Is atheism the New Evangelism?

[Who's Doing What?]

One 'conflict' that would count for many more deaths than all of those combined would be the cultural revolution in China. That's over 20 million people dead. More than the combined people that died in the conflicts in your list here. I don't think you would seriously argue that Mao's cultural revoultion has anything to do with religion would you?

When are people going to realize that it is human pathos of fanaticism that kills? What they are fanatical about is really irrelevant.

Be it communism, fascism, feudalism, ethnism, racism etc. The one constant is intolerance for others - and yet, here we are having atheists being openly intolerant of religious minded folks.

It really makes one wonder about the state of our education system.

Actually between Hitler and Stalin there were as many as 14 million Jews killed due to their religion. That closes the gap pretty quick.

Did the Chinese cultural revolution have anything to do with religion?

Between 1966 and 1968, Mao's principal lieutenants, Vice-Chairman Lin Biao and Mao's wife, acting on his instructions, organized a mass youth militia called the Red Guards to overthrow Mao's perceived enemies and seize control of the state and party apparatus, replacing the Central Committee with the Cultural Revolution Committee, and local governments with revolutionary committees. In the chaos and violence that ensued, many revolutionary elders, authors, artists, and religious figures were purged and killed, and millions were persecuted and possibly as many as half a million people died.[1]

So some amongst the 20+ million in the cultural revolution were killed for their religion.

In your own citation, the figure of "as many as half a million people died" is the claim. Then you claim it as evidence for a claim of 20 million?

And I don't see how you can claim Chinese atheist communists were being driven by 'religion' to kill religious people.

Btw, religious martyrs are not a particularly viable example of how religion kills.

You know you really need to learn to read what people write instead of just making up your own CRAP out of bits and pieces taken out of context.

[Who's Doing What?]

No religious war and violence Mad Michael?

I have categorically denied making that statement.

I have stated that religion is not the majority of war, or violence in human history - in contradiction to your assertion to the contrary.

How about 25 current religious conflicts and wars?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

Your site reference is not credible.

We are defining "religion" rather loosely here to include Communism

I have argued before that communism is a religion which suplants the state for the church and god.

I think there is a good case to be made in that regard.

[Who's Doing What?]

Also, you do know that 'Jew' is an ethnicity do you not? The Jews at the holocaust were killed because they were ethnically Jews, not because they were practising the jewish religion. It mattered not to the the SS and SD if the Jews renounced their faith on their march to the gas chambers.

So if these people where not jewish would they have still been exterminated?

I doubt it.

They died because of their beliefs. They died because of their religion.

[Mad_Michael]

I have argued before that communism is a religion which suplants the state for the church and god.

I think there is a good case to be made in that regard.

That may be so, but you can't just assume it as a generally accepted principle in order to cite it in support of another argument entirely.

And, since you mention it, I'd be inclined to accept the general argument that the form of authoritarian socialism that was historically applied in Leninist/Stalinist USSR or in Maoist China did indeed have as its goal and policy to supplant, subsume and symbolise the traditional and institutional role of Church and God in those nation-states. No doubt of this.

But that doesn't make communism into a 'religion', no matter how much it theoretically seeks to subsume that role for political purposes. Indeed, the abject failure to achieve it with anything less than the rule of an iron fist tends to mitigate against the validity of this interpretation.

And communist theory - as per Marx - is a fundamentally rational theory. Its only claim is that it is entirely rational and based on human history. It makes no claim for the supernatural. Ergo, it is not a 'religion'. All religions are based entirely upon faith and make a claim of some supernatural force.

In practice, some people may hold 'communism' on faith, like one may hold some 'religion' on faith, but this is a similarity of people's actions, not the similarity of the object believed in.

[Mad_Michael]

Also, you do know that 'Jew' is an ethnicity do you not? The Jews at the holocaust were killed because they were ethnically Jews, not because they were practising the jewish religion. It mattered not to the the SS and SD if the Jews renounced their faith on their march to the gas chambers.

Excellent point. Hitler & official Nazis perceived and persecuted the Jews as an ethnicity, not a religion.

[Mad_Michael]

You know you really need to learn to read what people write instead of just making up your own CRAP out of bits and pieces taken out of context.

I'll take that as the end of our discussion.

[Mad_Michael]

Let me rephrase that. Because moderates believe in god, either loudly or silently, they offer legitimacy and tacit support to the fundamentalists, whether they want to or not. If 1 billion Muslims believe that the Koran is the infallible and true word of the creator of the universe, doesn't the suicide bomber have a point? He really believes it, after all, and why shouldn't he, his entire life every moderate around him has told him it is true, there will be a glorious reward for defending Islam through whatever means, even through death.

No. Even if a billion Muslims believe the Koran is the infallible and true word of the creator of the universe, the Islamic suicide bomber is still a monster.

Just like when half a billion Christians believing the Bible is the infallible and true word of the creator of the universe, the Inquisition was still barbaric and monsterous.

The actions of fanatics have always been with us and likely will remain with us. They are always reactionaries responding to a perceived threat to thier faith. Thus, increasing the threat level against them specifically is probably not a good tactic, let alone, strategy.

Indeed, the fundamentalists have not increased their visibility by 'speaking loudly'. They have done it with deeds.

Exactly. And why do they believe what they believe. If the there were no moderates, they would not have been exposed to the 'truth' of the book. There would be no fundamentalists.

You appear to misunderstand my point. I am suggesting that fundamentalist have advanced by actually 'doing' their religion - building churchs and bringing in large crowds and large donations. That is evidence of actual activity or growth, not just lots of words flying around.

