Atheists use 9/11 as excuse to attack all religions

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Wednesday Friday Addams

Prove it. Show some propaganda showing that atheism was used as a driving force like equality was.

Are you fucking kidding me? How about the Marxist creed: "Religion is the opiate of the masses."? or Mao Zedong's "Religion is poison. Like a poison it retards the mind and weakens the race."? Or how about the previously mentioned "Reign of terror" Where priests were slaughtered, churches were destroyed, religion was made illegal, and anyone who harbored religious fugitives were put to the death on sight in the name of "Reason"?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I'm really not sure why having a concept of a god must be an a priori assumption Jillian. There was obviously a time before the concept of a god existed, therefore people did not always have the idea of god in their mind, and therefore for one to infer the possible existence of a greater/creator being is easily a possible conclusion to come to a posteriori. So why does it have to be a priori?

For that matter, why is it not reasonable to assume that that order is imposed/designed? As it is not common for order to occur randomly, it is reasonable to assume that that order is the work of a consciousness. We humans have consciousness and impose order, so what is so irrational about the idea that a greater consciousness imposed greater order?

That it ignores causation! It's the same reasoning than that clouds are for raining.
Because we as conscious beings can create apparent order does not logically lead to believing apparent order comes from a conscious being.
"A therefore B
B is true
Therefore A is true"?
Not so. That's one of the very first thing you learn in Logic.

Besides, "why not?" is something we only say to get away with something out of passion, not thought. If we want thought we ask "why?"
We've been through this so many times recently. Don't ask "why not believe this crazy shit?", ask "why believe this crazy shit?"

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Are you fucking kidding me? How about the Marxist creed: "Religion is the opiate of the masses."? or Mao Zedong's "Religion is poison. Like a poison it retards the mind and weakens the race."? Or how about the previously mentioned "Reign of terror" Where priests were slaughtered, churches were destroyed, religion was made illegal, and anyone who harbored religious fugitives were put to the death on sight in the name of "Reason"?

The Marxist quote is a principle, even a fact. Not a mantra.

Stalin didn't refuge himself behind that quote to create a state centered around atheism.
However, Mao really did some nasty shit in the name of atheism as progress; that much is true. And the reign of terror was a violent reaction to the church.

However, pinstripes was saying that "atheist policies" can exist that cause atrocities. That's just not true. And mentioning Stalin and Hitler as despots creating a reign of atheism? Not a very good argument.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

However, pinstripes was saying that "atheist policies" can exist that cause atrocities. That's just not true. And mentioning Stalin and Hitler as despots creating a reign of atheism? Not a very good argument.

I never said that. I said that governments are quite capable of committing atrocities without the bogeyman of religion being behind it. My phrasing, actually, was atheistic polities, not policies. They are very different words. Look them up.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Just tossing this in about the Stalin/Hitler atheism thing. Thinking that YOU are the most powerful being in the universe is not the same as atheism.

No one ever said that it was.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

That it ignores causation! It's the same reasoning than that clouds are for raining.

You keep saying "It ignores causation" what causation precisely is a theistic outlook ignoring? Because I honestly am having trouble understanding what you're getting at with this argument.

With your clouds analogy, you seem to be saying that it is illogical to infer purpose from observed phenomenon. ie:

"Clouds make rain, therefore people incorrectly assume that the purpose of clouds is to make rain, when clouds really have no inherent purpose?"

Is that correct?

Because we as conscious beings can create apparent order does not logically lead to believing apparent order comes from a conscious being.
"A therefore B
B is true
Therefore A is true"?
Not so. That's one of the very first thing you learn in Logic.

Okay...So basically you're saying that a guy inferring the possibility of God from what he observes about the ways people interact is the same thing as saying:

"Whales are mammals, whales swim in the ocean, therefore all mammals swim in the ocean?"

That's not even my argument. It would be somewhat similar if we were dealing with a positive claim, but we're not.

My argument is closer to:

"Whales are mammals, whales swim in the ocean, therefore it is possible that mammals other than whales also swim in the ocean."

So you don't really have a fallacy of equivocation there.

Besides, "why not?" is something we only say to get away with something out of passion, not thought. If we want thought we ask "why?"
We've been through this so many times recently. Don't ask "why not believe this crazy shit?", ask "why believe this crazy shit?"

Okay, but I really don't see how the soft assumption of some sort of deity is any crazier than the soft assumption of the lack of a deity. It's just as crazy to believe that everything we see is the product of chance and coincidence. What matters is how you want to look at it.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

From where I'm standing, I answered your argument way back in the begining when I said "Atheism is not statism". You just reiterated the same argument though, so now I'm wondering whether I understood your point in the first place. I get that you're saying atheism can be used to justify evil deeds. I just can't figure out what your support for that is.

