Atheists use 9/11 as excuse to attack all religions

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I gotta say as many problems as I have with most organized religion, it seems the argument here is that atheism is not responsible for mass atrocities like religion is.

Atheism qua atheism isn't responsible for anything, whether good or bad. People don't do good things, bad things, or anything at all because of their lack of belief in gods, any more than they do because of their lack of belief in the Loch Ness Monster. People don't heap praise upon atheism when Bill Gates donates massive amounts of money to charity, and it's not because they're being unfair to atheists. It's because it would be silly to give credit for that to something he's not.

The only reason it's so easy to slip into the pattern of imagining atheism as a positive position which belongs in a typology along with assorted religions is that in our crazy world, belief in the absurd is so common that lack of it stands out.

For the record, that argument is ridiculous, not only because of the likes of Stalin, Pol Pot, and the Chinese Communist Party, but by the sheer fact that atheism has not had the power that religion has commanded for so long.

Stalin, Pol Pot, and the Chinese Communist Party had atheism in common. They also had a lack of belief in the Loch Ness Monster in common. And if you think about it for a few seconds, you should be able to come up with something else they all had in common, but which by contrast is an actual belief system, and not merely the lack of one. Interesting cooincidence, eh?

But let Leninism and/or Stalinism aside. Pause for a moment and consider in seriousness the standard you're proposing. If a state is officially X or led by people who are X, and that state does something bad, we're going to attribute that to X. Well, if I valued emotional capital and rhetoric over careful thinking, I would take you up on that standard in an instant. By it, almost every foul deed comitted by any government in the entire history of mankind before the 20th century (or so, and including not a few after) is the fault of religion, since official state religions were the nearly universal norm before then and leadership by religious people is the rule with very few exceptions even now. To pick an example out of the blue, both world wars have suddenly become the fault of religion, even though neither had any obvious connection to religion at all. Fantastic.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that atheists are just as capable of doing horrible things as theists. A person's creed is a tool, nothing more. John Q. atheist, given ample power and time, is just as likely to become a mass-murdering fuckhead as any theist.

Of course atheists can do horrible things. Atheists are humans too. Whether any particular atheist or atheists on the whole are as likely to do horrible things as theists would depend on a variety of things. A starting point would be deciding which atheists and which theists we're talking about.

Honestly, claiming that atheism is somehow morally superior to theism is as silly as Christians claiming atheists can't be ethical without the ten commandments.

Nobody is claiming that. What the claim is depends on the person. In my case, the claim is that believing things without real, objective reasons to suppose they're true is a great way to convince yourself of... well, anything, whether it's the kind of thing that could turn you into a puppy dog or a homicidal demon. Sadly, history shows us that fluffy happy forms of believerism rarely stand a chance against venemous theologies like Christianity or Islam where it comes to ability to thrive and seize power. The basic problem with religion is in many respect the same problem that we have with other ideologies, which is to say, the problem of power. The reason religion stands out and attracts special ire from people like myself is that unlike political ideologies, it explicitly and unabashedly extols making crap up out of thin air and then pretending it's The Truth. That's a principle of thinking which the human race can no longer afford.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

The reason religion stands out and attracts special ire from people like myself is that unlike political ideologies, it explicitly and unabashedly extols making crap up out of thin air and then pretending it's The Truth. That's a principle of thinking which the human race can no longer afford.

Here I disagree with you. Yes, religion does sling bullshit and demand unquestioning belief, but so can atheist governments. Athetistic polities can use atheism in the same way that theocracies use religion, including the act of justifying atrocities.

I think that when you said

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Atheism qua atheism isn't responsible for anything, whether good or bad. People don't do good things, bad things, or anything at all because of their lack of belief in gods, any more than they do because of their lack of belief in the Loch Ness Monster.

you're absolutely wrong. Atheism, in some cases, may be a system of non-belief, but, in the case of the early Soviet Union at least, it was more of substitution of one belief for another. Under Lenin and Stalin the church was suppressed so that the state could take its place. It was an attempt to eliminate any potential for split loyalty, to make the state god, and god the state.

