Atheist or anti-theist

[floppit]

Just as an add on, in the name of pure greed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster - wiki is easy but if you want better refs I'll supply.

No compensation has been paid, no prosecution taken place.

9/11 caused approx 3,000 deaths - Bhopal estimates range from 2,500 to 25,000, with 500,000 people exposed to the gas.

[Sisifo]

This does not, however, mean that without religion there would have been the same number of abuses, crimes and sheer inhumanity as there are with it.

Clearly evidence this - disentangled from power struggles, governments, hatred, and greed and I'll be all ears - you'll have a full blooded anti - theist and that's a promise.

If you can think of a reason why such mutilation would be just as prevalent without Islam, I'd love to hear it.

For generations circumcision was practised in the UK under the false belief that it reduced STD's and other infections, purely for hygiene. This may well have been where the religious texts got the idea to start with.

Religions and the concomitant institutions they give rise to - in fact any institutions at all - are not mere epiphenomena of 'human nature'.

Again, evidence this well and I'll be listening, otherwise it is no more than an idea tied to an idea rather than the real world.

Another example: yes, jews have been persecuted pretty much throughout history, but I doubt that six million of them would have been systematically exterminated all over Europe in just a few years time if it was not for the SA, the SS and the NSDAP.

The Chinese cultural revolution (est death toll 44 - 72 MILLION) and the killing fields of Vietnam would be two (of many) good examples, they are less well retold as stories, the victims failed to be white.

Just some comments to both:
1.- The killing fields were in Cambodia.
2.- Ask americans about circumcision, where it is widely practiced. And as a footnote, the fashion for circumcision came in the late XIX as a main tool to avoid the teenager masturbation. In the same goal and time come the corn flakes and the proteinless breakfast. Sources available upon demand. Female circumcision was also practiced for similar reasons.
3.- Religion is one of the four delusions that can manipulate masses. The other three are the ideas of "nation", "race", and "sex difference" . While those exist, while you use tags to say "we" and "they", you will have human atrocities; ethnic cleaning, wars, repression.
And that's why I am an humanist, and why I don't like RD stance very much... An "A" as atheist symbol... "Let's call ourselves "Brights""... He is as anglocentric as you can get, but talks in an universal tone.
And that's why when I can't fully feel myself comfortable when within the comments of the absurdity of religion, I hear about the "marvels" of motherland. It's the same fallacious mindvirus.
I have the same kind of respect for those who kill in the name of "the nation" as to those who kill in the name of god. Those who worship a piece of cloth, as those who worship two sticks crossed.
I digress. But seriously... Religion. AND Nation AND Race... they are the same lie. The same. Fantasies to feel the "chosen ones".

[charlou]

I digress. But seriously... Religion. AND Nation AND Race... they are the same lie. The same. Fantasies to feel the "chosen ones".

Agreed.

[floppit]

I digress. But seriously... Religion. AND Nation AND Race... they are the same lie. The same. Fantasies to feel the "chosen ones".

Agreed.

Also agreed, but it isn't atheism alone that can defeat any of them - it's reason.

[floppit]

Disclaimer!! I had a major dumb moment disclaimer! Sifiso, I confuddled you with Seraph - I got all ratty because (no shit Sherlock - you're not Seraph) your reply didn't match up with Seraph's initial opinion! I'm leaving it as an exercise in 'Don't be so fecking hasty next time missus'. Blimey I was getting a tad narked at the ground shift!

Just some comments to both:
1.- The killing fields were in Cambodia.

Fair enough but it hardly effects the ligitimacy of it as an example.

2.- Ask americans about circumcision, where it is widely practiced. And as a footnote, the fashion for circumcision came in the late XIX as a main tool to avoid the teenager masturbation. In the same goal and time come the corn flakes and the proteinless breakfast. Sources available upon demand. Female circumcision was also practiced for similar reasons.

I was referring to the uk - clearly in my post, you asked what else could cause such a trend and I answered.

3.- Religion is one of the four delusions that can manipulate masses. The other three are the ideas of "nation", "race", and "sex difference" . While those exist, while you use tags to say "we" and "they", you will have human atrocities; ethnic cleaning, wars, repression.

