Atheism vs. Religion Dead Horse Beating Round 473!

Remove all ads!

I have an idea where you're trying to go, but you are not going to get anywhere if you continue to view this as a matter of atheism vs. theism. That dichotomy is too flawed. As that doesn't work, try something else. Because I can't and won't make your argument for you, some pointers:

The relationship between governments, ideologies and atrocities and the phenomena of modern totalitarian rule are more gainfully analysed under different dichotomies, in particular: individualism vs collectivism. Try that.

In addition to that, and probably more to your liking, there is Chris Hedge's approach. Hedges looks into a (religious or atheist) fundamentalist's acceptance of the possibility of man's fallibility and the human capacity for sin. It is IMO the non-acceptance of that that turns a world view, ideology or a religion into something dangerous. It is, however, not a question of theism or atheism per se.

 

I won't get in the religious debate since it's of no particular interest to me but I'll want to answer this argument since it's something I've heard quite many times and I'll have to say it's mostly BS in my opinion.

First off, Karl Marx did not complete his ideological work, it was up to others to complete it. He gave some tools and others were responsible for how to use those tools. The main problem with his ideology was the lack of thought how to reach it. He spent a lot of time discussing why the revolution would happen but not so much on how it should happen. He sort of imagined it to sort itself out eventually.

He also discussed the initial government which should be the dictatorship of the proletariat, he never talked about who should form this interim government which would supervise the move to perfect socialism. Lenin inteprented that the interim government should focus around the communist party, which is pretty obvious since the party members were the ones who knew most about the revolution and who had worked the most to achieve it. We all know how that ended up.

So Karl Marx's work was heavily flawed, it lacked the details on how the revolution should proceed and how the move towards socialism would work. He thought it would sort itself out, since he saw socialism as more or less inevitable anyhow. That's not how it happened and that makes the works of Marx an incomplete ideological basis. Therefore individuals like Mao, Lenin, Stalin and Kim il Sung have seen it as their duty to furfill the holes and make their own inteprentations, usually with murderous consequences. Not that Marx himself would have been foreign to violence. He admitted that those with the power would probably fight for their place with death and gather supporters to fight against the revolution, he had no illusions about the violent nature of revolution and the amount of bloodshed it would require.

 

The real problem in this dialogue is that the word "belief" is really a meaningless term to describe atheism. This is because atheism and theism are different ways of experiencing life. Atheism is not a system of beliefs, but a day-to-day, rather mundane (just my opnion) way of experiencing life. It is much more difficult to experience an unseen order, (see Moses, Jesus, Plato, Confucius, the Budda, Loa Tzu, etc), which requires a system of beliefs, while atheism makes no such demands upon us.

Theism is experienced in a completely different manner:

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

The archetypes work in much the same manner and provide experiences into the Unseen Order which we collectively share. But the experience is not within the day-to-day experience (the chronos), but within a revealed moment - the time in-between. Yet, for those who have experienced this "appointed instant" there is no longer any need for belief, because you "know" it. The belief system becomes organic, and grows out of the experience, as it did for all the above I mentioned. This may seem (and probably is) a very subjective view. But for that I make no apologies.

 

No, I'm pretty sure there are some big unfilled gaps there. To quote Dawkin's, as he's been mentioned a few times already in this thread, "Admissions of ignorance and temporary mystification are vital to good science". I can tell you that I have no bloody clue where the universe came from, but I am pretty damn sure that it wasn't any super-natural entity that wished it out of no where.

 

But are we really forced into a decision when we are being asked to make a false choice? Drew has already covered this point ad naseum. While it is certainly true that both theists and athiests have taken part in atrocities throughout the past centuries, the atrocities committed by atheists are not done in the name of atheism or to spread atheism. I will go further and say that most of the atrocities committed by theists throughout the past centuries were not done in the name of their particular brand of theism or to spread it to others either.

And this gets to the core reason of why it's a false choice: It is far more likely that a human failing such as greed, power, hatred, fear, etc is what drives people to commit atrocities than some philosophical theist/atheist belief. Taken from that perspective, if you are forced to make a choice then you would have to say neither.

