Christians as a whole, at this moment in history, may be much less violent than Muslims- though that hasn’t always been the case..One thing that has remained the same is that their teachings, as nearly all other religions, open the door to extremism- this is the problem with holding unquestioned faith as a virtue.Also, whenever such ‘atheist regimes’ have become oppressive and violent, it’s because of a dogmatic set of beliefs- and certainly not because of atheism.

I know I’m echoing Dawkins’ book, but how many people have died in the name of Atheism? China and the USSR don’t/didn’t kill to promote Atheism, they killed to control and oppress the will of the people. The fact that those regimes were atheist is incidental and not causal to the death and misery they inflicted.

Bullshit false equivalency!The regimes of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao were certainly guilty of vicious crimes against humanity, but none of those crimes could properly or fairly be described as committed in the furtherance of atheism or secularism.All of those despots sought to consolidate power and destroy their enemies. While they may have been nominally godless, it is not at all accurate to say that the states were secular.In Russia, the tsar was the living god, and Stalin expertly exploited the theistic inclinations of the people.I live in Taiwan, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that anyone who tries to turn the Chinese into non-believers has a truly impossible task. There are far too many of them to kill (gods, not Chinese).Cambodia is populated by animists. It has always been so and will ever be so.It is important to distinguish between states that are secular (there hasn’t been one yet, altho some Scandinavian countries approach), and those states that claim to be atheistic without actually taking any steps to promote that end.When you find a state that bases its political philosophy in the works of Einstein and Spinoza and still engages in tyrannical murder and mayhem, let me know.Name one morally correct action done in the name of god that cannot be done by a secular person simply because it is good.Name one morally repugnant action that is done in the name of god that would never even be considered by a secular person.I defy you to provide a response to the first challenge.The second only requires the time it takes to read it before being able to make a list:Female genital mutialtionDestruction of temples and religious iconographySuicide bombings…Atheism DOES NOT promote division, violence and hatred.Religion does.The suggestion that Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin committed their crimes in the name of atheism is not merely wrong, it is disingenuous, muddle-headed and indicates a profound need to do some research rather than gobble the trite bullshit yammered by those who want to bring you the comfort of Holy Jesus, meek and mild…because Jesus loves you and will put into the LAKE OF FIRE FOR ETERNITY IF YOU DON’T GET ONSIDE.Goddamn right, Stranahan…the Christians…the FAITHFUL…are at the root of the problem. And there ought be no excuses for them – especially of the sort that says, “Well…atheists do bad things, too.”Yes. They do. But NOT in the name of atheism…and not at all in the way that evil is done in the name of god.

Lee,I’m not blaming Jesus.In fact, I’ve challenged any Christian to show me where murder or terrorism was endorsed in any of Jesus’ teachings.Pro-murder “Christians” are people who have gone off on their own agenda, using Teh Wacky™ religious beliefs to justify it.

Bad post, Bob. It’s not all a wash. Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin didn’t kill anyone to further their beliefs in a god-free world, they did it for power and party purity. Their dogmatic adherence to a set of beliefs (communism) has much more in common with (insert religion) than anything to do with atheism, which is merely a rejection of supernatural claims based on sound evidence and the lack thereof.

Atheism is often a dogmatic belief and it certainly was for Communist regimes. Obviously, there was nothing in atheism that kept those mass atrocities from happening, either.If you’re saying that something more than just atheism was at play….of course, you’re right. And it’s equally true that there’s more than just ‘theism’ to blame for other atrocities. That’s my point.

Wolfe Towne, I think you give Jesus too much credit. If the legends are true, wouldn’t his rampage at the temple be considered a form of terrorism? Rather than lobby to have a commercial-free zone near his holy place, he goes all beserkers and starts flipping tables and breaking shit. No human life is reported lost, but surely things of value were destroyed and the methods are not dissimilar to political terrorism.He also called the pharisees a ‘brood of vipers’. That reads to me like name-calling and it serves to dehumanize one’s enemies…one of the most common tactics used by terrorist recruiters.So Jesus, if he existed, was not so perfect. And you calling other people ‘Christians’ in quotes suggests to me that you think yourself more in line with his teachings, which would contradict one of his best-known teachings: to not judge others. So come on down off the high horse, you’ve got some hypocrisy to clean up.

Apologies to Bob for misconstruing a post by someone else to be yours. This is Bob Cesca dot com, though, so I don’t feel that bad about it.

Lee,You are never going to convince them that you had a point. The people disagreeing with you made up their minds about God and religion a long time ago, and will use any justification as proof of their position.Crime is about power. Small scale or large scale, it does not matter. Crime is about imposing your will on your victim. No one needs “God” in order to be a criminal. All you need is a mind that believes other minds must be changed to agree with yours. And if they won’t agree, then they must die, or be hurt.Humanity’s cry to the heavens whenever we commit a crime is, “Give me what I want! Or I’ll make you give it to me!”God is not required.

Lee,Wrong.1. Atheism is by definition not a dogmatic belief. it is the rejection of unquestioned belief. Period.2. There certainly is something in atheism that would keep genocide from happening. Atheism hinges on that something entirely: rationality.

Atheism is often a dogmatic belief and it certainly was for Communist regimes. Obviously, there was nothing in atheism that kept those mass atrocities from happening, either.

Lee, you can just hack out that second sentence from your post because it’s irrelevant. How could not believing in a god keep you from doing anything? It’s like saying “I believe the sky is blue, but there’s nothing in that belief that keeps me from hacking up my neighbor.”And why does there have to be anything more than a ‘theism’ at work for these wingnuts. They blindly believe the word of the bible and will find passages to support their actions. What’s more is that the person who pulled the trigger might be ‘extremist’, but there will a lot of people out there who will say he did the right thing and if he’s executed for his crime, he’ll die a martyr.

iLLogical,I am not a Christian, I adhere to no particular religious belief.If merely pointing out that many who profess to be Christians ignore his teachings when it suits their purposes is “judging” them, then so be it.It’s a judgement I’ll make.My putting pro-murder “Christians” into quotes was an attempt to categorize them differently than those Christians who actually do see that endorsing murder, torture and violent terrorist acts is hardly in line with the teachings of a man known as the “Prince of Peace.”Since you know nothing about me (at the risk of straying into the “I’m rubber and you’re glue” category), I suggest that go back and read your own comment concerning judging others.

Great jumped up Jesus on skis.I am so sick of trying to explain to people that Atheism is not a belief. As the saying goes, “Atheism is not a belief in the way that bald is not a hair color.”Accepting that there is a magical sky wizard who instructs you to live a certain way, in the absolute absence of evidence for the truth of the claim, is the very definition of dogma. Further, it is ONLY this sort of conviction that allows people to beat their mothers, sisters and daughters to death for the crime of speaking to an unrelated male. NO atheist would ever consider such a thing absent severe mental illness. The religious call such things their duty.There is nothing dogmatic about atheism. How could there be? It is a LACK of belief – a refusal to adopt certainty in the absence of evidence.Apparently, Lee, you labour under the misapprehension that atheism is the positive assertion that there is no god. Not true.I do not believe that unicorns exist. There is no evidence for them.Neither do I say that unicorns DO NOT exist.I only ask that those who assert unicorns are real provide some evidence. Until they do, I don’t believe in unicorns.This is perfectly analogous to my position on god(s).I do not seek to inflict my aunicornism on anyone.I do not demand it be taught in school that unicorns created the universe.I do not demand that women only be permitted to have the medical procedures allowed by the whinny of the unicorn.I DO demand that unicornists stay the fuck out of the science classroom until they have some evidence beyond, “I felt the horn of the unicorn!” or “Wouldn’t it be better if there were unicorns?” or “Accept the unicorn or be cast into the lake of fire for eternity!”To call atheism the same sort of motive to evil acts as religion is simply ridiculous – some sort of misguided desire to defend the benign tradition of moderate faith.Absent faith, there is no seed from which to grow fundamental extremism.Atheism never sprouted so much as a single weed in the absence of other factors which would have sufficed on their own.One is causative. The other is mere correlation.

Atheism isn’t rejection of unquestioned belief. That’s not the definition of atheism at all.A-theism is the absence of a belief in deities. The reason a person doesn’t have that belief isn’t specified.Plenty of theists question their beliefs. Struggle with them, even. And then based on their own experiences and knowledge, they continue to belief in a god or gods.And plenty of atheists shut their minds to spirituality for all sorts of reasons. Often those reasons are personal; their upbringing or a reaction to their upbringing.

Blather, Stranahan. Weak, milk toast, balls.Looking at the individual motives for either seeking a spiritual path or rejecting it – this one was abused by a priest, this one truly seeks gentle Jesus, meek and mild – does nothing to elucidate the question of whether religious belief, as a social or human construct, causes harm.The evidence is overwhelming.There is no good act done by the faithful that cannot equally well be performed by the atheist.There is a laundry list of horrible, evil, repulsive actions that can ONLY be undertaken by those acting in the name of their imaginary friend.

Atheism is often a dogmatic belief and it certainly was for Communist regimes.

Communism replaces the glorification of the deity with the glorification (and thus, practical deification) of the leader. As a logical person (and thus, an atheist), I’m opposed to following anything blindly, so I would prefer not to be lumped in with dictatorial Communist regimes, k? thx.

There is a big difference between arrogantly asserting that Santa Claus does exist and arrogantly asserting that he does not. Stating the unprovable with authority is what the religious do. Calling atheism “dogmatic” is to pull the old, “atheism-is-a-religion-too” argument, to which I offer the “yeah-in-the-same-way-bald-is-a-hairstyle” retort.

Sure, I will agree there have been atheists who have done terrible things. But there is no evidence that the terrible things were done in the name of atheism, or because the perpetrator was an atheist.

Out of curiosity, how many anti-abortion bombers/snipers have not been fundamentalist Christians?

atheism is absolutely a belief. a belief that there is no god. agnostic is the term for those with no beliefs either way.

ok, I’ll concede the definition of atheism. But I’m trying to make the point that the basis for the decision not to believe in a god or gods, is in rationalism. Thus, Atheists generally wont agree with illogical reasoning.Sure you can find atheists that are all types of ‘spirtual’ and talk about how the earth is god- or god is everything. But that’s a whole nother converstation.

gypsy,sorry, but you’re dead wrong. Atheism is nothing more than the rejection of god/gods- which is the surely the opposite of belief, you should do a little more critical thinking about it, or some more research.Agnosticism is like strategically positioning yourself on the fence, so that you dont have to practice religion, but you can hold out, and jump to whichever side is right in the end.

gyps, we could really get into semantics by noting that everything you accept to be true is, in essence, a “belief.”Your eyes only offer you a representation of the world around you, and you “believe” this representation to be accurate. Because there is little evidence to convince you otherwise, it does not require much “faith” to accept the validity of the information being relayed to your brain. If there were overwhelming evidence to the contrary, this “belief” would be a faith-based one. And when the term “belief” is used to describe atheism, it is almost always meant to imply “faith” rather than the actual definition of “something accepted as true.”

“Further, it is ONLY this sort of conviction that allows people to beat their mothers, sisters and daughters to death for the crime of speaking to an unrelated male. NO atheist would ever consider such a thing absent severe mental illness. The religious call such things their duty.”You don’t think someone religious thinking that beating women is their duty is a mental illness? I don’t know whether this is the point Lee is trying to make, but as far as I’m concerned, people will come up with all sorts of reasons to justify their assholish, evil behavior. Some choose religion. Doesn’t change the fact that the people are the problem. Plenty of women have been beaten, shipped off, or killed, not because they defiled a male’s god, but because they were no longer of value to said male. The justifications don’t matter.

most of you know i’m non religious but you can’t prove there is no god just like you can’t prove there is.

I know, gypsy, but you can’t prove there aren’t unicorns. I wouldn’t call aunicornism a belief system.

Gypsy,Agnostics sit on the fence and say “maybe there is a god, maybe there isn’t. She me proof and I’ll believe.”Atheism is the knowledge that there is no god because there is no evidence to suggest that one exists.Faith isn’t a virtue. It’s a logic deficiency.

@ JThe fact that there have been heinous crimes committed against women that WEREN’T justified by gods commandments IN NO WAY detracts from the fact that there have been, and continue to be, hideous crimes committed IN THE NAME OF god.The motives absolutely DO matter – see Hate Crime legislation and the disparity in sentences meted out for 1st and 2nd degree murder and manslaughter.It is perfectly relevant and reasonable to ask, “What motivated this killing?”All too often…all too shamefully common…the answer is something like, “It is right in the eyes of god.”

Sorry, gypsy. You’re wrong. Atheism is not a belief. It is the absence of a belief.It has been held to be equivalent to religion for the narrow purpose of protecting the 1st Amendment rights of those who profess no faith, but beyond that narrow analogy, it is simply error to view atheism as a belief.As I said before, I do not believe that unicorns exist.That is not the same thing as BELIEVING that there are no unicorns.Until the unicornists present some evidence, I do not accept that they are real. I need not assert there is no such thing (thus expressing a belief)…I merely do not accept the claims of those who say they do,

@ SierradrinkerAtheism is the knowledge that there is no god because there is no evidence to suggest that one exists. I hope that was a typo.Atheism is not “the knowledge that there is no god” for any reason.You have no way of “knowing” any such thing. There is no more evidence for the proposition that there is NO GOD than there is FOR GOD.Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It might make a very strong circumstantial case, but that does not entitle you to conclude that god(s) does not exist.It does entitle you to say, “I do not believe / In the absence of evidence I reject your specific claims”, but both logic and fairness require that you stop there.

@ gypsyShould replace the all caps BELIEVING with all caps “ASSERTING AS FACT”

I am a religious person. I have been all my life. And I want to honor Dr. Tiller, who was an usher at his church. While everyone here is eager cast aspersion on every kind of faith and on the mental health of those of us who ascribe to a religion, I’d like to honor the life of Dr. Tiller – all of it. His courage in practicing medicine honorably, and the faith that undoubtedly sustained him.Godspeed your journey, Dr. Tiller.QT

@ QTWhile everyone here is eager cast aspersion on every kind of faith and on the mental health of those of us who ascribe to a religionNot at all. I have no desire to cast aspersions on MLK, or Ghandi, or anyone else who takes strength from their faith and keeps it in their home and church – does not seek to inflict the dictates of their imaginary friend on the rest of us, or infect the science classroom with their ridiculous literal interpretations of scripture.The fact remains, however, that religious faith has and does provoke people to repulsive acts that no atheist would ever consider.It is true that all sorts of people – theist and atheists alike – commit bad acts. But no atheist ever thought about slicing off their daughters clitoris, or destroying an ancient stone Buddha, or strapping on some TNT and walking into a mosque.

Avi, as Obama said about Sotomayor, it may have been a poor choice of words.

Atheism is a belief like bald is a hair color. I didn’t coin that phrase but it sums up the argument quite well. We don’t actively believe in anything because of atheism, we only lack ‘theism’, or theology, or a concept of ‘God’.And technically, agnostics believe that questions of god and creation and afterlife are permanently UNKNOWABLE, which is definitely a BELIEF, and one that I don’t share.And Wolfe Towne, I apologize for thinking you were a Christian. I don’t see why, if are aren’t, that you feel compelled to decide who isn’t Christian. If someone says they are Christian, I tend to believe them. I don’t hold them up to some checklist of spiritual or moral values, because I don’t know of any actual requirements to be a Christian. Outside of sectarian hoohah, they simply don’t exist. So your air quotes seem like you have a set of Christian guidelines that you are holding others to, even if you don’t think they’re worth following yourself. I think that’s rich, especially when you get all indignant about the confusion you create.And while I try to be open-minded and understanding, I have no problem judging other people as needed. As an atheist, that’s allowed.

