Athiests start religious wars, too!

[Mr. Scott]

...the likes of Jacques Hébert and his group were certainly in the mix from the beginning and had some large amount of control over the early part of the Revolution, enough to declare the new State an Atheistic one and establish the Cult of Reason as the dominant, for want of a better word, "religion"...

Thanks! I enjoyed reading this on wiki: Reign of Terror and campaign to dechristianize France

 

[The Greater Fool]

1. I don't know how many times I can say that theism is requisite for a divine moral authority.
2. I don't know how many times I can say that atheism doesn't have that.

In those words, you're not saying much of anything.

Of course, to eventually believe in godly authoirty, a belieif in god is necessary.

Of course, atheists will never have anything that involves godly belief.

I don't have time now, maybe tomorrow I'll go back and quote all the places you said "Theists have divine authority", which is different than above.

 

[RandFan]

Where are all of the atheist motivated wars and atrocity today? I think the evidence suggests that the atrocities of secular nations was an anomaly the result of fundamentalist communism (so called).

Modern liberal secular societies don't lend themselves to war and aggression.

Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment

Before he began his recent travels, it seemed to Phil Zuckerman as if humans all over the globe were “getting religion”—praising deities, performing holy rites, and soberly defending the world from sin. But most residents of Denmark and Sweden, he found, don't worship any god at all, don't pray, and don't give much credence to religious dogma of any kind. Instead of being bastions of sin and corruption, however, as the Christian Right has suggested a godless society would be, these countries are filled with residents who score at the very top of the "happiness index" and enjoy their healthy societies, which boast some of the lowest rates of violent crime in the world (along with some of the lowest levels of corruption), excellent educational systems, strong economies, well-supported arts, free health care, egalitarian social policies, outstanding bike paths, and great beer.

Not sure if this was responded to. I can't find one.

 

[RandFan]

In those words, you're not saying much of anything.

If I were to argue that men and women were not the same I would have to point out the obvious. You can say that the differences are not saying much but they are crucial to the argument.

Of course, to eventually believe in godly authoirty, a belieif in god is necessary.

Of course, atheists will never have anything that involves godly belief.

I don't have time now, maybe tomorrow I'll go back and quote all the places you said "Theists have divine authority", which is different than above.

Let me save you some time. Not all theists believe in a divine moral authority. Most do. The point being that there is no divine moral authority without theism.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Full stop. That's all that maters for my point. I was arguing that theism provides for moral authority to commit atrocity.

As does any ideology, theism isn't unquie in that.

That included the belief that the United States desecrated holy land with their military bases in Saudi Arabia.

Yes, they were seen as invaders and occupiers by stationing themselves in Saudi Arabian, supporting what was seen as a corrupt and immoral royal family and crusaders trying to destoy Islamic Culture by introducing Western Culture.

Religion was central to the attacks. Even if it wasn't (and it was) religious fundamentalism fomented the hatred of America and provided the authority and the basis and motivation for those who committed suicide (72 virgins) that alone would be 3 dimensional.

Religion was central to the attacks only in that for the Islamist, religion and politics are two sides to the same coin, intertwined and hard, if not impossible, to separate. The hatred for the US does not come from their religion, but rather their increased fundamentalism comes from their rejection of western, and particularly US politics and culture which they see as an attack against their own culture, both politically and religiously (since they see these as pretty much the same thing.) That rejection leads them to draw tighter to their own culture in a desire to protect it, and thus deeper into fundamental Islam.

By creating a mythical notion of them hating the US because they were fundamentalist Islam, you miss the far bigger picture, which includes why there is so much anger at the US currently. You are trying to judge them according to a western standards, when they don't fit into our expectations and understandings. Once you understand that, and realise where they are coming from, it makes far more sense. Honestly, by focusing on them as religious and their actions being because of their religion, you are missing the real reasons for their actions, and in doing so, do a disservice to them and to their victims, both past and future. It is that sort of thinking that has created more anger and hate towards the west in the Islamic world since 9/11 than any War on Terror can stop.

 

[RandFan]

As does any ideology, theism isn't unquie in that.

Yes, they were seen as invaders and occupiers by stationing themselves in Saudi Arabian, supporting what was seen as a corrupt and immoral royal family and crusaders trying to destoy Islamic Culture by introducing Western Culture.

