in their own interest?
Hitler's and Stalin's own religious viewpoints are in fact of limited relevance, unless the individual murderers shared those views and committed those millions of murders specifically because of their views.
I would also like to see your support for the claim that the victims were killed in the name of atheism. I'm not talking about some post hoc equivocation, either; I want to see the evidence that these people were actually and specifically killed in the name of atheism.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Orrex
(67,404 posts)The fact that you didn't mention him by name means nothing. He's one of the top three go-to "atheist dictators" every time this conversation pops up, so I stand by what I wrote.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Orrex
(67,404 posts)If you haven't seen them, you haven't been looking.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)viewpoints of certain known atheists, i.e. Nietzsche, of whom he was a dedicated student. But he also referred to his Christian influences, as well as the influences of ancient Germanic mythology. However, the numbers murdered under atheistic dictators does not even consider Hitler.
Orrex
(67,404 posts)We're not talking about murders committed under atheist dictators; we're talking about murders committed in the name of atheism. An important distinction.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)
I'll bet you don't even see how that cuts both ways...humblebum
(5,881 posts)
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Regardless, do think WW1 was about religion? How about Pearl Harbor, the People's Revolution in China, the American Civil War? None were about religion, neither was the Russian Revolution.
Orrex
(67,404 posts)Simply because a war isn't "about religion," that doesn't make them about atheism, which was the point.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)"More people have been killed in human history over religion than any other cause. "
I never claimed anyone killed in the name of any -ism. Not saying they did or didn't, but making the claim in the OP is absurd.
Orrex
(67,404 posts)What was your point again?
opiate69
(10,129 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)Orrex
(67,404 posts)or link to it
or even to state clearly what it is you're trying to assert.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)than anything else. But that is the whole point of this argument if I am not mistaken.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Nazi Germany was not an atheist state. 0 of the deaths they caused were 'in the name of atheism'.
The USSR was an atheist state, however
1) the vast majority of the deaths due to violence were a direct consequence of defending the USSR against Nazi Germany,
2) while the USSR was officially atheist, the cause being pursued that resulted in so many people dying from the gulags, from famines, etc. was not atheism but totalitarian communism. Your argument dishonestly conflates the two. You might as well blame the official language of the USSR, it would be equally ridiculous and dishonest.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)And there it is, the same thing we all have been saying, and he just refuses to quit doing it.
Communism is a religion like any other.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Explain please.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)There is no real difference in belief in heaven and the triumph of the proletarian revolution. Any "ism" is just an ideology designed to get a group of people on the same emotional page so they will cooperate to achieve a common objective.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)How about Capitalism? Realism? Surrealism? Modernism? Postmodernism? Criticism? Plagiarism? Witticism?
a suffix appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form action nouns from verbs ( baptism ); on this model, used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc. ( criticism; barbarism; Darwinism; despotism; plagiarism; realism; witticism; intellectualism ).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-ism
rrneck
(17,671 posts)It pisses the atheists off no end to say that, but any emotionally driven practice can be a religion. Of course, the viability of thar religion is subject to the agreement of its membership. Thus, the religion of atheism would be, in cultural terms, much like some rare sub atomic particle that can only exist in a cyclotron for a millionth of a second. Atheists are cultural anarchists. It would be very difficult to make atheism into much of a functional religion since it is based on denial rather than affirmation.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)But what about all those other isms?
You say "can be", not necessarily. Aren't all ideas, philosophies, policies, theories, dogma, morals, ethics and all beliefs emotionally driven? That is the level humans operate on most of the time. Reminds me of Propter in Huxley's "After Many A Summer", when he talks of the three levels on which humans operate. The animal level, the spiritual level and the "strictly human level", the latter being the problem in terms of good and evil. Evil, he says, does not exist on either the animal or spiritual level; only on the strictly human level, which is emotionally driven.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 29, 2012, 11:21 PM - Edit history (1)
If you can imagine it, you can practice it as a religion. Some will work better than others of course.
Animals have emotions too, but what humans are by far and away the best at is a theory of mind. We can imagine what others may think, feel, and do. I think that is where we find the concept of good and evil.
Do unto others...
Orrex
(67,404 posts)Atheism is not a religion, it is a lack of religion. Calling it a religion is like calling a lack of illness an illness. You're pretending that the absence of a thing is the same as the thing itself, which is simply nonsensical. Do you characterize anything else in your life that way? Is the lack of rent money the same as the presence of rent money in your world?
I know that it's convenient for theists to pretend that atheism is a religion, because if it were so then it would make it much easier to dismiss or marginalize atheism on those grounds. Unfortunately for true believers, the reality is more complicated than that.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Orrex
(67,404 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)As opposed to anything other than an atheism, which in this country would be the norm.
Do you identify with others that say they are atheists?
One doesn't need a deity to have a religion. That's the real secret to marginalizing people. And we don't even think about it. We just intuitively assume a religion involves a "God". Actually, a religion is just a way to get people on the same emotional page. I think it would be fair to say that any groups activity with a shared objective is a religion, as long as everybody feels more or less the same way about what they're trying to do.
Football fans share the same religion. So do Democrats, and Republicans, and skateboarders and fedex employees. And they get uniforms.
A deity does not a religion make. That's the dirty secret that religion can't even admit to itself. It has to compete in the marketplace of emotions with a million other faiths. And football has cheerleaders.
By declaring atheism is not a religion we may be allowing religion to snooker us into marginalizing ourselves.
Orrex
(67,404 posts)Nevertheless, atheism is not a religion.
Also, it is a mistake to stretch the definition of "religion" to cover anything that people follow avidly or about which they are passionate. That's simply equivocation, which is one of the most basic fallacies of all, and it seriously undermines one's position in this discussion.
Obviously a religion doesn't require a god, but it does more or less universally require a belief in or reverence of or advocacy for a supernatural component, whether the component be a resurrected savior, a reincarnated Lama, or disembodied Thetans.
That is the definition that is relevant here. I would be interested to hear of a religion that has no supernatural component. Buddhism, for instance, is not such an example.
Further, claims about football as a religion are simply off the mark, and they have no place in the actual discussion. The only reason for allowing so broad a definition of religion is to make religion become simultaneously everything and nothing.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Others still like scary movies. I read years ago that your body does not distinguish between fear and excitement. The biochemical responses are the same for both.
Are the biochemical processes significantly different for those raising their hands in a revival meeting from those doing the "wave" at a baseball game? Aren't they both just rooting for their team? Surely, just because one relates to the concept of "god" they couldn't claim their physical existence is different in any meaningful way. Do you think just because somebody handles snakes because he thinks "god" told him to his experience is special compared to some guy that likes to jump motorcycles? Why does the concept of "god" have to make any particular human activity any more special than any other?
Religion as a human activity is on the wane and has been for hundreds of years. With that waning, does it appear to you that people in general have become increasingly rational? One would think that with the great leaps forward in science and technology in the last four hundred years stuff like this wouldn't happen. How many of those riots were religiously motivated?
The most commonly understood meaning of the word religion does indeed refer to some supernatural component. But words mean what we want them to mean, unless you think that they are handed down to us by some supernatural being. The meanings of words change over time, and while the first definition of religion refers to a supernatural component, the second definition is much more secular in nature:
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
The times, they are a changin'. For the last few thousand years religions that referred to some supernatural agency were the only game in town. If one wanted to engage in a communal ritual it involved a deity or you got to be guest of honor at a barbeque. But that was before the enlightenment, nationalism, the industrial revolution and memetics. I would like to see some evidence that human biology has changed in any meaningful way in response to the scientific and technological developments that have made it possible to think in terms of not believing in a deity. I think it unlikely a twenty first century human is fundamentally different from a fourteenth century human. Surely we didn't evolve into Spock in the last four hundred years. It is much more likely that we are redirecting the theistic impulse in directions that do not necessarily involve a deity. Like football.
Religion isn't special. It gets away with most of its shit because it has managed to convince us that it is more than simple brand loyalty. It ain't. We can learn about as much about honor, integrity, perseverance, and reciprocity from following a major league pennant race as from any religion.
