Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. I disagree with your definition of religion and to an extent I disagree with your translation of atheism being a form of religion. It isn't a religion, but if religions were eliminated then atheism would become irrelevant and nobody would care if atheism exists or not.
Religions are man-made social controls, they are quite simply a form of psychological government and control of whole societies based on those societies beliefs and fears about their gods. Atheism is not government and social control because it is not based on peoples beliefs and fears about their gods.
If religions were eliminated then societies would be released from the religious governments that control the people through their beliefs and fears about gods. Atheism would be irrelevant because atheists don't believe in or have any fear of gods. That is why religions don't like atheists, religionists are afraid of atheists because they have no influence or control by fear over atheists.
I am not the one calling atheism a religion.
I'd also point out that serious scholars in this day and age would look at your comments about religion ("all religion is bad/stupid/the result of poor education") and cringe with embarrassment.
Even atheist professors would consider views like yours to be either ignorant ...
What could have happened to higher education around the 1960's that made college graduates born after that decade more likely to be religious than those without college degrees? The authors only speculate about causes
Last edited by Noggin of Rum; 02-27-2015 at 02:24 AM..
Reason: Fixed quote box
Well people have clearly given examples where that is not the case. If you want to ignore these examples, or say that they somehow don't count without giving reasons, then feel free, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
Religion will always be a backdrop, just like state sponsored Atheism was the backdrop in the Soviet Union.
Unless acts are committed directly in response to doctrine, it isn't religious violence. The same applies to Atheism -and since Atheism doesn't have a doctrine, people were murdered for another reason- that's where education comes in.
Religion will always be a backdrop, just like state sponsored Atheism was the backdrop in the Soviet Union.
Unless acts are committed directly in response to doctrine, it isn't religious violence. The same applies to Atheism -and since Atheism doesn't have a doctrine, people were murdered for another reason- that's where education comes in.
All you've done is agree with the "God botherers" on this thread. By your definition, those people committing atrocities in the name of, say, Christianity aren't committing "religious violence", because they aren't following the tenets of their belief system.
Under false Christianity, the true message is being obfuscated through deception for pride and personal gain. Under political atheism, the doctrine of atheism is essential to megalomaniacs having total control over their populations.
Let me remind you what Dr Julian Baggini, an atheist philosopher, wrote about atheism as doctrine:
"It is only because of historical accident that atheism is not widely recognised as a world-view in its own right. This world view is essentially a very general form of naturalism, in which there are not two kinds of stuff, the natural and the supernatural, but one. The forces that govern this substance are also natural ones and there is no ultimate purpose or agency behind them. Human life is biological, and thus does not survive beyond biological death. Such a worldview needs defending, and a special name, only because for various reasons, it is not the one that most humans have adopted."
All you've done is agree with the "God botherers" on this thread. By your definition, those people committing atrocities in the name of, say, Christianity aren't committing "religious violence", because they aren't following the tenets of their belief system.
That's my point. Nazi Germany wasn't about Christianity, and Pol Pot wasn't about Atheism.
Most violence involving religion is just tribalism, where the sides are defined by religion. The fighting is over the usual thing -land, resources, cultural/racial differences.
Atheism doesn't have a doctrine, just like belief in a god(s) doesn't have a doctrine.
That's my point. Nazi Germany wasn't about Christianity, and Pol Pot wasn't about Atheism.
Most violence involving religion is just tribalism, where the sides are defined by religion. The fighting is over the usual thing -land, resources, cultural/racial differences.
Atheism doesn't have a doctrine, just like belief in a god(s) doesn't have a doctrine.
Nobody ever said that "Pol Pot was about atheism". The claim is that atheism is an important tool by which dictators rule by absolute fiat and do horrible things to people. The two do not mean the same thing. I'm tired of repeating the same points over and over again.
What could have happened to higher education around the 1960's that made college graduates born after that decade more likely to be religious than those without college degrees? The authors only speculate about causes
Strange that as the general culture becomes more secular, the college going population would become more religious.
Nobody ever said that "Pol Pot was about atheism". The claim is that atheism is an important tool by which dictators rule by absolute fiat and do horrible things to people. The two do not mean the same thing. I'm tired of repeating the same points over and over again.
If it's an atheistic regime, then it's about atheism.
The gun is what Pol Pot ruled with, Atheism isn't a tool, but a single statement, Anything else that you or Dr Baggini want to include, is something else.
If it's an atheistic regime, then it's about atheism.
The gun is what Pol Pot ruled with, Atheism isn't a tool, but a single statement, Anything else that you or Dr Baggini want to include, is something else.
I don't think you understand that statements, expressions of ideas, can be used as tools. Any basic reading of political history will show that to be obvious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
