A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Kittamaru]

So far, you and you friend are 0-2 on being able to demonstrate a form of atheism that seeks to destroy religious people.

I would say the examples randwolf provided are pretty good examples... but if you need more:

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/10/25/atheists-step-help-ohio-pastor-assaulted-militant-atheist/

Or, how about the 1929 "League of Militant Atheists" in the Soviet Union who went around assisting in murdering both the clergy and those who refused to relinquish their faith?

The League of Militant Atheists aided the Soviet government in killing clergy and committed believers.[45] The League also made it a priority to remove religious icons from the homes of believers.[46] Under the slogan, "the Storming of Heaven," the League of Militant Atheists pressed for "resolute action against religious peasants" leading to the mass arrest and exile of many believers, especially village priests. By 1940, "over 100 bishops, tens of thousands of Orthodox clergy, and thousands of monks and lay believers had been killed or had died in Soviet prisons and the Gulag."[47]

Cited Sources
45 Peter N. Stearns. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World. Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 278.
46 Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. The Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, 2004, p. 40
47 Theodore R. Weeks. Across the Revolutionary Divide: Russia and the USSR, 1861-1945. John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

 

[Kittamaru]

Could you ask your wife, Kittamaru?

Matthew 27:51-53:

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

This is getting creepy.

So, I asked my wife, here was her take on it after reading a couple different translations of that passage:

The idea is that the spirits of these saints appeared in the city to many people after leaving limbo and before ascending to heaven; the reason they and many other spirits were in limbo was that none could ascend to heaven as they were not cleansed of their sins until the death of Christ, and so God would not forgive us. This is from reading from the New International Version, New Standard Revised, Contemporary English Translation, and The Message (various translations of the bible) as well as from her discussions and studies with her youth groups in the past.

 

[quinnsong]

So, I asked my wife, here was her take on it after reading a couple different translations of that passage:

The idea is that the spirits of these saints appeared in the city to many people after leaving limbo and before ascending to heaven; the reason they and many other spirits were in limbo was that none could ascend to heaven as they were not cleansed of their sins until the death of Christ, and so God would not forgive us. This is from reading from the New International Version, New Standard Revised, Contemporary English Translation, and The Message (various translations of the bible) as well as from her discussions and studies with her youth groups in the past.

You really believe this Kitt? I mean there was a time when I believed this too, now I look at the verse and then your translation (which is a common one) and cannot remember ever believing this. Please know that I am in no way belittling you when I ask if you truly believe that the event In Matthew actually happened, I just want to know how you reconcile that with what you know of nature, science and physics?

 

[Trooper]

So, I asked my wife, here was her take on it after reading a couple different translations of that passage:

The idea is that the spirits of these saints appeared in the city to many people after leaving limbo and before ascending to heaven; the reason they and many other spirits were in limbo was that none could ascend to heaven as they were not cleansed of their sins until the death of Christ, and so God would not forgive us. This is from reading from the New International Version, New Standard Revised, Contemporary English Translation, and The Message (various translations of the bible) as well as from her discussions and studies with her youth groups in the past.

You're a good sport, Kittamaru.

Live well, my friend. :mufc:

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Respect those who show respect to you...

...there are those that wont' shaddup about it until you accept their ideals... Jehovahs witness tends to come to mind)

...what I'm asking is simply for those that do not believe in any kind of faith to respect those that do, and vice-versa.

Ah oh... looks like the rubber has finaly hit the road... cause to me... havin "faith" is a negative as far as ones respectability is concerned.!!!

An speekin of Jehovahs witness... several years ago i discussed religion in a Christan (webtv) forum wit a lady who was close to 90 an in failin health... we started emailin each other... an the more i got to know about her the more i liked her (in spite of her "faith")... but i did empathize wit her situation an shed some tears when she died.!!!

 

[Kittamaru]

You really believe this Kitt? I mean there was a time when I believed this too, now I look at the verse and then your translation (which is a common one) and cannot remember ever believing this. Please know that I am in no way belittling you when I ask if you truly believe that the event In Matthew actually happened, I just want to know how you reconcile that with what you know of nature, science and physics?

Simply put I cannot. I know how that sounds... but as a man of science there are a host of things that, as of right now I have to accept I simply do not know nor do I have a way to find out at this time. A good example of this would be thr heisenburg uncertainty principle. Or perhaps dark matter.

