Atheism, Religion, and Crime

[Charles_Darwin]

We would do well to remember the past actually.

The problem with the past, is that we keep labelling issues as a problem created by religion, or a problem created by a lack of belief in God and/or following the right religion.

Perhaps, it’s all a big ole fat HUMAN problem!!

Oh i completely agree, we should never forget our past. I just didn’t feel the comparsion of modern countries to worst example of an atheist dictator was a fair one.

The argument was absurd. It was put to me that if i wanted to live in a non religious society my only choices were the likes of Stalin or Hitler. I was then offered the out of, “would you not prefer to live under god”.

It would be like my saying you have two choices live under Carl Sagan or Bin Laden. I wonder how many theists would pick Sagan ?

 

[Dameedna]

Oh i completely agree, we should never forget our past. I just didn’t feel the comparsion of modern countries to worst example of an atheist dictator was a fair one.

The argument was absurd. It was put to me that if i wanted to live in a non religious society my only choices were the likes of Stalin or Hitler. I was then offered the out of, “would you not prefer to live under god”.

It would be like my saying you have two choices live under Carl Sagan or Bin Laden. I wonder how many theists would pick Sagan ?

hehe…very true.

Bin laden…vs an athiest scientist. This is the problem with the black and white view of the world. That black and white view we all seem to endorse, shows a lack of recognition of our shared humanity. No-one wants to live under the popes of the middle ages nor the extremists of today anymore than they want to live under the athiest called Stalin.

Perhaps we can agree on at least that one point

 

[Charles_Darwin]

hehe…very true.

Bin laden…vs an athiest scientist. This is the problem with the black and white view of the world. That black and white view we all seem to endorse, shows a lack of recognition of our shared humanity. No-one wants to live under the popes of the middle ages nor the extremists of today anymore than they want to live under the athiest called Stalin.

Perhaps we can agree on at least that one point

Well i certainly can .

 

[zalo]

Charlemagne II, I think in all due respect you are terribly missing the point when you attribute crimes of Stalin, Hitler & Mao to atheism. It is a classical “straw man” argument, constantly made by theists. All of them have been authoritarians, or totalitarians, and their atheism wasn’t but a byproduct (for communists like Stalin and Mao, as for Hitler he died a good Catholic, never having been excommunicated). So only authoritarians demand absolute obedience and they commit crimes and monstruosities against those who don’t follow them blindly. Stalin (and Mao and all other Communist dictators) killed all his former friends, not because they were not good Communists, which they were, but only because they didn’t beleive exactly as Stalin did, in other words because they were heretics. Now, who invented the crime of heresy? Wasn’t it the Church? Once heresy, meaning having the courage to assert and live out Christian beliefs in your own way, is defined as a crime, nothing stands in the way of meting out all sorts of punishments and tortures and finally excecutions against perpetrators of said “crime”. So the Church behaved like a pure authoritarian for more than 1000 years. Whatever you may say, nothing can possibly justify all that blood and killing made because people were not seeing exactly eye to eye about the Real Presence in Eucharist and all other subtleties of Christian doctrine. All that I’m saying is that the Church has behaved all along like a completely human & authoritarian power structure, and not like a Divine one, as they claim (probably they were imitating he Old Testament God who was killing and exterminating people everywhere on a whim). So real culprit is authoritarianism, not atheism. By the way, can you imagine Unitarians going around and killing people because they don’t agree with their propositions “there’s no absolute truth”, or “believe in whatever higher power you like, just be moral and caring towards your fellow man”?

Peace.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

anEvilAtheist

*In an earlier response to one of your posts, I said that “one thing I find really interesting is that Catholics are very quick to say that if you’re baptized a Catholic you’re always a Catholic, except when it’s someone they don’t like. Even if Hitler didn’t believe in God, wouldn’t he still have been considered a Catholic?”

Do you agree that it’s a little inconsistent for Catholics to label everyone who was baptized Catholic as a Catholic except when they disagree with them?*

The grace of baptism is a permanently offered grace. If one leaves the Church and returns, one needn’t be baptized again.

However, that grace can be refused. When it is, the person who refuses it is no longer in Communion with Christ, even though the offer of grace is still on the table and able to be accepted again.

