Pastor in US burns Koran, Afghans kill 8 UN workers in protest

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by blankall

Ummm yes....For example, Communists murdered and enslaved millions of people because they held religious beliefs and refused to believe in their own version of atheism.

Communism is an ideology. Atheism is not.

Also, atheists by definition do not believe in the after life. Thus, they rely on a view of morality to keep people in line. Many people throughout history have used an atheistic and nihilistic view to justify their own crimes.

Atheists don't "keep people in line."

Atheism is merely a non-belief in a divine being.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by blankall

Ummm yes....For example, Communists murdered and enslaved millions of people because they held religious beliefs and refused to believe in their own version of atheism.

So the fact the vast majority of Russians have been religious, even during communist rule have nothing to say to this? I mean can't we see the obvious, an crazy dictator did crazy things in the name of crazy. Unless you suggest he only did those things because he didn't believe in a god(s).

Also, atheists by definition do not believe in the after life. Thus, they rely on a view of morality to keep people in line. Many people throughout history have used an atheistic and nihilistic view to justify their own crimes.

So what holds back the many non murdering religious folk is their fear of God to keep them in line?

[something]

May be hard for some people to believe with the inundation of media concerning violence, but violence is not easy to incite. It just might seem that way sometimes. In this situation, it requires a stringent adherence to beliefs that are being contested offensively - not easy to do. Firstly, you need to imbue deeply into someone a set of beliefs (and yes, secularist ideals can play a role here). Secondly, you need to do the same to another person, though you must expose extrinsic and insubstantial contradictions (meaning that you will not likely find anything inherent to the set of beliefs that cannot be reconciled: you must fabricate irreconcilability and speciously allocate to something inherent to the belief system).

Education, though not any sort of panacea, gives its pupils the ability to transcend, through the use of critical thinking, the previously mentioned fabrications. It provides an avenue to reconciliation.

I would argue that there is a correlation between education and violence. I would extend that to suggest that there is even a causal relationship between the two. Education gives an individual the tools to become resilient to "brainwashing" - it does not always give additional perspectives, but allows an individual to create and interpret new perspectives.

But I think that this rhetoric ultimately diverges from reality - what is at stake here is not competing beliefs, rather, competing interests. It is no coincidence nor does it help to alleviate the situation that these religions offer explicit avenues to violence, and corollary justifications.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Communism is an ideology. Atheism is not.

Right...

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Atheists don't "keep people in line."

Atheism is merely a non-belief in a divine being.

That's an ideology...

Agnostics, who are open to the idea of a divine being fit your definition much more closely.

[something]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I was about to say this. If you go back to a lot of the participants in 9/11 they were extremely well educated.

Also for every Jeffrey Dahlmer there was a Ted Bundy or a Russell Williams.

Reasoning is not something thats helped or hindered due to a lack of or exposure to education.

I don't those examples are appropriate, they are anomalous.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Thor

So the fact the vast majority of Russians have been religious, even during communist rule have nothing to say to this? I mean can't we see the obvious, an crazy dictator did crazy things in the name of crazy. Unless you suggest he only did those things because he didn't believe in a god(s).

So when communist leaders like Mao specifically target peolpe for believing in a religion they are just "crazy". Meanwhile religious people who do the same are doing so because they are religious and religion is evil?

Do you not see the flaw in your logic there.

Originally Posted by Thor

So what holds back the many non murdering religious folk is their fear of God to keep them in line?

People commit murders. Sometimes they use religion as a means of justifying this. Sometimes atheists commit murders. Blaming one system of thought for violence is ridiculous. Humans have always been violent throughout history. The apes they evolved from are violent.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by blankall

Right...



That's an ideology...

Agnostics, who are open to the idea of a divine being fit your definition much more closely.

Atheist "doctrine" consists of four words.

There is no god.

Beyond that, there is no ideology attached to it.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by something

Education, though not any sort of panacea, gives its pupils the ability to transcend, through the use of critical thinking, the previously mentioned fabrications. It provides an avenue to reconciliation.

I would argue that there is a correlation between education and violence. I would extend that to suggest that there is even a causal relationship between the two. Education gives an individual the tools to become resilient to "brainwashing" - it does not always give additional perspectives, but allows an individual to create and interpret new perspectives.

