A friend, religion, and what to do?

[Freefaller]

But if its genuinely a case of him finding some peace and happiness, then where is the harm?

Indeed. That is what I get from my beliefs, it doesn't get in the way of my life, if anything I feel enriched by it.

 

[Sliver]

Militant atheists and militant evangelistic religious people are just as bad as one another.

No. You're wrong. Militant atheists are at worst annoying to theists. Militant religious people, murder innocents. They fly planes into buildings, blow themselves up in public places, slaughter cartoonists. I know your a faith head Freefaller, but please, don't even attempt to re write reality on these forums.

 

[spudbynight]

Why would someone be a git by showing them a Richard Dawkins video ?

Telling that you even need to ask.

No. You're wrong. Militant atheists are at worst annoying to theists. Militant religious people, murder innocents. They fly planes into buildings, blow themselves up in public places, slaughter cartoonists. I know your a faith head Freefaller, but please, don't even attempt to re write reality on these forums.

Didn't the League of Militant Atheists kill thousands in Russia?

 

[Sliver]

Didn't the League of Militant Atheists kill thousands in Russia?

No. Stalin was an atheist but he didn't do the things he did in the name of atheism. This is an old argument which has been debunked for a long time now. Telling that you feel the desperate need to use it.

 

[Sliver]

Telling that you even need to ask.

Telling that you didn't answer the question.

 

[Freefaller]

No. You're wrong. Militant atheists are at worst annoying to theists. Militant religious people, murder innocents. They fly planes into buildings, blow themselves up in public places, slaughter cartoonists. I know your a faith head Freefaller, but please, don't even attempt to re write reality on these forums.

I'm not trying to rewrite reality at all. I'll write what I feel, and in this occasion it is my opinion on militants on both sides and my opinion is perfectly valid.

I find aggressive atheists rather upsetting, as I do find militants of other faiths. I'm sure many atheists have committed atrocious crimes - so I don't think it is fair to say that because of religion = mass genocide. Many atheists are racists, sociopaths, psychopaths etc.. and, yes, funnily enough and unfortunately, some non atheists are as well.

Being atheist does not mitigate you from crimes. You may do it in a different name, and ultimately, fundamentalists, regardless of faith, are twisted individuals who in some instances do things "in the name of religion" but which are in fact NOTHING to do with religion whatsoever, thus, it is just a minority who do things in a twisted interpretation and decide to call it "religion". It just is not like that.

I'm not making excuses, I find that sort of thing repugnant - but let us be sensible here, irrespective of whether people kill in the name or religion or any other belief (racism or political for example) does not necessarily mean that it is actually done as part of the religion. If you twist a belief enough to make it fit your agenda, then pretty much every belief system (including atheism) can be somehow responsible for mass atrocities. Let's not be too ridiculous about pointing fingers one way in blind ignorance of the other side.

 

[spudbynight]

No. Stalin was an atheist but he didn't do the things he did in the name of atheism. This is an old argument which has been debunked for a long time now. Telling that you feel the desperate need to use it.

The League of Militant Atheists[1] (Russian: Союз воинствующих безбожников Soyuz voinstvuyushchikh bezbozhnikov); Society of the Godless (Общество безбожников Obshchestvo bezbozhnikov); Union of the Godless (Союз безбожников Soyuz bezbozhnikov), was an atheistic and antireligious organization of workers and intelligentsia that developed in Soviet Russia under the influence of the ideological and cultural views and policies of the Soviet Communist Party from 1925 to 1947.[2] It consisted of Party members, members of the Komsomol youth movement, those without specific political affiliation, workers and military veterans.[3]

The League embraced workers, peasants, students, and intelligentsia. It had its first affiliates at factories, plants, collective farms (kolkhoz), and educational institutions. By the beginning of 1941, it had about 3.5 million members from 100 nationalities. It had about 96,000 offices across the country. Guided by Bolshevik principles of antireligious propaganda and party's orders with regards to religion, the League aimed at exterminating religion in all its manifestations and forming an anti-religious scientific mindset among the workers. It propagated atheism and scientific achievements, conducted 'individual work' (a method of sending atheist tutors to meet with individual believers to convince them of atheism, which could be followed up with harassment if they failed to comply).[4][5][6] The League's slogan was "Struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism", which was meant to tie in their atheist views with economy, politics, and culture. One of the slogans adopted at the 2nd congress was "Struggle against religion is a struggle for the five-year plan!"[7] The League had international connections; it was part of the International of Proletarian Freethinkers and later of the Worldwide Freethinkers Union.

