Do Atheists treat religion like Oldiesfreak does the Democrats? (and vice-versa)

[Oldiesfreak1854]

You know, Oldiesfreak still thinks the Democratic Party (United States) is full of racists, and that its racist history keeps it from being valid, with his wrong beliefs regarding the Civil Rights Movement.


Anyway, I was thinking a few days ago: Don't Atheists treat Religion the same way? And do Religious people also do it?

First, my beliefs regarding the civil rights movement are not wrong.  And second, I never said that the Democratic Party is full of racists now; the simple fact of the matter is that for most of its history, it was.  Nobody, Democrat or Republican, would support slavery or segregation now.  What matters is where the parties stood when they existed, and in both cases, Democrats supported them and Republicans opposed them.  And as my last post points out, I have plenty of reasons that I oppose the Democratic Party of today; their history of racism is just one reason, but not the only one.

[DC Al Fine]

Highly religious people enjoy tying atheism to Stalin more than atheists talk about the Crusades, though some atheists do like to bring up the crusades far too much.  Most atheist hatred of religion is still based on present day problems.

I was just about to bring that up.

And yes, that is true, lining atheism to Stalinism.

Don't forget Hitler and the Nazis - I've lost count of how many times I've seen atheists blamed for that.

Just as frequently people have accused Hitler of being a Christian, though this is objectively false and it's quite clear from his personal writings he was anti-Christian. Even more amusing is people who claim Mussolini was a Christian, considering he was a not all that vocal but still open atheist.

Hitler was nominally a Christian (he was baptised Catholic); not a very nice Christian (to put it mildly) nor was it a defining philosophy for him in any way. However to say that it is ‘quite clear from his personal writings that he was not a Christian’ is demonstratably false. He in fact demonstrated his faith many many times in his speeches throughout his entire political career. He may have been making twisted appeals to Providence and warped the faith to suit him as indeed he did, but there is no evidence to suggest he wasn't Christian. Other's may disagree, but he never said himself that he wasn't a Christian.

Alternatively: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

Without derailing the thread, let me say that given Hitler's relatively varied statements on Christianity (compare what afleitch quoted with some of his Christianity=slave religion comments), I think Hitler  could be viewed as no religion, or heretic. However his behavior clearly indicates he wasn't orthodox.

[afleitch]

Without derailing the thread, let me say that given Hitler's relatively varied statements on Christianity (compare what afleitch quoted with some of his Christianity=slave religion comments), I think Hitler could be viewed as no religion, or heretic. However his behavior clearly indicates he wasn't orthodox.

I never said he wasn’t unorthodox. However if one’s religion is how one defines it, then he considered himself a follower of Christ and declared publically that Jesus was his Lord. Now words can be empty words, but we have to go by what he either said in a recorded speech, or wrote down. However that is to be interepreted is another matter.

Fred Phelps is a fraction of the man Hitler was in terms of his views, but as un Christian in spirit as we know him to be, he says he is and he says that Jesus is his saviour. By his own accounts, even if not by others, he is a Christian.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Hitler's religion is off topic. It's Nazism itself that we are blaming for. Nazism is not a Christian idealology.

[afleitch]

Hitler's religion is off topic. It's Nazism itself that we are blaming for. Nazism is not a Christian idealology.

Of course it isn't. The only Christian ideology is Christianity.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Hitler was nominally a Christian (he was baptised Catholic)

Which means absolutely jack sh!t as to if someone believes in Christianity or should be identified as such. You should know that better than anyone.

not a very nice Christian (to put it mildly) nor was it a defining philosophy for him in any way. However to say that it is ‘quite clear from his personal writings that he was not a Christian’ is demonstratably false. He in fact demonstrated his faith many many times in his speeches throughout his entire political career. He may have been making twisted appeals to Providence and warped the faith to suit him as indeed he did, but there is no evidence to suggest he wasn't Christian. Other's may disagree, but he never said himself that he wasn't a Christian.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've never claimed Hitler was an atheist, or that he might've given lip service to Christianity to advance himself. But privately he obviously did not approve of what he considered a "Jew religion". Quotes from "Hitler's Table Talk", a collection of private conversations with him recorded by other Nazis:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and for a fairly ironic one considering the modern day far right:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But it's clear that neither Christianity or atheism are responsible for Hitler.

