News Should religion be a subject of criticism?

[LightbulbSun]

no, i think i was saying that kasse is promoting an ideology in this thread. maybe he's not a true atheist. but if ideology is the word that offends you, then maybe agenda is a better word. and the agenda seems to be silencing people and singling out others for annihilation. he was quite explicit about this.

Again, point to the atheist agenda. You can't because there is none.

fwiw, i know and like some atheists, and i don't blame atheists or atheism for great tragedies in the world, such as i mentioned. but it's a way of making a point. and that is that it's not religion or even atheism that is to blame. religion and/or ideology are often used as an EXCUSE by some to achieve those grisly ends, but they're not the cause.

Religion has been the cause of wars before. Can you point to atheism being the cause of a single war?

Obviously a world without religion does not quell the violence. People still hold to political and economic ideologies, and wars over resources are also very likely to occur. But a world without religion would be one less vice.

 

[Proton Soup]

Again, point to the atheist agenda. You can't because there is none.



Religion has been the cause of wars before. Can you point to atheism being the cause of a single war?

Obviously a world without religion does not quell the violence. People still hold to political and economic ideologies, and wars over resources are also very likely to occur. But a world without religion would be one less vice.

i'm not talking about atheist agendas, you are.

and i don't understand the drum you want to beat, so let's consider communism again. does or does not communism advocate atheism?

 

[kasse]

I'm happy to see that critical thinking and criticism of religion is on a rise. In London there's an advertisement campaign starting in Janyary. Lots of buses will drive around in the city center with the slogan "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life".

http://www.atheistcampaign.org

 

[rbj]

I think the current development is scary, in particular in Europe, where everything is done to avoid offending muslims.

i don't think that is true at all.

there are several newspapers in Holland that specifically reprinted those political cartoons depicting Mohammed (with bombs in his turbin) and in France, they passed a law prohibiting females from wearing the headscarf (the hijab) covering in public schools. in England, there was a definite suspicion of persons that appeared as or were believed to be muslim which set the stage for that non-muslim brazilian guy to be shot in the head point-blank in the subway because the cop thought he was a suicide bomber.

sorry, i just don't agree with your premise.

 

[LightbulbSun]

i'm not talking about atheist agendas, you are.

and i don't understand the drum you want to beat, so let's consider communism again. does or does not communism advocate atheism?

Communism has nothing to do with atheism.

Ok, we obviously need some definitions here:

Communism: A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Atheism: A disbelief in a God or Gods.

Now point to the connection. There is none. It's a false connection you're trying to make just like people want to falsely connect atheism with nihilism or atheism with anarchism.

 

[LightbulbSun]

i'm not talking about atheist agendas, you are.

but if ideology is the word that offends you, then maybe agenda is a better word.

Oh really?

 

[rbj]

Religion has been the cause of wars before. Can you point to atheism being the cause of a single war?

some might say that atheism was behind some violence done in both Russia and China when the so-called godless communists took over.

even though i would not color most or even a few atheists as Leninist or Maoist, i would not agree at all that there is no atheist agenda. many, many atheists attempt to promote their way of thinking to others, and to protect their world view in the public sphere, just as many of these religious zealots do. (in most cases, i side with the atheists with this political agenda, even though i am not one.)

 

[LightbulbSun]

some might say that atheism was behind some violence done in both Russia and China when the so-called godless communists took over.

And it's a stupid myth that keeps getting repeated as if it were a fact.

even though i would not color most or even a few atheists as Leninist or Maoist, i would not agree at all that there is no atheist agenda. many, many atheists attempt to promote their way of thinking to others, and to protect their world view in the public sphere, just as many of these religious zealots do. (in most cases, i side with the atheists with this political agenda, even though i am not one.)

You mean secularists have an agenda? Cause that is who you are referring to, not atheists.

 

[kasse]

In Norway, where I live, a kindergarten had to paint over a pig on a wall, because it offended the parents of some of the kids there.

 

[Evo]

Ok, when Communism was spread through Russia, religion was forbidden, or at the very least frowned on. The priests had become corrupt. Same thing when communism spread through China, religion was discouraged, even forbidden, many temples were destroyed.

