To the Christians here...

[thaiboxerken]

Perhaps, then, you can explain how such a "religious figure" as Josef Stalin, as tyranical as he was, grew such a "godless" society?

Did he, really? Why is it that Russia is still riddled with churches?

Isn't that bigotry too?

Not really, it's megalomania.

 

[Admiral]

I doubt it. Also, Stalin wasn't bigotted, he pretty much hated everyone that was a threat to his power, regardless of race,religion and class.

First of all, it's well-recorded that he was an atheist- there wasn't really any religion he didn't do his best to obliterate. If you say "Well, the fact that he was so destructive means he must have believed in God," you can see that you're assuming your own argument to be true to disprove an argument against your position- circular reasoning.

Anyway, think of it this way. If Stalin had been, say, a Catholic, and purged the country of every religion besides Catholocism and tried to impose Catholocism on every individual in the country, you would be crying out "Religious extremism and bigotry!" However, in this case there is someone imposing atheism on the country- violently and terribly- and you refuse to admit that it's possible for atheists to be bigots as well.

Face it- bigotry doesn't come from religion. Learn about the origin of the Ku Klux Klan! Here's the way your argument about the Ku Klux Klan goes-

You: The Ku Klux Klan's hatred comes from religion!
Opposition: No, it doesn't, it's a reaction to blacks gaining freedom and political power.
You: What about the fact that they burn crosses?
Opposition: First of all, just because they exploit the symbols of a religion doesn't mean the beliefs come from that religion. (If I killed people in my basement while chanting phrases from the Torah, that wouldn't mean Judaism condoned mass murder.) Also, it's a political message, not a religious one.
You:Then why does the Supreme Court call it religious expression?
Opposition: At least one of them admits it's political expression.
You:They're Christians, they can't be trusted anyway.

Anyway, the fact is, the Ku Klux Klan's beliefs don't come from religion- they come from the xenophobia and racism that many whites feel. And don't point to a quote on the Klan's website about their religious motives- as a skeptic, you should know that people very rarely know the reasons for their own beliefs. "It's true because the Ku Klux Klan says so" is a ridiculous argument.

And finally, please answer my question- who is more bigoted, MLK or Stalin? (BTW, if you don't believe me and want evidence of Stalin's atheism, let me know and I'll put it together.)

 

[Admiral]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union

Take a look at that list and tell me he wasn't bigoted.

I dunno, searching for specific ethnic groups and deporting them sounds pretty bigoted to me. But then again, so does lumping together every religious person on the planet and insulting them, so what do I know...

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Perhaps, then, you can explain how such a "religious figure" as Josef Stalin, as tyranical as he was, grew such a "godless" society?

Did he, really? Why is it that Russia is still riddled with churches?

For reasons which you have no idea.

You know little:

Atheism is the core of the whole Soviet system —Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Oak and the Calf

[Religion] in its very essence is the mortal enemy of Communism. —Leon Trotskii, Pravda, June 24, 1923

...A fundamental conceit of the Communists had been their moral certainty that their new faith in "scientific atheism" would supplant what they believed to be mystical religious "mythologies," relics inherited from a bygone era of superstitions before Darwin, Marx, and electrification. Instead, despite the Communists' best efforts, religion outlasted the Communist era....

You're a spiritual bigot. You're a modern liberal.

You're an idiot.

Sorry. That's more than clear. You've insisted on it.

 

[elliotfc]

I think the KKK and burning crosses is more commensurate to Darwin fish than religious expression.

The KKK employed burning crosses because the people they sought to intimidate *were Christians*. It was the manipulation of a religious symbol to impress others with religious beliefs.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

No, I don’t think horrible is pushing it at all. It is an analogy that deliberately plays on people’s fears. The idea of existing within darkness for eternity seem rather unpleasant don’t you think?

No. I have a blind piano student. He seems to be generally content.

However, if you were incapable of experience, of any kind, how could it be like darkness?

Darkness limits at least one sensory mode.

It's not a great analogy, but it's better than deliberately manufactured ones, and I can't think of any better one besides the one you gave.

