Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Against them and with them. They're versatile like that.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Stop!
- Thread starter Devotee
- Start date
Against them and with them. They're versatile like that.
There are a wide range of beliefs and philosophies that fit within the umbrella of atheism.
BTW - now that I think about it, I wonder what you mean by "spreading atheism". AFAICT, it's one of two things:
- spreading a particular viewpoint (e.g. Maoist communism) that happens to incorporate rejection of theism.
- working against all belief in god-concepts without regard for what people replace their previous theism with, as long as it isn't another god-concept.
I don't think people generally engage in the second one. And I don't think the first one is really "spreading atheism".
How does the example of Ava Worthington go against the teachings of the Followers of Christ?
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
I have actually been very interested in the question of atheism under Soviet and Chinese versions of Communism. It is true that the Soviets aggressively promoted atheism and that they persecuted Christians. Stalin was the worst, having sent many religious leaders off to labor camps and destroyed important churches and church property. But most of the atrocities committed by the Soviets had nothing whatsoever to do with their attitude towards religion.
In 1965, I visited the SU on a Russian Language study tour from Ohio State. Our very first excursion was to see an atheist play entitled "The Divine Comedy" in a Moscow theater. The play was actually quite amusing satire in the way it poked fun at the concept of Adam and Eve in Genesis, and our group really loved it, even though most of us were Christians. What struck most of us by the end of the trip was how much the Party had come to promote itself as a substitute for religion. To us, but not our Soviet friends, Lenin had very much taken on the trappings of a Christ figure. The Soviets implicitly saw Russian orthodoxy as a rival religion. You see this more clearly in North Korea, where Kim Il Sung is promoted as able to perform miracles.
I don't want to downplay the prominence of atheism in Soviet life, but it really was not what motivated people to commit atrocities. There was no doctrine that one should go out and kill religious people. In fact, the government took a very paternalistic attitude towards people of religious faith. Christianity was officially tolerated, and I was able to meet with and talk freely to people who were believers. They felt persecuted, but not in fear of their lives. Nobody was on a crusade to do harm to believers, but there was constant social pressure to look down on religious faith.
Life under extreme theocracies is different. Atheists in Saudi Arabia do fear for their lives, as it is a capital crime for a Muslim to become an atheist. The 9/11 terrorists were motivated by deep religious faith. There is no way to get around that. They weren't sacrificing themselves for any government or political ideology. They went to their deaths believing that God approved of what they were doing and would honor their service in the afterlife. Atheism does not inspire that kind of dangerous fanaticism.
Last edited:
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Wasn't speaking of you or atheists in general, just those militant individuals who are actively seeking to eliminate religion. I assumed that was what the term anti-religion meant.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
But atheism itself necessitates none.
Either works.
I disagree on both counts.
I was speaking of terrorists, not neglectful parents.
Yes, there were a staggering number of atrocities commited under the Soviet regime. As you yourself note, some of them were geared toward stamping out religion.
Just to be clear, you guys do realize I'm not saying atheism is to be blamed for such things, right?
Yes, I realize that. Here's my point: Maoism, which happens to be atheistic, is also directly opposed to my own beliefs, which also happen to be atheistic.
Maoism is concerned with spreading Maoism, not "atheism" as some cohesive thing. It's just as opposed to, say, freethought as it is to religious beliefs.
Why?
If someone is spreading an idea that happens to reject god-concepts but the vast majority of atheists oppose it, I don't see how it can be considered "spreading atheism".
If someone is oppressing people in order to replace their ideas with Maoism, I think it's safe to say that he or she is doing it out of some sense of importance of Maoism specifically, not atheism generally.
Okay. I think I get what you're going for now.
I don't consider promotion of a particular religion to be "spreading theism" either. It's not like the Jesuits, on landing in South America and encountering the Aztecs, said "oh! You already have your own gods? Great! No need for you to accept Jesus, then." They were concerned with spreading Christianity specifically, not theism generally.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Do you still need an answer to the middle section, or do you see where I'm coming from now?
