The God Fuse

[joobz]

Ok, let's assume this but can that be linked to the attrocities?

yes, especially with the growing antisemetic views during the cold war within russia. Many jews within the state stopped referring to themselves as jewish to avoid any problems. For simple fear of being viewed as being enemies of the state because of thier religion. Atheism was acceptable, jewish wasn't.

 

[joobz]

How the hell would atheism become corrupted?

when atheism becomes anti-theism.

 

[The Atheist]

Ten Things Christians and Atheists Can - and Must - Agree On

Hey, thanks for that - I made the front page!! Outstanding!

I wasn't going to bother replying, but I think I ought to, now:

"Celebrating the death of someone you disagree with makes you a dick."

I agree.

I wouldn't ever celebrate the death of someone simply because I disagree with them. I celebrate the death of Falwell becuase he was a liar, hypocrite and homophobe. I made this exact comment elsewhere yesterday] I didn't celebrate the death of Pope John Paul XVIIDCLXXV, but neither was I saddened by it - he is just one of the millions of deaths each day. In the case of Rowan Williams, if he were to die, I would mourn him, despite his position as head of the second-largest christian sect.

This comment on your front page:

But you start cheering his death, you've walked away from the one single baseline every remotely moral person has ever agreed on: the value of human life. And I know we all agree on that, because we can all can think of people we could've otherwise stabbed and gotten away with it.

is just pure BS. You're trying very hard to push your own moral standards, just as hard the guy who wants to kill Jesus a second time is pushing his.

Pots, kettles and the colour black.

1. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One

I'll simply borrow Ken's answer for this:
[QUOTEtbken]No, people have never killed in the name of atheism. Atheism has no philosophy, belief system or dogma that tells anyone to do anything. To kill in the name of atheism is like saying a person killed in the name of not believing in pixies.[/QUOTE]

I would add that nearly all crime is committed by non-philatelists.

2. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying

Odd point, really, since one side believes in fact while the other side believes in fairies. "Belief" is the problem, but the statement is inherently correct, otherwsie they'd be agnostics.

3. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different

Not quite. In many cases, you're right, but in as many, and possibly more cases, the statement is wrong. Many christians say grace and pray. Most of them attend church and give money to the church. I think the two sets tend to act quite differently a lot of the time, but in subtler ways than you might realise.

4. There Are Good People on Both Sides

Irrelevant point - there are good people in jail, just as there are bad cops.

5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them

No. If they read and believe the word of Jesus, that statement is crap. Zealots, maybe, but who cares? On the other hand, christianity isn't any more offensive to me than Loch Ness Monster or the Cottingley Fairies.

6. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy

Wrong, but with an element of truth, we all like to use hyperbole in speech - ever seen a politician talk? I think elements of fundamental christianity certainly exaggerate, but it's a minority. The statement is itself a vast exaggeration.

7. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too

In what way? That's a pretty general statement. Do both atheists and christians equally claim to have ten-inch dicks? People exaggerate, no news there.

8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid

No, you're simply obfuscating here. The negative examples are what makes the difference. When an irrational christian couple lets their kid die by praying instead of treating it, that's a reason to attack the belief that prayer cures the sick.

9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table

Same level of irrelevancy [and the same point] as #4. Tautological excuse to give you a number 9.

The problem you overlook is that while literally millions of deaths can be laid directly at the door of christianity, none can be laid at the door of atheism. Certainly, atheists amy be murderes, but as has been pointed out ad nauseum, the murders weren't committed in the name of atheism.

Both sides may have brought "good", but only brings "bad".

10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence

Depends on the level of harrassment, I guess. Sharia Law harrasses atheists into non-existence, that certainly works.


While there's some merit in some of your comments, overall, it seems to be written from the perspective of a little boy standing and whining, "Why can't we all just be friends....?" It doesn't raise any particularly valid points and contains nothing new, or even notable. It's exactly the same as going into the GS&P section and asking why we can't just bury the hatchet with Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller and all live happily ever after.

That's a perfectly acceptable attitude to have. Just don't expect too many to share it.

 

[RandFan]

yes, especially with the growing antisemetic views during the cold war within russia. Many jews within the state stopped referring to themselves as jewish to avoid any problems. For simple fear of being viewed as being enemies of the state because of thier religion. Atheism was acceptable, jewish wasn't.