-Elliot

 

[rocketdodger]

But then again, so does lumping together every religious person on the planet and insulting them, so what do I know...

What about lumping together the willing participants of all dominance hierarchies instead? In that sense, soviet communism and organized religion have much in common.

 

[I less than three logic]

No. I have a blind piano student. He seems to be generally content.



Darkness limits at least one sensory mode.

It's not a great analogy, but it's better than deliberately manufactured ones, and I can't think of any better one besides the one you gave.

-Elliot

Are you suggesting your student is experiencing oblivion? At least you've drawn out another reason the darkness analogy fails, we are in fact limiting it to just the sense of sight. I don't think that is what Huntster was thinking about when he said "darkness", also I don't think that was what you were suggesting with your original analogy. I suppose we could ask Hunster. Will you be convinced that God does not exist if you enter the afterlife blind yet retain your other senses, and are capable of having conversations and other forms of interaction with others (and perhaps a God you can't see) in the afterlife? Is that what you meant by darkness?

I believe the "darkness" we are talking about is more akin to nothingness than to blindness. Existing in nothingness forever is the unpleasant thought I've been talking about, and I think you knew that. However, blindness doesn't sound all that great either.

A good analogy for a concept such as nonexistence may not be possible. However, I must ask, what is a "deliberately manufactured" analogy?

 

[ceo_esq]

That's just an opinion of a christian judge.

You say that almost as though it somehow changed your assertion that the Supreme Court has found KKK cross-burning to be a form of religious expression from an incorrect assertion to a correct one.

 

[thaiboxerken]

First of all, it's well-recorded that he was an atheist- there wasn't really any religion he didn't do his best to obliterate.

You are correct on the atheism, but wrong about him trying his best to obliterate every religion.

" People could practice religion if they liked. There were Churches built in the Soviet era by the Soviet government. The difference is that Church and the state was separated."

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8313.htm

He may have been atheist, but he did have a religion, it's called Marxism. Also, other factors play into bigotry. It was never my assertion that only religion makes people bigots. Although, in this case, his upbringing in the seminary might have played into his hatred of certain sects of religion.

However, in this case there is someone imposing atheism on the country- violently and terribly- and you refuse to admit that it's possible for atheists to be bigots as well.

Wrong, Stalin is atheist and was some sort of bigot. He was bigotted against all threats to his power.

Face it- bigotry doesn't come from religion.

Face it, yes it does. Read the bible.

You: The Ku Klux Klan's hatred comes from religion!
Opposition: No, it doesn't, it's a reaction to blacks gaining freedom and political power.

And why did/do white christians hate black people? Religion.

You: What about the fact that they burn crosses?
Opposition: First of all, just because they exploit the symbols of a religion doesn't mean the beliefs come from that religion. (If I killed people in my basement while chanting phrases from the Torah, that wouldn't mean Judaism condoned mass murder.) Also, it's a political message, not a religious one.

The fire represents "god." Lighted crosses became a symbol for the KKK after a writer wrote some fiction where the KKK actually lit crosses. Originally, the KKK did not burn crosses. Religious symbols can also be symbols of intimidation as well as symbols of faith. I'm sure a few people were intimidated by crosses during the crusades.

You:Then why does the Supreme Court call it religious expression?
Opposition: At least one of them admits it's political expression.
You:They're Christians, they can't be trusted anyway.

That's right, it was just one guy's opinion, not an "admission." To admit it, he'd have to have been part of the burning. Religious symbols can be political as well.

Anyway, the fact is, the Ku Klux Klan's beliefs don't come from religion- they come from the xenophobia and racism that many whites feel.

It comes from religion.

And don't point to a quote on the Klan's website about their religious motives- as a skeptic, you should know that people very rarely know the reasons for their own beliefs. "It's true because the Ku Klux Klan says so" is a ridiculous argument.

If they're religious beliefs include hating black people, who are you to say that it's not reallly a religious belief?

And finally, please answer my question- who is more bigoted, MLK or Stalin? (BTW, if you don't believe me and want evidence of Stalin's atheism, let me know and I'll put it together.)