Is atheism a religion? Well, it's an "ism". As I said, it could be a religion, but it wouldn't make a very good one. Atheists are cultural anarchists. If we could agree on some sort of practice of atheism as a religion it wouldn't last long. Religions have to affirm something. Atheism does exactly the opposite (depending on which degree of atheism we're talking about). Of course who said religion had to last thousands of years? For that matter, who said a religion had to have practitioners at all? Couldn't one be a non practicing atheist? There are non practicing Catholics. All you have to do is not show up at the meeting.
To my mind it's better to force religion to compete fairly in the marketplace of emotional activities rather than conferring upon it some sort of special status that separates it from what it has become - just another fucking product. Watching some religious muckety-muck weighing in on the moral issues of the day makes about much sense to me as George Steinbrenner leading devout Yankees fans in a march for the display of baseball monuments on government property. If making progress in forcing religion onto a level playing field involves calling atheism a religion, well, it might be worth it. If we can agree on what form the religion of atheism will take I can only hope it will have cheerleaders and lots of beer.
Orrex
(67,404 posts)The pictures don't do anything for you argument, by the way.
I see that you've selected a different definition of religion. That's fine, but I submit that you've opted for the broader and more figurative definition, which I find less useful. You're free to choose that definition if you like, and if you're willing to support such an expansive and watered-down concept of religion then that's fine, too. In essence you've declared that everything that is of interest to anyone is a religion, and I don't see how that's helpful in the slightest. Certainly it's of no interest to me, and I won't be adopting it as my preferred definition in any case. And you're not going to win any arguments nor persuade anyone by insisting that they accept your definition. That's simply annoying, and you'll insult people who subscribe to a given faith. It's a waste of time, too, because you'll shift the argument from "is this or that action harmful" to "your religion is no different from stamp collecting." Is that the argument that you want to have, in preference to the actual argument? Have at it, I say.
You might walk away from that argument with a sense of smug satisfaction, but you won't have done anything to win any hearts or minds.
Your "ism" standard is also arbitrary and pretty close to nonsensical. I suppose that tourism is religion? How about a schism? Or a prism?
You seem to think that religion will get a special pass if we link it to supernatural belief, and in practice that may be the case, but the solution you've proposed doesn't really solve anything.
Where do you come up with the idea that atheists are cultural anarchists, by the way? I've known plenty of atheists, and I've never known even one cultural anarchist.
Religion "gets away with most of its shit" not because it's placed on a pedestal but because it's a dominant and entrenched power in human society.
Incidentally, you can't claim on one hand that religion is on the wane while claiming on the other that it encompasses every human activity from extreme fundamentalist Christianity to waving one's hands at a baseball game. In doing so, you're proposing an insoluble logical contradiction.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Last edited Fri May 4, 2012, 12:39 PM - Edit history (1)
Every culture, certainly every successful culture I'm aware of, had some sort of collective method of emotional synchronicity. Every culture I am aware of used some sort of supernatural agency as the focus of that emotional synchronicity. Like I said, for most of history it was the only game in town. Atheists, as people who at least doubt the existence of that supernatural agency, don't want to play. An anarchist is a person who "promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom." The presence of too many non believers can have a corrosive effect on cultural cohesion, which is dangerous for survival. Especially the survival of a power structure that depends on belief in a deity for the source of its authority.
There are never many dyed in the wool atheists in any culture it seems. I think it's because religion is crucial to the survival of the species. In a nutshell, it makes cooperation feel good. And that collective shot of dopamine is what gets us ice in our scotch and air conditioning. So is tourism a religion? It certainly has fulfilled an important need in human survival. It made the concept of nationalism possible, since we can organize society around groups of people in a given location rather than around a shared interpretation of a particular supernatural entity.
But hey, maybe I'm wrong. It won't be the first time that happened. Prove it. Are the electrochemical responses related to a religion, a political rally, and a sports event different? If they are, we may have found proof of god. I seriously doubt that's the case, but I'm willing to keep an open mind on the issue. Are you aware of any research that establishes causality between brain function and a deity? I'd love to see it.
In the meantime, I am unwilling to accept that claims of a deity should give anybody special access to the levers of power or any reason to determine right human behavior. As far as I'm concerned everybody's the same. We are doing the same thing we have always done - eat, sleep, shit, fuck, and make more people, and no set of rituals or beliefs is any better or worse than any other as long as they help us pull together to keep the lights on.
Orrex
(67,404 posts)Well, that's super-duper, but it can hardly be denied that religion has granted that access to those in a position to benefit from it. You can I can agree that it shouldn't be that way, but to what end? They still have that access, and they still have that power. You're not going to get anywhere by insisting that their religion is no different from tourism, for instance.
Also, you must surely realize that your calls for electrochemical analysis are nothing but an obvious attempt to set an impossible standard. That level of specificity simply isn't available, and even if it were, then the results wouldn't convince anyone who isn't already convinced. I'm willing to bet that such analysis of the brains of two equally passionate football fans wouldn't even realize the same result for each; would you identify the difference between a Ravens fand and a Bills fan as "proof of god" in that case?
Be careful not to claim to be keeping an open mind while simultaneously demanding the impossible; at best it makes you look disingenuous.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Its rude to tell people how they feel, and I don't want to offend you. But this sub thread is a fine example of how our emotional investments can boomerang on us.
If I have to admit that religion (a belief in a deity) isn't special, I must also admit that atheism isn't special. And that can be difficult if I have made an emotional investment in the way of thinking called atheism. Especially if I have bought and read and accepted as truth the collected works of the leading intellectual lights of atheist thought.
God is just an idea. We become attached to our ideas, even to the idea that there is no God. The relationship is curiously symbiotic it seems.
Orrex
(67,404 posts)My position is this: I do not believe that God nor any supernatural phenomena are real. I do not believe that atheism is "special" except in that it is more reliabily consistent with observed reality, as I stated up-thread. Additionally, it is "special" in that people who identify (or are identified) as atheist are subject to discrimination and ridicule, and for that reason they deserve a measure of "special" accommodation.
I do not accept that my take on atheism is a religion because it fails any test by which it might reasonably be called a religion. It is not a belief system, and I am not passionate about it in the way that you seem to identify football fans as religious in their fandom.
On the contrary, I am not encumbered by a belief system that requires me to accept on faith a great many beliefs that are contradicted by logic and observable reality.
Not sure how that means that I "got nothin," but if that's your take on it I suppose that's up to you.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)in this country than it used to be. Easier than say, Saudi Arabia, but still not as easy as being a Baptist. Most of the time, atheism implies a choice. Living with that choice and its consequences requires an emotional investment. It's just harder to row upstream. I don't think it's possible, and there is a growing body of research that agrees, to make a decision without an emotional investment. The emotional investment one makes in atheism is no different from any other emotional investment we make. We're using the same brain to rationalize our feelings about our religion that we use to rationalize about our feelings about anything else.
You know, I've annoyed more atheists on this board than theists? And I'm as big an atheist as anybody. I've done it by pointing out how human they are. Nobody does anything for purely rational reasons. We just aren't purely rational critters. To claim otherwise is to deny one's humanity.
There is one thing I'm certainly passionate about: I want religion out of my government. My position on that score is unequivocal. Religion claims to know something we don't, and they're wrong. It claims an insight into right human behavior, and they use that claim to try to control government.
I agree atheism isn't special. It's just a way of thinking about stuff. Truth to tell it isn't any better or worse than religion. In fact, I see no evidence it's all that different from religion or any other communal activity. The people in the image above are all doing the same thing for very different reasons.
So what if, and I'm speculating here, we decided atheism was a religion? Most religions are offshoots of previous faiths. Why can't the denial of a deity be one of those offshoots? Like I said, it couldn't last long, but maybe it doesn't have to. Atheism could morph into any number of "isms"; rationalism, empiricism, utilitarianism, or maybe even liberal nationalism. All we have to do is say, "C'mon in! The water's fine!".
Remember the movie Used Cars? Roy Fuchs was having family night at his used car lot. Lots of good clean fun for the whole family, and boring as all hell. Then, from the darkened lot across the street Rudy Russo hits the lights and a 1980's disco beat explodes around strippers dancing on the hoods of cars. The entire crowd in the Fuchs lot defects and runs over to join the party. Why can't atheism be the vanguard if a similar defection away from religion in government? I can't think of any group better suited to create that idea.
