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

[FunctionalAtheist]

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.

Fear, anger, hatred... I suppose these are no less likely to lead to irrational behavior than divine inspiration.

 

[Riverwolf]

Fear, anger, hatred... I suppose these are no less likely to lead to irrational behavior than divine inspiration.

Frankly, I think they're the primary cause, regardless of whether the surface justification is "God's Will" or "Progress of Humanity". Both sound equally scary to me, when combined with these emotions.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

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.

I don't think anyone believes religion "is the only thing" that can make people violent. But having religion is like having a can of justification in your pocket, ready to use whenever you need it. Very convenient.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Frankly, I think they're the primary cause, regardless of whether the surface justification is "God's Will" or "Progress of Humanity". Both sound equally scary to me, when combined with these emotions.

Good point, and I will not argue the primary cause of the underlying action plan. Yet the justification is crucial to moving from plan to action.

 

[ChristineES]

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.

I think mental illness is more involved in something like this than religion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't think anyone believes religion "is the only thing" that can make people violent. But having religion is like having a can of justification in your pocket, ready to use whenever you need it. Very convenient.

Just about anything can be this. Even science has been used to justify horrific acts.

 

[gsa]

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.

Personally I've never experienced that when engaged with even the most ardent anti-theists. From theistic anti-gay ideologues by contrast, I sense deep, even genocidal hatred. Give me the anti-theists before theistic bigotry any day.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I think mental illness is more involved in something like this than religion.

So do you think Pastor Scott Lively is mentally ill?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Personally I've never experienced that when engaged with even the most ardent anti-theists. From theistic anti-gay ideologues by contrast, I sense deep, even genocidal hatred. Give me the anti-theists before theistic bigotry any day.

Bigotry is bigotry. Personally, I'd rather not deal with it from either side.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Just about anything can be this. Even science has been used to justify horrific acts.

Scientific fact, interpretation from science, and authority from beyond the realm of here and now; which do you see as having greater potential for unchecked horrific acts?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How do people explain the anti-religious governments that have criminalized, heavily repressed, and even killed people who are religious?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Scientific fact, interpretation from science, and authority from beyond the realm of here and now; which do you see as having greater potential for unchecked horrific acts?

Science interpretation is subject to the whims of humans. It is not perfect, it is not infallible, and when it seems to justify hatred it will be and has been used. This is much easier to see when you can see the problem is actually people, who need nothing more than what is within grasp to justify their acts.

 

[Riverwolf]

Good point, and I will not argue the primary cause of the underlying action plan. Yet the justification is crucial to moving from plan to action.

Not necessarily. It's more about being necessary in rallying support, which is more dependent on a given culture's environment at a given time.

Personally I've never experienced that when engaged with even the most ardent anti-theists. From theistic anti-gay ideologues by contrast, I sense deep, even genocidal hatred. Give me the anti-theists before theistic bigotry any day.

I've experienced it. In many cases, I do recall not seeing any significant difference in the attitude and thinking being presented to me.

Perhaps the only reason genocidal anti-theism isn't really common is simple number of adherents.

Scientific fact, interpretation from science, and authority from beyond the realm of here and now; which do you see as having greater potential for unchecked horrific acts?

Equal, because they all involve the same human element.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Science interpretation is subject to the whims of humans. It is not perfect, it is not infallible, and when it seems to justify hatred it will be and has been used. This is much easier to see when you can see the problem is actually people, who need nothing more than what is within grasp to justify their acts.

Hem, for some reason I still think "god told me to.." is a bit more absolute and subject to fewer counter arguments than "the facts are..."

You say science interpretation is subject to whim, but only so far as one is able to convince another based on observable fact. Arguments that are not subject to verification other than divine authority are synonymous with whim. It is much easier to see when you realize the problem is actually what people base their subjective reality on. Atheist need nothing more than what is within their grasp, as you say; theists need nothing other than what is not even within their grasp, not within sight of others, only other worldly, here after, absolute, revelatory, authority from god. Do as god says!!!

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

How do people explain the anti-religious governments that have criminalized, heavily repressed, and even killed people who are religious?

You'd have to be specific. Most historical 'anti-religious' movements have actually been religious movements. E.g. catholic wars on 100s of religions that murdered people who refused to convert; christian persecution of the early morman church or muslims; etc., etc., etc.

Each case would have to be looked at. E.g. imo stopping the aztecs from continuing human sacrifice might be justified. Burning them at the stake for not converting would not be.

In the relatively few instances where atheists have repressed religious groups, it is wrong to kill people for their beliefs. On the other hand, I have no problem killing people who are killing innocents in the name of their god.

More to the point, it is not what a person believes that makes them what they are, it is their actions and the effects their actions have on others. I have no problem with anyone's beliefs. I have a huge problem with anyone who causes negative impacts on others based on their beliefs.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You say science interpretation is subject to whim, but only so far as one is able to convince another based on observable fact.

Da Vinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, there are many scientist that come to mind that even though they were right, they were doubted. Science is not infallible, and because humans are inherently flawed, and because science is a human invention and concept, it cannot be expected to be accurately interpreted or used in every situation. And if you spend a few weekends reading over random journals and entries, you will see just how widely varied interpretation can be. The fact that many work under the pressure of having to have x amount of papers published a year also produces some very questionable "findings."

You'd have to be specific. Most historical 'anti-religious' movements have actually been religious movements. E.g. catholic wars on 100s of religions that murdered people who refused to convert; christian persecution of the early morman church or muslims; etc., etc., etc.

Just about any of the so-called "communist" nations come to mind. Which is another point of something that is misused, because "communist" Russia, China, Cuba, etc., are not actually communist and have very little to do with the writings of Marx and Engels. It's just whatever is withing reach, whatever sounds good, and people will use it to justify their means and ends.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Da Vinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, there are many scientist that come to mind that even though they were right, they were doubted. Science is not infallible, and because humans are inherently flawed, and because science is a human invention and concept, it cannot be expected to be accurately interpreted or used in every situation. And if you spend a few weekends reading over random journals and entries, you will see just how widely varied interpretation can be. The fact that many work under the pressure of having to have x amount of papers published a year also produces some very questionable "findings."

You keep ignoring the point. I'm not arguing what you are saying. I'm arguing that divine inspiration is a power of magnitude beyond here and now when it comes to accountability.

Just about any of the so-called "communist" nations come to mind. Which is another point of something that is misused, because "communist" Russia, China, Cuba, etc., are not actually communist and have very little to do with the writings of Marx and Engels. It's just whatever is withing reach, whatever sounds good, and people will use it to justify their means and ends.

As I've previously said, punishing people for what they believe, or for not believing what you believe, is unjust.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You keep ignoring the point. I'm not arguing what you are saying. I'm arguing that divine inspiration is a power of magnitude beyond here and now when it comes to accountability.
As I've previously said, punishing people for what they believe, or for not believing what you believe, is unjust.

You have no way to actually prove divine inspiration is a more powerful motivator when it comes to accountability. Race, rescources, many, many things have all been used without hesitation to justify hatred. Religion just happens to be closer within reach for most. But if you take away religion, they will just find something else to latch onto. Money and profit is another motivator that has caused much suffering and death, and is perhaps on par, if not in excess, of religion.
The other point was showing that even anti-theist movements can butcher and slaughter people on the same scale as religious ones.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

Actually yes, but I don't think that will lead to where you seem to be implying.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Actually yes, but I don't think that will lead to where you seem to be implying.

Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is but one example of where science has been used to justify horrible and inhumane acts.