marienbad wrote: » In my experience the vast majority of atheist couldn't give a flying fcuk about ancient texts provided someone's else's interpretation does not impact on our lives today.
Benny_Cake wrote: » The vast majority probably don't, but from my time on these parts of Boards there is definitely a noisy minority of atheists for whom the very existence of people who don't think as they do is enough to upset them, much as it is with fundamentalists. That doesn't reflect on the majority of atheists, who are pretty much indifferent, as you said. It's a reminder that intolerance is not confined to any one group though.
georgesstreet wrote: » Of course thats right, although it must be pointed out that when the church was strong in Ireland, as an institution it was actively intolerant of anyone who did not conform in ways which no atheist would attempt. Disliking views which one views as unintelligent is not the same thing at all.
nagirrac wrote: » How do you know "no atheist" would attempt to be intolerant in the same manner? History would strongly suggest otherwise. Regardless of how many atheists try and paint it otherwise, Atheism is an ideology, and like any ideology it can be passive or aggressive depending on circumstances. Atheism is a major tenet of Marxism, the belief that religion is a crutch and has to be removed to "free the proletariat". Well we saw how well that worked out for the tens of millions who died at the hands of Marxist regimes in the 20th century, and still going on in many countries (N. Korea). I know atheists tire of this argument, but it disproves your theory "no atheist would attempt this type of intolerance". Large numbers of people who killed huge numbers of their fellow countrymen did so because of intolerance and the religious were targeted specifically because of their "unintelligent thinking" and their threat to the state ideology. Hopefully the days are behind us, in the West at least, where broad society accept authority figures and their ideology. When the church was strong in Ireland was an era when all figures of authority were given respect that looking back on it now we see they did not deserve. I grew up that era, unlike I suspect a lot of posters on boards, and there was intolerance from all directions not just the church. In all my years at school I never saw a religious figure (and they were many of them) physically abuse a child, but I saw plenty lay teachers do it. I had a headmaster in national school who beat the crap out of kids, and when his temper was out of control would leave down the cane and beat them with his fists. I'm not saying there wasn't abuse by religious, but the big lie that Irish society can't seem to accept is that abuse was widespread in society. If you read the Ryan report it wasn't just priests abusing, it was lay teachers, doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, in other words any pedophile who had access to children. Ireland was like the BBC back then, anyone who liked to fiddle with kids had free access to do so and the state, which was ultimately responsible, did nothing to protect its most vulnerable. Your summary of atheism as "disliking views which one views as unintelligent" represents the fundamental misunderstanding of religion that many if not most atheists make. Religion is not based on views, it is based on ritual or practice which leads to known psychological benefits. Humans have been at it for at least 50,000 if not 100,000 years, it is probably the main driver of humans organizing into and maintaining societies, and the reason we are here to talk about it. There is nothing unintelligent about religion, rather there are religious with various levels of education, just as there are atheists with various levels of education. There is clearly a correlation between higher levels of education and atheism, but the correlation between levels of education and intelligence is much less defined, some of the most brilliant minds we know of dropped out of high school or never went to college.
marienbad wrote: » As for the Marxist =Atheist notion , do we really want to go there ? Those regimes to which you refer had about as much to do with Marxism as Mother Theresa had with health care.
nagirrac wrote: » I am not saying Marxism=Atheism, but that atheism or more specifically the rejection and attempted abolition of religion was a central tenet of Marxist ideology (not necessarily what Marx himself wrote or what he meant, but how it got interpreted). It is not too hard to find it in what he wrote: "The abolition of religion as the illusionary happiness of the people is necessary for their true happiness". Of course Lenin and Stalin and all the other assorted despots thought that was a great idea, remove one illusion of happiness and replace it with another, and if you don't like it off to the gulag. The point I am making is the dangers to freedom in ideology itself and imposing that ideology on society, the notion that "I" know what is good for "you" and will make "you" happy. The notion that I am better than you because you are unintelligent and I am really smart. You are absolutely correct, it is all about power and control, even from the ones' in power we may find more palatable; Obama with his "clinging to their guns and religion" jibe, even though his own biography claimed how central Christianity was to his own life.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » I'll bite. Which ancient texts do atheists read literally?
