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

[Riverwolf]

Hi Riverwolf. Happy New Year to you.

And same to you.

Are all ideologies automatically deserving of respect?

Suppose, for a few concrete examples, an ideology or religion promoted slavery, or genocide, or mutilation of children, or human sacrifice, or inaccurate notions about how the world works? Why would one not have a duty to oppose it?

As far as I can see, one would not wish any of these to be promoted in any civilized society.

"Any civilized society", whenever I see it, generally only translates to "our Western cultural values". In truth, societies that are academically recognized as "civilizations" have engaged in all these, and our Western society is quite guilty of myths about "how the world works". Perhaps not the physical mechanics, but many of the social ones.

Our conception of "we are more civilized than the barbaric world, and have a duty to spread the light of civilization to that dark barbarity" was inherited by Rome: an empire that used that exact same justification to commit genocide, both genetic and cultural, such that we almost lost the entire pre-Roman European world were it not for Christian monks later doing their best to hold on to their favorite stories.

The majority of people I've seen apply this attitude towards religions or other cultures are reasonable: they have no intention of using violent imperialism to bring our enlightenment to the darkened world. What I worry about is people who are less mentally stable latching on to the attitude and also being charismatic enough to draw a large enough following to do just that.

Therefore, there is something I oppose that's not unique to our culture, but present in everyone: the single story. Basically the idea that everyone in the barbaric world lives in pure hell on earth, unable to be truly happy until we bring our light. It's not only nonsense, it's offensive. It's an echo of the white savior, even when it's not intended to be so. It's right up there with the stuff you listed, and because it's part of my own culture, I am in a better position to oppose it. There's not that pesky language barrier, for one.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This was actually pseudo science used as an excuse. It was more of a religious belief taken on faith since there was no good evidence.

The general idea of genetic purity is not pseudo science. People pay really good money for pure breed dogs, horses, and other things. If you don't allow certain individuals of a population with certain genetic traits to reproduce, those genes will eventually be bred out of existence.

If an ideology is clearly factually inaccurate and socially noxious, why would it not be a civic duty to oppose it? I do not see that hate comes into it.

This is an extremely slipper slope. While there comes a time I do feel rights should be reigned for the rights of others, such as keeping WBC away from the funerals they protests, because there are so many religious groups who build homes for the poor, feed the poor, operate charitable medical operations, operate schools, and have contributed to significant breakthroughs in science and works of art, I see no reason to find it inherently "obnoxious" or to oppose it. Because some people may find a reason to self-destruct in religion and some may find the strength for sobriety, it seems to suggest there is something deeper at work than religion.

You say these quoteS are taken out of context, yet you only try to push forward positivity for one of them. Is there something I am missing?

That there is a big difference between acts of aggression and acts of self defense.

Name something else? This isn't referring to a good person being forced to do something bad via blackmail or coercion.

Racial superiority. Resources. Nationalism. Jealousy. Hatred. Situation. Greed. Power. Mental disorders. Oppression. Repression. Discrimination. Desperation. Charismatic leaders. Crime/Justice/Vigilantism. Environment. Being cheated out of something. Love. Bullying. There are a lot of reasons as to why good people sometimes do bad things.

 

[serp777]

The general idea of genetic purity is not pseudo science. People pay really good money for pure breed dogs, horses, and other things. If you don't allow certain individuals of a population with certain genetic traits to reproduce, those genes will eventually be bred out of existence.

This is an extremely slipper slope. While there comes a time I do feel rights should be reigned for the rights of others, such as keeping WBC away from the funerals they protests, because there are so many religious groups who build homes for the poor, feed the poor, operate charitable medical operations, operate schools, and have contributed to significant breakthroughs in science and works of art, I see no reason to find it inherently "obnoxious" or to oppose it. Because some people may find a reason to self-destruct in religion and some may find the strength for sobriety, it seems to suggest there is something deeper at work than religion.

That there is a big difference between acts of aggression and acts of self defense.

Racial superiority. Resources. Nationalism. Jealousy. Hatred. Situation. Greed. Power. Mental disorders. Oppression. Repression. Discrimination. Desperation. Charismatic leaders. Crime/Justice/Vigilantism. Environment. Being cheated out of something. Love. Bullying. There are a lot of reasons as to why good people sometimes do bad things.

its a pseudo science for various reasons--for example you can't breed for specific traits like intelligence. Attempts to make rats progressively smarter by selecting the smartest rats have failed. Breeding for dogs and other animals also leads to certain genetic and immune system issues, like how various dog species are more prone to diseases. Interestingly enough, diversifying the genes of dogs by having them breed with entirely different species actually fixes these genetic problems and leads to healthier dogs. So breeding for specific traits in dogs has actually made dogs worse in general. The bull dog is a good example of this.

its basically genetic pseudo science essentially. Not based on reality, but is instead used as a political tool from pseudo scientists who didn't understand. Genetic purity does not lead to improvements. Interestingly enough one trait that can be breed for is domesticatability--that's because certain animals already were evolving to become more social--in conclusion only certain very specific traits can be breed for assuming the animals have the correct propensity.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

its basically genetic pseudo science essentially. Not based on reality, but is instead used as a political tool from pseudo scientists who didn't understand.

