Could atheists do this?

[pauliedangerously]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1093320

[Selwynn]

1. Sure - plently of non-religious fanatical ideology to go around

You know, capitalism and corporatism are just as full of brainwashed, luntic fanatics destroying the world and any example from religion.

It is as big, if not a bigger problem then religious nutballs. No religion required to fuck the world in the ass by greed and thirst for power. Atheists are able to do that just as good as anyoen else.

[pauliedangerously]

2. UMM...

90% of this country believes in God, and 99% of the prison population believes in God.

I'm not following your logic...

[Selwynn]

4. I'm not sure what you're not following

You asked: could atheists do something like this.

So I clicked on the link, and it was really bad things that people were doing in the name of religion.

And so my response to you is: yes, atheists (or anyone else for that matter) could do something "like" this, only using some other ideology or context as their motive/justification.

Religious fanaticism is certainly a problem. But it is not actually the root problem. It shares its roots with numerous other manifestations of the same problem. The root problem is the corruptibility of the human heart and the obsessive fixation with power and control.

If all religious organizations magically disappeared from the fact of the earth, we would not have a Utopia. One vacuum of power would be supplanted by some other ideology - religious or otherwise. Case in point in our own society is the absolute destruction done by corporations in the name of their agenda. That has nothing to do with religion - it has to do with ruthless obsession with profit and power, and atheists are just as capable of ruthless action based on obsession with profit and power as a religious person is capable.

So yes, atheists (and all people) are just as capable of doing really bad things, they just find different institutions and ideologies to do it in.

[Djinn]

3. absolutely

the problem with religion ISN'T a problem with religion but a problem with human nature. With or without religion some people will be kind to others, help those less fortunate, not judge people etc and others will try and enforce their views and beliefs and would be happy to kill and/or maim for them.

People are nuts not religions, political opinions, ideologies, economic structures etc

I'm an atheist and have been atleast agnostic all my life but I've never beleived that hatred and war would dissapear had we never invented God/religion, religion doesn't make people moral and kind they were that way already, likewise it doesn't make them bitter or bigoted they were that way already, religion deserves neither the blame nor the credit.

[Selwynn]

5. Thanks, that's what I was trying to say but I'm really tired....

...not a bash on religious people or athesists, or other non-religious people or anyone else. Just making the exact point you were making.

[Djinn]

8. it's funny coz

despite the firm belief that people's violence and brutality has nothing to do with their religion I'm still called anti-christian??? here and elsewhere.

I'm not an atheist because I'm against religion - I'd LOVE to beleive, I just don't.

BTW - you had me going last week with your Islam/violence post, I wondered who'd reprogrammed Selwyn! :hi:

[Selwynn]

14. Then you are like my best friend, who is an agnostic

He won't call himself an atheists, because he says "that's too certain for me. I just don't know, don't think you can know, and therefore don't care that much."

He still manages to be very respectful of my own beliefs, even going so far as to admire the kind of person I am and how I have applied my faith. Frankly I admire the kinf of person he is and what he has done with his life. He wouldn't want me to change as long as I'm happy and I wouldn't want him to change as long as he's happy.

It just dissapoints me that it has to be more complicated than that.

[sr_pacifica]

9. For being tired, I thought you said it quite well. n/t

[pauliedangerously]

10. I see your point....

People are nuts, I agree, not religions, ideologies, etc, etc.

BUT, the Christian faith is based on falsehoods. I'm not ruling out the possibility of a creator, nor would I ever assert that there is not one. However, resurrections, and fish from nothing, and asexual pregnancies are FALSE. No ifs, and, or buts.

My problem with a faith like this is that it blurs the line between reality and belief. This causes confusion, and it interferes with peoples' ability to make rational decisions.

There are plenty of religions that don't require beliving in fiction. Several hundred years ago, there was a naturalist movement in this country that has been all but forgotten.

My primary contention is that if your faith conflics with known facts, then it needs to be re-evaluated and modified to fit the facts. Right now, common sense is being pummeled by a perverted fundamentalist Christian movement. I'm not saying the world would be better without religion, but it would if more individuals could distinguish between fact and illusion.

