Atheism

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1674144' date='Feb 4 2009, 16.39']I wasn't claiming that religion is at the heart of it all nor would I in most instances. There are always other factors in play as well. But that doesn't change the fact that religion is very often amongst the primary factors.[/quote]But can that be expected to always be the case in the future? Christianity rarely persecuted others when they were in the minority in the Roman Empire, but once it became the official religion, things began to swing the other way. Could similar patterns be expected once theism becomes the minority position and given the right (or wrong) cultural conditions? I am not extolling the virtues of religion nor am I somehow fearing "the Godless persecuting the God-fearing," but rather, it is simply my own cynicism regarding humanity's ability (or perhaps sadistic desire) to persecute each other over their ideologies and beliefs.

[potsherds]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1674169' date='Feb 4 2009, 21.50']But can that be expected to always be the case in the future? Christianity rarely persecuted others when they were in the minority in the Roman Empire, but once it became the official religion, things began to swing the other way. Could similar patterns be expected once theism becomes the minority position and given the right (or wrong) cultural conditions? I am not extolling the virtues of religion nor am I somehow fearing "the Godless persecuting the God-fearing," but rather, it is simply my own cynicism regarding humanity's ability (or perhaps sadistic desire) to persecute each other over their ideologies and beliefs.[/quote]
That's a good point and a valid concern. Quite frankly, I think it likely that if the irreligious ever hold a distinct majority over the religious, persecution is possible, and depending on the culture, even likely. Although I doubt it would ever become part of laws, it would be a cultural attitude toward religious people. And yes, that's likely due more to humanity's common desire to persecute those who don't ascribe to the mainstream. Just my personal opinion though, I suppose I'm a cynic too.

[HT Reddy]

[quote name='Meili' post='1674092' date='Feb 4 2009, 21.13']I'll agree here HT, whether the belief in god or the disbelief of him has killed more doesn't really matter. (so I'll leave the priest thing for another thread, just wanted you to know I did see it) :thumbsup:

But when talking about religion staying a crucial part of the community people live in, I would imagine each individual religion in question and each community should be examined. That is what the first post talked about, the community. But as far as to it relating to whether or not their is a creator, the argument of murders doesn't matter.[/quote]

I do think this is the most thoughtful thing you've said and I agree completely.

[quote name='Jon AS' post='1674095' date='Feb 4 2009, 21.17']Is the comparison between theism and atheism in this respect particularly meaningful? No, but on the other hand I think it [i]is[/i] fair to point out that you'll be hard pressed to find incidents of atheists killing people for reasons rooted in their atheism, particularly when someone has just claimed the opposite, equalling the bodycounts of religion and atheism.[/quote]

That's fair enough, I was merely responding to the suggestion that atheism has [i]never[/i] motivated people to commit atrocities. Occasionally, it has. Since we all agree on that, we can leave it there.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1674169' date='Feb 4 2009, 15.50']But can that be expected to always be the case in the future? Christianity rarely persecuted others when they were in the minority in the Roman Empire, but once it became the official religion, things began to swing the other way. Could similar patterns be expected once theism becomes the minority position and given the right (or wrong) cultural conditions? I am not extolling the virtues of religion nor am I somehow fearing "the Godless persecuting the God-fearing," but rather, it is simply my own cynicism regarding humanity's ability (or perhaps sadistic desire) to persecute each other over their ideologies and beliefs.[/quote]

Sure its possible. I take a bit of a wishful thinking, modernist approach and believe that we're slowly but surely growing out of that phase. That by the time such a thing comes about, we'll be a more progressive society (at least in the western world) and can tolerate the multitude of beliefs and persuasions without persecution.

Further, I don't see what vested interest non-belief (general catch-all category) would have in enforcing itself on others. Non-belief starts from the premise that all of these -ism's are man made inventions, so there's no overwhelming need for dogma and strict doctrine in order to get god's will right, since the matter is largely irrelevant to them. (aka, there is no 'god' nor his 'will', so there's nothing to enforce, let them all approach it how they like.) Also, we've progressed enough to where diversity (cultural, religious, ethnic, whatever) is no longer considered an anathema and threat to the state (Western world here for the most part. And sure there are still examples, but its a much less paramount concern than it used to be), where unity (homogeneity) must be enforced at all costs, so some significant level of multiculturalism is likely to be accepted. Plus with the rise of nationalism, there's no longer a need for religion to play the prime role of 'uniting the people'. So other differences (religion, ethnicity, etc) are acceptable because at the end of the day 'We're all Americans' is enough to united and ease most divisions.