You'd be surprised how far people will follow you if you give them somewhere to go.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Because religion is a major influence on our society, and as members of that society we want to voice our opinions? Because religious groups are a major influence in our government, something that rightfully concerns us? Or does none of that matter in your opinion?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)...any other Communist leader killed for the sake of atheism.
They killed for a lack of subservience to their form of Communism, yes.
They killed because they disagreed with the state policy, yes.
All of that is reprehensible, yes.
But no one was killed for Atheism.
Not even Enver Xoha, who was the worst offender in terms of State Atheism.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)you say never happened in the name of Atheism. They widely circulated the newspaper entitled 'the Atheist' nationwide. They actively sought out believers - some for open ridicule, some summarily executed on the spot, many others sent to die in the gulags. ''Scientific Atheism" was inculcated in schools, factories, public buildings, and homes. Museums specifically dedicated to Scientific Atheism were erected. Most churches were closed or destroyed. There was a 'Five Year Plan' specifically for the inculcation of Atheism. There were 96,000 local chapters of The League of Militant Atheists. And this model was exported to China, South Asia, and Eastern Europe, etc.. And the League was certainly not the only group with the same goals.
These were done in the name of atheism - not communism. Joseph McCabe said, "“No wonder they hated and libeled Russia! For the news is spreading, and is triumphing even over reactionary opposition that Russia is doing the finest and soundest reconstructive work of our time, and it is doing this, not only without God, but on a basis of militant Atheism.” (1936)
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Stalin, of course, used any excuse to target dissidents, but the whole "hunting down believers" was a myth, perpetrated by the John Birchers and Father Coughlins.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)several historians must all be lying.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)And keep in mind you are identifying one leader under one Communist Oligarchy
And I will AGREE WITH YOU 100% that Stalin went after Christians,
Just like he went after left-handed people, Freemasons, Anarchists, Socialists, Trotskyists, and anyone who wasn't Stalinist.
That's the thing about Generalissimos.
110% isn't good enough for them.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)covers about 70 years and includes Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, and Mao, Hoxha, Ceaucescu, Pol Pot, etc can be added.
How many historians are you looking for? There quite a few. Here are a few:
Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
A History of Soviet Atheism… by Dimitry V. Pospielovsky
Godless Communists: Atheism and Society in the Soviet Union by Husband
Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless by Peris
The Black Book of Communism by Courtois, et al.
Death by Government by R J Rummel
A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia by Alexander N. Yakovlev
"The Orthodox church suffered terribly in the 1930s, and many of its members were killed or sent to labor camps. In the period between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500. 1929 was a watershed year in which Soviet policy brought much new legislation in place that would form the basis for the harsh anti-religious persecution in the following decade. Anti-religious education was introduced from the first-grade up in 1928 and anti-religious work was intensified throughout the education system.
A massive purge was conducted at the same time of Christian intellectuals, who mostly died in the camps or in prison, in order to take away the church’s intellectuals and assist official propaganda that only backward people believed in God."
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Feel free to include Stalin's numbers
I'll include Hitler (he was Catholic, and a professed Christian) in mine
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)He's been challenged many times to document how many of the "130 million" were killed in the name of atheism, specifically because they were not atheists. He has no answer and no facts. Just the same mantra of 130 million people who died in countries ruled by dictators with brown hair.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)of overwhelming evidence you cling to denial. There are no exact numbers, as has been stated many times, due to the incredible scope of these events over 70+ years and vast distances and numbers of remote villages and towns. Many are able to be documented accurately. We do know that there were 96000 local groups of Militant Atheists, with about 3.5 million members, and that each group was responsible for rooting out churches and believers. And we know that 80 to 90 percent of that congregations that were destroyed had members who were executed or died in prison. So the numbers are significant. We know that from opened archives, eyewitness accounts, and some film clips and photos. So for you to deny the facts is ridiculous, mendacious, and a total grandstand on your part.
Just one incident:
During the purges of 1937 and 1938, church documents record that 168,300 Russian Orthodox clergy were arrested. Of these, over 100,000 were shot.
Alexander N. Yakovlev (2002). A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia. Yale University Press.
pp. 165
And that is just clergy in one 2 year period. Do you think it stopped there and that only clergy were killed? There were many more purges, and many, many more shot, and many many more that died in the gulags.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that you continually trot out the 130 million figure, when that has nothing to do with how many people were killed in the name of atheism. Were some people under Stalin killed because of religious affiliation? Of course. I've never denied that...you just feel the need to lie and say I have, just as you lie about everything else. People were killed or allowed to die for all sorts of reasons under Stalin and other brown-haired dictators. Your attempts to attribute any significant numbers of those deaths to atheism is just lame hand-waving because you have NO FACTS. Just speculation. We don't "know" that the numbers are significant, because you have no numbers...not ONE citation that attributes millions of even hundreds of thousands of deaths directly to atheistic principles. Not ONE citation that would make atheism an important factor. You try to project because you have to, but it's all you have.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)when the argument is made, as often it is here, that more murders have been committed in the name of religion than for any other reason, or some such argument, that number completely debunks the claim. And secondly, we DO know that large numbers, a significant part of that 130 million, were killed under the atheist banner, so to speak. The establishment of state atheism has been shown to be a primary goal of the Soviet government, at all levels. Government documents have been sourced, eyewitness accounts have been referenced, actual film footage has been made available - all of the evidence is available and not shrouded by the centuries. To deny this is no different than denying the Holocaust.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)This isn't the first time I've seen you pull this kind of shit. Are you actually an anti-semite, or are you just so full of bile that you don't care which groups you offend when you spew it?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)that astronauts actually landed on the moon is no different than denying the Holocaust. That certainly doesn't make moon landing deniers anti-Semites. Get real.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)I didn't say you were calling others anti-Semites. I'd say you should learn to read more carefully, but there's simply no way you could have missed what was meant by my post.
Thanks again for proving that your only reason for being here is to offend as many people as possible in your quest for attention.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Response to humblebum (Reply #121)
humblebum This message was self-deleted by its author.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)This is No True Scotsman biting you on the ass.
Such bullshit rationalization.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Sorry to disappoint your myopic "US vs THEM" mentality....
There is no persecution of Christians
It is all in your mind
kwassa
(23,340 posts)so is this like a Fantasy Soviet History game? One that edits out the atheist part?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
The Orthodox church suffered terribly in the 1930s, and many of its members were killed or sent to labor camps. In the period between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to fewer than 500. 1929 was a watershed year in which Soviet policy brought much new legislation in place that would form the basis for the harsh anti-religious persecution in the following decade.
Anti-religious education was introduced from the first-grade up in 1928 and anti-religious work was intensified throughout the education system. A massive purge was conducted at the same time of Christian intellectuals, who mostly died in the camps or in prison,[61] in order to take away the church’s intellectuals and assist official propaganda that only backward people believed in God.[62]
Taverner
(55,476 posts)And Mao is the only other dictator who gunned for Christians.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Khrushchev picked up the anti-religion campaign after Stalin's death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
A new period of persecution began in the late 1950s under Nikita Khrushchev.[97] The church had advanced its position considerably since 1941, and the government considered it to be necessary to take measures in response.
The two state organizations for overseeing religion in the country (one for the Orthodox, the other for everyone else), changed their functions between 1957-1964. Originally Stalin had created them in 1943 as liaison bodies between religious communities and the state, however, in the Khrushchev years their function was re-interpreted as dictatorial supervisors over the religious activities in the country.[98]
New instructions were issued in 1958 attacked the position of monasteries, by placing them under high taxation, cutting their land and working to shut them down in order to weaken the church.
From 1959-1964, the persecution operated on several key levels:
There was a massive closure of churches [52] (reducing the number from 22,000 to 7,000 by 1965.[99] )
Closures of monasteries and convents as well reinforcement of the 1929 legislation to ban piligrimages
Closure of most of the still existing seminaries and bans on pastoral courses
Banning all services outside of church walls and recording the personal identities of all adults requesting church baptisms, weddings or funerals.[100] Non-fulfillment of these regulations by clergy would lead to disallowance of state registration for them (which meant they could no longer do any pastoral work or liturgy at all, without special state permission).
