Is it taboo in America to talk about atheist violence?

[QuantumOfPeace]

This discussion thread was locked by struggle4progress (a host of the Religion group).

Everyone knows the aspersions that modern atheists cast about religious-based violence and harm.

But, is it taboo to talk about atheist violence?

For instance, most Christians would say that the gang lifestyle and associated gangland violence is not Christian.

The media never report it is related to atheistic ethics and choices, however.

Are there other examples?

[NC_Nurse]

1. Actually a lot of gang members identify as religious.

Gangs are definitely not made up only of atheists, so what's your point?

[QuantumOfPeace]

4. Pretty sure gang violence is irrelgious violence

...am I wrong?

[trotsky]

15. So you're saying religious people can't be violent, only atheists can? n/t

[QuantumOfPeace]

23. So your're saying only religious people can be violent, not atheists? n/t

And I think that reply clearly points your fallacy and your game with it.

I'm not going to play.

[trotsky]

71. Unlike you, no, I never claimed that.

PEOPLE can be violent. And just because someone is violent doesn't mean they are automatically not religious, as you believe.

[QuantumOfPeace]

88. Deflection - is that the origin of the taboo, maybe?

[trotsky]

98. What is apparently taboo...

is asking you to substantiate your ridiculous claims.

[QuantumOfPeace]

119. Pretty sure gang violence is irrelgious violence

[trotsky]

124. Doubling down on religious bigotry.

Good luck!

[QuantumOfPeace]

135. Atheists can get cognitive dissonance, too

rationality will win out and you'll see that it is not only possible but "okay" to admit the truth

[LeftishBrit]

74. Nope, absolutely anybody can be violent.

However, most gangsters are not violent in the CAUSE of either a religion or atheism.

[QuantumOfPeace]

78. Yup, but not talking about that.

Re-read the OP.

"For instance, most Christians would say that the gang lifestyle and associated gangland violence is not Christian.

The media never report it is related to atheistic ethics and choices, however. "

[Starboard Tack]

122. And most Muslims would say violence isn't Islamic. So what?

Why would the media report something that has no foundation in reality? The media try to concentrate on events and people, in terms of what they are, rather than what they are not.

[Iggo]

100. What's the difference between religious violence and irreligious violence?

[trotsky]

101. Obviously, religious violence doesn't exist.

It's just atheists pretending to be religious so they can give religion a bad name.

[raccoon]

134. Thanks for a good laugh. nt

[Starboard Tack]

120. WTF does atheism have to do with gang violence?

Do you actually have any data to support your assertions?

[QuantumOfPeace]

137. Read the whole thread

you are just repeating what has already been asked and answered.

[Iggo]

142. Asked and answered...

...except for the part where he didn't answer.

[Starboard Tack]

148. Yep, I noticed that. Lots of dancing, not much answering.

[okasha]

144. Not a damn thing.

I come from a part of the country that has been deeply affected by the gang violence in Mexico. Many if not most of the drogistas are enthusiastic practitioners of Santeria, with the occasional satandrogista. (That last a neologism from Mexican radio.)

[bunnies]

2. "atheistic ethics" ?

Oh brother. What, praytell, is that?

[QuantumOfPeace]

3. Don't atheists have ethics?

[bunnies]

8. Don't most humans?

You describe atheistic ethics as though we have some sort of predesignated 'rules'.

[QuantumOfPeace]

20. Most? Yes, humans have ethics

Was the word "rules" used? I don't understand your reference and therefore don't feel obliged to respond.

Who is "we", in your view?

In the OP, I spoke about one activity that we see at lot of, talking about religious-based violence and harm. Do you disagree that we see a fair amount of that?

[rexcat]

5. I don't think your example is valid...

it might be secular in nature, or not, but atheism does not come into play with the gangbangers. Gang violence has to do with "family." Most of the gang members come from a world of poverty and many from broken homes. The gangs represent family to each of the members.

From you logic, or lack there of, "family" might be the bigger issue, not atheism. You post is one of the more blatant bigoted posts I have seen concerning atheism on DU and specifically in the religion forum and that is saying a lot.

[QuantumOfPeace]

6. I can't think of any religion that would accept that definition of family

the one associated with gangland violence...can you?

It doesn't seem bigoted.

Do you think that atheists do no violence? That doesn't stand to reason, does it?

Also, as I mentioned, we accept without taboo that atheists talk freely, willingly, and often enthusiastically about what they consider to be "religious violence", right?

What about "broken homes"? Is religion driving that in America, in poor neighborhoods?