Indeed, in both Christianity and Islam, the religious 'fundamentalists' appear to be a reaction against religious moderates.

My point is that the majority of such 'outspokenness' is unnecessary and probably counter-productive (more often than not, it just feeds the flames of that which it presumes to 'out-speak'). As noted above, the religious fundamentalists are reactionaries.

Faith is not a personal and subjective thing. Faith is political, and people of faith have always been on the attack, looking for souls to convert. Spirituality is personal and subjective. Faith is, and always has been, part of the public discourse.

No.

Faith is personal and subjective. Religion is is that which is on the attack looking for souls to convert. Religion has always been part of the public discourse. Faith remains personal and subjective.

Ergo, attacking faith misses the real target and only inflames the reactionaries.

The burden of atheists has always been to show that spirituality, ethics, and morals is fully compatible and superior in a humanist secular way of life. That is what we need to expand on.

There is no specific burden or duty upon any atheists. It is their subjective will and personal choice. It is nobody's business, save their own.

It is nice that you might want to set a moral example by your own exemplary behaviour, that is very human of you. No objections to that.

Very true. Im just naturally confrontational. Especially when it comes to religion and politics.

The point I'm making is that in this particular issue, confrontationism is quite counterproductive.

Now playing for sport is a game I understand, but not if it is ultimately counter-productive to a cause one holds dear.

Religious fundamentalism grew in political power in the 70 and 80s in NA, when atheists were silent.

Actually, they arroused themselves in an attempt to regain all the political power they formerly (and informally) possessed in the 1950's and lost in the 1960's and early 1970's with the various revolutions in civil rights (women, blacks and sex were all freed). They are reactionaries.

lol... i should read Sun Tzu then.

Indeed. I'm not unsympathetic to your cause, though I'm not an adherent either.

Suffice it to say that study of Sun Tzu teaches how to go about fighting battles in a way designed to actually win something worth winning, not necessarily by using violence, but to use patience, wit and planning to draw your opponent to the time and place of your choosing.

That’s exactly it. I pick up my newspaper and i see a creation science museum just opened in Alberta. And then i read the editorial page and i see opinion that say the Royal Tyrell paleontology museum is the same thing as a creation science museum. And that is just wrong. And it makes me very outspoken, as well as concerned.

Yes, human passion is a good thing. Here is a decent example - it is religion and the public face of religious doctrine that is, and ought to be, open to scrutiny. Critiquing a creation science museum does not attack faith per se. Please feel free.

I have seen no attempt to impose by the current crop of active atheists. I just see books that are making rational arguments against and for a position, no different than any book on history, art, politics, or religion.

Calling faith in God evil, is evil. This attacks a person's subjective faith directly. This is where I draw the line between 'critique of religion' and 'attacking faith'. There is a difference and 'fundamentalist' atheists are the ones who do the latter. It is rude and unacceptable in civil society. I don't care if the 'religious fundamentalists' do it too.

It doesn't hurt atheists to be told we will 'burn in hell'. It does hurt religious believers to be told that their God is evil. If atheists and humanists have superior ethics, show them.

If I or Richard Dawkins are fundamentalist’s then so are the writers who question the standard 'tale' of Chris Columbus as the first to visit the new world. I really cant see the difference.

Religion is based on faith entirely. Columbus 'discovering' the new world is a 'falsifiable' statement of rational fact (that has indeed been rationally falsified). They are categorically different.

Sometimes im just confrontational, i admit. I alluded to one of my favorite rational criticism in the previous post. That is, Dawkins argues very convincingly that humans don't, and never have, taken their morals from scripture or religious belief. On the contrary, our religious beliefs are created mainly by our morals at whatever given time. Thereby eliminating the notion that non-religious people have nothing to base their morals on.

That's good for you.

And when a fundamentalist attacks you for having no basis for your morality, I welcome you to reply with your sharp-edged arguments.

But far too often, I see the 'fanatical' atheist type looking around for a target to use their 'sharp-edged' arguments upon and that is not right.

The difference is defence and offence. There is no need to take the battle to the 'religious fundamentalists' since they are just reactionaries, any attack upon them serves as fuel for the fire. Feel free to defend your views from their attacks, but you should have no need to sink your atheist dignity to kick a party when they are down - even if they are trying to stand up again. The secular humanists have shown they can win the battle vs religious/theocratic rule already and have done so emphatically. No fear for their ability to do it again. And no kicking a religion when it is down. That's unsporting.

[White Doors]

Also, you do know that 'Jew' is an ethnicity do you not? The Jews at the holocaust were killed because they were ethnically Jews, not because they were practising the jewish religion. It mattered not to the the SS and SD if the Jews renounced their faith on their march to the gas chambers.

So if these people where not jewish would they have still been exterminated?

I doubt it.

They died because of their beliefs. They died because of their religion.

Dude... are you thick in the frontal lobe area? I'm white. I can believe that I'm black and alla dat, yo - but I'm still a white homey - you dig?

ie: Ethnicity is not a 'belief'.

Your posts becoming increasingly moronic? A belief bordering on the factual.

[Who's Doing What?]

Dude... are you thick in the frontal lobe area? I'm white. I can believe that I'm black and alla dat, yo - but I'm still a white homey - you dig?

ie: Ethnicity is not a 'belief'.

Your posts becoming increasingly moronic? A belief bordering on the factual.

Dude, if your jewish your jewish. It is a religion. Call it an ethnicity if you want but it is still an ethnicity based upon a person's religion.

Sorry but there is no way around it.

