25 Jul 08
Originally posted by 667joeIf a religion can be viewed as any single set of beliefs, then atheism is a religion. But that's not what most people talk about when they refer to religion.
One more thing, atheism is not a religion.
It's always interesting why the Christians say that atheism is a religion though.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
25 Jul 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI am only discussing the effectivenes of contraception in the short-term. As a solution it is myopic because an ageing (and less employable) family relies on progeny to survive (and when food costs almost equal wages, a greater number of employable progeny is needed to support the ageing family).
Pyramid scheme. So blatant, it's painful.
I acknowledge that the pyramid scheme is unsustainable if population growth continued exponentially in impoverished conditions -- which is why I admitted "contraception might ensure better distribution of wealth over future years"; I just do not think it is an acceptable solution for families in the short-term.
25 Jul 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHe is probably referring to Uncle Joe Stalin's body count - and if you include Cousin Mao's contribution, I think we're upwards of 50 million dead people due to what he thinks was atheism.
How many more?
I think it was rather both in Russia and in China merely a political move to wrest influence and power from established institutions by killing off their base. That's the same thing Pol Pot did in Cambodia, only he wasn't threatened by the followers of a religion, he was threatened by all people who had enough education to smell a rat. So he killed an entire social class to make sure he'd maintain power.
That is what Stlain and Mao did. That is what Hitler did, only he wasn't as rational as the other two - he was more than a few fries short of a happy meal. Stalin and Mao were evil, but I don't think they were crazy until very close to the end of their lives.
So I distinguish these 50 million deaths, or 100 million if you throw in the other half Hitler helped slaughter in various ways, from deaths actually caused by a non-belief in God.
God wasn't even an issue to these monsters.
Religion is indeed dangerous. Individual spirituality is not dangerous. But when you organize and people get together and begin to clot, that's when the trouble starts.
Communism in Russia and China were attempts to place the State in the place of the mythical personal God on which churches based their mass appeal.
The Russian orthodox church rested on the myth of the uncorrupted remains of St. Sergius and it was the church that held the diverse linguistic and ethnic groups together under the first true Czar to constitute what is now the Russian Republic.
Stalin put Lenin's corpse or a good wax impression of it under glass in Red Square to mimic what the Russian church did with the corpse of St. Sergious -- putting him under glass in Zagorsk. Even Ivan the Awesome ruling 800 years before Stalin sent a solid silver coffin with a canopy of silver that reaches upwards more than 15 feet to pay tribute to Sergius and to make sure the faithful identified Ivan and his rule with their church and its power over the corruption of the grave.
Stalin was trying to do the same thing.
Don't think it worked, quite.
25 Jul 08
Originally posted by black beetleyou don't seem to understand my point. you wouldn't make another point irrelevant to mine if you did.
I understand your point allright. I just say that there are many colours beyond black and white, and that the people are judged mainly for their actions instead of the rhetoric means they use in order to gain whatever they want to gain. For example, nobody cares if Hitler stated clearly or indirectly that the Jews must die as long as he urged his administration to proceed forcing these well known and historically prooven facts;
25 Jul 08
Originally posted by 667joestalin was catholic? are you high? he was atheist. communism? hello? does that ring a bell? so was mao and pol pot.
You are way off base here! Hitler and Stalin were both Catholics. Abraham Lincoln was an atheist. In th US, 14% of the population are atheists, but less that 2% of the prison population are atheists. Furthermore, I find it sad to think that people would require belief in a higher power to do what's right. Surely you know the difference between right and w ...[text shortened]... res your execution. I doubt that you think that's good. No, you, my friend are way off base.
the religions claim many things, most of them are interpretations made by other people to fit their needs. you like many other atheists out there consider that since it says so in the bible or koran, then all religious people are idiots and muderers. doesn't occur to you that maybe the bible and the kuran was written by men who also had their own motives and wanted to impose their religious view on the world? of course not.
to you, if a christian kills then religion is to blame. but if an atheist kills who is to blame? could it be that(and i know i am preposterous here) we are all responsible for our actions and not a set of abstract, intangible beliefs?
25 Jul 08
Originally posted by scherzo…It's always interesting why the Christians say that atheism is a religion though.…
If a religion can be viewed as any single set of beliefs, then atheism is a religion. But that's not what most people talk about when they refer to religion.