So any Catholic who wants to claim an apostate for a Catholic is a fool. I certainly don’t think the apostate wants to claim himself a Catholic!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hippyprincess

Because of a very busy schedule this week, the best I can do in reply to your claim that religion is a very negative thing is to refer you once again, as in a previous post, to this website, which deals with a long agenda of differences between religion and atheism.

conservapedia.com/Atheism

As to the negativity of religion? The word “atheism” means the refusal to believe in gods. And that’s all it means. When your basic philosophy is negative, how can you attack your opponent as negative?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

As to the negativity of religion? The word “atheism” means the refusal to believe in gods. And that’s all it means. When your basic philosophy is negative, how can you attack your opponent as negative?

I have lost count how many times atheism has been explained to you. I can only conclude you are now trolling.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dameedna

Are you familiar with what you would call an excellent book advocating the teaching of ethics without reference to God?

I’m researching this, and such a book would be very helpful.

Thanks.

 

[hippyprincess]

hippyprincess

Because of a very busy schedule this week, the best I can do in reply to your claim that religion is a very negative thing is to refer you once again, as in a previous post, to this website, which deals with a long agenda of differences between religion and atheism.

conservapedia.com/Atheism

Firstly, I don’t believe Conservapedia is a valid source to cite. It’s obviously skewed far to the right, so to speak, and holds a predeterminded bias. I wouldn’t refer you to something along the lines of “liberalpedia,” which would assumedly be biased and left-wing. If you can fins a neutral, unbiased source, I will be glad to take it seriously.

Also, if you read any of my above posts, I don’t believe atheism is a religion. Atheism is a philosophy, and really nothing else. Atheism is neither organized nor religion, and certainly not both.

As to the negativity of religion? The word “atheism” means the refusal to believe in gods.

No, atheism means the LACK of belief in gods. Theism, essentially, means belief in gods. The prefix a- means without. Not refusal. Just to clear that up.

When your basic philosophy is negative, how can you attack your opponent as negative?

Firstly, it is your opinion that the atheist philosophy is negative. The atheist philosophy is simply “there is no higher power.” The atheist dogma does not exist, simply because, as stated, atheism isn’t a religion. There is nothing in the atheist philosophy implying negative actions, hatred, murder, or evil. It is simply a lack of belief.

But look at the facts, rather than your preconcieved and incorrect opinions: throughout the years, organized religion has inspired many to murder, pillage, and hate other human beings.

Atheism does not inspire people to hate, because atheism is a concept.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hippyprincess
*
But look at the facts, rather than your preconcieved and incorrect opinions: throughout the years, organized religion has inspired many to murder, pillage, and hate other human beings.*

Gee, that’s funy, throughout my years my religion never inspired any such thing.

Did I miss something?

No, atheism means the LACK of belief in gods. Theism, essentially, means belief in gods. The prefix a- means without. Not refusal. Just to clear that up.

Gee, that’s funny again. Every atheist website I visit they are always saying there are no gods. Did I miss something again?

What you are trying to do is make a distinction that really doesn’t exist. This a feeble effort to disguise the negativity of atheism, so that you don’t have to prove there are no gods. And judging by the number of times I’ve seen it used lately, it must be the latest atheist strategy to avoid having to prove their denial of the existence of any god.

If one can just say, “I lack a belief in gods,” then you don’t have to prove your lack of belief. It doesn’t wash. You still have to explain why you lack a belief in gods. In other words, there must be something about gods that requires you to have no belief in them, some reason to lack faith in them, while at the same time having a kind of blind and stubborn faith that they don’t exist.

It won’t work. You believe there are no gods. Just come right out and say it. Then good luck trying to prove it!

 

[anEvilAtheist]

anEvilAtheist

*In an earlier response to one of your posts, I said that “one thing I find really interesting is that Catholics are very quick to say that if you’re baptized a Catholic you’re always a Catholic, except when it’s someone they don’t like. Even if Hitler didn’t believe in God, wouldn’t he still have been considered a Catholic?”