Brian Shanahan wrote: » Well I read the bible literally, it's one of the reasons why I realised YHWH is an impossibility, also a giant douche.
nagirrac wrote: » .. and if you read it literally, that's about the only reasonable conclusion one can come to. Don't you ever question though why you read the bible literally? If it was written as mythos, and those best equipped to tell us say it was (Jews), and the great majority of Jews and Christians regard it as mythos, why would an atheist read it literally? It's a genuine question. The only people who read the bible literally are fundamentalist Christians and atheists, strange bedfellows indeed
marienbad wrote: » But what is you are saying is so broad that it includes everything and anything, from the most liberal democracy to the most repressive dictatorship and everything in between. Or are you advocating some form of anarchy as the ideal ?
marienbad wrote: » Come on nagirrac, you are making it a black and white choice . As I said earlier most people - including atheists - don't care how such texts are read. The question is not are they true or allegorical , but which parts are true and which are allegorical and how they are applied to all and sundry today irrespective of beliefs . To a lot of people these are not just philosophical questions but are , at best,gross interference in their everyday lives and at worst a death sentence , and all based on 'literal' interpretation of some one else's book.
nagirrac wrote: » How do you know "no atheist" would attempt to be intolerant in the same manner? History would strongly suggest otherwise. Regardless of how many atheists try and paint it otherwise, Atheism is an ideology, and like any ideology it can be passive or aggressive depending on circumstances.
nagirrac wrote: » Well we saw how well that worked out for the tens of millions who died at the hands of Marxist regimes in the 20th century, and still going on in many countries (N. Korea). I know atheists tire of this argument, but it disproves your theory "no atheist would attempt this type of intolerance".
nagirrac wrote: » Large numbers of people who killed huge numbers of their fellow countrymen did so because of intolerance and the religious were targeted specifically because of their "unintelligent thinking" and their threat to the state ideology.
nagirrac wrote: » Hopefully the days are behind us, in the West at least, where broad society accept authority figures and their ideology. When the church was strong in Ireland was an era when all figures of authority were given respect that looking back on it now we see they did not deserve. I grew up that era, unlike I suspect a lot of posters on boards, and there was intolerance from all directions not just the church. In all my years at school I never saw a religious figure (and they were many of them) physically abuse a child, but I saw plenty lay teachers do it. I had a headmaster in national school who beat the crap out of kids, and when his temper was out of control would leave down the cane and beat them with his fists. I'm not saying there wasn't abuse by religious, but the big lie that Irish society can't seem to accept is that abuse was widespread in society. If you read the Ryan report it wasn't just priests abusing, it was lay teachers, doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, in other words any pedophile who had access to children. Ireland was like the BBC back then, anyone who liked to fiddle with kids had free access to do so and the state, which was ultimately responsible, did nothing to protect its most vulnerable.
nagirrac wrote: » Your summary of atheism as "disliking views which one views as unintelligent" represents the fundamental misunderstanding of religion that many if not most atheists make. Religion is not based on views, it is based on ritual or practice which leads to known psychological benefits. Humans have been at it for at least 50,000 if not 100,000 years, it is probably the main driver of humans organizing into and maintaining societies, and the reason we are here to talk about it. .
nagirrac wrote: » There is nothing unintelligent about religion, rather there are religious with various levels of education, just as there are atheists with various levels of education. There is clearly a correlation between higher levels of education and atheism, but the correlation between levels of education and intelligence is much less defined, some of the most brilliant minds we know of dropped out of high school or never went to college.
nagirrac wrote: » No, I wouldn't advocate anarchy, but I do favor limited government. The "most liberal" democracies and dictatorships tend to have a lot in common in that the state seeks to have as much control over people as possible. Both feature massive government structures to accomplish this and that generally involves eroding personal freedom over time. Obviously government has a significant role in providing internal and if necessary external security, maintaining a just legal system, regulating the economy to avoid monopolies, and preventing "too large to fail" entities from destroying economies, but that's about it. So, in summary I support a political system that stays out of people's lives unless they are breaking the law, and operates efficiently. I know, its a tough ask.
