Religion

felix_numinous

(5,198 posts)

83. Any ideology can be twisted around

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:54 PM

Apr 2012

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

259 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why We are Mad At You by an Atheist [View all] Taverner Apr 2012 OP

I think much of the science stuff was generated by the Church in its heyday as another gateley Apr 2012 #1

Yes, ordinary people weren't learned or holy or qualified to read the bible Warpy Apr 2012 #3

if they 'hate' how are they better. I am tired of hating by anyone. roguevalley Apr 2012 #31

Heck, I'll rec that. ret5hd Apr 2012 #2

KnR! KansDem Apr 2012 #4

I think you're confusing me with somebody else. struggle4progress Apr 2012 #5

Don't stop him, he's on a roll. rug Apr 2012 #6

Well much of what you say is true, but twice you said humblebum Apr 2012 #7

This is a huge discussion within itself Taverner Apr 2012 #11

Actually many of them were killed in the name of atheism. nt humblebum Apr 2012 #13

Were they killed by atheists? Orrex Apr 2012 #14

Who said anything about Hitler? nt humblebum Apr 2012 #34

Nearly every Christian to claim that atheism has killed more people than Christianity. That's who. Orrex Apr 2012 #41

I don't consider Hitler to be an atheist. In fact, it isn't clear what he was. humblebum Apr 2012 #66

Well, take it up with those Christians who raise him up as a paragon of atheism Orrex Apr 2012 #73

I have seen them and there is some evidence that he considered the humblebum Apr 2012 #76

A good point, but remember... Orrex Apr 2012 #79

Both are true. nt humblebum Apr 2012 #81

"Only in your mind" darkstar3 Apr 2012 #104

And in the history books. nt humblebum Apr 2012 #106

What hogwash. Where do you get this nonsense? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #122

Tell me which of those involved killing in the name of atheism Orrex Apr 2012 #133

No the point was, if you bothered to read the OP Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #138

If you bothered to read the thread, you'd understand that I wasn't replying to the OP Orrex Apr 2012 #146

No matter how many times you repeat that lie, it remains just that. opiate69 Apr 2012 #16

There is far too much supporting evidence for it to be a lie. nt humblebum Apr 2012 #33

So much evidence, in fact, that you seem to feel no need to provide it Orrex Apr 2012 #45

Nor do I see any evidence saying that religion was responsible for more deaths humblebum Apr 2012 #67

no. just no. Warren Stupidity Apr 2012 #17

" Nazi Germany was not an atheist state" - so who said it was? nt humblebum Apr 2012 #35

"Your argument dishonestly conflates the two" cleanhippie Apr 2012 #42

Wrong. rrneck Apr 2012 #22

"Communism is a religion like any other." ? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #123

It's just a question of the object of belief. rrneck Apr 2012 #127

So you're saying atheism is a religion too? Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #130

Yes. rrneck Apr 2012 #136

You certainly are a very singular fellow. I like that. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #141

Yes. rrneck Apr 2012 #142

You know that's almost 100% incorrect, right? Orrex May 2012 #155

Do you like being an atheist? nt rrneck May 2012 #156

As opposed to what? Orrex May 2012 #159

Do you prefer it to theism? rrneck May 2012 #160

I "prefer" atheism insofar as it is more verifiably consistent with observed reality than theism Orrex May 2012 #162

Lots of people like extreme sports. Some like roller coasters and other thrill rides. rrneck May 2012 #177

You're simply off the mark, both in terms of logic and persuasiveness Orrex May 2012 #182

It's fairly simple. rrneck May 2012 #183

Not sure what you're arguing, then Orrex May 2012 #190

So you got nothin'. Allrighty. rrneck May 2012 #192

Take your best shot. You won't offend me. Orrex May 2012 #195

It's a lot easier to be an atheist rrneck May 2012 #196

if atheism is not a religion why do keep posting in a religion group?nt Thats my opinion May 2012 #157