The deprivation of parental rights for teaching religion to their children, a ban on the presence of children at church services (beginning in 1961 with the Baptists and then extended to the Orthodox in 1963) and the administration of the Eucharist to children over the age of four.
The forced retirement, arrests and prison sentences to clergymen who criticized atheism [101] or the anti-religious campaign, who conducted Christian charity or who in made religion popular by personal example.[101]
It also disallowed the ringing of church bells and services in daytime in some rural settings from May to the end of October under the pretext of field work requirements.[101]
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Yes, it is wrong, but it is not killing.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)They were forced labor prison camps under terrible conditions. That is why so many died in the camps.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)much concrete evidence to deny these things.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The Gulag camps were not, by and large, death camps like those in Nazi Germany, though there were exceptions. People did die in large numbers through intentional cruelty, neglect and incompetence, but in most cases they were not sent to the camps with that intent. These were labor camps, from which economic productivity was hoped for. There are a number of instances of camp commanders being punished for the needless or excessive deaths of prisoners.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)You know thats coming, right?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)According to a 1993 study of archival Soviet data, a total of 1,053,829 people died in the Gulag from 1934 to 1953.[6] However, taking into account that release of prisoners suffering from incurable diseases, or the prisoners on the point of death was a common practice[12][13] the actual GULAG death toll was somewhat higher, amounting to 1,258,537 in 1934-53, or 1.6 million casualties during the whole period from 1929 to 1953.[14]
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that "death was clearly the intention", as claimed falsely above? Lots of people died in the Gulag. Lots of people died outside of the Gulag. Were you aware that at some times and places The death rates IN the camps were lower than the death rates for the general population?
Of course you don't, because you really know nothing about this, except what you can parrot, do you?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)And where do you come up with this bullshit about the death rate in the Gulag is less than the death rate outside the Gulag?
It sounds like some tripe that comes off the um, unbiased atheist websites.
Concentration camps were about a form of slave labor, with little consideration for the longevity of the participants. I have worked professionally with survivors of the North Vietnamese so-called re-education camps, where the starvation rate was about 20% of the population. Most all of them looked 20 years older than they were, those who survived.
The gulags were far worse. Neither were extermination camps as a purpose, nor was much of the Nazi slave labor system, which fueled it's defense industry. People were still worked to death.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Which is what I was responding to as bullshit, and which I repeated, but which you apparently still couldn't comprehend: And many historians realize that death was clearly the intention.
And I never said that "the death rate in the Gulag is less than the death rate outside the Gulag", as you well know....that's simply a lie of yours. What i said was "at some times and places the death rates IN the camps were lower than the death rates for the general population"
Read about the death rates among ordinary citizens during the Ukraine "famine", or during WWII. You can read about them in a scholarly history of the Gulag or the Soviet Union. Do that, if you're capable, and spare me your shit-flinging about "tripe" on atheist websites.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Hard to extract "economic productivity" from starving, frozen, workers. Where do you think the model for the North Korean labor camps came from? You sound like the antithesis role of the Soviet government to Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)In January of 1918, "the Soviet regime (under Lenin) arrested and killed dozens of bishops, thousands of the lower clergy and monastics, and multitudes of laity.
The seizing of church property over the next few years would be marked by a brutal campaign of violent terror."
Dimitry V. Pospielovsky. The Russian Church Under the Soviet Regime, 1917-1983.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)"More people have been killed in human history over religion than any other cause."
Which is a total crock. More people have been killed over lots of causes. Communism is a cause, territorial disputes are causes, Fascism is a cause, democracy, capitalism, greed, racism are all causes.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Merchants wanted to open the trade routes to the East and conned Urban II into finding a religious excuses. So he said, "Deus wult" The whole thing was a shameful period in history, and religion must bear part of the blame for being conned like that..
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)Holy be....
dimbear
(6,271 posts)vengeance and death against those implacable enemies of the Church, the French.
Pope Innocent III authorized it all, for the glory of God of course but mainly for the possessions of the Albigensians.
No question of the Church in any way being duped there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
Historical footnote: it's from that campaign we get the immortal line "Kill them all and let God sort them out." Troof.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)The crusades were more-or-less like every other war. The church was the closest thing to a central government at that time, did the collecting of taxes, etc. Those people went to war to conquer territory, gain power and resources, etc. Religion was very simply only an excuse. It was a political and economic power struggle, plain and simple. If it weren't plain enough, look to who the Byzantines sided with in various conflicts and how they were treated by the two larger players in those conflicts - if it were down to religion, many of these conflicts would never have happened.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)"...and the Catholic Church."
This.
Right off of Wikipedia
OK
The rest of the sentence:
"...with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem."
Nope. No religion there. None at all.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)Think of all of the stated goals for recent wars and compare them to the actual motivations of those taking part in them.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Not like today, where they can change it by the minute
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)There are the hidden motivations of those in power, their stated goals, and then the real reasons for the people fighting on the front lines. Lying and being money/power-hungry are not new-fangled things.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)...isn't different than a world where news travels by the speed of light?
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)These aren't australopithecines we're dealing with here, but human beings with the exact same thought-processes, desires, and motivations as people today.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)And different media speeds change our reaction
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)World War 1, World War 2, American Civil War, People's Revolution in China, not much religious content. And then there was Stalin. Oops!
Damn, of course I forgot the Crusades. How remiss of me. Wonder what the population of the world was then.
I must admit that I have often used the argument that more wars have been about religion or religious differences, and I still think that is probably true. But, more killed? Don't think so. Megalomania, hegemony, racism, greed and territorial disputes trump religion in death counts.
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)
longship
(40,416 posts)First, I am with you 100% on the history. I like your citation of Hypatia, a particularly grievous case of religious over step, putting it mildly.
But I think all of us atheists should also recognize that there are many liberal religious who may be our natural allies. The demographics unequivocally state that we are not likely to be able to do this alone. We need the liberal religious on our side. So let us not burn that bridge.
Secondarily, some atheists claim that the liberal religious give comfort to the extremists by not explicitly calling them out. I cannot find a way to disassociate myself from this argument. However, I think that we atheists (or whatever you call yourself) should take a tact with our allies not to piss them off, no matter how pissed we are about atheists' position in society. Make no mistake, the liberal religious are our allies in the political battle.
Finally, I think it is crucial for all atheists to acknowledge that the world will likely never be rid of religion; it is too engrained in our culture, and even possibly our genetics, for it to be even worthy of an argument that any small group could wipe it out. Instead, as Dennett has professed, it might be desirable for religion to morph into one of aviralence (sp?), a less toxic form.
I have no idea whether these are true. But if they are, why not join with people who are, as I call them, the atheists' natural allies. And if we achieve aviralence together, what could be better for the world?
Taverner
(55,476 posts)That is, make religious homophobia look like Positive Christianity does today
longship
(40,416 posts)Recognizing that religion will never go away, whether memetic or genetic, he wants to find a way to make less toxic.
But there is no fucking way you are going to do that by attempting to stamp out religion. Instead, like a epidemiologist, you look at ways to morph it into an aviralent form, one which is less toxic.
First, one must recognize that religious expression is not going to go away. People speaking in tongues may very well be experiencing precisely the same mental experience that I do when listening to Bach. It is a transforming experience, possibly the best moment of your life. These numenous experiences are common in human history and will never go away. It is a great part of what makes us human.
You ignore it at all of our peril.
But make no mistake, I consider organized religion is a huge danger in the world.
Sorry, I babble on.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Either way, I'm sold.
I want religion to either be the equivalent of separating my metals from plastics in my trash, or go away.
longship
(40,416 posts)We militant atheists have to stick together. But there is a big world of believers, many of which see things the way we do, in some respects. That's where we can make a difference.
I am an awfully pissed off atheist, but if we want to win we have to form alliances. Who else but liberal theists who have a common cause with us? If we win, everybody wins. And we gain friends. Who cares if they believe in god?
Right now we all, believers or not, have a much larger battle to fight. We can either throw chairs at each other here on DU, or we can get together to get the job done.