Now, I do agree with you when you say that Atheism in and of itself does not cause violence, but the same can be said for organized religion. You're correct in asserting that people won't kill for a lack of belief in a god, and thereby implying that they might kill for for an actual belief in one. But, in a system where the state has supplanted god, and people kill for the state, is not killing for the state essentially the same as killing for god?

Granted, the Soviet Union never went to war crying "for God and country", but in the "Great Patriotic War", they fought for Stalin and the motherland. What's the difference?

It's a short leap - more of a leggy stride - from killing for god to killing for the state.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

But, in a system where the state has supplanted god, and people kill for the state, is not killing for the state essentially the same as killing for god?

Well, one difference that comes to mind is that I can point to 'the state' as actually existing. It can be defined in real terms, and demonstrably shown to have a presence in reality. I don't have to take the word of a scraggly dude who just climbed down from a mountain, I can actually visit the capitol and meet the President, senators, army dudes, and so forth.

[PortraitOfSanity]

In the great patriotic war they were defending their homeland from the Nazis, I don't see the comparison between that an fighting in God's name at all.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Well, one difference that comes to mind is that I can point to 'the state' as actually existing. It can be defined in real terms, and demonstrably shown to have a presence in reality. I don't have to take the word of a scraggly dude who just climbed down from a mountain, I can actually visit the capitol and meet the President, senators, army dudes, and so forth.

You're looking at religious belief as a skeptic does. To a religious adherent, their god is as real as any temporal authority. To a religious adherent, the word of the scraggly dude come down from the mountain is just as valid as any doctrinal decree of the state.

I find that the committed atheist are the religious zealot are often so close to each other that they are made indistinguishable to a third party observer.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by PortraitOfSanity

In the great patriotic war they were defending their homeland from the Nazis, I don't see the comparison between that an fighting in God's name at all.

You don't? Really? You don't see the similarity between the zealous crusader fighting to repel the Muslim from Jerusalem, and the Russian soldier fighting to repel the Nazis from Stalingrad? Or, for that matter, the devoted Nazi fighting to cleanse the world of its Slavic rabble and secure Lebensraum for his Teutonic brethren?

Both wars, in the minds of the participants, were existential. It doesn't matter if you don't see it that way; it matters that the people doing the fighting did.

[PortraitOfSanity]

If you're going to compare actions, no there's no difference at all. But fighting for your God, and fighting for your country aren't really the same thing...

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by PortraitOfSanity

If you're going to compare actions, no there's no difference at all. But fighting for your God, and fighting for your country aren't really the same thing...

In both scenarios, you are fighting for an intangible belief in something. While that may not be -exactly- the same thing, it -is- quite similar.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by PortraitOfSanity

If you're going to compare actions, no there's no difference at all. But fighting for your God, and fighting for your country aren't really the same thing...

That's my entire point. They can be made to be the same thing. Your entire viewpoint is skewed. You're looking through the lens of American modernity when trying to judge the actions of strange peoples from strange lands adhering to strange beliefs. You can't expect to fairly score the actions of those people when using modern American belief structures as your rubric.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

You're looking at religious belief as a skeptic does. To a religious adherent, their god is as real as any temporal authority. To a religious adherent, the word of the scraggly dude come down from the mountain is just as valid as any doctrinal decree of the state.

I find that the committed atheist are the religious zealot are often so close to each other that they are made indistinguishable to a third party observer.

Well, sure I am looking at it that way. The scraggly dude can say he has divine revelation, but you're kind of stuck taking his word for it. If I don't believe what the newspapers say, I can call my senator or even arrange a visit, or watch the vote take place. It might be an inconvenient pain in my ass to do so, but the option is there. There is a huge difference, and if religious people cannot appreciate that subtle distinction, then they really need to be removed from decision making roles.

Regardless of how passionately someone does something, I think it is pretty easy to see a difference based on the way they reach their conclusion. Even if the "how" looks similar, the "why" is a whole other story.

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

You can't expect to fairly score the actions of those people when using modern American belief structures as your rubric.

I'm American, and I agree with you..

Edit: I'm also a Christian, and quite suspect of the scraggly guy coming down from the mountain..

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Well, sure I am looking at it that way. The scraggly dude can say he has divine revelation, but you're kind of stuck taking his word for it. If I don't believe what the newspapers say, I can call my senator or even arrange a visit, or watch the vote take place. It might be an inconvenient pain in my ass to do so, but the option is there. There is a huge difference, and if religious people cannot appreciate that subtle distinction, then they really need to be removed from decision making roles.

