Isn't anti-religion just as hateful as they make religion out to be?

[1137]

For example, I saw a post elsewhere that said something about separating Islam from the planet in response to ISIS. You can imagine how my point that ISIS =! Islam went over. Further, in such contexts, the anti-religious hold to strict, old, and literal interpretation of the texts (ironically). Spreading this hate and ignorance, how are these movements ideogically any different?

 

[gsa]

What do you mean by anti-religion or religion?

 

[Revoltingest]

@1137
You can edit your title to be what you want.
As I recall there's a little icon thingie you can click on to get that option.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I am strongly anti-religious and anti-theistic. I do not hate anyone and get along with religious people all the time. It is the religion I am opposing not the person. This is how I am towards people of drastic political opinions. It is not incumbent upon me to hate anyone simply because it is not fruitful and I lack the sort of interest to hate other people.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Anti-religion thought has all the potential to be peaceful and painless. The same cannot be said for the opposite.

 

[ChristineES]

I agree with what others have said anti-religion/theist, etc is not the same as anti-religious people/theists.
I keep saying, however, that it isn't the religions themselves that cause the troubles, but the people who follow them. For instance, the Muslims that live in my area are peaceful people; I don't want to blame terrorism and ISIS on them, I can't do that in good conscience. I've met many kindhearted people: Both theist and atheist. I've met some rather mean spirited people, too: Both theist and atheist.

 

[Ultimatum]

EDIT: my title is poorly worded. It should say "... and hateful as they make religion out to be". If a mod could just change that I'd appreciate it, the wording is so improperly worded and counters my entire point.

For example, I saw a post elsewhere that said something about separating Islam from the planet in response to ISIS. You can imagine how my point that ISIS =! Islam went over. Further, in such contexts, the anti-religious hold to strict, old, and literal interpretation of the texts (ironically). Spreading this hate and ignorance, how are these movements ideogically any different?

I'm afraid that ISIS should be a quiet happiness for Muslims around the world. At least, the Muslims who follow completely and wholly the Koran teachings. (Which is what a true adherent should do, right?)
Warring jihad with non-adherents (convert or die) is clearly a message that the Koran upholds and supports. There are at least 109 verses in the Koran that support this.

"Spreading this hate and ignorance, how are these movements ideogically any different?"
One party (Islam) does it in the name of ridiculous, unproven claims.
Another party says it in the name of safety (in your case, a person wanted to destroy Islam.)

Islam is the most violent and dangerous ideology in the public's eyes. Therefore, we must control it so that it does not overcome and overimplement itself into modern Western countries.

 

[Spiderman]

I am strongly anti-religious and anti-theistic. I do not hate anyone and get along with religious people all the time. It is the religion I am opposing not the person. This is how I am towards people of drastic political opinions. It is not incumbent upon me to hate anyone simply because it is not fruitful and I lack the sort of interest to hate other people.

That is so true and such an important distinction to make

 

[4consideration]

Thread title edited, per OP request.

 

[LuisDantas]

For example, I saw a post elsewhere that said something about separating Islam from the planet in response to ISIS. You can imagine how my point that ISIS =! Islam went over. Further, in such contexts, the anti-religious hold to strict, old, and literal interpretation of the texts (ironically). Spreading this hate and ignorance, how are these movements ideogically any different?

It seems to me that it is best to actually check the facts there - and in that respect, well, there is hardly any true question.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm afraid that ISIS should be a quiet happiness for Muslims around the world. At least, the Muslims who follow completely and wholly the Koran teachings. (Which is what a true adherent should do, right?)

I'm afraid every Muslim I've talked to about it, in real life, thinks ISIS is a piece of **** who are tarnishing their religion. I'm afraid the facts are, the Quran is far less aggressive than the Bible, as quite often the verses people point to "prove" how "blood thirsty" it is, when taken in full context, very frequently are cases of defense (this being unlike the Bible in which god, on multiple occasions, demanded aggression, invasion, and genocide). I'm also afraid that science that has been used to justify atrocities throughout the world, including here in America. I'm afraid people will latch onto whatever it is they want to to justify their hatred and violence. Even if they have to make up some lame excuse (which is pretty much all the time), they will find a way to justify their violence. Religion not required.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

EDIT: my title is poorly worded. It should say "... and hateful as they make religion out to be". If a mod could just change that I'd appreciate it, the wording is so improperly worded and counters my entire point.

For example, I saw a post elsewhere that said something about separating Islam from the planet in response to ISIS. You can imagine how my point that ISIS =! Islam went over. Further, in such contexts, the anti-religious hold to strict, old, and literal interpretation of the texts (ironically). Spreading this hate and ignorance, how are these movements ideogically any different?

