My problem with Evangelical Atheism

[KabeRinnaul]

Show me any evil deed done by a person because "secular humanism" or "atheism" or possibly "the wise teacher Dawkins" told him to. (Yes, that is different from someone committing a crime and just happening to be atheist. or theist. Or a stamp collector. I'm talking about motivation for that particular deed).

I'd like to introduce you to a man. This man's name was Stalin.

His pals weren't too great either.

"I don't agree with their interpretation therefore they're not true followers of my or that religion therefore religion gets off the hook."

I've heard that often and variants on it. I don't accept it.

Rapscallion

You're equating this with the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, when I don't think they're really the same. If following a religion means obeying the restrictions it places upon your behavior, and someone then ignores those restrictions and does whatever they want anyway, then aren't they at best just giving lip service to the religion? Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all say right there in their books (multiple times, especially in the case of Christianity, seeing as how Christ talks about it in the New Testament) that killing is against the rules (for that matter, some interpretations of the Koran hold that it condemns fanaticism).

How many rules is someone allowed to ignore before you're allowed to say they're not even playing the game anymore?

[Gravekeeper]

Ahh, Stalin. The ironic part here is Stalin killed more people than any religious war ever has if not all of them combined. In fact, religious wars are a fart in the wind casualty wise compared to political and idealogical wars. Even the Thirty Years War, pretty much the biggest religious war ever waged, doesn't rank that high up on the list

Death by religion accounts for a rather small % of casualties across wars, disasters and genocides. Politics has killed more people than anything else in human history. In fact, religion's got a pretty piss poor score in the grand scheme of things. You can point at it and blame the world's ills on it all you want, but frankly it hasn't really done that much, it just makes a lot of noise when it does it.

[Rapscallion]

"Thou shalt not kill"

One of the ten commandments. A pretty basic damn tenent of christianiy. This is not an interpretation--it simply says "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

Ah yes, from Exodus, in the Old Testament.

You know, same place we get Leviticus and all the charmless death threats in that part. Sleep with another man's wife? Stone them both to death. Sex between consenting men? Death to both. So on and so forth.

Yup, thou shalt kill. Fundamental laws and all that.

The usual response is that Jesus came and formed new laws, reforming things, but if so why are the ten commandments still acceptable while the Levitican ones aren't?

My experience of fellow atheists is that if they hate, there's a reason to hate - not because an ancient text tells them that they should.

Perhaps it was mistranslated. But thats what it says--anyone who would bomb an abortion clinic is denying that one, fundamental rule of their own rulebook.

Analysis of this by christian apologists that I've seen say that illegal murder is what is meant, but death for religious rules is fine and dandy, as far as the ancient texts were concerned.

So, yes I object to using those examples of why religion is inherently bad, or the cause of evil, because the people who performed them violated one of the most basic rules of their religion. Regardless of motivation, they were not following that religions teachings, not even something that is said to be a "Direct from god" rule.

Nope, as far as they were concerned they were following the rules. That can often be justified as a valid view point for them.

Back to atheists, though, since this thread was founded on calling out the evangelical ones, er - I think we drifted a bit too much.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

You're equating this with the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, when I don't think they're really the same. If following a religion means obeying the restrictions it places upon your behavior, and someone then ignores those restrictions and does whatever they want anyway, then aren't they at best just giving lip service to the religion? Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all say right there in their books (multiple times, especially in the case of Christianity, seeing as how Christ talks about it in the New Testament) that killing is against the rules (for that matter, some interpretations of the Koran hold that it condemns fanaticism).

How many rules is someone allowed to ignore before you're allowed to say they're not even playing the game anymore?

Actually, that's something I usually end up trying to tear down. It's most often used by those defending religion who claim that someone who went against their precise beliefs wasn't a true believer.

Rapscallion

[Talon]

I'd like to introduce you to a man. This man's name was Stalin.

His pals weren't too great either.

Here we go, this tired old argument again.

Do you think Dawkins or the late Hitchins would be right at home in those regimes?

I yield the floor to the late Christopher Hitchens, who does a better job of debunking this argument than I could.

"In Russia 1917, for hundreds of years millions of people have been told that the head of the state is a supernatural power.
[...]
If you're Joseph Stalin [...] you shouldn't be in the totalitarianism business, if you can't exploit a ready-made reservior of creduility and servility as big as that."