I would argue that you are not advocating education but freedom. Freedom of though gives the ability to resist brainwashing. What good is education if you are not free to pursue competing ideals.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Atheist "doctrine" consists of four words.

There is no god.

Beyond that, there is no ideology attached to it.

You could easily use that doctrine and enforce it on others. This is what Stalin did. This is what Mao did.

Whether or not you want to accept it, atheists believe in an absolute. Thefore, there is a wide variety of rules associated with that.

They believe in no god, no after life, no soul, etc..etc.. It's basically the anti-thesis of every religion and, therefore, everytime a religion makes a new rule atheists disagree with automatically an atheist makes a rule in opposition.

Whether or not you want to accept it, atheism is very much a belief and very much an ideology. The truth is noone can conclusively answer the questions of faith. By definition faith exists outside of logic. Anyone who conclusively believes they have an answer to questions of faith has an ideology. Atheism may not be a religion in itself, but it is a specific view of the spiritual world (ie it doesn't exist) and, therfore, an ideology.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by blankall

You could easily use that doctrine and enforce it on others. This is what Stalin did. This is what Mao did.

Whether or not you want to accept it, atheists believe in an absolute. Thefore, there is a wide variety of rules associated with that.

They believe in no god, no after life, no soul, etc..etc.. It's basically the anti-thesis of every religion and, therefore, everytime a religion makes a new rule atheists disagree with automatically an atheist makes a rule in opposition.

Whether or not you want to accept it, atheism is very much a belief and very much an ideology. The truth is noone can conclusively answer the questions of faith. By definition faith exists outside of logic. Anyone who conclusively believes they have an answer to questions of faith has an ideology. Atheism may not be a religion in itself, but it is a specific view of the spiritual world (ie it doesn't exist) and, therfore, an ideology.

Atheism is not an ideology; it's not even a single belief, much less a system of interconnected beliefs, and by itself atheism does not guide anyone, anywhere. The same would be true if we defined atheism narrowly as denial of the existence of gods: that single belief is not a system of principles.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by something

May be hard for some people to believe with the inundation of media concerning violence, but violence is not easy to incite. It just might seem that way sometimes. In this situation, it requires a stringent adherence to beliefs that are being contested offensively - not easy to do. Firstly, you need to imbue deeply into someone a set of beliefs (and yes, secularist ideals can play a role here). Secondly, you need to do the same to another person, though you must expose extrinsic and insubstantial contradictions (meaning that you will not likely find anything inherent to the set of beliefs that cannot be reconciled: you must fabricate irreconcilability and speciously allocate to something inherent to the belief system).

I don't believe that this is all that true. the term mob violence illustrates the ability to easily move people from a passive to an angry to a violent stance very quickly and often through the actions of one person.

More often or not we see the spread of violence through peacefull protests.

In the G20 summit in Toronto, not all of the violent offenders were anarchists, a lot of them were people that were caught up in the moment threw away their inhabitions and joined in

Last year in the racist versus non-racist comfrontation in downtown Calgary, it was surprisingly the non-racist group that initiated the violence.

People in a group or protest might not even believe in whatever cause their protesting, but they find it easier to get caught up in violence because we're just wired that way.

Originally Posted by something

Education, though not any sort of panacea, gives its pupils the ability to transcend, through the use of critical thinking, the previously mentioned fabrications. It provides an avenue to reconciliation.

In a lot of instances that student also is more willing to ruthlessly apply theory (political or otherwise) to real world situations.

I use the examples of someone like Lenin who was the king of ruthless application of political theory.

The students in Iran responsible for the the hostage crisis.

The students in Toronto

The 9/11 perpetrators

Originally Posted by something

I would argue that there is a correlation between education and violence. I would extend that to suggest that there is even a causal relationship between the two. Education gives an individual the tools to become resilient to "brainwashing" - it does not always give additional perspectives, but allows an individual to create and interpret new perspectives.

Yes and no, I've seen just as many scenarios where students are effectively brain washed to their professors or teachers viewpoints. One of the biggest problems in the Muslin religious schools and Misques is that they're being educated by someone with the ruthless application of political or religious theory first and foremost in their minds.

How many people have gone to university and learned that in order to get the best marks they mearly have to spout or agree with their profs political or other theories or agree with the professor, thats one of the basics for brain washing.

