Religion
Related: About this forumPathetic excuses used by apologists
Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot.
Prove non-existence
The atomic bomb
Number of adherents
Not meant literally
Times were different back then
Wide brush
Free soup
Framing
Faith over knowledge
Voltaire2
(12,957 posts)Voltaire2
(12,957 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Cartoonist
(7,309 posts)Guess what? The theist doesn't know either. The answer to the last one is: The facts fit.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)1) A fetus
2) Because my mother started having contractions
3) Because my vital organs are functioning normally
4) Because one or more of my vital organs will stop functioning normally
5) My body temperature will drop
6) Because I refuse to be deluded
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Cartoonist
(7,309 posts)Oh, that's right, even Christianity can't answer that.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)What does your faith tell you?
Cartoonist
(7,309 posts)Faith makes up stuff and then claims it is true.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)many of us have yet to receive.
Cartoonist
(7,309 posts)For someone who has me on ignore, you sure are engaging.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=282770
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)That is, I read what each and every one of you has to say, and then choose whether to ignore or not.
I have never used the DU ignore feature - ever. You have the right to say whatever you want, and nothing you say hurts me in any way, shape or form.
It does, however, get pointless and boring. And personal attacks ARE a violation of the spirit desired at DU.
But - I have never, ever done DU 'jury' so the best I do is "whine" about SOP and TOS. The "spirit."
Cartoonist
(7,309 posts)That figures. You can't take the Bible literally and actually believe that bs. That's what faith is for.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)of a universal 2-dimensional surface, but "Let there be light!" probably worked quite well thousands of years ago.
Figuratively and allegorically is quite common in ancient texts. Like the Bible.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)He ignores you on a case-by-case basis and then posts that he's ignoring you to prove he didn't ignore you.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Theist: Where did the universe come from?
Atheist: Nothing.
Theist: How could something come from nothing?
Atheist: I don't know, but maybe someday I will. Where do you think the universe came from?
Theist: God.
Atheist: Where did God come from?
Theist: I don't know. Don't ask stupid questions.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)The answer to the first 5 are god and the last one is satan.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)MineralMan
(146,254 posts)Presuppositional apologetics explains everything logically.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)thucythucy
(8,038 posts)slave labor camps and show trials of Stalin, and the killing fields of Pol Pot's Cambodia are not "pathetic excuses."
They were then and remain now massive human tragedies, the consequences of which are still very much with us. Particularly for the survivors, and their descendants, they are an almost visceral reality, a shadow that colors our lives even today.
My parents and members of my extended family suffered terribly under both Hitler and Stalin, which may help you understand why I'm having such a punched-in-the-gut reaction to your post. I assume you didn't mean to trivialize these horrific events, but to list them as being somehow inconsequential "excuses" in the argument you're having with theists on this board seems to me to be terribly insensitive.
Cartoonist
(7,309 posts)While the tragedies you mention are real, ascribing them to atheistic directives is not valid.
thucythucy
(8,038 posts)such as the Inquisition or the Thirty Years War can safely be ascribed to religion--a contention with which I agree--then I suppose at the very least Stalin's various atrocities might with some validity be ascribed to "atheistic directions." My reading of history tells me that Stalin and those around him were very vocal about their atheism--it was indeed a source of some pride to Bolsheviks that they had gone beyond religious delusions and considered themselves to have adopted a purely "scientific" method of interpreting, predicting, and controlling the forces and development of history. And they were absolutely the proximate cause for the atrocities on the communist side that I listed. You don't think this is a valid assertion?
In terms of DU, I think both sides in this seemingly interminable debate here go to extremes. On the theist side, I've seen people who are perhaps less than willing to acknowledge that organized religion, especially when harnessed by the forces of repression and reaction, and used as justification for everything from limiting the autonomy of women to out and out genocide, has been a cause of tremendous harm in the world. On the atheist side I've seen threads that seem quite condescending to people of faith, ascribing to them all manner of ignorance and even, at times, genuine duplicity. Some of those OPs seem to me little more than an attempt to, rhetorically, poke people in the eye for the sake of hearing them say "ouch."
I'm an agnostic, have friends (and presumed enemies) in both camps, so I try not to uselessly antagonize people I might hope would be allies in the larger struggles we face today--safeguarding what's left of our democracy from the very many people who would just as soon do away with it, including right wing religious enablers of Trump, and Trump himself who may or may not consider himself an atheist, but clearly believes in no higher power than his own bloated ego.