I have a raging headache, but I seem to recall that removing religion removed the threat to the communist government of people gathering and reinforcing each other through their religious beliefs that would have presented problems for the new regime.

A good thing that stemmed from communism was outlawing footbinding in China.

Or I could be completely wrong.

How about the persecution and murder of Catholic Priests by the Church of England under Henry the VIII?

 

[Proton Soup]

Communism has nothing to do with atheism.

Ok, we obviously need some definitions here:

Communism: A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Atheism: A disbelief in a God or Gods.

Now point to the connection. There is none. It's a false connection you're trying to make just like people want to falsely connect atheism with nihilism or atheism with anarchism.

no, I'm asking you a simple question that you don't want to answer. have communists (USSR, China) advocated Atheism ?

i think you know that they have. it's what they taught in their schools. it wasn't something they just ignored, as if you would ignore anything else that didn't exist, but actively advocated.

 

[rbj]

Communism has nothing to do with atheism.

Ok, we obviously need some definitions here:

Communism: A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Atheism: A disbelief in a God or Gods.

Now point to the connection. There is none. It's a false connection you're trying to make just like people want to falsely connect atheism with nihilism or atheism with anarchism.

you know, i understand your dislike to have such an association foisted upon you, but it is there. because the Czar (and other rulers) used whatever was the established religion to claim legitimacy to power, the Communists did oppose both (the ruler and the religion that was supporting the ruler and the ruling class). remember "Religion is the opiate of the masses."? same with Mao. same with Kim Il-sung.

now, it doesn't have to be that way. i know of intentional Christian communities (even lived in one) where people lived together in multi-family households and shared their incomes among all. that was certainly socialist, at least in practice.

 

[kasse]

some might say that atheism was behind some violence done in both Russia and China when the so-called godless communists took over.

Again: could it not have been lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy that caused them to commit their crimes?

 

[LightbulbSun]

no, I'm asking you a simple question that you don't want to answer. have communists (USSR, China) advocated Atheism ?

i think you know that they have. it's what they taught in their schools. it wasn't something they just ignored, as if you would ignore anything else that didn't exist, but actively advocated.

You seem to ignore the fact that the church supported Stalin.

 

[LightbulbSun]

you know, i understand your dislike to have such an association foisted upon you, but it is there. because the Czar (and other rulers) used whatever was the established religion to claim legitimacy to power, the Communists did oppose both (the ruler and the religion that was supporting the ruler and the ruling class). remember "Religion is the opiate of the masses."? same with Mao. same with Kim Il-sung.

now, it doesn't have to be that way. i know of intentional Christian communities (even lived in one) where people lived together in multi-family households and shared their incomes among all. that was certainly socialist, at least in practice.

You honestly want to connect a political and economic ideology to a disbelief in a God or Gods? That's asinine.

 

[LightbulbSun]

From Briticanna:

In his prime, Stalin was hailed as a universal genius, as a “shining sun,” or “the staff of life,” and also as a “great teacher and friend” (especially of those communities he most savagely persecuted); once he was even publicly invoked as “Our Father” by a metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church.

 

[rbj]

And it's a stupid myth that keeps getting repeated as if it were a fact.
You mean secularists have an agenda? Cause that is who you are referring to, not atheists.

well, i think it's stupid people that write off historical note as stupid myth because they don't like hearing (or reading) it.

and, no, i was referring to atheists. i think Richard Dawkins definitely has an agenda.

 

[Proton Soup]

You seem to ignore the fact that the church supported Stalin.

i guess you mean the catholics. they've 'supported' a lot of regimes. i think for them it's mostly about survival. they're an organization that's been around for nearly 2000 years, and they see regimes come and go. so much of it is simply about maintaining a presence and holding on until things change again. maybe we should judge that harshly, i dunno, but the long-term view certainly has it's rationalities (yeah-yeah, i know that's a keyword...)

 

[LightbulbSun]

well, i think it's stupid people that write off historical note as stupid myth because they don't like hearing (or reading) it.

and, no, i was referring to atheists. i think Richard Dawkins definitely has an agenda.