Religion was central to the attacks only in that for the Islamist, religion and politics are two sides to the same coin, intertwined and hard, if not impossible, to separate. The hatred for the US does not come from their religion, but rather their increased fundamentalism comes from their rejection of western, and particularly US politics and culture which they see as an attack against their own culture, both politically and religiously (since they see these as pretty much the same thing.) That rejection leads them to draw tighter to their own culture in a desire to protect it, and thus deeper into fundamental Islam.

By creating a mythical notion of them hating the US because they were fundamentalist Islam, you miss the far bigger picture, which includes why there is so much anger at the US currently. You are trying to judge them according to a western standards, when they don't fit into our expectations and understandings. Once you understand that, and realise where they are coming from, it makes far more sense. Honestly, by focusing on them as religious and their actions being because of their religion, you are missing the real reasons for their actions, and in doing so, do a disservice to them and to their victims, both past and future. It is that sort of thinking that has created more anger and hate towards the west in the Islamic world since 9/11 than any War on Terror can stop.

I've no idea how one would untangle the web of religion and secular purposes and I really don't care. All I care about is A.) religion provided for the moral authority for the attacks. B.) By your logic there is no such thing as a religious war. Conflicts are always complex and dynamic. I only care if religion is used to manipulate and exploit.

For the record, I believe that Bin Laden was sincere in his religious beliefs and his anger with American incursion into holy lands. And, BTW, I'm not judging them by any standard. You don't even know my position on 9/11.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Too further note, I was going to ETA, but figured that I'd waited too long and it might get missed.

I'm not saying that the French Revolution was started by atheists, though it is clear than a group of them was indeed involved in the beginnings of it, but rather that the war they started was that of the Dechristianisation of France which was a specific war against the theistic believers in France at the time.

This is the religious war that occurred during and as part of the French Revolution, a war that was very one sided and fought specifically to destroy theistism, and later deistism.

It's likely the French Revolution would have happened even if atheists were not in the mix. It's clear atheists played a role, though probably not an essential starting role.

I was always taught the French Revolution was started by popular outrage over "the obliviousness and selfishness of the French upper-classes" which doesn't seem to have much to do with religion.

Religious institutions do like to get involved in class warfare, on one side or the other. Guess which side wealthy churches are on.

 

[Egg]

The point being that there is no divine moral authority without theism.

Your argument cuts both ways, no?
If we include the surely very reasonable starting premise that people start wars and commit atrocities for plenty of reasons other than religion, doesn't (theism via) religion give divine moral authority to go towards preventing such things, where atheism has no such provision?

 

[RandFan]

Your argument cuts both ways, no?
If we include the surely very reasonable starting premise that people start wars and commit atrocities for plenty of reasons other than religion, doesn't (theism via) religion give divine moral authority to go towards preventing such things, where atheism has no such provision?

I wouldn't think so but that might be my bias. Do you have any reason why that should be?

In his book Better Angels, Steven Pinker documents the dramatic decrease of homicide and that correlates with the increase of secularism. I'm not saying that is proof but I would need something more than speculation.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I've no idea how one would untangle the web of religion and secular purposes and I really don't care.

I suspect that few could as rather than the three threads that we have in the west, Islam is all three in one thread. The Fundamentalist sees the world as containing three main Imperial Ideologies, Communism, Capitalism, and Islam. While we recognise that Eastern Communism was separate Extreme Socialist economic policies, State atheism, and single party totalitarist politics, while Western Capitalism is separate free market economy, Christianity, and democracy, Islamists see those three things mixed together as one just as their own understanding of the Islamic Ideology. To try and separate them as we have in the western and eastern counties would not make any sense to an Islamist.

All I care about is A.) religion provided for the moral authority for the attacks.

To a point. Attacking back at the invaders/crusaders, attacking those forcing western culture on the world, bringing the remaining opposing ideology to its knees, getting the US to leave the Middle East and cease its support for governments there, these are all just as valid reasons to give moral authority for the attacks as well.

You keep conflicting "moral authority" and "divine moral authority". If I believe that you are immoral because of what I see of your actions I don't have to believe in a supreme being to claim moral authority, I just have to claim my morals are greater than yours, and if you start trying to push your lesser morals on to those around me and kill them with your flawed ideals in what I see as an effort to destroy my society, that can still give me moral authority to attack you for it, all without a supreme being.