Maybe. I still make a distinction between spreading a set of beliefs that are atheistic and "spreading atheism". If atheism itself isn't a specific objective, then I don't think the label applies... and when it comes to the followers of Stalin and Mao, I think that the objective was bringing people to their form of communism, not anything else.
I mean, imagine Mao gave a speech to a town and asked his advisors about the effect. Do you think he would've considered it a positive change if they told him, "well, you got them to reject their religions, but they're still capitalists"?
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Can we agree that they're subcategories of atheism?
Probably. Which is, of course, not to say that he'd be satisfied and go home.
Maybe, but I think it makes more sense to apply "atheistic" as a label: the same way that a blue car isn't a subcategory of "blueness", I think that atheistic communism isn't really a subcategory of atheism.
Really? Personally, I think he'd have considered it to be a worthless change.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I don't understand the distinction.
Really. Of course, our speculations on the figurehead's thoughts don't really address my argument regarding the perpetrators.
I just think it's more awkward to call things "subcateogies of atheism" than it is to call them atheistic versions of things.
Take the examples I just gave: I think that calling atheistic communism a "subcategory of atheism" is akin to calling a blue car a "subcategory of blueness". I think it makes more sense to look at things the other way, with atheistic communism as a subcategory of communism, and a blue car as a subcategory of car.
To put it another way, usually we break the noun into subcategories, not the adjective.
Still, I find it bizarre that someone would go to the trouble of enforcing all the tenets of, say, Maoism through violence and oppression if they're really only concerned with the atheism part.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
OK, fair enough.But we agree that Maoism is an atheistic system, correct?
"Atheism" is a noun.
I never said "only."
Yes.
As is "blueness". I was talking about its use when it's applied to the thing in question, like "blue car" or "atheistic communism"."Atheism" is a noun.
No, you said "atheism", which is something different from, say, Maoism.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
But I never said atheism was the only motive. Just that, in all the people that did all those terrible things, it was almost certainly one for someone.
I suppose, but I'm not really sure where you're going with that.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
It all started with this:
I'm just sick of the "religion is evil" bs.
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
Through out the world today there are a spectrum of religions, gods and sects, most are benign, but a few are deadly. Over 50% of the world population falls into the Abrahamic faiths of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and a further 20% who follow the Hindu and Buhhdist faiths. 98% of these people are law abiding friendly good citizens.
Then there is the religion, where an individual, through choice has sought out and found solace in a belief system that fits with their perception of the world. This is good and shows a thought process and some intellect. However, this is rare, most "religious" people are only so, through habit and culture, and rarely apply more than a cursory glance at why they actually attend the synagogue, church or mosque, its because everyone else does.
Here in Australia there is a visible decline in religion as the nation becomes more secular, most of the church's that once dotted the suburbs and small towns, are now Mac Donalds takeaways or car parking lots. It is interesting to note that while the churchs are dissappearing, mosques are now appearing throughout the suburbs. Freedom of belief is a human right. but don't you think it strange these people come to Australia, usually to escape the terrible world of theocracy in their home countries to settle here because of the success of our secular nation. Yet they establish and perpetuated that which they have just escaped from, while Australia has taken so much time and effort to evolve away from. We are proud of our multicultural harmony but is the rate of assimilation now saturated, and therefore failing?
The real potential problem seems to be related to the relative importance placed on religion in life. In my western society, religion generally takes the backseat to normal day to day living and only crops up at weddings, births and funerals. Australian Society has its problems but it generally runs pretty smoothly. It is proudly one of the most comfortable places on earth for a human to live. However, in some sects, Religion is the focus of their lives where day to day living and their host communities are secondary. These sects are the most dangerous. They tend to abide by internal rules that isolate them, through various prohibitions and fear of being polluted, from the social mainstream. They are therefore highly antisocial, forming dangerous suburban ghettos, rather than assimilating into their host community.