[AndrewL]

No. Even if a billion Muslims believe the Koran is the infallible and true word of the creator of the universe, the Islamic suicide bomber is still a monster.

Just like when half a billion Christians believing the Bible is the infallible and true word of the creator of the universe, the Inquisition was still barbaric and monsterous.

The actions of fanatics have always been with us and likely will remain with us. They are always reactionaries responding to a perceived threat to thier faith. Thus, increasing the threat level against them specifically is probably not a good tactic, let alone, strategy.

Bu the idea is that the inquisition would not have happened if millions of moderates did not give 'cover' to the fundamentalists by their approval of belief in the same god and scripture. Have you heard the story of Edgardo Mortara?

A Jewish toddler in Italy in the 19th century is under the care of a young catholic girl. She has been told her entire life that unbaptized children can not go to heaven. While under her care, the boy becomes critically ill - she is terrified that he will not go to heaven so she immediately baptizes him, making him catholic. The boy survives the illness. The catholic priests get wind of what happened and insist to the boys jewish parents that he must be raised catholic. The parents disagree but the catholic priests kidnap the boy and place him under the care of the church, never to see his parents again. Now, the really creepy thing is that this was 'normal'. There was not outrage by the moderate catholics of Italy that this boy should be taken from his parents simply because he had water splashed on his forehead by a little girl who believed literally what she was taught about heaven and hell, by her parents and by the church. The point is that this was a normal occurrence in this society, it was not a reaction of fanatics to a perceived threat to their faith. It was all just according to doctrine.

In this case fanatics are not reacting to a threat against their faith, they are reacting to the literal belief of their texts and the rules of the church.

And there was a outrage amongst atheists and secularists that were horrified such an abuse could take place. And it is partly as a result of their outspokenness against the church that this could not happen in modern Italy.

You appear to misunderstand my point. I am suggesting that fundamentalist have advanced by actually 'doing' their religion - building churchs and bringing in large crowds and large donations. That is evidence of actual activity or growth, not just lots of words flying around.

I agree. But my point is that fundamentalism has also been greatly advanced because moderates believe the same core things about the universe, rather than rejecting what should be viewed as something without ground, as it is.

Indeed, in both Christianity and Islam, the religious 'fundamentalists' appear to be a reaction against religious moderates.

My point is that the majority of such 'outspokenness' is unnecessary and probably counter-productive (more often than not, it just feeds the flames of that which it presumes to 'out-speak'). As noted above, the religious fundamentalists are reactionaries.

That is an interesting idea, but i tend to think that fundamentalism is more of a result of passive encouragement through moderates who absorb and spread all the same teachings but otherwise behave like normal adults.

I.e, David Koresh was not a reaction to religious moderates. He took his cue directly from scripture. Before the attack on his compound, moderates and liberals accepted him and his flock as merely a serious expression of Christianity. After all he was simply spreading the word of God, just to a more extreme degree. Had he been challenged openly within the community for his ideas, had opposition to his core values not been a taboo, the entire episode might have been avoided.

No.

Faith is personal and subjective. Religion is is that which is on the attack looking for souls to convert. Religion has always been part of the public discourse. Faith remains personal and subjective.

I don't know. It seems to me people american presidents and western religious leaders love to wear their faith on their sleeve.

The point I'm making is that in this particular issue, confrontationism is quite counterproductive. Now playing for sport is a game I understand, but not if it is ultimately counter-productive to a cause one holds dear.

Fair point. But reading the books on the subject that are making headlines i don't sense any pure confrontation. If there is offense taken, it is not the fault of the authors. Most negative reactions are coming from people who have not read or understood the material, but are taking exception to the gall of questioning their religion to begin with. You never see atheists reacting the way some religious people are with regards to these books when the pope publishes something. Writing about the virtues of religion is somehow not controversial, but writing about the vices of religion is???? Where does this fear of criticism come from?

Actually, they arroused themselves in an attempt to regain all the political power they formerly (and informally) possessed in the 1950's and lost in the 1960's and early 1970's with the various revolutions in civil rights (women, blacks and sex were all freed). They are reactionaries.

But the difference is that the mainstream 50s voter was just religious. The fundamentalist shunned politics consistently in the 50s, 60s, 70s. What we have now is a brand new movement of fundamentalists joining the political process, quite successfully. I dont blame this on the hippies and beatniks of the 60s, i put the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of Nixon and Reagan and the fundamentalists themselves. They saw a political opportunity and encouraged it, for votes.

Indeed. I'm not unsympathetic to your cause, though I'm not an adherent either.

Suffice it to say that study of Sun Tzu teaches how to go about fighting battles in a way designed to actually win something worth winning, not necessarily by using violence, but to use patience, wit and planning to draw your opponent to the time and place of your choosing.

This is very similar to what Sam Harris argues in the End of Faith and letter to a christian nation.

Yes, human passion is a good thing. Here is a decent example - it is religion and the public face of religious doctrine that is, and ought to be, open to scrutiny. Critiquing a creation science museum does not attack faith per se. Please feel free.

Well i fully agree. But the problem is that religious people increasingly view an attack on creation science as an attack on their faith. Age old problem. Even Darwin was a spiritual fellow who knew there was no real conflict between faith and evolution, but yet he is still attacked today, as are his theories. So while i may strive to criticize it on the basis of a literal reading of the bible only, the person on the other side almost always takes it as a personal attack on their faith.

Calling faith in God evil, is evil. This attacks a person's subjective faith directly. This is where I draw the line between 'critique of religion' and 'attacking faith'. There is a difference and 'fundamentalist' atheists are the ones who do the latter. It is rude and unacceptable in civil society. I don't care if the 'religious fundamentalists' do it too.