Regardless of how passionately someone does something, I think it is pretty easy to see a difference based on the way they reach their conclusion. Even if the "how" looks similar, the "why" is a whole other story.

See my second response to PoS. I think that it applies to you as well.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

Edit: I'm also a Christian, and quite suspect of the scraggly guy coming down from the mountain..

Yeah, that whole bit seems a little convenient, does it not? Talking to god when no one else is around to verify your story. But, hey, if there's someone to buy your story.... Barnum said it best: There's one born every minute!

[Jonathan]

Cultural relativity was never my strong point.

Reason is superior to superstition on any useful metric. If the superstition is something harmless like observing a sabbath or not eating bacon, then I couldn't care less I hope they enjoy themselves. If that superstition is something that gets in the way then it doesn't deserve respect and needs to go.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Cultural relativity was never my strong point.

Reason is superior to superstition on any useful metric. If the superstition is something harmless like observing a sabbath or not eating bacon, then I couldn't care less I hope they enjoy themselves. If that superstition is something that gets in the way then it doesn't deserve respect and needs to go.

Again, you call it superstition. When Pope Urban II preached the first crusade it was a little something more than superstition, I should think. Mere superstition generally doesn't mobilize such vast resources.

You refuse to acknowledge any view point other than your own. Cultural relativity may not be your strong point, but it's the key to understanding this issue.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

In both scenarios, you are fighting for an intangible belief in something. While that may not be -exactly- the same thing, it -is- quite similar.

Your homeland being invaded and your countrymen slaughtered is NOT an intangible belief.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Again, you call it superstition. When Pope Urban II preached the first crusade it was a little something more than superstition, I should think. Mere superstition generally doesn't mobilize such vast resources.

You refuse to acknowledge any view point other than your own. Cultural relativity may not be your strong point, but it's the key to understanding this issue.

No, it was superstition back then too. Believing in something really hard doesn't make it real.

There is no reason whatsoever to give a non-rational belief equal footing with a rational one when the two conflict. I'm willing to indulge certain fantasies and not give people a hard time about them as long as they aren't impacting anything serious. I acknowledge the belief, I just don't have any value for it. This isn't just about religion, people can make arguments for doing something on an emotional basis too, but that doesn't make it a good idea or a justifiable reason to do something.

[PortraitOfSanity]

The religious call it faith.

The non-religious call it superstition.

Believing in something you have no physical proof of.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

The issue, again, isn't whether you two believe it. It matters whether or not the people in question believe it.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

The issue, again, isn't whether you two believe it. It matters whether or not the people in question believe it.

If they manifest their belief in a non-harmful way, they are welcome to it.
Otherwise, those beliefs need to go.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

That's a completely different issue, and a completely different discussion.

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Yeah, that whole bit seems a little convenient, does it not? Talking to god when no one else is around to verify your story. But, hey, if there's someone to buy your story.... Barnum said it best: There's one born every minute!

Well, there's that, but I'm wondering if you are referring to random, homeless nutjobs on today's streets, or a particular character in the Bible..

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by PortraitOfSanity

Your homeland being invaded and your countrymen slaughtered is NOT an intangible belief.

I thought we were talking about things like kamikaze pilots and religious wars..

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

Well, there's that, but I'm wondering if you are referring to random, homeless nutjobs on today's streets, or a particular character in the Bible..

I was thinking of Moses, but, to a skeptic, there's little difference between a homeless ranter and Moses, save for that Moses had an audience.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Atheism in itself cannot be responsible for anything, as it is the absolution of metaphysical belief. It's similar to how feminism in itself cannot be a source of antagonism as it is merely the destruction of gender differences.
However, they can be twisted into a positive identifier that sets apart those who 'are' from the rest of the world that 'are not'
That is observed a lot with feminists (either as slander or actual people believing they're feminist) so that's what I mention them as an example.

But when all is said and done, an attribute that is only the lack of something (eg. religious faith, sexism, racism, ethnocentrism) cannot be imposing in and of itself.

The question is, as religion makes several positive claims, can it be judged in the same manner?