They often lock themselves away from any discussion that may disagree with their point of view, and issue harsh mental and physical punishment and excommunication with any in their group that steps even slightly away from their principles. These principles are usually detrimental, the level of mature dedication required, means most fail being ordinary humans. This sets up severe psychiatric and delusional problems within these groups, especially amongst the young. examples Islamic Taliban, Hiasdic Jews, Christian Brethren etc.
It may appear I am a bit bigotted here, especially when I percieve my secular society being threatened. I try not to be. I am not anti-religious, as such, but I find it my duty, to challenge those that profess to be religious, to think why and do their beliefs have both truth and benefit behind them. This can only be a achieved through free information exchange, not prohibition. Some of these closed sects can be very dangerous and are a time bomb that should be challenged at every opportunity. Their only cure is eductaion and that takes time. A harmonious society is a non-splintered well eductated one.
Cheers
Then there is the religion, where an individual, through choice has sought out and found solace in a belief system that fits with their perception of the world. This is good and shows a thought process and some intellect. However, this is rare, most "religious" people are only so, through habit and culture, and rarely apply more than a cursory glance at why they actually attend the synagogue, church or mosque, its because everyone else does.
Here in Australia there is a visible decline in religion as the nation becomes more secular, most of the church's that once dotted the suburbs and small towns, are now Mac Donalds takeaways or car parking lots. It is interesting to note that while the churchs are dissappearing, mosques are now appearing throughout the suburbs. Freedom of belief is a human right. but don't you think it strange these people come to Australia, usually to escape the terrible world of theocracy in their home countries to settle here because of the success of our secular nation. Yet they establish and perpetuated that which they have just escaped from, while Australia has taken so much time and effort to evolve away from. We are proud of our multicultural harmony but is the rate of assimilation now saturated, and therefore failing?
The real potential problem seems to be related to the relative importance placed on religion in life. In my western society, religion generally takes the backseat to normal day to day living and only crops up at weddings, births and funerals. Australian Society has its problems but it generally runs pretty smoothly. It is proudly one of the most comfortable places on earth for a human to live. However, in some sects, Religion is the focus of their lives where day to day living and their host communities are secondary. These sects are the most dangerous. They tend to abide by internal rules that isolate them, through various prohibitions and fear of being polluted, from the social mainstream. They are therefore highly antisocial, forming dangerous suburban ghettos, rather than assimilating into their host community.
They often lock themselves away from any discussion that may disagree with their point of view, and issue harsh mental and physical punishment and excommunication with any in their group that steps even slightly away from their principles. These principles are usually detrimental, the level of mature dedication required, means most fail being ordinary humans. This sets up severe psychiatric and delusional problems within these groups, especially amongst the young. examples Islamic Taliban, Hiasdic Jews, Christian Brethren etc.
It may appear I am a bit bigotted here, especially when I percieve my secular society being threatened. I try not to be. I am not anti-religious, as such, but I find it my duty, to challenge those that profess to be religious, to think why and do their beliefs have both truth and benefit behind them. This can only be a achieved through free information exchange, not prohibition. Some of these closed sects can be very dangerous and are a time bomb that should be challenged at every opportunity. Their only cure is eductaion and that takes time. A harmonious society is a non-splintered well eductated one.
Cheers
There is something that a lot of people don't want to understand. They want to blame the object rather than the person. A gun will not get up and shoot anyone by itself, but a person will pick it up to shoot it. Do you blame the gun? No, that would be really silly. Do you blame the fact that there is a gun for an assault or a murder? No, because there is always a way to kill someone, even with the bare hands.
I can't figure out why people continue to blame something inanimate, such as religion, for doing bad things. A person thinks with their minds, don't they? If my faith were to tell me I needed to go out and kill someone, I still could not do it- I couldn't hurt anyone. A person is responsible (in most cases) for his or her own actions.
I can't figure out why people continue to blame something inanimate, such as religion, for doing bad things. A person thinks with their minds, don't they? If my faith were to tell me I needed to go out and kill someone, I still could not do it- I couldn't hurt anyone. A person is responsible (in most cases) for his or her own actions.
In what cases would they not be?