The Root of all Evil : The God Delusion

POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Thursday, December 17, 2015 06:12
VIEWED: 49488
PAGE 11 of 32

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 25, 2007 8:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Here's a couple things I found when I Googled "Stalin atheist"

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/hitlerstalin.html
http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/nelson-atheism_communism.php

Despite the valid arguments made on both those sites I'm willing to admit that atheism played a small part in Stalin's purges, but the vast majority of the dead were killed for purely political reasons.

Okay. Since both those sites are blatantly biased against religion, maybe one of these days you’ll consider the other side of the discussion. History actually sees the doctrine of atheism as professed by Marxism/Leninism as playing a very large, albeit sporadic, roll in Stalin’s purges.

In any event, like I said earlier I don’t buy any of it. What Stalin did in the name of atheism was as politically driven as what bin Laden does in the name of Islam. I just think we should apply our scorn fairly and honestly. When a government that espouses a policy of a particular theistic philosophy kills or oppresses any people who don’t support that philosophy many secularists insist that it is result of the theistic belief, but when a government that espouses a policy of a particular atheistic philosophy kills or oppresses any people who don’t support that philosophy those same secularists then insist that it can’t be the cause of this atheistic belief. I would argue that it is not the theistic belief or the atheistic belief that is truly responsible, but the desire to label one belief as dangerous and the other not, simply for the degree of personal sympathy one shares with the belief. Attempting to broadly paint religion (or any belief) as something that should be feared (and therefore potentially exterminated) is far more likely to be the cause of violence then any particular belief itself.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Friday, May 25, 2007 8:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Atheism was the official doctrine of the Soviet Union.

I was under the impression it was anti-theist, which isn't entirely the same thing?

Quote:
He nearly destroyed the Russian Orthodox Church and he is responsible for the largest Jewish purge since Hitler. And he was no better to Moslems. How is that not killing in the name of atheism?

So it must be Atheist because he killed theists? You may have a point, but I thought the reason he went after the churches was for much the same reason Henry the 8th did.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CHRISMOORHEAD

Friday, May 25, 2007 9:01 PM

Forgive me if I'm incorrectly perceiving the situation, but has this seriously degraded into a point system? Crusades are -5 for Christians, Tokugawa -3 for Buddhists, Stalin -4 for Atheists...

I can recognize that some people are just trying to defend their point of view by bringing up someone equally as bad from the other side, but to anyone saying that one side is any worse than another, you're just plain wrong. The point was hit within the first couple of replies on this thread, PEOPLE are the problem. I've seen war on two separate continents now, and the killing over drugs, money and power is just as bad as the killing over religion. Anyone who says otherwise is probably someone who hasn't personally experienced both (or probably either) side of it, as I'm guessing most college professors who spatter around this type of BS fall in to that category.

I'm sorry, this might be slightly off topic, but why do we allow people who've never personally experienced war or genocide to teach about it? I am disgusted by some of the things that colleges, these centers of education and "higher learning", are teaching people when the teachers are just as ignorant as the students.

[IMG]
Place my body on a ship and burn it on the sea,
Let my spirit rise, Valkyries carry me.
Take me to Valhalla where my brothers wait for me.
Fires burn into the sky, my spirit will never die.

SERYN

Friday, May 25, 2007 9:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
See? And this is why I don't like RWE discussions. My point with Hitler: religion wasn't the cause of the Holocaust. That's all. I just plain disagree with you, that's all.

call me uniformed, but He was killing JEWS. JEWISH PEOPLE. Followers of THE JEWISH RELIGION.

How is that not religiously motivated? Regardles of his own religion (and the way i understand it it was a mishmash of any stray bits of theory that could be bent to his purpose - i.e religious teachings, scientific practices and even wafts of the occult, which i suppose is another religion)

But anyway, not having read the book, just going on what has been described here, it seems that for an Oxford man his views are remarkably closed, intolerent and simplistic.