It's always interesting why the Christians say that atheism is a religion though.
I have a theory for that: Christians are aware that their belief is based on faith, but, subconsciously (or maybe consciously?), see this as a weakness in their belief because it means their belief is not based on anything rational (unless you can call “blind faith“ rational!).
But that means if they recognised atheism as a belief that doesn’t require faith, then they would see that as a very strong argument for atheism and therefore against theism and they would obviously be very uncomfortable with that recognition of reality. Therefore, by using twisted logic, they convince themselves that, somehow, atheism is based just as much no blind faith as theism thus, by doing this, they convince themselves that, in this respect, atheism is no more rational than theism.
P.S. I don’t mean to imply that ALL Christians do this -I am absolutely certain many do not.
25 Jul 08
edit: "you don't seem to understand my point. you wouldn't make another point irrelevant to mine if you did."
I understand your point and my posts are not irrelevant.
You just say that religion is ok and that each one must be responsible for his actions. But this is not correct because "Religion" is a concept used at many levels for different reasons: the ones that promote each "Religion" do it in order to gain power, while the "faithful flock" they do it because they estimate that this way they can answer their existensial questions and also because they believe that they will be all together united under their "God".
History prooves that this kind of leaders can do any unthinkable atrocity in the name of their "Lord" and then simply walk away. Such an attitude is mainly acceptable by the people because they are members of these "Religions" and they try to honour their "Lord" instead of being rational. Therefore "Religion" must be separated from the spiritualism of each individual and must be examined as a means of organized social manipulation of its members. Under these circumstances is easy to understand that "Religion" is clearly a tool used mainly badly, and also that it has nothing to do with the spirituality of the individual.
Philosophically, your opinion could be acceptable should you use the term "spiritualism" instead of "Religion".
25 Jul 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonwell how rational do you call someone who calls superstring theory possible(something that hasn't even properly been theorized yet) yet the existence of god impossible? they are both theories that have not been proven wrong(or right). hints suggest that superstring theory might be proven in the past or at least after working on it. hints likewise suggest that god exists.
[b]…It's always interesting why the Christians say that atheism is a religion though.…
I have a theory for that: Christians are aware that their belief is based on faith, but, subconsciously (or maybe consciously?), see this as a weakness in their belief because it means their belief is not based on anything rational (unless you can call “bli ...[text shortened]...
P.S. I don’t mean to imply that ALL Christians do this -I am absolutely certain many do not.[/b]
sure it is not scientifical to assume something is real until proven real. but likewise you can't assume it is impossible also until proven impossible.
25 Jul 08
Originally posted by black beetlejust what i thought. you didn't get my post about hitler.
edit: "you don't seem to understand my point. you wouldn't make another point irrelevant to mine if you did."
I understand your point and my posts are not irrelevant.
You just say that religion is ok and that each one must be responsible for his actions. But this is not correct because "Religion" is a concept used at many levels for different reason ...[text shortened]... ceptable should you use the term "spiritualism" instead of "Religion".
i was expressing my belief that if satan or hitler or stalin or whoever told me to brush my teeth after each meals i would listen to them because i believe it to be correct. likewise if the bible, considered by zealots to be the ultimate truth and morality commands me to stone my adultress wife i would disobey because i believe it to be wrong.
and back to your opinion of what my post meant(which is also wrong).
it was argued that the ones responsible for the columbine massacre listened to marylin manson and rammstein and thus the bad bad music is responsible for the killings. should marylin manson be judged as accessory to murder? should rammstein? is jesus responsible for the crusades and inquisition when he clearly stated we should love each other more than we love ourselves. was torquemada a psychopat who just found an excuse in religion to let loose his sadism or he was just a robot programmed and directed by religion? was "religion" with him and forcing him to torture the heretics or was his nature given by his own beliefs, formed on religion, education and his own interpretation of religion?
examples could be made ad infinitum. but basically it all comes down to this: is the human being responsible for its actions? or if we do something bad we should be excused, because other people, religion, tv programs, violent music, weather, god etc fed us with information that caused our small brains to overload?
if i claim that religion forced me to kill people, should i be shown leniency? should churches where people go(that, surprise, don't kill people) be closed? should my priest be judged as accessory to murder? should my parents who didn't show me enough love or my high school girlfriend whose rejection drove me to a career as a psychotic killer be judged as accessories?