Who called faith in god evil?

It doesn't hurt atheists to be told we will 'burn in hell'. It does hurt religious believers to be told that their God is evil. If atheists and humanists have superior ethics, show them.

I agree. That is why i thought there was a burden on atheists to show that a real effective moral system has to be grounded in human terms.

Religion is based on faith entirely. Columbus 'discovering' the new world is a 'falsifiable' statement of rational fact (that has indeed been rationally falsified). They are categorically different.

Dawkins and Harris are simply arguing against a literal take on the bible (or any other religious text). They are arguing against the idea that we can use the bible to discriminate, make medical decisions, make political decisions, or make foreign policy decisions. All these fall into the category of "'falsifiable' statement of rational fact". I.e., the cells that make up an embryonic stem cell have no more potential for a soul than the cells i just scratched off my nose. God did not talk to George Bush about the Iraq war. There are no such things as witches. And so on.... There is nothing in their books criticizing anything but a fundamentalis literalist take on the bible, the koran, or the tora.

And when a fundamentalist attacks you for having no basis for your morality, I welcome you to reply with your sharp-edged arguments.

But far too often, I see the 'fanatical' atheist type looking around for a target to use their 'sharp-edged' arguments upon and that is not right.

I agree. Unlike the religious fundamentalist i would never go door to door disabusing people of their faith or religious doctrines.

Im in this thread only because of the title. Atheism is not in anyway like evangelism, islamicism, or orthodox judaism. IMO. I felt i needed to respond.

The difference is defence and offence. There is no need to take the battle to the 'religious fundamentalists' since they are just reactionaries, any attack upon them serves as fuel for the fire. Feel free to defend your views from their attacks, but you should have no need to sink your atheist dignity to kick a party when they are down - even if they are trying to stand up again. The secular humanists have shown they can win the battle vs religious/theocratic rule already and have done so emphatically. No fear for their ability to do it again. And no kicking a religion when it is down. That's unsporting.

Again, I fully agree. And this is not the sense i got from the books in question. I only took from their motives a true concern for the direction of global society.

Andrew

[Mad_Michael]

My turn to have insoluable quote-code problems!

[Mad_Michael]

Bu the idea is that the inquisition would not have happened if millions of moderates did not give 'cover' to the fundamentalists by their approval of belief in the same god and scripture.

I respectfully submit that those who ordered the Inquisition, didn't give a crap about what any 'religious moderate' thought of anything. Bloody moderates are lucky the weren't the star attraction at an auto de la fete.

Religious fanatics/fundamentalists don't care what other people think - that is why we call them 'fanatics'. No harranguing from religious moderates is going to move them. As I noted previously, most religious fanatics/fundamentalists are a reaction against religious moderates, not against seculars.

Have you heard the story of Edgardo_Mortara?

No, but I think I read that story differently than you did.

What I saw there was (at that historical timeframe) the inclucated ethnic hatred of Jews is generally stronger than revulsion at the violences committed in the name of one's own religion. The girl was schooled well by here exclusionary social group.

In this case fanatics are not reacting to a threat against their faith, they are reacting to the literal belief of their texts and the rules of the church.

No, they were acting like sociologically well trained ethnic jew haters.

And there was a outrage amongst atheists and secularists that were horrified such an abuse could take place. And it is partly as a result of their outspokenness against the church that this could not happen in modern Italy.

Yes. Forced conversions of Jews is no longer considered polite in Europe. It took Hitler's murdering millions of them to do it, but it appears that the tide has turned now against Jew-hating for fun and profit.

I agree. But my point is that fundamentalism has also been greatly advanced because moderates believe the same core things about the universe, rather than rejecting what should be viewed as something without ground, as it is.

No, no, no!

You are acting exactly like those you presume to attack! Counting up converts is the road to bloodshed. Just two posts ago you agreed that religious proletyzing was obnoxious. Now you praise the success of atheist proletyzing? That's my point. Proletyzing sucks even if your side is the correct one!

That is an interesting idea, but i tend to think that fundamentalism is more of a result of passive encouragement through moderates who absorb and spread all the same teachings but otherwise behave like normal adults.

Moderates don't spread the word. That is activism and is not moderate by definition.

And why are you trying to 'blame the victim' here? Are not religious moderates themselves not victims (i.e. they suffer) from the intemperate actions of the fanatically fundamentalist types?

You have tried to paint these 'moderate victims' as the very perpetrators of the act, and I think that is just plain absurd. Yes, these moderates may in some cases inadvertently 'enable' or tacitly 'encourage' through their silence, but that is hardly a major moral crime by our modern standards, nor is it an uncommon one. We all do it every day - my unwillingness to get myself arrested fighting against global warming makes me complicite in supporting pollution-causing global warming? I don't think so - or rather, the relative or comparable level of my complicity is rather low, given so many others (i.e. the corporations) who are actually doing the pollution deed itself, not just 'tacitly approving' it.

I.e, David Koresh was not a reaction to religious moderates. He took his cue directly from scripture. Before the attack on his compound, moderates and liberals accepted him and his flock as merely a serious expression of Christianity. After all he was simply spreading the word of God, just to a more extreme degree. Had he been challenged openly within the community for his ideas, had opposition to his core values not been a taboo, the entire episode might have been avoided.

Had David Koresh ever previously suggested in any substantive way that he was planning a mass suicide operation, he would possibly have been locked up long before so doing.

I don't know. It seems to me people american presidents and western religious leaders love to wear their faith on their sleeve.