No, it's stupid because people want to connect atheism to it when it had nothing to do with atheism.

 

[rbj]

You honestly want to connect a political and economic ideology to a disbelief in a God or Gods? That's asinine.

my goodness you're persuasive.

ever try USENET? you might want to consider it before this escalates and they kick us both off PF.

 

[kasse]

In todays world, dominated by religious conflicts, how can people believe that lack of religion was a problem in the last century?? The problem was lack of rational thinking.

Atheism doesn't make you immune to doing stupid or terrible things, it's means that you don't believe in any gods, just like you didn't when you were born.

 

[kasse]

i think Richard Dawkins definitely has an agenda.

What's wrong about having an agenda when it's a good one?

 

[rbj]

No, it's stupid because people want to connect atheism to it when it had nothing to do with atheism.

have you read Richard Dawkins. do you even know who he is?

Richard Dawkins is an apologist for atheism. he writes books with about as much vitriol as you have. he definitely has an agenda.

 

[LightbulbSun]

have you read Richard Dawkins. do you even know who he is?

Richard Dawkins is an apologist for atheism. he writes books with about as much vitriol as you have. he definitely has an agenda.

and you, Dimbulb, make yourself look stupider than you need to by simply denying it (and offering no support). you need to work on what we used to call Forensics (the art and science of debate). your technique is not very effective.

I know who Richard Dawkins is and he's not an apologist. That's like calling Carl Sagan an apologist.

I don't know what atheism has to apologize for since it's not an ideology like you so desperately want to believe.

 

[kasse]

What does Forensics help when one accepts biblical nonsense?

 

[LightbulbSun]

my goodness you're persuasive.

ever try USENET? you might want to consider it before this escalates and they kick us both off PF.

Are you purposely trying to start a flame war just to see this thread close? I hope the mods just clean up your posts and let this discussion to continue. It's obvious we have some serious ignorance spreading around here.

 

[kasse]

i didn't comment on the goodness or badness of Dawkins' agenda. i am refuting Dimbulb's assertion that atheists have no agenda.

Some have, some don't. I don't see Dawkins as a promoter of atheism, but as a promoter of rationalism and critical thinking.

 

[rbj]

I know who Richard Dawkins is and he's not an apologist. That's like calling Carl Sagan an apologist.

I don't know what atheism has to apologize for since it's not an ideology like you so desperately want to believe.

well, , i guess now what is needed is to ask you to tell us if you know what an apologist is.

 

[Proton Soup]

I know who Richard Dawkins is and he's not an apologist. That's like calling Carl Sagan an apologist.

I don't know what atheism has to apologize for since it's not an ideology like you so desperately want to believe.

you're right, he's a better zoologist than apologist.

and apologetics isn't about apologizing.

 

[LightbulbSun]

well, , i guess now what is needed is to ask you to tell us if you know what an apologist is.

it's okay, Dimbulb. ignorance is bliss.

I know what an apologist is, it means to defend the teachings or actions of a person or a group.

What is Dawkins defending exactly about atheism? Please provide some evidence before you make unwarranted assertions.

 

[kasse]

i didn't comment on the goodness or badness of Dawkins' agenda. i am refuting Dimbulb's assertion that atheists have no agenda.

Some have, some don't. I don't see Dawkins as a promoter of atheism, but as a promoter of rationalism and critical thinking. Atheism has nothing to preach, save strong atheism, but Dawkins is an agnostic atheist like most non-believers are.

 

[LightbulbSun]

you're right, he's a better zoologist than apologist.

and apologetics isn't about apologizing.

He's an evolutionary biologist.

 

[rbj]

Some have, some don't. I don't see Dawkins as a promoter of atheism,

what? The God Delusion _? Chapter 3?

but as a promoter of rationalism and critical thinking.

have you read Dawkins?

 

[Proton Soup]

I know what an apologist is, it means to defend the teachings or actions of a person or a group.

What is Dawkins defending exactly about atheism? Please provide some evidence before you make unwarranted assertions.

he writes books about it. whereas some theologians see the hand of God in all creation, Dawkins spends all his energies finding the fingerprints of evolution.