No one seems to realise that humans are the root of all evil and religion (and i'm referring here to the organised doctrines, not personal faith) is nothing more than a costruct designed to control (other people, the masses, whatever) and promote an agenda. Its politics,in one way.

Where it get dangerous is most people buy into the religion and turn off their own capacity for thought, others warp and stretch it even further to make it justify what they want to do (i.e terrorists and fundamentalists) and others use it as a get out clause ('its not my fault! the devil made me do it!' 'this insurance does not cover you for Acts of God - basically anything we decide we don't want to pay for') but the same thing can be said of any idea, secular or otherwise.

So this guy seems to have got onto an interesting path and just stopped when it suited him - which is just darned lazy if you ask me.

But i agree that religion shouldn't be taught in schools, or rather, it should be taught, but only as an option - if you get what i mean. It along with scientific theories and even history should be presented as 'this is what some people think'. Which isa thank fully what happened in my school, but i still strongly object to my neice having to sing hymns in assembly, and say morning prayer - it has no place in her life until she's learned enough to make up her own mind.

Actually what worries me more is this craze - ney, hysteria over 'healthy eating'. Its another example of being dictated to and disengaging brain before acting. They have banned, wholesale, certain types of food, giving way to a 'blackmarket' of junk food and more worryingly, an out of school surge in consumption, they ram the concept down the childrens throats day in day out - i'd liken it to brainwashing and they deamonise habits and sensitize the children to the 'wrong' and 'bad' i wouldn't be at all surprised if the victimisation of fat kids had increased exponentially - which is just creating a larger group of f***ed up adults needing therapy and drugs for depressive illnesses - and in all this, not a single thing has been done to highlight the dangers of stigmatising eating habits - anorexia, bullemia, which are all on the increas.

don't beleive me? my neice - a child of healthy habits, balanced eating and perfect growth patterns - has taken to reading the backs of packets, asking about calory content, fat, salt, sugar, she will hold up everything on her plate and ask if it is 'healthy'.

She's barely six years old.

Now if that isn't catching them while they're young i don't know what is - yet virtually the whole country has bought into this belief, and to argue against the rough shod handling is socially unacceptable.

Interesting parallels.

Ok, enough of my illiterate and ill educated rambling.

Isn't sanity really a one trick pony, anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking! But when you're good and crazy...ooh hoo hoo hoo... the skys the limit!
http://www.myspace.com/seryndippyt

JEDIJAYNE

Friday, May 25, 2007 9:08 PM

Man, I wake up to go and grab a bite to eat and I find y'all are still here goin' at it?

Hope you are havin' fun...

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"This is why we lost, you know. Superior numbers." "Thanks for the re-enactment, sir."

FREDGIBLET

Friday, May 25, 2007 9:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Here's a couple things I found when I Googled "Stalin atheist"

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/hitlerstalin.html
http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/nelson-atheism_communism.php

Despite the valid arguments made on both those sites I'm willing to admit that atheism played a small part in Stalin's purges, but the vast majority of the dead were killed for purely political reasons.
Okay. Since both those sites are blatantly biased against religion, maybe one of these days you’ll consider the other side of the discussion.

I find this interesting, on one of the old evolution threads someone said that since the wiki entry on evolution was apparently written by someone who accepted evolution that it wasn't valid. A bias does not prevent someone from making a factual argument, and have you considered the possible bias of your sources? Much of the anti-communist rhetoric espoused (especially during the 50's) specifically targeted their lack of religion as a reason to resist them.

Also, the fact that atheism is defended by atheists shouldn't come as any surprise, most theists would be perfectly happy to let atheism be portrayed as the impetus behind mass murder regardless of truth simply to advance their agenda.

I would also ask you to notice that I did not dismiss your argument, given the link you gave I'm ready to accept that atheism played a small part in the purges. However, given that there was also perfectly plausible non-theistic reasons to kill the theists, combined with the fact that most of the people were killed over policy disagreements and not anything to do with religion I'm simply not prepared to say "Stalin's purges were caused by atheism" because there isn't nearly enough evidence to back that up.