'Wearing it on your sleeve' is much different than actually running the government according to the associated 'rules' that go with the symbol in the sleeve.

And we don't object to a political candidate wearing their 'Irish' or 'Scottish' or 'Newfie' or 'Prairie' heritage on their sleeves, now do we?

And how come the wearing the symbol of a sports team on your sleeve (literally) doesn't similarly disturb you?

Btw, G.W. Bush is the first to publicly assert that a given Government policy was adopted because "God told him to do it". This is strikingly unusual in western public discourse going back centuries.

Fair point. But reading the books on the subject that are making headlines i don't sense any pure confrontation. If there is offense taken, it is not the fault of the authors. Most negative reactions are coming from people who have not read or understood the material, but are taking exception to the gall of questioning their religion to begin with. You never see atheists reacting the way some religious people are with regards to these books when the pope publishes something.

The sure as heck go nuts when Robertson/Falwell/Dobson does (or 'did' in the case of Falwell).

Writing about the virtues of religion is somehow not controversial, but writing about the vices of religion is????

Yeah, that's about how it actually works. And don't look at me - I didn't make up the rule.

Where does this fear of criticism come from?

That's easy. Weakness. Religion cannot withstand critical rational analysis. It isn't meant to and it can't.

Religion isn't liberalism. Religion doesn't function according to the rule that open debate and critical analysis of all the pertinent facts is most likely to produce the best result. You can't fault religion for not wanting to play by liberalism's rules.

But the difference is that the mainstream 50s voter was just religious.

Sorry to do it to ya, but 'please cite' a source or reference some data. There is no way you can justify this statement.

The fundamentalist shunned politics consistently in the 50s, 60s, 70s. What we have now is a brand new movement of fundamentalists joining the political process, quite successfully. I dont blame this on the hippies and beatniks of the 60s, i put the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of Nixon and Reagan and the fundamentalists themselves. They saw a political opportunity and encouraged it, for votes.

Yes, Nixon and Reagan brought the 'religious right' to Washington during the 1970's and 80's. So what? They are citizens and they are entitled to express their democratic opinions and votes.

But the problem is that religious people increasingly view an attack on creation science as an attack on their faith.

That's because they are playing the game of politics. In pure religious terms, you are not attacking them as such and they have no right to take offense in such a context. But in political terms, you are and they do. Thus, the game is made clear.

They are conventional political actors and can and ought to be addressed accordingly.

Age old problem. Even Darwin was a spiritual fellow who knew there was no real conflict between faith and evolution, but yet he is still attacked today, as are his theories. So while i may strive to criticize it on the basis of a literal reading of the bible only, the person on the other side almost always takes it as a personal attack on their faith.

If you encourage/permit them to do so, they surely will use it as such. Indeed, I suspect it is a rather childisly effective weapon.

Thus, my argument with you.

***NOTE: Andrew - I seem to have found the issue - there appears to be an actual limit to the number of quotes permitted in a post. I tried reposting my composed post to a new post and checked the preview. My quote-codes were perfect but I stripped them down to nothing, each on their own line. Still wouldn't work. So then I deleted the last quote/paragraph and previewed. And did it again and again until it worked perfectly. Not one of my codes was flawed from the beginning.

[Mad_Michael]

And this is the part I had to cut off to get the quote-codes to work. I've never encountered this before on any other forum software...

Who called faith in god evil?

You know you have called religion evil and God evil and Christianity evil in various intemperate posts over the years, usually in the form of rhetorical flourished rather than statements of attack.

And even if you want to mince/dance words, you know how many 'militant atheists' have done so in public discussion forums such as this one. These types are a dime-a-dozen (the fundamentalists seem a bit more rare on the net).

I agree. That is why i thought there was a burden on atheists to show that a real effective moral system has to be grounded in human terms.

You are making a rational liberal argument to someone who has stated that their most profound belief in life is in a religion that holds rationalism and liberalism as irrelevant.

See my point? That's like pissin' in the wind.

Dawkins and Harris are simply arguing against a literal take on the bible (or any other religious text). They are arguing against the idea that we can use the bible to discriminate, make medical decisions, make political decisions, or make foreign policy decisions. All these fall into the category of "'falsifiable' statement of rational fact". I.e., the cells that make up an embryonic stem cell have no more potential for a soul than the cells i just scratched off my nose. God did not talk to George Bush about the Iraq war. There are no such things as witches. And so on.... There is nothing in their books criticizing anything but a fundamentalis literalist take on the bible, the koran, or the tora.

I'm not critiquing Dawkins and/or Harris here.

Btw, the Roman Catholic Church officially holds the Bible as to be understood 'allegorically', not 'literally'.

The Roman Catholic Chuch is by far the largest 'faction' of Christians on the planet. Thus, your narrow critique of a particular group of politically active rightwing Protestant fundamentalists is not applicable to the majority of Christians. The views of the Protestant fundamentalists are categorically only a small minority amongst all Christians.

Unlike the religious fundamentalist i would never go door to door disabusing people of their faith or religious doctrines.

And the difference between "door-to-door' and 'post-to-post' is?

Im in this thread only because of the title. Atheism is not in anyway like evangelism, islamicism, or orthodox judaism. IMO. I felt i needed to respond.

Yes. As did I.

And what you said contradicted what I already said, so I said, en garde! and here we are!

Again, I fully agree. And this is not the sense i got from the books in question. I only took from their motives a true concern for the direction of global society.

This thread isn't specifically about some books in any question.

It is about how some atheists seem to act just like the fundamentalists that they presume to disagree with.