Because he wants to? eqfan592 May 2012 #158

Why would one have to claim a religion for the right to post here? nt rrneck May 2012 #161

No, Stalin, Kim Il-sung, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Vo Nguyen Giap, Che Guevera, Fidel Castro, Mao or... Taverner Apr 2012 #50

Actually, The League of Militant Atheists was charged with doing exactly what humblebum Apr 2012 #65

That was discredited - never happened Taverner Apr 2012 #71

Then the reopened Soviet archives, eyewitness accounts, Solzhenitsyn, films, and humblebum Apr 2012 #80

Cite your historians... Taverner Apr 2012 #95

"identifying one leader under one Communist Oligarchy" - not hardly. The period humblebum Apr 2012 #96

Please give me a count, how many people were killed as a result of State Atheism.... Taverner Apr 2012 #98

He can't skepticscott Apr 2012 #107

We have been through this many times before, and even in the face humblebum Apr 2012 #119

The fact is skepticscott Apr 2012 #120

The figure of 130 million is extremely important because humblebum Apr 2012 #121

Now you're calling people who disagree with you Holocaust deniers?! darkstar3 May 2012 #203

What a ruse! I could have easily said that denying humblebum May 2012 #205

And that STILL would have been offensive, not just to Jews, but in general. darkstar3 May 2012 #213

You do a pretty good job of that yourself. nt humblebum May 2012 #215

This message was self-deleted by its author humblebum May 2012 #204

No True Atheist would be a Communist! kwassa Apr 2012 #92

WHAT? I am just saying the reason for killing wasn't atheism... Taverner Apr 2012 #93

You are telling me that there was no persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union? kwassa Apr 2012 #109

Under Stalin, yes. Under anyone else, not really. Taverner Apr 2012 #111

The greatest murderers in history. Maybe 60 million dead between the two of them. kwassa Apr 2012 #114

That is not killing. Taverner Apr 2012 #115

Arrests and imprisonment in the Soviet Gulag often ended in death. kwassa Apr 2012 #117

And many historians realize that death was clearly the intention. Far too humblebum Apr 2012 #118

Hogwash skepticscott Apr 2012 #134

But, but, but, the League of Militant Atheists!!!!!! cleanhippie Apr 2012 #135

Like the sun rises.. skepticscott Apr 2012 #140

1.6 million died in, or as a result of the Gulags. Hogwash, indeed. kwassa Apr 2012 #137

And how does any of that show skepticscott Apr 2012 #139

Death doesn't have to be the stated intention, merely the result. kwassa May 2012 #149

Not according to the title of 118 above skepticscott May 2012 #151

Yes, that's why so many were underfed and poorly clothed. humblebum Apr 2012 #144

You are severely lacking. humblebum Apr 2012 #147

What you actually said was Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #126

Please consult with your mentor regarding when the no true scotsman snark is appropriate. Warren Stupidity Apr 2012 #105

So they didn't kill for religion either, which was your point. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #124

YES. Thank you. +1000 Taverner Apr 2012 #143

Go back and reread the history of the Crusades. Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #110

Totally agree. nt humblebum Apr 2012 #116

Nope nothing to do with religion here. Jesus is pure. Amen. Taverner Apr 2012 #145

The most enlightening and revealing Crusade was the Albigensian Crusade. Fought with great dimbear May 2012 #181

Are you really that naive? harmonicon Apr 2012 #18

"The Crusades were a series of religious expeditionary wars blessed by the Pope..." Taverner Apr 2012 #36

"stated goal" harmonicon Apr 2012 #39

Um, back then stated goals were how they spread Taverner Apr 2012 #40

I really don't think it's any different today. harmonicon Apr 2012 #44

Really? You mean a world where news traveled by horseback... Taverner Apr 2012 #48