Quote:
History actually sees the doctrine of atheism as professed by Marxism/Leninism as playing a very large, albeit sporadic, roll in Stalin’s purges.

Was this history written by people who were biased against atheism?

Quote:
What Stalin did in the name of atheism was as politically driven as what bin Laden does in the name of Islam.

Stipulating for a moment that Stalin was largely motivated by Atheism, I'll agree to this. However one of the things I'd like to point out is that the people who carried out Stalin's purges weren't drawn to him because of Atheism, they were drawn to him because of the promises that the Communists made about the utopian society that would be brought about by Communism, Atheism was most likely a tertiary point for most of them, something they were willing to accept in order to reap the benefits of Communism. Bin Laden on the other hand plays directly to peoples religion, he is motivated by the foreign policy decisions of the U.S. but to gain popular support he makes it a Islam vs. the Zionist conspiracy issue. The people did not flock to Stalin because of Atheism, but a large part of the reason why they flock to (and are willing to die for) Bin Laden is because he makes it a religious issue.

Quote:
When a government that espouses a policy of a particular theistic philosophy kills or oppresses any people who don’t support that philosophy many secularists insist that it is result of the theistic belief, but when a government that espouses a policy of a particular atheistic philosophy kills or oppresses any people who don’t support that philosophy those same secularists then insist that it can’t be the cause of this atheistic belief.

Atheists overstate the effect of religion on violence, I'll buy that, but at the theists overstate the effect of atheism on violence and understate the effects of religion on violence. How many Muslims have you heard say that Islam is a religion of peace?

FREDGIBLET

Friday, May 25, 2007 9:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisMoorhead:
Place my body on a ship and burn it on the sea,
Let my spirit rise, Valkyries carry me.
Take me to Valhalla where my brothers wait for me.
Fires burn into the sky, my spirit will never die.

I realize this probably isn't the response you wanted for your post, but Manowar is awesome.

CAUSAL

Friday, May 25, 2007 9:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by seryn:
call me uniformed, but - He was killing JEWS. JEWISH PEOPLE. Followers of THE JEWISH RELIGION.

How is that not religiously motivated?

Good question. Yep, Hitler killed Jews. Jewish people. Followers of the Jewish religion. But lest we forget, the Holocaust also targetted Gypsies, Poles and other Slavs, political dissidents, people with mental or physical disabilities, homosexuals, and others deemed unfit for society.

The basic confusion is this: 1) Hitler killed Jews. 2) Judaism is a religion. 3) Therefore, the reason Hitler killed the Jews was because of religion. But saying Hitler killed Jews "because of religion" is ambiguous. Whose religion? Did he kill them because of their religion? Or because of his? Let's take these by turn.

Did Hitler Kill the Jews Because of Their Religion?

Short answer: no. Hitler didn't have a beef with Judaism as such. That is, he wasn't mad because of some feature or features of the Jewish religion. Hitler hated Jews not because of their religion but because he considered them a danger to Germany.

Hitler thought that Germans were descendents of the Aryan race, a race of "supermen" who legitimately had the duty to exert their rule. The identity of Germany as an Aryan nation was threatened by the Jews. As Hitler saw it (and remember that Fascism is a form of hypernationalism), the Jews were a nation unto themselves, but a nation with no homeland. So the Jews brought a second nation into whatever country they lived in. For Hitler, the Jews weren't truly Germans. They didn't belong. As a nation unto themselves, the thinking went, the Jews represented a threat to the German nation because they had no loyalty to the fatherland, but only to themselves. So the Jews (the thinking goes) would worm their way into businesses and take over solely for the good of themselves, not the German nation. It's critical to note that the Nazis thought the Jews were a threat to the German nation not because of the their religion, but because they were a separate nation unto themselves.