I didn't know either person, I cannot answer that question.

 

[ceo_esq]

I had in mind the more sexual tendancies of humans, which seem to be instinctive.

Sexual tendencies may be instinctive, but sexual behavior can certainly be learned. And giving general free rein to human sexual tendencies also seems likely to cause some suffering.

The ones in our history, yes. But only because our history has been full of dominance hierarchies. Had it been some other social construct, the same could be said for that.

I'm starting to wonder exactly what you mean by the slightly redundant-sounding term "dominance hierarchy". Is government a dominance hierarchy? Is family a dominance hierarchy? What are the criteria?

To answer both questions, because it seems as if organized religion is the starting point for the majority of the others.

I'll have a better idea what you mean by this once you respond to the previous query, but meanwhile, what evidence do you have that organized religion is the starting point for "dominance hierarchies"?

Just as a thirsty man is better off drinking cactus juice than nothing. But wouldn't it be yet better to drink pure water? Your argument is that organized religion does some good. My argument is that humans can do much better.

That's not exactly a compelling argument against cactus juice, especially when your notion of what would presumably correspond to "water" in this analogy seems highly speculative.

For starters, the ideas of Copernicus and the ideas of Newton. Or the current battle regarding evolution.

Ah, we always start with the ideas of Copernicus. It's kind of a special case, and debate still rages over whether the Church actually opposed Copernican ideas (certainly if it did, it wasn't very long before it was promoting Copernican ideas again). Let's consider Newton, though. What ideas of his did the Church oppose (speaking solely of Newtonian ideas that could be said to represent a major human advancement; not his religious opinions, for example). And what, in "the current battle regarding evolution," does the Church oppose?

 

[thaiboxerken]

You say that almost as though it somehow changed your assertion that the Supreme Court has found KKK cross-burning to be a form of religious expression from an incorrect assertion to a correct one.

Almost? I didn't know we were playing horseshoes.

 

[Huntster]

...I didn't know we were playing horseshoes.

It appears to me that you're playing horse's ass.

Doing a damned good job at it, too.

Stop the personal insults and stick to addressing the arguments.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[thaiboxerken]

Sexual tendencies may be instinctive, but sexual behavior can certainly be learned. And giving general free rein to human sexual tendencies also seems likely to cause some suffering.

I doubt it. Perhaps you have some examples involving consenting adults.

 

[rocketdodger]

Sexual tendencies may be instinctive, but sexual behavior can certainly be learned. And giving general free rein to human sexual tendencies also seems likely to cause some suffering.

Sexual behavior like humping is instinctive. Sexual behavior like rape is the result of learned violent behavior combined with sexual tendancies. I do not agree that sexual tendancies by themselves would lead to much suffering beyond the natural consequences like disease and pregnancy, which, again, are better dealt with using reason than religious dogma.

I'm starting to wonder exactly what you mean by the slightly redundant-sounding term "dominance hierarchy". Is government a dominance hierarchy? Is family a dominance hierarchy? What are the criteria?

It only sounds redundant because you have been conditioned to think that all hierarchies need to involve dominance -- they don't. A dominance hierarchy is simply a hierarchical organization where those higher in rank dominate those below them.

All governments are dominance hierarchies to some extent, but some are much worse than others. A government whose activities are limited to simply preventing the citizens from playing "unfair" with each other exerts very little "dominance," while one, for example, enforcing Sharia law is the exact opposite.

Families may or may not be. It depends on if family members are dominated by others in the family. My childhood family was not. The stereotypical muslim extremist family definitely is.

I'll have a better idea what you mean by this once you respond to the previous query, but meanwhile, what evidence do you have that organized religion is the starting point for "dominance hierarchies"?

Because organized religion provides a perfect starting point for the creation of new classifiers around which dominance hierarchies can be organized. All anyone has to do is provide a "new" interpretation of "scripture" that includes the suggested hierarchy as "gods will."