[afleitch]

But it's clear that neither Christianity or atheism are responsible for Hitler.

Again, no one is saying that either are responsible. What I said is that it is clear from his writings that he was nominally what we would consider a 'Christian' because he said that Jesus was his Lord. He considered 'Christianity' to be 'an indecent way to turn the Godhead into mockery.' It is clear he had little time for the the churches (his pet obession was the position of the German churches and subjecting them to the whims of the state) and for organised Christianity. His desire was to create a new aryan and Nazi inspired state cult. What that would have been and what that would have excludes is anyone's guess.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

and for a fairly ironic one considering the modern day far right:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So Pat Robertson was right!  Fascism is Islamism!

[Oak Hills]

Hitler was the leader of a fanatical right-wing nationalist movement in a primarily Christian country. Of course he paid lip service to a Christianity, and specifically Catholicism, because he was raised in that denomination. We don't know what he actually believed in, but he publicly said he was still Catholic, even though we can demonstrate he had not been observant for a very long time. One of my pet peeves is people claiming that the Nazis were anti-Catholic. The Nazis, at least publicly, were very much pro-Catholic. A party of their position on the political spectrum had to be to gain any support. Though the top Nazis may have been interested in replacing it with the cult of Hitler, or ancient German mythology, or whatever, the average rank-and-file Nazis were almost to a person, Christians. That's just how it is for a mass movement in a country as Christian as early-twentieth century Germany.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well of course the Nazis were not anti-Catholic. See the fact that just about all their allies and collaboration regimes were Catholic clerical fascists (see: Tiso in Slovakia*, the Ustashe, the Vichy French, etc.) But it's pretty clear that Hitler wasn't fond of Christianity. He might've not have been publicly vocal about it, but he was obviously not seeing himself as fighting for Christianity or anything like that. For the record just about any type of orthodox Christianity was effectively banned in the Nazi state, they promoted a sort of syncretic church in its place.

*Who was actually a priest.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Well of course the Nazis were not anti-Catholic. See the fact that just about all their allies and collaboration regimes were Catholic clerical fascists (see: Tiso in Slovakia*, the Ustashe, the Vichy French, etc.) But it's pretty clear that Hitler wasn't fond of Christianity. He might've not have been publicly vocal about it, but he was obviously not seeing himself as fighting for Christianity or anything like that. For the record just about any type of orthodox Christianity was effectively banned in the Nazi state, they promoted a sort of syncretic church in its place.

*Who was actually a priest.

Wow.  That is some kind of insanity. 

And Oldies... what the hell are you talking about?  You sound just like every other right-winger, but your boogeyman is not Black Helicopters and Obama's Negro Army.   No... you're boogeyman is this disjointed conspiracy theory about civil rights and how it ties into some dependency culture.  Why do those who are trying to further civil rights always seem to be so Democratic?  You can't even explain this basic error in your logic. 

[Torie]

People, I just want to say, can we all get along? - Rodney King

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Hitler was the leader of a fanatical right-wing nationalist movement in a primarily Christian country. Of course he paid lip service to a Christianity

Seeing this makes me think of (Engize's?) reasoning to call Bush41 a closet atheist, and using his "atheists aren't citizens" as an example of the above for some reason.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I have a great respect for a lot of religious people even though I myself have been at least once in my life ed over by organized religion. The most rational man I now is a devout presbyterian/Anglican/Methodist (Don't ask) who goes to church every Sunday, reads in depth theology and knows his scripture.

I, however, find the claims of Christianity metaphysically absurd and I can't bring myself to even pretend to believe in them (because, perhaps, I don't have to). I also find church sermons boring... this is probably a generational thing.