I never said that atheism and statism are the same things. What I said is that, for one thing, governments don't need the bogeyman of religious belief to justify atrocities, and, for another, that governments can shore up their own power by undermining religions and making obedience to the state tantamount to a religious duty. Removing religion from the equation simply eliminates a potential source of split loyalties, and does not require an actual atheistic belief.

There's a big difference between your abusurdly stringent dichotomy and what I propose, one that you fail to appreciate.

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

I do want to get this Hitler thing out of the way (anyway, I suspect it will dovetail with the main question). I wasn't demanding that you acknowledge Hitler as a Christian. That should be obvious, since I expressed doubt about whether the label was appropriate myself. I was reacting to this:


Quote:
Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets
Athetistic polities can use atheism in the same way that theocracies use religion, including the act of justifying atrocities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake Dun
The formula with religion is simple: "A magic man to whom you owe obedience said X." You can justify pretty much anything with that. How do you do the same thing with atheism?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets
Ask Hitler or Lenin. They seem to have done it quite handily.


The only way that can be read is as an allegation that Hitler used atheism to justify atrocities. It's a lie I've heard so many times and which is so obviously untrue that I simply don't put up with it anymore (the usual version is some claim that Hitler was an atheist and/or was determined to spread atheism).

Again, I never said that Hitler was a proponent of atheism itself, especially not atheism as an ideological standpoint. In both cases religion proved to be a potential source of challenge to the authority of the state, and in both cases it was summarily dealt with. Leaving Lenin aside, we can look at the Third Reich, which was, for all intents and purposes, atheistic, but NOT because of any truly anti-religious sentiment. The only ideology at work was power-politics, the need to remove any wellspring of dissent.

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Now, I ran across another quote from you while digging up the above that may put all of this in perspective:

[From PinstripesAndPithHelmets]
"Are you implying that religion is somehow deadlier or more malicious than atheism? I'd ask you to look at history, as the most horrific genocides we can name have been committed for reasons other than religion."

I was scratching my head when I originally read that, but then I just assumed there was a glitch in your choice of expression or something and moved on. Now I'm thinking you actually meant it exactly the way you said it. I.e., you were suggesting that a genocide which is not committed for a religious purpose is by definition the fault of atheism.

Have you actually got the idea that "atheism" means anything that isn't religion? So like, if I kill a guy for his wallet, that's an example of atheism causing murder? Is that what you're saying here?

Yet again you grossly oversimplify my position. I never even implied that anything not done in the name of god was done for an atheistic reason, let alone actually said it. Notice my phrasing, reasons other than religion. I didn't mention atheist ideology, yet you seem content to tar me with that brush.

You seem bound and determined to misinterpret everything I've said, and to continually fall back on your ridiculously rigid dichotomies, ones allowing room for neither nuance or maneuver.

I'd reiterate my argument yet again, but I think, by now, you'll either understand it, or you won't. Or, a third option, you'll understand it but refuse to acknowledge it, and continue to try to put words in my mouth. Given your behavior thus far, my money is on the third choice.

[Despanan]

You know, the more I look at this, I'm not sure how one could say that a person inferring the possible existence of a creator consciousness in the way I described is affirming the consequent at all, even if we were dealing with a positive claim.

[Drake Dun]

Here's a compilation of quotes from your posts (in order of occurence, emphasis added):

Athetistic polities can use atheism in the same way that theocracies use religion, including the act of justifying atrocities... Are you implying that religion is somehow deadlier or more malicious than atheism? I'd ask you to look at history, as the most horrific genocides we can name have been committed for reasons other than religion... [in response to me: "How do you do [justify stuff] with atheism?"] Ask Hitler or Lenin. They seem to have done it quite handily... All I was doing was showing how atheism can be used in the same way as theism... My point, in short, is that both religion and atheism can be used, in different ways, to justify almost anything.

Looking back at the exchanges between us, maybe you were correct when you said that you were perfectly comprehensible in your responses, and in setting out your argument for me. If so, though, the reason I didn't understand your argument was that it's so crazy that it didn't even occur to me that anyone could actually mean such a thing. Either that, or I'm still missing your point. If the latter is the case, Jillian clearly shares my mistaken interpretation:

However, pinstripes was saying that "atheist policies" can exist that cause atrocities.

Your response to him was:

I never said that. I said that governments are quite capable of committing atrocities without the bogeyman of religion being behind it. My phrasing, actually, was atheistic polities, not policies...

Granted, you did say that governments are capable of committing atrocities without religion. Granted also that the words "atheist" and "polities" do not occur next to each other in your posts. But in view of the quotes at the top of this post, the only two possibilities I see are that (1) you were indeed saying that atheist policies/doctrines/principles/whathaveyou can be used to justify atrocities, or (2) you said something that sounded very much like that, but meant some other thing which is still unclear.