[White Doors]

Dude... are you thick in the frontal lobe area? I'm white. I can believe that I'm black and alla dat, yo - but I'm still a white homey - you dig?

ie: Ethnicity is not a 'belief'.

Your posts becoming increasingly moronic? A belief bordering on the factual.

Dude, if your jewish your jewish. It is a religion. Call it an ethnicity if you want but it is still an ethnicity based upon a person's religion.

Sorry but there is no way around it.

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong.

Jewish is an ethnicity and it is a religion. One does not require the other to be a member of either.

The holocaust happened because of the ethnic part, not the religious part.

[Who's Doing What?]

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong.

Jewish is an ethnicity and it is a religion. One does not require the other to be a member of either.

The holocaust happened because of the ethnic part, not the religious part.

LMAO

Whatever dude.

So I can be Jewish without being Jewish? And I can also be Jewish without being Jewish?

Does this actually make sense to you?

So the Jews of the Holocaust were killed for being Jewish, not for being Jewish?

Hahaha Thanks I needed a good laugh.

[ScottSA]

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong.

Jewish is an ethnicity and it is a religion. One does not require the other to be a member of either.

The holocaust happened because of the ethnic part, not the religious part.

LMAO

Whatever dude.

So I can be Jewish without being Jewish? And I can also be Jewish without being Jewish?

Does this actually make sense to you?

So the Jews of the Holocaust were killed for being Jewish, not for being Jewish?

Hahaha Thanks I needed a good laugh.

WD is right. You look kind of silly sitting out in the village square howling with glee in the space traditionally reserved for the local idiot.

Look up the Nuremberg Laws...they explicitely treated Judaism as a racial characteristic...one is not defined by "half-Jewishness" in the context of religion. Look up the expulsion of the Jews from England and various parts of Europe in the Middle Ages. Judaism has always, as far as historical memory reaches, been treated as both a religion and a race. Hence, for example, the term 'Semetic.'

[White Doors]

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong.

Jewish is an ethnicity and it is a religion. One does not require the other to be a member of either.

The holocaust happened because of the ethnic part, not the religious part.

LMAO

Whatever dude.

So I can be Jewish without being Jewish? And I can also be Jewish without being Jewish?

Does this actually make sense to you?

So the Jews of the Holocaust were killed for being Jewish, not for being Jewish?

Hahaha Thanks I needed a good laugh.

Funny that you find facts so humorous.

Maybe if you had a closer relationship with them you would learn to just view facts as facts and not find them so 'funny'.

[Mad_Michael]

WD is right. You look kind of silly sitting out in the village square howling with glee in the space traditionally reserved for the local idiot.

You should know.

[ScottSA]

WD is right. You look kind of silly sitting out in the village square howling with glee in the space traditionally reserved for the local idiot.

You should know.

I await with bated breath the point to this post.

[Who's Doing What?]

Funny that you find facts so humorous.

Maybe if you had a closer relationship with them you would learn to just view facts as facts and not find them so 'funny'.

I think you are the one who is ignoring the facts. The fact is, regardless of how YOU want to view Jewish people they are "jewish" due to the religion they or their ancestors followed.

[White Doors]

Funny that you find facts so humorous.

Maybe if you had a closer relationship with them you would learn to just view facts as facts and not find them so 'funny'.

I think you are the one who is ignoring the facts. The fact is, regardless of how YOU want to view Jewish people they are "jewish" due to the religion they or their ancestors followed.

Not true.

There are Jewish Asians and there are also Jewish Buddhists.

Get it yet?

Come on now, I have faith.

[AndrewL]

MadMichael,

I respectfully submit that those who ordered the Inquisition, didn't give a crap about what any 'religious moderate' thought of anything. Bloody moderates are lucky the weren't the star attraction at an auto de la fete.

Religious fanatics/fundamentalists don't care what other people think - that is why we call them 'fanatics'. No harranguing from religious moderates is going to move them. As I noted previously, most religious fanatics/fundamentalists are a reaction against religious moderates, not against seculars.

I can't help but agree with you up to a point, but i will press on.

I agree with what you say here, but my sense is that the religious moderate - by sheer numbers - normalize the very core of what the fanatics literally believe. I suggest slavery as an example. Society at one time generally accepted slavery as a necessary form of labor. There were people who were so extreme and so fanatically in favour of it that they fought a horrific civil war over the issue. Yet I don't think it is too far off to think that the fanatics were strengthened immeasurably in the 'moderate' support they received from the people. Perhaps we are seeing something similar play itself out with religion, as religious doctrine and scientific thought grow more and more in conflict with each other (which seems to me the modern history of religion). We possess so much capability for damage that i find the present day far more dangerous than the same old stories of conflict that already played themselves out in history.

What I saw there was (at that historical timeframe) the inclucated ethnic hatred of Jews is generally stronger than revulsion at the violences committed in the name of one's own religion. The girl was schooled well by here exclusionary social group.

That was part of it, absolutely. But the deeper point is that it was normal. The people who went about accepting it were their day's moderates.

No, they were acting like sociologically well trained ethnic jew haters.

Who also happened to be normal members of society. Jew haters, yes. But they also thought they had divine instruction and justification. Whose to argue but the atheists and agnostics? Even in the face of being labeled fanatics….

Yes. Forced conversions of Jews is no longer considered polite in Europe. It took Hitler's murdering millions of them to do it, but it appears that the tide has turned now against Jew-hating for fun and profit.

