Religion
Related: About this forumIt would be wrong to expect atheists or antitheists to answer for a murderer who used those labels.
It would be equally wrong to blame someone who honors the Bible and interprets it non-violently for someone else's interpretation that justifies violence. But I've seen a couple of examples on this forum of people implying a double standard where it's not ok to hold atheists/anti-theists accountable for violence, but it would be ok to hold an Abrahamic monotheist accountable for violence committed by another Abrahamic monotheist (based on common esteem for the Bible).
That doesn't make sense to me except as an attempt to justify prejudice against Abrahamic monotheists. Not against "religion itself" because we're talking about two sets of religious ideas, one non-violent, the other violent. Acting like a violent interpretation of the Bible is the automatic or natural interpretation only makes sense if you want everyone of a particular religious label to be regarded with the fear and mistrust accorded to potentially violent members, regardless of which set of ideas they actually hold. That is prejudice, and it is wrong.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It doesn't reflect in anyone else but the murderer. Seems like some here are invested in the parking lot narrative when it seems ridiculous to me.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)In the Abrahamic faiths, there is an allegedly historical tract full of direct exhortations by god to his followers to exterminate, literally exterminate, not just other people, but their works, their wealth, their lands, their livestock, etc. Salt the earth, no stone upon stone, etc.
That history is part and parcel of the foundation of that faith, even if there are no active exhortations to violence in play at the moment for those followers of the Abrahamic faiths that have moved along to the new testament, or outside ancient tribal relationships in certain geographical areas of the middle east.
Where is a comparable part/parcel exhortation to violence for atheism?
We don't have a book. We simply answer a question (is there a god?) with the word 'no'. That's the entirety of atheism. There's no guiding hand. No revealed truth. No historical tracts that exhort anyone to kill anyone else on the basis of faith or non-faith.
There have certainly been mass murderers in history who were also (or professed to be) atheists, but their motive to murder was never explicitly 'Non-Faith'.
So there is no equivalency here. If he's guilty of those murders (all evidence points to this, but he has not yet been tried by a jury of his peers) there isn't a shred of anything in the topic of atheism that could possibly be pointed to as a justification of his motive (whether acceptable to society or not).
So, no, no level playing field here.
I think most motives to murder are ridiculous. People have murdered other people for a lot less than a parking space. Your incredulity at the 'parking lot narrative' belies your bias. I choose to wait and see what investigative efforts turn up. It may be that he was motivated by their faith, to murder them. But I have yet to see any reason WHY he was motivated to that conclusion. You know me, I'm an atheist through and through. Have been my entire life. I am capable of killing in self defense (Of myself or others), but that is it. Nothing else could motivate me. I actively chose the non-aggression principle very early in life. Which, might map interestingly to some sects of Christianity that profess non-violence/pacifism/non-aggression, except, I have no old testament ideas from which to transition over to the non-violent ideas of the new testament.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I think it is about his hatred of religion and the religious. I think it got out of control.
okasha
(11,573 posts)only adding that according to his neighbors he was specifically Islamophobic. That, and apparent easy access to them, would explain why he chose these three Muslims as his targets.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I won't venture a guess on causality for now.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)Among a number of other factors. I don't have enough information to make a good guess as to what was the most influential.
Hatred is a dangerous thing in anyone, and thank you for not putting this on atheism.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Let's stop using the horrible acts of people who identify themselves as belong to a particular religion or as atheist to attack those that share the label.
Let's recognize them for the anomalies that they are and support others that share their label by recognizing that they don't represent anyone but themselves.
Honestly, I don't expect that to happen, but that would be my hope.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Neither atheism or theism requires a person to kill. In any belief system it is the believer who makes that decision and justifies it in the name of...whatever. I personally hold the actor guilty for the act, not the philosophy that any particular actor claims to follow.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)bigoted, hateful, misogynist, and whether believers choose to ignore that or not doesn't change that fact. You are making another false comparison.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)who uses the label "Christian", "Muslim" or "Jew" is under the suspicion of being a bigot, hater, and/or a misogynist, and should inspire fear and mistrust accordingly?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Just like someone who says they're member of the KKK should be. They just identified themselves with a bigoted
belief system, why should they get special treatment? Religious privilege.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)be treated like they are in the KKK.