[rexcat]

10. Yes, atheists do violence...

but they don't do it because of their "atheism." Atheism just means someone does not believe in a god or gods. Atheists are as diverse as any labeled group in the US. Atheist tend not be joiners of organized groups because of that diversity. Your understanding of atheism in this country appears to be lacking in substance.

I never said that religion was a driving force with gangs or broken homes. You might want to re-read my post. Your cognitive abilities appear to be on the short side with respect to understanding what I wrote.

From you post to me it appears you have no clue as to what you are talking about concerning gangs or the cause of gangs or their violence in the US. You seem fixated on how bad atheists are and you are implying that gang members are atheists. I am calling out your bull on this one.

on edit: yes it is bigoted. You have no basis for you claim that gangs are violent because they are atheists. That is just more bull on your part.

[QuantumOfPeace]

21. If atheists do violence, is it taboo to talk about it, be frank about it?

No need to insult my cognitive abilities.

For one thing, I asked a question, I didn't say or accuse you of asserting what I asked.

Anyone can ask themselves about the causes of gang violence. I just don't see it as "religious violence".

And, as you say, there is clearly another ethic at work there, perhaps related to alternate concepts of "family", as you suggest, maybe even including ethics related to broken families and so on, as you suggest.

It's NOT bigoted, because I never implied that ALL atheists are involved in the gang lifestyle and associated gangland violence is not Christian.

[LeftishBrit]

75. It is not taboo to be frank about ANYBODY'S violence!

However, there is a difference between an atheist being violent, and someone being violent BECAUSE they're an atheist. If Joe Bloggs, who happens to be an atheist, joins a gang and robs a bank or murders a rival drug-dealer, he is not doing these things because he's an atheist. Similarly, if Fred Smith, who happens to be a Catholic, joins a gang and robs a bank or murders a rival drug-dealer, he is not doing these things because he's a Catholic.

Most gang violence is not 'religious violence'. Gangsterism is a separate issue from sectarianism, though occasionally sectarianism can resemble gangsterism.

[QuantumOfPeace]

79. Not talking about this or that violent act

Re-read the OP.

"For instance, most Christians would say that the gang lifestyle and associated gangland violence is not Christian.

The media never report it is related to atheistic ethics and choices, however."

[LeftishBrit]

165. It isn't according to anyone's ethics, except perhaps the ethics of the gang culture

The fact that most Christians might regard gangster violence as 'un-Christian' does not mean it's atheist.

That's as though I considered that someone was breaking British laws, and that therefore this meant that they must be Russian!

[rrneck]

7. Um,

just because violence isn't committed in the name of a particular faith, that doesn't mean that it is by default committed in the name of atheism. Nor does it mean that those committing that violence are not deeply religious.

There are no "atheistec ethics" any more than there are "religious ethics". There is just ethics.

[QuantumOfPeace]

22. They are not doing violence in the name of any god

...are they?

This is how some atheists cast aspersions on religion, by saying that people do violence in the name of god.

I'm just wondering if it is taboo to talk about violence that appears to be done. I gave one potential example that the media never seems to report as such. Are there others?

[Dorian Gray]

60. Your example in the OP was a bad one

Most gang members might be irreligious. They might not be. There members might have been brought up in religious families or not. But I would hardly call them atheists.

I'm sure that not one person here would attribute gangland violence to religion, and attributing it to atheism is wrong, as well.

Like most violence, it's born out of human greed and a desire for power.

[Humanist_Activist]

65. Is OP makes a lot less sense than that, I get the feeling this poster is very young...

perhaps early teens. They have a lot of education ahead of them.

[Dorian Gray]

67. Hopefully

The OP had very black and white thinking: "Those actions are not religious, so ATHEIST!" That's just not how the world works. I do think he/she knows that on some level, but I hope you are right and it's just a lack of education that's leading him to write that.

[Humanist_Activist]

70. What can I say, I'm an optimist...

lol.

[QuantumOfPeace]

93. Not really

see #92 for more

[rrneck]

82. The issue is not violence.

The issue is hypocrisy. Atheists, along with the rest of the enlightened world, question an ideology that claims to be the seat of moral behavior yet seems to have been responsible for some of the most barbaric outrages in history. We question how an ideology that currently leads its followers to align themselves with economic and social iniquity today.

If Christianity worked as advertised Christians as a group would be at least a little better people as the population at large. As it stands it is, at best, a wash. And there quite a few notable instances of barbarity, cruelty, and injustice perpetrated or facilitated in the name of an "ideology of justice and compassion".

[QuantumOfPeace]

89. Gang violence is a "barbaric outrage", going on right now

all over the world. We don't even have to turn the pages back 600 years or whatever.