But it has not turned entirely, jew hating still exists in the christian and islamic world, not for fun and profit, but for religious and ethnic reasons. Not only that, but some jews have even express a racial and religious hatred of christians and muslims. Yet the very core of these fanatic beliefs are still held somewhat sacred and valid by the vast majority of people, who would be defined as ‘moderates’.

No, no, no!

You are acting exactly like those you presume to attack! Counting up converts is the road to bloodshed. Just two posts ago you agreed that religious proletyzing was obnoxious. Now you praise the success of atheist proletyzing? That's my point. Proletyzing sucks even if your side is the correct one!

In every aspect of our lives, besides religion, we are constantly encouraged to reject things that are without grounds. That is, we are encouraged to be agnostic about things we are ignorant of. You seem to think extending this behavior to the "truth" of the universe whatever it is, makes someone a fundamentalist or fanatic. Was Socrates a fanatic by admitting his ultimate ignorance? Note: I'm challenging religious certainty; the idea that we know absolutely that there is a god who knows about us and acts in our lives personally. There is no grounds for that. Is it fanatic to teach that we have no knowledge of such a thing, and no reason at all to behave as if it is true? Is it wrong to challenge those who do believe such a thing? In what way is it any different than challenging someone's interpretation of fiction or art?

Moderates don't spread the word. That is activism and is not moderate by definition.

And why are you trying to 'blame the victim' here? Are not religious moderates themselves not victims (i.e. they suffer) from the intemperate actions of the fanatically fundamentalist types?

Moderates make the word normal and acceptable. Moderates eat the body of Christ and drink his blood. They behave as if he really was the son of god. They behave as if the bible really is divine in its source. How are we to challenge the fanatics when we seem to support their core beliefs thoroughly?

You have tried to paint these 'moderate victims' as the very perpetrators of the act, and I think that is just plain absurd. Yes, these moderates may in some cases inadvertently 'enable' or tacitly 'encourage' through their silence, but that is hardly a major moral crime by our modern standards, nor is it an uncommon one. We all do it every day - my unwillingness to get myself arrested fighting against global warming makes me complicite in supporting pollution-causing global warming? I don't think so - or rather, the relative or comparable level of my complicity is rather low, given so many others (i.e. the corporations) who are actually doing the pollution deed itself, not just 'tacitly approving' it.

But yet you don’t think speaking out against global warming makes one a fanatic – or do you? Are we all just supposed to be polite all the time. Should I be afraid of offending someone who thinks that burning fossil fuels is a good thing?

Had David Koresh ever previously suggested in any substantive way that he was planning a mass suicide operation, he would possibly have been locked up long before so doing.

But that is not the point. He was crazy for his fanatic religious beliefs, but he was not recognized as such. Had his commune been centered around a belief in pagan gods (or worse, an atheist commune) he would have been the focus of great scrutiny, but his commune was Christian so it was ‘ok’.

'Wearing it on your sleeve' is much different than actually running the government according to the associated 'rules' that go with the symbol in the sleeve.

And we don't object to a political candidate wearing their 'Irish' or 'Scottish' or 'Newfie' or 'Prairie' heritage on their sleeves, now do we?

And how come the wearing the symbol of a sports team on your sleeve (literally) doesn't similarly disturb you?

I think the current US government is run by that symbol, as are many governments around the world. What about the ‘faith-based’ initiative? Or look at the mercenary corp Blackwater. They are run by a hardcore evangelical who is a close friend of the Bush’s. Their prominence in Bush’s war is not a coincidence. And most telling is how the republican movement has co-opted the religious vote. At some point they have to reward them.

Being Scottish or Irish is real, as is being a sports fan. But more importantly, being Scottish does in no way imply that you know anything about the universe or how it was created. It does not imply you have moral superiority or knowledge of grand ‘truths’, it certainly does not imply that you can talk to God. It only implies that you are from Scotland and you rather like that country. (it could imply that you are superior with the bag-pipes, but then the proof is in the pudding).

Btw, G.W. Bush is the first to publicly assert that a given Government policy was adopted because "God told him to do it". This is strikingly unusual in western public discourse going back centuries.

I direct you to this quote.

“My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.

-James Watt – as US secretary of the interior. May – 1981.

http://www.skepticism.info/quotes/archives...ism_index.shtml

I feel we have been focusing on Christianity too much. My criticism is meant to be more inclusive of Islam and Judaism as well. And I think we both know that those governments take direction from their lord even more openly than Reagan’s administration.

The sure as heck go nuts when Robertson/Falwell/Dobson does (or 'did' in the case of Falwell).

Well I think stupidity at that level should alarm people and cause them to react very strongly. Why should we always be so accepting of religious fanaticism when it has so much potential for harm?

Yeah, that's about how it actually works. And don't look at me - I didn't make up the rule.

Some rules need to be broken.

That's easy. Weakness. Religion cannot withstand critical rational analysis. It isn't meant to and it can't.

Religion isn't liberalism. Religion doesn't function according to the rule that open debate and critical analysis of all the pertinent facts is most likely to produce the best result. You can't fault religion for not wanting to play by liberalism's rules.

Its not only liberalism. It is science and logic as well. Religious discourse (not necessarily metaphysical or spiritual discourse) tends to transcend the political and scientific spectrum. Not only does it make claims about human behavior, it makes claims about the universe and nature that are to be taken as true, infallibly. This inevitably conflicts with empirical knowledge about our actual reality. This is exactly where I find it to be dangerous, and worth a direct and public challenge using reason and logic.

Sorry to do it to ya, but 'please cite' a source or reference some data. There is no way you can justify this statement.