I have great respect for everybody here.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)One that establishes our grudges, our preferences for terms and our opinions.
It isn't the solution, but it is one step on the way to one.
longship
(40,416 posts)We are not Freeperville here. We can disagree, throw chairs around, get alerted (not me yet, damn!). That is our strength here.
The Republicans' weakness is that they have been taken over by an authoritarian religious cabal -- I offer John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience for the appropriate research.
Either we find a way to stick together, or we risk losing to a very dangerous political movement.
We have to convince other theists, those who share our values, that the enemy is not religion, but the intolerant, authoritarianism being foisted upon our country in the name of religion.
That is what makes the liberal religionists our natural allies. If they pull back and see things the way we see things, they will come along. But telling them that their beliefs are ignorant ain't gonna do that.
Let's win this, theists and atheists together. The enemy forces would divide us. That is their big mistake.
But I am still waiting for prominent theists to stand up.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)So you want a movement that is akin to ethnic cleansing?
Just how can "we eliminate it." ?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)I try, not always so successfully. As a very angry atheist myself, I have sympathy for the OP. But as a realist, I see that atheists -- even the label pisses off some non-believers, a silly rhetorical argument IMHO -- we are like similar human rights movements in history.
We have to peel back the skin of the issue, that religion has been a profoundly negative influence in the history of humankind, and recognize that maybe that these battles are inherent in our make up. We know the enemy, those who profess to know absolute truth, especially those who profess to know God herself.
If you ask most so-called religious people what they really believe about God, they will likely respond that it is a great mystery. At that point there is an opportunity to enter into a dialog. When a non-believer dismisses the believer, they miss a great opportunity. Not to convert the believer but to recognize that there is a lot more on which to agree than to disagree.
That may be a solution which will work for everybody.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Yeah, my sis is an ordained Unitarian minister. She's never led a single crusade, never burned a single heretic, but she does work very hard for liberal causes.
I'm an atheist, but respect other's religion if they treat it like a penis.
<a href="http://imgur.com/sX1ra"><img src="
" alt="" title="Hosted by imgur.com" /></a>
longship
(40,416 posts)Accept my sincere apology. I accept your argument that religion may equate to penis envy.
Thanks.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Look, theists, I don't want to eradicate your religion by means of force.
But I don't want you using it to justify your heinous acts.
Steal some cash from your church, fine.
Turn your congregation against gays, women and anyone else you don't like, FUCK YOU!
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)a group of Christians as "a bunch of dumbasses", they're a bigot, right?
cachukis
(4,087 posts)I think this OP is unnecessarily divisive.
It aims its ire at Christians in general and not RW Christians where the blame belongs for most of these accusations.
longship
(40,416 posts)What divides people on this planet these days is religion. As I wrote, I agree with OP 100%.
I am merely suggesting a strategy for reconciliation between those theists and those non-believers who may be of a like political mind. Set aside religion, per se. It is important, but insufficient to get the job done.
But also recognize the fact that religion is a huge, gigantic issue as long as we have today's Christian-only Republican party.
It is an issue, but we need allies. Here is the core of the issue. The Republican party wants to own the religious agenda. If Dems cannot show this is wrong, the Republicans will own the issue!
That is why we all need to stand together.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)For example this paragraph:
You have always been duplicitous and a hypocrite. "Hate the sin, not the sinner" means the exact opposite, "I'll pray for you" is code for "Fuck you," The Beatitudes lay out a clear mandate to care for the poor, yet you guys use weasel words to get out of that ("Jesus was talking about spiritually feeding, not real food...get a job hippie!"
How do you think liberal christians feel reading this diatribe?
I can't speak for them (I'm agnostic) but I think liberal christians have a lot lot more to offer than is portrayed in this OP.
longship
(40,416 posts)But why, then, should atheists pour gasoline on the fire? The Republicans hate 'em. Many atheists say they are being harmful; I have done so myself in these very forums. But these silly arguments are irrelevant.
Instead, we really see things the same way, whether we believe in a god, or a hundred gods, or no god. We see the Republican party as one who is attempting to co-opt a particularly warped version of god -- let us not get into that here -- to promote a particular political philosophy.
If you do not understand this, then you will likely not be of much help in solving the core issues. It isn't religion, per se. It is the combination of religion and power and politics. This is the crux of everything that the OP was relating.
Religion now would not have their political power, if they hadn't had the power in the past. That is the circle we have to break. And there are a fucking lot of theists who will gladly join atheists in this battle.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Not any group, but let's call this group the "ABCDEFG'ers"
They have a history rife with violence. They have a history rife with killing, and against questioning.
Suddenly, forces beyond them get away from this, and move the dialogue away from "ABCDEFGism"
Let's just say you were born into ABCDEFGism, and in a family where, for 500 years, you are to be a preacher. Slowly this skews away, but it is very recent. And you realize, in a lifelong quest for the truth, you realize that ABCDEFGism is a guess, a story somebody made up long time ago.
How do you feel about ABCDEFGism?
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)and list the number of time they are told to FUCK OFF. I stay around because I'm not afraid of the insults. But most of those I know just don't have time to waste in places like this when a "religion" group is little more than a chance for non-theists to vituperate.
If you want to work on positive things to preserve liberal values, I and my friends will be on board.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...but ok...
LTX
(1,020 posts)Or is this just a little sleight of hand playing off the relative rarity of the actual words "fuck off"?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)And no slight of hand involved as I was in fact speaking of those specific words.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)I have disagreed with you, that I know
And both of us have been pretty fair in terms of discussion
Fatigue being the result of our arguments, not victory or defeat...
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)
eridani
(51,907 posts)--loyalties. These loyalties caused religions, not the other way around. And note that many religious strains evolved away from these origins, coming to the point of realizing that there really should be a single standard of ethical behavior, not one for the in-group and another for the out-groups.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)The best example is the partition of British India in 1947. Virtually every Hindu majority principality acceded to India, virtually every Muslim majority principality acceded to Pakistan, and the cases where that didn't happen have been the locations of the several wars that followed.
We all have acquaintances from India and Pakistan. What stands out between them? Race, accent, ethnicity, tribe?
Not so much.
(Not that there aren't Muslims in India. There are. )
eridani
(51,907 posts)--it is by and large ethnic and tribal divisions that come first, not religion. Look at all the fighting among the 12 tribes of Israel in the OT--who shared the same religion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
longship
(40,416 posts)
on edit: However, I reserve the right to bring out the angry atheist at a moment's notice.
And you know I will.
Sköl, my friend.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)It already is as we continually point out. But that fact seems threatening to those who want to believe that all religion is evil.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Interesting. And while such a proposition (that religion is becoming "less toxic) may be threatening to the proposition that "all religion is evil," I can't imagine an atheist would personally feel threatened by it as you imply.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)A whole lot of religion, historically and now, has been toxic to the max. And that is part of the religious story which always has had and is now very different.. Just read the posts--including this string--and you will observe atheists who feel threatened to the point they don't want to admit the positive contribution religion has made and is making to the solution of every contemporary problem.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...of what you feel is an example of an atheist feeling "threatened to the point they don't want to admit the positive contribution religion has made and is making to the solution of every contemporary problem?"
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Ah, the same old whine.
longship
(40,416 posts)Nobody would deny religion's history. But rather than blame religion, I would cite:
Seneca the Younger (4 BCE - 65 CE)
The Republican party is finding religion to be very useful. That's one reason Daniel C. Dennett wrote his book, Breaking the Spell which I highly recommend.
This is the common ground on which to base an alliance.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)That explains much.
longship
(40,416 posts)Don't confuse me with Seneca the younger.
Put the quote in context of the first century CE. The important part of it is that the magistrates exploit religion for power.
Gees.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)I'd like to think that liberal religious people would be allies. But polling really doesn't bear that out. Majorities of liberal religious people would vote against an "out" atheist presidential candidate, simply because he was an atheist.
I suppose I can take some comfort that the number has gone down from ~75% "no" in the 60s to ~50% "no" today. But it's difficult to do so when "Muslim", the right's religious boogeymen-du-jour do way better in the same polls. If one assumes the conservative religious people mostly buy in to "Muslim as boogeymen", the difference between Muslims and Atheists in those polls would come entirely from liberal religious people.
