THE PACK Message Boards

I know that the relgiious right is insane, but isn't atheiesm going on the same path? I'm talking about the Dawkins type of atheisim, saying "All religion is evil, and must be destroyed." But isn't that becoming just as bad and as violent as the religious, that logic of theirs being one step away from "Kill all beleivers!" (Which was a good point on South Park's Atheism episode). Also, they lambaste religions for hating sex and causing religipous warfare, but a lot of non-Abrahamic religions did not make religious war, and the Greeks had a god of Sexual abandon and drinking called Dysionius, Zeus slept around a lot and the Babylonian god Ishtaru was also a goodess of prostitutuion and masturbation and her temple workers doubled as hookers. So, aren't the athiests becoming the enemy they are fighting.

And just so you know, I am not religious or athiestic. I consider myself neutral on the issue of god, being okay with religion as long as it doesn't force it's beleifs on people or kill people of other religions.

Any thoughts on this subject?

PS. By the way, somewhat off topic but I asked the question in that thread "Why does religion hate sex" because of the religious right condemning masturbation (which it is really stupid to call it a sin, because I don't think that here is any reason to classify it as evil) and the Catholic Church's hatred of birth control (Which not only shows a rediculous hatred of sex for pleasure, but also causes misery in the developing world). That's the reason I asked, because neither have very good reasons for those, so why bother hating it?

Ooops, I just realised. Can someone please move thsi to non-were related?

I reserve this spot to reply tomorrow when I'm awake enough to make a coherent argument!

Edit: Reserving it for tomorrow when I have the energy... SIX HOUR MIDTERM! RAWR!

*sigh* Another religious discussion? If this gets out of hand even once, it's locked. History has repeated itself way too many times already. Everyone keep it mature and professional. Understood?

Something I've said before is that it's just as easy to become a slave to culture as a slave to counter-culture. When you let those around you define what you eat, what you wear, how you think, etc., etc. and look down upon people for not being "popular" enough, essentially letting your every action be motivated purely by how others perceive you, you become a slave to it. However, while it is good to not let culture define your every move, if you go out of your way to do things just because they are accepted by culture, define yourself as being counter-culture and look down on everyone and anything that shows any hint of conformity, you become a slave to being counter-culture. Just like a slave to culture, you're letting your every action be motivated purely by how others perceive you, the only difference being a desire to be perceived as a rebel instead of a conformist.

Religion works very much the same way. Some people let religion define every aspect of their lives and become fanatics, others have one bad experience and then shun religion in all forms.

The only slight difference is that people become religious fanatics when they become entirely wrapped up in it, whereas someone can become a militant atheist just by having an angsty teen "I hate the world" phase.

I'm not touching this topic with a 10-foot pole. I'm just raising my postcount.

*runs*

Ok - when it comes to most any subject (certain PETArds, religions, military, wolf activists, athiests, werewolves, dragons and Everyone Else), there are always those who are willing to take a cause (or belief system) and do a few things to it:

Make changes to it to suit their needs (fill their pockets of money, amass power, or whatever)
Use it as an excuse to commit crime(s). To them though, genocide, arson, vandalism, suicide bombing, and many other things; are not crimes for them, they are eliminating the competition, or fighting a holy war, or protecting the baby seals.

EDIT: I agree also with what Terastas wrote, and hope that as long as he and I have been on the boards, that I spelled his name correctly, this time.

Well, that was true until the twentieth century. Sorry, Z; I liked being able to point out the same thing, but the Communist revolution pretty much killed any prospect of that bost. There are only two people in history who killed more than Adolf Hitler; Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung. Both were atheists pushing an atheistic movement parallel to religion. So, the religion of atheism caught up with the track record of the others pretty quickly.

Still, atheism has to put up with a lot of crap. I get a lot of consolation when I get into philosophical discussions; people will upon learning that I'm Wiccan eventually come around, because "at least I believe in God." There is this assumption that people who don't believe in God are inherantly less ethical or less capable of compassion. I'll spare you the rant, but most atheists at this point get militant out of frustration with being told constantly of their inferiority and how wrong they are, and how sorry they'll be when God smites them, etc. Still, most atheists I have met are facing so much an uphill battle that they're content enough just to get tolerance. And yet, I think atheism is a logical default stance; we should prove God, not try to disprove.

Scott Gardener wrote:Well, that was true until the twentieth century. Sorry, Z; I liked being able to point out the same thing, but the Communist revolution pretty much killed any prospect of that bost. There are only two people in history who killed more than Adolf Hitler; Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung. Both were atheists pushing an atheistic movement parallel to religion. So, the religion of atheism caught up with the track record of the others pretty quickly.

Beat me to it.

For christians the bible clearly states. "Thou shalt not kill." This is later refined into "killing under orders of the state is ok", more or less. Thus the soldiers are forgiven for the killing, but the one who orders this killing upon others is at fault. In the end, SOMEONE is commiting the sin of murder which is forbidden by God. Therefore if all religion were following this ethic to the letter, there would be no war.

When you see members of a religous beleif killing others and claiming that it is their god's will... I'm not so sure that very many people would want to join such a barbaric group. Such extreme hatred that drives people to kill actually seems evil.

Kaebora wrote:For christians the bible clearly states. "Thou shalt not kill." This is later refined into "killing under orders of the state is ok", more or less. Thus the soldiers are forgiven for the killing, but the one who orders this killing upon others is at fault. In the end, SOMEONE is commiting the sin of murder which is forbidden by God. Therefore if all religion were following this ethic to the letter, there would be no war.

Which is why, even during the inquisitions, the church never killed anyone. Even in the "worst of offenses," all they did was release the accused to the secular law (which implied death, but was basically the church saying "you're on your own now").

At the end, the death tolls were roughly:

Spanish Inquisition: 2,000 in 10 years.

European Witch Trials: 50,000 in 250 years.

The USSR under Stalin: 220,000 in 1921 alone.

FYI, Stalin wasn't a religous Christian zealot.

Kaebora wrote:FYI, Stalin wasn't a religous Christian zealot.

My point was to compare him to them.

I think it shouldnt matter if you're an atheist or very religious so long as you leave everyone else alone. The problem is not someone's beliefs but when they try to force them on other people or look down on those who dont feel the same. That's when the trouble arises.

The Southern Baptist denomination I'm a part of doesn't go out and force anything on anyone. We merely set a good example, and welcome people of all different cultures and backgrounds to come to our church by their own free will to see what it's all about. No prejudice, just good people. That's how I think all Christians... and religous types in general... should act.