[Selwynn]

16. Some would argue that is not what "Christianity" is based on

Christianity in my view, is not based on myth stories about resurrections, fish from nothing, virgin births etc. They are "false" only insofar as a story such as Hermann Hesse's Demien is "false." Hermann Hesse's Demien is fiction, however it was also one of the most important books I read when I was a younger, shaping the direction of my life in many ways. Did it matter to me that Max and Sinclair were fictitious? No. I was intelligent enough to understand that the author was using his characters and story to convey very significant ideas about life, and individuality and passion. Those ideas were what made the book so special to me.

Christianity is based on concepts - the concept that Jesus bears witness to a new kind of understanding about god, no longer the vengeful, jealous god assumed by so many people, but instead a god of love, and the ultimate conclusion of jesus's ministry according to him was that we might have life (present tense) and that life even more abundantly.

If you look you can certainly find Christian circles based on fundamentalist literalism. But you have to put blinders on in order to avoid seeing the fact that a great deal of Christianity is not falsely literalistic, nor is faith defined by or based on faith in literalistic interpretations of ancient text. It is however based on a shared value of the teachings and meaning gained through the metaphors and exhortations of the text as well as in practical daily experience.

I'd also challenge you to list for me the "known facts" that my faith stands in conflict with.
Sel

[elsiesummers]

6. Do what exactly?

As an agnostic/athiest (not sure which and don't care which) what is "this"?

I do wonder if athiests/agnostics could find a particular theme under which they/we could all unite and motivate, politically. If there was a way to ignite such unity and/or involvement then progress could be made.

I spent a week with Republican friends recently and was suprised how easily they ignore Bush's Chistian Right leanings in order to vote
pro-business (I tried to explain how Bush is not pro-business but this was a lost cause).

I'm left thinking that the Democrats might do well by highlighting secularism and a pro-business agenda simultaniously. A good Democratic but secular example is that increasing public health care and public health benefits decreases business health expenditures. Another is that the Democratic position on stem cell research is pro-business. The Republican approach suggests we accept that France aquires pharma patents before Americans do to defend questionable right wing principals.

I am left thinking that Democrats must appeal to those who are disgusted by usurption of the right wing over the Repubican Party. I think this can happen as long as Democrats make sincere efforts to balance budgets.

[pauliedangerously]

11. Very clever

I think you may be on to something. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

[pauliedangerously]

13. This...

Was a link to a thread with information about GWBs belief in the Apocalypse and that this whole stint in Iraq is more about the second coming than oil.

It really creeped me out.

[Bridget Burke]

18. Yes, I saw the link the first time you used it....

Why did you feel the need to start a duplicate thread?

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. Ever heard of Josef Stalin? (n/t)

[Swamp Rat]

12. I'm not sure what you mean by "Could atheists do this?"

People do bad things to other people for whatever reason. I cannot think of any one person, group or religion (or secular organization) that has a monopoly on doing good OR bad things.

If you WANT to blame someone for all the evil shit going down right now, then focus your energy on one entity.

[Bridget Burke]

15. He means: Let's distract the DU'ers right now with Christian-bashing

Thread #3.

He can't even be bothered to compose a paragraph--just a link to another thread.

[sangh0]

19. Lots of Disruptive Wedge Issue threads lately

particularly ones about religion, all of which are phrased in a tone which seems to heighten the divisions.

[mopaul]

17. atheists, like anyone, are capable of evil

and i wouldn't want a nation run by all atheists. i just want some representation in our govt.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. Atheists who happen to be unprincipled imperialists

could easily ally themselves with religious fanatics to achieve common goals.

Actually, I wonder if some of the leaders of the "religous" right actually believe what they're spouting, or whether they're just sociopaths who will say and do anything that gives them money and power.

ON EDIT: Please note that I am not referring to all atheists as "unprinicipled imperialists," but one of the possible consequences (not a majority view) of atheism is nihilism.