While religions turning more liberal may result in better acceptance of atheists, it is extremely premature to call them "allies". Allies try to help you. In my experience, liberal religious people tolerate atheists, accept their right to exist, but don't do much to help. They usually tell us to just ignore the school prayers or other forced religion around us. "It's not that bad" seems to be their motto.
Also, I have to take a strong objection to your 2nd-to-last paragraph. Atheists aren't looking to wipe out religion. While there's some extremists advocating that, we can't ascribe that to all atheists any more than we can claim all religious people follow James Dobson.
We're looking for "God" to not be forced upon us by our government. We're looking to be considered less "evil" than every religion. Believe what you want, but don't force me to, and help when others try to force me to.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)vote for an atheist, I have seen nothing that would substantiate that "liberal" religious people would not. One of the problems with the surveys I have seen is the lack of distinction among "religious people". I would be most interested in seeing where you got the data that leads to this conclusion.
I do, however, share your concern about the overall results concerning atheist politicians and wonder why the number has changed so little in the last 12 years. Some have posited theories about this, but I remain unclear as to why it is.
What do you suggest that liberal religious people do to help? I agree that little has been done but am unclear on what could/should be done. I think that "religious freedom" should apply to both believers and non-believers and that it is in the best interest of liberal/progressive religious people to advocate for the rights of nonbelievers, particularly when it comes to matters of church/state separation.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Especially since I'm busy today.
As for what they can do to help, well what happened in RI when an atheist objected to a giant Christian prayer painted on the wall?
Not a whole lot of liberal religious people spoke up. Most of what I saw was "it's not a big deal, just don't look at it". What would have been much more preferable: "Yeah, that's inappropriate". Perhaps even making a stink about the death threats to point out that death threats aren't very Christian - such statements ring hollow from us atheists.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)incident, it didn't get any press that I know of. That's a topic that has been discussed here previously. While there are things going on that would support separation issues, the press isn't really interested. Not divisive enough. In addition, it is in the RW's best interest to continue to drive a wedge between liberal/progressive atheists and theists.
The death threats, the florists who refused to deliver the flowers, the on-line and real life harassment that this girl was subjected to fits the media's and the RW's need to continue the division.
longship
(40,416 posts)But the problem, which you yourself point out, is that theists and atheists generally talk past each other. But that doesn't have to be. Who made the rules that that's the way it has to be?
If there is no meeting of the minds then it is all of our faults. I have great respect for the many theists in my life. I think that they return that respect.
I chose my words fairly carefully in my post. It was an attempt at a dialog between theists and atheists. Now you are apparently saying that I claimed that atheists wanted to rid the world of religion, which, if you read my post again, is precisely what I did not say. Rather, I was countering the somewhat inevitable argument from conservatives that it is what atheists desire. I would have thought that you would have discerned my intent. Apparently not. I apologize for not explicitly spelling it out.
I disagree with you that liberal theists will not ally with atheists. They already are. But sticking ones fingers in ones ears and claiming it can't happen does not help. Instead, although I take a rather strong atheist stand I always try to reach out to others on these forums whether they believe or not. Mostly, I would say that there are many here who have helped me understand my own philosophy, some of whom are theists.
Thx for the response.
longship
(40,416 posts)Please do not misinterpret what I wrote. I did not mean to say that liberal religious were the atheists' allies. I believe I said they were atheists' natural allies. Of course, this interpretation has to be filtered through the current social-political environment.
The difference is between: an atheist not believing in gods, believing some religions are bad, and believing all religions are bad. I fervently believe that all religion is bad. That is my admitted bias.
However, there is considerable evidence that something like religious belief is an inherent characteristic of humans. The evidence is very robust and spans multiple disciplines: neural science, psychology, and even (horrors ) evolutionary biology.
So, many of us atheists realize that there will always be something like religion in the world's culture. It may literally be written in our very genes.
If this is true, the only alternative is to accept religion at its face value. To defeat it is useless, and probably counter-productive to what any sane and rational person would ultimately want. That is, if religion must exist, which evidence strongly suggests, than it would be to the benefit of all, theists and atheists, if it could shed its more destructive effects.
That was the core of what I was trying to convey. I hope this helps you understand what I meant.
These are deep problems. I really like Daniel Dennett's formulation and argument in Breaking the Spell (a book which I will undoubtedly pitch here again). It lays these issues out in detail, without necessarily proposing specific solutions.
The take away from this whole mangled post is that atheists and liberal theists both have a common enemy who uses religion in a way that neither atheists nor liberal theists do. Therein lies the danger and therein is the basis for a strong alliance which may very well be a permanent one. If only that could be, it would benefit everybody.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)
dmallind
(10,437 posts)Just that they won't stop their beliefs from significantly affecting the lives of others. The worst thing we get from other zealots, be they Green Bay fans or folk singers, is tedious conversation. Nobody is trying to legislate the Lambeau Leap for all or make schoolkids sing "Scarborough Fair" every day in class. When we can say the same for religious trappings. none of that list is going to wory me much. Why should I give a tinker's cuss about idiots who think "theory" means "guess"?.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)I am more mad at the acceptance of killing than I am of that...
Although these days it is only the Islamic world killing for blasphemy
Not that it wouldn't be viewed as a positive step for many in the US (Santorum, Romney, Bush I and II, Reagan, Medved, Limpballs, Coulter, etcetera, etcetera....)
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Are you similarly upset about that?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)
Evoman
(8,040 posts)douchebags treat women like shit.
For the most part, I can't wrap my mind around why people believe the obvious crap that religion feeds them. I would be embarrassed to be religious.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)just as I am embarrassed by what the Randians keep saying. Are you?
Evoman
(8,040 posts)I fucking hate those douchebags too.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)It's like how poor Niccolo Machiavelli got a bad rap - he, if anyone, was not Machiavellian
He was dedicated to Florentine Republicanism, and was a big figure after they ousted the Medici.
After they took power again, they tortured him, and when released he wrote "The Prince."
He wasn't advocating this, he was just telling the world what power is all about.
And it was ugly.
Classic case of killing the messenger.
Anyway, social darwinism, misogyny and racism are cultural diseases. They must be eradicated.
And this is the parallel to Charles Darwin - HE never advocated "survival of the fittest" as a social structure, he was merely telling it as it was, with no checks, no balances, nothing to intervene.
God, if he ever existed or could exist - did nothing.
This is what is most damning about Evolution for Christians.
And Darwin tells us how it is, and once again, the "kill the messenger" process happens again.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)I know, the theists are wagging their fingers at those Angry Atheists...
But we have every damned right to be fucking angry.
In some places and times, we were tortured, imprisoned and killed for our lack of beliefs.
But even in more tolerant times, we were condemned, shunned and belittled because we won't believe in Bronze Age fairy tales.
We damned well have a right to demand we be treated better.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)It has no place. Just show me where it exists and I'll go after it, just as I have gone after those who condemn, shun and belittle Gays.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)When you've done something about that, report back to us. Until then, spare us your hypocrisy.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)"No one should be condemned, shunned and belittled. I'll fight with you when I hear about that. It has no place. Just show me where it exists and I'll go after it, just as I have gone after those who condemn, shun and belittle Gays."
I'm doing what that poster asked, and challenging him to do what HE promised. If he can't or won't live up to what he said, talk to him about it. I'm not the one who put that arrogant (and in my opinion disingenuous) boast out there.
Don't talk to me about crossing lines when you're the one doing it.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)other than a fair, rational mind.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)to serve violent means. Religious ideologies have helped many become better people, and yet many violent movements have claimed God was behind them. Sociopaths can twist any ideal around to be destructive.
Blaming religion for violence is like blaming guns or knives for violence. It is a cop-out. Violent and cruel people will use any and all means at their disposal to carry out their will.
Unless our free will has been taken from us, by means of elaborate brainwashing or propaganda, or reeducation techniques--> this is the result of having sociopaths in power. It has been done in the name of communism and socialism as well as cultish religious sects--and could be done in the name of athiest science as well. ANY 'ISM' can be twisted around to serve violent ends.
