Someone tell my how Americans got so incredibly ignorant and delusional about "religion" -

I see stuff like this:link - http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/may21/index.html
the explanation of the May 2011 return of christ and the October 2011 end of the world by fire...all deduced from bible quotes, and pre-supposing a "young earth"...

Young Earth Creation Club link:http://www.creationists.org/

And the Rapture folks:http://www.raptureready.com/

And the Armies:http://sklatch.net/thoughtlets/pall.html
This last article is full of basic information on the fundamentalist militants in the US.

I am amazed that we have such a huge number of people who deny the existance of science and seemingly of all modern (since the early 19th century) thought. I am amazed these people are taken seriously, and I am amazed they have so much political power and at the degree they have influence over all our lives.

mark

and control requires that you continually up the dosage, lest the victim come to their senses.

today is all about control if they need to rely on ridicule towards believers to produce acceptance of atheism and nonbelief. That has been a pattern over the last 2 centuries. New atheism is nothing more than rehashed old atheism.

probably a huge share of the world's population.

(wiki, for example) and you will have your answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Continuing state atheism

While much of Communism is now defunct, the remaining communist states of China, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea and Cuba, despite some economic liberalization, continue to persecute the religious.<60> In addition to overt persecution, these states also seek to control religion by forcing upon the people state sanctioned churches, essentially attempting to make the churches tools of the state.<60>

State sponsored atheism isn't a driving force in global cultural development. Whatever might have been considered state atheism has largely collapsed and the remainder is in decline.

It is generally considered poor form to make an unsubstantiated claim and then have others seek out documentation to support it.

were under state atheism at the present time, but it did make significant gains in the last century. And China, Vietnam, etc. are still officially under state atheism. When compulsion is lifted they naturally return to some percentage of religious orientation. Atheism is not a natural state of mind, regardless of what the new atheists proclaim. It must generally be forced upon a population.

I'll post it again for your convenience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Continuing state atheism

While much of Communism is now defunct, the remaining communist states of China, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea and Cuba, despite some economic liberalization, continue to persecute the religious.<60> In addition to overt persecution, these states also seek to control religion by forcing upon the people state sanctioned churches, essentially attempting to make the churches tools of the state.<60>

From the link, these are countries that have promoted state atheism: Socialist People's Republic of Albania, The Soviet Union, The People's Republic of China, Mexico under Plutarco Elías Calles, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, Mongolian People's Republic, Cuba, North Korea. Hardly a plurality when before communism ran out of gas. State sponsored atheism was never a significant threat to theism, if it ever existed at all. It was an abberation that is in serious decline today. It certainly is not a "huge share of the world's population".

The People's Republic of China might have filled the bill for a while, but not any more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China
This policy relaxed considerably in the late 1970s at the end of the Cultural Revolution and more tolerance of religious expression has been permitted since the 1980s. The 1978 Constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees "freedom of religion" . Since the mid-1980s there has been a massive program to rebuild Buddhist and Taoist temples.

There are five recognized religions by the state, namely Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism.<3>

In recent times, the government has expressed support for Buddhism and Taoism, organizing the World Buddhist Forum in 2006 and the International Forum on the Daodejing in 2007. The government sees these religions as an integral part of Chinese culture<4>.

As for this portion of your post:

"Atheism is not a natural state of mind, regardless of what the new atheists proclaim. It must generally be forced upon a population."

Heaven forbid any government should force any state of mind on its people.





Atheism is unnatural? You actually insinuated that on a public forum? Really? You actually said that?

"State sponsored atheism was never a significant threat to theism, if it ever existed at all."



“The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion”
(Karl Marx)

Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"The Atheist’s Handbook was published in Moscow in 1959 in conjunction with Khrushchev’s campaign to eliminate the remaining traces of religion in the U.S.S.R. This text attacks the Bible, the Qur’an, Christianity, and Islam. “Science,” says the Handbook, “has long since established that Jesus Christ never existed, that the figure of the alleged founder of Christianity is purely mythical.” And according to the Handbook, the Apostle Paul, too, turns out to be “a mythical figure.”

It was, as I said, an aberration. It doesn't hold a candle to the barbarity of theists in the last, oh, seven thousand years or so.

at the hands of atheistic dictators than from all religious wars in human history.

and better equipment.

That is of course if you can actually show that the fascists and communists in the twentieth century were actually atheists. I am not convinced that they were.

renouncing any religious adherence.

It required renouncing any religious adherence other than the one designed by the dictator.

Joseph Stalin created for himself and Lenin a cult of personality. I think he set himself up as a deity with the work of Marx as a doctrine just like David Koresh or Jim Jones. Religions begin as cults, and the religion of Communism was no different. They did, after all, permanently embalm and display Lenin's body. A more fitting idol for the communist ideal could hardly be imagined.

So they did indeed say that they were atheists and in a sense they were telling the truth. Stalin didn't believe in any gods other than himself. Of course this is the same crowd that took the practice of rewriting history, manipulating news, and retouching photographs to its zenith for that time. I wouldn't consider them an unimpeachable source. They turned themselves into gods and Communism into a religion and the people never noticed the switch.

As for the Fascists, same story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler


Religion is a means of social cohesion using emotion as glue. As long a everybody feels the same way about something, they are members of a tribe. That impulse, like any other, can be used for good or ill. It's that simple.

They all look the same to me...

If you are going to use "religion" in that sense, then it could easily be said that "scientism" is the religion of many atheists today.

The power of life and death on a whim sounds pretty supernatural. The ability to see into people's hearts (via extensive surveillance infrastructure) seems pretty supernatural. The ability to reshape the world people live in according to a personal ideology seems pretty supernatural. It's all the same scam. A social dominator uses the natural propensity of people to form groups based on emotional synchronicity by leveraging the object of their faith for his or her own aggrandizement. They either claim divine right as an emissary of a deity, or make themselves a deity. Sometimes they start out as an emissary and end up a god. It doesn't matter. Since the advent of agriculture and the accumulation of resources it always seems to work the same way.

