Crying "religious privilege" doesn't spare you from holding the prejudice that you are being very forward and open about holding.
If proudly holding prejudice is ok with you, then I guess we're done here.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)These are bigoted belief systems. Skin color isn't a choice. All of these religions are incredibly prejudiced, and it is religious privilege that allows them to be protected from the same criticism other bigoted beliefs receive.
People feel normal identifying with these belief systems because of privilege, but when you bring up the bigotry, they get very uncomfortable or angry, much like other privileged people who don't get it.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Biting. My. Tongue.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)not on this anyway. Ad-hominems aren't an argument.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Just not to you.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Do you just like being snarky to people you have no intention having a discussion with? Because that's petty.
pinto
(106,886 posts)You've got a clear chip on your shoulder about religion in general it seems. Why so? Why the broad brush? Do you know any theists who aren't bigots? Or do you choose to pre-judge them all from the get go?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)That's not a cheap shot. One just has the label of religion, and that's the big difference. These belief systems are explicitly bigoted in their texts.
I don't pre-judge, I'm judging based on the belief systems, and they're terrible. Anyone who says they believe them might just actually believe them, so I don't think I'm being unfair, I think many believers are incredibly privileged on this count and don't get it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)pinto
(106,886 posts)That's the point of the murder statutes, imo. If hate crime statutes apply, then they ought to be a part of the process and adjudicated as applicable.
I think the best intent of our legal system is objectivity. Not always applied equally, yet it's the gold standard.
The court of public opinion has its play in the press, opinion pieces, discussions here and elsewhere on the web. I don't discount them but take them for what it's worth
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)atheism as 'revealed truth'?
I'm missing any such reference material. I can point to oodles of it in the Abrahamic traditions. (But not to all religions equally.)
Hitchens was a warmonger, and I saw plenty of atheists call him out on it, and he didn't base his warmongery/justification on atheism specifically.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Do you think a majority of those in the Abrahamic traditions interpret those traditions through exhortations to violence?
If not, then as I said in my OP, it doesn't make sense to use "common esteem for the Bible" to tie non-violent Abrahamists to violent ones except as a justification for fear and mistrust towards all Abrahamists. And that's prejudice.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And I do not point to all of the violence of the OT as a reason to mistrust modern Christians. (Though some invest a lot more in the means/methods of the OT today)
The Abrahamic faiths carry forward shadows of its history.
There are no such shadows with atheism. It is a single answer to a single question, and no more. Doesn't tell you how you should live today, or 5000 years ago. Doesn't tell you what to eat. What to wear. What to do on certain days of the week, etc.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)We seem to agree that it no more makes sense to blame non-violent atheists for violent ones than it does to blame non-violent Abrahamists for violent ones. That's the comparison I was making. This wasn't an "atheism is a religion" accusation.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Christianity, even modern, fairly passive Christianity is built upon the old testament. An old testament that is full of the same god exhorting people to murder.
Atheism has no such foundation.
So they are not equivalent in the context you originally posted.
Christianity is predicated upon murder. One Christian may be non-violent, but believing in the contents of the NT rests upon the foundation of the OT, and doing so lends credence to the other Christians that to this day still visit violence upon others unprovoked. The two sets simply disagree about what the religion has become, today.
Atheism has no such entanglements. Doesn't speak to the issue at all. Other ideologies handle that. For instance; secular humanism.
Atheism itself answers a single question; is there a god? It doesn't speak to things like morality at all, nor does it pretend to.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Why would people who interpret the Bible non-violently give any weight to a violent interpretation as justification for committing violence?
This is the equivalent of saying that if I drive a car, I'm lending credence to someone who runs people over. Or if I have sex, I'm lending credence to rapists. Yes, technically if the first thing didn't exist, the second thing wouldn't either, but there is not a necessary connection. You can have a car without running someone over, you can have sex without being a rapist, and you can honor and interpret the Bible without justifying,supporting, or committing violence.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You don't get Christianity without the old testament. It's a path. A lineage. An evolution of a single (some say triune) god. He's mostly playing nice guy in the NT, but it's the same god as the OT. You know, the OT that provides all the prophecy and justifications, and precursors upon which people rely for the story of Christ himself?