I don't think a dominant position inevitably leads to persecution. I also think some -ism's due to their message and tenets are much more prone to persecution than others. Non-belief taken in a vacuum would I think be much less prone to persecution than most other dominant beliefs. Naturally a vacuum doesn't exist, but attaching a 'more harmless' -ism to a bunch of other -isms is generally better than the opposite. Of course given the right or wrong cultural conditions, the matter becomes moot. Humanity is capable of anything no matter which -ism they decide to attach to themselves. But some -ism's are less likely to lead to certain results than others. So...play the odds.

As for Christianity, even before they came to power in the Roman Empire there were early heresies they attempted to suppress. Sure they lacked the power at this point to actively persecute heretics, but they were more than happy to label them such, to preach against them, to throw them out of churches, call them dogs of satan and other fun stuff. Hell, we got our first excommunication in the 2nd century, long before Christianity became the official religion of the empire. So while they couldn't feed them to the lions YET, they were certainly expressing an active desire to do so.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1674200' date='Feb 4 2009, 17.20']As for Christianity, even before they came to power in the Roman Empire there were early heresies they attempted to suppress. Sure they lacked the power at this point to actively persecute heretics, but they were more than happy to label them such, to preach against them, to throw them out of churches, call them dogs of satan and other fun stuff. Hell, we got our first excommunication in the 2nd century, long before Christianity became the official religion of the empire. So while they couldn't feed them to the lions YET, they were certainly expressing an active desire to do so.[/quote]I will reply to the rest of your post later, but I do not have the time currently. But based on most historically preserved documents, these were largely battles of words and semantics. Physical violence was rarely employed since depriving one of spiritual salvation was seen as being a worse fate.

[Guest Raidne]

Question: why are these threads about atheism always about Christianity? There are a few other major world religions out there. Being an atheist isn't just about rejecting Christianity.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Raidne' post='1674256' date='Feb 4 2009, 17.03']Question: why are these threads about atheism always about Christianity? There are a few other major world religions out there. Being an atheist isn't just about rejecting Christianity.[/quote]

I reject all of them. But the vast majority of this board (and really most places where you're gonna find an internet debate on religion) comes from a Judeo-Christian cultural background. So its by far the one most of us are most familiar with, so alot of arguments are going to be directed towards it. We have tried at several points to discuss theism generally and generically, but Christianity will naturally seep in there because again, its what we're most familiar with.

Plus most of us probably grew up in Christian households. If we live in a country with a dominant religion, its probably Christianity. So there's not as much sense of bigotry or intolerance if we rip into it. They already run everything (overstating obviously, but you get the picture), so they can stand a little heat. I have no qualms with going after Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism (that one might be tough), Scientology, Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, Zoroastrianism, or Jehovah's Witnesses...but most of those don't have too many defenders on the board, so what's the point? (outside of the catholics and protestants of course.)

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Raidne' post='1674256' date='Feb 4 2009, 18.03']Question: why are these threads about atheism always about Christianity? There are a few other major world religions out there. Being an atheist isn't just about rejecting Christianity.[/quote]For some atheists it does not just involve the disbelief of God but of consciously rejecting the religion of one's dominant culture and one's process of separation from it. Also theists like to share their own experiences or opinions, and the majority of the theists on this board are Christians, the dominant religious culture from which a number of atheists live amongst. If you would like, I can pretend like I was Buddhist and then I rejected it, and then I can post some vitriolic anecdotes on the evils of Buddhism and how I overcame Buddhism and conquered superstition with my 1337 rational mind.

[The Khaleesi]

[quote name='Raidne' post='1674256' date='Feb 5 2009, 12.03']Question: why are these threads about atheism always about Christianity? There are a few other major world religions out there. Being an atheist isn't just about rejecting Christianity.[/quote]

I fully agree. I reject all religions/cults etc. Also astrology, psychics, ghosts and UFOs. but that's a whole nother thread!!

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='The Khaleesi' post='1674331' date='Feb 4 2009, 18.03']I fully agree. I reject all religions/cults etc. Also astrology, psychics, ghosts and UFOs. but that's a whole nother thread!![/quote]

Wait, UFOs too???

[Tyria]

[quote name='Raidne' post='1673873' date='Feb 4 2009, 14.47']The fact that it's pretty close to the end of the Roman Republic and the start of the Empire makes it work out OK for me as a western calendar. I've gotten out of the habit of using BCE/CE, but that's a good system.[/quote]

I got so used to the BCE/CE system during my undergrad (this system is what the majority of archaeologists use now), that I get a little squiggy when I see BC/AD. BC I get, I just think "ah, they just forgot the E", but I actually have to stop and think for a sec about AD. Silly, I know, but there it is.