It doesn't seem to matter whether we pray to the gods of rain or genetics or history or money, we are still praying and we need high priests to guide our prayers and interpret the the divine will our gods.

Is "scientism" a religion? Damned if I know. I don't care. It's petty and counterproductive for us to characterize something that is within all of us as wrong or evil. We all have feelings. We all need each other. This petty sectarianism sooner or later will get a lot of heads chopped off. And you can bet the assholes that gin up that sectarian hate will make a ton of money off the blood of the doomed believers.

validated his declared state "religion" of "Scientific Atheism", what miracles did he perform to gain such high esteem? Oh, yes! He annhilated 20 million by the wave of his hand without the world noticing (until the fall of the USSR).

...the miraculous implantation, much like the baby Jesus into the womb of Mary, of an enormous insect into the rectum of humblebum, undetectable by modern medical science, but nevertheless, clearly knowable to the world by its Signs and Deeds.

:rofl:

What's your point?

instead of atheistic, then you are grasping at air. When Lenin declared "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism" and Stalin declared his program of "Scientific Atheism" to be the replacement for any state religion - it becomes quite obvious that there was nothing theistic in their philosophies.
B. Russell himself wrote to Lenin with approval, "Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind."

*sigh*

"propaganda of atheism"



Like I said, Stalin made himself a god by using the propaganda of Marxist ideology. You might believe in some supernatural deity, but nobody gives a shit about what you believe. The Russian people bought it, and that's how history got made. They treated him like a god whether he had a fluffy white beard or not.

Look. Stalin called himself an atheist because that sounded very scientific and modern. At a time when nationalism appeared to be in the process of eliminating theism as the dominant form of social cohesion, I guess it made sense. He would have called himself an avocado if he would have thought it would work.

"propaganda of atheism" - Lenin's quote, not mine. BTW, Communism is opposed to nationalism. Stalin was not a Russian.

""propaganda of atheism" - Lenin's quote, not mine.

I know.

BTW, Communism is opposed to nationalism. Stalin was not a Russian."

The Russian people were, uh, Russian.

Do you plan to make a point, or just continue to dodge mine?

"At a time when nationalism appeared to be in the process of eliminating theism". The nationalists were the pro-czarist forces. They were not trying to eliminate religion, they were pro-Orthodoxy.

See "Divine right of kings" in post #62. That should give you some fresh material to parse.

Never did Stalin make any such claim and communism was squarely opposed to such a system. Do you remember the French Revolution (extremely anti-monarchist and against any divine right of kings), and the Paris Commune, and Lenin's connection to the Paris Commune. That is a direct link to Bolshevism and the rest was history. Stalin may have been an egomaniac and an absolute dictator, but the establishment of Scientific Atheism was a top priority.

Stalin just wanted to eliminate the competition of other faiths.

"an egomaniac and an absolute dictator"



Fear of god, fear of Stalin. What's the difference?

But there truly is a huge difference if you are a believer. Stalin could do nothing more than kill a person. Death does not allow one to escape an eternal sovereign God. But Christians also equate fearing god with respecting God - meaning that we do not live in constant fear of punishment, but with a belief that everything will eventually be OK.

he could make anybody's life in that country a lot easier, if not downright luxurious. And that was a real reward you could get before you die instead of something offered without any proof it would happen.

As a god, he had more credibility than than any mystical deity.

were theists? Everything I have read says they were atheists and anti-theists.

I was asking a question. I'll ask it again.

What makes it NOT theistic?

I have always considered atheism to be non-theistic. But I am sure you'll try to explain how atheism can be theistic.

You are as much of an atheist as Joe Stalin. You both believe in one god. You believe in whatever god you wish, Joe believed in Joe.

and put his body on display as an idol to the communist ideal theists?

relationship with his horse? Can you describe it?

too often by people who simply wish to dismiss science in favor of religion or some super-convoluted hardcore antipositivist philosophy. I have the feeling you're not using it correctly here.

"Scientism exists in the form of overreaching logical positivism", when the term is used to declare that anything supernatural or metaphysical cannot exist if it cannot be proven scientifically. Logical Positivism, of course, holds that such ideas are nonsensical and meaningless, and the matter simply cannot be addressed or commented upon. "Scientism" is generally used to descibe science when it is given the status of a religion.

should have a status far surpassing that of religion. In areas of subjective personal experience, perhaps not so much.

"Overreaching logical positivism," to me, is claiming that emotions, in the conventional sense, do not exist at all, implying that subjective, emotional experience is almost entirely destructive and undesirable, claiming that so-called "spiritual" experiences must be invalid because people sometimes tie them to wooish supernatural beliefs, and so on. Rejecting firmly held beliefs that cannot be proven or evidenced hardly seems extreme to me.

It's not terrible, oh-so-eebil "scientism" or "science-as-religion" to say that believing in literal gods, angels and demons is irrational, delusional and foolish.

at the hands of dark-haired dictators than from all religious wars in human history. Does that make dark hair a thing of evil tendencies? Did Lenin's philosophy of atheism have as one of its tenets causing the deaths of millions, or was that all the idea of Stalin, a paranoid sociopath representative of nothing but himself? Did all of the peasants who died of starvation under Stalin die because of atheism? How about all of the people who were sent to forced labor camps for 25 years for anti-Soviet propaganda and died there? What did that have to do with atheism?

and it does not change the fact that most of the mass killings were NOT caused by religion as some like Hitchens have claimed.

who happened to be atheist doesn't come close to demonstrating that atheism was responsible for those deaths (any more than dark hair was, in case you missed the point). And that the killing were not the result of religion does not by default mean that atheism was responsible.