For example, look at the history of Christianity. Accepting the religion is like the bad guys getting their foot in the door. All of a sudden, there is a male god, supreme to all other beings, and his first creation is a male, for who he made a female "to provide company." We just set up a dominance hierarchy based on gender. All of a sudden, god is white, adam is white, eve is white, jesus is white, the israelites are white, etc. We just set up a dominance hierarchy based on skin color. All of a sudden, god wants people to be heterosexual. We just set up a dominance hierarchy based on sexuality.

How else would those classifiers be justified if the "god's will" excuse wasn't available? It could definitely be done, but it would be alot more difficult from a mental standpoint. Certainly, in today's world, any argument that skin color, sexuality, or gender matters a hoot when it comes to someone's intelligence or capability would be very difficult to make indeed without some doctrine from an organized religion to back it up.

It has taken hundreds of years of slow policy change, hundreds of years of education, and hundreds of years of human suffering to even make a dent in the problem caused by those dominance hierarchies. It is very unlikely that they would be here, certainly to the extent they are, if they didn't have Christianity to prepare the way for them. There have been numerous societies in history where skin color, gender, and sexuality had virtually nothing to do with the social rank of a person. It is highly suspicious that these cultural values swept much of the civilized world at the same time Christianity did -- I would say it is not a coincidence. The same can be said for all the other major religoins.

That's not exactly a compelling argument against cactus juice, especially when your notion of what would presumably correspond to "water" in this analogy seems highly speculative.

It is not speculative at all. It is a simple case of people pulling their heads out of their a--es. Religion is fine, I am happy for people who benefit from theology. My problem is with organized religion that exploits people so overtly by indoctrinating them with arbitrary babblygook and ideas designed to funnel their resources up the ranks in the hierarchy. In this respect, at least, Christianity doesn't look so bad, but only because 500 years of secular forces have beaten the priesthood back to where they belong and we have a separation of church and state. Many Christians are still fighting, to this day, to put the "dominance" back in our secular hierarchy (as if it was ever gone), and certainly with religions like Islam there are societies where the dominance hierarchies are still alive in all their "glory."

Ah, we always start with the ideas of Copernicus. It's kind of a special case, and debate still rages over whether the Church actually opposed Copernican ideas (certainly if it did, it wasn't very long before it was promoting Copernican ideas again). Let's consider Newton, though. What ideas of his did the Church oppose (speaking solely of Newtonian ideas that could be said to represent a major human advancement; not his religious opinions, for example). And what, in "the current battle regarding evolution," does the Church oppose?

I misspoke, I meant Galileo, not Newton. I know the church branded Newton a heretic but since his ideas were for the most part not in conflict with their agenda I don't think they opposed them directly.

What does the church oppose when it comes to evolutionary theory? Quite simply, any idea that suggests creationism to be false. Why are you asking me that question, we all know the stance organized religion has taken regarding evolution theory.

They key concept, however, is their agenda, which is why the current battle regarding the origins of our existence is raging like it is. It has been happening for the last 500 years -- the organized religions are little by little loosing ground to logic and reason because they have nothing to do with logic and reason. As people get smarter, the major religions have to modify their doctrine, going even as far as proclaiming the basis for their own doctrines to be admittedly nonsense (do most educated Christians consider the bible to be literal truth, even "the written word of god?"), because if they don't people will simply walk out on them. It is that simple.

What I don't understand is why anyone would want to be part of an organization that has been falling apart for the last 500 years. If you follow a doctrine that has to be constantly changed to appease rational thought, shouldn't you think about changing doctrines? You wouldn't drive a car that had to be recalled every month. You wouldn't pay for software that needed a patch every month just to run. So why do people buy into ideologies that must be constantly fixed?

 

[ceo_esq]

Almost? I didn't know we were playing horseshoes.

We're not; the point is that your observation that Justice Thomas is a Christian judge does not make your prior statement (that the Supreme Court has held KKK cross-burning to be a form of religious expression) a correct one. You're still just as wrong about that. So what's the relevance of your remark about Justice Thomas?

 

[ceo_esq]

I doubt it. Perhaps you have some examples involving consenting adults.