When I see Christians walking around quoting from and carrying bibles that don't contain the OT, then you can pretend the issues are divorced. But currently, you really don't get one without the other. They're not different gods. They're one god. The one that murdered (allegedly) all of humanity save one family? Same god that impregnates Mary with... himself, and talks to himself, and lets/enforces himself to be killed by man... for all of man's sins going back to the very, very beginning of the OT. When god left man alone with a devious talking snake and no knowledge of good and evil for... purposes.
It's a collection of books and documents, not one coherent tale, but it's a packaged bundle.
Um, no. A little more connected than that. The car you've acquired already is covered in human gore, and your instructor has somewhere north of 2 million kills, according to his notebook.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Does Christianity necessarily lead to rejection of evolution just as it leads to violence because you can't have Jesus without a literal Adam and Eve?
Does it necessarily lead to acceptance of slavery because you can't have Jesus without the passages that slaveholders read as allowing slavery?
I get that the "it's all literally, historically-factually true or it's all false" view works this way. It was designed to:
But you can't assume that view of the Bible in a discussion with people who don't hold to it. That's just begging the question.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'm a gun owner. I have a selfish interest in some of the things the NRA provides. It provides training for safety, marksmanship, and hunting. It insures certain gun ranges, so to be a member of said ranges, you must be a member of the NRA. Etc.
However, the political wing of the NRA fully poisons the well, so I refuse to become a member. I forego the benefits I might otherwise glean from it. I find other ways to accomplish what I need, because I WILL NOT have one penny of my money going to a wholly owned subsidiary of the RNC.
I've found some Christians are capable of compartmentalizing these ideas and holding them simultaneously true. Ken Miller, of the Dover/Kitzmiller trial was an amazing voice for reason and science. He's also a Roman Catholic. That seems a deeply conflicting position to me, but he seems to make it work. (I do not know if he's a tithing member of the church, if he is, that's disappointing because he's directly funding non-science counter to his own interests if he is.)
I'm not actually using a literalist interpretation, by the way. I don't think noah's flood happened at all, even if he existed (probably not). I don't think the exodus happened. But the link between the OT and the NT is like foundation/house.
thucythucy
(8,086 posts)Well, there is, actually.
A central tenet of Marxism-Leninism is dialectical materialism, with atheism as a core principle. I would hope we can stipulate that Marxism-Leninism, and its off-shoot Stalinism, were pretty violent ideologies--in that their followers were directly responsible for the deaths of millions of people. These were folks--the perpetrators that is--who were quite explicitly and militantly atheist. So to say "there is no connection" at all I think stretches it. "Atheism has no such entanglements." Tell that to the victims of the Great Cultural Revolution.
"Christianity is predicated on murder."
Really? So Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, the Berrigan Brothers, the Rev. Jessie Jackson, all bought into a faith "predicated on murder."
That seems quite a stretch. Care to be more specific about that? What specifically did Dr. King espouse that was "predicated on murder?"
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)All pre-arranged. Hearts hardened. What of free will?
What happened to millions in the OT, at the hand of the same god, that is the same god that is/made jesus (allegedly)?
You know the god of the Abrahamic tradition is all the same god right? The one that shredded entire cities and most of the planet? Same god.
You've got your cart in front of your horse. None of that is a foundational tenet of atheism. That's what some people came along and did while being atheists. Where's the foundational source documentation of atheism that includes the wholesale slaughter of cities, entire peoples, and enslavement of just the young girls that were virgins? I know one book where I can find that. A book upon which ALL of the prophecies and lineage that allegedly lead to Christ, rest.
Atheism doesn't have prophecies, nor prophets. No ideologies. No tenets. No doctrines. It's just a single answer to a single question:
Is there a god?
No.
That is the whole of atheism. No books. No spirit guides. No ooga booga. No eternal rewards or damnations. No keys to conquest. No divine rights. No nothing. Just one answer, to one question. That's all.