Try again.

else into it, then that's up to you. However, There are facts supporting the claim that much of it was due to being or not being atheists. There were entire villages starved out because they refused to allow atheism to be forcibly introduced into their factories, schools, etc., or for standing in the way of destruction of religious structures and sites. Thousands upon thousands were executed because of their religious beliefs or refusal to renounce them. And many others were shipped off to the gulags for illegal religious activities. It has been mentioned here many times but groups like the Society of the Godless and the League of Militants Atheists purposely harrassed and persecuted countless numbers as part of their stated goals. Religious publications were forbidden but 'The Atheist' newpaper was heavily circulated in homes schools and factories. So, you ask if anything was done because of atheism. The facts are quite clear. The elimination of religion and the establishment of state atheism were stated objectives that were vigorously pursued by the state. Very much a part of the first 5 year plan.

how many religious people died because their religious belief was simply one of innumerable perceived threats to Stalin's political power. Or how many died for reasons that had nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Your claim of "much of it" is simply babble and wishful thinking on your part, without any numbers or records to support it. The facts are also clear that Stalin supported the Russian Orthodox Church when it suited him to do so. Why should he do such a thing if atheism and not political control was his fundamental motivation? You'll have to search long and hard in any serious biography of Stalin for a substantial discussion of how atheism was his primary impetus or goal.

Your leap of logic from "More people died in the 20th century at the hands of atheistic dictators than from all religious wars in human history" to what you really want to claim ( "More people died in the 20th century as a result of atheism than from all religious wars in human history") remains unjustified.

You are attributing quotes to me that I never made. Concerning your statement "Stalin supported the Russian Orthodox Church when it suited him", Stalin was also very careful to make sure that he had his own people in place in the churches - those whom he could dispose of at any time. The Orthodox Church was heavily persecuted before WW2. I think you know that he needed to unite the country against Germany, so he eased up. But it was back to business after the war. There were also many people involved in the suppression of religion besides Stalin. you are doing nothing but spouting the same old warn out lines from the "new" atheist playbook, with some new twists, e.g., instead of men with mustaches, it's men with black hair.

You, sir, haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about, and are merely pulling the Bible defender's favorite trick of reaching through a book and pulling out the things that you think support your hard-line agenda.

I dare you to post in this forum without making a reference, flatly or veiled, to Communism or Communist leaders.

Stalin persecuted the Church (along with many, many other groups) when he perceived them as a threat to his political power (as opposed to his lack of belief in god), and supported them when he thought they would be more of an aid in maintaining that power. The central theme remains political power, and Stalin's paranoid protection of it. Since you claim to know so much about Stalin, cite for me please where in any of his biographies atheism is emphasized.

And exactly what did I claim you said that you didn't?

a strawman to take the emphasis from the main subject, which is the history of of organized atheism. I have mentioned several people. However, Stalin's bio clearly contains references to his atheistic activities. And he was one of many who were involved in carrying out the dictates of Marxist philosophy, which required the destruction of religion and the establishment of a materialistic atheist state. Just one example of Stalin's aversion toward atheism was his establishment of a 'Museum of Scientific Atheism'.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/norfolkodyssey/376765112/

Now what does that tell anyone with two brain cells to rub together?

tell us about the history of organized atheism in the 12th century, the 16th century, the 18th century. Lay out for us the unmistakable pattern of war, torture and murder practiced by organized atheists down through European history. You call that the main subject, but have provided no description at all and no evidence of anything.

You can call Stalin a straw man, but it isn't atheists who keep harping on him. It's religious apologists who seem "fixated" on him and keep dredging up the Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot meme, to try to argue that atheism is responsible for as much badness as religion.

And please defend your accusation that I attributed statements to you that you didn't make, or retract it.

all religion and to replace it with state atheism, it's not too much of a stretch to claim that atheism was a reason for atrocities against religious adherents. And again you are introducing a strawman.

that many of the religious adherents persecuted and imprisoned under Stalin were because they refused to cooperate in any way with what they perceived as an evil and illegitimate government, not because they refused to renounce their faith and become atheists.

And stop ducking direct questions. Tell us about the history of organized atheism, which YOU claimed was the main subject. Stop fixating on Stalin.

Furthermore, justify the accusation you leveled at me that "You are attributing quotes to me that I never made." Unless of course you just made that up like you're making everything else up.

throwing out more strawmen.

and repeat over and over. I'm asking direct questions about claims YOU made, so that you keep calling them straw men is quite amusing. Either answer them and justify your claims or admit you can't.

That you're forced to resort to this simply proves that you've been making this up as you went along from the beginning. But thanks for playing.

"More people died in the 20th century at the hands of atheistic dictators than from all religious wars in human history." Direct, provable, pointed. Nothing complicated about it. You twisted it, tried to interpret it differently, restricted it to just Stalin. All it really says is "More people died in the 20th century
at the hands of atheistic dictators than from all religious wars in human history." As per R.J. Rummel, Guinness Book of Records, etc. There have been several histories written on the subject.

That is, of course, if they actually were atheists.

were required to declare themselves atheists and to openly oppose any religious adherence. So yes, officially they were atheists.

Did those people die because the dictators were atheists?

I've been doing a fair bit of reading of Hitchens lately and I've never seen that claim made.

The so-called new atheists are the ones who have become vocal in the last decade or so. They don't include Stalin. Anyway, this is a red herring as has been explained over and over. A dogmatic, totalitarian regime that requires professions of nonbelief is not what we are talking about. Anyway, as bad as Stalin was, most of the damage he caused was incidental to his policies, not the object of them. He was still an improvement over the Tsar and was preferrable to the Nazis who were as theocratic as the Vatican.

I don't ridicule people for their beliefs. Nevertheless the beliefs themselves are indefensible in the academic meaning of that word and ought to be ridiculed.

There weren't a lot of people advocating atheism back in the day.

Also, how does one control people using atheism? There's no atheist pope, no atheist congregations, no atheist party line. The closest thing atheists have to a pulpit is in the form of popular books, and the occasional TV appearance.

It seems to me that you're more interested in atheism as a boogeyman than as a philosophical position.

And, how hard can it be for a small percentage of the population to acquire political power? The Ruling Class has it, yet makes up less than 1% of the peeps!