Thank you QT,I appreciate that.

This shall be my last for awhile – am already guilty of severe over-posting…But, to bring this back to Stranahan:

…don’t blame Jesus. This was a case of Christian on Christian violence, carried out when the victim was at church.

Are you asserting that the fact the victim was also a Christian in any way mitigates the religious basis of the motive for this killing?Are you suggesting that it would be fair to blame the “Jesus directed me” rationale if the victim were gay? Muslim? Jewish?But since the shooter murdered another Christian in a church we may not then say, “This evil fucker was provoked by the dictates of a fairy tale; an arrogant certainty he and his ilk seek to inflict on everyone else.”Theist, please.Not to put too fine a point on it, but What The Fuck?

QT, you are correct in saying that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. However, the same unprovable qualities (of “God”) ring true for unicorns, fairies, gnomes, flying spaghetti monsters, and Bertrand Russell’s floating dinnerware. My inability to prove (something only mathematicians can do) that there are no supernatural beings does not increase the likelihood of god’s existence. I feel comfortable saying that I know unicorns do not exist, and am just as comfortable making the same claim about any given god, provided that I have a comparable lack of physical evidence.

@ gypsy – case in point:why couldn’t unicorns have existed? (i’m kinda joking kinda not) all the characteristics of the unicorn exist today so why is that such a crazy thing?Wings exist. Elephants exist. Gills exist.Hmmm…why couldn’t there be a winged elephant who lives underwater?A poker-playing sasquatch with a fondness for high-end Rolex wristwatches?/thread is dead

qt, you are about to be a by standard in this comment and for this not being directed at you and only for this not being directed at you do i apologize. it just happens to be you…avi, you are proving my point. how can my handful of generalized sentences that i have posted on this thread merit less respect than the paragraphs of “imposing” faith based beliefs from a religious person?!this is exactly why i have stopped coming here so often because for the past few weeks i have noticed this trend of coddling the religious. that is fine if you guys want to do that but i can’t stomach it.

@ goddamnkyleCome on, man. You can’t force that interpretation on her words.”I’m looking forward to a world where people are comfortable with faith….”Is not at all the same as “Accept my faith-based worldview or fucking die!”I’m looking forward to a world in which there is never a reference to god in any policy consideration. That is not to say I am prepared to inflict atheism on others; to deny them their faith.You’re going to have to play fair, mon ami.

avi, like i said i was half joking half not. but i notice you are attacking me yet demanded queen get an apology. and if we all evolved from a piece of goo in water, why not a winged elephant who lives underwater?!

Atheism is not a religion…but you’d be hard-pressed to convince me that Maoism and Stalinism weren’t cults, or that Soviet communism isn’t a religion.

avi, i’m sure you’re working on some witty comeback as i type this but you are right this thread is dead.bob, i wish you continued success.

@ gyspyI have no idea what you’ve seen, what you perceive, or what you feel.Coddling the faithful? Even if that’s true, it sure as fucked up Moses on a motorcycle ain’t ME coddling. I don’t coddle.I DO NOT CODDLE! (Can I get an AMEN, AVI?)I only demand a certain degree of adherence to the principles of fair play in argument, on which (I might add) you could stand to brush up.Why not an elephant with wings who lives underwater???Are you fucking serious?What’s next? Some Ray Comfort Wolverduck?Look…if you have an arument to make about evolution, we can uncork that anytime.If you want to complain about theists getting better treatment than you feel you get, I take no position – I have no evidence either way.What I can say is this: The points I suspect you’re trying to make are getting lost in a mishmash of construction and personal grievance. You can sort that out or not as suits you…but what you ought to avoid is lumping me in with those you feel are giving the godly a free ride.ALL I did was suggest that QT’s unicorn analogy was merely analogy. I don’t think she meant that she believes in unicorns, and I said so./really hoping you let this drop. not interested in round three.

avi,

I didn’t force any words. Those are her words, in full context. Let her clear them up, along with whether the unicorn statement was an analogy or was meant literally.

I’m looking forward to a world in which there is never a reference to god in any policy consideration. That is not to say I am prepared to inflict atheism on others; to deny them their faith.

You can’t make that analogy by substituting your atheism for her theism. They aren’t varieties of belief systems; one is the absence of the other.

Adding:I don’t think anyone believes QT was saying she personally believes in unicorns. But I do believe she was saying that I should give equal credence to someone who did that make claim, provided that’s what they truly believe.Only QT can answer that, though, so I’ll wait until we hear back from her before I comment further.

@ KyleDistinguishing my lack of faith from her faith is beside the point.What is germane is the framework in which policy decisions are made.She looks forward to a time where people are comfortable with faith-based reasoning…at least, they do not deride such thinking as foolish (as I do).I look forward to a time where people are comfortable with pure reason, no faith.In terms of hoping for one perspective or another to hold sway in policy considerations, the terms of perspective are irrelevant and my point stands.I say again, I expect rather more consideration and fair play in argument than I find in your recent posts. I think we are not far apart philosophically…but tactically, you reveal some issues.

avi,I think you are hinging your analysis of my recent posts on the idea that I misconstrued the unicorn “analogy” as a literal statement. QT has yet to clear this up, and I maintain that my approach has been tactful, as I see fit, though I do appreciate your critique.

@ goddamnkyleoh…fuck you for being polite and reasonable.I shall never forgive you.

Mama always told me, “you’ll get more with sugar than you will with shit.” Mama was a rhetorician.Adding: I will admit that my tone probably did get a little harsh, due to the whole “I pity those without faith” bit. I grew up in a Christian household as a believer and, having had the experience of possessing “faith,” I do not find my prior condition as a theist to be an enviable one.

Cousinavi, you aren’t describing atheism, you’re describing your atheism. Atheism no more implies a perfectly ethical person than religion implies a perfectly moral one.Religion calls people to be good to each other, and yet as we both know, that’s not the case. And of course, neither implies a perfectly rational person because no such being exists. We may have the capacity for reason, but we don’t use it all the time (- I think anyone who’s been through a bad break up can vouch for that- ha). To say that atheism can’t cause bad things to happen, and that an atheist would never even think to do them? How you can claim that atheists would never consider committing atrocities? I assume you have some sort of mind reading machine/sorting hat device you can use to scan fellow atheists for purity of thought?Pol Pot murdered people for having watches and eye glasses because of his communist, atheist philosophy. Now, you can claim that the people following him ‘deified’ him or his philosophy and therefore they were acting out of a sentiment you define and label as ‘religious’. You’re defining religious feelings and acts as necessarily irrational, and atheism as necessarily rational. They’re not. They’re simply assumptions from which thoughts and acts proceed. The assumption that there is no God or gods doesn’t necessarily lead to good and humane acts any more than religious belief necessarily leads to bad ones. (On a side note, how do you account for all the charity and Good Works™ performed by religious people? In spite of, rather than because of their beliefs, I’m guessing?)Back to Pol Pot. He was the man at the top. You can certainly claim that he himself was acting to increase his own power, but can you claim he wasn’t an atheist? Can you say whether HE himself was acting out of an irrational ‘religious’ place or a calculated one? You spoke to the importance of motives, but if you’re saying that people like Pol Pot and Stalin weren’t proper atheists because they performed atrocities, how is that different from Christians claiming other Christians performing violent acts aren’t really Christian? A common way to defend a belief is to say that people claiming to share your beliefs but acting in a way you find repulsive is to define them as outside of that community. Unless your idea is that Pol Pot, Stalin et al, all must secretly believed in a Sky Daddy themselves? Because surely no atheist would ever, ever think of doing bad things to people. Again, you speak to the importance of motives, but seem to be assigning them as you see fit to support your point.If you’re defining atheism as simply a lack of belief in god that does not imply respect for human rights. Marx himself was a materialist philosopher with a complete disdain for religion, and yet his philosophy showed little concern for individual rights. What we’re talking about here is a fundamental flaw in human nature. When we’re in groups, we just start acting like morons. Anyway, I’m getting tired of writing this thing, so I’ll just leave it at that for now.

Mine was an almost perfectly secular Jewish home – we ate bacon and lobster (it was Nova Scotia, after all…what’s a Jew to do?) but lit the menorah every Hannukah (I still know the prayers by heart, which is pretty much the full extent of my abilities in Hebrew).Only ever entered a shul for weddings and funerals…much later for the occasional pick-up game of Jew-ball in the gym (I still have a fucking wicked cross-over move! Going to the hole, boychik! You can’t guard ME!).In any event, despite the cultural burden (we were the only Hebes in town and I took a few swarmings for the trouble), I insist that I was a prepubescent atheist – mostly as the result of my preternatural juvenile intellect.Again, we’re on the same page. My feeling for those who have faith amounts to pity at the start and bald condescension at the end. So it goes. But I still make an effort to be civil, as I hope they would as well.

@El Mystico,Please find an example of mass murder committed to further atheism. I’ll let Avi speak for himself, but my interpretation and previous arguments are that religous fundamentalists kill in the name of teh god and teh jesus. Yes, atheists do bad things just as theists, christians and muslims do bad things. But, atheists do not bad things to further atheism. Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao have been atheists, but that is incidental to their actions.Atheism is a lack of a belief in god. You may or may not be a douche bag. You may or may not be a mass murderer. Or you may or may not be a overall good person trying to make the world a better place and still be an atheist.

Kyle: You’ve quoted quite selectively. But anyway, let’s put some ground rules to the discussion shall we? My desire for a thing is not the same thing as my imposition on you, is it? I certainly hope not! (Or, what cousinavi said!)As to the unicorn… the literal interpretation of unicorns is the least interesting one. Two days ago, in another life, I took a quiz about animal spirits. It was a poorly written quiz, and I assumed therefore that it would come up with a poor result. I happen to already know who my animal spirit guide is – I know my animal spirit guide is the dolphin. I have real world experience to back that up. Turns out that despite the paucity of data, the test correctly identified “dolphin” as my animal spirit guide.OK – pause.For a literal and rational minded person, I’m reasonably certain that most of what I said is utter nonsense. And yet, NONE of what I said is nonsense – most of it can’t be taken literally, nor is meant literally. ALL of it is meant sincerely, and the entire account is true.When I say I can see people believing in unicorns – I mean it in that same non-literal, faith-based way. I don’t personally believe in unicorns, but that’s largely because I don’t have any personal experience with unicorn stories upon which to hinge a faith-based analysis.QT

(On a side note, how do you account for all the charity and Good Works™ performed by religious people? In spite of, rather than because of their beliefs, I’m guessing?)

The best way to account for charity is debits on the left, credits on the right, and assets = liabilities + equity.

I don’t think anyone is making the argument that religion will directly make you do bad things. It simply isn’t true.

What is true, and demonstrable, is that religion can give one the propensity to do terrible things, not in spite of faith, but because of it.

I’ll quote Dawkins,

…what is really pernicious is the practice of teaching children that faith itself is a virtue. Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument. Teaching children that unquestioned faith is a virtue primes them — given certain other ingredients that are not hard to come by — to grow up into potentially lethal weapons for future jihads or crusades. Immunized against fear by the promise of a martyr’s paradise, the authentic faith-head deserves a high place in the history of armaments, alongside the longbow, the warhorse, the tank and the cluster bomb.

Dawkins conflates two things “unquestioned faith” and “faith” in one paragraph, and treats them as identical. I would argue that “unquestioned faith” isn’t even faith.QT

@ ElGoddamnMysticoYou’re defining religious feelings and acts as necessarily irrational, and atheism as necessarily rational. They’re not. They’re simply assumptions from which thoughts and acts proceed. The assumption that there is no God or gods doesn’t necessarily lead to good and humane acts any more than religious belief necessarily leads to bad ones. (On a side note, how do you account for all the charity and Good Works™ performed by religious people? In spite of, rather than because of their beliefs, I’m guessing?)I never said that atheism led to moral acts, or that faith leads to immoral acts.Further, I never defined religious feelings or actions as “necessarily irrational” – don’t put words in my mouth…even one’s with which I might agree.Given that any act based on religious conviction stems from belief in a state of affairs for which there is NO proof, it is perfectly well seen as “irrational”. How could it be otherwise? Still…while I might agree, I never said it.It may well be the case that faith promotes good actions in some people. ALL of those same acts are done every day by people without faith. Charity, good will, kindness, helping, altruism…none of those things are the exclusive province of the god-fearing.However, there are certain repugnant acts that are only committed by those with faith. No secular person would ever slice off the clitoris of their daughter. No secular person would destroy an ancient stone Buddha as an offense (against what?). No atheist would ever murder their sister or daughter for speaking to an unrelated male. These are things the REQUIRE some overwhelming order from the Sky Wizard to make possible.As regards Pol Pot, you are simply wrong. Nothing he did…and nothing Stalin, Mao or Hitler did (although all nominally atheists) was rooted in the aim of promoting a secular society. All of the heinous acts committed by those tyrants had, at its core, the destruction of those opposed to their unmitigated power and the consolidation of authority through terror.To say that their actions were based upon their atheism (which is itself a spurious claim – their atheism – esp. as regards Pol Pot) reveals either historical / cultural ignorance, or a rather shocking level of obtuseness.If you are suggesting that I have EVER said that religious folk are incapable, by virtue of their faith, of good acts…well, I can only reply this way: Go fuck yourself. I never said anything of the sort, and if those are the sort of tactics you employ in crafting argument, I will not bother with you much further. You must either realize how disingenuous your position is, or you’re not quite bright enough to play.

QT,I always appreciate your opinion. It’s great to hear people discuss the honest reconciliation of faith and religious morality with modern life- that’s missing from the ‘mainstream’ of religion that we’re hearing from on the teevee and so forth.And I’m fully supportive of these down to earth kinds of religious viewpoints. Did I metion that my atheist mother runs an episcopal organisation that sets up programs for drug addicts and ex-cons? I know all about the positive side of religion.But I don’t forget, that at the very foundation of religion is indoctrination. I had enough chances as a child to experience the sunday school thing- and I’m convinced that I experienced some of the most positive environments as that goes- yet the fact remains that they’re all teaching children to take this one leap of faith (and believe in Jesus) and they assure the kids that they will be saved for it, literally. This is where my main qualm lies. It’s that in practice, they may be teaching children that these are like fables, stories with a life lesson to them- but there is still this one thing that you have to just believe in absence of proof, and you can never doubt it or you’ll burn for eternity.It’s this unqestionable belief that makes the whole thing wrong. You set up a very bad standard for what’s honest, and for what’s virtuous. And I’m convinced it’s a horrible thing to do to a fragile young mind.

QT, I was writing another reply, but its lengthy so I put it in Notepad for later. Keep an eye out!I find the term “unquestionable faith” to be redundant. Faith is, by its definition, when you believe in something despite a lack of logical or physical evidence to support the belief.

KYLE!!!If you even reply to the animal spirit guide thing, I swear to Piltdown Man…I will slap the ever loving crap out of when the day comes we meet.Then I will buy you a beer./RESTRAINT

wow, that was kind of redundant, realizing that Kyle pretty much said exactly that with the Dawkins quote (full disclosure- I’m reading that book right now, however in German). Still, that was sincere what I said. And QT, I really dont grasp this idea of faith as something separate from unquestioned belief. That one you will need to explain better. I think there are a hell of a lot of people who could benefit from that though..