If you want to talk about follow-on philosophies/ideologies, like secular humanism, that sort of thing, I'm all ears. But they aren't part of, or foundational to, atheism.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Stalin's policies where anti-theist, which is not the same thing as atheist. Every constitution under Stalin included the guarantee of personal religious freedom. In other words, Stalin could care less who you worship on a personal level, so long as organized religion wasn't a threat to his totalitarianism. Stalin killed a great many people, religious or not that he perceived as a threat to his regime. To parse out those involved in organized religion and claim they were killed on behalf of atheism makes no more sense than blaming atheism for those killed who had no such religious connections.
thucythucy
(8,086 posts)I would advise against taking the constitution Stalin drafted for the USSR at its face value. That constitution also supposedly granted freedom of speech, of assembly, and respect for ethnic minorities all "consistent with the interests of a workers' state" or whatever hedging language was included. In point of fact people living in the Soviet Union had no such rights, and there was certainly a concerted attempt, prior to June 1941, to pull Russian society toward atheism. That ended, for a time, with the German invasion, at which point Stalin relented in his anti-church campaign, but you can't tell me the destruction of thousands of Russian churches and monasteries during the 1920s and 30s, the jailing and torturing of tens of thousands of monks and clerics, weren't all a part of an attempt to destroy the Russian orthodox faith, whether or not it constituted a threat to the regime.
This was in marked contrast to the Italian fascist approach to religion, which was to come to an agreement with the Catholic Church, a concordat, which circumscribed Church power, but made no attempt to target people of faith who weren't otherwise a threat to the regime. Stalin regarded faith itself as a threat, whether it be Russian Orthodox, Catholics, Jews, Baptists, and acted accordingly. Now, he might have justified his assaults by concocting some trumped up "threat"--but this was window dressing on a par with his campaign against "wreckers." It's doubtful, for example, that the doctors put on trial in the late 1940s and early '50s for allegedly murdering Soviet officials, and plotting to murder Stalin, were guilty of anything other than being Jewish.
I'm not blaming atheism, or even anti-theism, for Stalin's mass murders. But to say that atheism wasn't at all in the mix--which is how I understood the original post to which I was responding--is a bridge too far. Atheism was one of the things that distinguished Marxism-Leninism, and Stalinism, from other ideologies of the time. Certainly the idea that there was no afterlife, no judgment, no God, was a part of the underpinning of an ideology that professed the idea of morality, fair play, basic decency, to be "bourgeois illusions." Read Trotsky's essay "In Defense of Terror"--which basically comes down to might is right whenever the interests of the dictatorship of the proletariat are concerned. Some of the anti-theists, as you might call them, of the French Revolution shared similar beliefs. Then too, there is Nietzsche's whole "God is dead" "let's all bow down to the coming Superman for whom ordinary morals don't apply" shtick. German Nazis were very keen on citing Nietzsche's atheism as a precursor to their own rejection of Christianity, which they regarded as a "Jewish perversion" foisted on the German volk, and to see Nietzsche's writings as texts in support of "the Fuehrer prinzipal."
My point is, I wouldn't be so quick to give absolute and blanket absolution to atheism, or to give any and all atheists a free pass when it comes to some pretty egregious crimes against humanity. I'll grant you that theists have committed far more crimes than atheists, but then again theists historically have outnumbered atheists probably a million to one, so one would expect a certain disproportionality. Even so, to say, as some seem to be saying in this and other threads, that atheism has never been in the mix of human depravity is I think historically inaccurate--particularly in the past hundred and fifty years--and perhaps dangerously naïve.
I would also draw a distinction between religion--which almost always has been coopted by the state or various elites--and spirituality. A text I continue to go back to on this is William James' "The Varieties of Religious Experience." Spiritual or transcendental experience can often be disruptive to the powers that be--whether it be Jesus threatening the political and religious oligarchies of his time, or the Great Awakening in colonial America undermining the authority of the English crown, or Gandhi's Satyagraha taking on not only British imperialism, but also the Hindu caste system. As opposed to organized religion, which is often, as I see it, an attempt to co-opt and channel such spiritual or transcendental experiences into the service of the powers that be.