:shrug:

almost no one in public dares to confess that they don't believe in some form of god or religious/spiritual bullshit because you will be shouted down

think of all the people you know, virtually all of them either DO believe in crap or in public at least pretend to believe in crap

seems to me, it's the overwhelming majority who believe in religious crap, if we're at all honest

i live in the south, didn't meet another person who was willing to admit right out loud that she didn't believe in god, until i was 12 years old, things aren't really much better now

as far as the theory of "well only the extremist fundamentalists are the problem," for one thing, more and more people feel compelled to join up with the extremist, because they are ones who most loudly and openly vocalize the religious message, and for another thing, once you believe one illogical piece of bullshit, why shouldn't you believe 12 illogical pieces of bullshit? i'm not gonna play the game of "my religion is a religion, but your religion is a cult," if we were honest w. ourselves, they're all cults

:shrug:

Here in the west I rarely run into people who believe those things. They'll claim a vague 'Christian' belief, but hardly ever the nuttiness. And church attendance is waaay, waaay lower than it was when I was a kid.

and those that are adamant in their "disbelief"?

The basis for both is in something other than fact.

And distain for ‘the facts’ on both sides…even the principle of provision of evidence is treated with contempt by both.

(Evidence on request ;-)

provide us with your documentation that evolutionary scientists have been contemptuous towards anyone wanting evidence for their claims (which encompass entire libraries) And what "facts" have they "disdained"?

And while you're at it, explain why not being convinced of the existence of something requires evidence to support it.

In direct response to- “those that are adamant in their "beliefs" and those that are adamant in their "disbelief"”

I made no reference to “evolutionary scientists” nor is there any foundation to the assumption that all such are atheists.

Two minor facts which if granted a little respect may have curtailed your barking up the wrong tree.

that people who withhold acceptance of something until adequate affirmative, objective evidence has been presented (and by your own words, such evidence in the case of god has not been) are "adamant" in their disbelief in the same way that people who believe based solely on faith, in the absence of any such evidence and even in the face of contradictory evidence are "adamant"? What planet do you live on where being constantly open to altering your convictions based on new evidence is being "adamant" at all?

that I have ever- said, suggested, thought or could be logically extrapolated there from.

Your tree…keep barking,

that you fine new and creative methods to avoid answering challenges to your statements and to be as intellectually dishonest as possible while doing it.

Your response to the question "is there really much difference between those that are adamant in their 'beliefs' and those that are adamant in their 'disbelief'?" was "No. No difference."

If you'd care to demonstrate how my characterizations of people exhibiting a lack of belief and people exhibiting belief were inaccurate, and can't possibly describe any real people, have at it. If you can't (and I'm sure it won't be for lack of babbling on about it incoherently for paragraphs), then they clearly fall under the umbrella of the question you responded to.

Of course, in your case, I expect you'll respond that when you said "No difference" you mean, well, sorta kinda SOME difference in some cases and from some points of view, and that I was simply misunderstanding your use of the word "no".


And still waiting for your explanation of how someone who says that verifiable, reproducible evidence will alter their beliefs is being "adamant" in their current disbelief.

Both #22 and #26 are your statements masquerading as mine.
You produce some irrelevant crap about “evolutionary scientists” and pretend it has something to do with me.
As soon as that straw man is knocked on the head you abandon it and launch another “So you actually think” bullshit projection of your own imagination.
Now your back for the third attempt to get me to defend >your< fabrication of my pov.

There is no “challenge” in pointing out your straw men are your straw men.


“If you'd care to demonstrate how my characterizations of people exhibiting a lack of belief and people exhibiting belief were inaccurate,..”


Sure, easy done, they are “inaccurate” because you present >your characterizations< as reflective of >my thinking< -
“So you actually think” is the setup/projection and all that follows is >your characterizations< that I’m supposed to defend as reflective of my thinking?….no challenge and no thanks.


“Of course, in your case, I expect you'll respond that when you said "No difference" you mean, well, sorta kinda SOME difference in some cases and from some points of view, and that I was simply misunderstanding your use of the word "no".”


How much did you pay for your online atheists psychic insight Diploma and does it have a warrantee?

I meant what I said and I stand by what I said- “No. No difference. And distain for ‘the facts’ on both sides…even the principle of provision of evidence is treated with contempt by both.”


Instead of asking what I was referring to you launch three straw man posts of your own fantasies and projections regarding “evolutionary scientists” and your assumed psychic insight.


“And still waiting for your explanation of how someone who says that verifiable, reproducible evidence will alter their beliefs is being "adamant" in their current disbelief.”


LOL! WHY TF and HOW TF can I give you an “explanation” for >YOUR< pov?
Your quoting >yourself< from #26 and asking me to explain why you said what you said???!!!

Here’s a clue skepticscott….just because you preface >your< pov with “So you actually think” directed at me doesn’t mean it reflects my thinking or what I’ve said in any way/shape or form or that I have any responsibility for your projected arguement.

You have just devoted three posts to presenting your thinking as mine…ya got a 4th?

It’s quite entertaining but it’s no challenge to let you take responsibility for your own creative writing.

"No. No Difference." without qualification or exception, it includes every version that anyone can logically extrapolate of 'those that are adamant in their "beliefs and those that are adamant in their "disbelief"', including those that I offered. Blather about that all you want, but statements have meaning and implication beyond what's between the quotes. Whether you will ever actually grasp that is doubtful. Based on your history, I suspect you'll just continue to play your game of "But that's not exactly what I said", and try to paint any characterization of your position that isn't a verbatim quote as meaningless.

What "facts" are you referring to? What "facts" do those that believe have to support their belief? How are those that do not believe treat the provision of evidence with contempt?

I said-
“..distain for ‘the facts’ on both sides…even the principle of provision of evidence is treated with contempt by both.”

By that I was referring to both believers and non engaging in myth making to serve their interests/agenda and both being prepared to either falsify what has transpired or believe and promulgate assertions/allegations that are not and cannot be substantiated.

Theists often demonstrate this “contempt for the provision of evidence” in regard evolution or the historically of central figures.
Atheists often demonstrate this “contempt for the provision of evidence” in regard
the centrality of State imposed atheism within Communism.
#121 ‘Matt Rossano on war and religion’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=253928&mesg_id=254631


And-
#20
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=254715&mesg_id=254905

In regard ongoing false accusations and “the principle of provision of evidence is treated with contempt” the examples run into dozens, here’s a few-


#6 #11, 2010 Global Atheist Convention

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=255244&mesg_id=255269

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=255244&mesg_id=255326

#39-#50 #52-#65 #63 Let's have a little post about respect
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x251901#252010
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x251901#252012

“How are those that do not believe treat the provision of evidence with contempt”?