HEY! I absolutely want a reply to the animal spirit thing! No slapping allowed! And no piltdown men either!BUT – if anyone replies with some sort of literal interpretation, I’m going to rest my case on the inability of people to access another way of thinking. I DELIBERATELY wrote that the way I did to stimulate non-literal thought…QT

Dan – there’s no real way for me to explain why unquestioned faith ISN’T faith, unless one can get comfortable with non-literal thought. Without that capacity, the rest is just as you say.But the heart of the matter is here: we posit “God.” There’s no “evidence” for “God” – we just posit Him, and ascribe qualities to Him. As a child, we take in stories about God, and you call this indoctrination. I will concede the point. My own faith specifies that failure to teach children about God is failure to be a parent, and that it may irreparably disable the child. So – while we have different opinions on the matter, we seem to agree on this point at least somewhat.The thing is, though, “God” and the various stories about God are simply building blocks – you build from there and what you build comes from the inside out – it’s a creative process emanating from a single point – which is God. Taking the stories at face value is inherently NOT building with what you have – it’s the opposite of faith – it’s the functional equivalent of learning the alphabet and nothing else. I learned the greek alphabet in college as part of a pledge process. I’d never claim to speak greek though…So, unquestioned faith is not Faith – it’s an alphabet.QT

Sierradrinker-@El Mystico,Please find an example of mass murder committed to further atheism. I’ll let Avi speak for himself, but my interpretation and previous arguments are that religous fundamentalists kill in the name of teh god and teh jesus. Yes, atheists do bad things just as theists, christians and muslims do bad things. But, atheists do not bad things to further atheism. Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao have been atheists, but that is incidental to their actions. What rational basis do you have for claiming that all these 20th century, nationalistic mass murders have only an incidental relationship to atheism, but religious mass murder must proceed from a genuine religious feeling?If an atheist commits mass murder, it’s because he’s a bad guy that just happens not to believe in god. Because you say so, apparently. Because you claim that it must not be the case. But why other than you don’t want it to be that way? As I said, atheism doesn’t imply total rationality. If that’s the truth, why is it beyond the realm of possibility for you that a Christian leader making war, or whatever, why must it be because of their Christianity and not because of greed and lust for power. I imagine there were plenty of leaders who cynically claimed a religious veneer for their actions as a way of getting people to go along with their plans, while they themselves knowingly acted for personal gain. Yet, this seems to be beyond the realm of possibility for you. If they say they were Christian, then they must be doing it for god, but if Stalin, Pol Pot etc claimed to be doing what they did for communism, a philosphy with an atheist basis, then it’s incidental.If Pol Pot killed all those people for the cause of communism, again an atheist philosophy, how does that make it not for the advance of general atheism, if an atrocity committed in the name of Christianity can be claimed to be committed in to further the cause of God & Jebus? You say it’s different, but what is the explanation? What is the mechanism that makes them different other than your wanting them to be different?

explain again why communism is an atheist philosophy, ElMyst.This is where your whole agument becomes moot.

@ QTThe “single point” from which your concept of god grows is not god.Were you not “instructed” (indoctrinated) as a child, upon what blocks would your faith set roots?You may question, doubt, ponder, wonder, suffer, agonize…It is all – ALL of it – constructed on blocks that did not come from “god” but which were poured in place before you could possibly object to the particular mix of concrete that arrived in your Momma’s mixer.Were you born in Madras, you would be a Hindu.Tokyo – Shinto.Colombia – CatholicTo suggest that the foundations of your theology emanate from some pure source takes a rather large spoonful of willful blindness. It has, quite obviously, far more to do with circumstance than with truth.

Communism is an atheist philosophy?/that’s the straw…right there. Best of luck ElMystico. Here’s hoping you stumble onto reason somewhere along the way.

BTW- gypsy – sorry for not responding.On the subject of evolution – I think the answer is – your “belief” would need to be phrased more as a “hypothesis” and then you’d need to seek out data to prove or disprove that hypothesis. Evolution being a rational science, can’t deal with “belief” in the abstract… your belief, if it is to be applied to science, has to be converted into something testable. You might STILL believe in unicorns, having not come up with a test, the way some scientists believe in unified field (I think I have that right). They haven’t proved it, but they have enough data to think it’s probably there if they can figure out the right questions to ask, while some other scientists think that it isn’t there at all, and that some other mechanism explains mechanical and quantum physics… but in neither case are scientists content to leave their beliefs as “beliefs.” They always are looking for a testable angle.QT

I was also instructed in my ABCs – they are no less abstract, and are only as useful as we collectively make them.I agree that my construct is not God. I believe in God, but my construct, so given to me by my parents and home environment is not God. Which for the purpose of this discussion, is entirely irrelevant. We were talking about faith.QT

Oops! That last comment was for cousinavi. BTW – do you prefer to be named in text as you name yourself (lowercase c)?QT

@ QTCall me as you wish. So long as I know you’re talking to me, it’s all good./call me anything except late for dinner

Evolution is NOT a hypothesis. It’s a fact.

Wait – cousinavi – who said evolution was a hypothesis?QT

ElMystico,

Communist atrocities have been committed due to collectivization, the idea of a classless society, a concomitant distrust of the bourgeoisie (i.e. the capitalists and the middle class – enemies of the classless society) and an intolerant view of dissent. If you can tie any of these to atheism, then I’ll concede the point to you.

In the instance of the Crusades, for example, the motive is clearly tied to religion. Same goes for 9/11. I can name more, if you like.

@ goddamnkyleYou may not link to anything posted on GEOCITIES as an authority for anything.Might as well be Christwire.org

And for the record – I generally feel somewhat sorry for people who haven’t found in themselves the capacity for faith-based thinking, because it is a useful human capacitywow. that was about as patronizing as it gets. Humility is also a useful human capacity.

QT,On the animal spirit guide tip, I’ve determined that I can only say this: if your belief system is such that it can be compared to the metaphorical use of animal spirit guides, then it is not dogmatic enough to be a problem. Would I have as big of a problem with religion if everyone were Baha’i or UU? Of course I wouldn’t. Unfortunately, that’s not the case, and religious extremism does currently present a real danger to the rest of us. However, I’m not trying to stop anyone from practicing religion. I’m only speaking my mind on the subject. Watching one or two videos of people being burned alive because the locals think they are “witches” (videos, I say, because this sort of thing still happens today) should cause any ethical person to speak up when it comes to the dangers of irrational beliefs.

Irrational beliefs or intolerance? Which poses the greater threat?QT

Irrational beliefs or intolerance? Which poses the greater threat?They aren’t mutually exclusive…

@ KyleI wonder of rational and irrational are proper terms for moral behaviour.In an overpopulated world, how rational is it to seek to ensure that all people have a decent diet…sufficient to live and reproduce at will (as is their unmitigated right)?Rational choices have just as much propensity for immoral outcomes (whatever your ethos) as “religious” based choices./just sayin’ – the presumption that devotion to “reason” does not necessarily accord with “right”…unless, of course, you define it that way

QT, both present threats and, when combined (as in many fundamentalist forms of various religions) they pose an especially potent threat.

It is true that I’m, at times, rather intolerant of religious belief–but only in the same sense that I’m intolerant of any country music recorded after 1990. You choose to be religious, just like you might choose to listen to that new Rascal Flatts CD. I tolerate religious people, but I reserve the right to, at the appropriate time, explain why I disagree with them. I live in a small town in the Deep South™, so you have no idea how much religion I truly have to tolerate. And many could not begin to imagine how intolerant people are of my atheism, when it shows.

avi:

I applied the term irrational to beliefs, which should definitely not be confused with morals. Also, at least I cited GeoCities and not Wikipedia, right?

@ Christine: Patronizing? In what way? Is it more or less patronizing as the atheist belief that religion is a brain infection and/or delusion?The thing is – at heart we want what’s best for people, and as liberal and tolerant as we may be, we ultimately find places where we render judgement. I hope I am not arrogant in those places, but if I am, I apologize.I apologize specifically for coming across as arrogant, not for wishing everyone had at their disposal a faith capacity.QT

@cousinavi: I neglected to respond to this, but allow me now. I was born to Christian parents, raised in the United Methodist Church. In my young adulthood I converted to Islam, and later still I converted to the Baha’i faith. I have often said that I never met a faith I didn’t believe in (that’s not true, but you get the idea).If I were at a computer I would provide a quote from the Baha’i Writings that make exactly your point – people adhere to the “faith of their fathers.” But it needn’t be so, and a grounding in faith and knowledge unhinges one from dogmatism that blinds.QT

@ QTNot sure what makes you so certain I have neither a grounding in nor capacity for faith. The former you may take my word. The later is certainly debatable, but I would insist on principle that the only capacities you have that I lack are gestation and lactation.Hopefully its not merely the fact that I reject such fantastic myths as unsupported by any evidence other than anecdote and wish thinking.That you could possibly consider anything I’ve expressed here, ever, to be the result of dogma only leads me to question whether you’ve been paying attention or just fencing…or if you have a sufficiently accurate definition of the term to know when it isn’t appropriate.If I’m blind, you’re needy.I would much prefer to grant you your faith without having to suffer your arrogant condescension for my rejection of same.I would, however, paraphrase Dawkins to point out the many gods you reject – Thor, Zeus, Baal, Ra, Krishna, Allah…I merely go one god further.A grounding in reason unhinges one from the dogmatism of slavish theism that blinds.

One last point: The dichotomy that cousinavi strives for fails. Yes: an atheist who is being a tyrant is being a tyrant in absence of a deity s/he can claim instructs them to be, and a theist who is being a tyrant can claim that “God said.” In the end though, people are still dead, and largely because of dogmatically held beliefs, and a belief in one’s right or obligation to impose those beliefs or philosophy. Genocide in Africa is rarely the work of religion – it is typically the work of tribal politics. And the KKK terrorism in this country had little whatsoever to do with religion and everything to do with racism.We’ve said several times across two threads that extremism is political, but for some reason we want to divorce religious extremism from the rest of the examples and treat it as smething different. If the results were different, this might be justifiable, but the results are not different. By all means, let’s divorce religion from politics, and let’s insist upon a solid education for all without regard for religion. But I reserve the right to ask upon what grounds are religious extremists to be examined under a different microscope from extremism of other types?QT

But I reserve the right to ask upon what grounds are religious extremists to be examined under a different microscope from extremism of other types?

I’m not the one saying they should be examined under a different microscope (Lee’s original post seems to be trying to preclude religion from the discussion of these religious extremists). Extremism is extremism and killing people is killing people. But if religion is the cause, as I (and many others) believe it to be in many cases, why should I be careful not to point it out?

AHA! Sorry – I didn’t read your whole last post, but your opening statement shows why people are taking me to task for my statement. So I’ll clarify and then come back around to reading.In our earlier discussion, in discussions I’ve had with Kyle, and in comments from a new (to me) face, I’ve observed a determined, willful reduction of Christian theology to the narrowest interpretation. In at least one case, sufficiently narrow as to be fundamentally wrong. In all cases, there seemed to be an unwillingness to recognize that the black and whitw absolutes aren’t real (the same limitation fundamentalists display). That disinclination is what I meant, and I don’t believe that ANYONE is incapable of the necessary nuance, but it seems that both fundamentalists and atheists have conspired together to avoid that. I’m always sorry to see that.One last point, because I just caught this (and then I’ll read your post properly): I don’t reject any “gods” – and for the love of knowledge! Allah IS God! They aren’t two separate Beings.QT

Kyle: “religion” is too broad a term. We need specifics. After all, our 43rd president claims to have had a mission of being democracy and freedom to Iraq, and in support of that cause, tortured people. I would not like “democracy” and “freedom” disdained because they apparently come with torture in some instances.More importantly, religious extremism, it has been repeatedly saif by people who aren’t me, increases with change in political fortunes. Which suggests isolating religion as a cause to be misguided. At least, it has to be fit into a matrix, so that those religious expressions outside that matrix are clearly not swept up in the mix.QT

Sorry, QT, but you’re just as guilty of broadening religion to its most open-minded, liberal form as any of us may be of narrowing it to its most fundamental, dogmatic form. For every Baha’i follower, there are 183 Catholics and a similar number of Sunni Muslims, two groups not known for their broad acceptance of differing religious ideals within the group (or outside of it, for that matter).

You sneaked another post in while I wasn’t looking!”Religion” is definitely too broad of a term. I don’t believe that religion itself is the problem, as the dogmatic tenants of any particular faith. When the dogma is toned down, or absent, the danger factor is greatly diminished.

Adding! (and I’m done, I swear!)The numbers thing isn’t mean to diminish the Baha’i faith versus Catholicism or Islam, as numbers are irrelevant where validity is concerned.That said, I’m also a proponent of an international auxiliary language. Just to show some solidarity somewhere in this thread.

The problem here is fairly simple. All these debates about Stalin vs. Torquemada miss the point that there’s a very easy recipe for turning people into fanatics.Step 1: Here’s the magic book (the Bible/the Communist Manifesto) that explains EVERYTHING.Step 2: Since the magic book explains everything, anyone who disagrees with it is an idiot and an arsegike.Step 3: Since the magic book explains everything, clearly creationism/lysenkoism is the answer to all our questions about biology.Step 4: Creationism/lysenkoism isn’t working. In fact, it’s actively creating problems for us. The only possible explanation is that we haven’t achieved total ideological purity yet. 99% Bible is a disaster, but if we ever got to 100% Bible, we’d create a utopia.Step 5: Kill the arsegikes who disagree with the magic book. they’re holding us back from total ideological purity.I go into this in much more detail on my blog:http://archie-archie.blogspot.com/2007/01/ideology-in-nutshell.htmlOnce you know what to look for, you start seeing that kind of logic everywhere. (Fortunately, it only rarely progresses all the way to Step 5.) I use a science fiction novel called _The Truth Machine_ as an example.Libertarians are particularly bad about claiming that any problems caused by libertarianism will go away once we have total ideological purity. (“Sure, removing worker protections caused horrific abuses- but once we remove *all* regulation of the free market, workers will be free to get new jobs with non-abusive employers!”)Cory Doctorow is also a big example of exactly what I’m talking about, if you’ve ever followed boingboing. He has a one-size-fits-all answer to everything, and is very vocal about stating that anyone who disagrees with him is a bad person. As a result, when he stole a story from Ursula K. LeGuin without paying her royalties, his fans threatened to burn her books because she dared to complain about it.

I never said the religious extremism is any different from other forms of dogmatic belief that result in bad actions.I merely said that religion IS a dogmatic belief that CAUSES extremism. I don’t think I need go any further than that to conclude religion is a load of harmful hornswoggle.Any “dichotomy” you think I was aiming for, QT, exists only in your need to defend religious faith. People do bad things. Religion is a root cause of more than a sufficient slice of those bad things for me to say it has no place in the political process, and IMO we’d all be better off without it.I think we’d also be better off without the ALF bombing science labs; without drug cartels bombing police stations…without violence due to folks seeking to inflict their will on others in all forms.My point remains: there are plenty of bad acts that CAN ONLY be done in the name of god. Belief in imaginary sky wizards lead inescapably to division, hatred and violence. Holy Jesus, meek and mild, is just as bad as Allah. Religious faith is social poison, like any dogmatic set of beliefs that people seek to inflict on others. It need not be distinguished – it merely needs to be identified for the harm it obviously does.

People also do good things, like feed the poor and comfort the ill. Religion is responsible for a lot of that, too. It doesn’t make the news, like a bombing, though.And your obvious loathing of religion makes you blind to this.And when you say “religion IS a dogmatic belie”, you’re wrong. It can be, like anything. That doesn’t mean it is.

Lee, did you really just sit through all of that debate (I know you read it) and then try to stick in a morning-after sucker punch? I really hope you read this, and I really hope you will offer a reply.

