If atheism makes you mean why does religion turn people into killers?

(Q) said:
But, that's your personal assessment of the situation and not what actually occurred? Or did you just make it up? Please provide the link in which this man shot children in the name of atheism.
Click to expand...

I cannot provide such a link, and would not seek to.
I don't think people kill in the name of atheism, that is my actual point.
But in the same way I don't think people kill in the name of theism.

When a killer pleads "god told me to do it", you automatically believe his decision had something to do with theism. Why? Because he mentioned God.
So when someone regards himself as "the natural selector", and proceed to naturally select, one could be forgiven for equating his actions with atheism.
Why?
Because he mentioned natural selection.
My point is, it not as simple as that.

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
I think you will find that "theism", belief in God, is not a cause for violence, anymore than "atheism" is. Do you agree?
Click to expand...

I would agree, unfortunately, the bible depicts god as a maniacal, murdering, egomaniac, who would be the furthest thing from teaching anything but violence.

I cannot provide such a link, and would not seek to.
Click to expand...

Ok.

I don't think people kill in the name of atheism, that is my actual point.
But in the same way I don't think people kill in the name of theism.
Click to expand...

History has already shown you to be wrong about that.

So when someone regards himself as "the natural selector", and proceed to naturally select, one could be forgiven for equating his actions with atheism.
Why?
Because he mentioned natural selection.
My point is, it not as simple as that.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, he was doing it in the name of Darwin, and not atheism?
 
Jan Ardena said:
"I am prepared to fight and die for my cause. I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection."

This was just one of the rants of a mad Finnish bloke, who went on to shoot eight innocent school kids.

Were we informed by the media of this mad man?
Are there any other mad people like him out there?

No.
It wouldn't surprise me if there were.

jan.
Click to expand...

Jan - I'm looking for some kind of reference in that quote that relates to atheism in some way, and I can't see it even alluded to, let alone mentioned directly - please explain how this might be a case of someone killing in the name of atheism
 
(Q),

I would agree, unfortunately, the bible depicts god as a maniacal, murdering, egomaniac, who would be the furthest thing from teaching anything but violence.
Click to expand...

The bible depicts God (without any personal interpretation) as the creator of life. When you can add this into your observations as well, then we can look at your claims.

History has already shown you to be wrong about that.
Click to expand...

You mean your interpretation of history.

Perhaps, he was doing it in the name of Darwin, and not atheism?
Click to expand...

Wasn't Richard Dawkins, the atheist preacher-man who wanted to dedicate a day devoted to Darwin? Isn't Darwin the signature (human diety of modern-atheism)? :)

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
I think you will find that "theism", belief in God, is not a cause for violence, anymore than "atheism" is. Do you agree?
Killing someone because they do not think the same way you do, albeit theistic or atheistic, does not make theism or atheism the reason, although they may have played a part in the overall identity of that particular individual.
I think you're trying to say that it does in case of theism, and it simply cannot, in the case of atheism. A case of shifting the goal-posts.

jan.
Click to expand...

That is true. Simple belief in God cannot inspire killing in most cases. It is specific religions with their texts and rules that often do.
 
However, I find those even with a simple belief in god easier to sway, in terms of opinion, when asked to do something by their religion by other more religious people.
It takes a few strong people to be critically thinking of their religion and still believe in it.
I haven't met one yet.
 
Challenger78 said:
However, I find those even with a simple belief in god easier to sway, in terms of opinion, when asked to do something by their religion by other more religious people.
Click to expand...

And you know this to not be true of atheists?
 
Challenger78 said:
I know this not to be true of agnostics, I have yet to see an atheist turn to killing simply because a Richard Dawkins like figure told him to.
Click to expand...

How do you think Stalin racked up a figure of 20 million dead? To build a "better society"? You'd be surprised to read how many "intellectuals" of the time agreed with him. Hence the popularity of eugenics [opposed by the church] in "scientific circles". Scratch an atheist and you'll find the same theme. Build a better society by eliminating the delusional. The delusional being whoever does not think like them. For Dawkins theme fans, check out the natural selector in Finland who killed some school children, because he was trying to do his bit for a better society. Some of them just take the elimination to extreme levels.

I am prepared to fight and die for my cause, . . . I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection. No, the truth is that I am just an animal, a human, an individual, a dissident . . . . It’s time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on tracks!]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokela_school_shooting
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
A fanatical single person in a position of power is still just one person. The Church inspired thousands of people for hundreds of years to burn and torture heretics, jews, women, and pagans...
 
spidergoat said:
A fanatical single person in a position of power is still just one person. The Church inspired thousands of people for hundreds of years to burn and torture heretics, jews, women, and pagans...
Click to expand...

The fanatical person in power caused 20 million to die. Not a good precedent, is it?

And is still inspiring people:

He described himself in oxymoronic terms, such as, "a cynical existentialist, antihuman humanist, antisocial social darwinist [sic], realistic idealist and godlike atheist" on his YouTube user page Sturmgeist89.