The human beings are essentially the same, yeah. harmonicon Apr 2012 #51

Humans are, the media that connect us, not so Taverner Apr 2012 #53

Must admit I had to pause on that one too. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #97

atheists and anger pokerfan Apr 2012 #8

I don't like painting with a broad brush longship Apr 2012 #9

Religion isn't going away, but maybe its methods can Taverner Apr 2012 #12

Dennett calls it epidemiology longship Apr 2012 #23

Perhaps. And perhaps we can eliminate it. Taverner Apr 2012 #37

Thank you, Taverner. longship Apr 2012 #43

I agree - and that is why I think all of us need a dialogue going Taverner Apr 2012 #47

That is our strength longship Apr 2012 #52

Twice now you have said you want religion to "go away" or "we can eliminate it." Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #112

Good addition to the post. Thanks. Scuba Apr 2012 #15

Thank you, sir, or Madame longship Apr 2012 #20

Don't call me "sir", I work for a living.... Scuba Apr 2012 #21

I grovel! I grovel! longship Apr 2012 #25

Yep. Agreed. Taverner Apr 2012 #38

Bigots are still bigots no matter what they just write off or distort nt Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #56

Yes, and if someone writes off skepticscott Apr 2012 #132

Nicely put. cachukis Apr 2012 #19

+1 CJCRANE Apr 2012 #24

Unnecessarily decisive? Not really. longship Apr 2012 #27

I said that because it makes no distinction between conservative and liberal christians. CJCRANE Apr 2012 #28

I agree 100%. The liberal theists are not standing up longship Apr 2012 #30

Look at it this way - if you are part of a group that has done a lot of damage Taverner Apr 2012 #46

If you really want to know why so few theists post here---just read through the posts Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #57

Umm, can't see I've seen somebody told to "fuck off" all that much here... eqfan592 Apr 2012 #59

You're joking. Right? LTX Apr 2012 #72

No, I'm not joking. eqfan592 Apr 2012 #90

I have never told you to fuck off Taverner Apr 2012 #99

Thank you. Bigotry in any form puts blinders on the eyes of reason. nt Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #82

It isn't religion that divides people, but ethnic, tribal and other in-group eridani Apr 2012 #64

"It isn't religion that divides people, but ............" dimbear Apr 2012 #68

Looking at all of human history-- eridani Apr 2012 #100

Well done. Thank you, longship. cbayer Apr 2012 #26

I've got your back! longship Apr 2012 #29

Morph into a less toxic form? Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #55

So you are saying that religion is toxic? eqfan592 Apr 2012 #58

You bet! Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #60

Could you provide a specific example from this thread.... eqfan592 Apr 2012 #63

Yawn... mr blur Apr 2012 #69

Let's split the difference here longship Apr 2012 #89

So, you are stating that atheists are against the common people? humblebum Apr 2012 #91

Ahem! I didn't say that, now did I longship Apr 2012 #101

Why is it then that you don't put it in context of the first century CE? humblebum Apr 2012 #102

I thought the dates in the quote were sufficient longship Apr 2012 #103

It's a nice theory, but where are they? Also, atheists aren't looking to wipe out religion. jeff47 Apr 2012 #75

While I have see surveys that confirm that religious people in general would not cbayer Apr 2012 #77

Will take a while to dig up the data jeff47 Apr 2012 #84

If there was any support from the liberal religious community regarding the RI cbayer Apr 2012 #85

I think we basically agree on some things longship Apr 2012 #86

You make excellent points here longship Apr 2012 #148

+1 Well said. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #128

Very little of that is why I am bothered by believers dmallind Apr 2012 #10

That is part 2, if there were to be one Taverner Apr 2012 #49

The day I refer to atheists as "idiots," put me down hard! Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #61

Your daughter called a group of Christians "dumbasses." trotsky Apr 2012 #70

+1,000,000,000,000,000,000 Odin2005 Apr 2012 #32

I find myself having little anger, and when I do, it's usually for how misogynistic religious Evoman Apr 2012 #54

I too am embarrassed by that sort of thing, Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #62