Of course, the first two of those three things were held by the founders of the Soviet Union.

The problem isn't Christianity, it is culture that has grown around which has a multiple of causes very little of which relate to religion. Hell, what is authentic Christianity anyway? How can I attack that which barely exists?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

You know, I never see fundie atheists ever attack Tribal/Traditional Religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Janism, Baha'i, Neo-Panganism, or Zoroastrianism.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

You know, I never see fundie atheists ever attack Tribal/Traditional Religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Janism, Baha'i, Neo-Panganism, or Zoroastrianism.

Uhhhh.... because Islam and Christianity are the largest and most diabolical?

[John Dibble]

You know, I never see fundie atheists ever attack Tribal/Traditional Religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Janism, Baha'i, Neo-Panganism, or Zoroastrianism.

Uhhhh.... because Islam and Christianity are the largest and most diabolical?

This. It's not like we view those other religions as being any more true. Since most of the people we're going to be arguing with are going to be members of an Abrahamic religion, most of the arguments you're going to see are going to be over those religions - after all, they don't think those other religions are true either.

Also, what is a fundie atheist? There aren't any fundamentals of atheism - you just have to not believe in any gods to be one - so how can we have fundamentalists?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, what is a fundie atheist? There aren't any fundamentals of atheism - you just have to not believe in any gods to be one - so how can we have fundamentalists?

Someone who behaves in the same manner as many Fundamentalist Theists.  To wit, unwilling to entertain any doubt that their beliefs are wrong and believing that those who do not share their beliefs are idiots, evil, or both.  Outside the old Communist bloc, atheists have generally not persecuted theists. but that's just because they've rarely had the power to be able to persecute them at other times and places.

[DC Al Fine]

Also, what is a fundie atheist? There aren't any fundamentals of atheism - you just have to not believe in any gods to be one - so how can we have fundamentalists?

Someone who behaves in the same manner as many Fundamentalist Theists.  To wit, unwilling to entertain any doubt that their beliefs are wrong and believing that those who do not share their beliefs are idiots, evil, or both.  Outside the old Communist bloc, atheists have generally not persecuted theists. but that's just because they've rarely had the power to be able to persecute them at other times and places.

French Revolution is the only non-commie example I can think of off the top of my head.

[Northeast Rep Snowball]

Also, what is a fundie atheist? There aren't any fundamentals of atheism - you just have to not believe in any gods to be one - so how can we have fundamentalists?

Someone who behaves in the same manner as many Fundamentalist Theists.  To wit, unwilling to entertain any doubt that their beliefs are wrong and believing that those who do not share their beliefs are idiots, evil, or both.  Outside the old Communist bloc, atheists have generally not persecuted theists. but that's just because they've rarely had the power to be able to persecute them at other times and places.

French Revolution is the only non-commie example I can think of off the top of my head.

Note: this also ended up providing the first suffrage. I don't understand this topic at all, personally I respect Buddhism and Animism, while I don't believe them, I think they have very good values, especially given the origin of them, far better than the main 3.

[John Dibble]

Also, what is a fundie atheist? There aren't any fundamentals of atheism - you just have to not believe in any gods to be one - so how can we have fundamentalists?

Someone who behaves in the same manner as many Fundamentalist Theists.  To wit, unwilling to entertain any doubt that their beliefs are wrong and believing that those who do not share their beliefs are idiots, evil, or both.  Outside the old Communist bloc, atheists have generally not persecuted theists. but that's just because they've rarely had the power to be able to persecute them at other times and places.

Yeah, that's the only reason.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, what is a fundie atheist? There aren't any fundamentals of atheism - you just have to not believe in any gods to be one - so how can we have fundamentalists?

Someone who behaves in the same manner as many Fundamentalist Theists.  To wit, unwilling to entertain any doubt that their beliefs are wrong and believing that those who do not share their beliefs are idiots, evil, or both.  Outside the old Communist bloc, atheists have generally not persecuted theists. but that's just because they've rarely had the power to be able to persecute them at other times and places.