Atheism, too, can be channeled I think in just such a way--as was, at least in part, the case under Stalinism and Maoism. One major justification for the Chinese occupation of Tibet has been to "free" the Tibetan people from the "shackles" of their Buddhist faith. Not that Tibetan Buddhism offered much by way of human rights to Tibetan woman and girls. But then, I've never been much for one form of oppression becoming the justification for another.
Essentially, I'm asking that we recognize some nuance here. The role religion has played--for good and ill--is certainly gist for reasoned discussion on a political board. I just hate to see one or the other side resort to caricature and bi-polar thinking in an attempt to score points.
Best wishes to you Major, and all who sail with you.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I dare you. Then we'll talk.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)None of the posts you linked to say or even imply that "it would be ok to hold an Abrahamic monotheist accountable for violence committed by another Abrahamic monotheist" as you claimed in your OP.
Your so-called examples are just nonsense you pulled out of your ass.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Your opinion is valued.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)by someone who's been caught out in blatant intellectual dishonesty.
But keep digging…you're very amusing.
rug
(82,333 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)I note that "Abrahamist" appears to be the new "religionista."
rug
(82,333 posts)Everyone who visited the websites he did is complicit.
I bet some even donated via PayPal.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I don't take anything this guy says at face value, and I don't get how some are.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Yes, by all means, lets get our pitchforks and torches right now.
It's absolutely critical that we jump to conclusions right now, today, or this creep won't be prosecuted.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)If you don't like my opinion I can't help you. The thing is I am not the only one who doesn't buy the parking lit theory but I do see why some are invested in saying it was only about a parking lot Issue.
As I said before, this is a capital crime and he will say whatever he can to get out of the death penalty.
And don't give me the pitchfolk routine.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But I want to see it done for actual crimes he actually committed. I'm willing to withhold even the assumption that he pulled the trigger as a presumption of innocence, but it seems we're all in agreement here that the cops got the right guy, and we're not in any danger I can see of tainting a jury pool.
But that's as far as I'll go. If it was a hate crime, if a jury can be convinced of that, we'll know. There's really no chance the FBI isn't going to go spelunking as far up this guy's ass as anyone's ever seen. As well they should. And if your assumption pans out, I'll be howling for justice right along with you.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Murdoch-owned media coverage of that potential angle very well COULD poison a jury pool on the potential civil rights/hate crime aspect of this case. I'd leave it alone.
Let the pro's do their job. They'll disseminate evidence/information as necessary.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I will continue posting about it even though it makes some uncomfortable.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)books that he read is complicit.
Guillotine! Guillotine!
TM99
(8,352 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)I find it hard to believe that three, not just one, young Muslim's were gunned down, execution style in their apartments, over a damned parking dispute.
okasha
(11,573 posts)nor the regular twice-weekly hate-the-Pope post seems to be having the desired diversionary effect.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Seriously, Abraham was, at best, a piss poor father and human being, but he held God in the highest esteem, so people revere him as an example to model yourself after. It just gets worse from here with the 3 major holy books, the commentary on those, and the fan fiction(book of Mormon), you have things get compounded.
The fact is that you have several holy texts that people claim hold good moral codes, and they do, but they also hold atrocities, justifications for atrocities, and bad ideas and bad people that they try to make good, such as the aforementioned Abraham. Not to mention you also have religious people then claim that these religions have consistent moral codes! Yeah, that's not true.
Atheism has, quite literally, none of that, it is the answer to ONE question: Do you believe in God? If you answer no, you are an atheist. There's no rulebooks on how to behave, no rituals you have to follow, no additional beliefs you have to share with other atheists. You have to figure those things out on your own. Follow your own path.
The problem is that you aren't comparing like with like here, what would be a fair comparison is comparing atheist and its counterpart theism. I'm talking theism in general, when someone answers yes to the question posed above, they are a theist. And until you follow up that up with further questions, then you will know nothing about their other, additional beliefs. They may be a monotheist, polytheist, pantheist, deist, Jew, Christian, Muslim, Wiccan, Hindu, certain flavors of Buddhism, etc.
Just like how atheists have additional beliefs, just someone saying they are an atheist tells you nothing about their beliefs, follow up questions may lead to you finding out their are LeVayan Satanist, Buddhist, certain flavors of Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanist, Nihilist, or any number of other philosophies, ethical outlooks and religions.