First point is that altruism done in the name of religion is not necessarily done because of religion. There are many secular groups out there fulfilling the same needs as religious groups. Are there certain altruistic impulses to be found only in the religious? Certainly not. Any group of people could do good things for another group of people, and it would not increase the validity of any of their claims, nor would it give the group a “free pass” (of the style you’re trying to give religion in this post) for any bad things done in their name.

Second point, Lee, is that most of the world’s population belong to dogmatic religions. You are UU and are, thus, an exception to the norm when it comes to religious outlook. Catholics have a clear set of dogmatic beliefs, for instance. If you don’t believe certain things, you burn in Hell. You’re a Kevin Smith fan, so I’m sure I don’t need to explain that any further. Don’t assume that your faith is so similar to that of the rest of this country’s, or even the world’s. Your particular non-dogmatic religion makes up only 0.3% of this country’s population, where atheists makeup almost 15%.

Anything can be dogmatic, yes. But when’s the last time someone killed an abortion doctor because they held dogmatic beliefs about something other than religion? (Yes, I will keep asking)

cousinavi – maybe I’m misunderstanding you.What bad things can only be done in the name of religion? I don’t know of any, but your answer will at least help me calibrate to your way of thinking.QT

Lee,All People do good things, relgious types, atheist types, zen buddhist types. I have infinitely more respect for those who do good in order to help humankind than to appease the desires of a skywizard. Those do not have to be mutually exclusive. I know there are very good religious people as I’ve known many of them in my lifetime.El GD Mystico,Mabye you’re right. Maybe Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao murdered millions because they were trying to force a secular non-theistic belief on everyone and those people simply held onto their religion too strongly. I’ve never read any account or heard an historic opinion argue that point, but hey, anything is possible.However, go to Wikipedia and you’ll find 9 Crusades all done in the name of god. 9/11, every suicide bombing of a mosque or marketplace in Iraq is done in the name of god (Allah). The spanish and italian inquisitions done in the name of god. God Hates Fags, Operation Rescue, the killing of Dr. Tiller all done in the name of god.But enough on this. Not all regious people are good, not all atheists are bad and vise versa. Maybe someday people will stop doing very bad things in the name of religion and maybe someday the skywizard will come down from his golden throne and smite all the non-believers. I just don’t see either one of those happening.

@ goddamnkyleI returned after a day’s sleep myself for another kick at the cat.I think Lee was wrong with this post from the outset, and it’s clear that nothing said in this thread is likely to change his mind.Some people still want to say that religion doesn’t poison everything; that because it does some good, that it isn’t ALL nutbar extremists, religion ought not be held accountable for the things the nutbars do.And, of course, there are plenty of nutbars, lots of whom have other core motives that are not related to their imaginary friends.I like to employ the “but for” test.Take ALL the nuts, ALL the acts of terror and sort them according to the factor BUT FOR WHICH they would not have been moved to violence.Sure, there are some who believe that animals should not be in labs…there are others who killed because they had a bad reaction to a Hostess Twinkie…there are those who say that god willed and directed them to do it.How many lives would be saved if we eliminate scientific research on animals (how many would be lost)?How many lives would be saved if we eliminated Twinkies?How many lives would be saved if we eliminate religion?As an underlying cause, but for which the “extremism” would never find form or expression, religion must easily lead the list. And yet, there are still those who say, “Don’t blame Jesus! Jesus said to love your neighbour! Religious people do good things, too!”You can still love your neighbour. You can still do good things. No one needs Jesus for that…or ought not to. I would hate to think that Christians would immediately start murdering and raping without their holy book. Is that what they think of themselves?But there are bad acts – far too many of them – that can ONLY be done by those who are following the word of god. We would be far better off on this planet if we could get rid of such arrogant certainty.

Hi QT & welcome back…Bad things that can only be done in the name of religion:1. Female genital mutilation is absolutely and strictly a religious practice.2. Destruction of religious temples and iconography – see ancient stone Buddhas dynamited.3. Murder of female relatives for speaking to an unrelated male.4. Honour killings5. Murder of abortion doctors – bombing of abortion clinics6. Internecine civil war – Sunni v. Shia Muslims…is six enough, or shall I continue?

I’m still wondering where Lee comes down on the question of the relevance of religion.Do we blame religion for the bad things done in its name?Or should we say that religion is a completely irrelevant force for either good or evil?You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either religion influences people, or it doesn’t.

None of those things require religion to be practiced. Indeed – in some cases, the religion teaches against it, and people revise the religion to accommodate the practice.I have to run, and may not be back because I’m leaving the country for a few days. however, if I can check in, I will… just didn’t want you to think I ducked out on the conversation. I suspect, I’ll have to pick this up on my own forum because this will fall off the page.QT

@ QTWHAT??? Are you serious?I defy you to show me ONE single example of female genital mutilation that is done for ANY reason that is not religiously based.Show me the destruction of a single “holy place” that is not motivated by some contrary holy book.Don’t be obtuse. I have already admitted that there are bad acts done by lots of people who are not believers.Nevertheless, the point is not even debatable. There are certain disgusting, ugly, repulsive acts that are done, AND ONLY DONE, in the name of god.Absent fucked up religiosity, no female child would have her clitoris sliced from her body.Absent the loving words of gentle Jesus, meek and mild, no abortion clinic would be bombed or abortion provider murdered. Each and every case of these hideous actions has, at its core, “I am following god’s law.”It is sickening, obvious and inescapable.

Lee,Regarding your followup post comment: “Atheism is often a dogmatic belief and it certainly was for Communist regimes.”This is not entirely correct, if not flatly wrong. Christian sects have “dogma” as do Mulsims, Buddhists, etc. There is no atheistic dogma anywhere. Even if a policical ideology conatins atheistic concepts, the atheism itself is not dogmatic. Atheism, in fact, does not lend itself easily to dogma.You are a thoughtful writer. But I agree with many other posters here. Your comparison in this case is false equivalency.

You know, in this and the other thread I’m reminded of why all discussions of religion frustrate me so.The facts of the case are really very simple. Clearly if you write a book that exhorts people to commit evil, and the people who read that book commit evil deeds, then the book is a causative factor.Nobody every disputes this in a non-religious context. Nobody says, “Hey now- don’t blame the _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_ for Nazism.” Nobody is saying hey, Bill O’Reilly is not responsible in the latest shooting. But if Israelis point to the genocides in the Bible as proof that God wants them to kill Palestinians, for some reason the Bible must never, ever be held responsible. If the Bible says that genocide is a moral good, and people reading it say hey, I guess genocide is a moral good, then gosh, only a hotheaded atheist could possibly think there’s some connection there.It’s really amazing to see the lengths that people go to in order to refuse to admit the obvious- so long as religion is involved. If someone shoots a man because the Bible told him to, we’re told that well, gosh, the Bible can’t be held responsible because:- he was reading the original Bible, whereas now the official version has been modified by centuries of theologians, so it’s not the Bible’s fault that he took the Bible at face value instead of getting a PhD in theology before picking up a gun. Because, you know, what the Bible says isn’t really what the Bible says- the Bible can’t be held accountable for what it says, because what it says isn’t what it really says, and what it really says is what theologians say it says, and anyone who think it says what it says is every bit as stupid as the people who read the Bible and go out and shoot people because it says so, except it doesn’t.- and besides, he was destined to kill someone anyway. If it wasn’t the Bible, then he would have gotten his murderous urges out of his system by killing people over animal rights, or Communism, or whatever, because, you know, Fate has determined that each of us has a quota of people we’re going to kill no matter what, and the only leeway we have is in deciding what rationale we’ll stick on it, like a sprig of parsley floating in a bucket of blood.- and anyway, you can’t hold the Bible responsible because even if you eliminated religious extremism, it wouldn’t *totally* remove all tragedy from our world. I mean, why vaccinate kids? Even if you eliminate all the deaths due to mumps, you still have all the kids who die of pneumonia, so why bother trying to make any progress at all?

Christians as a whole, at this moment in history, may be much less violent than Muslims- though that hasn’t always been the case..One thing that has remained the same is that their teachings, as nearly all other religions, open the door to extremism- this is the problem with holding unquestioned faith as a virtue.Also, whenever such ‘atheist regimes’ have become oppressive and violent, it’s because of a dogmatic set of beliefs- and certainly not because of atheism.

I know I’m echoing Dawkins’ book, but how many people have died in the name of Atheism? China and the USSR don’t/didn’t kill to promote Atheism, they killed to control and oppress the will of the people. The fact that those regimes were atheist is incidental and not causal to the death and misery they inflicted.

Bullshit false equivalency!The regimes of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao were certainly guilty of vicious crimes against humanity, but none of those crimes could properly or fairly be described as committed in the furtherance of atheism or secularism.All of those despots sought to consolidate power and destroy their enemies. While they may have been nominally godless, it is not at all accurate to say that the states were secular.In Russia, the tsar was the living god, and Stalin expertly exploited the theistic inclinations of the people.I live in Taiwan, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that anyone who tries to turn the Chinese into non-believers has a truly impossible task. There are far too many of them to kill (gods, not Chinese).Cambodia is populated by animists. It has always been so and will ever be so.It is important to distinguish between states that are secular (there hasn’t been one yet, altho some Scandinavian countries approach), and those states that claim to be atheistic without actually taking any steps to promote that end.When you find a state that bases its political philosophy in the works of Einstein and Spinoza and still engages in tyrannical murder and mayhem, let me know.Name one morally correct action done in the name of god that cannot be done by a secular person simply because it is good.Name one morally repugnant action that is done in the name of god that would never even be considered by a secular person.I defy you to provide a response to the first challenge.The second only requires the time it takes to read it before being able to make a list:Female genital mutialtionDestruction of temples and religious iconographySuicide bombings…Atheism DOES NOT promote division, violence and hatred.Religion does.The suggestion that Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin committed their crimes in the name of atheism is not merely wrong, it is disingenuous, muddle-headed and indicates a profound need to do some research rather than gobble the trite bullshit yammered by those who want to bring you the comfort of Holy Jesus, meek and mild…because Jesus loves you and will put into the LAKE OF FIRE FOR ETERNITY IF YOU DON’T GET ONSIDE.Goddamn right, Stranahan…the Christians…the FAITHFUL…are at the root of the problem. And there ought be no excuses for them – especially of the sort that says, “Well…atheists do bad things, too.”Yes. They do. But NOT in the name of atheism…and not at all in the way that evil is done in the name of god.

Lee,I’m not blaming Jesus.In fact, I’ve challenged any Christian to show me where murder or terrorism was endorsed in any of Jesus’ teachings.Pro-murder “Christians” are people who have gone off on their own agenda, using Teh Wacky™ religious beliefs to justify it.

Bad post, Bob. It’s not all a wash. Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin didn’t kill anyone to further their beliefs in a god-free world, they did it for power and party purity. Their dogmatic adherence to a set of beliefs (communism) has much more in common with (insert religion) than anything to do with atheism, which is merely a rejection of supernatural claims based on sound evidence and the lack thereof.

Atheism is often a dogmatic belief and it certainly was for Communist regimes. Obviously, there was nothing in atheism that kept those mass atrocities from happening, either.If you’re saying that something more than just atheism was at play….of course, you’re right. And it’s equally true that there’s more than just ‘theism’ to blame for other atrocities. That’s my point.

Wolfe Towne, I think you give Jesus too much credit. If the legends are true, wouldn’t his rampage at the temple be considered a form of terrorism? Rather than lobby to have a commercial-free zone near his holy place, he goes all beserkers and starts flipping tables and breaking shit. No human life is reported lost, but surely things of value were destroyed and the methods are not dissimilar to political terrorism.He also called the pharisees a ‘brood of vipers’. That reads to me like name-calling and it serves to dehumanize one’s enemies…one of the most common tactics used by terrorist recruiters.So Jesus, if he existed, was not so perfect. And you calling other people ‘Christians’ in quotes suggests to me that you think yourself more in line with his teachings, which would contradict one of his best-known teachings: to not judge others. So come on down off the high horse, you’ve got some hypocrisy to clean up.

Apologies to Bob for misconstruing a post by someone else to be yours. This is Bob Cesca dot com, though, so I don’t feel that bad about it.

Lee,You are never going to convince them that you had a point. The people disagreeing with you made up their minds about God and religion a long time ago, and will use any justification as proof of their position.Crime is about power. Small scale or large scale, it does not matter. Crime is about imposing your will on your victim. No one needs “God” in order to be a criminal. All you need is a mind that believes other minds must be changed to agree with yours. And if they won’t agree, then they must die, or be hurt.Humanity’s cry to the heavens whenever we commit a crime is, “Give me what I want! Or I’ll make you give it to me!”God is not required.

Lee,Wrong.1. Atheism is by definition not a dogmatic belief. it is the rejection of unquestioned belief. Period.2. There certainly is something in atheism that would keep genocide from happening. Atheism hinges on that something entirely: rationality.

Atheism is often a dogmatic belief and it certainly was for Communist regimes. Obviously, there was nothing in atheism that kept those mass atrocities from happening, either.

Lee, you can just hack out that second sentence from your post because it’s irrelevant. How could not believing in a god keep you from doing anything? It’s like saying “I believe the sky is blue, but there’s nothing in that belief that keeps me from hacking up my neighbor.”And why does there have to be anything more than a ‘theism’ at work for these wingnuts. They blindly believe the word of the bible and will find passages to support their actions. What’s more is that the person who pulled the trigger might be ‘extremist’, but there will a lot of people out there who will say he did the right thing and if he’s executed for his crime, he’ll die a martyr.

iLLogical,I am not a Christian, I adhere to no particular religious belief.If merely pointing out that many who profess to be Christians ignore his teachings when it suits their purposes is “judging” them, then so be it.It’s a judgement I’ll make.My putting pro-murder “Christians” into quotes was an attempt to categorize them differently than those Christians who actually do see that endorsing murder, torture and violent terrorist acts is hardly in line with the teachings of a man known as the “Prince of Peace.”Since you know nothing about me (at the risk of straying into the “I’m rubber and you’re glue” category), I suggest that go back and read your own comment concerning judging others.

Great jumped up Jesus on skis.I am so sick of trying to explain to people that Atheism is not a belief. As the saying goes, “Atheism is not a belief in the way that bald is not a hair color.”Accepting that there is a magical sky wizard who instructs you to live a certain way, in the absolute absence of evidence for the truth of the claim, is the very definition of dogma. Further, it is ONLY this sort of conviction that allows people to beat their mothers, sisters and daughters to death for the crime of speaking to an unrelated male. NO atheist would ever consider such a thing absent severe mental illness. The religious call such things their duty.There is nothing dogmatic about atheism. How could there be? It is a LACK of belief – a refusal to adopt certainty in the absence of evidence.Apparently, Lee, you labour under the misapprehension that atheism is the positive assertion that there is no god. Not true.I do not believe that unicorns exist. There is no evidence for them.Neither do I say that unicorns DO NOT exist.I only ask that those who assert unicorns are real provide some evidence. Until they do, I don’t believe in unicorns.This is perfectly analogous to my position on god(s).I do not seek to inflict my aunicornism on anyone.I do not demand it be taught in school that unicorns created the universe.I do not demand that women only be permitted to have the medical procedures allowed by the whinny of the unicorn.I DO demand that unicornists stay the fuck out of the science classroom until they have some evidence beyond, “I felt the horn of the unicorn!” or “Wouldn’t it be better if there were unicorns?” or “Accept the unicorn or be cast into the lake of fire for eternity!”To call atheism the same sort of motive to evil acts as religion is simply ridiculous – some sort of misguided desire to defend the benign tradition of moderate faith.Absent faith, there is no seed from which to grow fundamental extremism.Atheism never sprouted so much as a single weed in the absence of other factors which would have sufficed on their own.One is causative. The other is mere correlation.