Yeah, that's the only reason.

Don't go rolling your eyes.  I've yet to see anything that shows that atheists are kinder, gentler, and otherwise morally superior to theists. Nor have I seen anything to suggest the reverse. I believe that the principle "power corrupts" applies equally to people of all religions, including the religion of atheism.

[John Dibble]

Also, what is a fundie atheist? There aren't any fundamentals of atheism - you just have to not believe in any gods to be one - so how can we have fundamentalists?

Someone who behaves in the same manner as many Fundamentalist Theists.  To wit, unwilling to entertain any doubt that their beliefs are wrong and believing that those who do not share their beliefs are idiots, evil, or both.  Outside the old Communist bloc, atheists have generally not persecuted theists. but that's just because they've rarely had the power to be able to persecute them at other times and places.

Yeah, that's the only reason.

Don't go rolling your eyes.  I've yet to see anything that shows that atheists are kinder, gentler, and otherwise morally superior to theists. Nor have I seen anything to suggest the reverse. I believe that the principle "power corrupts" applies equally to people of all religions, including the religion of atheism.

Atheists don't particularly have a reason to persecute religious people, even if they were in power. The Communist bloc's motivations in persecuting the religious were largely due to their communist philosophy and their leader's need to get rid of authorities outside of their own rather than their atheism, so they aren't really a valid example. If an atheist got in power and was a tyrannical dick, it wouldn't likely be because of his atheism and I doubt that the religious would be the sole focus of his tyranny.

There's also the matter that most of the people you would label "fundie atheists" follow some kind of humanist philosophy these days.

Oh, and atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.

[DemPGH]

Atheism is in no way a religion, and the religious really should refrain from projecting the vices of faith onto a-theism. Atheism is without faith, and it has never gone to war or on crusade or established an inquisition. it simply has not, and it has no desire to, because it's not about salvation, moral righteousness, symbols, systems, language, etc. that religion is and that its adherents view as "holy" or else as accepted truth without any empirical reason. In fact, religion's lack of empirical evidence is its calling card. Not so with atheism. I go through life every day quite comfortably without any thought to what is or is not divine, so I practice no religion in identifying as an agnostic or atheist.

One of my heroes, Francis Bacon, had a wonderful quote about atheism being peaceful in his essay "Of Superstition."

"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, though religion were not; but superstition dismounts all these, and erecteth an absolute monarchy, in the minds of men. Therefore theism did never perturb states; for it makes men wary of themselves, as looking no further: and we see the times inclined to atheism (as the time of Augustus Caesar) were civil times. But superstition hath been the confusion of many states. . ."

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There's also the matter that most of the people you would label "fundie atheists" follow some kind of humanist philosophy these days.

Oh, and atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.

Humanism and Fundamentalism, whether of the Secular or the Theistic kind are inherently incompatible. So it would be impossible for a Fundamentalist Atheist to be Humanist (tho an FA might falsely describe himself as such).  It also would be impossible for a Christian Humanist to be a Fundamentalist.

Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.   Atheism does fit within that expansive definition of religion.  Granted, if you use a narrower definition of religion, atheism would not as it does not posit the existence of a divine force in the universe.  However, your snarky comment about bald being a hair color shows you did grasp my meaning.

One of my heroes, Francis Bacon, had a wonderful quote about atheism being peaceful in his essay "Of Superstition."

"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, though religion were not; but superstition dismounts all these, and erecteth an absolute monarchy, in the minds of men. Therefore theism did never perturb states; for it makes men wary of themselves, as looking no further: and we see the times inclined to atheism (as the time of Augustus Caesar) were civil times. But superstition hath been the confusion of many states. . ."

Is not the belief that bare nature is inherently moral itself a faith?  I also say that to describe the time of Augustus as "civil" is laughable.  Given the era Bacon lived in, his misguided faith in the virtues of the Romans is understandable.  However, I would have thought such nonsense would have been relegated to the same dustbins as the idea of the "noble savage".