If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I don't see how you reach that conclusion; atheism wasn't the motivating factor.
I'm not even sure atheism can be a motivating factor. A hatred of religion could be a motivating factor; an awareness of the inconvenience of religion when hatching despotic plans could be a motivating factor. But these things don't equate to atheism. Atheism is the disbelief in deities. Nothing more.
Ok, lets simplify it.
If you want a society to be more class aware then you're going to find ways to make society more class aware. Atheism on it's own, yes, means a disbelief in deities. If you however think that an atheist society would make people more class aware, then you're attributing a value to it. That's using atheism to suit your own needs.
Why? We're not dividing religion in that way so why divide atheism...
And I repeat I'm not saying all atheists are like that, but then not all Christians want to go out and burn the nearest heretic either.
Do they? I must have been asleep when they were teaching that lesson in my church.
But there has been plenty of evil done as a direct result, whether it demands anything or not.
I'm not actually comparing atheism to religous extremism, but atheism to religion. I am comparing psychotic atheist nutters to psychotic religous nutters. I'm not sure how many times I have to make this distinction. I am deliberately making sure i don't tar all atheists with the same brush - that would be a silly as the crass generalisations about religion that some people make.
And I find it interesting you complain about 'insulting' as that's normally an argument you have little truck with (funny how things change when its your 'religion' being insulted).
We are dividing religion. I think people just baulk at the criticising of religion and stop listening.
I draw distinction between different types and levels of religious belief. I don't think all religious people believe the same things. I do think, however, that taking a non-interpretive approach to religious text results in some pretty fucking horrific things.
I fear this debate is getting a bit repetitive. Do you believe that atheism is a belief system and, as such, can be directly compared to religious belief? Atheism doesn't demand you behave in a particular way; atheism doesn't have a doctrine; you won't be able definitely to pin anything other than the disbelief in deities on any two atheists. To compare atheism and theism in such a direct manner (or at all really) is fallacious.
No one's suggested any such thing. This smacks a bit of a straw-man argument, and to be honest it think it's distracting from the real debate at hand.
I don't see how. You've identified a desirable attribute in your ideal society, that's all. It doesn't follow that that attribute was your motivating factor. That seems to be false logic to me.
A low blow I admit...
So there's probably about less than 1% of the worldwide Christian church you disagree with. I suspect I'm pretty much the same.
Well yes I think's it's a belief system. Unless you have never heard of religion or have incontrovertable proof for the non-existence of God(s), you have a belief in the non-existence of God(s).
But on the absence of doctrine that's true of Christianity - I was brought up a Prestbyterian, we have some pretty serious doctrinal differences with the Free Prestbyterians, even bigger ones with the Baptists and Methodists, even larger than that with Anglicanism. and don't get us started on the doctrinal differences with Catholics - it's barely the same religion. And I both Desmomd Tutu and Tony Blair are Anglicans - I'm not sure you can pin much in the way of common ground on them either...
Well it probably needs repeating as there does seem to be this belief that by saying some atheists are psychotic nutters I'm comparing every atheist to religous fundamentalists (see Aladdin)
I don't see or believe that. Atheism hasn't been the direct result of anything. Political beliefs, civil wars, yes.
What is the relevance of the sentence "psychotic atheist nutters"? Why not "psychotic left-handed nutters"? Or "psychotic moustache-wearing nutters"?
Because the fact that some people who have done bad things were atheists is about as significant or relevant to their actions as which was their dominant hand or whether they sported any facial hair.
I'm starting to suspect a sustained campaign by some attempting to suggest atheism is somehow responsible for atrocities or wrongdooing. It isn't. Never has.
And while we're at it, some of the most infamous butchers in history who are rutinely described as 'atheists' were actually nothing of the sort. Includding Messers Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Though some people would have us believe different and always take great care in mentioning the 'fact' that they were atheists.
Firstly, it is not a religion. Secondly, is not about the concept of atheism but the suggestion that people who are atheists could be made to do wrong because their lack of belief in mystical deities can somehow make them prone to violence. It is as absurd as incorrect, and it is insulting to anyone's intelligence.
If a man who happens to be a Manchester United supporter is a wife-beating scumbag and one day beat his wife to death, and a newsreader reported the news as "Manchester United fan beats wife to death", they might not technically be saying all Manchester United fans are wife-beating scumbags. But there is an implication that they are. It would be a low blow and a repulsive attempt at smearing by the newsreader. Because that the man is a Man U fan would have fuck all to do with the story.
That is the issue as far as I'm concerned.
Er, that'd be because people don't believe in them rather than it might shock sensibilities.
Well the reason I used the word atheist as opposed to left handers would be because we're discussing atheism.
As for the moustache claim which comes up - it's not really comparable. I'm not anyone seriously thinks that Stalin and Hitler* butchered loads of people because they had silly moustaches. However, atheism has been an integral component of murders by various assorted regimes. Now other things may also come into the mix, but that's true of 99% of religous killings as well.