Atheism isn’t rejection of unquestioned belief. That’s not the definition of atheism at all.A-theism is the absence of a belief in deities. The reason a person doesn’t have that belief isn’t specified.Plenty of theists question their beliefs. Struggle with them, even. And then based on their own experiences and knowledge, they continue to belief in a god or gods.And plenty of atheists shut their minds to spirituality for all sorts of reasons. Often those reasons are personal; their upbringing or a reaction to their upbringing.

Blather, Stranahan. Weak, milk toast, balls.Looking at the individual motives for either seeking a spiritual path or rejecting it – this one was abused by a priest, this one truly seeks gentle Jesus, meek and mild – does nothing to elucidate the question of whether religious belief, as a social or human construct, causes harm.The evidence is overwhelming.There is no good act done by the faithful that cannot equally well be performed by the atheist.There is a laundry list of horrible, evil, repulsive actions that can ONLY be undertaken by those acting in the name of their imaginary friend.

Atheism is often a dogmatic belief and it certainly was for Communist regimes.

Communism replaces the glorification of the deity with the glorification (and thus, practical deification) of the leader. As a logical person (and thus, an atheist), I’m opposed to following anything blindly, so I would prefer not to be lumped in with dictatorial Communist regimes, k? thx.

There is a big difference between arrogantly asserting that Santa Claus does exist and arrogantly asserting that he does not. Stating the unprovable with authority is what the religious do. Calling atheism “dogmatic” is to pull the old, “atheism-is-a-religion-too” argument, to which I offer the “yeah-in-the-same-way-bald-is-a-hairstyle” retort.

Sure, I will agree there have been atheists who have done terrible things. But there is no evidence that the terrible things were done in the name of atheism, or because the perpetrator was an atheist.

Out of curiosity, how many anti-abortion bombers/snipers have not been fundamentalist Christians?

atheism is absolutely a belief. a belief that there is no god. agnostic is the term for those with no beliefs either way.

ok, I’ll concede the definition of atheism. But I’m trying to make the point that the basis for the decision not to believe in a god or gods, is in rationalism. Thus, Atheists generally wont agree with illogical reasoning.Sure you can find atheists that are all types of ‘spirtual’ and talk about how the earth is god- or god is everything. But that’s a whole nother converstation.

gypsy,sorry, but you’re dead wrong. Atheism is nothing more than the rejection of god/gods- which is the surely the opposite of belief, you should do a little more critical thinking about it, or some more research.Agnosticism is like strategically positioning yourself on the fence, so that you dont have to practice religion, but you can hold out, and jump to whichever side is right in the end.

gyps, we could really get into semantics by noting that everything you accept to be true is, in essence, a “belief.”Your eyes only offer you a representation of the world around you, and you “believe” this representation to be accurate. Because there is little evidence to convince you otherwise, it does not require much “faith” to accept the validity of the information being relayed to your brain. If there were overwhelming evidence to the contrary, this “belief” would be a faith-based one. And when the term “belief” is used to describe atheism, it is almost always meant to imply “faith” rather than the actual definition of “something accepted as true.”

“Further, it is ONLY this sort of conviction that allows people to beat their mothers, sisters and daughters to death for the crime of speaking to an unrelated male. NO atheist would ever consider such a thing absent severe mental illness. The religious call such things their duty.”You don’t think someone religious thinking that beating women is their duty is a mental illness? I don’t know whether this is the point Lee is trying to make, but as far as I’m concerned, people will come up with all sorts of reasons to justify their assholish, evil behavior. Some choose religion. Doesn’t change the fact that the people are the problem. Plenty of women have been beaten, shipped off, or killed, not because they defiled a male’s god, but because they were no longer of value to said male. The justifications don’t matter.

most of you know i’m non religious but you can’t prove there is no god just like you can’t prove there is.

I know, gypsy, but you can’t prove there aren’t unicorns. I wouldn’t call aunicornism a belief system.

Gypsy,Agnostics sit on the fence and say “maybe there is a god, maybe there isn’t. She me proof and I’ll believe.”Atheism is the knowledge that there is no god because there is no evidence to suggest that one exists.Faith isn’t a virtue. It’s a logic deficiency.

@ JThe fact that there have been heinous crimes committed against women that WEREN’T justified by gods commandments IN NO WAY detracts from the fact that there have been, and continue to be, hideous crimes committed IN THE NAME OF god.The motives absolutely DO matter – see Hate Crime legislation and the disparity in sentences meted out for 1st and 2nd degree murder and manslaughter.It is perfectly relevant and reasonable to ask, “What motivated this killing?”All too often…all too shamefully common…the answer is something like, “It is right in the eyes of god.”

Sorry, gypsy. You’re wrong. Atheism is not a belief. It is the absence of a belief.It has been held to be equivalent to religion for the narrow purpose of protecting the 1st Amendment rights of those who profess no faith, but beyond that narrow analogy, it is simply error to view atheism as a belief.As I said before, I do not believe that unicorns exist.That is not the same thing as BELIEVING that there are no unicorns.Until the unicornists present some evidence, I do not accept that they are real. I need not assert there is no such thing (thus expressing a belief)…I merely do not accept the claims of those who say they do,

@ SierradrinkerAtheism is the knowledge that there is no god because there is no evidence to suggest that one exists. I hope that was a typo.Atheism is not “the knowledge that there is no god” for any reason.You have no way of “knowing” any such thing. There is no more evidence for the proposition that there is NO GOD than there is FOR GOD.Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It might make a very strong circumstantial case, but that does not entitle you to conclude that god(s) does not exist.It does entitle you to say, “I do not believe / In the absence of evidence I reject your specific claims”, but both logic and fairness require that you stop there.

@ gypsyShould replace the all caps BELIEVING with all caps “ASSERTING AS FACT”

I am a religious person. I have been all my life. And I want to honor Dr. Tiller, who was an usher at his church. While everyone here is eager cast aspersion on every kind of faith and on the mental health of those of us who ascribe to a religion, I’d like to honor the life of Dr. Tiller – all of it. His courage in practicing medicine honorably, and the faith that undoubtedly sustained him.Godspeed your journey, Dr. Tiller.QT

@ QTWhile everyone here is eager cast aspersion on every kind of faith and on the mental health of those of us who ascribe to a religionNot at all. I have no desire to cast aspersions on MLK, or Ghandi, or anyone else who takes strength from their faith and keeps it in their home and church – does not seek to inflict the dictates of their imaginary friend on the rest of us, or infect the science classroom with their ridiculous literal interpretations of scripture.The fact remains, however, that religious faith has and does provoke people to repulsive acts that no atheist would ever consider.It is true that all sorts of people – theist and atheists alike – commit bad acts. But no atheist ever thought about slicing off their daughters clitoris, or destroying an ancient stone Buddha, or strapping on some TNT and walking into a mosque.

Avi, as Obama said about Sotomayor, it may have been a poor choice of words.

Atheism is a belief like bald is a hair color. I didn’t coin that phrase but it sums up the argument quite well. We don’t actively believe in anything because of atheism, we only lack ‘theism’, or theology, or a concept of ‘God’.And technically, agnostics believe that questions of god and creation and afterlife are permanently UNKNOWABLE, which is definitely a BELIEF, and one that I don’t share.And Wolfe Towne, I apologize for thinking you were a Christian. I don’t see why, if are aren’t, that you feel compelled to decide who isn’t Christian. If someone says they are Christian, I tend to believe them. I don’t hold them up to some checklist of spiritual or moral values, because I don’t know of any actual requirements to be a Christian. Outside of sectarian hoohah, they simply don’t exist. So your air quotes seem like you have a set of Christian guidelines that you are holding others to, even if you don’t think they’re worth following yourself. I think that’s rich, especially when you get all indignant about the confusion you create.And while I try to be open-minded and understanding, I have no problem judging other people as needed. As an atheist, that’s allowed.

Thank you QT,I appreciate that.

This shall be my last for awhile – am already guilty of severe over-posting…But, to bring this back to Stranahan:

…don’t blame Jesus. This was a case of Christian on Christian violence, carried out when the victim was at church.

Are you asserting that the fact the victim was also a Christian in any way mitigates the religious basis of the motive for this killing?Are you suggesting that it would be fair to blame the “Jesus directed me” rationale if the victim were gay? Muslim? Jewish?But since the shooter murdered another Christian in a church we may not then say, “This evil fucker was provoked by the dictates of a fairy tale; an arrogant certainty he and his ilk seek to inflict on everyone else.”Theist, please.Not to put too fine a point on it, but What The Fuck?

QT, you are correct in saying that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. However, the same unprovable qualities (of “God”) ring true for unicorns, fairies, gnomes, flying spaghetti monsters, and Bertrand Russell’s floating dinnerware. My inability to prove (something only mathematicians can do) that there are no supernatural beings does not increase the likelihood of god’s existence. I feel comfortable saying that I know unicorns do not exist, and am just as comfortable making the same claim about any given god, provided that I have a comparable lack of physical evidence.

It is true that all sorts of people – theist and atheists alike – commit bad acts. But no atheist ever thought about slicing off their daughters clitoris, or destroying an ancient stone Buddha, or strapping on some TNT and walking into a mosque.

…or, if an atheist were contemplating committing one of these acts, it would not be inspired by his/her atheism.

I think atheism can be very dogmatic in the right circumstances. I’ve known some atheists who go to the extreme of declaring that all religions need to be destroyed. If that is not dogmatic then I don’t know what you would call it.I agree that the problem is not religion but extremism. Most christians don’t go running around killing non-believers and sinners. The past being what it is, things have changed.Atheism is not a religion, but it is a belief system and like any system it can be abused and taken to an extreme. Atheism is not a unified system though. You have multiple views under that umbrella which are used to describe various forms of atheistic systems and ideologies. This includes, imho, rationalism and humanism.

@ goddamnkyle (turns out I can’t resist)Fair enough. You can say whatever you like. Nevertheless, while saying it you must also admit that you have no evidence for the truth of the proposition.This places you four-square on the same step as the theists – an assertion of fact for which you have no proof.Why not stop at, “You have no evidence for god. I reject your specific claims”?What do you gain with this unprovable claim?It certainly does not alter your perceived state of reality to leave them with, “No matter how unlikely…no matter that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of your imaginary sky wizard, I grant that it might exist. I don’t believe it…and if there were something like a supreme being I doubt you would have any better idea about it than anyone else…but I cannot prove a negative, so fill your boots with faith.”As I said, I do not assert that there are no unicorns, spaghetti monsters, fairies, leprechauns, or orbiting porcelain.I just do not BELIEVE that there are./not QT//avi. cousinavi. don’t make me stab you.

QT,I appreciate the sentiment. I The suffering that Dr Tiller’s family is going through makes all of this argumentation a little selfish and opportunistic. However, as aweful as the whole thing makes me feel, I can’t help the Tillers a world away- so it does effect me primarily in a political way.Secondly, I have to be honest with you- It’s my opinion that all religious beliefs are a symptom of a lack of critical thinking and intellectual honesty. But is this a mental health problem? are they crazy? Of course not! The veteran screaming obscenities at an empty parked car is crazy- and tragically so. But crazy is relative. In a society where the majority of people hold unreasonable, indefensible beliefs, it’s a perfectly normal thing to do. Lots of people believe in ghosts, and for the most part nobody gets on their case- because it’s not that far outside of the norm. I certainly don’t think they’re crazy. And their beliefs don’t preclude my respect for them as intelligent, sane people.gypsy,I can’t prove to you that there is no god, but I can explain why it’s extemely illogical.Even if you suggest that, there might have been a god that just sort lit the fuse, got the ball rolling so to speak, on the origination of the universe and then stepped back to enjoy the cosmic show through it’s magic globe- and this hand-off god is the most difficult god concept to reject- I would still tell you that it is extremely improbable.How could the natural progression of everything we know- from the simplest beginnings, building up stepwise to incrementally more complicated arrangements- from matter and antimatter to particles, to atomic structures,.. to galaxies, black holes, stars and solar systems, to living organisms, to intelligent life- be preceded by the most complex thing imaginable? and then how did that complex thing/being come to exist?And because the believer in the concept of a god– which is relatively a jillion times more absurd (listens to all our 6 Billion continuous thoughts) than the one described above– cant show me one rational explanation for this belief, it’s no stretch for me to conclude that there is no god. This is not a belief. This is a conclusion that I’ve reasoned out for you.

Dan – making an argument that people who don’t agree with you on a subject are showing “a symptom of a lack of critical thinking and intellectual honesty” is dogmatic and extremist.You see that, don’t you? Ponder for a moment what you’re saying.

Lomifeh,Religion is not the problem, but it is the root of the problem. You can’t be a religious extremist if there is no religion.Atheism is not dogmatic in the least. You have friends who are atheists AND believe that all religions should be destroyed. Those are two separate statements. I tend to disagree with your friend, but would agree the world would be a better place without religion.In any circumstance, how could atheism be a unified system? Should we all have meetings and set up a doctrine whereby we all don’t worship god and espouse a lack of belief in any god?Atheism is very, very simple: I don’t believe in any god or higher power. That’s it, end of story. There’s no doctrine or corollaries that go along with that view.I may believe that all religions are evil, or I may believe that some people need religion and are better off because they have it depending on their individual circumstances. Regardless, these beliefs are independent of my lack of belief in any god.

In exactly the way fashion, believing in a god or higher power also has no doctrine or corollaries. Theism is also very simple in that sense.You can be an extremist without religion.

I’ve known some atheists who go to the extreme of declaring that all religions need to be destroyed.

Atheists do no such thing. Those would be antitheists. Please don’t confuse the two since it is blatantly unfair to atheists.

Stranahan:

making an argument that people who don’t agree with you on a subject are showing “a symptom of a lack of critical thinking and intellectual honesty” is dogmatic and extremist.

It might be fairly called an ad hominem attack, but Dan is not saying that about “anyone” who disagrees with him.He is saying that people who assert that there is an interventionist god, about whom they have some inside information, display a rather disappointing (if not shocking) lack of critical thinking and intellectual honesty.I fail to see how that claim is open to any critique.These are people who ASSERT AS FACT that which they not only cannot prove, but which they wish to inflict on others through threat (hell) and all too often violence.While I would have constructed his point rather with a little more elegance, it is not unfair to say that those who make specific claims about the nature of god, in the total absence of evidence, are gnawing on a rather rugged bit of hide.

Lee,Dont confuse my bluntness and honesty with a personal attack (which is what I think you’re doing). I dont take it personally when Christians tell me I’m going to hell. And the difference is clear- didn’t you read the rest of my argument? the part addressed to gypsy? My contention that there is no god, is something that I’m concluding based on logic. Conversely, a dogma is a dogma because it asserts- this is the way it is because I say so, just have faith.

Stranahan: You can be an extremist without religion.True enough, as far as it goes.Imagine a Venn diagram of extremism.What percentage…what slice of the pie would you expect non-religious extremists to occupy? What part would represent the religious extremists?Can you provide any evidence of extremism NOT motivated by religion? (And PLEASE refrain from dragging up the Stalin, Mao bullshit again…it’s been tried and failed).The cold fact of the matter is inescapable. The most extreme – the worst of the worst – the single most consistent facet of extremism is religious faith.I’m beginning to wonder what underlies your seeming desire to defend it. Why do you want to insist that religious faith, for all its demonstrable, hateful, repugnant evil, is something that ought not be held up to analysis and critique? Why should those who invoke god get some odd, “OK…you mean well” Mother Teresa pass?