My point, my whole point is that any one of the 4 would do, actually there are probably more than 4! It's about power, that's why people attempt to control others and as yet you've offered no evidence to assume that it stems from religion rather than just using it as one of many means. I agree that us and them thinking is not very reasoned, it is something often created and built to gather group support and pride without actions deserving of pride.

And that's why I am an humanist, and why I don't like RD stance very much... An "A" as atheist symbol... "Let's call ourselves "Brights""... He is as anglocentric as you can get, but talks in an universal tone.
And that's why when I can't fully feel myself comfortable when within the comments of the absurdity of religion, I hear about the "marvels" of motherland. It's the same fallacious mindvirus.

I'm not certain I get what you're saying here. I like RD as a scientist but feel he doesn't adhere to the same principles of evidence and care when it comes to his sociology, as a result I think he makes mistakes. I have heard that he doesn't want children to be brought up atheist, as in told not to believe in god, but would rather they be taught reasoning enough to come to that conclusion for themselves. If this is correct the mind boggles as to why he thinks adults should be treated any differently. As I've said here before I'd rather the buses carried the message that ideas need to be tied to the observable world - food for thought rather than a challenge.

I have the same kind of respect for those who kill in the name of "the nation" as to those who kill in the name of god. Those who worship a piece of cloth, as those who worship two sticks crossed.

On this note we are agreed which was why I disagreed with the notion of people forced into despotic acts by religion, that was where my argument began. If you agree RD is wrong to think religion forces people - great, if you think he is right should you not have more sympathy for the forced bods than those heading off to invade new lands?

[charlou]

Moving the tangent about race and racism ... Will post a link here when done ...

New thread is here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 32&start=0

[Deep Sea Isopod]

I think I've always been an Atheist, ( My family were never religious, but my mum sent me to Sunday school to see if it was for me, but even then I stopped believing in dog before I stopped believing in Santa.) but it's only been this past year I've become more outspoken against creationism.Creationism has been, and still is, holding us back on scientific advancement.Now I just wanna bang their heads together and tell them to get a clue FFS!
My anti-creationistic stance is starting to spill over into being more outspoken against religion, too.

I became an anti-creationist after I nearly got pwnd by one. I had to do some research to find out the scientific answers to their (fucking stupid) questions.

[Hermit]

"Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things – that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

Ok, so it is not only religion that makes good people do bad things, but it certainly one factor, and it is this factor that makes me an anti-theist.

[floppit]

"Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things – that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

Ok, so it is not only religion that makes good people do bad things, but it certainly one factor, and it is this factor that makes me an anti-theist.

I have to say, that wasn't really what I was thinking in terms of 'evidence'. I think I'll remain simply pro reason for now - if ever there does come a time when solid or even some evidence is put forward I'm open to change but up to this point the statements seem only supported by statements while the world demonstrates multiple examples of both human compassion and lack of it with or without religion. I hold the religious and non religious equally culpable for their actions and choices.

[Rum]

May I refer us all to the Danish cartoonist shooting for one reason to be anti-theist rather than simply 'meh'?

[floppit]

May I refer us all to the Danish cartoonist shooting for one reason to be anti-theist rather than simply 'meh'?

That would be effective if my case failed to acknowledge bad and unreasoned things happen within religion but it doesn't. There's a war going on, one side trying to recruit from around the world as they have no access to a large enough army to fight plainly. The issue with Islam, the reasons why at this period in history Islam is becoming more militant when at other times it has been other religions, I cannot personally separate from oil, it's why we're there rather than Somalia, it's why Saddam's atrocities took front billing while events in Rwanda were simply observed. I would agree that in this case religion provides a means to gain international support from around the globe, one not tied to land boundaries but philosophies have achieved the same in the past - look at international spread of communism.

I would hold that the man who was shot trying to shoot the cartoonist was not under the control of religion as much as group think! My position is that reason counters both where anti theism only counters one.

Also would it be philosophically correct to take an anti atheist point of view if an atheist tried to shoot someone - even if they did so to remove the blight of religion? Because I would argue that this should not lead to an anti atheist POV, I equally cannot hold that it should lead to an anti-theist POV when it is a theist.

[Rum]

May I refer us all to the Danish cartoonist shooting for one reason to be anti-theist rather than simply 'meh'?