By repeatedly making foul baseless allegations of “hatred” of a group and/or having designated a group as “evil” and repeatedly refusing point blank to provide >any evidence<.

gonna take a step back and watch. I don;t think I have the prior knowledge of this feud to participate so I'm gonna not say anything other than after reading your links to other threads, I don't really agree with you, with a few exceptions.

The allegation has been made on more than a dozen occasions over a four year period that atheists and atheism have been subject (by me) to “attack”, “bigotry”, “hatred” and deemed as “evil”.
None of the accusers has ever provided quote, cite, evidence or substantiation of such a feud against atheists/atheism. Not a single quote nor anything in which bigoted/hateful attack/feud against atheism is suggested or inferred.

The singular and only attempt to justify these allegations was a board participant of impeccable and unbiased character and reliability who took it upon themselves to investigate several threads in search of “attacks on atheists and atheism”.
These several threads revealed that I have indeed argued with atheists on a number of specific issues (not atheism or their atheism) and the following “attacks” identified-
I once referred to an atheists apparent “Fish fetish” (obsession with ‘red herrings’)
I once responded to an atheists deductive ability “Good one Sherlock”.
I once anticipated the arrival of the “Heckle brigade”.

These are the sole examples of “attack”, “bigotry”, “hatred” and deeming as “evil” that constitute the evidence of “feud” thus far.
Thus the paradox that the “feud” (ongoing argument) is over wether or not any “feud” (attack, bigotry, hatred) has actually occurred.

I appreciate and respect your desire to stay out of the search for my Words of Mass Destruction….none have been found…none will.

As for your unspecified non agreement....it remains unspecified.

Which brings us back to the point of origin- “the principle of provision of evidence is treated with contempt…”

(if I recall your expression correctly) that you had so much disdain for some time back. Duly noted.

#111-
………………………………………

“It does indeed seem that you have picked a side.”

Sure have. I’ve picked the side of opposition to all those who allege “attack or criticize atheists”, “anti atheist bigotry is his church”, “hatred of atheists”……..and have never once provided a single substantiating example.
My ‘side’ is opposition to such unethical behaviour.

“the fact that I frequently agree with the other atheists in this forum. That's totally fair.”

I appreciate the concession to reality.


This is even better….at last….down to tin tacks-

“. But at the same time, you can't be upset when people identify you with one camp in this forum rather than the other. Because yes, there are two camps here,….”

Mind if I shout for emphasis?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

I REJECT UTTERLY AND ENTIRELY YOUR (ANYBODYS) >TWO CAMP< COSMOLOGY AND I DEEPLY FUCKING RESENT ANYONE PROJECTING AND IMPOSING IT AND A ‘CAMP’ UPON ME!

You perceive “two camps here”?...good for you…that’s >your< pov, >your< belief, >your< outlook and >your< cosmology…………………..and you don’t get to impose/project >your< belief in a “camp” on me and make me a member without >EVIDENCE< and without my loud sustained objection.
…………………………………………………..

My observation that "both" ends of the spectrum (your percieved and allocated sides/camps) demonstrate that “the principle of provision of evidence is treated with contempt…” does not change or negate my refusal to have you/anyone impose/project a >side< on me.

if you could just find me someone who is in fact so adamant about their disbelief.

I see a lot of people in this forum who defend themselves from idiotic statements and broad brush attacks. I see a lot of people in this forum who are vocal about defending their right to free discourse and disbelief. But frankly, I don't see a lot of people anywhere who I would call adamant about their disbelief.

I guess it comes down to characterization. What would you characterize as "adamant" about disbelief?

are prepared to change their point of view, given sufficient evidence. Fundy Xstians are not. Ask an atheist what evidence would start to convince them that there really is a god, and then ask a fundy for examples of evidence that would get them to start doubting there is a god. The stony silence or blubbering denial you'll get in the second case should be all the answer you need.

For the reason you mentioned

"almost no one in public dares to confess that they don't believe in some form of god or religious/spiritual bullshit because you will be shouted down"

of ALL Americans consistently believe that the world and all of its creatures were created less than 10,000 years ago. That's been borne out by poll after poll over many decades. Looney Tunes.

of the US population believes in the Young Earth Creationist idea, and thus does NOT believe in evolution per se, and, by extension, in any of the earth sciences, nor in astronomy or physics...

It becomes a situation where these people are convinced that everyone else is wrong simply because they believe only they are right. Evidently "religion" mandates a love of and demand for ignorance.

mark

It does vary by region--the South is at around 51% and the Northeast is around 39%. The West and Midwest are around 45%. Averaged out, it's around 45-50%.

The important thing to remember is that since Christianity represents about 76% of the population, the majority of Christians are creationists. (50% of Christians would be about 38% of the population, Judaism and Islam combine to 1.5% of the population.)

You can look at religion and world history to see the same patterns...

The Crusades....
The Irish Protestant/Catholic wars


Religion is about fear and control.

look even the guys who came over on the mayflower were religious kooks

it's unfortunate but we were settled in large percentage not just by the rebellious and the energetic ("convicts" guilty of being born into the wrong class, picking a pocket, and getting deported) but by people who voluntarily came here to follow some non-standard beliefs

we've always had a large population of the delusional

it's also an unfortunate reality that delusional people who can't use logic also can't do math or make good decisions to plan their families, so they tend to have larger families (can't/don't use family planning) so their crap gets taught and handed down through the generations

i honestly don't know how it will change as long as we allow parents to have all the kids they want and teach kids all the bullshit they want

never read the bible in its entirety, but a family member told me the other night that it's in the bible. i didn't think they had divorce back when the bible was written.

And loves what the person speaking loves.

You will never find a believer who thinks that god has a different opinion from them.

is attracted to another man. she's been married for 11 years and is considering divorce. a friend prayed for her and she said got an answer. the answer was "god hates it if the timing is wrong. if you wait until the time is right god will be okay with it".

