Change in religious views

[hendrix]

It's important to be precise with words.

The atrocities weren't justified by religious belief - it was justified by their interpretation and how they defined their religious beliefs. Saying that belief can still justify an action doesn't separate religion from atheism.

Their interpretation IS their belief. That was a religious belief. If I believe that cyanide causes immortality and start injecting every patient with it - my belief justified my actions. This is the same thing. Their interpretation may have been wrong in the the eyes of many - it's still their belief.

Where have they been proven incorrect? Religious evolution of belief is predicated on supplanting incorrect beliefs with correct beliefs - as far as can benefit the individual, their family and society.

You consider it an ascent, I consider it a fall. This proves my point.

All throughout history religious authorities have warned that a consequence of disbelief is absence of morals. This has simply not proven to be the case - and if it were so it would be on you to prove it.

That knowledge is not a predictor of evil acts. Atheists like to imply they know more for not believing in fairy tales but that doesn't make them ideologically pure or less capable of evil. Ironically, atheists use faith just as much wrt to the existence of god.

I never said that knowledge is a predictor of evil acts. I simply said that people acquiring knowledge can and does on occasion change their behaviour for the better.

I'm not saying atheists are superior.

All I am saying is that atrocities in the name of religion are not the same thing as atrocities caused by someone who was an atheist.

 

[Spark]

There's a close connection between Hitler's anti-semitism and what had been preached by the Roman Catholic church for centuries in places like Austria. It's hard to tell exactly what he was but yes I would agree he was probably a pagan.

The SS, however, were overwhelmingly Catholic.

Not to mention people like the Ustaše...

 

[Daemon]

Ok.
Hitler was an adhere nt of Thune a Pagan celt.He gathered unto himself astrologets and magicians.He was born Catholic who wasn't.
He was part of a white Pagan belief.
The Catholics were killed during the holocaust.1 million christians were killed with Gypsies.Homosecxuals.Jews.the disa b led.Mentally Ilĺ.
The Lutheran church was usurped by Hitĺer.Prayers and liturgy was made 2 Hitler.
The head of ss was a §atanist.

it

brockley speaking in tongues again

 

[zorax]

Their interpretation IS their belief. That was a religious belief. If I believe that cyanide causes immortality and start injecting every patient with it - my belief justified my actions. This is the same thing. Their interpretation may have been wrong in the the eyes of many - it's still their belief.

I believe the analogy to Ikki/Brockley's POV is that if someone read a scientific paper about cyanide, misinterpreted it to understand that cyanide causes immortality, and then started injecting people with it, all while claiming to do so because they Believe in Science and this what Science says, your blame wouldn't fall on Science itself. It would fall on the person.

Likewise atrocities in the name of Religion shouldn't then direct attention to the Religion itself

I think it's a fair point tbh.

 

[Ausage]

I believe the analogy to Ikki/Brockley's POV is that if someone read a scientific paper about cyanide, misinterpreted it to understand that cyanide causes immortality, and then started injecting people with it, all while claiming to do so because they Believe in Science and this what Science says, your blame wouldn't fall on Science itself. It would fall on the person.

Likewise atrocities in the name of Religion shouldn't then direct attention to the Religion itself

I think it's a fair point tbh.

I mean it depends on the ideology and the action. Just because ideas can be misinterpreted, doesn't mean they always are. For example, despite the fact that the Church has a problem with paedophiles, there isn't a connection between Christian scriptures and paedophilia. In contrast, there was a direct connection between the beliefs and teachings of Charles Manson and the actions of his followers.

I think the point being missed here is the relationship between the belief system and state power. The worst actions attributed to Christianity have come while the church was acting as a government. It's been relatively toothless since Church and state have separated. Similarly the worst aspects of modern Islam are its political teachings and implementations. I think anti-theist (to use hendrix's definition of atheism) ideologies can be directly connected to purging of the religious in communist states, but without state power anti theism is just the rambling of basement dwelling stoned hipsters.

Theres a pattern there and it's not religion or atheism.

 

[hendrix]

I believe the analogy to Ikki/Brockley's POV is that if someone read a scientific paper about cyanide, misinterpreted it to understand that cyanide causes immortality, and then started injecting people with it, all while claiming to do so because they Believe in Science and this what Science says, your blame wouldn't fall on Science itself. It would fall on the person.

Likewise atrocities in the name of Religion shouldn't then direct attention to the Religion itself

I think it's a fair point tbh.

My blame would fall on that person's belief.

Ultimately, he is responsible for his actions as a person.

 

[hendrix]

I mean it depends on the ideology and the action. Just because ideas can be misinterpreted, doesn't mean they always are. For example, despite the fact that the Church has a problem with paedophiles, there isn't a connection between Christian scriptures and paedophilia. In contrast, there was a direct connection between the beliefs and teachings of Charles Manson and the actions of his followers.

I think the point being missed here is the relationship between the belief system and state power. The worst actions attributed to Christianity have come while the church was acting as a government. It's been relatively toothless since Church and state have separated. Similarly the worst aspects of modern Islam are its political teachings and implementations. I think anti-theist (to use hendrix's definition of atheism) ideologies can be directly connected to purging of the religious in communist states, but without state power anti theism is just the rambling of basement dwelling stoned hipsters.

Theres a pattern there and it's not religion or atheism.

I know what you're saying, that it's the state problem, but the more simple explanation is that the problem here is choosing to believe in something, rather than accepting rational critique.

And of course, the even simpler explanation is that people are sometimes bad.

 

[Spark]

I mean it depends on the ideology and the action. Just because ideas can be misinterpreted, doesn't mean they always are. For example, despite the fact that the Church has a problem with paedophiles, there isn't a connection between Christian scriptures and paedophilia. In contrast, there was a direct connection between the beliefs and teachings of Charles Manson and the actions of his followers.

I think the point being missed here is the relationship between the belief system and state power. The worst actions attributed to Christianity have come while the church was acting as a government. It's been relatively toothless since Church and state have separated. Similarly the worst aspects of modern Islam are its political teachings and implementations. I think anti-theist (to use hendrix's definition of atheism) ideologies can be directly connected to purging of the religious in communist states, but without state power anti theism is just the rambling of basement dwelling stoned hipsters.

Theres a pattern there and it's not religion or atheism.

I think this is contestable tbh, in the sense that you mean that the worst of Christianity happened pre-Reformation. Wouldn't mind if you expanded.

I also think that applying modern concepts of state/government to feudal-era governance is a bit risky at best. It doesn't map well.

 

[brockley]

Sorry do some posts from phone,not very good at it.
You are talking about the crusdaes that happened 1000 years ago,then we had the colonialists,not another nice bunch.
But the Muslims played their bad role in Jerusalem as did the Romans,if you want to go back that far.

 

[Ausage]

I think this is contestable tbh, in the sense that you mean that the worst of Christianity happened pre-Reformation. Wouldn't mind if you expanded.

I also think that applying modern concepts of state/government to feudal-era governance is a bit risky at best. It doesn't map well.

Just mean that the most oft cited Christian atrocities (Crusades, inquisitions, intra Christian wars) occurred in the period between the Church filling the power vacuum left by the Roman Empire and Westphalia when the modern nation state began to gain ascendancy. When you separate religion and the state it becomes pretty toothless (irrational or otherwise) but the reverse hasn't really been true.

I agree the theocracies of yore don't map perfectly to modern governments/societies, but nothing from that time really does. Doesn't stop the Crusades or inquisition coming up as an argument for the dangers of religious influence.

 

[Ausage]

I know what you're saying, that it's the state problem, but the more simple explanation is that the problem here is choosing to believe in something, rather than accepting rational critique.

And of course, the even simpler explanation is that people are sometimes bad.

That's not a phenomenon limited to the religious though.

 

[Spark]

Yeah I'd still dispute it. If we talk about the pre-Westphalian violence a lot of the excesses in say witch-burnings were very much grassroots so to speak.

 

[hendrix]

That's not a phenomenon limited to the religious though.

I never said it was.

 

[Spark]

So yeah that Armin Navabi guy is just a lunatic. Maybe not the most representative person after all.

 

[hendrix]

So yeah that Armin Navabi guy is just a lunatic. Maybe not the most representative person after all.

Most of these people just have a book to sell.

 

[Ikki]

Their interpretation IS their belief. That was a religious belief. If I believe that cyanide causes immortality and start injecting every patient with it - my belief justified my actions. This is the same thing. Their interpretation may have been wrong in the the eyes of many - it's still their belief.

Yes, it was the belief of the those who carried out the crusades. Not all people who purport to follow same religion. Ergo you cannot hold a universal standard for belief in a religion because people within a religion have different beliefs regarding their religion.

All throughout history religious authorities have warned that a consequence of disbelief is absence of morals. This has simply not proven to be the case - and if it were so it would be on you to prove it.

And they point to atheist leaders who killed millions of people. It wasn't just religious authorities who thought this. It was notably Nietzche's prediction and many legal theorists.

I never said that knowledge is a predictor of evil acts. I simply said that people acquiring knowledge can and does on occasion change their behaviour for the better.

I'm not saying atheists are superior.

All I am saying is that atrocities in the name of religion are not the same thing as atrocities caused by someone who was an atheist.

That's not necessarily true either, it depends what knowledge we're talking about. Your last statement is fair but ultimately will not settle the debate. The religious people are basically arguing that those who would seek to reject the evolution of moral codes - even if flawed - are more likely to create chaos (not that chaos can be stopped completely): see the despotic atheist leaders that killed millions of people.

It's not an argument atheists will accept because they have fundamental disagreements in how they perceive the world. But it is not enough to say that this objection is not logical or not the same IMO. The encapsulating statement that defines both murderous religious leaders and atheist leaders is that their corrupted morals via their corrupted perception of the world allowed them to kill so many people. Ausage also brings up a relevant point re the corruption that occurs when one has the power to abuse via the state.

You are using a false equivalency between the crusaders and other religious followers, duct-taping the argument of flawed ideology as the reason and then deny that atheism can lead to a flawed ideology in the absence of morality. Nihilists, as we've discussed, don't believe in morality, it should be straightforward to predict how a nihilist can interpret the world in a way where he can kill people without a qualm. Similarly atheists think they can build morality anew with their reason - and it should be straightforward that those atheist leaders were trying to do that and were doing so with glee - the communist revolution was the culmination of this.

So, while you can say atheism isn't a belief system like religion that compels them to do things, it still leaves the point that without a belief system (tested like religion, even if flawed) they can imbalance the world towards murder. For me, that retort just doesn't wash anymore and we cannot pretend that atheism holds standing above religion because of things like the crusades. There's no more a universal religious person as there is a universal atheist.

 

[ankitj]

Christ New Atheists are a tiresome lot.

Wait, you endorse 'new atheist' as a negative concept? New atheists are not threat to anything. They just make noise. Don't hate/kill or preach to hate/kill anyone.

 

[ankitj]

That's all.

 

[ankitj]

I believe the analogy to Ikki/Brockley's POV is that if someone read a scientific paper about cyanide, misinterpreted it to understand that cyanide causes immortality, and then started injecting people with it, all while claiming to do so because they Believe in Science and this what Science says, your blame wouldn't fall on Science itself. It would fall on the person.

Likewise atrocities in the name of Religion shouldn't then direct attention to the Religion itself

I think it's a fair point tbh.

Yeah, instead just read out all the hate and prejudice in religious texts. Then there is no getting away from responsibility of religious ideology. I hope. This forum has collectively taken a religion-apologist turn strangely.

 

[Spark]

Wait, you endorse 'new atheist' as a negative concept? New atheists are not threat to anything. They just make noise. Don't hate/kill or preach to hate/kill anyone.

I didn't call them threatening tbf. Just tiresome. Although as I said later, that particular individual seems unusually deranged (the next day he tried to argue "but what if the child consents" unironically).