The point being that using how someone answer the question above as a means to prejudge them is silly, until you find out more, then you aren't prejudging anyways, but rather just judging.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)That wasn't the comparison at all.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)that's just in general, and applies to all.
But its also fair to criticize the source for someone's beliefs that could have lead to a violent action, even if you think, personally, that's its misapplied.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)They can and should be criticized. That doesn't mean those are the only possible interpretations.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)and then explain away the rest, depending on your own prejudices and value system.
There are a lot of stories in the Bible that simply can't be interpreted in any way that we would term "good", yet the Bible itself lists many of the people in there as designated heroes, not villains, so we can assume God at least approved of their actions. Abraham, Moses, and Lot are 3 that come to mind, there are many, many others.
What I find amusing are the religious going out of their way to explain away these examples, when the reality is that these books and texts were written in a different time, a time when slavery, both chattel and spousal, was accepted, where human rights didn't really exist as a concept, where the value of human life was cheap, etc. This antiquated ethical outlook, which was accepted 2000+ years ago in the Middle East is reflected in the God they worshiped, he was as much a product of that time as the people who lived there were, he was their invention, one of many tribal gods worshiped in that area for years.
This wouldn't be much of a problem if the Bible was widely regarded in the same way as, for example, Homer's epics, or the Viking Sagas, etc. Interesting myths wrapped with some historical facts. But its not, instead you have an extremely inconsistent book that millions of people believe was inspired/written by some omnipotent deity, and they think its the "Best thing evar!!!" so they try to follow what's in it, combined with whatever traditions they choose or inherited as well.
This is why, when someone tells me they are Christian, the only prejudice I have is that this is, in particular, rather uninformative about their ethical outlook. They could be the biggest, flaming asshole on the planet, or the nicest person you ever met. They could be waiting for an opportunity to pick your pocket, or prepared to give you their last dollar if you ask for it. The only thing "I'm a Christian" tells me is that this person believes that Jesus Christ was Son of God and rose from the dead.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Cause I'm all ears, about this mysterious interpretation issue that you seem so concerned about.
'Hey guys, that dirt right there is yours, I set it aside for you, you just have to murder all the subhumans living on it, and by the way, keep the young virgins for yourselves, because hey, free virgins wink wink nudge nudge, say no more.'
What part of that did I misinterpret?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)they will tempt the Israelites to worship false Gods.
Read that text against Genesis 9:6 (NRSV):
"Whoever sheds the blood of a human,
by a human shall that person’s blood be shed;
for in his own image
God made humankind."
Or the Ten Commandments, which reject both idolatry AND murder.
Or pair it with the entire Book of Jonah (in which the Hebrew prophet is an angry fool and the "evil foreigners" repent immediately upon hearing God's message, and thus avoid destruction).
Or with the redemptive vision of each nation walking with their own gods and everyone beating their swords to plowshares from Micah 4:1-5. Tough to do that if nations with other gods have been destroyed.
Or the Book of Ruth, in which a despised Moabite gentile, far from being destroyed, becomes an honored ancestor of King David.
-----
What I'm saying is not that the passage you quoted, read in isolation, doesn't have God commanding violence. It does. The interpretation I'm interested involves allowing the voices in the Bible that question and undermine the image of divinely mandated violence to speak, and privileging those voices.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)That clear things up?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'm taking my kid to the library. I'll re-read it more carefully when I get back, because something doesn't add up. Might be me.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Show me people comparing all religious people to one bad religious murderer?
Arguments about things like tithing to local elements of the RCC supporting bigotry are quite a different matter, because today, elements of the church that use that funding actively lobby against civil rights, actively sue things like the ACA, actively coordinate political campaigns against various issues. It's not like they just happen to be catholics and a few catholics here and there are bigoted assholes, it's the leadership, and the political activism of the church itself, around the world, today.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)
trotsky
(49,533 posts)How Christlike to view human beings who simply have a different opinion than you as swarming pests. One could say that makes them easier to justify killing. Not that you would do such a thing, of course.
Jesus must be so proud of you.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...you mean "not silently accepting blatant false equivalency, but rather having the temerity to write replies that point it out"... yes, clearly some people are doing that.