To take it a step further... I have had encounters I cannot explain beyond what my simple senses told me. I will elaborate more tomorrow (1am and im in bed typing this on my phone, not the best for exposition heh)

 

[Balerion]

I would say the examples randwolf provided are pretty good examples...

Of what? I mean, seriously. One is an article by a Christian apologist talking about the potential threats of believing science can solve everything, and the other is by an atheist who believes religious dogma should be removed from society. Where in either of those pieces do you see anything about brands of atheism that mandate or even endorse the murder of religious people?

but if you need more:

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/10/25/atheists-step-help-ohio-pastor-assaulted-militant-atheist/

Sigh. From the link:

The alleged attacker, James Maxie, 28, told local police he came to Bridge Community Church in North Hampton, Ohio, with his girlfriend to try to “regain my faith in God,” according to the Dayton Daily News. Maxie described himself as a “militant atheist” on his Facebook page.

When Hayes asked Maxie’s girlfriend if she felt “safe” with Maxie, he allegedly became enraged and began beating the pastor. Hayes suffered a broken nose, facial lacerations and bruises.

So the attack didn't seem to have much of anything to do with atheism.

Or, how about the 1929 "League of Militant Atheists" in the Soviet Union who went around assisting in murdering both the clergy and those who refused to relinquish their faith?

Oh, right you really need to be concerned with a group from Stalinist Russia that disbanded 70-some years ago.

But I'm curious: What about atheism spurned these alleged actions?

 

[Kittamaru]

Really? They directly identify as atheist and you ask what it has to do with atheism? Im not saying all atheists are like that. .. but ones like it do exist as those examples show

 

[Balerion]

Really? They directly identify as atheist and you ask what it has to do with atheism?

Yes, I ask what it has to do with atheism. What atheist doctrine demands or condones harm against believers? What principles of atheism allow for such a thing?

Im not saying all atheists are like that. .. but ones like it do exist as those examples show

Examples? You've got one even remotely relevant example, which is the League. The atheist who beat that pastor seemingly did so because of something the pastor said to his girlfriend.

 

[Kittamaru]

Yes, I ask what it has to do with atheism. What atheist doctrine demands or condones harm against believers? What principles of atheism allow for such a thing?



Examples? You've got one even remotely relevant example, which is the League. The atheist who beat that pastor seemingly did so because of something the pastor said to his girlfriend.

Im sure you could do a quick google search to find more. Ss it us now 2am, I will do so in the morning.

 

[wellwisher]

It still comes back to the poor atheist math and science skills as reflected by a poor grasp of reality in time and space.

Let us start with the math. In the US, where separation of church and state is part of the constitution (specific place in a range of time), only the state has the right to raise an army, create laws that apply to all, enforced police and prisons. They have the ability to levee taxes, etc. Religion does not have these powers, nor do they have any Constitutional powers in the US (place in time). They have citizen freedoms of expression and freedom to pursue happiness, just like the atheists. Separation was never about the powerful needing protection from the weak, as inferred by atheist math.

That math appears confused based on a poor grasp of space and time. The examples from the past, like Inquisition or Stalin, had nothing to do with the US or today other than in a confused mind. Both happened way before anyone here was born. Religion does not claim to be science. Only atheism claims a restriction to science. Space and time have separation in science. One might conclude that atheism has an unconscious assumption of reincarnation or the merging of time and space, so past and present are the same, like in time travel based fairly tales.

If atheism was grounded science they would be able to do this simple math balance, and not be fooled by any sales pitched mythology that transposes time and space like it is magic or divine. Religion does not claim a modern science connection as its basis, so their behavior is at least logically consistent with their claims, right or wrong. It shows less unconsciousness.

You can't reach atheists with reason, since it behaves like an unconscious religion, stuck in denial. This could explain why atheism seems to like big government control; state over religion. They need others to lead them in the unconscious fog. Religion prefers more freedom of choice, which is reserved for those with more clarity in the now. Atheism does not add up properly based on sale pitch.

 

[Trooper]

Ya, we're pretty fucked up, us humans. Man oh man, we have a long way to go! :bugeye:

I got a new pair of shoes. Thank you, Jesus! Happy Easter!