Randians? You mean like that Objectivist shite? Evoman Apr 2012 #94

If you go by empathy, logic and reason, there is no place for misogyny, racism, or social darwinism Taverner Apr 2012 #88

Righteous rant! backscatter712 Apr 2012 #74

No one should be condemned, shunned and belittled.I'll fight with you when I hear about that. Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #113

See Post 70 skepticscott Apr 2012 #125

You just crossed a line there. Time to back up. Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #129

I didn't say this: skepticscott Apr 2012 #131

If the "you" is me, the great long list of accusations is the product of something Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #78

Any ideology can be twisted around felix_numinous Apr 2012 #83

If you disassociate meaning from all terms, then yes, nobody's responsible Taverner Apr 2012 #87

Peace- felix_numinous Apr 2012 #108

and leaders of non-Christian groups have done far worse. Keep things in perspective. kwassa May 2012 #150

These communist leaders were leaders that happened to be atheists.. eqfan592 May 2012 #152

It's pretty obvious that you are expounding on things that you know little about. humblebum May 2012 #163

While I stand corrected on some of the specifics. eqfan592 May 2012 #164

Doesn't appear that way to me. Organized atheism inside Russia had extensive ties humblebum May 2012 #168

Amazingly enough, C. Hitchens doesn't necessarily represent all atheists. eqfan592 May 2012 #169

Did I say that he represented all atheists? I doubt if any single person does. Nor does humblebum May 2012 #170

What is this strong influence you speak of? eqfan592 May 2012 #173

Are you saying that Hitchens had no influence upon the atheist community? nt humblebum May 2012 #174

There's a pretty huge gulf between "strong influence" and "no influence." (nt) eqfan592 May 2012 #175

If Hitchens was considered to be one of "The Four Horsemen" of humblebum May 2012 #176

This message was self-deleted by its author eqfan592 May 2012 #178

I think you're missing my point, but I should have clarified. eqfan592 May 2012 #178

You seem to be drifting ever farther away from the main points. I am aware of Trotsky's humblebum May 2012 #184

You brought Trotsky into the conversation to begin with. eqfan592 May 2012 #185

Same source as before. humblebum May 2012 #186

Ok. And for the rest of my post? (nt) eqfan592 May 2012 #187

You just keep drift farther away don't you? humblebum May 2012 #188

If you are unwilling to see for yourself... eqfan592 May 2012 #191

I would question who it is doing the flailing and also humblebum May 2012 #193

Have an effect? Yes. eqfan592 May 2012 #194

You make a false distinction. No True Atheist, er, No True Scotsman. kwassa May 2012 #165

By saying that they were atheists, eqfan592 was in no way invoking a No True Scotsman. laconicsax May 2012 #167

I know exactly what NTS is, and also know that it has been falsely applied ... kwassa May 2012 #197

Well, your clear misuse would indicate otherwise. laconicsax May 2012 #200

THANK YOU! eqfan592 May 2012 #201

If the distinction was an accurate one, you'd be right. However, humblebum May 2012 #202

Sorry, but that still doesn't really work, humblebum. eqfan592 May 2012 #207

Oh, now it's "leader of atheists as his primary role" and no longer simply humblebum May 2012 #209

lol yes, I'm drifting. eqfan592 May 2012 #211

Well, then Obama is an atheist leader too. laconicsax May 2012 #214

To my knowledge he has never laid out a program for the inculcation of humblebum May 2012 #216

I see your goalposts are still on wheels. n/t laconicsax May 2012 #218

Your standard dodge. nt humblebum May 2012 #219

I admit, I often dodge your points by pointing out that they're logical fallacies. laconicsax May 2012 #221

You are the one who compared Obama to Stalin, not me. nt humblebum May 2012 #222

No, I pointed out that by your standards, Obama is an "atheist leader." laconicsax May 2012 #223

Hardly. nt humblebum May 2012 #224

Completely agree. I think it needs to be removed from the playbook. cbayer May 2012 #208

