News Should religion be a subject of criticism?

[Proton Soup]

Proton, I've noticed you haven't answered my reply yet.

i'll reply, by PM if necessary because of thread closure, just point me to the question.

 

[LightbulbSun]

I loved it when they switched topic to God, and Christopher were given 10 minutes: "Well, I don't think it's going to take 10 minutes to disprove a being like God..."

The thing I like about his rebuttals is that instead of doing the routine, "is there evidence for it?" he outlines the implications of people wanting to believe in such a deity.

A celestial North Korea. At least you can f'n die and get out of North Korea!

 

[CRGreathouse]

With that logic, we protect the specific religions from criticism. A few flame wars may be necessary to get rid of this phenomenon. Why aren't we afraid of political flame wars? Scientific flame wars?

Most of the stable forums I've been to ban discussion of religion and politics for just that reason: to avoid the flame wars that come along. PF has managed not to get into too many political flame wars despite allowing discussion by having a remarkable lack of political pluralism.

 

[LightbulbSun]

i'll reply, by PM if necessary because of thread closure, just point me to the question.

No, please post it here. Reply to this post:

Point to the dogma atheists subscribe to. Atheism simply means "a disbelief in a God or Gods." Everyone is an atheist. Christians are atheists when it comes to the other gods, Muslims are atheists when it comes to the other Gods etc. That's all atheism is and will ever be. The only way you can attack it is if you make false connections between atheism and nihilism or some other ideology.

 

[Evo]

I'm cleaning up, it's not easy to prune a thread and still have it make sense.

If you guys don't act civil, now, I will have no choice but to lock this.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Most of the stable forums I've been to ban discussion of religion and politics for just that reason: to avoid the flame wars that come along. PF has managed not to get into too many political flame wars despite allowing discussion by having a remarkable lack of political pluralism.

But where can you discuss these things if everyone fears a flame war? I've seen quite a few forums hold some serious political and religious discussions.

 

[Evo]

i'm normally very calm. just answering sarcasm and ridicule with the same. i don't think you're being completely impartial here. you've got a guy, kasse, saying he thinks it's a good idea to kill some people that don't believe the way he wants and makes a lot of statements in ridicule of those people.

I'm taking care of that.

Anyone see the reason that we don't allow these discussions?

 

[LightbulbSun]

Anyone see the reason that we don't allow these discussions?

I honestly don't. Outside of Proton, I don't see much of a flame war going on here. Locking up threads could be partially the reason why none of these misconceptions ever get cleared up. Proton apparently didn't understand why atheism was responsible for Stalin and Pol Pot was false.

 

[Proton Soup]

No, please post it here. Reply to this post:

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.

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.

 

[kasse]

Anyone see the reason that we don't allow these discussions?

You're letting the religulous ones win. They try to avoid discussions by trolling all threads like this.

 

[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.