So if someone wanted to kill the person that raped their daughter, you wouldn't see the difference? Both hate, both wish to destroy. That is true. Someone that hates nazis and searched the world to kill them...you can't see the difference?

Let's step back a bit and ask a basic question. Is it ever ok to cause harm to another? If you answer no to this then we could have a very long discussion in another thread. I say yes it is ok to cause harm to another at certain times. Self defense is a good example.

So the question then becomes under what condition(s) is harm justifiable? I think at this point we might be able to draw a distinction between theistic and atheistic ideology. True that everyone needs to be judged as an individual based on their own actions. But the theist can find justification for rape, murder, and genocide based on revelation and authority, while the atheist has no such appeal to authority. The atheist does not have the luxury of absolute justification of their hatred based on the interpret it anyway you want revelation.

I'm reminded of a recent event. A woman killed her 10 year old son because she believed god told her it was the only way to ensure he went to heaven. A commenter said he could think of a more loving act than to condemn herself to torment in this world and hell in the next so that her son would be guaranteed a place in heaven. The commenter said "if you truly believe this, what else could you do?"

A friend called this insanity. But there is nothing at all wrong with the commenters logic. IFF this is what you believe then he is correct regarding his comments. The insanity is the standard of truth used to arrive at the tenant; the negligence in questioning ones tenants.

The difference my friend, is that the theist gets his marching orders from another world. An immaterial world to come that no one knows if it even exists. A world that no one can agree what the marching orders are. An authority that can be used at whim to justify genocide, rape, murder, torture and all other sorts of things, with no one to answer to here and now.

The atheist has no such appeal. The atheist must answer to here and now. He can not afford to butcher here and now and charge it to the hereafter.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

The theist can unquestionably justify the murder of their own child. Ask Abraham. Ask this woman who did it just a few weeks ago. Ask the commenter. The atheist must seek justification here and now.

 

[Riverwolf]

For example, I saw a post elsewhere that said something about separating Islam from the planet in response to ISIS. You can imagine how my point that ISIS =! Islam went over. Further, in such contexts, the anti-religious hold to strict, old, and literal interpretation of the texts (ironically). Spreading this hate and ignorance, how are these movements ideogically any different?

Far as I'm concerned, they're based on the exact same type of thinking as that which gave rise to things like the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition.

I've come to question whether all self-identified anti-theists hold views like that, but many that I've talked to have certainly come across like that: as if the simple fact that I have a religion made me a lesser human being than them.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Far as I'm concerned, they're based on the exact same type of thinking as that which gave rise to things like the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition.

I've come to question whether all self-identified anti-theists hold views like that, but many that I've talked to have certainly come across like that: as if the simple fact that I have a religion made me a lesser human being than them.

I agree with this. But the OP was contrasting religious (ISIS as an example) with atheistic attitudes.

 

[Riverwolf]

The theist can unquestionably justify the murder of their own child. Ask Abraham. Ask this woman who did it just a few weeks ago. Ask the commenter. The atheist must seek justification here and now.

Unless, of course, they're mentally unstable.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Unless, of course, they're mentally unstable.

Is it possible to be mentally stable and murder your own 10 year old child in cold blood...thinking it was best for them?

 

[Riverwolf]

I agree with this. But the OP was contrasting religious (ISIS as an example) with atheistic attitudes.

I think the two are certainly capable of causing different behaviors in the same person.

But based on what I've seen some anti-theists say, and the attitudes they've presented... well, many, many times it's looked exactly like the sort of thing anti-homosexuality folks have said, indicating that there's something other than specifically religious or non-religious thinking at work.

My money is on Fear being the primary thing at work.

 

[Riverwolf]

Is it possible to be mentally stable and murder your own 10 year old child in cold blood...thinking it was best for them?

As a person with very little knowledge on the state of mental illnesses beyond the Autistic Spectrum, I think I can say most likely not.

But it is possible to completely eradicate cultures different from one's own, or attempt to change a person's basic nature, justifying that it's "for their own good", and still be perfectly sound in mind.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The theist can unquestionably justify the murder of their own child. Ask Abraham. Ask this woman who did it just a few weeks ago. Ask the commenter. The atheist must seek justification here and now.

Even the violent religious zealot must seek justification, and even an atheist will find justification. Anyone who thinks religion is the only thing that can make people violent and justify violence and discrimination may want to look into Social Darwinism, eugenics, and other "standards" of scientifically based genetic purity violence.