Not to take the thread back, but I just wanted to go back to the whole "community" thing for a sec. I'm not sure if I'm really understanding, but is there really nothing social outside of the church for some who have posted in this thread? That seems so foreign to me. I grew up in a small city in Canada, which I think is considered a christian country, but no church or religious organisation has ever been any part of my life. Ever. Sure, I grew up with protestant, catholic, and jewish kids, but we all hung out, and still do, without any mention of faith. I knew that they all had to go to church or whatever at certain times, but we just got together after. It was never an issue. I didn't judge them for their religions, they didn't judge me for my lack of religion. It just never came up.

Even as an adult, I have so many different social circles that have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Co-workers, undergrad friends, masters degree friends, friends I grew up with, friends in the small town we moved to in high school (and where my mum still lives), my beloved punk/metal mutants, all who have nothing to do with religion.

I feel like I'm going on a bit, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around it. Or maybe I just read stuff wrong :unsure:

[The Khaleesi]

I belong to a book club, a community garden, a loose group of musicians, a BIG family, I'm a blood donor (in NZ it's voluntary and unpaid), I have a local pub where I meet friends, a nice circle of workmates, and I belong to a Union. Again - all nothing to do with religion. There are HEAPS of social/community/voluntary things happening here, all organised by members of the community.

[The Khaleesi]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1674350' date='Feb 5 2009, 13.29']Wait, UFOs too???[/quote]

(hides tinfoil helmet) Yes, even UFOs!

[Eponine]

[quote name='Raidne' post='1674256' date='Feb 4 2009, 18.03']Question: why are these threads about atheism always about Christianity? There are a few other major world religions out there. Being an atheist isn't just about rejecting Christianity.[/quote]

I'm practically an expert on matters of Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christianity. I've read the entire Bible multiple times, I've seen all of the Bob Jones University Press school curricula as well as some from other Christian publishers, I've been to numerous churches and three Christian counselors, done Christian marriage counseling, I know people from about every Evan/Fundy denomination or Bible college possible and I've read numerous books both popular and scholarly on Christianity.

I can't claim so for any other religion. Although I do have some scholarly knowledge from personal research, I can't make any real claim to understand what total immersion in different religion is like. So I tend not to go after any specifics about those religions, because I wouldn't like to misrepresent them, and because even though I'm an atheist myself, I feel a bit frustrated when I see someone who didn't grow up Christian totally misunderstand Christian culture or values and make an argument based on a wrong idea.

In my personal life, I often find it necessary to explain specifically "why I'm not a Christian" and I often use the Bible or Christian theology to do so and stay away from more general arguments about the existence of God. Although I theoretically reject other religions, it's never really an issue. I've never had to defend a position against any other religion.

[Eponine]

I think the whole "community" thing is largely an issue for EX-religious people rather than simply NON-religious people. Like I (or actually Matrim) mentioned earlier, the church tends to be all encompassing of social, charitable, musical, sometimes even professional activities, and a sudden break from that environment can leave one feeling extremely lost (no pun intended) and unsure how to start making new connections, especially if one has lost almost all their friends and even family in the deconversion.

[Meili]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1674247' date='Feb 4 2009, 16.58']I will reply to the rest of your post later, but I do not have the time currently. But based on most historically preserved documents, these were largely battles of words and semantics. Physical violence was rarely employed since depriving one of spiritual salvation was seen as being a worse fate.[/quote]

I don't know where you read those. In the very conception of Christianity they felt the compulsion to save your soul by telling to convert, wanting you to and soon forcing you to. Once it became popular they wouldn't even kill you if you were a heretic, you had to admit you were wrong and/or accept Jesus as your savior....then they killed you. I have seldom read of a time, where the mass of Christians (Muslims were tolerant for a bit but jumped back in the intolerance business soon as they were down) were just fine and dandy punishing people by damning their souls, usually they liked a little blood first. And they were especially intolerant during Christianity's beginning.

Shit, Paul of Tarsus was as batshit crazy as you could get and when not causing riots himself, the people he converted were just starting to do it themselves. They would get it down pat later, they had just entered the torturing and killing business, so I'll give them a pass due to impractice. If we are ever going to get off the who killed more, as if it were even a contest, don't make moronic statements like physical violence was never used. Physical violence has become an art form thanks to them, starting then.

Let's move onto some fun stuff, if not the crazy antics of those two wild and wacky guys, Paul and Mohammad, then about the community. Maybe we could talk about what great community services Scientology might offer us? Or where our community would be if Amish and Quakers ruled? Maybe in some communities we could ban bacon for one group or hamburgers for another?