Although you chose a funny way to characterize it. I'm more familiar with different applications of the phrase "not handling it well", but they clearly don't apply here.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I think it has been very clear.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...that you were using an unfamiliar meaning of that phrase, rather than being simply dishonest.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goodbye!
cbayer
(146,218 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)They want to engage they can play nice, if not no dice.
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #91)
Post removed
rug
(82,333 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)The sound escaping from a puffed-up self-righteous chest is eerie.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)They don't deserve to be referred to this way. No one does.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)This is an opportunity to make peace. Everyone here has just a little more in common now.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to address any criticism directly at the person who made the comment, now could you?
Wonder why?
Leontius
(2,270 posts)until you know what they are by their words and actions, after that not so much, for the pack I address.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You tried.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)The difference as I see it is there is no book of atheism that declares killing another person is god's will.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Most believers will tell you there is no book of religion that declares killing another person god's will. There may be people on the edges who will use it to justify their behavior, but the vast majority would not. The same book says "Thou shall not kill". Do atheists have a book that says that?
What if this guy felt that pronouncements in some of his favorite books about religion being a disease and religious believers being dangerously delusional or that "Islam is the only religion that acts like the mafia, that will fucking kill you if you say the wrong thing" were declaration that killing others was righteous.
Trying to make a distinction here is wrong. This person is an anomaly. Whether he used the words of others to justify his behavior may be at issue, but the distinction you are trying to make does not lead to any resolution of the underlying problem.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)And then it immediately went wrong.
"It would be equally wrong to blame someone who honors the Bible and interprets it non-violently for someone else's interpretation that justifies violence."
No, it would not be anywhere near equally wrong. Because you see people who hold their religious beliefs based on the bible as holy text have a common set of doctrines that are supposed to regulate their moral and ethical behavior as a collective group.
The. Bible.
And if members of that group are using those doctrines to justify murderous and atrocious behavior, which happens on a regular basis, it is at the very least justified to expect the rest of the group to engage in some pushback or explanation defending the practical impact of those doctrines being advocated as something people are supposed to use to guide their lives.
The reason it is ridiculous to hold the set of all atheists responsible for the actions of any one individual atheist is because there is no such shared set of doctrines or beliefs. The one, single, solitary, ONLY unifying characteristics all atheists share that makes them atheists is that they do not believe God exists. the end. That's it. Atheism does not have a holy text.
So holding them all responsible for the actions of one would be be exactly as stupid as holding all non stamp collectors responsible for the actions of Timothy McVeigh because he also didn't collect stamps. Even though stamp collecting or not stamp collecting has no discernible relationship to the morality of blowing up government buildings full of people.
Or holding everyone who doesn't believe in Bigfoot responsible for the actions of the 9/11 hijackers because they also didn't believe in Bigfoot. Because clearly believing or not believing in Bigfoot has some relationship to whether a person will think it is acceptable to fly planes into buildings.
That's stupid. I think that's obvious.
But that is not the case when we are talking about pretty much any religion, which are absolutely saturated in claims to provide moral guidance to their believers.
Or are you arguing that being a Christian (for example) has no relationship or relevance whatsoever to what moral philosophies the practitioners of that religion embrace? That Christianity has *nothing to say* on the matter of morals? Noting to be found in that book you mentioned that bears on moral behavior? Or... alternatively... that the bible is not the common holy text all Christians are supposed to be paying attention to but rather just some random book that some of them may like but which has nothing to do with them being Christians?
Because either of those would be a really fascinating argument to hear you try and make.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Non-violent Bible interpretations and violent Bible interpretations don't necessarily share the same doctrines or the same understandings of common doctrines. So just saying "they both love the Bible, end of story!" doesn't get you the connection you are seeking.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)You're still working from the same common source text and making a claim that that source text provides moral guidance.
If people say "ok", use that text as a moral guideline, and it results in them going out and killing a bunch of people it is not in any way unjustified to ask the other people claiming that that text should guide people's actions to explain the approach they are advocating.
And if the only answer you can come up with is "well... that guy did it differently than I would" that's pretty weak. So what if a bunch of other people also do it differently? What if it becomes even a somewhat significant minority? Considering it's a minority of a very large group you are saying should be using this source material that works out to decent amount of people. At what point does it become right to ask you if you should really be continuing to tell people to use this text?