The issue in RL is that most people's morals have been guided by religion of some sort for thousands of years, so it is hard to unbind morals from religion.

B.) By your logic there is no such thing as a religious war.

I'd say welcome to reality, but I get the feeling you still won't agree with this. I'm not discounting that there have been wars fought purely because of religion, I just have yet to find one.

Conflicts are always complex and dynamic. I only care if religion is used to manipulate and exploit.

I agree that conflicts are always complex and dynamic and it's often hard to pin down the exact causes of most of them, for instance while the initiating event of WWI was the Assassination of the Archduke, the reality is that the war was inevitable as the political tensions had grown to a point where a single spark was going to explode the powder keg. The assassination provided that spark, but if it had not happened, something else would have soon enough.

The thing is that politicians will always use whatever they can to manipulate and exploit their populations when they want to go to war. Religion is just one arrow in the quiver, they are just as willing to manipulate patriotism or something else. That it can be used to manipulate people does not make religion a bad thing, any more than anything else that politicians twist and use. The one consistent factor in all wars are the politicians.

For the record, I believe that Bin Laden was sincere in his religious beliefs and his anger with American incursion into holy lands. And, BTW, I'm not judging them by any standard. You don't even know my position on 9/11.

I agree that OBL was very sincere in his religion, I also know from reading a huge amount of material about him and AQ and their actions previous to and leading up to 9/11, that he was just as passionate about the politics of it all. This becomes very obvious in the selections of targets. Embassies, Ships, The WTC, The Pentagon, the Capital. These are symbols of the US's political and military power, not its religious power. The attacks were against symbols of the US political power because they were from a political motive, even though that motive was enmeshed with religious belief.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's likely the French Revolution would have happened even if atheists were not in the mix. It's clear atheists played a role, though probably not an essential starting role.

Oh I agree that it would likely have occurred without them, that's the thing about wars that have no real single starters, but rather groups that come together in a common cause. Removing one or two of the group is unlikely to effect the end result. However, when you read about Jacques Hébert you find out that he was a publisher who was quite vocal pre-revolution and so was able to take a natural role in the revolution's leadership because of his position and views.

I was always taught the French Revolution was started by popular outrage over "the obliviousness and selfishness of the French upper-classes" which doesn't seem to have much to do with religion.

Again I agree, and I have to admit that without this thread I probably wouldn't have learned about them and their role in the war either. I was actually looking up to see how many Atheist leaders there have been with the ability to start a war, and Jacques Hébert's name popped up. In reality I believe from what I have read over the past few days, this guy and his group didn't so much start out with the idea of let's have a revolution and attack religion, but once he and his group got in a position of power via the revolution, they used that power to try and enforce their own ideology on France, and did so in a highly vicious and brutal manner.

Religious institutions do like to get involved in class warfare, on one side or the other. Guess which side wealthy churches are on.

Honestly this sound like an attempt to justify their actions. The thing is that they didn't just go after the rich churches, or the churches that supported the monarchy, they went after them all. They also went after the poor who were patrons of those churches, the very people that they were supposed to be liberating. In the end they even went after their allies because they weren't atheistic enough in their being deists rather than full blown atheists.

The Dechristianization of France was not an attempt to fight a church supporting the rich nobility, it was an attempt to destroy all religion and those that followed them by threats, violence, and murder so that it could be replaced with an atheistic ideology. In the end what it shows is that it is political ideology that is the dangerous thing, this is what causes war and atrocities. What the ideology is based about really tends to be irrelevant.

 

[s_pepys]

Atheism is also defined, in part, to mean a positive belief there are no god(s). I have continued to tell you how *I* use the word, and that you are applying your definition when I am using the other, narrower one.

Later, when speaking of Atheist Wars, I made it clear it was your broader definition. It would mean Wars waged without belief in god(s), and is a fair and reasonable use of the words.

So much for thread history...

OK, the topic is about Atheists (individuals?) who waged religious wars. Personally, I don't know the beliefs of historical figures. Some were purportedly religious, but did they really believe, or use religion as a tool? For a lot of years, religion was one of the most powerful forces in the world, so even atheists would pay lip service to gain access to that power.