 

[edward]

Are you purposely trying to start a flame war just to see this thread close? I hope the mods just clean up your posts and let this discussion to continue. It's obvious we have some serious ignorance spreading around here.

It seems to be a very one sided discussion. That seems to be about all the atheists here can tolerate. I thought it was religion that was proclaimed to be intolerant??

This argument started with the ancient Greeks and it isn't going to be decided here.

 

[Evo]

well, , i guess now what is needed is to ask you to tell us if you know what an apologist is.

I just deleted your insults, stop them now.

 

[LightbulbSun]

what? The God Delusion _? Chapter 3? kasse, you don't want to expose yourself to appear as silly as dimbulb, do you?



have you read Dawkins?

You need to read his books before you make accusations. "Unweaving The Rainbow" talks about how important the teaching of real science is, and he explores how pseudoscience and paranormal nonsense exploits our appetite for wonder. Nothing about atheism in that book.

"The Selfish Gene" is talking about evolution and biology. Nothing about atheism in that book.
"Climbing Mount Improbable" talks about evolution. Nothing about atheism in that book.
"The God Delusion" is the only book that hints at atheism, but it's not about atheism really. It analyzes the different claims made by different religions about the existence of God or Gods.

 

[edward]

I just deleted your insults, stop them now.

Wait I want to post some insults.

 

[Proton Soup]

He's an evolutionary biologist.

that's what he calls himself. his doctorate was in zoology, and he taught zoology. and then he got very interested in evolution.

 

[kasse]

what? The God Delusion _? Chapter 3? kasse, you don't want to expose yourself to appear as silly as dimbulb, do you?



have you read Dawkins?

All his books. Dawkins is a scientist, and naturally wants to promote rational thinking. Nothing is more in the way for scientific progress than religon, that's why he's attacking it. If Dawkins solely was a promoter of atheism, he would have been pleased with living in a world where nobody believes in God. But Dawkins wants more than that. Atheism is just one of many consequences of rational thinking.

And as the believer you are, please stop calling names.

 

[LightbulbSun]

It seems to be a very one sided discussion. That seems to be about all the atheists here can tolerate. I thought it was religion that was proclaimed to be intolerant??

I'm intolerant for correcting people on their false connections and misusage of words?

 

[Proton Soup]

All his books. Dawkins is a scientist, and naturally wants to promote rational thinking. Nothing is more in the way for scientific progress than religon, that's why he's attacking it. If Dawkins solely was a promoter of atheism, he would have been pleased with living in a world where nobody believes in God. But Dawkins wants more than that. Atheism is just one of many consequences of rational thinking.

And as the believer you are, please stop calling names.

what science does Dawkins actually do? i think all he does is make sloppy interpretations of other people's work to make it fit his agenda.

 

[kasse]

Certain things shouldn't be tolerated. Religion is among them.

 

[Evo]

Wait I want to post some insults.

Well, hurry up and get them in, I'm going to ban everyone before I go to bed.

 

[LightbulbSun]

what science does Dawkins actually do? i think all he does is make sloppy interpretations of other people's work to make it fit his agenda.

He was the one who popularized the gene-centered view of evolution, he also introduced the concept of memes. He's done a lot of great work in the field of evolutionary science.

 

[Proton Soup]

Well, hurry up and get them in, I'm going to ban everyone before I go to bed.

lol, I'm getting tired of this, myself

 

[kasse]

what science does Dawkins actually do? i think all he does is make sloppy interpretations of other people's work to make it fit his agenda.

He's retired now, but he was a professor of the public understanding of science at the University of Oxford.

 

[Proton Soup]

He was the one who popularized the gene-centered view of evolution, he also introduced the concept of memes. He's done a lot of great work in the field of evolutionary science.

memes are just a neat-sounding word for culture, it's nothing new. popularizing science just makes him a science writer, like many others who work for publications.

 

[LightbulbSun]

memes are just a neat-sounding word for culture, it's nothing new. popularizing science just makes him a science writer, like many others who work for publications.

So Carl Sagan is just a science writer then.

 

[kasse]

We're OT.