According to his YouTube profile, his interests were natural selection and hate for humanity. He stated that he was hoping to inspire a revolution of the "small minority of strong-minded and intelligent individuals" against the "idiocracy" of the "weak-minded masses".[14] He did not want anything or anyone to be blamed for the shooting, and had planned it "in [his] own head".[24]
Click to expand...
 
As one data point, it doesn't prove anything except that one person can be mean for any number of reasons.
 
Its one data point that is reported. After all, atheists are not in the habit of declaring themselves, are they?
 
S.A.M. said:
How do you think Stalin racked up a figure of 20 million dead? To build a "better society"? You'd be surprised to read how many "intellectuals" of the time agreed with him. Hence the popularity of eugenics [opposed by the church] in "scientific circles". Scratch an atheist and you'll find the same theme. Build a better society by eliminating the delusional. The delusional being whoever does not think like them. For Dawkins theme fans, check out the natural selector in Finland who killed some school children, because he was trying to do his bit for a better society. Some of them just take the elimination to extreme levels.
Click to expand...

Stalin seized opportunity and installed himself in a position of power without any oversight. Intellectuals of the time agree with Eugenics, because of their cultural and social context. They thought that race would be made better through purification, when the opposite is true, we give ourselves more of a chance to survive by having the widest variety of genes available. (although I'm not a geneticist, I think that's the case). Might I also mention that deranged killers have a way of justifying everything ?
I just point out that religion is easier to justify by than atheism. If the killer was sane, (and he wasn't), he would have thought and researched carefully and realised that natural selection being bypassed is a good thing.
 
Challenger78 said:
Stalin seized opportunity and installed himself in a position of power without any oversight. Intellectuals of the time agree with Eugenics, because of their cultural and social context. They thought that race would be made better through purification, when the opposite is true, we give ourselves more of a chance to survive by having the widest variety of genes available. (although I'm not a geneticist, I think that's the case). Might I also mention that deranged killers have a way of justifying everything ?
I just point out that religion is easier to justify by than atheism.
Click to expand...


Ever hear any current atheist arguments on eugenics? Look up Dawkins.

http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_may_not_be_bad.php

If the killer was sane, (and he wasn't), he would have thought and researched carefully and realised that natural selection being bypassed is a good thing.
Click to expand...

I don't think he was insane, no one has intimated he was. He was a "good" student, an intellectual, who was "frustrated" by all the "weak" people in society.
 
S.A.M. said:
How do you think Stalin racked up a figure of 20 million dead? To build a "better society"? You'd be surprised to read how many "intellectuals" of the time agreed with him. Hence the popularity of eugenics [opposed by the church] in "scientific circles". Scratch an atheist and you'll find the same theme. Build a better society by eliminating the delusional. The delusional being whoever does not think like them.
Click to expand...

Wow SAM, If you were wondering what that loud whoosing noise was while you were typing that last post of yours - that was the sound of the irony of your last post going straight over your own head

Are these mindests not the norm in conservative / fundamentalist theist world ? They most certainly are in the Abrahamist religions at least.
Are they in fact the norm in any kind of dogmatic system that seeks to spread its values?

Is this perhaps the common denominator that you have hitheto overlooked? that it is in fact a weakness of any system that seeks to change the world in either spiritual or physical means, that it has a tendency to attract a certain type of individual who will stop at nothing to acheive the goals of that system?
 
I think the fundies are the same on either side of the equation. The atheists here do not sound very different from the kind of theists they claim to oppose. Fortunately there are only as many atheists as there are these extreme theists. One Stalin is enough for a century. So here's hoping that the Dawkins movement dies with him.

I wouldn't trust either of them to build a better society.
 
S.A.M. said:
I think the fundies are the same on either side of the equation. The atheists here do not sound very different from the kind of theists they claim to oppose. Fortunately there are only as many atheists as there are these extreme theists. One Stalin is enough for a century. So here's hoping that the Dawkins movement dies with him.

I wouldn't trust either of them to build a better society.
Click to expand...

If that's the case SAM, would it not be more apt to put your own house in order first?

For one how about you stop whining about atheists, and get to grips with fundies within your own religion - how about looking to build some understanding and reconcilliation with oh, say....Israeli Jews foe example
 
Religious people seem to create a better society simply by killing anyone that disagrees with them. Atheists at least leave room for disagreement, because there is no higher authority. Just look at what they do to other Christians (the Cathars)

...Arnaud, the Cistercian abbot-commander, is supposed to have been asked how to tell Cathars from Catholics. His reply, recalled by Caesar of Heisterbach, a fellow Cistercian, many years later was "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." — "Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own." The doors of the church of St Mary Magdalene were broken down and the refugees dragged out and slaughtered. Reportedly, 7,000 people died there including many women and children. Elsewhere in the town many more thousands were mutilated and killed. Prisoners were blinded, dragged behind horses, and used for target practice.[7] What remained of the city was razed by fire. Arnaud wrote to Pope Innocent III, "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex."[8][9]. The permanent population of Béziers at that time was then probably no more than 5,000, but local refugees seeking shelter within the city walls could conceivably have increased the number to 20,000.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top