The League was a "nominally independent organization established by the Communist Party to promote atheism." It published newspapers, journals, and other materials that lampooned religion; it sponsored lectures and films; it organized demonstrations and parades; it set up antireligious museums; and it led a concerted effort telling Soviet citizens that religious beliefs and practices were "wrong" and "harmful", and that "good" citizens ought to embrace a scientific, atheistic worldview.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

The League of Militant Atheists aided the Soviet government in killing clergy and committed believers.[48] The League also made it a priority to remove religious icons from the homes of believers.[49] Under the slogan, "the Storming of Heaven," the League of Militant Atheists pressed for "resolute action against religious peasants" leading to the mass arrest and exile of many believers, especially village priests. By 1940, "over 100 bishops, tens of thousands of Orthodox clergy, and thousands of monks and lay believers had been killed or had died in Soviet prisons and the Gulag."[50]

Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …
The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.

The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.

Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!

 

[Sliver]

Spoiler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

None of that supports your argument that Stalin did the things he did in the name of Atheism. As I've already told you, it's an old argument that has been de-bunked.

 

[Pudney]

None of that supports your argument that Stalin did the things he did in the name of Atheism. As I've already told you, it's an old argument that has been de-bunked.

The assertion as the League was responsible for religious murders. You counted with the myths around Stalin were debunked. Then the comeback was that Stalin isn't the League so (I infer) your counter isn't relevant.

I think that's the general gist of the argument.

 

[spudbynight]

None of that supports your argument that Stalin did the things he did in the name of Atheism. As I've already told you, it's an old argument that has been de-bunked.

LOL at Dawkins video.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

If you twist a belief enough to make it fit your agenda, then pretty much every belief system (including atheism) can be somehow responsible for mass atrocities. Let's not be too ridiculous about.

True, but let us be honest the majority of atrocities throughout time have been in the name of one god or another and not a non-god (IE atheism).

So we reach a point where we have to ask - was it all just crazy people using god as an excuse, or has the existance of religion and people who vehemently subscribe to it been an enabling and catalytic force throughout the ages?

Personally I think it is a mix of both, but I don't think you can deny that the current threats that the world faces in many places are borne of an ideology which would not exist if we didn't have religion. What other indoctrination would work to the same effect?

 

[Sliver]

LOL at Dawkins video.

Well if you're going to be immature we have nothing to discuss. As a more erudite person than you I feel I should allow you to carry on with your nonsense as it's not my job to educate you.

 

[Semple]

As long as he keeps his opinions of his religion to himself, and you keep your opinions of yours to yourself, then there shouldn't be any problems.

The entire world would be a more peaceful place if everyone adopted this approach.

 

[Sliver]

The assertion as the League was responsible for religious murders. You counted with the myths around Stalin were debunked. Then the comeback was that Stalin isn't the League so (I infer) your counter isn't relevant.

I think that's the general gist of the argument.

No personal attacks

 

[byeo]

Genuine question here, so I'd prefer less of the daft GD replies than usual please.

I've a good friend, who has recently 'discovered' religion it seems. He's started doing the regular Church attending thing, and going to Church groups, and I was at his place for the first time recently, and saw a Bible laying about - so it does seem to be genuine.

Only problem is, I'm pretty strongly Atheist - and have little or no time for organised religion. I don't seek to actively 'bash' religion, I just think it's all a lie contrived to keep the powerful, powerful and the poor/weak in their place.

Luckily, he's the kind of guy who wouldn't push his views on me, so it's unlikely to come to any kind of direct conflict - at least as far as things are at the moment, but that could change depending on if or how he changes. (Will leave that one for the time being)

Trouble is, with me feeling strongly against religion, I'm feeling like I should try and get him out of this situation - but is that being selfish? I have a feeling that maybe in a few years, or 5, or 10, whatever... he may turn round and say "why didn't you tell me it was all BS?" - then I'd feel terrible for not having spoken up before.

Is that just me being selfish though? Am I best off just leaving him to it, as it's his own life and choices?

(Borderline SC topic I know, but SC is too quiet these days)

You believe it's all one big lie which is fine. He does not and is religious which is fine, he's you're good friend and I'm sure you're a good friend in his eyes. You do what a good friend does, respect his views as he does yours and carry on regardless. If everyone got rid of friends due to different opinions then no-one would have any friends left.