WTF?

say something like "I know god says, 'turn the other cheek', but I just can't do it"?

a century-long war to destroy education, the Nationalistic PR campaign throughout the 19th & 20th centuries to justify our rape of, first the continent, then the world, and finally converting citizens into consumers easily sold the succor of the invisible man in the sky that is responsible for all that is good while his independent scapegoat (the guy that didn't want to grovel before him) is responsible for all that is bad.

Elmer Gantry got a prime-time national slot with an guaranteed eternal run.

It should be no surprise that the delusional can be deluded, and of course they start by indoctrinating their children, to give them a head start on believing horseshit.

Most think that Australia got the better end of the deal....

all round and unarguably better ;-)

to God.

North America is where all of Europe's religious nuts went after they pissed off one to many Anglicans, Lutherans, and Catholics.

Connected deonominations have bodies of politic, established Seminaries and centuries of traditions.

Local Churches are supported by people who are ignorant of the Bible and who will pay for someone to be the pastor and will reflect their own uninformed beliefs.

Catholic Church Priests and Protestant Ministers of large denominations are trained to read the bible through careful 'exogesis' eliminating preconcieved ideas of what the text says and study what the context of the scripture is about.

Local Pastors that may have gone to an independent bible school, if at all practice 'eisogesis', they read the Bible looking for some snippet or verse that will confirm what they believed before they opened the book.

The megachurches tend to have self-designated preachers who are laws unto themselves, while the mainstream churches have clergy who are trained and vetted and under the jurisdiction of their church body in religious matters and a board of lay people in administrative and financial matters. Any mainstream clergyperson who tried to raise money from the congregation to buy a new car for themselves would get slapped down pretty quickly.

If you think "organized religion" is bad, DISORGANIZED religion, as seen in the megachurches, is a haven for financial scammers.

or Southern Baptist or Assemblies of God ministers (to name two large Protestant denominations) using the Bible to justify all sorts of hatred and bigotry. Are they "trained to read the bible through careful 'exogesis' eliminating preconcieved ideas of what the text says and study what the context of the scripture is about."? Or do you attribute those qualifications only to people in "nice" large denominations whose interpretation of scripture agrees with yours?

And strangely enough, many of these "local churches" seem to find many, many thousands of people who share the "uninformed beliefs" of their pastors, and that within a fairly limited geographic area.

Southern Baptists don't promote a connected Church, they are a collection of local churches that have authority


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptists#Historical_controversies

Autonomy of local church—We affirm the autonomy of the local church



Assemblies of God is a Pentacostal group. Pentacostalism by definition is an exercise in eisogesis.


Catholic clergy work within well established biblical interpretation and there is very little that now seperates Catholic, Protestant and Jewish biblical scholars in their work. Although most biblical scholars become so unsentimental in their handling of scripture that they are almost unrecognizeable in their denominational affiliation.

Catholic clergy are conservative on the issue of abortion but tend to be very liberal on issues of war, immigration and poverty, much more liberal than their protestant counterparts.

that both the Southern Baptists and the Assemblies of God have theological seminaries and governing bodies. Their pastors are not simply trained at "local Bible schools".

You also conveniently fail to mention the (Biblically based and seminary reinforced, of course) positions of Catholic clergy on birth control, divorce, extramarital sex and homosexuality and how they compare to those of their Protestant counterparts.

Like to try again?

1) The OP asks a question - why is the US particularly dellusional in its approach to Christianity. My point is that in comparison to other countries with a historical Christian tradition they have a LARGER PERCENTAGE of Christians who go to local Churches that seek to place themselves outside of the discipline of a central Church authority. These facts are rather indisputable. Whether you agree that this is the reason or not is up to you.

2) You raised questions about the Baptists, the Pentacostals and the Catholics. Your questions were basically off the point I was raising.

3) By pointing to the Baptists you are reinforcing my point. And the fact that they have 'Seminaries' is irrelevent to the point. My point is that there are large groups in the US Christian protestant community that do not follow peer review work being done by reputable seminaries but engage in a type of study that can be termed 'eisogesis' in that they establish what they believe and then they study the bible to find it.

Now turning to Baptist Seminaries I was looking for the inevitable conflict on the issue of 'inerrancy of the bible' that virtually all seminaries have gone through to demonestrate the point but I found this which is even more on the point;


Southern Baptist Thelogical Seminary, SB largest and oldest Seminary trained Dr. Mohler and eventually he becomes President. As President he has all of the professors ascribe to a Baptist Faith and Message Statement, in other words he is telling scholars that their studies have to start with a set of beliefs and they must agree or leave, WHICH WAS THE BASIC POINT THAT I WAS MAKING IN THE FIRST PLACE.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Theological_Seminary#cite_note-Mohler-13

In 1993, the seminary's current president R. Albert Mohler, Jr. came into office re-affirming the Seminary's historic "Abstract of Principles," which had been signed by every tenured faculty member since 1859. Dr. Mohler required that current professors affirm, without any spoken or unspoken reservations, not only the Abstract, as interpreted by the administration, but also the "Baptist Faith and Message Statement" as amended by the denomination's current leaders. An overwhelming majority of the faculty were subsequently asked to resign or face charges of teaching outside the seminary's current theological requirements. He described the situation recently, "I said, in sum, if this is what you believe, then we want you to stay. If not, then you have come here under false pretenses, and you must go."<14> Among almost 100 faculty who subsequently left were most of the professors who taught Dr. Mohler during his M.Div. and Ph.D. studies.



4) All of your comments about the Catholic Church are completely off point.

The OP is not about conservative theology its about incredibly ignorant and delusional theology and he references 'end of the world teaching','obsession about rapture','fundamentalist militants', and 'deniers of science'. Their is a very diverse panorama of types of Catholic theologians, priests and believers. They include many very conservative principles and some very liberal ones as well. None of the particularly DELUSIONAL elements that the OP was discussing have anything to do with any large group of Catholic followers, again confirming my original response.


