Thread: Atheists

Originally Posted by coqauvin

welp, looks like all agnostics and atheists are crazy assholes who just wanna kill people. I think that atheists and agnostics need to take a serious look at what, in their doctrines, impels people to commit acts of terrorism and the way they are being taught.

i've said this many times, maybe not in this thread, but the difference is: atheism HAS NO DOCTRINES. it's a lack of doctrine. it just means there's something you don't believe in. atheism and science are mostly found in the same places, but atheism does not teach science. we're (i assume) all atheists about zeus, odin, and so on, without implying that there's some doctrine that goes along with not believing in zeus and odin -- people who call themselves atheists today are just atheistic about one more god.

furthermore, the day that someone does something truly reprehensible in the name of atheism, or that can IN ANY WAY be linked to his atheism, i will be the first one to go whoa, guys, we have to deal with this. but it doesn't happen. show me i'm wrong here.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

what I'm trying to say with this is that extremists are extremists and cannot be counted as part of the majority. As well, there are social, cultural and political factors that lead to extremists doing these things you find reprehensible. Because they are justified by doctrine taken out of context and snipped beyond recognition does not falsify the doctrines used.

this is apologism. how about the vatican's shielding of child molesters? is that being done by "fringe extremists", and what are the social and cultural and political factors that lead to it?

what about comfortable, middle class families who abuse their children not sexually or physically, but mentally, because they're "dirty", or somehow not acceptable to their god?

and what about the majority of america, who simply teach their children to be suspicious of science and education? i submit that it's a form of abuse to ruin someone's mind like that. let's call it intellectual abuse.

the more moderate, sensible members of any one community -- whether it be a religious, national, ideological or cultural one -- need to be the first to come out decrying the actions of extremists and look at fixing things. instead, moderate religion has a real problem with denying, ignoring and distancing itself. when a passage in the bible literally says "gays are an abomination who should surely be put to death", and then someone quotes it when they kill gays, that's not taking a doctrine out of context. that's basic literacy and following clear instructions.

there are grey areas, certainly. but frankly, a lot of the worst, most bloodthirsty, most "dark age" passages in any religious text aren't exactly "grey". you can make arguments for them to be non-literal, but what possible non-literal -- but still acceptable -- reading is there for "you shall surely put gays to death"? or the koran's many passages about killing infidels till there's nobody left but them? for religion to mature along with modern thought, its followers must be willing to examine these things, and answer them satisfactorily.

and the only satisfactory answer is "they are bad passages, and we must excise them from our religion".

Originally Posted by KT.

I agree that religion can "mature" but what's the point of having religion at all anymore? Religion by default leads to magical thinking and I don't understand how magical thinking can be seen as a good thing.

i don't disagree with you, myself. i just find it pointless to go around saying we need to get rid of religion. as i said, it's incredibly, achingly naive and it'll just depress you in the long run. i think we'll have more luck engaging with a more sympathetic dialogue with moderate religious people and helping them see how should be used to create the best possible world (as opposed to shaping our world according to religion). plus, in time, when religion has matured to the point where it doesn't so vastly hold back people's thinking, it'll just sort of fade away on its own.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

the difference is that Christians are morally impelled to confront people about this because, in their worldview, they're trying to save someone's eternal soul. When you remove the meaning of saving something worth more than someone's life, shit doesn't matter so much anymore.

My distaste for that is tempered by their intentions.

i agree with this. it doesn't make them bad people. it makes them good people infected with bad teachings.