I don't want to be too much of a jerk holding you to the wall on this. I'm not demanding that you go back and clarify what you've already said, or admit that you were wrong, or admit that your choice of wording was unclear, or anything like that. I do, however, want to understand what you are saying now so that I can respond to it, and to clear the air of this accusation that I have been engaging in obfuscation.

So please explain what was meant by the quotes at the top of this post. Also, and relatedly, what criteria are you using when you make the assertion below?

...the Third Reich... was, for all intents and purposes, atheistic...

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Here's a compilation of quotes from your posts (in order of occurence, emphasis added):


Quote:
"Athetistic polities can use atheism in the same way that theocracies use religion, including the act of justifying atrocities... Are you implying that religion is somehow deadlier or more malicious than atheism? I'd ask you to look at history, as the most horrific genocides we can name have been committed for reasons other than religion... [in response to me: "How do you do [justify stuff] with atheism?"] Ask Hitler or Lenin. They seem to have done it quite handily... All I was doing was showing how atheism can be used in the same way as theism... My point, in short, is that both religion and atheism can be used, in different ways, to justify almost anything."


Looking back at the exchanges between us, maybe you were correct when you said that you were perfectly comprehensible in your responses, and in setting out your argument for me. If so, though, the reason I didn't understand your argument was that it's so crazy that it didn't even occur to me that anyone could actually mean such a thing. Either that, or I'm still missing your point. If the latter is the case, Jillian clearly shares my mistaken interpretation:

Quote:
However, pinstripes was saying that "atheist policies" can exist that cause atrocities.


Your response to him was:


"I never said that. I said that governments are quite capable of committing atrocities without the bogeyman of religion being behind it. My phrasing, actually, was atheistic polities, not policies..."



... in view of the quotes at the top of this post, the only two possibilities I see are that (1) you were indeed saying that atheist policies/doctrines/principles/whathaveyou can be used to justify atrocities, or (2) you said something that sounded very much like that, but meant some other thing which is still unclear.

I still don't see what you fail to understand.

1) Governments can commit atrocities without religion being a motivating factor. This point is why I asked you if you feel that theocracies are more dangerous than atheistic governments. You still haven't directly addressed that one, by the way.

2) While atheism itself does not necessarily call for the violent destruction of organized religion, governments with an atheistic bent (the Third Reich, for example), or governments that are actively atheistic (Soviet Union) can destroy organized religion in an attempt to limit potential sources of rivalry.

Stalin never came right out and said that destroying the power of the church was a political move, nor did Hitler, but they were both obviously acting, in large part, out of political concern. Rather, such moves were justified by a number of other reasons, including citing the foolishness and anachronistic nature of religion. Perhaps such measures really were motivated by a genuine belief in atheism, or perhaps not, but the point is that governments can justify selfish action with atheist ideology.


On another note, I never said that doing something without god in mind is tantamount to atheism, political or otherwise. That is a gem you decided to attribute to me.

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

I don't want to be too much of a jerk holding you to the wall on this. I'm not demanding that you go back and clarify what you've already said, or admit that you were wrong, or admit that your choice of wording was unclear, or anything like that. I do, however, want to understand what you are saying now so that I can respond to it, and to clear the air of this accusation that I have been engaging in obfuscation.

You're not holding me to a wall, because you've got nothing to hold me with, or against.

However, just the fact that you, ever so benevolently, tell me that you're not seeking for me to mend my erroneous ways, while meanwhile presenting a litany of the things you think I've done wrong, is proof that you are secure in your own arrogance. So secure, in fact, that you feel the need to tell me I'm wrong in such a way that, should I retaliate, you can retreat behind a Potemkin village of non-aggression, claiming that you had only voiced a wish of understanding.

Speaking plainly and frankly, you're something much worse than a jerk: you're two-faced, passive-aggressive, and utterly patronizing.

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

So please explain what was meant by the quotes at the top of this post. Also, and relatedly, what criteria are you using when you make the assertion below?

"...the Third Reich... was, for all intents and purposes, atheistic..."

My personal feelings about you aside, I'll explain, yet again, what I mean.

The Third Reich suppressed the organized churches of Germany, stripping the clergy of any political power. Hitler himself was not an atheist, but he effectively removed the church from power, thereby eliminating one rather large threat to his party's hegemony.

Theology no longer played into the power structure, yet the man behind the destruction of theological power was not an atheist. The Nazi party took actions that could be described as atheist - ie, destroying the power of organized religion - but its leaders were not necessarily atheists. That is why I said "for all intents and purposes", and not "in belief as well as in action."

That's not to say that all governments engaging in a similar power-grab can't be supporters of atheist theology, however. Soviet Russia actually went so far as to burn churches, destroy iconography, etc, and Stalin himself quite possibly may have been an atheist.