I would offer as one place where people of faith and people without faith might come together would be a discussion on practical steps we can take, in the here and now. to build an absolute wall in this nation between church (which of course includes all faiths as well as Christianity) and state. I'd argue that for the first roughly two centuries of the Republic's existence there was an effort to do this--though it wasn't by any means absolute. On the one hand we had government at various levels using faith groups to achieve social ends--such as soup kitchens, programs for unwed mothers (back in the day), orphanages, etc. On the other hand various faith groups injected themselves into politics--on the left people such as Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and increasingly on the right, from Billy Graham down to the Evangelicals supporting Trump today.
How would pushing back on the influence of Evangelicals in particular work? How do we factor in the African American church, which has historically been socially conservative but politically liberal? What goals, in general, can atheists and faith people pursue that brings us to a more just society, in which people are free to worship, or not worship, as they please?
I just don't see how this squabbling back and forth benefits anybody. I doubt any atheist here is going to be converted to any form of deism. Likewise, I doubt any person of faith scrolling through these discussions is going to suddenly abandon their faith by being told how illogical, unscientific, and possibly stupid they are. But then again, it IS a discussion board and people are free to go at this in the manner that feels best to them.
I've been meaning to draft an OP raising some questions and concerns of my own, somewhat related to all this. Rest assured when I do so it'll be at least as wordy and pedantic as this post here.
I'll stop here by reiterating my original point, that seeing the barbarities of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot reduced to the status of "pathetic excuses" was a more or less visceral shock to me. I was hoping you might have understood that.
Best wishes.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Look, this is nonsense. Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists. They were also communists and totalitarians. If you're going to ascribe their proclivity for wanton violence to their atheism and not their politics, I don't know what to tell you.
thucythucy
(8,038 posts)The proponents of the African slave trade were predominantly Christian, or Moslem, depending on where in Africa particular slaves were being captured and sold.
They were also capitalists and imperialists and racists. Brutal men (and I'd venture to guess most of them were men) willing to sell their fellow human beings into lives of misery in order to further enrich themselves.
Yet I've been assured in a number of these threads that religion was the primary factor, that religion in general and Christianity in particular were the central cause of the slave trade. As if economics, racism and raw greed weren't important factors in this equation.
I've seen this sort of absurd reductionism on both sides of this debate.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Organized religion wasnt the cause of slavery, but it certainly endorsed and regulated the slave trade for centuries. Religious differences were nearly universally accepted as justification for slavery.
It isnt just a coincidence the end of legal slavery followed the Age of Enlightenment.
Pope George Ringo II
(1,896 posts)Once you do that to somebody, it's easier to put them in chains, just like it's easier to murder them or whatever.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)that "religion was the primary factor, that religion in general and Christianity in particular were the central cause of the slave trade." TIA.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Because religions are defined social constructs, whereas atheism is simply a position on one very specific question. There's no atheist dogma. There's no atheist holy book. There's no atheist scripture, tradition, ritual, symbology, etc. "Atheism" by itself does not lead one in any particular direction on any of these issues, because atheism does not concern itself with these issues. It doesn't concern itself with anything except the question of whether nor or not god claims are convincing. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, as systems of belief, have taken explicit positions on, say, slavery or capital punishment, and atheism has not. It does not. It will not. Ever.
As to whether or not the religious positions on these issues influence people... are you really suggesting they don't? That people are born homophobic? Born slavers? Murderers by nature? Misogynists by accident of birth?
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)If your holy book tells you to kill someone and you do it, then your religion is partly to blame. If your religion allows you to manipulate people for nefarious purposes, then your religion is partly to blame. If your religion is used as an excuse for raping children or enslaving other people, then your religion is partly to blame.
Nothing about atheism directs anyone to kill anyone else. Nobody uses atheism as a tool to manipulate anyone. Nobody uses atheism as an excuse for raping children or enslaving people.
The reason atheism cant do any of those things is because theres no doctrine or dogma that goes with atheism. Theres no sacred directives which command anyone to do anything. Theres no superstition to follow, no rallying call, and no poltergeists to beg to or please.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)The insensitivity of it makes it even more so. That's what the OP is pointing out and the examples in this group just aren't that hard to find.
thucythucy
(8,038 posts)But I certainly didn't think I was offering Stalin's purges, for instance, as a "pathetic excuse." Excuse for what? My own agnosticism? I recall simply pointing out that not every evil in the world can necessarily be laid at the feat of organized religion, or people of faith, an assertion that seems to me hardly controversial.