[video=youtube_share;hTd1_oEol44]http://youtu.be/hTd1_oEol44[/video]

 

[Bells]

It still comes back to the poor atheist math and science skills as reflected by a poor grasp of reality in time and space.

Let us start with the math. In the US, where separation of church and state is part of the constitution (specific place in a range of time), only the state has the right to raise an army, create laws that apply to all, enforced police and prisons. They have the ability to levee taxes, etc. Religion does not have these powers, nor do they have any Constitutional powers in the US (place in time). They have citizen freedoms of expression and freedom to pursue happiness, just like the atheists. Separation was never about the powerful needing protection from the weak, as inferred by atheist math.

That math appears confused based on a poor grasp of space and time. The examples from the past, like Inquisition or Stalin, had nothing to do with the US or today other than in a confused mind. Both happened way before anyone here was born. Religion does not claim to be science. Only atheism claims a restriction to science. Space and time have separation in science. One might conclude that atheism has an unconscious assumption of reincarnation or the merging of time and space, so past and present are the same, like in time travel based fairly tales.

If atheism was grounded science they would be able to do this simple math balance, and not be fooled by any sales pitched mythology that transposes time and space like it is magic or divine. Religion does not claim a modern science connection as its basis, so their behavior is at least logically consistent with their claims, right or wrong. It shows less unconsciousness.

You can't reach atheists with reason, since it behaves like an unconscious religion, stuck in denial. This could explain why atheism seems to like big government control; state over religion. They need others to lead them in the unconscious fog. Religion prefers more freedom of choice, which is reserved for those with more clarity in the now. Atheism does not add up properly based on sale pitch.

You clearly do not understand what the separation of Church and State is actually about.

It is designed to ensure religious freedom and protection by now allowing the State to align itself with any particular religious dogma or to create a state sanctioned religion. What we are seeing in the US and in other parts of the world is the encroachment of particular brands of Christianity into public office - ie - particular fundamentalist Christian ideology is being made into legislation by Christian fundamentalists who have hijacked their places of Parliament in particular States and they are passing laws and aligning themselves with said far right wing religious Christian fundamentalists. So the separation of Church and State has suddenly become blurred. What should remain in the private domain is now being placed in the public domain, and those who are not of that particular religious persuasion are often discriminated against or forced to comply against their own religious beliefs. Prayer in public schools is a prime example.

 

[(Q)]

The problem is, you are generalizing. Christians that "get it" don't go around cursing and demonizing homosexuality. We don't go around saying that "science is wrong and evil and the devil" and all that horsewallow and hogwash.

That is exactly what many Christians do.

Much like blaming guns for killing people or spoons for making people fat, you are blaming Religion for the actions of those that use it as an excuse for their own wrongdoings. The religion itself isn't the problem - the people using it as a tool to further their agendas... that is the problem.

Oh no, they do those things because of their religious beliefs, which incidentally, command them to do those things. That's the thing about religions, they make good people do bad things. Religions are the problem.

 

[Yazata]

Or, how about the 1929 "League of Militant Atheists" in the Soviet Union who went around assisting in murdering both the clergy and those who refused to relinquish their faith?

Around the same time, the avowedly-atheist Marxist rulers of Mongolia destroyed just about all of the country's Buddhist monasteries (except a grand one in the capital that they retained as a showplace). The monks who inhabited these monasteries were rounded up, shot, and dumped in unmarked mass graves. A number of those graves have been exhumed after the fall of communism in that country, each each containing dozens or even hundreds of skeletal remains, each with a bullet hole in the base of the skull.

And more recently in the 1970's, Pol Pot's avowedly-atheist Khymer Rouge regime in Cambodia did the same things. The great majority of the monks in that country dissappeared in the 'killing fields'. Those that survived managed to flee across the borders into neighboring Thailand or Vietnam.

And there's avowedly-atheist China's destruction of much of Tibetan Buddhism during the 'cultural revolution'...

The destruction of artistic and cultural treasures in these anti-religious orgasms was appalling and irreplaceable.

I wouldn't for a moment try to suggest that all atheists, or atheism in general, was collectively responsible for these atrocities. That would be the error of faulty generalization.

But the thing is, it's equally foolish to insist that religious people, or religion in general, are somehow collectively responsible for the worst abuses committed by particular "religionists".

 

[wellwisher]

You clearly do not understand what the separation of Church and State is actually about.