You will need to do much better than this. You have simply asserted something. You A.) need to establish your premises and then you B.) need to show that it was a religious view point rather than an unwillingness to conform by Jews to the ideological views of Communism. Keep in mind that we are trying to establish a causal as opposed to a casual relationship here. The difference is very important.

 

[triadboy]

...you can read until you see something you disagree with. We'll see how long we can make it last.

I disagree with something before this sentence!

You showed a picture of a guy promoting a website - with a joke on it.

You seem to be insinuating that he is somewhere on the totem pole of being an "aggressive...evangelical atheist"?

"If Jesus Returns. Kill Him Again." That's funny on several levels. But first, I guess you have to know the sign-carrier doesn't believe there ever was a supernatural Jesus; he doesn't beleive that somehow "we" killed him in the first place or that killing him again may do the trick this time. When you look at it from that angle, it's funny.

It is also a Needle-Joke aimed at Christian believers (not Muslims, Hindus, etc), who believe that Jesus is coming back to Earth soon. How soon you ask? It's been imminent for 2000 years. Very funny.

There is a wonderful theological/mythological joke here too. If you understand the theology of xianity - you know Jesus has to die. Period. He's a dying god-man. If he doesn't die - then he's a living God on Earth - you can't have that. So if he comes back you better kill him or you're screwed! Funny.

I don't think this guy is aggressive at all. What level do you rate his "aggressiveness"? Are there meaner ones?

 

[joobz]

You will need to do much better than this. You have simply asserted something. You A.) need to establish your premises and then you B.) need to show that it was a religious view point rather than an unwillingness to conform by Jews to the ideological views of Communism. Keep in mind that we are trying to establish a causal as opposed to a casual relationship here. The difference is very important.

I disagree. I simply need to show where it was used as an oppressive view. You wish to seperate the notion of state and atheism, where it was one in the same. religion is an extension of culture. As atheism was an extention of Russian culture. You establish a superior viewpoint and you create a way to oppress those who don't agree with you. I'll say again, when atheism becomes anti-theism.

 

[RandFan]

I disagree.

Feel free to disagree.

I simply need to show where it was used as an oppressive view.

No, but you haven't even done that. You have simply asserted it. I don't think you understand argument.

You wish to seperate the notion of state and atheism, where it was one in the same. religion is an extension of culture. As atheism was an extention of Russian culture. You establish a superior viewpoint and you create a way to oppress those who don't agree with you. I'll say again, when atheism becomes anti-theism.

There's not much more I can do or say. You have not established your premises. You have not demonstrated a causal relationship. I guess truth is whatever you assert that it is in your mind. Hey, I was in your position at one time. I think my arguments were much better than yours but even those didn't carry the day.

Thanks I guess.

 

[RandFan]

I don't think you understand argument.

BTW, I like to refer to Monty Python's argument clinic but I think in this instance I'd like to quote slingblade.

An argument is a set of logical statements: a premise or premises, and a conclusion. The premises provide support for the conclusion, and the conclusion is asserted to be true on the basis of the premises. An argument is valid when true premises cannot lead to a false conclusion. An argument is sound when its content is true or factual.

An argument can be proven or disproven, regardless of who speaks it or why. It can be falsified or verified, independent of the one who makes it. Its truth or falsity rests on its claims, not on its speaker. For example, smoking is bad for one's health. This is true even when a smoker makes the argument.

A message is an opinion. It is an emotion-based statement of belief, feeling, or point of view (among other descriptors). It can be false, it can be based on error, and it can be full of crap. Opinion is not argument, and the simple fact that you hold a particular opinion does not make either it or you unassailable.

 

[joobz]

Feel free to disagree.

No, but you haven't even done that. You have simply asserted it. I don't think you understand argument.

I think you wish my argument was something other than what it is. I state that atheism can be used as religion can be used for atrocity. You need to explain to me why human nature can't use athiesm in the same way.

Soviet control over church lands.

As a result of the persecution, both state-sponsored and unofficial antisemitism became deeply ingrained in the society and remained a fact for years: ordinary Soviet Jews often suffered hardships, epitomized by often not being allowed to enlist in universities or hired to work in certain professions. Many were barred from participation in the government, and had to bear being openly humiliated. Soviet media usually avoided using the word "Jew," and many felt compelled to hide their identities by changing their names.

This along with what I know from personal accounts from an atheist from Russia lead me to realize that atheism was allowing people to be treated as leser for thier beliefs.