In the 50’s, like today, polls indicate that people believe that god is real. I think it is safe to say that in the 50s more people than now attended church. This was the mainstream, the moderates. I think they voted for candidates who also reflected the same behavior, naturally. This made their vote at least partly religious. But back then the evangelicals, the most fundamental religious people of America, did not partake in politics as a matter of principle. Today they are far more politically organized and focused. Its is calculated and deliberate, it is designed to put someone like Bush in power. (The Mormons do the same thing). It is so far quite successful, but America has been harmed by it.

A recent source of information on the history of the American far-right religious movement is the following book:

American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America – Chris Hedges.

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Americ...ris+hedges'

(Chris Hedges is a theologian (a proud Christian as well) who likens the evangelical political movement in the US to a secular movement because they joined politics. He draws some comparisons to 20th century fascism as it spread through Europe).

BTW, the same is also true to a lesser extent in Canada. The AB reform party founded by Preston Manning is a deliberate and somewhat successful attempt to put ‘their man’ in power. I’m not suggesting that Harper is using his evangelical fundamentalist beliefs to govern this country (that I am aware of) or that he would if he had the power to do so, but it is a trend that is following on US coat-tails.

I will continue the second part below.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

Continued…

Yes, Nixon and Reagan brought the 'religious right' to Washington during the 1970's and 80's. So what? They are citizens and they are entitled to express their democratic opinions and votes.

As I am to openly challenge those beliefs – they are voluntarily bringing their faith and beliefs into public discourse after all.

That's because they are playing the game of politics. In pure religious terms, you are not attacking them as such and they have no right to take offense in such a context. But in political terms, you are and they do. Thus, the game is made clear.

They put a literal belief of the bible into politics and science. How can I challenge them at all if not on religious terms, when their entire discourse is justified exclusively by their faith? It seems that if I fear to be viewed as a fundamentalist atheist, I can’t challenge them on religious or political grounds at all. They have made the game unplayable, if we choose to be polite and tread lightly.

They are conventional political actors and can and ought to be addressed accordingly.

I agree. But this means that attacking their deeply held religious beliefs is necessary. It is unavoidable.

If you encourage/permit them to do so, they surely will use it as such. Indeed, I suspect it is a rather childisly effective weapon.

Thus, my argument with you.

Yes. It is often a conversation ender. But I see no reason to end that conversation. One should not be afraid to offend in a conversation where both parties are being genuine and honest about what they believe. Too often the non-believer backs down, for fear of offending. Or the believer cries foul and reacts as if I insulted his mother.

You know you have called religion evil and God evil and Christianity evil in various intemperate posts over the years, usually in the form of rhetorical flourished rather than statements of attack.

And even if you want to mince/dance words, you know how many 'militant atheists' have done so in public discussion forums such as this one. These types are a dime-a-dozen (the fundamentalists seem a bit more rare on the net).

OK. I won’t dispute that I have offered such a definition of religion in the past. Nor will I defend it.

I think it is more important to just develop a reasoned critique of religion, even if I sometimes fail.

You are making a rational liberal argument to someone who has stated that their most profound belief in life is in a religion that holds rationalism and liberalism as irrelevant.

See my point? That's like pissin' in the wind.

I do see your point. My desire is not to convince the fanatic (it can be fun, but always futile), it’s to sway the moderates who might not realize how important and fundamental they are to the fanatics.

I'm not critiquing Dawkins and/or Harris here.

Fair enough. But they are the ones being called fundamentalist and fanatics in the media. Hence why this thread exists in the first place.

Btw, the Roman Catholic Church officially holds the Bible as to be understood 'allegorically', not 'literally'.

I seriously doubt they think God is nothing more than an allegory. They think it is true that jesus was actually the son of god, born of a virgin, and risen from the dead. They really believe this god will punish those who use birth control. They really believe that their recent decision to allow un-baptized babies into heaven says something true about the nature of the universe and existence. This is not allegory, this is literal belief shaping the human world.

The Roman Catholic Chuch is by far the largest 'faction' of Christians on the planet. Thus, your narrow critique of a particular group of politically active rightwing Protestant fundamentalists is not applicable to the majority of Christians. The views of the Protestant fundamentalists are categorically only a small minority amongst all Christians.

Again, this conversation seems to gravitate towards Christianity and american evangelicals. But we could apply the exact same critiques to any religion or sect within it. And it inevitably comes down to the fact that all the core beliefs of any religious fanatic are shared by the moderates within those religions.

And the difference between "door-to-door' and 'post-to-post' is?

My doorstep is not a public forum displaying a sign that says “Is atheism the New Evangelism?”

This thread isn't specifically about some books in any question.

It is about how some atheists seem to act just like the fundamentalists that they presume to disagree with.

This thread opened with the following question:

“There is more than a faint whiff of fervent evangelism about atheism these days.

Is there much difference in the approach, the marketing between say, Dawkins/Hitchens and somebody like Falwell or the Billy Graham Crusade?”

The OP pointed directly to Dawkins/Hitchens and ill add Harris as all potential atheist fundamentalists and fanatics. The reason I joined was to answer that question in the negative.

Cheers!

Andrew

[Who's Doing What?]

Not true.

There are Jewish Asians and there are also Jewish Buddhists.

Get it yet?

Come on now, I have faith.

NO sorry, you don't get it.

Without the religion there would be no jews. Period.

I don't see how I can put it more clearly.

[Mad_Michael]

NO sorry, you don't get it.

Without the religion there would be no jews. Period.

I don't see how I can put it more clearly.

You can't put it more clearly. Or be more wrong.

You should meet my Jewish atheist friends. According to you, they don't exist.