You and I both know those are in the minority, especially in the Western world. (The East, on the otherhand, is a different story)
It doesn't matter who starts the ball rolling, what matters is that the ball is rolling at all. Or in this case, more like a boulder.
Maybe I think your psychotic percentage number is too low and you may think mine too high, but either way it doesn't take many to influence others to do something they otherwise wouldn't, and religion isn't the exclusive cause of such things. I stand by my "remove religion and the problems you are blaming on religion would still exist", because people exist. Yes, eliminate religion and you eliminate violence in it's name (even that using said religion as a disguise), What point does that even make? The point I was making is that such violence and oppression would likely occur under different pretense.... because of people.
You give people far too little credit, IMO. You and Max should get together and go bowling and talk about how much humanity sucks, or something.
I just think you're removing people from religion...as if one would exist without the other. I read Jesus and see peace, love....a model that prayed for his enemies and avoided violence...who said if you live by the sword, you'll die by it. one who said you should love one another, no matter where you're from, background, etc. that everyone deserves respect. Others choose to ignore that and call themselves Christian....I see my "religion" as very different from theirs. But behind each of those interpretations is a person doing the interpreting. But I'm totally down for bowling with any of you trick azz bustas.
Fair enough. We could discuss that. But just because I think more people are nuts than you do, and don't think of religion with as much contempt as you do, doesn't mean I don't have high hopes and a soft spot for humanity and existence. Cute little buggers. I like to bowl once every few years or so.
You don't think a rejection of religion is in favor of materialistic rationalism is "atheism" ? Mao specifically called religion one of the "Four Olds" that had to be vanquished. Yes because Fascism is primarily political philosophy. Also the Nazi classification of Jews had more to do with an ethnic than religious designation which is why even secular Jews were killed. Lets also not forget the killing of Roma, homosexuals and the handicapped by Nazis that had nothing to do with religion. Also the Stalinist regime wasn't driven by religion. There is a some argument that the Japanese Empire was driven by a quasi religious view of the divinity of the Emperor but their own rhetoric primarily points at ethnic superiority and a desire for natural resources as driving Japanese expansionism. So basically "religion" is anything you don't agree with and find irrational.
I don't think it isn't, it isn't. Where in the atheist doctrine are the tenants of materialistic rationality expounded? (trick question, there is no doctrine) In fact, I would question that the Mao/Stalin version of "rationalism" you're talking about was actually anything *but* rational. The motivation behind the extermination of the Jews was absolutely religious. Catholic fingerprints were all over Hitler and the Third Reich. To excuse religion from its role in that atrocity is shameful. Don't be absurd. Everyone knows damn well what the definition of a religion is. When you have a society of people treating a political figure and system as a deity, unquestionably following orders, and acting irrationally loyal... you end up with these consequences. There is no society or people that ever existed on the face of this planet or any other planet out there that suffered from thinking critically or being rational.
This strikes me as a fairly simplistic view of humanity. We are a cooperative species but the level that we cooperate the best at is essentially the tribal level. Going back to the most primitive human societies and among our closest primate cousins violence is pretty prevalent particularly between tribal groups. Its only with the construct of institutions that are basically coercive in nature (system of government and laws with the power to enforce those laws) that we have a greater level of cooperation. For those of us who have grown up in such a society we internalize that but even as civilized people we still behave violently for all sorts of reasons. It doesn't take religion to drive that just the idea. Just consider how much looting often occurs when there is a breakdown in civil society. Laying the blame for violence primarily on religion also misses the fact that religion is one of those institutions that has helped to organize society beyond the tribal level and make it possible for greater cooperation. Consider for example that ancient civilizations where all religious in nature. Since religion and government were pretty much one and the same for most of human history its doubtful that humans could've organized beyond the tribal level without religion.