Christianity never advertised a perfect world, free from violence. Quite the opposite, in principle, at least, asserting that everyone is tempted to it, and explaining how to avoid it and what it is.

So, it's not clear it is an issue of hypocrisy. But, there might be one such issue if there is a taboo:

"But, is it taboo to talk about atheist violence?

For instance, most Christians would say that the gang lifestyle and associated gangland violence is not Christian.

The media never report it is related to atheistic ethics and choices, however.

Are there other examples?"

[rrneck]

91. Examples?

Beats me. Produce an example on an "atheist gang" that simultaneously preaches love and compassion.

Who said anything about a perfect world? How do you explain the behavior of Christians in an imperfect world and their contributions to those imperfections?

[QuantumOfPeace]

96. Examples?

Talk to Dorian Gray. He seems to think that there are Latino gangs (in America?) who are "culturally Catholic" - but that's nonsense to me (you can't "pick up the cross" and "pick up a gun" in that way).

Admittedly, you didn't say anything about a perfect world, but you indicated that Christianity should "work as advertised" and produce something better. (It's not in evidence it hasn't, either in the past or today, depending on the metric you choose, violence being just one of them). I indicated the advertisement wasn't for perfection, which seems to be implied by taking disparagingly of a 'seat of moral authority' and the notion that barbarity couldn't be done, I guess.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, atheism is NOT "align[ed] ... with economic and social iniquity today". It's just a belief about gods. For all we know, atheists are aligned with economic and social iniquity - have you ever been to Wall Street, for instance? LOL Also, you said that it is all a "wash", between the two groupings.

Given that, that atheism is a "wash" and not "aligned", it seems gratuitous to be making claims about religions failings and violence in just about every way.

[rrneck]

105. Are Christian populations

more moral, as a group, than others?

Define "atheistic ethics".

[QuantumOfPeace]

131. Not the right question, IMHO

I'm actually one who is interested in having some qualified scientists do some decent studies, even though I see that such things cannot be dispositive.

Scientists may come up with better questions to ask than these simple, "linear" inter-group comparisons, too. (I hope so, because I doubt those are the right way to think about it.)

define? I did already - you should read the thread. Here again: any non-god based system of ethics.

[rrneck]

145. LOL!

I'm sure you're not interested.

You used the phrase "atheistic ethics". Define it.

[trotsky]

9. Lovely logic.

Violence isn't Christian, ergo it MUST be atheist.

Bigotry is an ugly thing.

[rexcat]

11. I think we will have a better chance...

of than making headway with this one.

[trotsky]

12. Somehow I don't think they'll be around long enough for it to matter.

That's some seriously f'ed up hatred and bigotry.

[rexcat]

13. ...

read some other posts. Serious random, incoherent thought process going on with this one.

My first impression was sock puppet or worse, but not sure.

[2ndAmForComputers]

149. I hope you're right.

[trotsky]

161. Ta daaaaa!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=292006

[skepticscott]

162. I had 100 posts in the Pool

What do I win??

[EvolveOrConvolve]

18. Wonder where the religious DUers are on this one?

I don't see any defense of the OP by DU believers, but I'm also not seeing any believer calling the post out as the nasty piece of bigotry it is.

What if I'd posted that "some christians disagree with homosexuality, so anyone in the LGBT community must not be christian"? Think it would be allowed to stay?

[rexcat]

19. I am not holding my breath on them coming...

to the defense of the atheists on this one.

[QuantumOfPeace]

25. No defense required

Post was asking about taboos in talking about atheist violence.

[Warren Stupidity]

72. You would have had to present some evidence for your alleged atheist violence in gangs.

You have nothing. Empty assertions.

[rexcat]

103. And what evidence of "atheist" violence..

as far as gangs are you talking about. There is NO EVIDENCE other than you misinformed, bigoted opinion.

[QuantumOfPeace]

116. Pretty sure gang violence is irrelgious violence

If you are used to saying there is no atheistic violence, then it might take a while to think that there is, for obvious reasons.

There is nothing bigoted. I didn't say all atheists are gang members or violent.

[Dorian Gray]

61. I just saw the post right now....

I'm a religious DUer. I told him he was wrong. He is wrong.

[QuantumOfPeace]

90. With respect, you didn't read the OP correctly

[EvolveOrConvolve]

155. Thank you

[QuantumOfPeace]

24. Strawman counter-logic doesn't seem to help

It does seem that there may be types of violence that are irreligious violence.

Gang lifestyle and associated gangland violence is not Christian.

What theistic religion do you think it belongs to?

[Humanist_Activist]

33. You are talking about secular reasons for violence...

if you want to stick to gangs as an example, then there is territory, drugs, money, ethnic conflict, etc. All are motivations that aren't religious, but that doesn't mean they are "atheistic".