You seem to have a penchant for seeking conflict on points that are not related to the thread. Apparently you think that I am defending some secton of the Christian Church. I am not a Christian. I was making sociological comments on the Church that are well established in fact. If you want to discuss why the Church has conservative elements in its theology then that is not what this thread is about, it is about the particularly uneducated delusional theology that is much more prevelant here than other countries with large Christian populations and that is populated almost exclusively in locally based Churches or in Anabaptist or Pentacostal Churches that rebell against the basic scholarship of the established Protestant Demominations.

Catholics and large Protestant denominations are somehow immune from this delusional approach to Christianity because (according to you) they study and interpret the Bible "carefully", while the "local churches" are full of Biblical ignoramuses that are causing all the trouble. I submit that the theology of the Catholic church and these large Protestant denominations (of which the Southern Baptists are merely one example) is no less ignorant and delusional and no less damaging to American society for reasons only beginning with those I've stated.

And I see you have now moved the goalposts to include only "reputable seminaries", which apparently means only seminaries which teach an interpretation of scripture which happens to confirm with yours. But the fact is that every religious tradition decides what they believe, and then searches for Biblical justification. Every religious tradition cherry picks the parts of the Bible that support those things they've decided they like and ignore those that they don't, and none of them has any more claim to know the "correct" interpretation than any other. Whether you call the way they study the Bible eisogeis or exogesis doesn't change that.

A rather standard definition. Anyone can call themesleves a Seminary but again you miss the point. Mainline denominations teach a systematic theology that the ordination process holds their ministers to. Local churches make their own definitions of what they want their pastors to follow and send people to Bible Schools and independent Seminaries in order to get certification in what they want to believe.


Again you are completely off the point of the OP.

The OP is talking about delusional obsessive points that are fairly unique to the American Church

a) Creationism
b) Obsession with Rapture
c) Militant fundamentalism
d) Denial of Science

You may feel that the Catholic Church is destructive but it doesn't reflect the kind of delusional thinking that the OP is referencing.

The fact that you would say that 'every religious tradition' cherry picks the parts of the Bible that support those things they support simply displays an ignorance in the way that Biblical studies are conducted at leading Seminaries your rather uninformed description of the editing of Elohim and Yahweh in Genisis upthread was an indicator.

Biblical studies at the leading Seminaries and the peer review publication that follows is done without regard to current religious sensibilities. The scholars are completely unsentimental in their approach to the subject and most of them have long since stopped participating in the liturgy of their churches as it is an obstacle to being objective. Most of the scholars put no credence in the supernatural elements of the story and their personal understanding would place them well outside of the creeds. If you saw the movie "Paper Chase" then you will have a feeling about the ruthless nature in which these folks go about approaching the text, simply put they don't give a shit about church doctrine, current politics, or the NFL.

It is true that the denominations give these folks absolute freedom to teach their Seminarians and Seminarians who are unable to put a distance between their Sunday School approach and this objective scholarship will not pass. The picking occurs in the pulpits and the local well trained pastor will find it a challenge to continually confront their parishoners on the reality of Biblical texts. I have seen my former Seminary classmates go through such a compromise. But even those that take a much simpler explanation and make the most compromises are still a world away from the kind of delusional preaching that the OP was referring to a) Creationism
b) Obsession with Rapture c) Militant fundamentalism d) Denial of Science.


In any case your 'all churches, all religions' rant fails to address the question that the OP raises in why is the "American Church" more suseptical to these radical delusional off shoots than say England.

As someone who is pretty iconoclastic to the point of being damn near hostile about it, why does religion seem to be so screwed up?

Please understand, my brother went to seminary in Fort Worth and then on to a career in missionary work. I consider him to be one of the finest men I have ever met. He is a kind and gentle human being and a true scholar. And I know he is not alone. How could an organization that produced a person like my brother behave the way the Southern Baptist Convention behaves? I have met those people, and the vast majority of them are deluded assholes. And they're not even the worst of the bunch.

I mean, do I have it wrong? What gives?

as well as teaching their followers that other sources of knowledge are evil.

They thrive in exurban America, where there are no other centers of community and people tend to be rather docile and conventional anyway.

Never trust anyone (political, religious) who tells you that certain knowledge is forbidden.

that people in "exurban" America are "docile and conventional"? And what the heck does "conventional" mean anyway?

But seriously, I have relatives in the exurbs, and it's almost as if they take their ideas on how to live from whatever is advertised or promoted on TV.

you smear everybody else that lives in "exurbia"?

And my criticism of religion is justified by centuries of murder, torture, war, hatred, bigotry, superstition and ignorance which continue to this very day among the majority of Christians in this country. What's your excuse?

My point stands about the fundies having Total Information Environments.

I have never had a clergy person in either the Episcopal or Lutheran church tell what I may or may not read, see, listen to, or think.

The self-appointed fundie preach have their own complete range of media, including "news" magazines, radio stations, TV stations, pop music, and even glossy feature films.

and I agree with it. MY comment was on the bigoted and denigrating statement YOU felt the need to tack on to that (the type you regularly decry from others and are now apparently retreating from, since you can't defend it). You could just say, yes, that was a silly and unjustified thing to say about those people and leave it at that, but I suspect you won't.

And would you care to specify what MY bigotry was, or are you just going to throw around more unfounded smears?

Mine is based on at least as much experience as yours. If the exurbanites aren't conformist and docile, why are they so delighted to move en masse into lifestyles that make no environmental sense but are heavily advertised and promoted as "the American Dream"? An apartment in the middle of nowhere? Any social protest movements in the exurbs?

and of the foolishness and destructive consequences of many religious beliefs is based on the actions and attitudes of millions and millions of people over centuries that have resulted in an enormous amount of death and suffering, among other things. If you choose to call that type of criticism "bigotry", if you choose to equate the many and egregious sins of organized religion (child rape, murder, torture, misogyny...need I go on?) to living in the "middle of nowhere" (your nowhere is someone else's somewhere), in a place that makes "no environmental sense" (to you) and where there are no "social protest movements" (grievous sins, all), and base your criticism only on the observation of your relatives (I'm guessing there aren't millions of them), that's your business and your fantasy.