Hitchens then went on to talk of state-sponsored miracles like Lysenko's Biology:

"Scientific dissent from Lysenko's theories of environmentally acquired inheritance was formally outlawed in 1948, and for the next several years opponents were purged from held positions, and many imprisoned."

What else, people were told they had to be grateful to the Leader and only the Leader for everything they get, and always be aware of a counter-Revolutionary Devil.

Sound familiar?

Religious atrocities and totalitarian atrocities wear different faces, but stem from the same malady: the replacement of reason by faith.

[Duelist925]

Ah yes, from Exodus, in the Old Testament.

You know, same place we get Leviticus and all the charmless death threats in that part. Sleep with another man's wife? Stone them both to death. Sex between consenting men? Death to both. So on and so forth.

Yup, thou shalt kill. Fundamental laws and all that.

The usual response is that Jesus came and formed new laws, reforming things, but if so why are the ten commandments still acceptable while the Levitican ones aren't?

The reason many people still accept the commandments is...well most of them still make a certain sense in todays world, and mesh well with Jesus teachings. Most of leviticus doesnt.

Thou shalt not kill, thous shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, etc--dont kill, don't steal, dont cheat. Very straightforward.

Dont eat shrimp--Back them, it might kill you, thanks to no refrigeration or food hygenics. Now? Munch on the little sea roaches as much as you want. Don't have weird sex because it makes the priests all squicked out. Adulterate, and we'll kill ya!

The only people who still cite leviticus are the ones who want to use it to further their own bigotry. Frankly, leviticus doesn't make sense anymore--the ten commandments do, as well as meshing pretty dang well with the teachings of Jesus. Leviticus...just doesnt. It doesnt make sense anymore, and the things Jesus taught all pretty much render it moot.

My experience of fellow atheists is that if they hate, there's a reason to hate - not because an ancient text tells them that they should.

....How many do you know? My experience is their pretty much like anyone else--and I've met more than a few with some pretty irrational hates, ranging from misogyny, to racism.

Analysis of this by christian apologists that I've seen say that illegal murder is what is meant, but death for religious rules is fine and dandy, as far as the ancient texts were concerned.


Nope, as far as they were concerned they were following the rules. That can often be justified as a valid view point for them.

I don't care if they justified it in their own heads--they still violated the laws of the organization to which they were bound. I can justify theft if I try hard enough, but if I steal, I'm still stealing. If you kill, you are still killing.

Back to atheists, though, since this thread was founded on calling out the evangelical ones, er - I think we drifted a bit too much.

Rapscallion

You're right tho. You make some very good arguements however.

Kabe said what I wanted to say much better than I can as well. Ty Kabe.

[Rapscallion]

The reason many people still accept the commandments is...well most of them still make a certain sense in todays world, and mesh well with Jesus teachings. Most of leviticus doesnt.

Thou shalt not kill, thous shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, etc--dont kill, don't steal, dont cheat. Very straightforward.

Yes, and thou shalt kill under certain circumstances that consolidate the power of the religious classes - in black and white.

Dont eat shrimp--Back them, it might kill you, thanks to no refrigeration or food hygenics. Now? Munch on the little sea roaches as much as you want. Don't have weird sex because it makes the priests all squicked out. Adulterate, and we'll kill ya!

First, I already came to those conclusions, and second, irrelevant. Those are the rules in black and white and to do other is to perform pick and mix religion. The relevant part is that atheists don't generally pull this sort of shit.

If they do, they are far less likely to infect others with their own insanity as it's going to be pretty obvious that it's bigotry and the like and not the preference of an all-powerful deity to whom others feel they owe blind obeisance and fealty.

The only people who still cite leviticus are the ones who want to use it to further their own bigotry. Frankly, leviticus doesn't make sense anymore--the ten commandments do, as well as meshing pretty dang well with the teachings of Jesus. Leviticus...just doesnt. It doesnt make sense anymore, and the things Jesus taught all pretty much render it moot.