[QuantumOfPeace]

35. No, I think I'm talking about more than that

[Humanist_Activist]

40. Atheism has an opposite meaning to theism, not religion....

if you wish to look for a term that is most likely opposite to that it would be areligion, which isn't technically a valid word, so the closest in the dictionary would be secular.

[QuantumOfPeace]

48. Relabeling/Redefining the terms doesn't change anything

[Humanist_Activist]

51. Who is redefining here? I have never heard of the uses of atheism, nor the definitions you made...

of it anywhere outside of this thread.

[QuantumOfPeace]

77. Quick survey - atheists use "atheist" not the labels you suggest

Most common way atheists describe themselves, especially on the internet, is "atheist".

So I'm comfortable continuing that usage.

[rexcat]

110. Please don't speak for atheists...

many atheists have responded to your OP but you seem to have dismissed all of us. Your intent in this entire thread has been less than honest.

[QuantumOfPeace]

115. I spoke how atheists describe themselves, not "for atheists"

saying otherwise is dishonest.

I didn't dismiss atheists, I addressed their points and said why they didn't fit.

[Dorian Gray]

62. Each member of a gang

could have a different religious belief. Some may be catholic. Some may be baptist. Some may be islamic. Some may be non-religious. And some may be active disbelievers.

Any violence perpetrated by a gang member is not indicative of their religious backgrounds. It's indicative of the fact that they put their gang/family as their first allegiance. It's gang violence. It's not related to any belief or non-belief. Attributing it to that is stupid.

[QuantumOfPeace]

80. I disagree - Taboo may prevent us from looking at it for what it is

"For instance, most Christians would say that the gang lifestyle and associated gangland violence is not Christian.

The media never report it is related to atheistic ethics and choices, however. "

[rexcat]

111. Just maybe the "media"...

does not report it as related to "atheistic ethics and choices" because that is a false dichotomy. You have given no evidence to support your hypothesis.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

156. Why do you have such a black and white view of the world

that gang violence has to be attributed to either theistic or atheistic worldviews? Trying to attribute gang violence to either is bigotry, a trait not welcome in most progressive circles. And seriously, if you're going to accuse someone of fallacious behavior, at least get the fallacy correct.

BTW, your post is one of the most hateful I've ever seen towards atheists, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Your moniker is ironic, right?

[Plantaganet]

14. Wow

[Warpy]

16. Most gangsters around here are very definitely Christian

and many of them sport Virgin of Guadalupe tats. Who the hell are you or anyone else to say they're not Christian?

They are certainly no less Christian than the religious right.

What you seem to be doing here is taking anything you don't like and hanging the "atheist" label on them, exactly the same way the far right has been demonizing the word "liberal."

The world doesn't work that way. We live in a majority Christian country and that cuts all ways, even among people whose behavior you don't like.

The press doesn't report on "atheist violence" because there is none.

[QuantumOfPeace]

26. If there is no atheist "bad", how can there be atheist "good"?

You conclusion doesn't make sense.

Pretty sure that the gang lifestyle and associated gangland violence is not Christian.

Yes, there are tattoos.

[Humanist_Activist]

34. There isn't an atheist "good", where did you get your information on atheism from? n/t

[QuantumOfPeace]

39. Atheists each define "good" differently for themselves..

... is that your point?

That seems true, analytically.

[Humanist_Activist]

41. Just like theists, yes...

I don't understand the difficulty, a belief or lack of belief in god doesn't inform a person on morality, actions, or ethics, its a position statement, no more, no less.

[QuantumOfPeace]

43. Chritian ethics are not atheistic ethics

might be a statement that would help you with your "difficulty"?

[Humanist_Activist]

44. Christian Humanists have more in common with Secular Humanists when it comes to ethics...

than either do to Objectivists or Christian Fundamentalists.

Notice, I didn't invoke atheism, even though many Objectiivists and Secular Humanists(including myself in the latter group) are atheists. And do you know why, because there are NO "atheistic ethics".

[QuantumOfPeace]

46. All systems of ethics without god(s) are atheistic, not theistic

...and are fully described by the term "atheistic ethics".

[Humanist_Activist]

50. So where do Deists fall on this definition you made?

To them, a God exists, but said god is indifferent and/or not interacting with its creation.

[Humanist_Activist]

52. Described isn't the term I would use, unclear, vague, and uninformative are more accurate.

You are painting with way too broad a brush here.

Whether someone is atheist or theist tells you nothing about their ethics or morals. Get into specific secular or religious philosophies and ethics and you get more information.