But no, here on planet Earth, the things that justify your statement are NOT the same things that justify my criticism of religion.

But anyway, bigots always have "reasons."

and wrong to boot.

Thanks for playing, but we're done here. There will be some nice parting gifts for you.

have caused far more death and destruction than religion itself. So when you refer to "...actions and attitudes of millions and millions of people over centuries...", about 130 million died in the 20th century alone under atheistic governments.

How did you get ALL of those numbers over the last 30 centuries, and how did you guarantee they were accurate? :eyes:

try to provide some support for what you say. After all the posts you have put in this one thread and you haven't provided a link, an author, a book or anything to support what you say. And the points you have made are hardly axiomatic.

in post #124: "As per R.J. Rummel, Guinness Book of Records, etc.". there are also the writings of William Henry Chamberlin (primary source material), Courtois et al., "The Black Book of Communism", Husband,"Godless Communists, "Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia", Peris, "Storming the Heavens", etc. and of course Wiki has much to say on the subject with references:

"Lenin called the struggle to disseminate atheism ‘the cause of our state’" and


1928-1940
"The League of the Militant Godless (LMG), under Emelian Yaroslavsky, was the main instrument of the anti-religious campaign and it was given special powers that allowed it to dictate to public institutions throughout the country what they needed to do for the campaign <40>.
After 1929 and through the 30s, the closing of churches, mass arrests of the clergy and religiously active laity, and persecution of people for attending church reached unprecedented proportions.<62><65>. The LMG employed terror tactics against believers in order to further the campaign, while employing the guise of protecting the state or prosecuting law-breakers. The clergy were attacked as foreign spies and trials of bishops were conducted with their clergy as well as lay adherents who were reported as 'subversive terroristic gangs' that had been unmasked<66>. Official propaganda at the time called for the banishment of the very concept of God from the Soviet Union<67>. These persecutions were meant to assist the ultimate socialist goal of eliminating religion<68><67>. From 1932-1937 Stalin declared the 'five year plans of atheism' and the LMG was charged with completely eliminating all religious expression in the country."

It's not as if there is any shortage of information about the events.

If you doubted a statement that Washington crossed the Deleware, I imagine you would call that false also, without immediate citations. It's not as if this forum is an academic gold mine.

So, even in light of this material what makes Communism not a religion?

I want to know what you think.

a belief or belief system that has a supernatural component, but it is sometimes used to describe a strong interest or fanaticism about subjects not necessarily connected to anything metaphysical or supernatural, i.e.,"baseball is his religion". In this latter sense, I think communism has been considered to be a "religion", but in that context, atheism could also be considered a religion, or any number of other things. "Religion-like" might be a more accurate way of describing communism.

I think when you are talking about "theism", you are assigning divine or supernatural qualities, qualities other than those considered materialistic, to someone or something. Stalin and Lenin and Mao were held in high esteem and set up as examples to be followed and admired, but they were never officially given a status of immortality, nor anything other than human. It was only the memory of them and their deeds that were celebrated.

Both have a sacred text written by a legendary personage. Both have idols. Both have forward looking ideologies. Both define a particular group of people with a particular set of ideals about how to organize a society.

What am I missing here? What's the difference?

To the followers of each there is a major difference. One rose from the dead of his own accord and will return, the others did not and will not.

But I would like to understand it.

Does the subject of one's belief validate it as somehow better than any other? Does belief in the death and resurrection of Christ make it somehow different from belief in a classless society? Or even belief that the Cubs will win the pennant this year?

of the observer. I think all 3 of your beliefs (classless society, death and resurrection, Cubs) are all utopias being pursued. However, ambiguities are a fact of human life and these goals have yet to be achieved. Incidentally, a "classless" society need not have an absence of belief in the death and resurrection of Christ. In fact, the first socialist/communistic ideals were based on Christianity.

And since the behavior exhibited by tens of thousands if not millions of communists is indistinguishable from the behavior exhibited by millions of theists, it appears to be a universally held point of view.

Especially in this forum. Around here the quickest way to piss off an atheist is to accuse him or her of practicing a religion. But that doesn't mean it hasn't been tried, or may be tried again.

I don't see any meaningful sign of any atheist religion today. It looks to me like the communists were the last to try it, and we see how that worked out. There may be the potential for an atheist cult. Maybe. But even if there were one, I don't see how it could grow into a full blown religion.

I really don't care.

Religion in itself isn't good or bad. It is a tool for social organization. I think it's also unavoidable. Believing in the same thing helps people want to cooperate. I guess if I believe in anything it is probably cooperation. If we worked as hard at finding similarities between each other as we worked to define differences the world would be a lot happier place.

Atheism, as I understand it, sets itself in opposition to the existence of a deity. That is a position that has run counter to the cultural development of every successful civilization that I know of. (I'll set aside the finer distinctions regarding "strong" and "weak" and all the rest.) That certainly appears to be the case for the New Atheists. If one religion is based on opposition to another set of beliefs, and it achieves the objective of its faith, then it has also removed its reason for being.

Now, that's not to say that our understanding of atheism (and the definition of the word) couldn't change.

That starts to look like something around which those that consider themselves atheists might wrap a common cause. Time will tell.

But I don't expect it to have any legs. Getting atheists to agree about atheism is like trying to herd cats with a polo pony. Independent thinking is what atheism's all about.

putting that in some sort of real perspective?

Describe for us ALL of the persecutions and purges of different social, political and intellectual groups that took place under Stalin. The use your vastly superior academic resources to tell us how many of each group died as a result. Then put all of that in the context of the full history of organized atheism over the past thousand years or so (since, by your own declaration, Stalin and Stalinism are just straw men, and should not be fixated on).

for the "past thousand years or so"? You did not get that from me. And where did I ever say that the only actions taken were those against religious groups? And yes, Stalin was being used as a strawman when the subject covered almost the entire 20th century and several dictators, and you attempted to limit the discussion to only Stalin.

that you have no idea whatsoever how many of those 130 million (assuming that number isn't another invention) died specifically as a result of "efforts to wipe out religion", and how many died as a result of innumerable other politically motivated purges.