* I know Saddam is often included in the list of terible moustaches - though I disagree. His is quite a common Middle Eastern style.
Not by me there not (and i've never seen either regime being routinely described as atheist). Hitler himself, probably was an atheist (though he had a habit of changing his religous proloctivities to suit the listener), but his regime wasn't - it included some weird Paganists, as well as solid Catholics and Protestants. Controlling religion (which hitler did) is not atheism.
Nor was Saddam (though again he wasn't a staunch moslem until 1990 when he thought it might play well to the masses).
Its a belief system which equates to a religion. I won't quibble on whether it is a religion or not.
And i'm certainly not arguing that all, most (or even the majority) of atheists would kill due to their atheism. But I can't see how anyone can deny that some atheists, as a direct result of their atheist beliefs, have been involved in mass killings.
It's insulting to anyone's intelligence to pretend otherwise...
What I like about these arguments is the absurb positions some atheists get themselves into. See my moustache comment above and the fact the Manchester United fan argument surely holds for Christians as well as atheists.
And I am certainly not implying all atheists would be happy to put bullets in the back of Archbishop of Canterbury - I imagine most would be appalled.
P'haps it might help if you asked for some sort of special protection to stop atheists being insulted and smeared. You could call it the Non-Blasphemy Act.
Now you're just playing silly-buggers and misrepresenting people's views.
Guilty on the first part m,lud.
On the second, I'm not so sure. Or no more than my arguments are being misrepresented anyway (which is why I keep having to repeat bits)
Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there. I don't see a single instance anywhere of somebody's lack of belief in deity resulting in them taking violent action against others. Priests and religious people have been targeted in some conflicts, for sure, but because rightly or wrongly they were seen as part of an organised system of oppresion and control, not because they believed in any God.
Atheists and atheism are not a belief, common group or system any more than left-handed people are. And whichever wrongful acts have been commited by an unbeliever have not been driven by his lack of belief in deities. I certainly haven't seen any evidence of that anywhere.
But as far as I am concerned, and I know we disagree on this and that's unlikely to change, it is correct to say religion has been directly responsible for a degree of prejudice, bigotry, abuses and killings throughout history but it is wrong to suggest atheism also has.
Certainly when it comes to acting on direct orders from the belief one professes, since even if atheism was to be a belief it has no orders, commands, rules or even opinions on anything or anyone, other than the lack of belief in deities.
Surely it would just be easier to say 'Yep, there's no doubt that some people have taken atheism to such an extent they've been happy to murder those who disagree. However, that's not a type of atheism I have or most other atheists have.'
Surely that's simpler than rewriting history and getting yourselves tied in knots...
Hang on a sec....
I'll staunchly defend plenty of things that aren't a belief.
We don't just say "yeah, the lack of belief in a deity makes people murder loads" because we don't believe it to be true; surely the point of this forum to compare and contrast opposing views? You made the assumption that atheism has been directly responsible for the murder of countless people, and we're disagreeing.
Why don't you just agree atheism is nothing more than a disbelief in a deity and that theism isn't comparable to it?
No one's rewriting history. You're saying historical figures have killed because of their atheism, and we're saying they haven't. I given examples of what they might have killed in the name of, but they've been flatly ignored.
EDIT: Though i suspect you're beginning to tire of this a little, as am i.
Nazism, and The Tooth Fairy.
True - shall we call it a draw?
Deal
Anyway, back to what I was on about. Atheism in no way reflects anyone's opinion of religion. I could be an atheist and think religion is a good thing, a bad thing, a mixture of both, needs reforming, shouldn't be organised, there only should be one, that I should be worshipped as a god, or any number of other beliefs. These are seperate beliefs that are in no way linked to the truth or otherwise of the existance of a god. Anti-theism, on the other hand, is a belief that the idea of a god and theism is a bad thing, damaging for society, or whatever other negative conclusions you might have about it. There have been atrocities committed in the name of anti-theism, certainly. But it's quite a leap to get from atheism to anti-theism. And anti-theism, like religious beliefs has varying degrees, from someone who is anti-theist but accepts the rights of others to live as they choose (like with religion, the majority), to those who think that all religions should be wiped out by force (like with religion, the minority).
The number of people killed in the name of the idea that a god didn't create the universe is the same number of people killed in the name of the idea that a god did create the universe. Precisely zero. They're both simple opinions about a single question capable of no harm on their own. Religion is quite seperate from the belief that the universe has a creator. It's quite a jump from "the universe must have been designed" to "God wants you to do this, this, this, but not this." And as such, can't be equated to the simple belief that the universe doesn't have a creator.
But equally, you can be an anti-theist, and not be an atheist. At least as far as the rejection of religion goes, but obviously not as far as considering a belief in a god to be a negative thing - Sanitize on this site is an example.