Dan. I quoted basically your entire statement. It’s your opinion that you’re more logical and / or more honest than those who disagree with you on religion, right?Avi- your whole argument is straw men, basically.

avi,

As long as you think god exists in the same unprovable manner of unicorns and gnomes, then we’re essentially on the same page. My argument was one based on the semantics of what “knowledge” and “belief” actually are.

Lee said (much to my surprise),

Dan – making an argument that people who don’t agree with you on a subject are showing “a symptom of a lack of critical thinking and intellectual honesty” is dogmatic and extremist.

If the subject at hand were the unicorns and gnomes, rather than Sky Daddy, you wouldn’t call Dan’s diagnosis “dogmatic and extremist.” You would call it “spot-on.”

Straw men?I have a rather fine understanding of the requirements of fair argument. I reject your characterization, and ask that you give a better explanation of just how I am setting up false fronts in order to knock them down.Lee, YOU started this now lengthy thread with a bit of ginned up bullshit alleging that because it was Christian on Christian violence (committed in a church), no one ought to blame Jesus.If THAT ain’t a fucking straw man, what is?No atheist ever murdered a doctor or bombed a clinic to stop abortion. It is ONLY the faithful who do such things.And you have yet to respond to the question: Would it be different if this particular theist had bombed a shul or a mosque? Would it be different if he had shot a gay man in a bathhouse?Why should anyone NOT say this is religious extremism simply because the victim was also a Christian?Straw man, indeed. If that’s what you offer instead of a contrite, “Yeah, I had my head up my ass when I made this post,” (with much love and admiration) go fuck yourself.

Okay, Lee, if avi’s argument is of the straw man variety, will you please answer the question I asked of your earlier:

How many abortion doctors have been killed by people who were not fundamentalist Christians?

I was going to read this whole thing and post a thought but Counsinavi has done all of the talkin already. I could never argue it better than that.Goodday

The statement wasn’t about a specific subject, like ‘gnomes’ – it was about ALL religious beliefs. Huge difference.

Lee,with respect to the question of religion, yes. I’m certainly more rational that anyone who holds religious beliefs.But, correct me if I’m wrong- I just said a lot more than that- I just laid out the ‘evolutionary’ rational for atheism. And I talked about other stuff too.

@ goddamnkyleEXACTLY in the same fashion as unicorns and gnomes.Fairies, leprechauns, Santa Claus, and the Three Billy Goats Gruff.Knowledge is fact.Belief is faith.The theists confuse the two. I do not./trip trop trip trop trip trop

@git: Well they called themselves atheists, and maybe like someone else said they are both atheists and anti-theists. But the point remains that they are atheists to some degree and espouse a radical/extreme view. I don’t know why it is so hard to accept that any group will have extremes and then call those people out for their extreme views.@Sierradrinker – There are whole schools of thought surrounding atheism. Your personal brand may simply be “there is no god” but when you look at the gamut there are various flavors from secular humanists to the anti-theists. Some of these are more extreme and yes they are an ideology i think, the basis maybe be different but it is a belief system. Humanism is very much an ideology that is also, in the secular form, atheist.It looks like we have some knee jerking regarding the use of atheism I think. I myself don’t ascribe to the idea that there is any deity watching over us all. I’ve never felt a need to have to defend myself though in my belief, or rather the lack thereof.

avi…yes,the vast majority of extremists are religious.but the vast majority of religious people are not extremists.those who have become the face of christianity/islam in america,are in nearly all cases,insufferable douchebags and spooky terrorist types respectively.i get it.but the fact is,i know lots of christians and a few muslims,and these people bear virtually no resemblance to these images.

I don’t see why belief in unicorns or any other mythical creature should be treated as any different from belief in God. Indeed, I’d assert that people DO believe in unicorns and the like. The fact is that faith-based thinking is not at all like rational thinking – it’s another kind of thinking that needs rationality to stay grounded, but which needs to be able to expand beyond the “rational” to be operative.And for the record – I generally feel somewhat sorry for people who haven’t found in themselves the capacity for faith-based thinking, because it is a useful human capacity. I actively engage rationalist thinkers at least partially because I’m looking forward to a world where human beings are comfortable with faith base thinking, rational thinking, and their respective limits and benefits – a world where scientific knowledge flourishes unfettered, and where faith-based understanding underpins all our rational decisions (and vice-versa). In short, I’m looking forward to a world where this divide is finally denounced as unnecessary. That doesn’t mean everyone will believe as I do – but it does mean that rational people will be able to see the rationale for belief in unicorns, whatever their personal beliefs.QT

The statement wasn’t about a specific subject, like ‘gnomes’ – it was about ALL religious beliefs. Huge difference.

So, your defense of religious beliefs includes the belief in gnomes. Correct?

I’m just pleased any time an apologist will admit the two ideas (god and gnomes) have an equal amount of physical evidence in favor of their existence.

magic and skittles aside, if the argument is all about evolution=fact god=fiction why couldn’t unicorns have existed? (i’m kinda joking kinda not) all the characteristics of the unicorn exist today so why is that such a crazy thing?

Jack,You’re right. The majority of religious people are in it for the ‘love your fellow man’ teachings- the kindness and forgiveness and so forth. But at the core of their religion is the belief in something that they dont have to prove to anyone, or be able to logically defend. This is the reason that religion leads to crazy ideas (call them radical) and it’s the reason that religious people are so effectively manipulated.

@ 24hourjackFair enough. But the point stands: Absent religious faith, there would be one shitpile fewer suicide bombings, female genital mutilations, honor killings, clinic bombings, forced marriages of prepubescent children, stonings, decapitations…How many evil acts must be committed in the name of god before people recognize that this notion, inflicted on children by dogma gobbling parents, is not helping?I’ve no doubt there are fine, decent, upstanding people of faith. Those people would, absent the social and familial environment in which they were raised, be fine, decent, upstanding atheists.When we come, however, to the extreme, criminal, evil, harmful bastards, what do we find? A repeated and overwhelming assertion that they act in the name of god. Directed by Holy Scripture. Following the true and enlightened path to murder in the desire to achieve heaven on earth.This thread has returned time and again to evidence and the lack thereof for the proposition of god.What might it take for those who defend faith to admit that the vast majority of repugnant acts committed on this tiny rock are done in His name?

I don’t see why belief in unicorns or any other mythical creature should be treated as any different from belief in God.

Agreed 100%, except that I would add that both are equally fucking ridiculous.

I generally feel somewhat sorry for people who haven’t found in themselves the capacity for faith-based thinking, because it is a useful human capacity.

And I generally feel extremely sorry for people who neglect to use the wonderful instrument inside of their head known as the brain, causing the use of nonsensical phrases like “rationale for belief in unicorns.”

The reason “religious people” are so effectively manipulated, Dan? Really? I think the reason anybody is easily manipulated is lack of factual information. Religion is just one way people have of blocking out information they don’t want. THere’s plenty of evidence that politics and patriotism are others. Some very intelligent, rational people are also religious – and their religion doesn’t lead them down manipulative blind alleys. Why? Because they are in the habit of wrestling with their faith and with the facts of the modern world. Make that the norm instead of the sanctioned ignorance that is perpetuated frequently in the name of religion, and you get better religion, and wiser people.QT

@ goddamnkyleEasy big fella.It’s Stranahan that needs whipping. QT has come out and identified as a theist. Her unicorn analogy was just that – analogy.I call shenanigans on you for inflicting literalism.If she wants to believe….if it suits her to pray, it is your obligation to grant her that.Now you take that back, apologize to Queen, and play fair.

I make no apologies for expressing my opinion.I’ll leave it up to QT to expand on the analogy, if that’s what it was, but it sounded to me like she meant the bit about the unicorn quite literally.

kyle has to apologize to NO ONE! wtf?! why do a lot of people on here feel it neccessary to coddle and coo and treat with kid gloves religious people?! i know i don’t get the kid gloves so why does someone with faith based beliefs get more respect than someone like myself?

@ gypsyYou aren’t…you can’t be accusing ME of treating people with religious faith with kid gloves.There are some few faithful – those who do not seek to impose their faith on others, who keep it in their home and church – that I let pass without evisceration. QT is one of those, and I merely object to her analogy being taken literally.I’d explain why you got rather less rope but I don’t want to review your posts to point out where you jumped the tracks.

cousinavi said,

There are some few faithful – those who do not seek to impose their faith on others, who keep it in their home and church – that I let pass without evisceration. QT is one of those

QueenTiye said,

I’m looking forward to a world where human beings are comfortable with faith base thinking, rational thinking, and their respective limits and benefits – a world where scientific knowledge flourishes unfettered, and where faith-based understanding underpins all our rational decisions (and vice-versa).

Unless further clarification is provided, being desirous of a world where “faith based” thinking underpins all of our rational decisions sounds a lot like wanting your faith (or someone else’s faith–the point being, that you want faith) all up in my business. Maybe I’m misinterpreting.

@ gypsy – case in point:why couldn’t unicorns have existed? (i’m kinda joking kinda not) all the characteristics of the unicorn exist today so why is that such a crazy thing?Wings exist. Elephants exist. Gills exist.Hmmm…why couldn’t there be a winged elephant who lives underwater?A poker-playing sasquatch with a fondness for high-end Rolex wristwatches?/thread is dead

qt, you are about to be a by standard in this comment and for this not being directed at you and only for this not being directed at you do i apologize. it just happens to be you…avi, you are proving my point. how can my handful of generalized sentences that i have posted on this thread merit less respect than the paragraphs of “imposing” faith based beliefs from a religious person?!this is exactly why i have stopped coming here so often because for the past few weeks i have noticed this trend of coddling the religious. that is fine if you guys want to do that but i can’t stomach it.

@ goddamnkyleCome on, man. You can’t force that interpretation on her words.”I’m looking forward to a world where people are comfortable with faith….”Is not at all the same as “Accept my faith-based worldview or fucking die!”I’m looking forward to a world in which there is never a reference to god in any policy consideration. That is not to say I am prepared to inflict atheism on others; to deny them their faith.You’re going to have to play fair, mon ami.

avi, like i said i was half joking half not. but i notice you are attacking me yet demanded queen get an apology. and if we all evolved from a piece of goo in water, why not a winged elephant who lives underwater?!

Atheism is not a religion…but you’d be hard-pressed to convince me that Maoism and Stalinism weren’t cults, or that Soviet communism isn’t a religion.

avi, i’m sure you’re working on some witty comeback as i type this but you are right this thread is dead.bob, i wish you continued success.

@ gyspyI have no idea what you’ve seen, what you perceive, or what you feel.Coddling the faithful? Even if that’s true, it sure as fucked up Moses on a motorcycle ain’t ME coddling. I don’t coddle.I DO NOT CODDLE! (Can I get an AMEN, AVI?)I only demand a certain degree of adherence to the principles of fair play in argument, on which (I might add) you could stand to brush up.Why not an elephant with wings who lives underwater???Are you fucking serious?What’s next? Some Ray Comfort Wolverduck?Look…if you have an arument to make about evolution, we can uncork that anytime.If you want to complain about theists getting better treatment than you feel you get, I take no position – I have no evidence either way.What I can say is this: The points I suspect you’re trying to make are getting lost in a mishmash of construction and personal grievance. You can sort that out or not as suits you…but what you ought to avoid is lumping me in with those you feel are giving the godly a free ride.ALL I did was suggest that QT’s unicorn analogy was merely analogy. I don’t think she meant that she believes in unicorns, and I said so./really hoping you let this drop. not interested in round three.

avi,

I didn’t force any words. Those are her words, in full context. Let her clear them up, along with whether the unicorn statement was an analogy or was meant literally.

I’m looking forward to a world in which there is never a reference to god in any policy consideration. That is not to say I am prepared to inflict atheism on others; to deny them their faith.

You can’t make that analogy by substituting your atheism for her theism. They aren’t varieties of belief systems; one is the absence of the other.

Adding:I don’t think anyone believes QT was saying she personally believes in unicorns. But I do believe she was saying that I should give equal credence to someone who did that make claim, provided that’s what they truly believe.Only QT can answer that, though, so I’ll wait until we hear back from her before I comment further.

@ KyleDistinguishing my lack of faith from her faith is beside the point.What is germane is the framework in which policy decisions are made.She looks forward to a time where people are comfortable with faith-based reasoning…at least, they do not deride such thinking as foolish (as I do).I look forward to a time where people are comfortable with pure reason, no faith.In terms of hoping for one perspective or another to hold sway in policy considerations, the terms of perspective are irrelevant and my point stands.I say again, I expect rather more consideration and fair play in argument than I find in your recent posts. I think we are not far apart philosophically…but tactically, you reveal some issues.

avi,I think you are hinging your analysis of my recent posts on the idea that I misconstrued the unicorn “analogy” as a literal statement. QT has yet to clear this up, and I maintain that my approach has been tactful, as I see fit, though I do appreciate your critique.

@ goddamnkyleoh…fuck you for being polite and reasonable.I shall never forgive you.

Mama always told me, “you’ll get more with sugar than you will with shit.” Mama was a rhetorician.Adding: I will admit that my tone probably did get a little harsh, due to the whole “I pity those without faith” bit. I grew up in a Christian household as a believer and, having had the experience of possessing “faith,” I do not find my prior condition as a theist to be an enviable one.

Cousinavi, you aren’t describing atheism, you’re describing your atheism. Atheism no more implies a perfectly ethical person than religion implies a perfectly moral one.Religion calls people to be good to each other, and yet as we both know, that’s not the case. And of course, neither implies a perfectly rational person because no such being exists. We may have the capacity for reason, but we don’t use it all the time (- I think anyone who’s been through a bad break up can vouch for that- ha). To say that atheism can’t cause bad things to happen, and that an atheist would never even think to do them? How you can claim that atheists would never consider committing atrocities? I assume you have some sort of mind reading machine/sorting hat device you can use to scan fellow atheists for purity of thought?Pol Pot murdered people for having watches and eye glasses because of his communist, atheist philosophy. Now, you can claim that the people following him ‘deified’ him or his philosophy and therefore they were acting out of a sentiment you define and label as ‘religious’. You’re defining religious feelings and acts as necessarily irrational, and atheism as necessarily rational. They’re not. They’re simply assumptions from which thoughts and acts proceed. The assumption that there is no God or gods doesn’t necessarily lead to good and humane acts any more than religious belief necessarily leads to bad ones. (On a side note, how do you account for all the charity and Good Works™ performed by religious people? In spite of, rather than because of their beliefs, I’m guessing?)Back to Pol Pot. He was the man at the top. You can certainly claim that he himself was acting to increase his own power, but can you claim he wasn’t an atheist? Can you say whether HE himself was acting out of an irrational ‘religious’ place or a calculated one? You spoke to the importance of motives, but if you’re saying that people like Pol Pot and Stalin weren’t proper atheists because they performed atrocities, how is that different from Christians claiming other Christians performing violent acts aren’t really Christian? A common way to defend a belief is to say that people claiming to share your beliefs but acting in a way you find repulsive is to define them as outside of that community. Unless your idea is that Pol Pot, Stalin et al, all must secretly believed in a Sky Daddy themselves? Because surely no atheist would ever, ever think of doing bad things to people. Again, you speak to the importance of motives, but seem to be assigning them as you see fit to support your point.If you’re defining atheism as simply a lack of belief in god that does not imply respect for human rights. Marx himself was a materialist philosopher with a complete disdain for religion, and yet his philosophy showed little concern for individual rights. What we’re talking about here is a fundamental flaw in human nature. When we’re in groups, we just start acting like morons. Anyway, I’m getting tired of writing this thing, so I’ll just leave it at that for now.