We're getting off the thread and almost wholeheartedly onto the actions of the religious, when it's the actions of the atheists that are the subject. That's something we've argued about before. However, I'll point out that you said the basic rule was thou shalt not kill, I pointed out that there are plenty of exhortations to kill, and the rules are there in black and white. No amount of word play or logic or whatever is going to change the fact that there are instructions in there to kill under certain circumstances. There are also instructions to not kill.

Atheists? We're under no such instructions save for the law of the land.

....How many do you know? My experience is their pretty much like anyone else--and I've met more than a few with some pretty irrational hates, ranging from misogyny, to racism.

Going around asking people their religious preferences is the purview of the fanatic. I've never conducted a survey of the people I know and categorised people by their views on religion. If I know an atheist who acts in a way I would describe as unpleasant, it's not because they were told to act that way to please a non-existant being.

I don't care if they justified it in their own heads--they still violated the laws of the organization to which they were bound. I can justify theft if I try hard enough, but if I steal, I'm still stealing. If you kill, you are still killing.

First point, it's murder unless the religion says it is, under which circumstances you are required to perform the act. Second, it's there in black and white who you are supposed to kill and why. Third, even a militant atheist doesn't justify such acts saying that they were told to - they have to accept the consequences of their own actions.

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

Religious atrocities and totalitarian atrocities wear different faces, but stem from the same malady: the replacement of reason by faith.

That's frankly a rather unfair argument as with that yard stick you could conceivably classify any strongly held belief as faith regardless of its origin and lump everything together. While avoiding having it touch atheism due to semantics.

An example was asked for and given. Stalin did have state atheism for a good decade. You had to profess atheism or be ostracized or worse. Churches were seized, priests and bishops were killed. Atheist propaganda was spread in the media as well as in schools. Militant atheist groups were formed that harassed and persecuted the religious. They did every last thing that gets blamed on religion, but they did it for science and atheism.

[smileyeagle1021]

For childish mocking: no, I won't go look for citations. But any use of "sky pixie" or any similar sort of terminology counts, for starters. .

To be blunt, even to this day there are places where atheists are killed by theists for the crime of being atheists. Many theists still support the death penalty for the crime of homosexuality. Even in the United States you see theists calling for forced indoctrination.
Compared to that, childish mocking seems like a real non-issue... I'd much rather be told I worshiped a a "sky pixie" than put through the torture of ex-gay "therapy" or worse, put to death (on second though, I don't know which one is worse).

I read, watch and engage in discussions between atheists and theists, and while of course i did notice athiests mocking theists here and there (Yes, "Sky fairy" is quite prominent), this is in no way comparable to the hatred, bile, bigotry and threats very, very often coming from the theist side.
One thing i'd like to say regarding your first point: Personally, i feel that religion is very harmful to human society, even today being the cause of so much evil in the world, while all the good it does could easily be done by any secular organization taking it's place.

Thank you, took the words right out of my mouth.

"Thou shalt not kill"

One of the ten commandments. A pretty basic damn tenent of christianiy. This is not an interpretation--it simply says "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

Actually, that is an interpretation (unless the 10 commandments was written in English)... many translations say "thou shalt not murder"
And, the Bible clearly states when it is not murder, for example, killing a homosexual is not murder for "their blood shall be upon their own hands" or of course the great quote from the Crusades, "to kill an infidel is not murder, it is the path to Heaven"

[Gravekeeper]

To be blunt, even to this day there are places where atheists are killed by theists for the crime of being atheists.

To this day there are places where <insert race, religion, political stance, ideology, nationality, sexuality, gender> are killed for the crime of being <insert race, religion, political stance, ideology, nationality, sexuality, gender>.

So kind of a moot point frankly. Especially since most if not all of those severely outweigh atheists being killed for being atheist.

Many theists still support the death penalty for the crime of homosexuality.

Again, you could insert practically anything in place of homosexuality. Also, the places where said theists reside also support the death penalty for astrology.

Even in the United States you see theists calling for forced indoctrination.

Yet again, you're painting everyone with the brush a select group of loud fucktards.

Compared to that, childish mocking seems like a real non-issue... I'd much rather be told I worshiped a a "sky pixie" than put through the torture of ex-gay "therapy" or worse, put to death (on second though, I don't know which one is worse).

Well, good thing you don't live in Iran isn't it? -.-

Thank you, took the words right out of my mouth.

Already covered that one.