However, there are instances (albeit rare) where theism and by extension religion have been directly responsible for certain atrocities. Christians have been killed simply for being Christians, and then Christians have killed others for not being Christian. (And that's just one example - you can find similar instances of all different kind of belief systems of course.) On the other hand, I've never heard of an atheist wanting to kill someone because they were a theist. This is also why I feel that the people on that other board the pplr cited are not representative of atheists as a whole. That alone is enough for me to not accept pplr's choice presented above as appropriate to the discussion at hand.

 

Please read the link below, specifically under "Russian Orthodox Church under Communist rule".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Russian_Orthodox_Church_under_Communist_rule

These also are worthwhile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianisation_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution

If you read the links you will.

I don't think all Christians are represented by the worst of us either. I would hope atheists like those on the other site are also rare within atheism. But they do exist and I don't know if the trend is that there will be more like them in the future. But teaching selective history is likely to increase the odds that there will be more of them by adding to an us good & them bad pattern of thinking/bias.

 

The first sentence of your link says, "The Eastern Orthodox Church clergy in Russia were seen as sympathetic with the cause of the White Army in the Civil War." That tells me many church leaders were seen as traitors to the state, and in direct opposition to the state. Everyone caught being uncooperative with the new regime was executed and/or totured and/or sent to prison camps. This was not special treatment for the preists and bishops in question. I still feel this is more about power and control of the people than it is about atheism. (Are we still allowed to disagree with wikipedia?)

I never said they were - I even admitted that those theists who committed atrocities in the name of theism were a tiny, tiny subgroup.

I did read your post concerning the teaching of selective history in former Yugoslavia, however, I would like to point out that what is and is not included in any history class is selective, and any history class that places moral judgements on the outcomes can be considered biased. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your hoped-for outcome is likely unrealistic (and by dint unattainable).

 

If you actually think this, then you're sheltered. Very sheltered. Just in the article pplr linked, atheists are attacking theists. Now yes, it's verbally instead of physically, but that's as good as they can do, and considering some of them are even advocating violence against theists (I hope you all get murdered), I think it's easily close enough to count. On top of that, I've seen cases at universities (my own and others) of kids getting jumped for wearing religious attire (cross pendants, stars of david, hijabs, etc.). Considering they seem to be targeting all religions and only religions, I'm betting that's an atheist belief backing that.

Exactly, and they chose to instill atheism in their people and to oppress all religions. That wasn't necessary, that was a choice for atheism.

My only problem with that is that, again, plenty of monarchs and tyrants have done just that through the churches. By attacking all religions, these governments actually lost power.

All in all, Coin, I think you're making one huge mistake. You're comparing atheism to organized religion, and that's not a valid comparison. Atheism compares to theism. Organized religions compare to organized atheistic groups (such as the atheistic communists, perhaps, and probably atheistic democracy supporters, too), not atheism as a whole.

Just like you pointed out that Atheism was used by rutheless rulers in the USSR, in China, etc., Theism was used by rutheless rulers in the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.

That's why we say if you can blame one for the attrocities, you have to blame the other, too.

There's just one problem with that, Ragusa. We aren't trying to find the root of all human extremism, just determine whether or not atheism is immune to it. History alone tells us atheism isn't. Your dichotomies, while perhaps more valid, don't really help that any.

There's just one problem with that, Chandos. Behind that 'experience of life" that atheism brings about is a system of belief. The core belief there is that there is no supernatural. That is a belief, no matter how you cut it, and it is a belief all atheists share. In fact, it's the definition of atheism. I don't care if it impacts the way you experience the world or not, and if it does that's great, but it's still a system of belief.

The problem there is that you aren't really admitting ignorance. You are defending an unproven (i.e. not really known) belief. True admission of ignorance would simply end at "I have no bloody clue where the universe came from". Anything after that is clinging to a belief you can't prove, and thus rejecting your ignorance.

And this is actually my point. By showing that both atheism and theism are prone to extremism and attrocities, we prove that neither one is the source for it. No one's trying to blame it on atheism here (and I don't think anyone here is trying to blame it on theism).

The problem here is that you still haven't actually found the cause. Sure, it was Christian vs Non-Christian, but was that religious, or a consolidation of power? I'll bet you it was the latter in every case.