Mine was an almost perfectly secular Jewish home – we ate bacon and lobster (it was Nova Scotia, after all…what’s a Jew to do?) but lit the menorah every Hannukah (I still know the prayers by heart, which is pretty much the full extent of my abilities in Hebrew).Only ever entered a shul for weddings and funerals…much later for the occasional pick-up game of Jew-ball in the gym (I still have a fucking wicked cross-over move! Going to the hole, boychik! You can’t guard ME!).In any event, despite the cultural burden (we were the only Hebes in town and I took a few swarmings for the trouble), I insist that I was a prepubescent atheist – mostly as the result of my preternatural juvenile intellect.Again, we’re on the same page. My feeling for those who have faith amounts to pity at the start and bald condescension at the end. So it goes. But I still make an effort to be civil, as I hope they would as well.

@El Mystico,Please find an example of mass murder committed to further atheism. I’ll let Avi speak for himself, but my interpretation and previous arguments are that religous fundamentalists kill in the name of teh god and teh jesus. Yes, atheists do bad things just as theists, christians and muslims do bad things. But, atheists do not bad things to further atheism. Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao have been atheists, but that is incidental to their actions.Atheism is a lack of a belief in god. You may or may not be a douche bag. You may or may not be a mass murderer. Or you may or may not be a overall good person trying to make the world a better place and still be an atheist.

Kyle: You’ve quoted quite selectively. But anyway, let’s put some ground rules to the discussion shall we? My desire for a thing is not the same thing as my imposition on you, is it? I certainly hope not! (Or, what cousinavi said!)As to the unicorn… the literal interpretation of unicorns is the least interesting one. Two days ago, in another life, I took a quiz about animal spirits. It was a poorly written quiz, and I assumed therefore that it would come up with a poor result. I happen to already know who my animal spirit guide is – I know my animal spirit guide is the dolphin. I have real world experience to back that up. Turns out that despite the paucity of data, the test correctly identified “dolphin” as my animal spirit guide.OK – pause.For a literal and rational minded person, I’m reasonably certain that most of what I said is utter nonsense. And yet, NONE of what I said is nonsense – most of it can’t be taken literally, nor is meant literally. ALL of it is meant sincerely, and the entire account is true.When I say I can see people believing in unicorns – I mean it in that same non-literal, faith-based way. I don’t personally believe in unicorns, but that’s largely because I don’t have any personal experience with unicorn stories upon which to hinge a faith-based analysis.QT

(On a side note, how do you account for all the charity and Good Works™ performed by religious people? In spite of, rather than because of their beliefs, I’m guessing?)

The best way to account for charity is debits on the left, credits on the right, and assets = liabilities + equity.

I don’t think anyone is making the argument that religion will directly make you do bad things. It simply isn’t true.

What is true, and demonstrable, is that religion can give one the propensity to do terrible things, not in spite of faith, but because of it.

I’ll quote Dawkins,

…what is really pernicious is the practice of teaching children that faith itself is a virtue. Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument. Teaching children that unquestioned faith is a virtue primes them — given certain other ingredients that are not hard to come by — to grow up into potentially lethal weapons for future jihads or crusades. Immunized against fear by the promise of a martyr’s paradise, the authentic faith-head deserves a high place in the history of armaments, alongside the longbow, the warhorse, the tank and the cluster bomb.

Dawkins conflates two things “unquestioned faith” and “faith” in one paragraph, and treats them as identical. I would argue that “unquestioned faith” isn’t even faith.QT

@ ElGoddamnMysticoYou’re defining religious feelings and acts as necessarily irrational, and atheism as necessarily rational. They’re not. They’re simply assumptions from which thoughts and acts proceed. The assumption that there is no God or gods doesn’t necessarily lead to good and humane acts any more than religious belief necessarily leads to bad ones. (On a side note, how do you account for all the charity and Good Works™ performed by religious people? In spite of, rather than because of their beliefs, I’m guessing?)I never said that atheism led to moral acts, or that faith leads to immoral acts.Further, I never defined religious feelings or actions as “necessarily irrational” – don’t put words in my mouth…even one’s with which I might agree.Given that any act based on religious conviction stems from belief in a state of affairs for which there is NO proof, it is perfectly well seen as “irrational”. How could it be otherwise? Still…while I might agree, I never said it.It may well be the case that faith promotes good actions in some people. ALL of those same acts are done every day by people without faith. Charity, good will, kindness, helping, altruism…none of those things are the exclusive province of the god-fearing.However, there are certain repugnant acts that are only committed by those with faith. No secular person would ever slice off the clitoris of their daughter. No secular person would destroy an ancient stone Buddha as an offense (against what?). No atheist would ever murder their sister or daughter for speaking to an unrelated male. These are things the REQUIRE some overwhelming order from the Sky Wizard to make possible.As regards Pol Pot, you are simply wrong. Nothing he did…and nothing Stalin, Mao or Hitler did (although all nominally atheists) was rooted in the aim of promoting a secular society. All of the heinous acts committed by those tyrants had, at its core, the destruction of those opposed to their unmitigated power and the consolidation of authority through terror.To say that their actions were based upon their atheism (which is itself a spurious claim – their atheism – esp. as regards Pol Pot) reveals either historical / cultural ignorance, or a rather shocking level of obtuseness.If you are suggesting that I have EVER said that religious folk are incapable, by virtue of their faith, of good acts…well, I can only reply this way: Go fuck yourself. I never said anything of the sort, and if those are the sort of tactics you employ in crafting argument, I will not bother with you much further. You must either realize how disingenuous your position is, or you’re not quite bright enough to play.

QT,I always appreciate your opinion. It’s great to hear people discuss the honest reconciliation of faith and religious morality with modern life- that’s missing from the ‘mainstream’ of religion that we’re hearing from on the teevee and so forth.And I’m fully supportive of these down to earth kinds of religious viewpoints. Did I metion that my atheist mother runs an episcopal organisation that sets up programs for drug addicts and ex-cons? I know all about the positive side of religion.But I don’t forget, that at the very foundation of religion is indoctrination. I had enough chances as a child to experience the sunday school thing- and I’m convinced that I experienced some of the most positive environments as that goes- yet the fact remains that they’re all teaching children to take this one leap of faith (and believe in Jesus) and they assure the kids that they will be saved for it, literally. This is where my main qualm lies. It’s that in practice, they may be teaching children that these are like fables, stories with a life lesson to them- but there is still this one thing that you have to just believe in absence of proof, and you can never doubt it or you’ll burn for eternity.It’s this unqestionable belief that makes the whole thing wrong. You set up a very bad standard for what’s honest, and for what’s virtuous. And I’m convinced it’s a horrible thing to do to a fragile young mind.

QT, I was writing another reply, but its lengthy so I put it in Notepad for later. Keep an eye out!I find the term “unquestionable faith” to be redundant. Faith is, by its definition, when you believe in something despite a lack of logical or physical evidence to support the belief.

KYLE!!!If you even reply to the animal spirit guide thing, I swear to Piltdown Man…I will slap the ever loving crap out of when the day comes we meet.Then I will buy you a beer./RESTRAINT

wow, that was kind of redundant, realizing that Kyle pretty much said exactly that with the Dawkins quote (full disclosure- I’m reading that book right now, however in German). Still, that was sincere what I said. And QT, I really dont grasp this idea of faith as something separate from unquestioned belief. That one you will need to explain better. I think there are a hell of a lot of people who could benefit from that though..

HEY! I absolutely want a reply to the animal spirit thing! No slapping allowed! And no piltdown men either!BUT – if anyone replies with some sort of literal interpretation, I’m going to rest my case on the inability of people to access another way of thinking. I DELIBERATELY wrote that the way I did to stimulate non-literal thought…QT

Dan – there’s no real way for me to explain why unquestioned faith ISN’T faith, unless one can get comfortable with non-literal thought. Without that capacity, the rest is just as you say.But the heart of the matter is here: we posit “God.” There’s no “evidence” for “God” – we just posit Him, and ascribe qualities to Him. As a child, we take in stories about God, and you call this indoctrination. I will concede the point. My own faith specifies that failure to teach children about God is failure to be a parent, and that it may irreparably disable the child. So – while we have different opinions on the matter, we seem to agree on this point at least somewhat.The thing is, though, “God” and the various stories about God are simply building blocks – you build from there and what you build comes from the inside out – it’s a creative process emanating from a single point – which is God. Taking the stories at face value is inherently NOT building with what you have – it’s the opposite of faith – it’s the functional equivalent of learning the alphabet and nothing else. I learned the greek alphabet in college as part of a pledge process. I’d never claim to speak greek though…So, unquestioned faith is not Faith – it’s an alphabet.QT

Sierradrinker-@El Mystico,Please find an example of mass murder committed to further atheism. I’ll let Avi speak for himself, but my interpretation and previous arguments are that religous fundamentalists kill in the name of teh god and teh jesus. Yes, atheists do bad things just as theists, christians and muslims do bad things. But, atheists do not bad things to further atheism. Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao have been atheists, but that is incidental to their actions. What rational basis do you have for claiming that all these 20th century, nationalistic mass murders have only an incidental relationship to atheism, but religious mass murder must proceed from a genuine religious feeling?If an atheist commits mass murder, it’s because he’s a bad guy that just happens not to believe in god. Because you say so, apparently. Because you claim that it must not be the case. But why other than you don’t want it to be that way? As I said, atheism doesn’t imply total rationality. If that’s the truth, why is it beyond the realm of possibility for you that a Christian leader making war, or whatever, why must it be because of their Christianity and not because of greed and lust for power. I imagine there were plenty of leaders who cynically claimed a religious veneer for their actions as a way of getting people to go along with their plans, while they themselves knowingly acted for personal gain. Yet, this seems to be beyond the realm of possibility for you. If they say they were Christian, then they must be doing it for god, but if Stalin, Pol Pot etc claimed to be doing what they did for communism, a philosphy with an atheist basis, then it’s incidental.If Pol Pot killed all those people for the cause of communism, again an atheist philosophy, how does that make it not for the advance of general atheism, if an atrocity committed in the name of Christianity can be claimed to be committed in to further the cause of God & Jebus? You say it’s different, but what is the explanation? What is the mechanism that makes them different other than your wanting them to be different?

explain again why communism is an atheist philosophy, ElMyst.This is where your whole agument becomes moot.

@ QTThe “single point” from which your concept of god grows is not god.Were you not “instructed” (indoctrinated) as a child, upon what blocks would your faith set roots?You may question, doubt, ponder, wonder, suffer, agonize…It is all – ALL of it – constructed on blocks that did not come from “god” but which were poured in place before you could possibly object to the particular mix of concrete that arrived in your Momma’s mixer.Were you born in Madras, you would be a Hindu.Tokyo – Shinto.Colombia – CatholicTo suggest that the foundations of your theology emanate from some pure source takes a rather large spoonful of willful blindness. It has, quite obviously, far more to do with circumstance than with truth.

Communism is an atheist philosophy?/that’s the straw…right there. Best of luck ElMystico. Here’s hoping you stumble onto reason somewhere along the way.

BTW- gypsy – sorry for not responding.On the subject of evolution – I think the answer is – your “belief” would need to be phrased more as a “hypothesis” and then you’d need to seek out data to prove or disprove that hypothesis. Evolution being a rational science, can’t deal with “belief” in the abstract… your belief, if it is to be applied to science, has to be converted into something testable. You might STILL believe in unicorns, having not come up with a test, the way some scientists believe in unified field (I think I have that right). They haven’t proved it, but they have enough data to think it’s probably there if they can figure out the right questions to ask, while some other scientists think that it isn’t there at all, and that some other mechanism explains mechanical and quantum physics… but in neither case are scientists content to leave their beliefs as “beliefs.” They always are looking for a testable angle.QT

I was also instructed in my ABCs – they are no less abstract, and are only as useful as we collectively make them.I agree that my construct is not God. I believe in God, but my construct, so given to me by my parents and home environment is not God. Which for the purpose of this discussion, is entirely irrelevant. We were talking about faith.QT

Oops! That last comment was for cousinavi. BTW – do you prefer to be named in text as you name yourself (lowercase c)?QT

@ QTCall me as you wish. So long as I know you’re talking to me, it’s all good./call me anything except late for dinner

Evolution is NOT a hypothesis. It’s a fact.

Wait – cousinavi – who said evolution was a hypothesis?QT

ElMystico,

Communist atrocities have been committed due to collectivization, the idea of a classless society, a concomitant distrust of the bourgeoisie (i.e. the capitalists and the middle class – enemies of the classless society) and an intolerant view of dissent. If you can tie any of these to atheism, then I’ll concede the point to you.

In the instance of the Crusades, for example, the motive is clearly tied to religion. Same goes for 9/11. I can name more, if you like.

@ goddamnkyleYou may not link to anything posted on GEOCITIES as an authority for anything.Might as well be Christwire.org

And for the record – I generally feel somewhat sorry for people who haven’t found in themselves the capacity for faith-based thinking, because it is a useful human capacitywow. that was about as patronizing as it gets. Humility is also a useful human capacity.

QT,On the animal spirit guide tip, I’ve determined that I can only say this: if your belief system is such that it can be compared to the metaphorical use of animal spirit guides, then it is not dogmatic enough to be a problem. Would I have as big of a problem with religion if everyone were Baha’i or UU? Of course I wouldn’t. Unfortunately, that’s not the case, and religious extremism does currently present a real danger to the rest of us. However, I’m not trying to stop anyone from practicing religion. I’m only speaking my mind on the subject. Watching one or two videos of people being burned alive because the locals think they are “witches” (videos, I say, because this sort of thing still happens today) should cause any ethical person to speak up when it comes to the dangers of irrational beliefs.

Irrational beliefs or intolerance? Which poses the greater threat?QT

@ KyleI wonder of rational and irrational are proper terms for moral behaviour.In an overpopulated world, how rational is it to seek to ensure that all people have a decent diet…sufficient to live and reproduce at will (as is their unmitigated right)?Rational choices have just as much propensity for immoral outcomes (whatever your ethos) as “religious” based choices./just sayin’ – the presumption that devotion to “reason” does not necessarily accord with “right”…unless, of course, you define it that way

QT, both present threats and, when combined (as in many fundamentalist forms of various religions) they pose an especially potent threat.

It is true that I’m, at times, rather intolerant of religious belief–but only in the same sense that I’m intolerant of any country music recorded after 1990. You choose to be religious, just like you might choose to listen to that new Rascal Flatts CD. I tolerate religious people, but I reserve the right to, at the appropriate time, explain why I disagree with them. I live in a small town in the Deep South™, so you have no idea how much religion I truly have to tolerate. And many could not begin to imagine how intolerant people are of my atheism, when it shows.

avi:

I applied the term irrational to beliefs, which should definitely not be confused with morals. Also, at least I cited GeoCities and not Wikipedia, right?