It is designed to ensure religious freedom and protection by now allowing the State to align itself with any particular religious dogma or to create a state sanctioned religion. What we are seeing in the US and in other parts of the world is the encroachment of particular brands of Christianity into public office - ie - particular fundamentalist Christian ideology is being made into legislation by Christian fundamentalists who have hijacked their places of Parliament in particular States and they are passing laws and aligning themselves with said far right wing religious Christian fundamentalists. So the separation of Church and State has suddenly become blurred. What should remain in the private domain is now being placed in the public domain, and those who are not of that particular religious persuasion are often discriminated against or forced to comply against their own religious beliefs. Prayer in public schools is a prime example.

How many people have gone to jail or had to pay a fine due to not praying in school? There may be peer pressure, but this is not the same as being forced by the government, to conform by law at risk of jail and fines, like with health care, for example. The church doesn't have that power. If one does not wish to pray, they can think about anything they wish, since there is no thought police with clubs, like with PC who can force words on people. This is a example, where the atheist math skills get weak.

Let us look at the facts and not the hypothetical. If we stick with the present, within the time frame of all our personal experiences, most of the actions by the "here and now" religious, are actually defensive. They are attempting to hold or regain ground that were once separated between church and state as little as 50 years ago. The state exceeded it bounds with fuzzy math.

The church was never into abortion, until it was shoved down their throat with general taxes going to abortion, making them a forced participant. This would be like the church using atheist taxes to fund a creationist exhibit. The atheist are allowed to remain separated. The church never had any thought of entertaining gay marriage. It is being forced upon them. This is not in their creed, which has not changed in centuries. One can check to see they did not add this after the fact. They are being defensive against an assault by the state.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying such things can't be part of atheism, since there is separation of church and state. They also have their unconscious religious freedom. But like any religion, they should pay for these things via donations, via the choices of its members, and not via laws and a general tax that take away the rights of others.

For example, the women's right to choose (abortion) suggests freedom of choice. But after her choice, should others be forced to lose their rights to choose other things, such as not to participate? One person's right does not mean others have to lose rights. This is fuzzy math. Rights are all positive, not positive resulting in negative.

In the ideal situation of rights, picture a wealthy women, who pays her own tab, making this choice; right to an abortion. It is totally self contained, and does not impact me in any objective way. It may impact me in a subjective way, but that is my emotional/psychological problem, not hers. She is not harming me in any objective way. On the other hand, if her choice objectively involves me, and I loose rights, that means someone's else's right overrides my choice and my rights. My taxes used to pay for things I don't wish to buy with those taxes. The math gets fuzzy. The atheists could take donations to solve this problem

 

[Aqueous Id]

I wouldn't for a moment try to suggest that all atheists, or atheism in general, was collectively responsible for these atrocities. That would be the error of faulty generalization.

But the thing is, it's equally foolish to insist that religious people, or religion in general, are somehow collectively responsible for the worst abuses committed by particular "religionists".

(earlier post):

[some] atheists have very strong, passionate and typically highly negative views about "religion" and "religionists", and may occasionally feel that they are participants in a grand historical struggle of "reason" and "science" against what they imagine as evil obscurantism.

I would like to address this to you, to Tiassa, and to anyone else who feels that atheists are struggling against religion, or expressing "militant atheism", or otherwise reacting to religion negatively. (Here, when I say "you" I am addressing each of you in the plural.)

I do not understand your posts. There is, to my knowledge, only one kind of struggle going on, and it's exclusively the one launched by the American Religious Right (and its overseas counterparts--Tories, etc.). It is exclusively limited to attacks initiated by them in select areas of public policy:

(1) in favor of prayer/Bibles in public places

(2) against evolution/stem cell research/climate science/academia/intellectualism

(3) against abortion

(4) against same-sex relationships/marriage/rights

(5) in favor of gun deregulation(in the US)

(6) against Obama/Democrats/universal health care/liberal policy (in the US, against similar parties/leaders/programs elsewhere)

(7) in favor of laissez faire economics and opposed to Keynsian economics (esp. stimulus)/opposing social program expenditures/blaming Democrats for economic woes (mostly US but comparable elsewhere)

(8) in favor of States' rights/sovereignty/secession over so-called "Big Government" (US), and

(9) in favor of curbing vice in all its forms, from prohibition to "Satanic" popular music, arguing "family values" and vowing to "retake America" (US, comparable elsewhere).