Basically, wars were waged for power. Whatever pretext necessary would be used, and since 95% of the world believed in some sort of god(s), that is a huge powerbase to draw from, with built in manipulation handles to use. No matter the cause, theists and atheists alike fought.

Communists used atheism as a tool to attack churches, attaching atheism to communism, like religions attached to theism. Did communism do things against churches to promote atheism? Sure, that's what their propoganda said, though it was to further the cause of the power elite in communism. Religonists can explain away religious wars much the same way.

this is pure bullcrap. imho

 

[RandFan]

You keep conflicting "moral authority" and "divine moral authority".

Nope. Not at all. I mean divine moral authority and only divine moral authority. It's not at all controversial. These people believe that god is on their side and that fact is the justification for their actions.

I'd say welcome to reality, but I get the feeling you still won't agree with this.

I find that a cop out. Religion is a very powerful contributing factor. Just because there are multiple factors is not a reason to dismiss religion as a prime factor. Any suggestion otherwise, IMO, is just misdirection.

I'm not discounting that there have been wars fought purely because of religion, I just have yet to find one.

A.) It's silly to suggest that if a war isn't fought purely for religious reasons it can't be a religious war. B.) No one is arguing that wars are fought purely for religious reasons.

I agree that OBL was very sincere in his religion, I also know from reading a huge amount of material about him and AQ and their actions previous to and leading up to 9/11, that he was just as passionate about the politics of it all. This becomes very obvious in the selections of targets. Embassies, Ships, The WTC, The Pentagon, the Capital. These are symbols of the US's political and military power, not its religious power. The attacks were against symbols of the US political power because they were from a political motive, even though that motive was enmeshed with religious belief.

The targets were chosen based on feasibility and their ability to affect outcome. The idea that political motivated wars must have different targets than a religious based one is without foundation. The goal of war is to affect change.

One last thing, I'm sorry but you are far too and unnecessarily verbose. Take it from an old timer. You don't need to say so much to make your point. Less is more. Edit yourself.

 

[Egg]

I wouldn't think so but that might be my bias. Do you have any reason why that should be?

As I said, this is just your argument, only instead of inserting parts of scriptural text about killing unbelievers, you insert say "you shall not commit murder", "love your enemy", "turn the other cheek". Atheism would give no such incentive to stay the hand.

 

[RandFan]

As I said, this is just your argument, only instead of inserting parts of scriptural text about killing unbelievers, you insert say "you shall not commit murder", "love your enemy", "turn the other cheek". Atheism would give no such incentive to stay the hand.

That strikes me as specious. Sure there are those verses and commandments but when has that been an impediment to warmongers. I'm sorry but I simply don't buy it. Do you have any data?

 

[Egg]

That strikes me as specious. Sure there are those verses and commandments but when has that been an impediment to warmongers. I'm sorry but I simply don't buy it. Do you have any data?

History doesn't tend to record the absence of war. I don't see how that's relevant anyway. Your argument doesn't rely on specific evidence, it's more of a semantic/philosophical point.

Are you claiming that people only follow the bad parts of religion?

Do you not agree that atheism has no commands/dogma/divine authority that might prevent a person from killing where religion does?

 

[RandFan]

History doesn't tend to record the absence of war. I don't see how that's relevant anyway. Your argument doesn't rely on specific evidence, it's more of a semantic/philosophical point.

Are you claiming that people only follow the bad parts of religion?

Do you not agree that atheism has no commands/dogma/divine authority that might prevent a person from killing where religion does?

I think history demonstrates that power corrupts and those that want to go to war will find the religious prescription in the Bible to justify their wants. I'm not saying it's impossible but there's just too much violence to think religion has had a significant impact in reducing wars. The data suggest strongly that we have become less violent with the advancement of secular society (see Pinker's Myth Of Violence and Better Angels). There is in fact data it doesn't match up with your hypothesis. That's not to say it's impossible for a leader to be influenced for good by the Bible I just don't see any evidence of it.

 

[Belz...]

Nor does atheism prevent them. Thus, one cannot say atheists don't believe in unseen entities as you have repeatedly done. They only don't believe in god(s).

Has anybody here argued otherwise ?

 

[Belz...]

9/11 was political.

...which is why the hijackers shouted "god is great" when they plunged 93 to the ground.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Has anybody here argued otherwise ?

Yes, RandFan has.