Just because the ends are not always good does not make it pseudo science. Lab rats, for example, have been breed to have be genetically similar. An experiment in Russia has taken a group of wild fox, and over the last 20-some years they have selectively bred two groups, one fully domesticated and the other hyper aggressive. And because intelligence has some genetic basis, you can't breed people and make them intelligent, but theoretically you can breed the potential into a group. I do not disagree that is has been used as a political tool, but the very idea of selective breeding confirms the reality of genetic purity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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 works like this. First atheists destroy all identities, like marriage, family, nationality, masculinity, femininity, and whatever, just general destruction of all emotional life. Then you get ideological groups of people who have an identity crisis caused by atheism, and have a sort of ruthless emotional survival mode. The emotional survival mode can be nationalism, religious, racist, economic or whatever. In that emotional survival mode all hell can break loose.

Generally atheists have a radical and absurd ideology in that they provide no accommodation for subjectivity at all. It is fact, fact, fact and....just destroying opinion, expression of emotion, altogether.

 

[serp777]

Just because the ends are not always good does not make it pseudo science. Lab rats, for example, have been breed to have be genetically similar. An experiment in Russia has taken a group of wild fox, and over the last 20-some years they have selectively bred two groups, one fully domesticated and the other hyper aggressive. And because intelligence has some genetic basis, you can't breed people and make them intelligent, but theoretically you can breed the potential into a group. I do not disagree that is has been used as a political tool, but the very idea of selective breeding confirms the reality of genetic purity.

Genetic purity was believed to lead to superiority, which is just false though. That was the pseudo science part right there--it really just leads to a lot of disease and sickness. The science never suggested that it lead to superiority but the pseudo scientists interpreted it that way.

 

[serp777]

It works like this. First atheists destroy all identities, like marriage, family, nationality, masculinity, femininity, and whatever, just general destruction of all emotional life. Then you get ideological groups of people who have an identity crisis caused by atheism, and have a sort of ruthless emotional survival mode. The emotional survival mode can be nationalism, religious, racist, economic or whatever. In that emotional survival mode all hell can break loose.

Generally atheists have a radical and absurd ideology in that they provide no accommodation for subjectivity at all. It is fact, fact, fact and....just destroying opinion, expression of emotion, altogether.

Who are atheists? You keep treating them like a group, which is ridiculous. There isn't an a-fairy group, or an a-celestial teapot group. And general destruction of emotional life including marriage? You're really going off the deep end here. And there is no evidence for any of these not to mention you can't pinpoint a group of atheists. But lets talk about some prominent Islamic countries--stoning women to death for adulterating, preventing education, shariyah law, hosting a variety of terrorist cells, slaughtering homosexuals, genital mutilation, oppressing other sects like the kurds, warfare between shiites and sunnis, and much much more.

Then you bring up all this nonsense about emotional survival mode--you don't need religion to have emotions, and its preposterously ignorant to suggest otherwise. And you certainly haven't demonstrated that atheists destroys identities, in fact i would argue that Islam represses identities by forcing people to adhere to their strict and intolerant beliefs.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Then you bring up all this nonsense about emotional survival mode--you don't need religion to have emotions, and its preposterously ignorant to suggest otherwise..

In reality atheists are following the stereotype of the emotionless mr Spock in their argumentation.

 

[McBell]

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

Yes, there are some anti-theists who are as bad as they claim theists to be.
But then, what did you expect with theists setting the bar?

 

[McBell]

In reality atheists are following the stereotype of the emotionless mr Spock in their argumentation.

As if you know anything about reality...

 

[Desert Snake]

Depends on how one is defining 'religion'. If someone opposes something that falls under someones 'religious beliefs,', so what? Should they not oppose it because someone says its their religion?

 

[serp777]

In reality atheists are following the stereotype of the emotionless mr Spock in their argumentation.

Wow lol. Who are you talking about when you say atheists? I don't see anyone holding up any signs or forming any organizations? Are A-fairies also emotionless? How about A-celestialteapotsits?

It's also ironic considering that Mr. Spock was always logical and tended to be high intelligent; he was frequently correct as well so your point is pretty bad. Arguments from Muslims like you are always entirely based on emotion and never based on logic or being rational. Being more emotional doesn't make you more correct. The validity of your argument isn't determined by how much pathos you can use. All that's left for you to do is to cite the Quran and then you'll be a good little fundamentalist.

 

[Riverwolf]

In reality atheists are following the stereotype of the emotionless mr Spock in their argumentation.

Not really. I've seen plenty of emotion from atheists, on par with theists; I've seen plenty of academic dryness from both as well.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Genetic purity was believed to lead to superiority, which is just false though. That was the pseudo science part right there--it really just leads to a lot of disease and sickness. The science never suggested that it lead to superiority but the pseudo scientists interpreted it that way.

That is a misuse of it's application. That does not make it pseudo science. And it doesn't just lead to disease and illness. The reason why it seems to lead to just that is because the bad genes are already present, aren't targeted to be bred out, and they are passed on much more frequently. Carefully guided selective breeding reduces this chance, to the point we have things like lab rats that are essentially all a bunch of genetic copies of each other minus the disease and illness.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Any government like this that I can think of was a response to religious oppression. The Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, etc., were all actions that overthrew monarchies whose power was propped up by the church.

However, none of these governments were as anti-religion as various religious governments have been. On average, it was probably worse to be a Catholic in England under Protestant Henry VIII than in France under Robespierre.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I hope I don't get in trouble for this but ISIS sucks!

 

[Looncall]

Depends on how one is defining 'religion'. If someone opposes something that falls under someones 'religious beliefs,', so what? Should they not oppose it because someone says its their religion?

This is a very important point.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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?

In answer to the title, Yes.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In reality atheists are following the stereotype of the emotionless mr Spock in their argumentation.

Beam me aboard, Scotty, and quickly!

 

[Robert.Evans]

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

Being mentally unstable is being mentally unstable.... religion just as atheism, might be a factor... but the point is, they are not right of mind.