There's another problem. You say that atheists don't want to kill theists, and then point to a group who apparently does, and use that to exclude them from atheism. That doesn't work. Atheism isn't defined by non-violence, but by a particular belief. Those on that forum share that belief, and express firm desires for violence based on that belief (and really, there, I can't find any other cause for it, other than maybe invading their internet stomping grounds).

Now, I'll agree that those on the board probably aren't representative of the whole of atheism, any more than the Inquisition is representative of the whole of theism. But both are representative of parts of their groups, because they are parts of their groups.

 

Chandos, how is Aethism mundane? How could you pretend to know, experiencing it from the other side only? I, as an Aethiest, encounter new experiences everyday. I contemplate subjects as much as any Theist. Just not in the same way as you are. Or maybe they are the same, just from a different viewpoint. I am not so closed as to mute out the rest of the universe and life's experiences. I chose to not believe in god, but that doesn't close all the pathways for me in life and opens many that you don't experience in your belief system. I would never trivialize a belief system in a God, please don't trivialize my own.

 

Yes you can disagree with wikipedia but in general it is often correct/gets the basic theme down.

I would say argue it was both special treatment and went beyond the war. It was special treatment because religious people where singled out because of their religious beliefs. Not that different from how the Nazis singled out Jews based on their religion/ethnicity, they killed many people for many reasons but each group they targeted-gay and gypsy as well-was "singled out".

It went beyond the war because the discrimination was still going on long after it ended and because of the ideological arguments against religion that existed prior to the Russian Civil War.

Also, you may not have had time to read the whole thing yet I would suggest you do as well as the others.

I didn't say you had. Just that comparing the similarities of the situation.

Thanks, I appreciate that you did read it. And I know that history class is often selective in what it goes over. But there are important themes or events that should be acknowledged. I would be against the teaching of US History without references to slavery or the treatment of American Indians (including events such as the Trail of Tears).

Even if the whole is unattainable that does mean we shouldn't try. Also I think it is important to bring things up when general themes presented (members of group X never did bad things in service of that group/its defining characteristic) are both highly questionable and self-serving.

 

You are a tiny grasshopper...

 

I was not considering atheism as a "belief system" but as mundane experience, since some atheists, at least here, were denying that it WAS a belief system. For instance, if you see a bolt of lightening come out of the sky you understand its mundane (day-to-day) source: A reaction that can be understood with elementary science, and of no real significance (unless it hits you). It is not the God Zeus throwing lightening bolts from the sky because he is unhappy. For the ancient Greeks such an experience was part of an elaborate "system of belief" in a hierarchy of Gods (which we all know). And how those Gods have human chacateristics and must be placated in some manner. I was simply drawing a distinction between the two experiences.

That there is a 3rd possibility still requires attaching meaning to a source that (as some here have pointed out) is not required. There is a reason that YOU are attaching more meaning to the mundane, which I fully understand and appreciate. My whole point is that humans have an innate desire to reach beyond the mundane and experience life within a larger context (then just a chemical reaction). That larger context is often described as Meaning.

BTW, it does not really require a belief in God, (necessarily) to understand lightening as an archetype, since some have attempted to explain their existence through the results of evolution, or as some type of primordial elements. But that is open to discussion.

The comment was not directed at you personally (that you would take it as personally directed towards you seems odd to me). Nevertheless, for you to say that there have NOT been atheists on this board who have trivialized religion, and those who believe in God, is not an accurate statement.

 

It doesn't work? I cannot take a radicalized subgroup and exclude them from the rest of the group? I guess then you'll disagree with this comparison: I assert that Christians don't think God hates homosexuals. However, I can also point to certain radicalized Christian sects that apparently do think God hates homosexuals. I would like to exclude those Christians from mainstream Christianity as non-representative of the group as a whole. By your logic, that doesn't work.

I really have no desire to belabor this point, especially when I acknowledged in my initial post that I don't think many atrocities are influenced in any manner by whether or not the personal philosophy of an individual is theistic to atheistic. I simply contend that most atheists who kill people don't do it because they are atheists but have some ulterior motive. I don't think there is much of an ulterior motive of a terrorist who steps onto a public bus with explosives strapped to himself - he's doing it for Allah, and he's going to see him.