Actually, that is an interpretation (unless the 10 commandments was written in English)... many translations say "thou shalt not murder"

"Many translations"? Citation needed. The original text is Thou Shalt Not Kill. Thou Shalt Not Murder is an alternative interpretation that appears to be originating from an anonymous Jewish source from the 13th century in Spain and specifically is discussing the Torah. This interpretation also says you can't build an altar out of stone nor walk up a flight of steps to a place or worship.

But last I checked it wasn't the Jews trying to pray the gay away.

And, the Bible clearly states when it is not murder, for example, killing a homosexual is not murder for "their blood shall be upon their own hands"

We covered this already in a thread you yourself created.

or of course the great quote from the Crusades, "to kill an infidel is not murder, it is the path to Heaven"

Grats, you found a quote from a war about one side wanting to kill the other. A war which, as I already pointed out, is a fart in the winds of history casualty wise.

Seriously, no offence smiley, because I understand why you have a bias in this. But you're still being biased. -.-

[smileyeagle1021]

Seriously, no offence smiley, because I understand why you have a bias in this. But you're still being biased. -.-

And amazingly, by never trusting Christians, I can never be hurt by them again... funny how that works.
Until Christians prove to me that I have reason to trust them, I'm not going to risk being hurt by the douchebag hatemonger Christ again.

eta- and as I've mentioned several times, I have read the bible and there is no ambiguity, God does hate me because I am gay, and there is nothing I can do to change that, short of putting myself through torture to become straight.
Why should I trust a group that worships a god who unambiguously hates me?

[Gravekeeper]

And amazingly, by never trusting Christians, I can never be hurt by them again... funny how that works.
Until Christians prove to me that I have reason to trust them, I'm not going to risk being hurt by the douchebag hatemonger Christ again.

Ah, so the War on Terror approach? -.-

I have read the bible and there is no ambiguity, God does hate me because I am gay, and there is nothing I can do to change that, short of putting myself through torture to become straight.

Citation needed. Give me the exact quote from God in the Bible where he says he hates gays if you would please. Seeing as not even Christians agree on this, I'm sure they'll be ecstatic to know you figured it out. >.>

[Duelist925]

And amazingly, by never trusting Christians, I can never be hurt by them again... funny how that works.
Until Christians prove to me that I have reason to trust them, I'm not going to risk being hurt by the douchebag hatemonger Christ again.

Christ was an ok guy. I'd really love to figure out how he could be labelled a hatemonger? Please cite.

Also, never hurt by them? Ok, which sect? Which creed? How about Jews, they ok? Muslims? Hindu? Shintoists? Wiccans? Any of these you have a problem with?

Or just christians because it has the loudest group of fuckwits?

eta- and as I've mentioned several times, I have read the bible and there is no ambiguity, God does hate me because I am gay, and there is nothing I can do to change that, short of putting myself through torture to become straight.
Why should I trust a group that worships a god who unambiguously hates me?

No ambiguity. In a several thousand years old text, cobbled together from who knows how many sources, translated, retranslated, and mistranslated a thousand times over, and one of the most studied, looked over, examined, and interpretated texts out there?

Not to mention, a good few chunks appear to have been written by someone on really bad mushrooms?

The only thing I consider even sort of unambiguous in the bible is pretty much the ten commandments, and some of the shit Jesus was supposed to have said.

As Gravekeeper said, please cite your sources. Biblical scholars will throw you a parade

[Andara Bledin]

And amazingly, by never trusting Christians, I can never be hurt by them again... funny how that works.
Until Christians prove to me that I have reason to trust them, I'm not going to risk being hurt by the douchebag hatemonger Christ again.

You know, I thought you were a friend. But that... that really hurts.

^-.-^

[protege]

But that... that really hurts.

^-.-^

Don't fee too bad, Andara. He's already said that he hates Christian/Republican/Conservatives...so that means he hates me too, since I fall into those groups. Never mind I've done *nothing* to him at all. I've said it before, but aren't generalizations a bitch?


There are assholes in *every* group. Should I hate Muslims because some radicals killed some people I knew on 9/11? Should I hate all gay people because of some nasty comments one made to me years ago? See how painting everyone in the group with the same brush is wrong? I know it's very easy to do that, but seriously?