@ Christine: Patronizing? In what way? Is it more or less patronizing as the atheist belief that religion is a brain infection and/or delusion?The thing is – at heart we want what’s best for people, and as liberal and tolerant as we may be, we ultimately find places where we render judgement. I hope I am not arrogant in those places, but if I am, I apologize.I apologize specifically for coming across as arrogant, not for wishing everyone had at their disposal a faith capacity.QT

@cousinavi: I neglected to respond to this, but allow me now. I was born to Christian parents, raised in the United Methodist Church. In my young adulthood I converted to Islam, and later still I converted to the Baha’i faith. I have often said that I never met a faith I didn’t believe in (that’s not true, but you get the idea).If I were at a computer I would provide a quote from the Baha’i Writings that make exactly your point – people adhere to the “faith of their fathers.” But it needn’t be so, and a grounding in faith and knowledge unhinges one from dogmatism that blinds.QT

@ QTNot sure what makes you so certain I have neither a grounding in nor capacity for faith. The former you may take my word. The later is certainly debatable, but I would insist on principle that the only capacities you have that I lack are gestation and lactation.Hopefully its not merely the fact that I reject such fantastic myths as unsupported by any evidence other than anecdote and wish thinking.That you could possibly consider anything I’ve expressed here, ever, to be the result of dogma only leads me to question whether you’ve been paying attention or just fencing…or if you have a sufficiently accurate definition of the term to know when it isn’t appropriate.If I’m blind, you’re needy.I would much prefer to grant you your faith without having to suffer your arrogant condescension for my rejection of same.I would, however, paraphrase Dawkins to point out the many gods you reject – Thor, Zeus, Baal, Ra, Krishna, Allah…I merely go one god further.A grounding in reason unhinges one from the dogmatism of slavish theism that blinds.

One last point: The dichotomy that cousinavi strives for fails. Yes: an atheist who is being a tyrant is being a tyrant in absence of a deity s/he can claim instructs them to be, and a theist who is being a tyrant can claim that “God said.” In the end though, people are still dead, and largely because of dogmatically held beliefs, and a belief in one’s right or obligation to impose those beliefs or philosophy. Genocide in Africa is rarely the work of religion – it is typically the work of tribal politics. And the KKK terrorism in this country had little whatsoever to do with religion and everything to do with racism.We’ve said several times across two threads that extremism is political, but for some reason we want to divorce religious extremism from the rest of the examples and treat it as smething different. If the results were different, this might be justifiable, but the results are not different. By all means, let’s divorce religion from politics, and let’s insist upon a solid education for all without regard for religion. But I reserve the right to ask upon what grounds are religious extremists to be examined under a different microscope from extremism of other types?QT

But I reserve the right to ask upon what grounds are religious extremists to be examined under a different microscope from extremism of other types?

I’m not the one saying they should be examined under a different microscope (Lee’s original post seems to be trying to preclude religion from the discussion of these religious extremists). Extremism is extremism and killing people is killing people. But if religion is the cause, as I (and many others) believe it to be in many cases, why should I be careful not to point it out?

AHA! Sorry – I didn’t read your whole last post, but your opening statement shows why people are taking me to task for my statement. So I’ll clarify and then come back around to reading.In our earlier discussion, in discussions I’ve had with Kyle, and in comments from a new (to me) face, I’ve observed a determined, willful reduction of Christian theology to the narrowest interpretation. In at least one case, sufficiently narrow as to be fundamentally wrong. In all cases, there seemed to be an unwillingness to recognize that the black and whitw absolutes aren’t real (the same limitation fundamentalists display). That disinclination is what I meant, and I don’t believe that ANYONE is incapable of the necessary nuance, but it seems that both fundamentalists and atheists have conspired together to avoid that. I’m always sorry to see that.One last point, because I just caught this (and then I’ll read your post properly): I don’t reject any “gods” – and for the love of knowledge! Allah IS God! They aren’t two separate Beings.QT

Kyle: “religion” is too broad a term. We need specifics. After all, our 43rd president claims to have had a mission of being democracy and freedom to Iraq, and in support of that cause, tortured people. I would not like “democracy” and “freedom” disdained because they apparently come with torture in some instances.More importantly, religious extremism, it has been repeatedly saif by people who aren’t me, increases with change in political fortunes. Which suggests isolating religion as a cause to be misguided. At least, it has to be fit into a matrix, so that those religious expressions outside that matrix are clearly not swept up in the mix.QT

Sorry, QT, but you’re just as guilty of broadening religion to its most open-minded, liberal form as any of us may be of narrowing it to its most fundamental, dogmatic form. For every Baha’i follower, there are 183 Catholics and a similar number of Sunni Muslims, two groups not known for their broad acceptance of differing religious ideals within the group (or outside of it, for that matter).

You sneaked another post in while I wasn’t looking!”Religion” is definitely too broad of a term. I don’t believe that religion itself is the problem, as the dogmatic tenants of any particular faith. When the dogma is toned down, or absent, the danger factor is greatly diminished.

Adding! (and I’m done, I swear!)The numbers thing isn’t mean to diminish the Baha’i faith versus Catholicism or Islam, as numbers are irrelevant where validity is concerned.That said, I’m also a proponent of an international auxiliary language. Just to show some solidarity somewhere in this thread.

The problem here is fairly simple. All these debates about Stalin vs. Torquemada miss the point that there’s a very easy recipe for turning people into fanatics.Step 1: Here’s the magic book (the Bible/the Communist Manifesto) that explains EVERYTHING.Step 2: Since the magic book explains everything, anyone who disagrees with it is an idiot and an arsegike.Step 3: Since the magic book explains everything, clearly creationism/lysenkoism is the answer to all our questions about biology.Step 4: Creationism/lysenkoism isn’t working. In fact, it’s actively creating problems for us. The only possible explanation is that we haven’t achieved total ideological purity yet. 99% Bible is a disaster, but if we ever got to 100% Bible, we’d create a utopia.Step 5: Kill the arsegikes who disagree with the magic book. they’re holding us back from total ideological purity.I go into this in much more detail on my blog:http://archie-archie.blogspot.com/2007/01/ideology-in-nutshell.htmlOnce you know what to look for, you start seeing that kind of logic everywhere. (Fortunately, it only rarely progresses all the way to Step 5.) I use a science fiction novel called _The Truth Machine_ as an example.Libertarians are particularly bad about claiming that any problems caused by libertarianism will go away once we have total ideological purity. (“Sure, removing worker protections caused horrific abuses- but once we remove *all* regulation of the free market, workers will be free to get new jobs with non-abusive employers!”)Cory Doctorow is also a big example of exactly what I’m talking about, if you’ve ever followed boingboing. He has a one-size-fits-all answer to everything, and is very vocal about stating that anyone who disagrees with him is a bad person. As a result, when he stole a story from Ursula K. LeGuin without paying her royalties, his fans threatened to burn her books because she dared to complain about it.

I never said the religious extremism is any different from other forms of dogmatic belief that result in bad actions.I merely said that religion IS a dogmatic belief that CAUSES extremism. I don’t think I need go any further than that to conclude religion is a load of harmful hornswoggle.Any “dichotomy” you think I was aiming for, QT, exists only in your need to defend religious faith. People do bad things. Religion is a root cause of more than a sufficient slice of those bad things for me to say it has no place in the political process, and IMO we’d all be better off without it.I think we’d also be better off without the ALF bombing science labs; without drug cartels bombing police stations…without violence due to folks seeking to inflict their will on others in all forms.My point remains: there are plenty of bad acts that CAN ONLY be done in the name of god. Belief in imaginary sky wizards lead inescapably to division, hatred and violence. Holy Jesus, meek and mild, is just as bad as Allah. Religious faith is social poison, like any dogmatic set of beliefs that people seek to inflict on others. It need not be distinguished – it merely needs to be identified for the harm it obviously does.

People also do good things, like feed the poor and comfort the ill. Religion is responsible for a lot of that, too. It doesn’t make the news, like a bombing, though.And your obvious loathing of religion makes you blind to this.And when you say “religion IS a dogmatic belie”, you’re wrong. It can be, like anything. That doesn’t mean it is.

Lee, did you really just sit through all of that debate (I know you read it) and then try to stick in a morning-after sucker punch? I really hope you read this, and I really hope you will offer a reply.

First point is that altruism done in the name of religion is not necessarily done because of religion. There are many secular groups out there fulfilling the same needs as religious groups. Are there certain altruistic impulses to be found only in the religious? Certainly not. Any group of people could do good things for another group of people, and it would not increase the validity of any of their claims, nor would it give the group a “free pass” (of the style you’re trying to give religion in this post) for any bad things done in their name.

Second point, Lee, is that most of the world’s population belong to dogmatic religions. You are UU and are, thus, an exception to the norm when it comes to religious outlook. Catholics have a clear set of dogmatic beliefs, for instance. If you don’t believe certain things, you burn in Hell. You’re a Kevin Smith fan, so I’m sure I don’t need to explain that any further. Don’t assume that your faith is so similar to that of the rest of this country’s, or even the world’s. Your particular non-dogmatic religion makes up only 0.3% of this country’s population, where atheists makeup almost 15%.

Anything can be dogmatic, yes. But when’s the last time someone killed an abortion doctor because they held dogmatic beliefs about something other than religion? (Yes, I will keep asking)

cousinavi – maybe I’m misunderstanding you.What bad things can only be done in the name of religion? I don’t know of any, but your answer will at least help me calibrate to your way of thinking.QT

Lee,All People do good things, relgious types, atheist types, zen buddhist types. I have infinitely more respect for those who do good in order to help humankind than to appease the desires of a skywizard. Those do not have to be mutually exclusive. I know there are very good religious people as I’ve known many of them in my lifetime.El GD Mystico,Mabye you’re right. Maybe Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao murdered millions because they were trying to force a secular non-theistic belief on everyone and those people simply held onto their religion too strongly. I’ve never read any account or heard an historic opinion argue that point, but hey, anything is possible.However, go to Wikipedia and you’ll find 9 Crusades all done in the name of god. 9/11, every suicide bombing of a mosque or marketplace in Iraq is done in the name of god (Allah). The spanish and italian inquisitions done in the name of god. God Hates Fags, Operation Rescue, the killing of Dr. Tiller all done in the name of god.But enough on this. Not all regious people are good, not all atheists are bad and vise versa. Maybe someday people will stop doing very bad things in the name of religion and maybe someday the skywizard will come down from his golden throne and smite all the non-believers. I just don’t see either one of those happening.

@ goddamnkyleI returned after a day’s sleep myself for another kick at the cat.I think Lee was wrong with this post from the outset, and it’s clear that nothing said in this thread is likely to change his mind.Some people still want to say that religion doesn’t poison everything; that because it does some good, that it isn’t ALL nutbar extremists, religion ought not be held accountable for the things the nutbars do.And, of course, there are plenty of nutbars, lots of whom have other core motives that are not related to their imaginary friends.I like to employ the “but for” test.Take ALL the nuts, ALL the acts of terror and sort them according to the factor BUT FOR WHICH they would not have been moved to violence.Sure, there are some who believe that animals should not be in labs…there are others who killed because they had a bad reaction to a Hostess Twinkie…there are those who say that god willed and directed them to do it.How many lives would be saved if we eliminate scientific research on animals (how many would be lost)?How many lives would be saved if we eliminated Twinkies?How many lives would be saved if we eliminate religion?As an underlying cause, but for which the “extremism” would never find form or expression, religion must easily lead the list. And yet, there are still those who say, “Don’t blame Jesus! Jesus said to love your neighbour! Religious people do good things, too!”You can still love your neighbour. You can still do good things. No one needs Jesus for that…or ought not to. I would hate to think that Christians would immediately start murdering and raping without their holy book. Is that what they think of themselves?But there are bad acts – far too many of them – that can ONLY be done by those who are following the word of god. We would be far better off on this planet if we could get rid of such arrogant certainty.

Hi QT & welcome back…Bad things that can only be done in the name of religion:1. Female genital mutilation is absolutely and strictly a religious practice.2. Destruction of religious temples and iconography – see ancient stone Buddhas dynamited.3. Murder of female relatives for speaking to an unrelated male.4. Honour killings5. Murder of abortion doctors – bombing of abortion clinics6. Internecine civil war – Sunni v. Shia Muslims…is six enough, or shall I continue?

I’m still wondering where Lee comes down on the question of the relevance of religion.Do we blame religion for the bad things done in its name?Or should we say that religion is a completely irrelevant force for either good or evil?You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either religion influences people, or it doesn’t.

None of those things require religion to be practiced. Indeed – in some cases, the religion teaches against it, and people revise the religion to accommodate the practice.I have to run, and may not be back because I’m leaving the country for a few days. however, if I can check in, I will… just didn’t want you to think I ducked out on the conversation. I suspect, I’ll have to pick this up on my own forum because this will fall off the page.QT

@ QTWHAT??? Are you serious?I defy you to show me ONE single example of female genital mutilation that is done for ANY reason that is not religiously based.Show me the destruction of a single “holy place” that is not motivated by some contrary holy book.Don’t be obtuse. I have already admitted that there are bad acts done by lots of people who are not believers.Nevertheless, the point is not even debatable. There are certain disgusting, ugly, repulsive acts that are done, AND ONLY DONE, in the name of god.Absent fucked up religiosity, no female child would have her clitoris sliced from her body.Absent the loving words of gentle Jesus, meek and mild, no abortion clinic would be bombed or abortion provider murdered. Each and every case of these hideous actions has, at its core, “I am following god’s law.”It is sickening, obvious and inescapable.

Lee,Regarding your followup post comment: “Atheism is often a dogmatic belief and it certainly was for Communist regimes.”This is not entirely correct, if not flatly wrong. Christian sects have “dogma” as do Mulsims, Buddhists, etc. There is no atheistic dogma anywhere. Even if a policical ideology conatins atheistic concepts, the atheism itself is not dogmatic. Atheism, in fact, does not lend itself easily to dogma.You are a thoughtful writer. But I agree with many other posters here. Your comparison in this case is false equivalency.

You know, in this and the other thread I’m reminded of why all discussions of religion frustrate me so.The facts of the case are really very simple. Clearly if you write a book that exhorts people to commit evil, and the people who read that book commit evil deeds, then the book is a causative factor.Nobody every disputes this in a non-religious context. Nobody says, “Hey now- don’t blame the _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_ for Nazism.” Nobody is saying hey, Bill O’Reilly is not responsible in the latest shooting. But if Israelis point to the genocides in the Bible as proof that God wants them to kill Palestinians, for some reason the Bible must never, ever be held responsible. If the Bible says that genocide is a moral good, and people reading it say hey, I guess genocide is a moral good, then gosh, only a hotheaded atheist could possibly think there’s some connection there.It’s really amazing to see the lengths that people go to in order to refuse to admit the obvious- so long as religion is involved. If someone shoots a man because the Bible told him to, we’re told that well, gosh, the Bible can’t be held responsible because:- he was reading the original Bible, whereas now the official version has been modified by centuries of theologians, so it’s not the Bible’s fault that he took the Bible at face value instead of getting a PhD in theology before picking up a gun. Because, you know, what the Bible says isn’t really what the Bible says- the Bible can’t be held accountable for what it says, because what it says isn’t what it really says, and what it really says is what theologians say it says, and anyone who think it says what it says is every bit as stupid as the people who read the Bible and go out and shoot people because it says so, except it doesn’t.- and besides, he was destined to kill someone anyway. If it wasn’t the Bible, then he would have gotten his murderous urges out of his system by killing people over animal rights, or Communism, or whatever, because, you know, Fate has determined that each of us has a quota of people we’re going to kill no matter what, and the only leeway we have is in deciding what rationale we’ll stick on it, like a sprig of parsley floating in a bucket of blood.- and anyway, you can’t hold the Bible responsible because even if you eliminated religious extremism, it wouldn’t *totally* remove all tragedy from our world. I mean, why vaccinate kids? Even if you eliminate all the deaths due to mumps, you still have all the kids who die of pneumonia, so why bother trying to make any progress at all?