HMMM Atheists kill Christians.

[TexasProgresive]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3985182
And I thought religion was the cause of all evil.:sarcasm:

[orestes]

1. Worshipping Dear Leader is atheistic?

[baldguy]

3. Right. N Korea is one big, armed cult compound.

Nothing "atheist" about it.

[napoleon_in_rags]

8. Its worth looking at. "Religion as the opiate of the masses"

is accepted state doctrine here, yet a new religion is born out of state worship. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not call it atheism, but I would take it as a warning; the irrational behavior that that atheists tend to associate with established religious people has a way of popping up even in places where those established religions aren't taught. The takeaway for me is that a culture of reason is always a struggle, it won't grow naturally if you take Bible stories away. The best move in fact seems to be to focus on a culture of free speech and critical thinking.

[uberllama42]

15. I don't know of any atheist who wants to take people's bibles away

In fact, the "New Atheists" all advocate teaching the King James Bible as a piece of English literature. None of them would tell you that evil is the exclusive province of the world's "Great Religions," and they would all include the cult of Kim Il-Sung (in any practical sense the state religion of DPRK) as one of the world's most dangerous ideologies.

You're quite right that the continual destruction of free speech and critical thinking are essential in maintaining the cult of Kim Il-Sung, just as they were in Stalinist Russia and China under Mao.

[napoleon_in_rags]

16. I like the Carl Sagan book title: The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

I like that as a metaphor, the forms demons (untruths) take is myriad, but the form truth takes is singular, like a candle in the dark. That's why I'm not fond of books like "The God Delusion", because they are lashing out at some particular demon the author perceives as significant, when everybody everywhere is looking at some shadowy demon or other, they are endless. It seems the most effective thing to do is focus on lighting the candle and holding it aloft, expounding the values of science and reason rather than swiping at delusions.

[callous taoboy]

18. I enjoyed both books very much.

One reason I like Dawkins is because he is taking a stand which is long overdue. Another great book is "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris. Religion is dangerous.

[napoleon_in_rags]

20. I would say North Korean style communism is dangerous.

And could surely write books against that. But what I wouldn't be doing if I just focused on that attack, is expounding the alternative, a free society where critical thinking is encouraged. What I'm saying is that there are too many attacks on shadows, and not enough holding up the candle. I truly believe that if a person learns critical scientific thinking ALL the shadows in their own mind will fall, from oppressive religiosity to leader worshipping totalitarianism. Alternatively if a person never learns critical scientific thinking, no argument against any demon will long stand, no matter how well reasoned it is.

[LostInAnomie]

2. Atheists didn't kill the Christians.

Kim Jong Il worshippers killed the Christians.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TexasProgresive]

5. What's to report?

Stalin was an atheist and killed millions. I just get tired of the vacuous argument that people who believe in God are the cause of every bad thing and atheists are Ha!Ha! God's gift to humanity. Humans can suck or not regardless their beliefs.

[vixengrl]

6. Wow--the atheist-believer body count pissing contest.--an oldy but baddie.

I think both belief and unbelief are scapegoats for human backwardness, if you ask me. It isn't that people following Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or any of the Popes into Crusades or rubbing out Cathars or following Hitler with "Gott Mit Uns" on their belt buckles opted to be anything, but devout....


Firebrands. The addition of any ideology seems to be just an accelerant. And then the world burns. It doesn't seem to me like either "side" can claim they have done a better job of influencing morality--that isn't what those ideas have historically been used for. We are, I think, as a species, political creatures, and sometimes violent ones, before we are philosophers or theologians.

Wars and mass graves and mass stupidity have to do with resources and egos and money--and then some bright boy splatters a helping of whatever happy mouthful will help the cause. Are priests in power? Then our People's Revolution is Atheist! Are we worried about Pagan/Godless influences? Then let's lift God's banner high!

I definitely agree that humans can suck or not regardless of beliefs--we have that as a choice. The pity is historically how many get swept up in "movements" instead of thinking for themselves and choosing to live and let live.

(Although as an atheist, I just want to say, we don't all *start* that pissing contest between the faith and unfaith-ful. Plenty of us have had our fill of being told Communists and Fascists and what all started with us--first atheist, then lousy human beings. It's no truer than "first religious, then lousy human beings". I think it goes more like, first pretty weak people, then found any excuse, then truly lousy human beings. And also, there are good people on both sides too. Saints, teachers, healers. I'd rather look at that part.)

[TexasProgresive]

7. Thank you for a thoughtful and thought provoking post.-n/t

[DeSwiss]

11. +1

[ironbark]

17. A nice balanced post and pov…

What’s it doing on DU R&T ? ;-)

“And then the world burns”

Yup. That, throughout recorded history, appears to be the status quo and standard operating procedure….we fight and the world burns.
It seems to me that what stands out in history is not the periods of conflict but rather the outbreaks of prolonged peace (and the underlying causes thereof).

“It doesn't seem to me like either "side" can claim they have done a better job of influencing morality”

As an agnostic I have some difficulty with this proposition and I concede from the outset that it comes down to a purely subjective reading of history.
My reading is based on faith…not in god…but in the basic enduring common sense of humanity. I do not believe that religion can spread, endure or flourish exclusively through force of arms, conquest or manipulation/oppression of the masses. Throughout history people have also had the opportunity to choose, to consider what they have as a moral doctrine and compare it to the new thing (Buddhism/Christianity/whatever) on offer. Huge swathes of humanity have chosen to embrace religions as they presented themselves and I can only presume that they often did so because what was on offer was morally superior.