(I should mention that Catholics and some Orthodox Protestants involve themselves in one or more of these without being in league with the main fundamentalist Anabaptist groups that constitute the Religious Right. Some of them probably fear the Anabaptists as much as atheists do.)

Why are you (pl.) speaking of the "atheist struggle" and "militant atheism" in general terms, casting it as a purely general ideological conflict involving "negative" or "stupid" atheists who are opposing all religion, all theologies--as if these policy matters are not the cause of all reaction to religion, particularly in the US? Is there any US atheist denouncing any other religion other than the ones involving themselves in the above policy matters?

I am completely mystified by your (pl.) point of view. Most puzzling to me is that I know you are intelligent people and I think you are offended by the Religious Right. Can anyone explain this to me? What motivates a person to speak against those who are defending the same ground you stand on? What am I missing here? How did so many of you, who I think of as friendly to my own views on social policy, end up opposing me and people whose posts are similar to mine?

It just doesn't add up. Can you (pl.) explain to me what I'm missing? Is this entire thread merely debating apples vs. oranges?

 

[Kittamaru]

That's just it AI - I'm not sure. I'm fine with different religions, and people are, in my opinion, entitled to their own beliefs (or lack thereof as the case may be). The only thing I require, of anyone, is a modicum of respect; allow me my beliefs, and you can have yours. Yes, I may ask you about yours, just so I can learn, much as I may tell you about mine if you seem interested... that seems only a fair tack of conversation to have (after all, learning about other cultures is a good thing!)

 

[Yazata]

I do not understand your posts.

Of course you do. You're not an idiot. (If you were, then there would be no point in my further elaborating on what I posted, because the elaboration would inevitably go over your head.)

There is, to my knowledge, only one kind of struggle going on, and it's exclusively the one launched by the American Religious Right (and its overseas counterparts--Tories, etc.). It is exclusively limited to attacks initiated by them in select areas of public policy

I'm sure that's how you would like to frame the discussion, but I'm not interested in going there.

I'll just say this:

1. Some atheists, though certainly not all, are thoroughly nasty people who wear their anger on their sleeves. I instinctively dislike them. (Not unlike my reaction to their radical religious opposite numbers.)

2. Some atheists, though certainly not all, have even been guilty of crimes against others' human rights. (Not unlike their radical religious opposite numbers.)

3. Some atheists, though certainly not all, are woefully uneducated and ignorant about religion and tend to perceive it in crudely stereotypical terms, as a caricature. (Not unlike how their radical religious opposite numbers perceive atheism.)

4. Some atheists, though certainly not all, seem to want to emphasize others' loyalty or disloyalty to their cause above independent thinking, discernment and moral and intellectual integrity. (Not unlike the 'Are you with us or against us??' thinking so much in evidence among their radical religious opposite numbers.)

Frankly, I see very little difference between the more radical and disagreeable sort of militant atheist and the more radical and diagreeable sorts of religious militant. My opinion is that in both cases, we see very similar kinds of psychologies being expressed.

I am completely mystified by your (pl.) point of view. Most puzzling to me is that I know you are intelligent people and I think you are offended by the Religious Right.

To some extent, though I try not to demonize them. I know several religious conservatives and they are fine people, and I often find myself agreeing with them about many things. (I agree with them more than with you on several of the numbered points you listed above.) While I certainly wouldn't like to see them in unchallenged control of the United States, I don't think that there's very much chance of that ever happening. Generally I see them as a valuable counterpoint to the influence of the radical left, which I find just as disagreeable and perhaps even more threatening. In a nutshell, I don't like either extreme of the spectrum and consider myself something of a centrist, although with distinct small-government libertarian tendencies. I prefer democracy and popular soverignty over rule by self-proclaimed superior elites. And I don't think that the sign of good government is how many new laws the government enacts each term, as if more and more laws regulating every conceivable aspect of ordinary people's daily life is what we should all desire.

But that's neither here nor there. I'm not here on Sciforums to argue partisan politics. If you want to politicize the conversation, then I'll just ignore it and continue making my own rather different points.

 

[Balerion]

It's telling that no atheist-basher wants to get into specifics.