[QuantumOfPeace]

55. Like difference between genus and species

"genus" or class: atheistic ethics
sub-group or species: {long list}

[Humanist_Activist]

58. Well, it looks like you also fail phylogeny and how nested hierarchies are structured too. n/t

[QuantumOfPeace]

81. Only trying to help you think about it clearly

The analogy is solid: genus is a higher level grouping than species.

Insulting my intelligence again - can I ask for another apology?

[Leontius]

95. Would you describe your view as there are ethics and morality which are

modified by someones belief or non belief?

[QuantumOfPeace]

97. OP noted

"most Christians would say that the gang lifestyle and associated gangland violence is not Christian."

If you want to further generalize, that is up to you, but I don't see any practical purpose to it (except maybe to deflect from the obvious).

[Leontius]

114. And exactly what is the "obvious"?

The whole point of your OP seems to be that gang violence must be derived from something inherent it atheism as opposed to Christianity and I just don't see it. Side note my post was directed to Humanist Activist.

[QuantumOfPeace]

125. obvious that anyone can be an atheist without being a humanist, objectivist, rationalist, relatavist

or any of those fancy things.

[Humanist_Activist]

133. Modified maybe, but generally that is expounded upon in religion...

which I removed from the equation, trying to show the OP that they were trying to compare apples and oranges. In a vacuum(knowing no other beliefs about a person), a person's belief about the existence of deities doesn't tell you anything about their ethics or morality. I was trying to compare like with like, so to speak.

[Leontius]

160. What do you believe is the source or foundation of human ethical and moral

systems? Why do you think they develop in our cultures?

[Humanist_Activist]

163. I don't think there is any one source for such systems, but rather many different sources...

that are derived from a combination of education/information, our natural inclinations, and the need for social stability.

[Warpy]

143. Please try reading my post again

and respond to what I wrote, not to what you want me to have written.

Your posts are disingenuous at best and strawmen at worst. Knock it off.

On edit: oh, forget it. For the second time on DU in eleven years, I will just say (_|_) and move on.

[Dorian Gray]

64. I have to agree

There are many Latin American gangs who would identify as Catholics. Whether they truly practice or go to Mass, who knows. But they identify culturally as Catholic, and as you said, sport virgin of Guadalupe tats. And wear crosses.

I am Catholic. I wouldn't consider their violence Catholic violence. But it's true that many gang members identify (at least culturally) with a particular religion. I don't think it's indicative as something wrong with that religion. Gang members are gang members. Their first loyalty is to the gang.

[Humanist_Activist]

68. Not to mention the causes of gang violence...

poverty, discrimination, segregation(de facto), illegal drugs, violence, etc. None of which has anything to do with atheism. Specific gangs may be formed from geographic cohesive borders(neighborhood gangs), ethnicity, religion(rarer), etc.

[QuantumOfPeace]

94. not the point of this OP, but people could disagree

See #5 and #6

[QuantumOfPeace]

92. You missed the point -

The gang lifestyle is the cultural ethic that is accepted, in order to become a member of the gang. (Frequently, it includes multiple generations and is very, very hard to break away from.)

This ethic, which includes violence, is atheistic.

(I am unaware of any gang violence in America that is theistic. It could be, but I know of none that is, tattoos or "cultural Catholic" or anything else notwithstanding.)

[Starboard Tack]

127. "I am unaware of any gang violence in America that is theistic." - Really?

Tell the victims of Warren Jeffs and David Kouresh and Jim Jones that.

Tell the victims of the KKK that the violence was not born of extreme theism.

[QuantumOfPeace]

136. Don't know

the particulars of each and their god beliefs. As a consideration, the cults are much smaller than the gangs, historically.

KKK is constantly brought out by atheists on the internet, yes, and linked with theism, rightly or wrongly.

[Starboard Tack]

147. It is apparent that you don't know very much on the subject.

You wonder why the atheists bring up the KKK? Here's a clue.


Such a small gang the KKK

[EvolveOrConvolve]

17. Anyone got the jury results for this one?

There are probably some interesting comments in the results.

[QuantumOfPeace]

27. It is always hard to talk about taboos, to tell the truth

Last edited Thu Oct 4, 2012, 03:20 AM - Edit history (1)

I didn't say they were and it goes WITHOUT SAYING (I hope/hoped) that not all atheists are in the gang lifestyle and associated gangland violence. Or, any of the other potential examples of atheist violence.

[cpwm17]

28. You're confusing secular with atheist.

A gang that has nothing to do with religion also has nothing to do with atheism. Most gang members, and most people for that matter, have a religious belief.