“We are, I think, as a species, political creatures, and sometimes violent ones, before we are philosophers or theologians.”

As a male I’m going to suggest that there is probably a gender divide and that what you describe- “political creatures, and sometimes violent ones” applies primarily to the male of the species. I am speculating here that much of the spread of Christianity/Buddhism etc was a consequence of the women saying- “This philosophy/cosmology has a lot more going for it (morally and in terms of protecting the children) than the “Honourable death and trip to Valhalla with a sword in your hand” bullshit that the boys have going.

“…how many get swept up in "movements" instead of thinking for themselves and choosing to live and let live.”

To me this question goes to the crux of the matter for I cannot think of a place or people that has not been dominated by some “movement” or doctrine. So the question, for me, becomes- under what movements/doctrines has protracted peace broken out?
Even as a non Christian I am obliged to concede that “live and let live” has seen few if any more potent and radical advocacy than ‘Love thine enemy’.

“Saints, teachers, healers. I'd rather look at that part”

Me too. I’ll show you mine if you’ll show me yours ;-)

I’ve only ever met one person who was, in my experience and popular opinion, broadly hailed as a ‘saint’-
http://www.unimelb.edu.au/malcolmfraser/speeches/nonparliamentary/wisdomman.html
http://www.loreoftheland.com.au/indigenous/banjo/index.html
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/messagestick/stories/s1065946.htm

[vixengrl]

21. I think you might be more optimistic than I am.

I'd like to believe in progress, or at least the basic enduring common sense of humanity, which need not be incompatible with the status quo of history being violence--especially if you adopt the perspective that people will be more likely to fight *for* something that benefits them, or *against* something that does not. However, my p.o.v. is generally that people often are manipulated by rhetoric--they may be told that something is beneficial, but have in fact been the victims of a "great lie". And I also think religions are part of the "great lies" used to motivate masses of people.

I think it probably is valid that people are inclined toward conversion because they have chosen something offered to them by a given creed that is better than what they have heretofore been taught. Both Christianity and Islam have as a part of their make-up certain (this might sould crass or blasphemous to some)"selling points". Christianity has redemption and eternal life. Islam has paradise. Both have certain moral considerations that might suggest better treatment of women than the cultures from which they sprung would have allowed (what looks like hidebound patriarchy, now, passed for reform, then.) But the internal moral logic of any religious paradigm has its own manipulation or coersion factor--whether the two I named, or the caste system of Hinduism, or Lamaism, or what have you--we are usually looking at a top-down structure of pronouncements to encourage obedience to the supernatural forces as are revealed through the priestly or scholarly class. For the political side of this, we could be talking about Maoists or Bolsheviks--party aparatchiks, speaing with the authority of the purity of whatever created the movement, be it personality or ideology.

In other words, the common sense gets short-circuited, and the pragmatic thought-process is shifted from long-range goals of personal success, to day-to-day struggles against sin, or backsliding, or fear of the devil, or violating a taboo, of getting caught by the religious police.

There are nearly no movements where I've really seen the concept of "Love thy enemy" actually carried out--but I will say I am impressed with the practice of nonviolence as demonstrated by Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. It seems so much more effective as action, because it short-circuits that chain of violence/retribution. Bomb a hotel, killing who knows how many innocents--that gains no sympathy. Organize a hunger strike, humanize the movement, have hearts soften to see a fellow human cracked down upon by injustice? It turns the enemy against itself. People who have taken that route are like saints to me--it's very hard to "turn the other cheek." (One of my conceits as a person who has studied, if not adopted, Christianity, is viewing Jesus of Nazareth as a potential such leader for Jews against Rome.) But it can work.

I look at people like Dr. Schweitzer as heroic for giving of themselves. But I think there are lots of minor saints and teachers, everyday people who just do things that are exemplary and make people around them inspired.

I am also a bit less optimistic about whether women are less violent. We are different in our size and physical strength, generally, but not our ability to be wrong, or bloodthirsty--history just fails to mention us as much. But we can just as vocally holler in a crowd for someone's head. I imagine we did.

[LAGC]

10. Stalin was superstitious as fuck.

http://breakingspells.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/myths-of-atheism-hitlerstalinpot-were-evil-because-of-atheism/

[ChadwickHenryWard]

13. Oh, bullshit.

Nobody here makes that argument. You're just being obnoxious. What does your inflamatory proclamation add to the discussion that wasn't present in the other thread?

[pokerfan]

9. Uh huh

Only the founder of the country, Kim Il-sung, and his son, Kim Jong-il, may be worshipped, in mass public displays of fervour.

Sounds like a secular utopia over there... :sarcasm:

[and-justice-for-all]

12. Not hardly..

"Only the founder of the country, Kim Il-sung, and his son, Kim Jong-il, may be worshipped, in mass public displays of fervour." Serious god complex, Stalin was the same. They think of themselves as being god and want to be worshiped as such.

Sorry, nothing Atheist about it.

[callous taoboy]

19. Thank you.

[uberllama42]

14. Kim Il-Sung is their god

I don't know why some people don't consider personality cults religions.

No one thinks religion is the root of all evil, either. Richard Dawkins made a documentary under that name a few years ago, but he didn't choose the title. Nor does he argue that religion is the root of all evil in the course of that documentary.