georgesstreet wrote: » If you are talking here about Ireland, large numbers of their fellow countrymen were killed because people of one religion thought they had the wrong version of what was essentially the same religion. One of the common themes of religion throughout the ages has been that it makes ordinary people do wicked things. For some, all they have to do is to believe god is on their side and, hey presto, its morally fine to torture, murder and maim others because their god made them do it.
marienbad wrote: » Are we moving into Ayn Rand territory then ?
georgesstreet wrote: » Atheism is the absence of ideology, and to not believe in god, or flying saucers, or teapots hurling through space is, quite obviously, the failure to believe in any of those ideologies. Trying to reduce it to athiest=bad and christisn=good is just a silly argument. Humans are good and bad whether they be atheist or christian. For example, on the buckle of every NAzi soldier was the inscription "in god we trust". The leader of North Korea is the supreme being, and in every way resembles a god.
georgesstreet; If it's your view that, for example christianity, is not based on the view that jesus has supernatural powers, and was sent to the earth to free us from our sins, or that god gave us the 10 commandments, then thats your view. It seems an unusual view of christianity to reduce it to some sort of social club, as you seem to describe it.
lmaopml wrote: » Christianity in action is thinking about others needs before your own, thinking about how lucky you are to call yourself a Christian, and to live it is certainly about giving, but also receiving too the most valuable of all things - the 'peace' of Christ is sometimes comforting and sometimes lonely. It is not a social club, in fact very often it can be quite lonely at times in my experience to be a Christian today.
georgesstreet wrote: » Its up to each one of us to decide if there is nothing unintelligent about religion. If you choose to believe that jesus had supernatural powers, and was able to suspend the laws of nature, that's your decision, but it doesn't make your decision intelligent. To choose to believe something without evidence is not intelligent. I don't think it's very intelligent to choose to believe that a man who lived 2000 years ago was the son of one of the many gods humans have invented over the timescale you mention, or that he had supernatural powers, for example. If someone else chooses to believe both those things, any onlooker has to observe the choice to believe those two things is not based on facts, but based on belief itself. I call that unintelligent, by definition.
_Redzer_ wrote: » See, I don't agree with this because it should include a little foot note stating "T&C apply".Thinking about others before your own yet oppose same-sex marriage and homosexuality, just to name one example of many. It's a nice idea, but when it comes down to it, it's really not that true.
_Redzer_ wrote: » See, I don't agree with this because it should include a little foot note stating "T&C apply". Thinking about others before your own yet oppose same-sex marriage and homosexuality, just to name one example of many. It's a nice idea, but when it comes down to it, it's really not that true.
SoulandForm wrote: » Maybe she opposes them out of love?
_Redzer_ wrote: » Because that makes sense....
lmaopml wrote: » Christianity never makes sense to anybody who doesn't understand sacrifice and it's relationship with love. Real love always involves sacrifice, absolutely always - that is a lesson of life, and sometimes one we never ask for, but are given and it's hard..very hard when it's something we have to learn late. That doesn't mean hatred of others, anything but....it means reaching out always knowing that you are attached to the most loving arms of all... to absolutely every single person no matter whom - knowing you are the very same as them, no more no less. The Gospel doesn't change, we may, but it doesn't, and neither does Christ not be able to read the heart of a man today or yesterday or tomorrow perfectly, and it's the heart that matters - that's the truth.
marienbad wrote: » It always seems to be somebody else making the sacrifice for your ''love'' though .
lmaopml wrote: » Only if you have square eyes. Don't you know somebody who loved and never ever looked for return? Husbands and wives learn this thing sometimes - the just giving....in fact a lot of people learn to just 'give'..and live it. You can get caught up in 'us' and 'them' if you like....but there is no such thing. There is only one thing important, only one free thing you can give, and that is your love for nothing at all..no payback, even if you are hated for it by others at times, or loved too - it's of no consequence.. That is what inspires Christians and still does - perhaps it's a different language in some ways, but it's not old or new, it's just the truth. That there is more to mere 'people' or a 'person' than you or I could know.. That's Christianity, Christ two thousand odd years later - and if you think it's daft well that's okay, whatever..it won't change the fact. I don't mind anyways...I'll just be me one way or the other and I'm Christian, that's my choice, I've made it.
nagirrac wrote: » Atheism is an ideology. .