Now show me how atheism wasn't a part of the oppression. And explain to me why you think athiesm is beyond corruption. Any world outlook can be used in oppressive ways. It just takes a charismatic leader and a sense of rightousness.

There's not much more I can do or say. You have not established your premises. You have not demonstrated a causal relationship. I guess truth is whatever you assert that it is in your mind. Hey, I was in your position at one time. I think my arguments were much better than yours but even those didn't carry the day.

Thanks I guess.

This entire comment is useless and is meaningless.

 

[SamanthaMc]

"Celebrating the death of someone you disagree with makes you a dick."

I agree.

I wouldn't ever celebrate the death of someone simply because I disagree with them. I celebrate the death of Falwell becuase he was a liar, hypocrite and homophobe. I made this exact comment elsewhere yesterday] I didn't celebrate the death of Pope John Paul XVIIDCLXXV, but neither was I saddened by it - he is just one of the millions of deaths each day. In the case of Rowan Williams, if he were to die, I would mourn him, despite his position as head of the second-largest christian sect.

Celebrating someone's death is very distasteful to me. While I feel a sense of satisfaction that Falwell will no longer spew hate in the name of religion, I do not feel gleeful. When a murderer is put to death, I may feel satisfaction that they will never harm someone else, but I don't feel joy.

To me, celebrating someone's death is akin to wishing they were dead, just along a different point on a timeline.

 

[joobz]

B.) need to show that it was a religious view point rather than an unwillingness to conform by Jews to the ideological views of Communism.

This makes absolutely no sense. practicing faith was a "unwillingness to conform to the ideological views.." to an atheistic state. Just like being anything but the state religion is an unwillingness to conform to the ideological views of a theocracy.

 

[RandFan]

I think you wish my argument was something other than what it is.

No.

I state that atheism can be used as religion can be used for atrocity. You need to explain to me why human nature can't use athiesm in the same way.

No, not really. It's your claim. You need to demonstrate your claim. In any event, anything is possible. That is not the point.

This along with what I know from personal accounts from an atheist from Russia lead me to realize that atheism was allowing people to be treated as leser for thier beliefs.

Even if this is true it does not demonstrate that it is because of atheism. It could very well be that Judaism was perceived by the Soviets to be a threat to Communism.

See, this is where you are failing in your attempt here. You are not taking into account other possibilities. You are making assumptions that are not necessarily warranted and certainly not established.

Now show me how atheism wasn't a part of the oppression.

{sigh} Show me how Santa Claus doesn't deliver presents at Christmas. This is not the way it works joobz. It's your claim. It is up to you to demonstrate your claim.

And explain to me why you think athiesm is beyond corruption.

Not at issue.

This entire comment is useless and is meaningless.

The statement was, in part, rhetorical. I'll grant you that.

1. You have not established your premises.
2. You have not established a causal relationship between the Soviets Atheism and any Jewish oppression.

Those are demonstrable. You might not like them. You might find them meaningless but they are correct nonetheless.

 

[RandFan]

This makes absolutely no sense.

?

Asserting that it makes no sense does not make you right.

...practicing faith was a "unwillingness to conform to the ideological views.." to an atheistic state.

Perhaps but was the objection one of offense at the view of atheism or a that Judaism was not conducive to Communism. Communism need not be atheistic BTW.

Just like being anything but the state religion is an unwillingness to conform to the ideological views of a theocracy.

Same problem, theocracy could simply be the reason stated. The actual impetus could very well, and has very well, been something else.

 

[Megalodon]

The old confusion about the meaning of atheism seems to have appeared again...

Allow me to shamelessly quote from my own blog:

"Atheism - The lack of faith in any deity (yes, that includes yours).

Let's now dissect that definition, to avoid misunderstandings:

lack: absence
faith: Belief that is independent of logical proof or material evidence
any: all without specification
deity: entity of supernatural powers or attributes, believed to have partial or total control over reality

This is atheism's definition as held by atheists in general, and by me in particular.