Throughout the world, countries and regions with more atheists have higher standards of living and lower crime rates. High rates of violence are frequently found in regions with high rates of religious belief, though not necessarily committed by strong believers. Religion and violence may not be directly related, but they can be symptoms of the same thing.

[QuantumOfPeace]

30. Don't really see gang members at Church or Temple

I didn't confuse them. (I encourage others not to.) In America, almost all "religious" folks are secularists.

Everyone has some kind of ethics, I guess. Whether and how you or anyone chooses to call it "religious" is up to you, but the simplest way is probably the best way.

We can probably agree that most Christians would say that the gang lifestyle and associated gangland violence is not Christian.

Your other points about violence in general are interesting but don't seem on point to the question, which had to do with whether there is a taboo in America to talk about atheist violence, given that we seem to have no taboo on talking about "religious violence".

[cpwm17]

76. You haven't made a case for violence by atheists – none whatsoever.

[QuantumOfPeace]

83. Irreligious violence of this type seems self evident

...so the question comes up on whether there is a taboo on mentioning it.

[LeftishBrit]

153. And not all violent gangsters are atheists either!

I simply don't see your logic. Are you saying, along with the religious right, that crime and social problems are all the result of secularism in society? Or are you implying that there are atheist gangs that roam around declaring war on churchgoers?

[dimbear]

29. The worshippers of Santa Muerte often ask her to bless their guns and ammo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Muerte

It's an atheist thing to do, getting the official nod for your rod.

[QuantumOfPeace]

36. Atheists can be superstitious

atheism is just, literally, without a god-based system of ethics, values, and community.

In fact, hundreds of years ago, it stands to reason that atheists were deeply superstitious, as much as any during their day, right?

Today, we probably can find atheists who believe in magic and so on.

[Humanist_Activist]

42. Atheism are people who lack a belief in gods...

that is it, adding ethics, values, and community to the definition is ridiculous. Many theists are secularists, so they are lacking a god-based system of ethics, values, and community, so according to you, they are atheistic theists, a literal impossibility.

[QuantumOfPeace]

45. Atheistic ethics are on the table for certain

Atheists all have ethics. They say so. It is not "ridiculous" of them (in my opinion). They even make bus signs that say "Good without God", for pity's sake!

I see no basis for the "literal impossibility", so I cannot reply.

Nor do I think it matters to the question at hand, in some obvious way.

(Also, saying "atheism are people", as you phrased it, just seems inadequate.)

[Humanist_Activist]

47. But atheism doesn't GIVE them ethics, that's the difference...

so to label it as "atheistic ethics" is ridiculous and makes no sense. Many adopt labels, such as humanists, objectivists, relativists, Buddhists, etc. For myself, I was a humanist long before I was an atheist, atheism is a position on ONE issue, the existence of deities. From that, you can derive nothing, everything else usually comes from a combination of upbringing, education, empathy, etc.

[QuantumOfPeace]

53. Is it TABOO to talk about the atheistic ethics you didn't list?

...the ones that aren't so wonderful?

Otherwise, your distinction is like the difference between genus and species, I should think.

[Humanist_Activist]

54. What are you talking about, I already mentioned Objectivists, and please, use the proper...

terminology, secular.

Also, could you please list these so called "atheistic ethics", it should be a hoot.

[QuantumOfPeace]

56. I guess it really is taboo

suggestion: re-read the OP?

[Humanist_Activist]

57. I fail to see a connection between the OP and what you are talking about...

unless you are trying to redefine atheism to mean bad or evil, that is.

[Humanist_Activist]

59. I just did, it makes no more sense now than it did when I first read it...

then I replaced instances of atheistic/atheist with black and Christian with white and it became clear.

[Humanist_Activist]

32. What. The. Fuck.

First things first, most convicted criminals, many from gangs, aren't atheists(hovering around the 97% range). Many Latino gangs are openly Catholic, many other street gangs also are religious in various ways.

Also, ANY attempt at describing anything as "atheistic" is intellectually bankrupt and foolish. You confuse it with secular. Don't do that again, or else I may have to lower my opinion of your intellect further.

[QuantumOfPeace]

37. Cognitive dissonance?

I've never actually found the study with that 97% figure. Do you mind if I ask for the reference?

Checking the dictionary, I find that "atheistic" is a perfectly spelled adjectival form for "atheist".

Apologies for your condescension? (I mean, I happy to admit when I'm in error and so forth, but a word is a word is a word.)

[Humanist_Activist]

38. Yes, "Atheistic" is a valid adjective, its just that almost any word it modifies makes it...

nonsensical.

Atheistic morals, or actions, is nonsensical when you consider that atheism simply means without god, or, to put it more succinctly, lacking a belief in gods.