In addition, Nazi scientists, using eugenic theories, classified Jews as subhuman. That really let the hate flow, because if the German/Aryan nation was a nation of supermen, and the Jews were subhuman, then there was a danger of polluting German blood through intermarriage. (Note that I don't buy any of this--I think it's as nutty as the next guy.) Incidentally, the "homeless nation" thing is why they persecuted the gypsies. And the subhuman thing is why the persecuted the slavs. And the interbreeding thing is why they persecuted the mentally and physically handicapped. The Holocaust wasn't a project intended to wipe out Jews, but intended to eliminate threats to the "Aryan" nation.

Did Hitler Kill the Jews Because of His Religion?

Again, short answer: no. There is anecdotal evidence that Hitler deployed religious terminology in his propaganda (as previously noted by other posters). But I think that the concensus of historians is that Hitler's religion was not the determining factor in the Holocaust. That is, Hitler saw his project not as a religious project of eliminating another religion, but as a nationalistic project to protect Germany. In the aftermath of the first World War, Germans couldn't understand why they'd lost. After all, no battles had been fought on German soil. No German territory had been taken. And German forces hadn't been decisively defeated. How could the invincible German war machine have lost? The answer, according to some, was that the Jews had conspired to bring Germany down. After all, they had no loyalty to the country. The Jews must have benefitted from it somehow. (Again, I don't buy any of this; it's just what the anti-Semites thought.) And then in the aftermath of the war, Germany's economy went to hell. Inflation and unemployment were completely out of control. And the Treaty of Versailles was humiliating (among other things, Germany had to ta

CAUSAL

Friday, May 25, 2007 9:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
[BAtheists overstate the effect of religion on violence, I'll buy that, but at the theists overstate the effect of atheism on violence and understate the effects of religion on violence. How many Muslims have you heard say that Islam is a religion of peace?

Now we're getting somewhere! I see your side ("theists overstate the effect of atheism on violence") and I think you're seeing some of mine ("atheists overstate the effect of religion on violence").

Incidentally, I think bin Ladin makes a good case study. How many of us really think that his primary motivation is religious? If we do, do we think that he really understands his own faith? If we don't, what might his real motivations be?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 25, 2007 9:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I find this interesting, on one of the old evolution threads someone said that since the wiki entry on evolution was apparently written by someone who accepted evolution that it wasn't valid. A bias does not prevent someone from making a factual argument, and have you considered the possible bias of your sources? Much of the anti-communist rhetoric espoused (especially during the 50's) specifically targeted their lack of religion as a reason to resist them.

I’ve not really provided any sources. The Wikipedia source I posted was as per your specific response. Wikipedia is not always reliable. It’s a good place to start an investigation of a topic, but not the best place to end it. And yes, I’m a little bit dismissive of what the atheistalliance has to say on the topic. I would consider them to be even less reliable then the Wikipedia site. But I am happy that you’re willing to accept the roll that atheism has played in Communism. I’m not trying to be dismissive of your argument, but as far as bias in this thread, I don’t see many people trying to argue that atheism is the cause of the world’s violence. What I see are people trying to argue the theism is the cause of world’s violence while they attempt to insulate atheism, and as I’ve already point out that is not an internally consistent argument.

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Was this history written by people who were biased against atheism?

I don’t know but given the degree of contempt the academic community seems to have for religion, I’d doubt it.

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Stipulating for a moment that Stalin was largely motivated by Atheism, I'll agree to this. However one of the things I'd like to point out is that the people who carried out Stalin's purges weren't drawn to him because of Atheism, they were drawn to him because of the promises that the Communists made about the utopian society that would be brought about by Communism, Atheism was most likely a tertiary point for most of them, something they were willing to accept in order to reap the benefits of Communism. Bin Laden on the other hand plays directly to peoples religion, he is motivated by the foreign policy decisions of the U.S. but to gain popular support he makes it a Islam vs. the Zionist conspiracy issue. The people did not flock to Stalin because of Atheism, but a large part of the reason why they flock to (and are willing to die for) Bin Laden is because he makes it a religious issue.

I doubt this too. It is not Islam that makes a man strap a bomb to his chest and kill innocent women and children. It is something else, and I don’t think it is religion that bin Laden inspires in people. He’s not even a religious leader.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE