Change in religious views

[Spark]

Wait, are we saying Darwin is responsible for eugenics? That's a line I hadn't heard since I (regretfully) got into "debates" with creationists.

 

[StephenZA]

Wait, are we saying Darwin is responsible for eugenics? That's a line I hadn't heard since I (regretfully) got into "debates" with creationists.

The number of people who are the root of all evil, both from the left and right, amazes me.

 

[Ikki]

there's a difference between holding a view and doing something, and doing something in the name of that view. The crusades (and other religious wars) are qualitatively different to catastrophes caused by people who also happened to be atheist. Atheists - like all people - are capable of evil acts. I'm not sure why you're bringing Darwin into this, and to bring colonialism as a point against atheism is downright hilarious considering the church's historical involvement.

This used to be my go-to when I was an atheist. The point is that people can choose ideologies and rationalise coercion via them. You can do that as an atheist (and many Communists and even Nazis were atheists).

 

[brockley]

I did not mention Eugenics.I was talking about racism vsv vs Aboriginies.

 

[hendrix]

This used to be my go-to when I was an atheist. The point is that people can choose ideologies and rationalise coercion via them. You can do that as an atheist (and many Communists and even Nazis were atheists).

Right, I agree. It doesn't make any difference to the outcome whether you're killing people for sport or for religion. It's a common pro-Assad argument: "but the government is secular!!!! therefore they're incapable of atrocities!!!" Which is obviously stupid. But that's not the point I was making.

The point I was making is that atrocities such as the crusades are, by definition, in the name of Christianity. Mao's acts are not in the name of atheism (and I'm pretty sure he wasn't even an atheist, but that's beside the point). He didn't use atheism as a justification for killing people. But the crusaders certainly used Christianity as a justification for killing people.

 

[Victor Ian]

The number of people who are the root of all evil, both from the left and right, amazes me.

Evil is obviously a mangrove tree with many roots.

 

[Spark]

Right, I agree. It doesn't make any difference to the outcome whether you're killing people for sport or for religion. It's a common pro-Assad argument: "but the government is secular!!!! therefore they're incapable of atrocities!!!" Which is obviously stupid. But that's not the point I was making.

The point I was making is that atrocities such as the crusades are, by definition, in the name of Christianity. Mao's acts are not in the name of atheism (and I'm pretty sure he wasn't even an atheist, but that's beside the point). He didn't use atheism as a justification for killing people. But the crusaders certainly used Christianity as a justification for killing people.

That's nooot quite true wrt Mao. The Cultural Revolution was famously and horrifically hostile to traditional Chinese religious practices.

 

[StephenZA]

Evil is obviously a mangrove tree with many roots.

Potato plant? Spreads like a weed and basic staple of many people?

 

[harsh.ag]

That's nooot quite true wrt Mao. The Cultural Revolution was famously and horrifically hostile to traditional Chinese religious practices.

Is that differentiable from hostility towards traditional Chinese culture?

 

[Spark]

Is that differentiable from hostility towards traditional Chinese culture?

No, but the same thing could be said for Orthodoxy in the Soviet Union.

 

[hendrix]

That's nooot quite true wrt Mao. The Cultural Revolution was famously and horrifically hostile to traditional Chinese religious practices.

But that's not justified by atheism.

 

[Munificent_Fool]

Or that racist Darwin,who was used by colianislists.

Darwin was a Christian.

 

[Munificent_Fool]

BTW how did Hitler get aligned with Christianity. He was a Pagan.And many of the SS Satanists.

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.

 

[brockley]

Magnificent I have been told by 1 0ne on the ĺeft that that is a load of tosh.

 

[Ikki]

The point I was making is that atrocities such as the crusades are, by definition, in the name of Christianity. Mao's acts are not in the name of atheism (and I'm pretty sure he wasn't even an atheist, but that's beside the point). He didn't use atheism as a justification for killing people. But the crusaders certainly used Christianity as a justification for killing people.

The problem with this is the distinction "by definition". This is not going to be by the definition of many religious people and they will consider it as warped values abusing religious doctrine. That's why the Nazi/Communist retort inevitably pops up. Who is to say whether their atheist belief system had not perverted them into killing millions of their own countrymen? I mean, you can say it isn't but that doesn't make it so. It's an open question really.

 

[brockley]

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

 

[hendrix]

The problem with this is the distinction "by definition". This is not going to be by the definition of many religious people and they will consider it as warped values abusing religious doctrine. That's why the Nazi/Communist retort inevitably pops up. Who is to say whether their atheist belief system had not perverted them into killing millions of their own countrymen? I mean, you can say it isn't but that doesn't make it so. It's an open question really.

"The crusades were a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Latin Church in the medieval period."
They were, by definition, justified by religion. Now, that justification is certainly a "warped belief" in the opinion of many Christians both in the past and today. But for those Christians who participated and sanctioned the crusades, it was their belief.

Atheism is one thing, and that thing is not even a belief (as we have been over a thousand times already in this thread). It is the rejection of belief in the existence of a god. It is not the same as religion.
And it cannot be used to justify atrocity.

 

[Ikki]

"The crusades were a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Latin Church in the medieval period."
They were, by definition, justified by religion. Now, that justification is certainly a "warped belief" in the opinion of many Christians both in the past and today. But for those Christians who participated and sanctioned the crusades, it was their belief.

They're no more defined by religion than the Islamic Republic of Iran is defined by religion. A lot of religious people don't follow their religion. That's why the definitional aspect is not straightforward. People within a religion will define and interpret things differently.

Atheism is one thing, and that thing is not even a belief (as we have been over a thousand times already in this thread). It is the rejection of belief in the existence of a god. It is not the same as religion.
And it cannot be used to justify atrocity.

There is a reason a lot of atheists fall into nihilism. And that's because of a lack of belief. Religious arguments towards this would be: without the restraining effects of religion, atheists will justify killing their own for reasons they've concocted - and you can do that rationally or irrationally. You can be a scientist and that can inform your action towards evil.

As aforesaid, these things aren't definitionally the fault of either ideology. It's the person interpreting reality to manifest their evil that is the problem. Committing evil is not necessarily about knowledge - as if one can stop committing evil once they know more (it can help, but it's not a total safeguard). These are moral considerations and smart people commit evil deeds all the time.

 

[hendrix]

They're no more defined by religion than the Islamic Republic of Iran is defined by religion. A lot of religious people don't follow their religion. That's why the definitional aspect is not straightforward. People within a religion will define and interpret things differently.

I already said that. But for those Christians who supported the crusades, they did so because of their religious belief. Therefore the atrocity was justified by religious belief. Maybe not the belief of other (e.g. modern Christians), but justified by their belief. Just as appeals against same *** marriage are justified by their belief. These are actions justified by religious beliefs - saying that they're not because people have different interpretations doesn't change the fact that the belief can still justify action.

There is a reason a lot of atheists fall into nihilism. And that's because of a lack of belief. Religious arguments towards this would be: without the restraining effects of religion, atheists will justify killing their own for reasons they've concocted - and you can do that rationally or irrationally.

These fears have been proven incorrect, time and time again. You can do anything rationally or irrationally, but if you're going to say that something justifies an atrocity you actually have to say how.

As for atheists "falling into nihilism":
There is no fall. That is an ascent.

As aforesaid, these things aren't definitionally the fault of either ideology. It's the person interpreting reality to manifest their evil that is the problem. Committing evil is not necessarily about knowledge - as if one can stop committing evil once they know more. These a moral considerations and smart people commit evil deeds all the time.

People can and do stop committing evil when they know more. Smart people do commit evil deeds all the time. I'm not sure what relevance this has to anything.

 

[Ikki]

I already said that. But for those Christians who supported the crusades, they did so because of their religious belief. Therefore the atrocity was justified by religious belief. Maybe not the belief of other (e.g. modern Christians), but justified by their belief. Just as appeals against same *** marriage are justified by their belief. These are actions justified by religious beliefs - saying that they're not because people have different interpretations doesn't change the fact that the belief can still justify action.

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.

These fears have been proven incorrect, time and time again. You can do anything rationally or irrationally, but if you're going to say that something justifies an atrocity you actually have to say how.

As for atheists "falling into nihilism":
There is no fall. That is an ascent.

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.

People can and do stop committing evil when they know more. Smart people do commit evil deeds all the time. I'm not sure what relevance this has to anything.

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.