What does the concept of "consenting adults" have to do with human sexual tendencies? It's a learned concept, and frankly one that is partly used to modify or temper the expression of instinctive behavior. Examples of the latter don't need to involve consenting adults.

 

[ReFLeX]

The ratio is probably the same.

So basically, you're guessing.

It's not that I'm superior, it's that he's religious, and therefore, bigotted.

Let's say there is a correlation. That still wouldn't imply that ALL religious are bigoted. Your mindset is really unscientific. Besides, you didn't say you were superior, your tone did.

 

[ReFLeX]

Sorry, but it seems like you are speaking as you choose and justifying it post hoc....

I am.

First of all, that's a poor way to act.

Unfortunately, with some folks, that's what appears to be necessary.

Give me a break. That's still a tu quoque. Have some self-restraint. A truly steadfast person doesn't lash back with insults just because other people make fun of him. Such a person responds civilly and doesn't allow the discussion to spiral into just calling each other names.

That's what Christ did.

You say you are following Christ's example. I want you to prove it. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you are capable of doing what you know is right. Yes, instead of what you're doing now, which is acting just however you feel like at the time then searching the NT for wherever you can find Jesus acting similarly. Seriously, you can't possibly think that God wants you to go around insulting everybody who speaks against your religion. I know you think it's necessary to stand up to others who would denigrate Him, but trust me, He doesn't need you defending him like this:

You're a spiritual bigot. You're a modern liberal.
You're an idiot.

It appears to me that you're playing horse's ass.

Actually, "modern liberal" is a pretty strange insult. However. The malicious intent is there. And if you aren't capable of controlling your anger on a internet board against a faceless person, something tells me you aren't going to fare very well if you're ever face-to-face with a real test. Huntster, I genuinely hope you do have that kind of willpower, but it's not showing.
Matthew 5:44
Luke 6:27-35

For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.

You know, Jesus has got a point. Right now, you're doing what's easy, by responding in kind. But doing the right thing isn't supposed to be easy...

 

[Admiral]

ThaiBoxerKen, you haven't yet proved there is a correlation, so stop referencing that correlation to "prove" your point.

So far, you've used your supposed correlation to say that

-I'm not actually religious
-If I were serious about my religion, I would hate my girlfriend
-The Taliban was more religious than Martin Luther King Jr.
-The Pope secretly hates Protestants so much he wants to blow them up.

Are you really so naive to think that the Ku Klux Klan started because its founders took racist messages from the Bible? You can't possibly be that clueless about history...

You point to the burning cross. The burning cross is a symbol of hate, no one disagrees with you on that. But you seem to think it means the Ku Klux Klan must be inspired towards hatred by their religious views.

Ever consider the swastika? That was a pretty famous symbol of hate. But did you know that it's a holy symbol in Hinduism and Jainism? The Nazis took the symbol and used it for purposes of intimidation- does that mean the Nazis are inspired by Hindu beliefs?

Any serious Christian would be grossly offended by the Klan's use of the cross, just as I'm sure many Hindus were offended by the use of the swastika.

And another point- have you ever heard of Henry Ward Beecher? He was a very famous preacher from the early 1800s who was a fervent abolitionist. If you want more religious abolitionists, I can come up with more.

However, I can predict your response: "If Henry Ward Beecher was against slavery, than he wasn't really religious." If you say that, then what you're doing is throwing together unscientific post-hoc rationalizations that circularly support your argument. Your claim is that the more religious an individual is, the more bigoted he is. If I then come up with a nonreligious bigot, you change the definition of bigot. If I then come up with a religious and tolerant person, you say "He must not be very religious." (You said this, for example, about both Martin Luther King Jr. and me.)

Every time evidence is demonstrated against your claim, you either change the definition of your claim until it's twisted beyond anything useful, or, even worse, you USE YOUR CLAIM to demonstrate that the evidence is wrong!

Imagine this:

You:All apples are red.
Me:That's not true: Look at this green apple.
You:No, all apples are red- so if it's green, it must not be an apple. Therefore, my claim holds.