For the most part we cooperate where is serves us to survive and procreate. Sometime we inspire (conspire) others to to be selfless...where it serves us to survive and procreate. Reality here on Planet Earth is the big fish eat the little fish, and the strong are driven to dominate in order to procreate. The die was cast when the first protozoa decided to eat another protozoa instead of a phytoplankton. Ruthless, remorseless domination is the natural order for animals; of which humans just the cleverest class. All our baby steps toward a higher level of existence, Greece, The Renaissance, the idealization of Christ, The Revolution of Western Democracy, haven't taken us very far yet. And doctrines of myth will never will. When I was young and men walked on the moon, I had the idea that the realization of Earth as singular miracle in the vastness of space might be the key to understanding our interdependence and common purpose. Nope, everybody just wants to get and keep whatever they can, others be damned. The evolutionary imperative is still the dominate force in human behavior.
Wtf? You call this the tribal level? We're cooperating like a mofo now, and we left the tribal stage behind a loooooooooong time ago. Not really. It's fairly rare, even for our ancestors. And when it happens, it is typically done for the purpose of survival. Which, in stark contrast to religion, is violence borne of necessity and seldom, if ever, elective. And yet, we're doing just fine in our nice little society here that is hardly tribal in nature or scale. And once again, you're confusing elective violence vs. necessary violence. Elective violence will always exist without religion, but it will be greatly reduced, as you have removed a needless primary motivator. But of course, testosterone, alcohol, mental illness, money, Gary Kubiak, and chicks will still exist to push us to violence every once in a while, but for the most part, we keep that to a minimum. (and, once again, it serves a purpose!) I totally agree. It served (key word here, past tense) its purpose. But it's time to move on. We'll get there, eventually. Much the way that the older, even more barbarous religions died out. Baby steps!
Sigh. We've been through this. The definition in the dictionary is slanted to satisfy the deist view of atheism. It's wrong, they refuse to change it. And it does nothing but create a giant headache for the atheist community to be labeled something in which they are not. No derp. It is my subjective opinion they acted irrationally, and not many people would disagree with me given the outcome. Conversion would not spare them, as Jewish faith was thought to be a racial impurity as well. The absolute defining motivator behind killing a religious sect of people was the belief that their existence was an abomination to God, and getting rid of them was God's will. It isn't about *my* definition. If you treat something like a religion, then it becomes a religion, doesn't matter if they say otherwise. And as I said in the first place, even if you separate these two things, it represents two groups of people both acting in the same manner by adhering to irrational beliefs that justify violence. Awarding the silver medal to religion in the inspiring irrational violence olympics is still a very poor way to justify its existence.
Read the rest of my post. Evidence for that? Primitive tribes in New Guinea even to this day still engage in tribal warfare. Much of the slaughter in Rwanda and the Congo is tribal. Chimpanzees are very hostile to those outside of their own groups. Bonobos, the most peaceful primates, population isn't much above a tribal level. Because we have institutions like government that are basically coercive. Consider the looting that broke out in NOLA. In many cases once government cannot enforce the we essentially devolve back to a tribal level. Possibly but at the same time as I noted religion has also served as a tamper on violence. Keep in mind though that many religious conflicts aren't purely religious in nature. For instance the Israeli Palestinian conflict has many non-religious issues such as water rights that play a role. Even without religion its still possible that we would have as much conflict as we do now. I don't know whether humans have grown beyond religion. My personal view is that we haven't and that as much as we are rational we are spiritual. My own feeling is that a purely materialistic society (one without belief beyond the physical) would still be beset by many problems and might be worse than what we have now but I don't know for sure.
Acting as if religion, as an entity, is blameless for the actions committed in its name, simply because it originated from man, is bunk. These religions are hardly an object of creation anymore, and are now self-sustaining entities. Criticizing the people who made them, instead of criticizing the actual concept of blind faith and irrational thinking that fuels them, is a fool's errand. (I.e. Once the ball starts rolling, these religions shape people, more than people ever shaped the religion. We have some great modern examples of this, like Scientology)
Stalin and Mao's only theism was whatever could be used to consolidate their power. The persecution of religion was used to eliminate yet another 'threat' to their control. It certainly wasn't any type of Humanist movement, there was no regard for the sanctity of the individual. Their only -ism was nationalism; the desire to reshape their countries from agrarian 'targets' to industrial equals; a noble intent with reprehensible methods.