The actions taken by Stalin and Hitler, while materially different, are remarkably similar in both their immediate purpose and outcome: the elimination of a powerful political rival by denying the populace religion.

[Drake Dun]

Okay, since you have to make it personal, I take it back. I will hold you to the wall.

Athetistic polities can use atheism in the same way that theocracies use religion, including the act of justifying atrocities... Are you implying that religion is somehow deadlier or more malicious than atheism? I'd ask you to look at history, as the most horrific genocides we can name have been committed for reasons other than religion... [in response to me: "How do you do [justify stuff] with atheism?"] Ask Hitler or Lenin. They seem to have done it quite handily... All I was doing was showing how atheism can be used in the same way as theism... My point, in short, is that both religion and atheism can be used, in different ways, to justify almost anything.

What you're saying now is an obvious retreat from this position, and your attempts to cover that up are just digging you in further. Any third party reading this thread can see that plainly, so I'm happy with things as they stand.

Thank you for playing.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

--------------------------------
I think some people are confusing secular policies and actions with atheist policies and actions. Secular things are things unrelated to religion, and religious people are perfectly capable of doing secular things. Granted, atheists might do it more, but...
--------------------------------
I think that an atheism-driven atrocity would be something like saying "These people are stupid and dangerous because they believe in one or more divine beings. We should get rid of them for this reason." Ulterior motives aside, of course.
This is different from an atrocity motivated by secular reasons (going back to what I said previously), such as resources or power or hatred for people with thin noses.
--------------------------------
I think what matters more than positive claims here is definite claims. One could make a definite claim about a lack of higher power with just as much conviction as one could make a definite claim about a presence of higher power. And an can be just as much of a pushy and egocentric jerk as a theist.
--------------------------------

Originally Posted by Kontan

Atheism at it's core is an inherent lack of believing there is a god/dess. There's really not much deviance from that answer, while theists are stuck always trying to prove if Krishna created the world or if Jesus did.

Well, one could look at it as "atheists are simply saying that divinity does not exist, while theists are simply saying that divinity does exist."
They do argue among themselves about the type/style of divinity that exists, but scientists argue among themselves about which theories best explain the universe, where non-scientists do not. Philosophers argue about what philosophy works best, non-philosophers don't (as much).* Religious people argue about what religion works best, non-religious people don't.

*[size=1]no, I'm not trying to imply that all scientists and all philosophers are atheists, just in case someone on here decides to be an idiot and think that I am.
--------------------------------

[Albert Mond]

Thor is king. I have evidence. Lightning exists. Thor is king.

[Drake Dun]

You know what's funny? The mechanism of lightning is still understood only poorly, so arguments for gods based on the big bang have a more than formal resemblance to arguments for Thor based on lightning. I realized that recently and am waiting for a chance to ambush some hapless theist with it.

Electrostatic induction is only a theory! Teach the controversy!

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

A Government could use atheism to justify atrocities, and could set policy in place for such to happen.

A government could go off and say, "there is no God, the belief in God is a danger to our power. We will now institute a policy that executes anyone who shows any slight belief in a power higher than ourselves."


Unless you all are using a definition for "atheist policy" which I'm not aware of. It might be clearer if I carefully read all the argument, but honestly all the posts sound the same.

[Hand Hanzo]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

A Government could use atheism to justify atrocities, and could set policy in place for such to happen.

A government could go off and say, "there is no God, the belief in God is a danger to our power. We will now institute a policy that executes anyone who shows any slight belief in a power higher than ourselves."


Unless you all are using a definition for "atheist policy" which I'm not aware of. It might be clearer if I carefully read all the argument, but honestly all the posts sound the same.

How, exactly, would belief in God be a danger to a government's power?

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Hand Hanzo

How, exactly, would belief in God be a danger to a government's power?

This is assuming that the government is corrupt (as it usually is) and paranoid (as it usually is).

The belief that there is a power higher than the government might make the government think that people would start obeying the religious laws over the government laws. It's irrational and paranoid, but so is government.

[Hand Hanzo]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

This is assuming that the government is corrupt (as it usually is) and paranoid (as it usually is).

The belief that there is a power higher than the government might make the government think that people would start obeying the religious laws over the government laws. It's irrational and paranoid, but so is government.

American government laws, if I recall correctly, are (at least loosely) based on religious ideals (mainly Christian). Therefore, the government would be contradicting itself, and their claims of religion being dangerous would make no sense.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Hand Hanzo

American government laws, if I recall correctly, are (at least loosely) based on religious ideals (mainly Christian). Therefore, the government would be contradicting itself, and their claims of religion being dangerous would make no sense.

We're talking about a hypothetical, non-specific government, not this country. This country is very "religious" and VERY fucking corrupt.