That I definitely agree with. But there is even another thing I forgot to mention earlier. History class can certainly be biased and selective. But it is nearly universally (at least when speaking of the public domain) nationalistic. You will find very few text books that are overly critical of the nation itself, especially when speaking of history taught at any level prior to college.

You point out slavery in the US - and that's a great example. In nearly every elementary school or secondary school history book you pick up in the US, the Union is portrayed as the "good guys" and the Confederates as the "bad guys", even though I'm pretty sure the Confederates didn't view themselves as such at that time. While history books could be written in a manner that was sympathetic to both sides (they were all Americans afterall), since the Confederates were seeking to dissolve the nation, objectivity gives way to nationalism in nearly every history book you see that is used to teach children.

 

There's a difference. Christians typically refers to those who follow Christian beliefs. Now, there may be arguement as to what exactly that entails, depending on denominations, but most all of those sets of beliefs directly reference homosexuality somehow, as well as how we should act toward those who practice it. That's part of what Christian teaching is. Atheism, however, doesn't teach anything concerning violence or hate. It doesn't touch the topic. Atheism claims there is no supernatural. That's all. No 'love your enemy', no 'violence is wrong', nothing of the sort.

A better analogy would be for me to say I can't exclude people from Christianity because they support/oppose this health reform bill. Christianity doesn't say anything about how much a government should pay to support the health of it's people, or how it should go about doing it. That's not an issue Christianity covers, so you can't include/exclude from the group based on it.

Basically, what I'm saying is that you can only include/exclude from a group based on the definition of that group. If you call the group Atheists, then you have to abide by the definition of Atheism, just like I have to abide by the definition (blurry as it may be) of Christianity when I talk about Christians. If you want to specify non-violent Atheists, then you have to call them something else, because that's not just Atheism anymore, that's Atheism with conditions.


Chandos, similarly, the whole problem with your arguement is that what you're talking about isn't atheism. It's the result of atheism. If that's how atheism expresses itself in your life, that's great, but atheism itself is a belief.

 

I did not say that others haven't trivialized religion on these boards. I wouldn't assume to speak for them either. Nor would I, the proof is in the posting . But, of course I would take it personally, you just shrunk what I believe into the mundane. My wife is a very religous, church going Catholic. I love her dearly and completely respect her beliefs, even going so far as to allow her to get my daughter baptized(spelling?). But I won't allow her to push religion onto my kids anymore than that. They will make their choices when they are old enough to understand it.

I also look for Meaning in my life. In my case, I have already ruled out religion and I'm currently searching other avenues and I'm going in other directions than you. My journey through life is not mundane, but chock full of experiences that take me from one place to another, always fascinating me more and more. Not all experiences that aren't "religous" can be broken down by science, at least not IMO.

I don't feel that you are trying to belittle Aethiest, but just try to understand it from my view, not necessarily the view of others that label themselves as Aethiest here on these boards. Maybe I label myself incorrectly or have a different definition of Aethiest, I don't know....

 

If that's the rule you intend to follow, then go for it. I have no intention of abiding by a rule I don't agree with. You see for me, people who wish to murder others not only deserve to be excluded from mainstream atheism, they deserved to be excluded mainstream rational thinking people. That's why I can't abide by your rule - I'd have to then define "people" and would be unable to exclude anyone who qualifies as a person, and then come up with some other term for which to categorize them. Which, of course, is getting silly. It makes your "rule" cumbersome at best, and lacking practical utility at worst.

 

Atheisim does not "express" itself in my life, since I'm not one.

Athiests on this board have explained to you that they don't have a belief system, and this can be illustrated in real life experience. And as T2 commented, they still have "a value and moral system," which is not tied to any belief system outside of itself. It is NOT the "result" of atheism. That, as I commented in my first post, is the problem in this debate. If you listen, you will hear them.

 

That sure comes off as if your accusing all Aethiest of being violent, which I don't think was your intention. Violence is not a part of Aethism. At least, not for any Aethiests that I know or assosciate with. I would assume that we as a whole would assume that whether we are Aethiest or Christians, we are all non-violent. It's the violent types that should be classified otherwise.

 

Blades -- you need a /. Quote in brackets indicates the start of a quote, /Quote in brackets indicates the end.

 

Done, I was wondering why it posted that way, just missed the /. Thanks T2!