They say turnaround is fair play, so if atheists on one side of a discussion want to bring up the Salem Witch Trials or the Thirty Years War, it hardly seems out of bounds for someone on the theist side to mention Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot as instances where religious thought wasn't part of the mix. One side cites Jonestown. The other brings up the Great Cultural Revolution. One side presents the slave trade as a horror sanctioned by religion, in which case the other side might point out the annexation of Tibet, the looting and destruction of its monasteries, the burning of ancient Tibetan texts that will never be retrieved. I don't see either side as indulging in "pathetic excuses."
These events were hard, cold, tragic realities, and I don't see how you can try to prohibit people from citing them in any debate of "atheism vs. theism," which is what most of these threads seem to boil down to. Any more than theists can object to the very many examples of religious based violence and atrocity that so often crop up in these discussions.
I admit this history may be more of a flashpoint for me, because of my family's involvement. But I suspect there might be others reading this OP who may share similar thoughts.
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)What they did was political in nature, not religious. Hitler even claimed Christianity and God was on his side, so you can't really call his regime an atheistic one. Political atheism is not really a religious thing, anyhow.
There have, of course, been atrocious things done in the actual name of a religion, as history shows. Atrocities done in the actual name of atheism, not so much. The Nazis and Communists were not religion-based, but neither were they atheism-based. They were the acts of madmen who gained political power.
The OPs intent was not to minimize atrocities.
thucythucy
(8,038 posts)at least in the Soviet Union and China, one had to be an atheist. Dialectic determinism doesn't admit any believe in the supernatural.
Of course, one could claim that communism is itself a sort of religion, with prophets (Marx, Engels, Lenin) and established dogma (the Party line). There's the same top-down hierarchy you see in many religions, the same internal logic that doesn't allow for dissent. At least, that's what communism degenerated into, once it had seized power.
But if atheism is defined as not believing in a supreme or supernatural being, then the communists of the 20th century would seem to fit the bill.
I don't think the OP had any malicious intent beyond scoring points off DUers who profess some sort of faith. It's just that in the pursuit of that goal, he or she did seem to me to be minimizing or trivializing some very sad aspects of history.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Its similar to a religion in that it elevates a totalitarian to a godlike status. These systems dont rely on atheism and also exist quite well alongside theism. Lots of African and Middle-Eastern regimes used the same methods.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)don't make the kind of pathetic arguments listed in the OP, so how could the OP be "scoring points of DUers who profess some sort of faith"? The OP is obviously speaking of a few apologists who make those specific arguments.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You're either unaware of it, or trying to gloss over it intentionally.
"instances where religious thought wasn't part of the mix" doesn't translate into "atheism is responsible."
For instance, the millions who died from famine under Stalin weren't killed because of Stalin's atheism, their deaths were a result of a combination of factors, like the failures of central planning, the goal to supplant ethnic groups with Russians, etc. Political prisoners were executed not because they opposed atheism, but because they opposed communism or Stalin's rule. Doesn't make their deaths any less tragic, but "atheism" had nothing to do with it.
thucythucy
(8,038 posts)The Thirty Years War, for instance, wasn't entirely or possibly even majorly to do with religion. It was a proxy war, fought over what is now Germany, by armies serving the political and economic interests of Austria, Poland, France, Sweden and (I think) Russia. Spain was also a player, if I recall my European history. And although the alliances tended to line up with Protestants on one side and Catholics on the other, that was by no means a constant. Add to that mix was the Peasant's Rebellion that pitted peasants against their overlords of whatever religion, and Protestant rulers who slaughtered Protestant peasants and Catholic rulers who slaughtered Catholics, until by the end of the thirty years roughly one third the population of Germany was dead. It's impossible to say, of course, we only have the history we have, but the Thirty Years War, or some variant of it, might have happened in that time and place without any religious component whatsoever.
BTW, there were political prisoners, imprisoned, tortured and murdered in both the Soviet Union and in China, precisely because they wouldn't renounce their religion. Stalin went after the Russian Orthodox Church with a passion. He had two main reasons, as I recall. First, the Russian Orthodox Church had been one of the main pillars of Tsarist Russia, and quite obviously reactionary and at times even counter revolutionary. But even more of a threat was the fact that church was a place that peasants and workers could congregate outside the control of the Party. To many peasants, Stalin's war on the church was seen as a war on the peasant class itself. Certainly, one could never hope to attain high office in either Party or government and be any sort of person of faith. It was only the advent of World War II, and the thought of his losing power (and probably his life) that had Stalin relent for the duration, beseeching Russian Christians to join the fight for "the Holy Motherland." Once the war was safely over he went right back to persecuting Christians in Ukraine and Russia, Moslems in Kazakhstan, and Jews everywhere.