Do you agree that it’s a little inconsistent for Catholics to label everyone who was baptized Catholic as a Catholic except when they disagree with them?*

The grace of baptism is a permanently offered grace. If one leaves the Church and returns, one needn’t be baptized again.

However, that grace can be refused. When it is, the person who refuses it is no longer in Communion with Christ, even though the offer of grace is still on the table and able to be accepted again.

So any Catholic who wants to claim an apostate for a Catholic is a fool. I certainly don’t think the apostate wants to claim himself a Catholic!

Then I guess there are a lot of foolish Catholics on this site. I often hear people say that people are still Catholic even if they leave the Church.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I’m still waiting on a response to my evidence that Hitler was not an atheist.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Then I guess there are a lot of foolish Catholics on this site. I often hear people say that people are still Catholic even if they leave the Church.

I haven’t been hearing that. Could you cite someone in particular?

 

[zalo]

Charlemagne II, you wrote:

“Gee, that’s funy, throughout my years my religion never inspired any such thing. Did I miss something?”

Sorry, but you did miss big, not to say the whole lot. Whose religion reigned supreme in Europe for 1000 years? Inspired the conquistadores to baptize the Indian infants and kill them on the spot in order to avoid them the eternal flames? Ordered and inspired the massacres of the Cathars (fellow Christians, mind you) and later on all other Protestants?

You need to get you history in order.

Peace.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

anEvilAtheist

“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.” Adolf Hitler

Hitler, baptized a Catholic, admired the “God is dead!” German philosopher Nietzsche and paid tribute to him by attending the dedication of Nietzsche’s bust at the Nietzsche Archives.

What Martin Niemöller said, a Lutheran pastor in Germany who spent several years in one of Hitler’s concentration camps, appears in the Congressional Record, 14, October 1968, page 31636, as:

When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned.

What in any of the above gives you reason to believe that Hitler was a Catholic, rather than an atheist.

You can cite remarks from his writings when he made it clear that he wanted to appear to be on the side of the Christians so that they would not oppose his evil intent. Such we find in* Mein Kamph, a thorough tissue of lies from start to finish that exploited the suffering of the German people*.

Isn’t that precisely what we have learned from evil villains throughout history … that they would like to be seen as angels of mercy and messiahs, or in the case of Hitler, a prophet of the Master Race that would rule for a thousand years?

 

[Angel7]

Charlemagne II, you wrote:

“Gee, that’s funy, throughout my years my religion never inspired any such thing. Did I miss something?”

Sorry, but you did miss big, not to say the whole lot. Whose religion reigned supreme in Europe for 1000 years? Inspired the conquistadores to baptize the Indian infants and kill them on the spot in order to avoid them the eternal flames? Ordered and inspired the massacres of the Cathars (fellow Christians, mind you) and later on all other Protestants?

You need to get you history in order.

Peace.

A horrible Comparison, for that is not Catholicism no. That my Friend is our Human Element in the matter. Christ obviously would not murder infants. Do you think a Human (even if Catholic) is perfect? We make mistakes, misinterpret, and mis-judge others. Even if we think it is for Good reason, we make the mistake to justify everything. We have our Blunders, but may the Lord guide us away from such mistakes.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Zalo

It could fairly well be said that the twentieth century was the first century in recorded history when atheist governments collectively made life a living hell for the entire human race.

Did you miss something, or do you only read liberalpedia?

When the atheist government of Soviet Union invaded Poland and oppressed the Catholics for two generations plus, did you miss something? When the atheist Castro persecuted the Catholic Church in Cuba, did you miss that reading assignment? When the atheistic Spanish government in the 1930s executed fifteen Catholic bishops and thousands of priests, sisters, and brothers, did you tear that chapter out of your book so you wouldn’t have to read it. When the atheist government of Mexico in the 1930s tortured and murdered Catholic priests, I suppose that was in the same chapter on Spain that you tore up?

Learn a little history, son.

If you think the world is bad with religion, wait until you find out what it will be like without religion. We’ll, we have a pretty good idea, and atheism is not nearly so powerful as it could be if there were no Christians to fight it and defeat it’s politicos in the twentieth century.

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic." (from Voltaire’s essay On Atheism).