Now, even the casual reader will notice some interesting details. For instance:

A "...lack of faith..." does not mean "hate", no matter how much you want to stretch it. So when deluded believers accuse atheists of being mad at, or even hating god, they are being... well... deluded. I don't dislike your god any more than I dislike Santa Claus. I might dislike you, but that's because you're an insufferable prick;

The expression "... in any deity." means just that. It doesn't single out major or minor deities, either of air, land or water, omnipotent, omnipresent or both. I am an equal opportunity disbeliever;

Thus, the expression "...lack of faith in any deity" cannot (in the absence of mental disorder) be construed as "the hatred of your god", "the worship of Satan" or any of the other depressingly stupid things believers think atheism stands for.

It's quite simple:
You don't believe in Santa, I don't believe in Santa.
You don't believe in fairies and look! I don't believe in fairies.
You don't believe in Bigfoot, or Yeti, or Nessie. I don't believe in them either.
You believe in god, I don't... that's it, no harm done. It just means that you are able to believe in things without logical proof or material evidence. I'm not, and although I think such magical thinking is one of the major dangers to our advance as a society, chances are that you're not dangerous at all. Just self-deluded."

 

[joobz]

No, not really. It's your claim. You need to demonstrate your claim. In any event, anything is possible. That is not the point.

But it goes to the heart of my point. that the original claim
"You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One "
is true. I think history has shown religion to be much more likely for this to occur, but that doesn't mean that atheism will avoid this issue.

Even if this is true it does not demonstrate that it is because of atheism. It could very well be that Judaism was perceived by the Soviets to be a threat to Communism.

See, this is where you are failing in your attempt here. You are not taking into account other possibilities. You are making assumptions that are not necessarily warranted and certainly not established.

But similar arguments exist for religious wars. You can equally find state/political motivations for the crusades... This doesn't mean that religion is therefore innocent.

{sigh} Show me how Santa Claus doesn't deliver presents at Christmas. This is not the way it works joobz. It's your claim. It is up to you to demonstrate your claim.

Yes, I admit that was stupid.

The statement was, in part, rhetorical. I'll grant you that.

1. You have not established your premises.
2. You have not established a causal relationship between the Soviets Atheism and any Jewish oppression.

Those are demonstrable. You might not like them. You might find them meaningless but they are correct nonetheless.

No, I respect that. And you are right. I haven't done a good job presenting my case.

However, you wish to draw a distinction between state and atheism that I don't see why they are seperate. Atheism was a tool of the state to promote communism. Christianity was a tool of Spain to conquer the new world. Does that make the killing off all south american religions a religious attrocity or a state sponsered attrocity?

 

[CapelDodger]

Prove that the world is a better place. I do think it is a given that [Falwell's] death will be for the best. Who is taking his place.

Worms. Definitely for the best - I''ve some respect for worms.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And that is a rather d$ckish view.

That's your silly little opinion. Those that mourn Falwell were also his enablers and probably racists, bigots and religious supremecists themselves.

 

[joobz]

That's your silly little opinion. Those that mourn Falwell were also his enablers and probably racists, bigots and religious supremecists themselves.

Yup, it is my opinion. As silly as it may be.

 

[thaiboxerken]

when atheism becomes anti-theism.

What?! This is one of the most absurd things posted, ever. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god. Anti-theism doesn't come from atheism, if anything, it comes from people getting fed up with the proponents of theism.

 

[RandFan]

But it goes to the heart of my point. that the original claim
"You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One "
is true. I think history has shown religion to be much more likely for this to occur, but that doesn't mean that atheism will avoid this issue.
But similar arguments exist for religious wars. You can equally find state/political motivations for the crusades... This doesn't mean that religion is therefore innocent.

No, I respect that. And you are right. I haven't done a good job presenting my case.

However, you wish to draw a distinction between state and atheism that I don't see why they are seperate. Atheism was a tool of the state to promote communism. Christianity was a tool of Spain to conquer the new world. Does that make the killing off all south american religions a religious attrocity or a state sponsered attrocity?

Great question. I've made the argument many times on this forum that religion is not that sole cause of the crusades, inquisitions, witch trials, etc. Though to be sure it was very significant.

You say atheism played a part. I will grant that it could have played a small part but I tend to doubt that it was at all significant. The problem was cult of personality and fanaticism. Both of these are the result of fanatical belief systems and not the lack of a belief system.

Atheism doesn't promote blind faith. Religion does. Atheism doesn't promote hero worship. Religion and ideologies do.

I think that there is a clear distinction of the motivating factors of religion vs non-religion. I'll concede that an atheist could hold contempt for a person of religion and therefore the atheism could play a part in atrocity but it is at best a very small part.