Let's turn it around, what are theistic actions or morals? Can they be identified without invoking specific religions or philosophies? No, of course not, so why expect that from atheists?

[QuantumOfPeace]

49. covered this up above at #46

after this comment was made, so no need to duplicate with another response, I guess.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

63. No, there is not a taboo on talking about atheist violence

There just isn't really any "atheist violence" to talk about. Atheists tend not to beat up or shoot people in the cause of atheism. Street gangs are not moved to commit mayhem on atheist principles.

So the question is really a rather silly one.

[QuantumOfPeace]

85. There is an atheistic ethic of violence we see in gang lifestyle and

associated violence.

It seems like there is a taboo on simply saying so.

[Historically, atheists have been quite willing to shoot people in the cause of atheistic ideologies or, presumably, for the 'cause of atheism' insofar as it was understood by them to be anti-theist. But this post isn't talking about that per se.]

[rexcat]

104. You will need to expand on that thought...

otherwise it is just you worthless opinion. What do you have to back up your hypothesis?

[QuantumOfPeace]

121. It's a plain truth

to say that the gang lifestyle and associated gangland violence is not Christian.

The media never report it is related to atheistic ethics and choices, however.

[eomer]

157. No, that is not a plain truth.

You're apparently basing that conclusion on a specific subset of the teachings of Christianity, those that say we should follow the Golden Rule (to keep my explanation brief). Meanwhile you're omitting other teachings of Christianity, such as that God says we should commit genocide, slaughtering every man, woman, and child of some rival group of people who are not-us and not-Christian.

Every Christian must choose a subset from the large body of Christian teachings - it is not possible to follow them all since there are so many contradictions. So one Christian group can be the most pacifist, loving, caring people imaginable while another Christian group is a violent gang of murderers. Christianity is a cafeteria. And a tremendous amount of violence and destruction has been committed by groups who derived their ethics, such as they were, from their personal selection of Christian teachings.

There are people today who are members of the US armed forces who have gone to war in order to kill Muslims because they believe they are called to do so by Christian teachings. They do in fact group together into gangs in the theater of war and they conspire together to carry out their Christian killings. This does exist and it is proof that what you just postulated is not true.

There are certainly other instances in history where people have ganged together and carried out Christian killings, Christian genocides. Accounts of these facts can be found in the Bible.

[smokey nj]

66. Most members of the mafia are also devout Catholics, but the media NEVER reports their violence as

related to Catholic ethics and choices.

[QuantumOfPeace]

87. Correct.

[smokey nj]

102. I wonder why that is. Do you think it's taboo to talk about Catholic violence?

[QuantumOfPeace]

126. No

the OP mentions how atheists are talking about a certain kind of religious violence seeming constantly on the internet, as they proselytize (as some might characterize it).

[mr blur]

69. "Christians would say that the gang lifestyle and associated gangland violence is not Christian"?

So what?

Give us a legitimate example of "atheist violence" - by which I mean gangs of self-confessed atheists roaming around and blowing up people who "offend" them because they're atheists.

[QuantumOfPeace]

86. Strawman/misdirection/deflection

Yes, it is common to deflect criticism the way you have, perhaps.

Maybe that is why there is a taboo? Or is that because of the taboo?

I'm not talking about the doer or this or that act of violence or harm.

See:

"related to atheistic ethics and choices" in the OP

[mr blur]

99. You seem like an idiot. Or blind. Or both.

I'll leave you for those with time to spare.

[rexcat]

106. You missed the obvious...

it looks like simple bigotry and the poster refuses to back up his/her claims that gang violence is based on atheistic ethics as the poster has stated.

One more thing comes to mind, either a sock puppet or something worse.

[QuantumOfPeace]

123. Attacking me won't change the facts

[LeftishBrit]

73. Gang violence is hardly based on atheism

Some gangsters are atheists no doubt; others are highly religious.

[QuantumOfPeace]

84. Not talking about that

OP talks about atheistic ethics.

see here:

"For instance, most Christians would say that the gang lifestyle and associated gangland violence is not Christian.

The media never report it is related to atheistic ethics and choices, however. "

[cbayer]

107. This makes no sense to me at all.

While there have clearly been episodes of violence that can be associated with certain religious beliefs, I can't think of any similar episodes associated with non-belief.

Gangland violence is most likely associated with drugs, rivalries, money, poverty and has nothing at all to do with religion or lack thereof.

[rexcat]

108. Thank you for the cogent remark...

but the poster's line of thought is beyond reason.

[QuantumOfPeace]

129. No reason to excuse violence with poverty

your congratulations are not in order and your constant disparagement of other people's intelligence is a good reason not to be an atheist, IMHO.