I would argue that a person's ability to reason or transcend is not based on education but intelligence and inherent reasoning skills. In other words, people will believe what they want to believe and act how they want to act no matter what their level of education is.

Originally Posted by something

But I think that this rhetoric ultimately diverges from reality - what is at stake here is not competing beliefs, rather, competing interests. It is no coincidence nor does it help to alleviate the situation that these religions offer explicit avenues to violence, and corollary justifications.

While I believe that religion gets radicalized or perverted to serve the end means of ther person gaining the most power from these organizations. You could have a religion based on cute fuzzy bunnies and there will be a segment that perverts itself to its own end means. Do we condemn all of religion because of it? yes, but we shouldn't, and religious organizations are to blame in a way because they don't do enough to root this stuff out, marginalize those beliefs and try to reform themselves.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by blankall

You could easily use that doctrine and enforce it on others. This is what Stalin did. This is what Mao did.

Whether or not you want to accept it, atheists believe in an absolute. Thefore, there is a wide variety of rules associated with that.

They believe in no god, no after life, no soul, etc..etc.. It's basically the anti-thesis of every religion and, therefore, everytime a religion makes a new rule atheists disagree with automatically an atheist makes a rule in opposition.

Whether or not you want to accept it, atheism is very much a belief and very much an ideology. The truth is noone can conclusively answer the questions of faith. By definition faith exists outside of logic. Anyone who conclusively believes they have an answer to questions of faith has an ideology. Atheism may not be a religion in itself, but it is a specific view of the spiritual world (ie it doesn't exist) and, therfore, an ideology.

I disagree. Atheists don't necessarily make a rule that is the opposite of every rule made by a religion. You are really reaching here.

As an atheist I would believe there is no god. If Christianity says you have to wait for marriage to have sex I don't say automatically that you MUST have sex before marriage. This is up to the individual I've never heard atheists say YOU must get married or YOU should never get married. Just don't do it to please "god". You are suggesting that atheists pick and choose what to disagree with in religion. It's not the rules they disagree with, it's the belief in a divine being, therefore the religion that tells you how to live doesn't necessarily apply, at least not in the sense that you must do things a particular way to please "god".

It seems to me that most atheists fall into the do what you want, just don't do it because you think god is looking down on you for whatever you choose. Maybe that's too simplistic.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

Do what you want, just don't do it because you think god is looking down on you for whatever you choose.

Just wondering why not? Do you have faith there is no God?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Just wondering why not? Do you have faith there is no God?

The onus is on the believers part to prove their god exists, not that of the unbeliever to disprove the believer's delusion.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Atheist "doctrine" consists of four words.

There is no god.

Beyond that, there is no ideology attached to it.

The Atheistic "doctrine" that the world would be a better place without religion and the similar fallacy that a belief in a God/gods is the source of all political upheaval and violence is what turned this discussion into one about atheism.

You should really examine the baggage you have embraced along with your core belief that there is no god.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

The onus is on the believers part to prove their god exists, not that of the unbeliever to disprove the believer's delusion.

As one generally sympathetic with the atheist viewpoint, I would say atheism is an ideology. What you describe is agnosticism.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

The onus is on the believers part to prove their god exists, not that of the unbeliever to disprove the believer's delusion.

You say God does not exist. Can you prove that?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The Atheistic "doctrine" that the world would be a better place without religion and the similar fallacy that a belief in a God/gods is the source of all political upheaval and violence is what turned this discussion into one about atheism.

You should really examine the baggage you have embraced along with your core belief that there is no god.

Thanks, Rev.

Except that there is no Athiest Doctrine and nowhere is it dictated that the world would be better off without religion. That is merely an opinion expressed by many.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

The onus is on the believers part to prove their god exists, not that of the unbeliever to disprove the believer's delusion.

Wait, what? Atheism is categorically denying the existence of a God. Religion is categorically believing in the existence of a God. Neither can be proven in any way whatsoever and both rely on irrational faith.

If you tell me there is a cat behind the house, it may be up to you to prove it, but I can in no way categorically deny the existence of a cat behind the house. Reason doesn't allow it. Ask Descartes.

[peter12]

I do think it's interesting that the atheists in this thread are taking pride in their nihilism. Last men, every single one of them.