 

[Pudney]

What utter nonsense. Are you dyslexic ?

If I was dyslexic?

But anyway, that's my impartial view of the argument. If you want to get rude feel free.

 

[Freefaller]

True, but let us be honest the majority of atrocities throughout time have been in the name of one god or another and not a non-god (IE atheism).

So we reach a point where we have to ask - was it all just crazy people using god as an excuse, or has the existance of religion and people who vehemently subscribe to it been an enabling and catalytic force throughout the ages?

Personally I think it is a mix of both, but I don't think you can deny that the current threats that the world faces in many places are borne of an ideology which would not exist if we didn't have religion. What other indoctrination would work to the same effect?

It is a sad fact that there is a lot of focus on demonising religion as a sweeping generalisation, for being responsible for everything, and unfortunately, in some cases, they claim (the extremists) that their religion states that what they are doing is true and right. It's hard to detach that fact when it is thrust so visibly and I can completely accept people's scepticism and the fact they repudiate the notion that religion is innocent.

I would just hope that enough people would be able to see through the veneer of hate and megalomania which shrouds the minds of these people and realise it is just their twisted cherry picked understanding to make it work for them as an excuse.

They're effectively squeezing a square peg into a round hole and making it work regardless of the fact it doesn't fit. If you investigate deeply enough you realise that what they're doing is completely against scripture/doctrine but they are so convinced that what they are doing is right it is very difficult to see past that.

I'm not excusing it, I think more should be done by religious leaders of all creeds to denounce this sort of ignorant use of religion for the use of evil.

Just like we as a people denounced Tony Blair's actions in the Middle East, unfortunately he never went to court for it, neither did George W. Yet the mood of the public was effectively "not in our name" - which is the same call many people are asking for in terms of people killing in the name of a religion.

Unfortunately, people cannot see past the graphic images, the hate, the unflappable beliefs that these extremists have surrounded themselves in and as such attack the one thing that is easier to attack, religion, which unfortunately has been associated with all of this, despite it being a completely different thing.

As long as he keeps his opinions of his religion to himself, and you keep your opinions of yours to yourself, then there shouldn't be any problems.

The entire world would be a more peaceful place if everyone adopted this approach.

Unfortunately people like to attack things that they feel is nonsensical. Which leads to more animosity, and drives troughs between people and communities.

 

[Freefaller]

If I was dyslexic?

But anyway, that's my impartial view of the argument. If you want to get rude feel free.

If he gets rude, he won't be able to post. I hope he apologises.

 

[ICDP]

I find aggressive atheists rather upsetting, as I do find militants of other faiths. I'm sure many atheists have committed atrocious crimes - so I don't think it is fair to say that because of religion = mass genocide. Many atheists are racists, sociopaths, psychopaths etc.. and, yes, funnily enough and unfortunately, some non atheists are as well.

Being atheist does not mitigate you from crimes. You may do it in a different name, and ultimately, fundamentalists, regardless of faith, are twisted individuals who in some instances do things "in the name of religion" but which are in fact NOTHING to do with religion whatsoever, thus, it is just a minority who do things in a twisted interpretation and decide to call it "religion". It just is not like that.

I'm not making excuses, I find that sort of thing repugnant - but let us be sensible here, irrespective of whether people kill in the name or religion or any other belief (racism or political for example) does not necessarily mean that it is actually done as part of the religion. If you twist a belief enough to make it fit your agenda, then pretty much every belief system (including atheism) can be somehow responsible for mass atrocities. Let's not be too ridiculous about pointing fingers one way in blind ignorance of the other side.

Religious atrocities are done in the name of religion, that is why they are called religious atrocities. A militant Atheist being annoying is not remotely comparable to a religious nutjob killing scores/hundreds or even thousands of people in the name of religion and being proud of that fact. I am smart enough to understand not all people from a religious sect are fundamentalists. That does not detract form the fact that when someone kills in the name of religion, then at some point the defenders of that religion need to accept teaching intolerance is the cause.

 

[sansnom]

but I'd really struggle to stay friends with someone who held such illogical views, and I'd consider his judgement on many things seriously compromised.

You'd struggle to stay friends with someone who held a belief in a higher power? I think that says more about your judgement than his.

This is in no way an attack against you, I just find it a very bizarre thing to say that someone's "judgement" is questionable because they hold different beliefs to you (he has a belief in a higher power, you don't - it doesn't mean his or her judgement is impaired)