That would be effective if my case failed to acknowledge bad and unreasoned things happen within religion but it doesn't. There's a war going on, one side trying to recruit from around the world as they have no access to a large enough army to fight plainly. The issue with Islam, the reasons why at this period in history Islam is becoming more militant when at other times it has been other religions, I cannot personally separate from oil, it's why we're there rather than Somalia, it's why Saddam's atrocities took front billing while events in Rwanda were simply observed. I would agree that in this case religion provides a means to gain international support from around the globe, one not tied to land boundaries but philosophies have achieved the same in the past - look at international spread of communism.

I would hold that the man who was shot trying to shoot the cartoonist was not under the control of religion as much as group think! My position is that reason counters both where anti theism only counters one.

Also would it be philosophically correct to take an anti atheist point of view if an atheist tried to shoot someone - even if they did so to remove the blight of religion? Because I would argue that this should not lead to an anti atheist POV, I equally cannot hold that it should lead to an anti-theist POV when it is a theist.

Floppit,

I didn't make my post with a quote from your previous post because it was not meant to be a direct response to your point (for clarity), however you do make solid points I think.

My response is this. Although you are I am sure right about the complexity of the issues surrounding Islamic militancy the simple fact of the matter is that the majority of these radical perpetrators, albeit radicalised for use as human weapons, are personally motivated by what they see as religious justification. A complex mix of course.

But so were all the other major conflicts where religion was in the mix. The Crusades, as one small example, were about winning back Jerusalem from the 'heathen' but they happened in the context of continent wide calamities and events in Europe which contributed to them happening.

[floppit]

Rum, 'pologies for my slight ego-centrism!

Although you are I am sure right about the complexity of the issues surrounding Islamic militancy the simple fact of the matter is that the majority of these radical perpetrators, albeit radicalised for use as human weapons, are personally motivated by what they see as religious justification.

My acid test for this would be 'When would it be right to be anti atheist?' If we fast forwarded a few hundred years and a minority of atheists had set out to 'bump off' the religious leaders, or had even engaged in the kind of atrocities seen in Tibet when communist China came to town, would an anti atheist POV become correct? Would their motives mean it is reasonable to be against all atheists? My answer is 'no', moreover if there is any argument to say this would not happen in the future it would be the presence of reasoning rather than the absence of religion, a person only needs to hike to a more militant atheist website to know that atheism does not ensure the presence of good reasoning or guarantee the lack of group think and justification based on group think.

[JimC]

I haven't watched the clip in question (link please ), but my answer is this: I am an atheist - this just describes my state of disbelief. But being an anti-theist implies active dislike of religion and its consequences. You can't be the second without being the first, but there a many degrees of being an anti-theist.

I am an atheist for philisophical and scientific reasons, but only an anti-theist in respect to those who have fundamentalist views, want to use religion to opress others or generally exhibit no tolerance of people with different views. For the religious of a liberal persuasion, I can live and let live...

[Rum]

Rum, 'pologies for my slight ego-centrism!

Although you are I am sure right about the complexity of the issues surrounding Islamic militancy the simple fact of the matter is that the majority of these radical perpetrators, albeit radicalised for use as human weapons, are personally motivated by what they see as religious justification.

My acid test for this would be 'When would it be right to be anti atheist?' If we fast forwarded a few hundred years and a minority of atheists had set out to 'bump off' the religious leaders, or had even engaged in the kind of atrocities seen in Tibet when communist China came to town, would an anti atheist POV become correct? Would their motives mean it is reasonable to be against all atheists? My answer is 'no', moreover if there is any argument to say this would not happen in the future it would be the presence of reasoning rather than the absence of religion, a person only needs to hike to a more militant atheist website to know that atheism does not ensure the presence of good reasoning or guarantee the lack of group think and justification based on group think.

I agree. People seem to be able to find any number of motivations, religious and non-religious, to go loopy and justify violence, but anti- atheism doesn't necessarily require violence ultimately any more than anti-vivisection does. You seem to be suggesting that because there is a danger of 'radical atheism' resulting in the Tibetan 'experience' (and here is a case of the political and 'religious' being very blurred) we should not therefore be 'too' radical.

I am not sure which of these categories I fall into personally, but I do know I let the taken for granted underlying religious foundations of British society was over me without challenging it enough. I am an education officer, as you may recall, for example. The national curriculum requires 'religious worship' in schools. I have never challenged that and I feel I should (I would lose of course as things stand). Just one example.