None of this history is cut and dried--none of it easy to categorize. I personally don't see a point to an analysis that simplifies history to the point of making it meaningless as a tool for understanding ourselves and our opponents.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I'm not sure who you are arguing with, whoever claimed that religion was 100% solely at fault for every conflict in history, but it wasn't me.
BTW, there were political prisoners, imprisoned, tortured and murdered in both the Soviet Union and in China, precisely because they wouldn't renounce their religion.
Yes there were. No denying that. But it wasn't because they opposed atheism, it was because they opposed the state. Get it yet?
thucythucy
(8,038 posts)When Henry VIII went after Catholics, it wasn't just because they were Catholic, but because they (allegedly) put loyalty to the Pope above loyalty to the King. I doubt Henry gave two solid shits about any of the theological fine points separating Catholics from Anglicans.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Are you saying its OK to use Stalin and Pol Pot as a theological football or not?
thucythucy
(8,038 posts)or the Stalinist Purges or the killing fields of Cambodia as "pathetic excuses."
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Thats the part which is confusing
thucythucy
(8,038 posts)Pathetic excuse for what?
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Anytime someone here references genocide, wars, or terrorism fueled by organized religion, a theist inevitably references Stalin, Pol Pot, etc and claim atheism is responsible as if those two things are no different. Its nothing more than historical revisionism for the sake of trying to score rhetorical points, and it utterly disrespects the people who were affected by those situations. So yes, I can and will call that pathetic as the OP does.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)Mariana
(14,854 posts)Do you understand what apologists do? They try to convince others (and themselves, I think) that their religious beliefs are valid. Some of their arguments are pathetic. Some apologists have said or implied that because those awful things happened, everyone should subscribe to a religion, and in some cases, that people who subscribe to religion are better than people who don't. That is a pathetic argument.
Tell me, are you equally offended when religionists use those horrible events to promote their particular religious beliefs, or to cast aspersions on atheists? Because that happens, and it happens frequently.
thucythucy
(8,038 posts)Last edited Thu May 17, 2018, 10:02 PM - Edit history (1)
If someone is using the Holocaust or Stalin's slave labor camps as a sort of recruitment tool for this or that religion or ideology, yeah, I'd be pissed.
Has that actually been happening here?
On edit: Yeah, I'd be offended AND disturbed.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Its been used as a recruiting tool for organized religion at least since the early 50s. Its the reason your currency says, In God We Trust. The fear of godless communists fueled the Cold War for decades.
thucythucy
(8,038 posts)Sometimes it's difficult to know, with all this back and forth, whether people are referring to arguments put forth on DU, or to developments out in the real world. I took the OP to be in response to other posters here on DU, seeing's how the discussion in this forum has been rather heated of late.
Actually, I'd say the fear of "godless Communism" goes back to the first great Red Scare of the 1920s. Of course, the Soviet Bolsheviks rather played into that, didn't they, by closing and in many cases burning churches in Russia, killing and imprisoning priests and nuns? The fallacy isn't calling them "godless"--the fallacy is believing that all atheists are communists. Similar to the signs the anti-Red demonstrators used to carry during their parades: "Every communist is a Russian spy!" Well, no. Not at all.
Edited to add: when you say, "it's been used here" do you mean here on DU, or here in the US? Just want to be sure I know what it is you're saying.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)The first Red Scare pretty much fizzled out by the Great Depression but reached a feverish pitch during the McCarthism era and beyond.
Since recorded history and undoubtedly before, organized religion has been entangled with politics to varying degrees ranging from theocracy to extortion. The nature of organized religion pretty much guarantees it. Atheism, by contrast is a very poor tool for controlling anyone. Nobody dies for the sake of atheism. Atheism makes no conveniently unverifiable promises or threats. Theres no rules or laws that go with atheism. Yet we must ignore all of these realities and pretend atheism is just as corruptible as organized religion. Its nonsense and its pathetic.
Pope George Ringo II
(1,896 posts)Well, not for the deranged lie that atheism is responsible for Hitler. But for doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down on the deranged lie that atheism is responsible for Adolf "Divine Providence" Hitler.