Why do you feel so strongly that there cannot be atheistic violence? Atheism doesn't make one a good person, right? It's just a preference about god beliefs. Sheesh.

[QuantumOfPeace]

128. Keep thinking then

See #85

and OP

Also:

Saying that it is associated with other circumstances, such as economics, family/belonging, broken homes, "rivalries", and economic factors doesn't say anything except that those factors (some of which can have atheistic ethics behind them too) can be coincident to gang lifestyle and associated gangland violence that is not Christian.

The media never report it is related to atheistic ethics and choices, however.

[cbayer]

130. What are atheistic ethics and choices?

Just because someone is not driven to act by religious beliefs does not mean they are driven by lack of beliefs.

I really have no idea what you are getting at here, which seems to be true for most of the people responding to you.

Perhaps you need to rethink your premise.

And I still haven't seen you offer a single concrete example of atheist violence.

[QuantumOfPeace]

138. See #2 - Atheists have ethics, right?

Also, read the thread. We're talking about a specific kind of thing, not anything like what you just referenced.

No change in premise.

Pretty sure gang violence is irreligious violence.

[cbayer]

140. Irreligious does not mean atheistic. Your arguments are circular and make no sense.

I am done trying to make sense of them. You have a nice day.

[Thats my opinion]

109. "Without God, anything is possible." nt

[rexcat]

112. Seems you agree with the OP...

otherwise your post makes no sense.

By the way "with or without god, anything is possible."

[Thats my opinion]

117. There is a natural human proclivity which spirals down toward violence, revenge, conquest etc.

This proclivity is traditionally countered by ethical systems which grow out of some institutional rootage. Historically these systems are the product and core of religion. These institutions are the thin veneer over the jungle. You find a hunger for non-violence in all the major world religions: Christianity (as seen in Jesus) Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.

It is true that believers in all of these systems often bastardize them and use them as an excuse for the very violence the systems are organized and promulgated to oppose. In those cultures with solid ethical norms growing from a religion basis, others, who are not part of the religion, often are attracted by the non-violent posture and adopt that ethic while not adopting the religion. So the religion has an impact far beyond its own borders. Nevertheless both among the religious and non-religious, without some institutionalized ethical system it is easy to turn to violence, revenge, conquest and all the rest. Where else do to these noble norms come from? Certainly not from human nature.

Therefore, while it is fair to say, "With God anything anything is possible," it is also fair to say, "Without God anything is possible."

[QuantumOfPeace]

139. Interesting perspective - worth the read

Religious people are part of a learning species. I doubt that there will be anything like The Crusades again, for instance. For another thing, the Pope no longer has armies, not for a long time now.

[trotsky]

152. Secularism is what has tempered the church.

It no longer wields the political power it once did.

Clearly you have your own revisionist history you'd rather believe, but the facts show otherwise.

[trotsky]

150. In a way, it's a relief to see you so officially and finally own up to your own religious bigotry.

No wonder you've never apologized for your slam on non-believers. You really do think that without religion, we'd all be murdering and raping each other. (Never mind that even WITH religion, we've been raping and murdering just fine too, only it does allow us to add that extra justification that 'god wants it!')

At your core, you are a very intolerant person, Charles. And that's pretty sad for someone who thinks himself to be a progressive.

[2ndAmForComputers]

151. That is a correct assessment.

Albeit somewhat too mild.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

158. If ethics are not derived from "human nature"

where do atheists' ethics come from?

[trotsky]

166. I know his answer to that.

Atheists derive their ethics from the religious ethical system of the culture they are raised in.

Because, it should be obvious, that without said religious framework, atheists would be completely immoral, unethical, hedonistic animals. <-- Tag necessary for everyone except TMO, who (disturbingly) actually believes that.

[Marrah_G]

113. This ranks up there with the most bizarre and absurd threadss I have seen on DU

[QuantumOfPeace]

118. Proof itself that there is a taboo, maybe

[Marrah_G]

154. Or that the entire thing is absurd.........

[EvilAL]

132. Typing

"religious violence statistics" and "atheist violence statistics" on google kinda says it all.
Does that mean it's taboo to talk about or a rare occurrence?

[QuantumOfPeace]

141. Perfect example of the taboo in the media and statistics, maybe.

[rug]

146. Sorry. I haven't seen any examples of violence attributed squarely to atheism.

The worst I've seen is graffiti by adolescents along the lines of God sucks. But I wuld hardly attribute that to atheism.

[Paulie]

159. What would you like on your....

[2ndAmForComputers]

164. Troll is gone. Hosts, please, lock this bigoted claptrap.

[struggle4progress]

167. Locking. OP has been escorted from the building by MIRT