So it is freedom of thought, not the restriction of it, along with universal ideals that encourage compassion, kindness and forgiveness, --not just in words but in acts--that keep sociopathic personalities in perspective. America, and the world, need to embrace MORE TOLERANCE and equality first.
Our world is stressed out right now--humanity is very polarized. We are in a crisis phase, which is marked by divisiveness, blame and the most primitive instincts of survival. We don't feel as safe in the world right now. But we have to RESIST turning on each other needlessly----> We all need each other right now, and have to discern and recognize what BEHAVIORS need to change in society.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)But there is this group - you might have heard of them - they are called "Christians"
And the leadership of this group, that is the leaders of Christianity, have done some horrible things in our history
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 28, 2012, 02:21 PM - Edit history (1)
kwassa
(23,340 posts)All the Communists were atheists, and they murdered collectively at least 60 million, though perhaps many more, through a combination of direct persecution of both Christians, and anyone else they considered a threat. Also many more died through ill-advised warfare that sacrificed many and through crazy initiatives like the Great Leap Forward where massive man-made famines were created that caused mass starvation.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...but not leaders OF atheists, as if atheism has some sort of hierarchical structure. Christian leaders are both christians AND leaders of christians. There is something of a distinction to be had there. One that I think you and humblebum are missing.
And when it comes down to it, christians have a choice of weather they want to associate themselves with this leadership or not (and many choose not to by joining more agreeable denominations, or leaving the organized portion behind entirely). The same simply doesn't apply when talking about atheists, because those individuals you are speaking of were never OUR leaders to begin with. We in no way enabled their crimes. The same cannot be said for organized religion and its followers. Those who actively support a religion are enabling that religions leaders, and thus hold a certain amount of responsibility for that leaders actions.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)"happened to be atheists but not leaders OF atheists" - how wrong you are. The atheist movement in the Soviet Union, as well as China and Eastern Europe was very organized. There were several atheist groups besides The League of Militant Atheists, many with over lapping responsibilities toward inculcating Scientific Atheism at all levels of society. And no connection to groups outside the country you imply?
"The league maintained extensive international ties; it belonged to the International of Proletarian Freethinkers, and then to the World Union of Freethinkers. In 1947 the league turned over its tasks of disseminating scientific-atheist propaganda to Znanie (Knowledge), a newly created all-Union society."
REFERENCES
Konovalov, B. N. “Soiuz voinstvuiushchikh bezbozhnikov.” In the collection Voprosy nauchnogo ateizma, no. 4. Moscow, 1967.
“No wonder they hated and libeled Russia! For the news is spreading, and is triumphing even over reactionary opposition that Russia is doing the finest and soundest reconstructive work of our time, and it is doing this, not only without God, but on a basis of militant Atheism.”
Joseph McCabe (1936)
"Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind."
- Bertrand Russell
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)You still very clearly missed the main point of my posts. The vast majority of atheists have absolutely no relation to any of those organizations, thus your entire main point is completely invalid.
EDIT: If you were curious what main point I was making in my previous post, here it is.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)outside the country. C. Hitchens, himself, was a former Trotskyite. And Trotsky was the head of one the most influential propaganda and anti-religious organizations in Russia - "Agitprop"
'Godless Communists: Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917-1932 - William B. Husband
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)I know, it may be hard to believe, but it's true. So even though it may no "appear that way" to you, the reality is that your point has no validity.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)any religious leader represent all religious people. However, in any case, there was certainly a strong influence.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)And note that I handled the "religious leader" portion in my previous posts. Just scroll on up and see.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)the New Atheist movement, I would say that he could be considered to have had a strong influence, as well as being influential in other circles.
Response to humblebum (Reply #176)
eqfan592 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to humblebum (Reply #176)
eqfan592 This message was self-deleted by its author.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)I'm more interested in what, specifically, you thought his influence was. Do you think it had a negative impact? Etc.
EDIT: Also, you mentioned that he was a former Trotskyist, which is related to anti-stalinist socialism. How much have you read up on these two movements? Also, how familiar are you with the Luxemburgism movement that he joined up with?
EDIT 2: Sorry about all the dups that I had to delete. Had a strange problem when trying to post the message and it ended up on here 3 times.
Final Edit: I found a great video of him talking about Trotsky along with a Trotsky expert. It's in three parts. Here's part one:
humblebum
(5,881 posts)life history and of his anti-Stalinist activities. However, in the development of anti-religious policies and activities under Lenin, he was at the head of the hierarchy, i.e. the use of firing squads in the efforts to eradicate religion.
BTW, I stated my main point back in post #121.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Did you watch the video I posted? If so, do you believe that C. Hitchens joined a post-Trotskyist organization because he supported the idea of using firing squads in an effort to eradicate religion? Or is it possible there were other elements to Trotskyism that interested Hitchens?
Also, do you have a link that shows Trotsky supported the use of firing squads in an effort to eradicate religion?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)'Godless Communists: Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917-1932 - William B. Husband'
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)Your straw men are becoming all too obvious.
I believe this was your original argument: "...but not leaders OF atheists, as if atheism has some sort of hierarchical structure."
As for your before and after Trotskys, there was only one. Hitchens was also an admirer of Lenin, to whom Trotsky was #2, and also head of the Red Army. That alone gives some indication of his interest in the use of firing squads to silence the opposition.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...what Hitchens has to say on the issue, but are still perfectly willing to try and vilify him for it, then there isn't much more to be discussed. Oh, and I like the flailing around about straw man arguments. The was a nice touch.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)who is using the straw man so often. So did those involved in the Atheist movement in the Soviet Union have an effect on movements outside of the country? The answer is undeniably yes as has been shown.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)I don't think I ever denied that they "had an effect." What that effect was is the question.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)The communist leaders didn't just "happen" to be atheists; it was a central part of their philosophy. You want to disown them, so you make a distinction without a difference.
The Communists were atheists that murdered at least 60 million people.
How did you invent this "atheist leader" criteria? Interesting, but pointless. Death is death. You can't disown the atheists you don't like.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)It may be beneficial for you to learn and understand what the "No True Scotsman" fallacy actually is.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)for the six years I have participated in this group. I don't expect that to end anytime soon.
No True Scotsman has never applied to the Christian/not-Christian definition, because being a Christian is a matter of volition, while being a Scotsman is a matter of birth location. A choice versus no-choice.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Had eqfan592 said that the communist leaders weren't atheists because of some ad hoc reason, that would have been a perfect example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
The distinction that eqfan592 is making doesn't define historical dictators out of the general category of "atheists," it defines them out of the he narrower, clearly defined category of "leaders of atheists."
Additionally and more to the point, the point being made about how calling those dictators "atheist leaders" as a synonym for "leaders of atheists" was parallel to why it would be inappropriate to call Obama a "Christian leader" since he isn't a leader of Christians in any sense that has to do with his religion or the religion of those he leads. He doesn't represent Christianity, he doesn't speak for the religion, etc. Likewise, Stalin (as an example) isn't an "atheist leader" since he wasn't a leader of atheists in any sense that had to do with the nonbelief of those he led. He didn't represent atheism, he didn't speak for everyone who didn't believe in a god, etc.
So you see, because eqfan592's argument was about whether "atheist leader" is even a meaningful label, it wasn't invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy. Something like "Stalin wasn't an atheist leader because no atheist leader would be a mass murderer" would be a NTS, but "Stalin wasn't an atheist leader because atheism has no leadership structure--there's no such thing as an atheist leader" isn't.
It isn't that fine a distinction.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)I literally could not put it better myself.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)in fact, Stalin was a leader of atheists in that he STRONGLY encouraged the proliferation of Scientific Atheism by other atheists. He was clearly a leader of atheists, as well as economists, industrialists, scientists, and teachers, etc.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)No matter how "strongly" he encouraged the proliferation of Scientific Atheism" he was still not a leader of atheists as his primary role. I'm curious as to what you think their primary motivation was for suppressing religion. Do you believe it was motivated simply by their atheism? Or did it have more to do with their viewing religion as a threat to the State that had to be removed?
Ya know, I get the feeling that you have read a single book on the subject of the Russian Revolution and its players, one that had a very narrow focus, and because of that you have significantly inflated the importance of that focus in your estimation of both the revolution and its players.