If a car company sells people a car saying it's a great way to get around and 1 in a million people get killed by the thing spontaneously combusting or something people expect answers.
If your holy book led... let's say... 1 in 1000 people who took it seriously to go out and start killing people, are you seriously saying that you should still not face any questions about whether it's appropriate that you keep telling MORE people to refer to it as their moral guideline when it appears prone to deadly interpretation just because you personally didn't do that?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)one of the 1 in a 1000 purely by virtue of honoring the Bible. If you want to ask them about violent interpretations, in a way that doesn't assume that they agree with them, by all means, go for it. I have no quarrel with theological discussions. It's prejudice that I'm objecting to.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)LGBT rights?
In addition to the posts criticizing religion, the page also includes posts advocating equal rights for LGBT people and promoting freedom of speech.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/11/craig-stephen-hicks-atheism_n_6661438.html?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)And that's my point: the whole "Christianity has a holy text and atheism doesn't" is a red herring, a non sequitur attempt to justify putting a whole group of people under suspicion based on its worst members. It doesn't work, whether that group is atheists, or Christians, or LGBT activists, or bicycle repairpersons. It is prejudice, and instead of recognizing that, an unfortunate number of people in this thread are communicating that they consider this viewpoint perfectly moral, as long as the Bible is involved. One even compared all Christians, Muslims, and Jews to the KKK. It takes a fair amount of moral myopia not to recognize the religious bigotry in that comparison.
okasha
(11,573 posts)That was a statement of perfect clarity in few words.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)the argument is that Christianity as a religion and a worldview motivates people to do evil things, because it is based on what is alleged to be the word and the commands of a supreme being (who commanded some pretty fucking horrible things). Atheism has no such unquestionable, unalterable, undefiable "word" or commands, and atheists kowtow to no such. Calling that distinction a "red herring" and "non-sequitir" is just blatant intellectual dishonesty.
Of course, you've already been caught out in this thread making things up out of thin air, so this newest example is no surprise. And neither is your support.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 13, 2015, 12:18 AM - Edit history (1)
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)saying that "Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are not true atheists", as opposed to saying that a lack of belief in gods was not the motivation for their actions. I challenge you to show us anyone who claims that atheists aren't capable of being really bad people.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Atheism might motivation for their actions, or part of their actions. The declaration that atheism is not part of their primary motivation is unprovable by you or anyone else.
The idea that you can separate atheism out from the rest of their belief systems is ludicrous. This, in a nutshell, is the failure of your thesis, and any other person that believes this.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that atheists discounted Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot as "not true atheists" is bullshit. You can't point to ANY atheist anywhere who's said that, and now you're backpedalling and trying to deflect from your utter failure to back up your affirmative claim.
And if you're claiming that a lack of belief in gods motivated these people's actions significantly, that is also an affirmative claim. The burden of evidence is squarely on YOU. The burden is not on me to disprove it. Lots and lots has been written by and about these men, so logic says if there is such evidence, you should be able to find it easily. Unless you're doing in reality what you've tried to accuse me of (hint...you are).
So either point to the evidence, or stop wearying my ears with your crap.
LeftishBrit
(41,209 posts)But the latter usually within the same religion. I don't think that it's usual to blame a Christian for Muslim violence, or a Jew for Christian violence, or a Muslim for Jewish violence just on the basis of shared 'Abrahamic' faith (though if someone is an Islamophobe or an anti-Semite or hates all Christians, then they may blame their un-favoured group for everything).
In any case, people should only be blamed for their own violence, or for violence which they endorse.
I think, however, there is sometimes a confusion between 'every religious person/atheist is responsible for all violence committed by a member of their faith/lack of faith' and 'religion/ the lack of it in society leads to increased violence overall'. The latter does not imply the former. My own view is that exclusionary, group-based ideologies of all sorts lead to increased risk of violence overall: this includes many religions, but also many other ideologies such as nationalism and even sports fandom, and that we are probably not going to get rid of such ideologies, so we have to work on preventing and combatting the violence as such.