Writing “On the Meaning of Contemporary Atheism,” Jacques Maritain sharply differentiates between the various manifestations of Godlessness. There are the “practical atheists, who believe that they believe in God but who in reality deny His existence by each one of their deeds—they worship the world, and power, and money. Then there are the pseudo-atheists, who believe that they do not believe in God but who in reality unconsciously believe in Him, because the god whose existence they deny is not God but something else. Finally, there are absolute atheists, who actually deny the existence of the very God in whom the believers believe—God the Creator, Savior and Father . . . who stand committed to change their entire system of values and to destroy in themselves everything that suggests God’s name.”

Throughout the Middle Ages, when the Church was the center of power, the “practical atheists” used the Church as a stepping stone to power, money, and glory. No one denies they existed. They still exist. There are even today in the Church those who use it to further their own ends … these are the “practical atheists” of whom Maritain spoke, men and women who would destroy the Church from within in order to elevate themselves in the world at large.

But these are not true Christians, and Christ found them to be an abomination.

 

[soma]

The New York Times posted a Graphic: Red States Have The Highest Divorce Rates, Teen Birth Rates, and Porn Subscription Rates. The highest states are the states where we have the most conservative Christians.

 

[hippyprincess]

Gee, that’s funy, throughout my years my religion never inspired any such thing.

Did I miss something?

Apparently, you did miss something. The Spanish Inquisition, for example, involved the killing and torture of heretics. This was certainly inspired by the belief that there is a “one true god,” and the monarchy involved acted because they were inspired by their religion. They truly believed that all heretics should be killed. After all, the Abrahamic God kills them all the time.

Gee, that’s funny again. Every atheist website I visit they are always saying there are no gods. Did I miss something again?

Apparently you haven’t read into this subject either. I will do my best to explain this to you. There are two types of atheism; positive and negative atheism.

Negative atheism: The lack of belief when it comes to deities.
Positive atheism: The assertion that gods do not exist, due to their belief that a) the idea of god is not logically possible and/or b) there is absolutely no evidence for a god’s existence.

Maybe you need to find a better “atheist website.”

What you are trying to do is make a distinction that really doesn’t exist. This a feeble effort to disguise the negativity of atheism, so that you don’t have to prove there are no gods.

Do you mean the negativity that atheism has on society, or the negativity in relation to beliefs? In regards to the latter, the Abrahamic god is indisputable. It has been written so that it’s impossible to disprove. However, the Abrahamic god has been written so it IS possible to prove; miracles, impossible occurences, etc. The burden of proof is really on the believer.

And judging by the number of times I’ve seen it used lately, it must be the latest atheist strategy to avoid having to prove their denial of the existence of any god.

Similarly, it’s a popular theist strategy to say “prove he doesn’t exist.” See above.

If one can just say, “I lack a belief in gods,” then you don’t have to prove your lack of belief. It doesn’t wash. You still have to explain why you lack a belief in gods. In other words, there must be something about gods that requires you to have no belief in them, some reason to lack faith in them, while at the same time having a kind of blind and stubborn faith that they don’t exist.

Sure, nobody is ducking around answering why they do or do not believe in a god.
I don’t believe in a god because the evidence for the theory of evolution and the big bang is overwhelming. The Bible is full of contradictions and inconsistencies, not to mention the occurrences it describes are impossible. I think it highly improbable that a supernatural being exists, due to the absence of supernatural occurrences in modern day life. That’s my atheism, in a nutshell.

It won’t work. You believe there are no gods. Just come right out and say it. Then good luck trying to prove it!

I do believe that there are no gods, yes. But that’s my atheism, and it differs from person to person. See above.

 

[hippyprincess]

A horrible Comparison, for that is not Catholicism no.

Christianity is the cause of all the events he cited. Catholicism is part of Christianity.

That my Friend is our Human Element in the matter. Christ obviously would not murder infants.

Christ didn’t, but God certainly did. God committed genocide many times in the Bible, certainly killing infants.

Do you think a Human (even if Catholic) is perfect? We make mistakes, misinterpret, and mis-judge others.

I don’t think mass genocide counts as a “mistake.” It was obviously very intentional.