[b]In fact, does religion have a single thing to offer the community that a community with no religion or god can't offer? Please, tell me a single redeeming quality that is irreplaceable. [/b]

[Deluge]

[quote name='Raidne' post='1674256' date='Feb 4 2009, 18.03']Question: why are these threads about atheism always about Christianity? There are a few other major world religions out there. Being an atheist isn't just about rejecting Christianity.[/quote]
I was raised Catholic, so Christian dogma generally and Catholic dogma specifically is what I'm familiar with. I'm also aware of a great deal of sexism on the part of many other religions, so I'm comfortable criticizing that, but when it comes to a straight up discussion of those religions, I'm out of my league. Plus, as many people have said, I live in America, so I'm more likely to have my worldview be attacked by Christians than say, Zoroastrians. Those fucking Zoroastrians.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Meili' post='1674412' date='Feb 4 2009, 20.22']I don't know where you read those. In the very conception of Christianity they felt the compulsion to save your soul by telling to convert, wanting you to and soon forcing you to. Once it became popular they wouldn't even kill you if you were a heretic, you had to admit you were wrong and/or accept Jesus as your savior....then they killed you. I have seldom read of a time, where the mass of Christians (Muslims were tolerant for a bit but jumped back in the intolerance business soon as they were down) were just fine and dandy punishing people by damning their souls, usually they liked a little blood first. And they were especially intolerant during Christianity's beginning.

Shit, Paul of Tarsus was as batshit crazy as you could get and when not causing riots himself, the people he converted were just starting to do it themselves. They would get it down pat later, they had just entered the torturing and killing business, so I'll give them a pass due to impractice. If we are ever going to get off the who killed more, as if it were even a contest, don't make moronic statements like physical violence was never used. Physical violence has become an art form thanks to them, starting then.[/quote]Your sources?

[quote]Let's move onto some fun stuff, if not the crazy antics of those two wild and wacky guys, Paul and Mohammad, then about the community. Maybe we could talk about what great community services Scientology might offer us? Or where our community would be if Amish and Quakers ruled? Maybe in some communities we could ban bacon for one group or hamburgers for another?[/quote]Strawman.

[quote][b]In fact, does religion have a single thing to offer the community that a community with no religion or god can't offer? Please, tell me a single redeeming quality that is irreplaceable. [/b][/quote]Let me go back and quote myself since you failed to read it: "Many of these services can be provided elsewhere by professionals, specialists, and other community services, but churches frequently provide a central and common location for all of this to occur." Now let me spell that out for you even more. Each individual service that a church or religion can offer can be provided elsewhere in other portions of the community, but it is predominately in modern Christian churches that synthesize these services into a neat little package. Now tell me, what singular non-religious organization can currently provide all the services that are available to many churches?

[C S]

[quote name='Eponine' post='1674410' date='Feb 4 2009, 19.20']I think the whole "community" thing is largely an issue for EX-religious people rather than simply NON-religious people. Like I (or actually Matrim) mentioned earlier, the church tends to be all encompassing of social, charitable, musical, sometimes even professional activities, and a sudden break from that environment can leave one feeling extremely lost (no pun intended) and unsure how to start making new connections, especially if one has lost almost all their friends and even family in the deconversion.[/quote]
Eponine,
Have you ever looked into the Unitarian Universalists? Since you seem to be searching for something to replace your Church family, this might be a good fit for you. From my understanding, these folks provide all the trappings of Church such as community, emotional support, theological explorations, and an opportunity to do charitable work, but actual belief is optional. They are also historically rooted in Christianity, so you would share somewhat of a common background with them.

Please note that I am not particularly knowledgeable about UUs, and, obviously, my only knowledge of you is through these boards, but from what little I know, it seems like it might be worth a shot. Just trying to be helpful.

[Meili]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1674451' date='Feb 4 2009, 20.02']Your sources?[/quote]

About Paul? The Bible. The riots Paul notes in Acts and Romans, the times he was run out of town for inciting them, the times people rose up with him along with the times he says he barely escaped with his life because of a backlash. About Christianity and violence? You'll have to be more specific.

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1674451' date='Feb 4 2009, 20.02']Now let me spell that out for you even more. Each individual service that a church or religion can offer can be provided elsewhere in other portions of the community[/quote] So then why is religion needed?

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1674451' date='Feb 4 2009, 20.02']but it is predominately in modern Christian churches that synthesize these services into a neat little package.[/quote] neat? hardly. I didn't know either each church in each community or each community with one church provides all the [b]needed[/b] functions.

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1674451' date='Feb 4 2009, 20.02']Now tell me, what singular non-religious organization can currently provide all the services that are available to many churches?[/quote]

I assumed your argument hinged on more than a 'better a devil we know then a devil we don't' outlook. So your argument is because no mass non-believer organization has risen to take the reins of social programs from the church, we should keep the church on by default? And that makes the religion good how? If your entire point from the first post on was just to try and get someone to say there are currently no gigantic atheist groups to provide these all services singlehanded, fine. You win. Everything else the church does, can be and is being done just fine.

ETA- more polite