Here is my main point for you again. eqfan592 May 2012 #172

Some atheists were mass murderers. kwassa May 2012 #198

What about my argument was specious? eqfan592 May 2012 #199

"Atheism is a subset of Communism"? mr blur May 2012 #206

If by "communism" is meant "Marxist-Leninist" Communism in the USSR, then humblebum May 2012 #210

You realize that makes literally no sense whatsoever, right? eqfan592 May 2012 #212

Marxist-Leninist Communists in the CPSU did not constitute the entirety of Marxist humblebum May 2012 #220

Actually, "Bubba", you missed the point entirely. eqfan592 May 2012 #228

You are right. Communists are really a subset of atheists. kwassa May 2012 #232

At best you could say all their crimes were commited by a very specific... eqfan592 May 2012 #236

This message was self-deleted by its author humblebum May 2012 #217

Do we still have to address this? Act_of_Reparation May 2012 #153

Unfortunately, the people who need to understand that refuse to take the class. darkstar3 May 2012 #166

I believe the word you seek, darkstar, is "pathetic". opiate69 May 2012 #171

"in the name of" is a meaningless argument. kwassa May 2012 #225

No, their single-minded desire for absolute hegemony led to the strategy darkstar3 May 2012 #226

Yes, the absolute hegemony of state atheism. That was the humblebum May 2012 #227

Of the Communist Party. Take your alternate history hate elsewhere. darkstar3 May 2012 #229

The Communist Party replaced the Czar, Scientific Atheism replaced religion. nt humblebum May 2012 #230

And this contradicts my point, how? darkstar3 May 2012 #234

As always, still conflating the two. nt humblebum May 2012 #235

Yes, that's exactly what you've been doing all along, humblebum. (nt) eqfan592 May 2012 #237

oh, bullshit. Speaking of making things up ... kwassa May 2012 #231

I could give two shits about a Wikipedia post, but what's funny darkstar3 May 2012 #233

LOL! Yeah, you noticed that too? (nt) eqfan592 May 2012 #238

You don't get it. kwassa May 2012 #244

No, you don't get it. I haven't denied that the Communist Party was full of atheists. darkstar3 May 2012 #248

The major difference between the organized atheist movement in the Soviet Union and humblebum May 2012 #239

Look down. rrneck May 2012 #240

Do you have a response that has information in it? kwassa May 2012 #245

Who needs it? rrneck May 2012 #247

So now Communism was just a tool employed by atheists to kill people? darkstar3 May 2012 #241

Sometimes the truth hurts. But where you get hate out of that I have no idea. humblebum May 2012 #242

There was a strong atheist movement in Russia before the Revolution. So tell me, humblebum May 2012 #243

Nobody made that case, and your misrepresentation of it is wildly dishonest. kwassa May 2012 #246

Actually, humblebum made that case in #239. darkstar3 May 2012 #249

Humblebum definitely did not make the case that Communism was JUST anything. humblebum May 2012 #251

Talking about yourself in the third person is generally a sign of certain issues you should address. darkstar3 May 2012 #252

Out of arguments are we? nt humblebum May 2012 #253

Having already responded to the utter ridiculousness of #239, all that's left is to mock you openly. darkstar3 May 2012 #254

You are out of arguments. if you feel comfortable mocking facts humblebum May 2012 #255

How can I be your "guess"? LOL darkstar3 May 2012 #256

By joining the "Roman Orthodox Church." nt humblebum May 2012 #257

This sounds to me like the words of someone who has never read the Bible start to finish Act_of_Reparation May 2012 #154

Disagree... brooklynite May 2012 #189

I think this thread is a pretty good example of why we are mad at some believers. darkstar3 May 2012 #250

Yep the closed-mindedness and denial in the usual suspects... Taverner May 2012 #258

When it is constantly being bantered about that religion is responsible for most wars, or humblebum May 2012 #259