My guess is that book is Godless "Communists: Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917-1932".
humblebum
(5,881 posts)"leader of atheists." You just keep drifting all over the place don't you?
The PRIMARY reason for the suppression of religion was the establishment of state atheism, called officially "Scientific Atheism." And my guess is that you have done very little reading on the subject as has already been revealed by your constant backtracking.
As for your assessment of my investigation on the subject, I have quite an extensive list of books and journal articles that I have read on the subject.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)By saying nothing different than what I had said before, I'm drifting. The only way you could say that is if you are assuming more from my statement than was actually said.
As for your answer, I begin to understand your attitudes if that is what you really believe. And it also serves to confirm my assessment of your investigation on the subject. Your investigation lacks depth. It's the equivalent of saying that the primary reason for our reduction of privacy rights in this nation was the PATRIOT act.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)After all, he is a leader of atheists, economists, industrialists, scientists, teachers, etc.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)atheism at all levels of society as Stalin did.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Can't blame a girl for trying, can you?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)laconicsax
(14,860 posts)You then moved the goalposts.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Now if you want to go after the members of organizations who aided those communists that committed these atrocities, be my guest. I'll even join ya. But I didn't "invent" any criteria. I'm not trying to "disown" anybody, because that would imply that these people were somehow representative of my world view as an atheist and that I must distance myself from them if I wish to not be splashed by the waves of their misdeeds. Outside of a disbelief in god we really don't have a heck of a lot in common.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)The greatest of all time. They were also Communists. Atheism is a subset of Communism.
Whether you enable their crimes is not the issue, though many Communist atheists clearly enabled the crimes of their leaders.
American atheists, except for members of the American Communist Party, (and fellow travelers, as they used to say) didn't enable Communist crimes. Those American Communist Party members have the same liability as American Catholics do that don't speak out about church policy.
You can with good conscience claim that these Communists were never your leaders. And I can claim equally well that there has never been a Pope that has been my leader, and NO church hierarchy that determines my views, or to whom I owe my allegiance, which is true not only for myself but for the vast majority of people who call themselves Christian.
Your argument is specious.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)And did I not in fact state that many Christians were also in the situation I described for atheists insofar as being members of churches with, shall we say, questionable leadership?
mr blur
(7,753 posts)You have no idea what you're talking about.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)"Atheism is a subset of Communism," because all who joined the CPSU were required to declare themselves to be atheists and to renounce any adherence to a religion.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)"All of subset A were also required to be a part of subset B, therefore subset B is a subset of subset A."
That can only make sense if there can be no members of subset B outside of subset A, which we know is not the case.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)-.Leninist Communists world wide. If they did then you would be correct however, not the case Bubba.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)But that's par for the course.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)but all Communists are atheists, all their crimes commited are crimes committed by atheists, their attacks on religious people and institutions are founded in a atheist state policy.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...and extreme subset of atheism (assuming one were to accept the notion that communism is a subset of atheism). Nowhere was there ever any world wide atheistic policy that would enable the crimes committed by Stalin and other communists. Organized religions, such as the Roman Catholic Church, can't make the same claim.
The simple fact is that both you and humblebum are trying to frame actions that were taken as a matter of political expediency (removing potential threats to the state) as purely motivated by the specific leaders atheism. Stalin both executed religious leaders and embraced them depending on the time and the political necessities. That does not sound like the MO of somebody who hates religion because he's atheist, but somebody who is taking actions they view serve their best political interests.
Response to humblebum (Reply #210)
humblebum This message was self-deleted by its author.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Stalin also wore a mustache. Ergo, mustachioed men have killed more people, historically, than non-mustachioed men.
Do you see where this is going? Communists killed people in the name of communism, not atheism. While most communists are atheists, most atheists are not communists.
Composition Fallacy 101.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Fallacy is stock and trade for those who harp on the Stalin meme. Pointing it out will only get you a "so what" followed by amazingly inaccurate, and fallacious, attempts to claim that you're just as guilty.
It would be hilarious if it wasn't so...I don't even have a word for it...
opiate69
(10,129 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)Their atheist, anti-religious belief brought about the persecution of religious people and institutions. It is part and parcel of Communism.
Attempting to separate the atheism out of Communism, and leave it guilt-free is ludicrous. Pure sophistry.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)to eliminate the Roman Orthodox Church and everyone who would not forsake their loyalty to it. The reason for this was due to the Church's original closeness with the Tsars before the uprising, and the amazing power and authority the Church had over the people.
But don't let facts get in the way of your fallacious narrative.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)stated goal. And it wasn't just the "Roman Orthodox Church", but all religion.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)Being a communist was not required. Becoming an atheist was.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)As I said, the Party wanted to eliminate Church authority. No better way to do that than to force people to at least fake a renunciation of God. It's still the actions of the Party designed to increase the power of the Party.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)The reason for this was due to the Church's original closeness with the Tsars before the uprising, and the amazing power and authority the Church had over the people.
and we hereby ignore the root of the antipathy, the atheism that was the state policy of the Soviet Union.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
State atheism in the Soviet Union was known as "gosateizm",[56] and was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. As the founder of the Soviet state V. I. Lenin put it:
Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.[57]
Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression,and, ultimately, the elimination of religion. Within about a year of the revolution the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed (a much greater number was subjected to persecution).[58]
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)is that this Wiki post doesn't even support your attempt to contradict me.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)you attempt to eliminate atheism in your reductionist version of Soviet history, which you have no links or substantiation for .
What you attempt to do is to pretend that atheism has nothing to do with the history.
Good luck with that. Thanks for ignoring my entire post, which apparently passed way over your head.
Who exactly do you think you are fooling?
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)What I find ridiculous and fallacious is the story that you and humblebum are spouting, namely that the primary motivation for removing religion from Russia was atheism, and not power for the Party. You both act as though Communist Party hegemony had nothing whatsoever to do with the actions of Commnist Party members, and that's just plain ignorant.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)the organized atheist movement(s) today is that in the USSR the competition was eliminated by decree. The Communist Party was the vehicle used by organized atheist groups to eliminate religion. Today there is no such exclusive vehicle and much competition in philosophies and ideals.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)That was a shark you just jumped.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)I didn't think so.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Communism as a tool for use by evil atheists?
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)You've got your history so ass-backwards I'm surprised you ever graduated from high school. And that doesn't even get into the fact that your statement here is one of the most hateful I've seen come out of you yet.
Your hate has made you blind. Good luck with that.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Last edited Sun May 6, 2012, 09:51 PM - Edit history (1)
One of your favorite tools is using accusations of hate and lying when you have no capacity to debate an issue.
And what a ridiculous statement.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)do you think that it would have had proliferated to the extent it did if the Communists had not banned most religious practices and officially promoted atheism as they did?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Communists killed at least 60 million. They persecuted and killed many religious leaders, all previously quoted, and many more sources can be quoted, as well.
You ignore previous quotes of historical material because you can't rebut it. Who is surprised by that?
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)I haven't ignored anything. You and humblebum, on the other hand, are ignoring a great many things.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Still a very ridiculous statement.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)darkstar3
(8,763 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)be my guess. That is another similar trait of atheists now and then. They openly mocked religion and the religious. Though it was illegal to mock atheism back then in the USSR.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Religion has been twisted around? In what way?
You make it sound like religion was developed ten thousand years ago by a bunch of bush hippies looking to make life better for everyone. Nothing could be further from the truth. Religion was created by leaders of men to pacify their subjects by means of "fear of the other".
Religion naturally promotes disharmony amongst men. It always has. It always will.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Religion doesn't promote disharmony, it justifies it.
There has always been fear of the "other": the other town, the other country, the other continent. Particuarly in the days when most people couldn't travel to see that the other place and its people weren't much different. Relgion was a way of granting official sanction to that fear.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)Is enough for most of us to declare religion officially "koo koo"
humblebum
(5,881 posts)or deaths, or murders or some such insinuation, it needs to be pointed out that such a statement is made in ignorance, or it is a calculated lie. I have provided plenty of proof to the contrary and that is all that needs to be said. Atheist movements have been around for a long time and denial is not going to change that fact.