Ah, the sweet, refreshing smell of Atheism in the morning

[kentonio]

But the same is true of the Crusades/etc.

Not really, unless you play the normal religious card of pretending that any bad stuff didn't have anything to do with religion.

[Kidlicious]

Stalin is the perfect subject for this point. Was Stalin a communist? No, but he said he was. All he was, in fact, was a psychopathic dictator who rose to power and commited a lot of atrocities in the name of something he didn't believe in.

[Elok]

As I said, this argument is stupid. But, since y'all insist on having it anyway, here's why it's stupid:

1. Religious views dominate almost every civilized society for almost all of recorded history. Until quite recently, it was essentially impossible for an openly irreligious person even to wield power, let alone abuse it. I think this is what they call a "sampling bias." I can point to a number of great White U.S. presidents, but only one rather mediocre Black one. Ergo, Black people are incapable of leadership! Or not.

2. The opposite of atheism is simple theism/deism, not a religion. No, nobody has been killed "in the name of" atheism, because atheism is a plain negative statement: "there is no God." Its opposite would be "there is a God," and AFAIK nobody has ever been killed in the name of that either. But, if you add a whole system of ideas onto one or the other, it becomes a worldview people can base their lives around and kill for (Paris 1793, half of the world for half of the last century), and that's what happens whenever the material circumstances are right, ie unrestrained power and a reason to use it. Which brings us to

3. The rise of open secularism coincides with increased rule of law and other limiting factors. It's harder to commit atrocities when there's an independent judiciary, you can be voted out of power, and citizens have defined rights. Not impossible--the trick is to erode those restraints or butcher foreigners and other unprotected classes--but harder.

4. Both sides in these arguments inevitably distort the facts to fit their simplistic narrative. The Galileo affair, for example, is always reduced to an angry Pope flipping out the second he hears this outrageous theory. The part where the Pope was a friend of Galileo's and fairly tolerant until Galileo publicly insulted him would make the situation entirely too nuanced. Likewise the political aspect of heresy in an age when clergymen doubled as temporal rulers gets left out. For distortions by the religious, I of course refer you to the works of a Mr. B. Kenobi.

There are oodles of other reasons, but I've typed most of this one-handed with a sleeping baby on my shoulder and now I'm sore.

[snoopy369]

Sleeping babies on shoulders

[Traianvs]

No, it's not "new age bull****."

To believe in God without adhering to a religious institution's dogma and orthodoxy is to be spiritual. There probably have always been spiritual people.

No, you can be spiritual and not believe in a God. Spiritual experiences are feelings such as connectedness or a bond with nature or these other inexplicable relations that people have, whether religious or not. In fact, our brain has area(s) responsible for spirituality.

We've all had that kind of experiences, i.e. watching a sunrise after a night out boozing your liver to smithereens.

[MrFun]

And atheists aren't ? You musn't know many atheists.

Um, no I was not saying nor implying that atheists do not.

[molly bloom]

They did kill people for their religious faith.

I agree that most of those killed were killed for other reasons. But the same is true of the Crusades/etc.

JM

Which groups did you have in mind ? It's still the case that more believers in divinities have been killed by believers in other (or the same) divinities, than by atheists.

[molly bloom]

." Its opposite would be "there is a God," and AFAIK nobody has ever been killed in the name of that either. .

The punishment for atheism in several European countries was death.... of course, blasphemy could be (and was) conflated with atheism, and authors such as the anti-Trinitarian philosopher and scientist Michael Servetus were executed- in his case by an (unholy) alliance between Calvin and the Roman Catholic Church. Of course what defined an atheist in those days depended on the ruler, the religion of the state, et cetera, et cetera.

Probably best not to be a Unitarian or ant-Tinitarian in a country which had its own branch of the Inquisition...

[Jon Miller]

Which groups did you have in mind ? It's still the case that more believers in divinities have been killed by believers in other (or the same) divinities, than by atheists.

Yes, but see Elok.

As far as what Mao/Stalin/etc did, see:

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

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3993857.stm (I know that people were executed, but I have harder time finding direct links, still wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecu...tians_in_China )

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

JM

[molly bloom]

Yes, but see Elok.

As far as what Mao/Stalin/etc did, see:

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

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3993857.stm (I know that people were executed, but I have harder time finding direct links, still wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecu...tians_in_China )

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

JM

I'm aware of the persecution and harassment of various religious and ethnic groups- I still have my badge/button declaring 'I Spoke Out For Soviet Jews'- but when the sources on Wikipedia include

St Vladimir's Seminary Press,

I think you'll find me somewhat sceptical of their objectivity.

In any case, harassment was nothing new to faith groups in Russia- the Orthodox persecuted/harassed Jews and Roman Catholics and Muslims and the Old Believers and Doukhobors. Plus ca change...

[Jon Miller]

Just the same as the harassment/etc wasn't unique to Christians before. You are blaming Christianity or Religion for something that is a human problem (and linked with human's being sinners) which isn't very reasonable.

(And it wasn't just 'harassment', there were executions/forced 'conversions'/etc)

You blame Christianity for the Crusades/etc, but Christianity had just as much to do with the Crusades/etc as Stalin's purges and Mao's Culture revolution had to do with Atheism.

Namely it was/is a factor but a minor one.

Considering that majority of Atheists who have ever lived are alive today (I think?), I think that Atheisms record is pretty poor. But I am OK with you disagreeing on that point.

JM

[molly bloom]

Just the same as the harassment/etc wasn't unique to Christians before. You are blaming Christianity or Religion for something that is a human problem (and linked with human's being sinners) which isn't very reasonable.

(And it wasn't just 'harassment', there were executions/forced 'conversions'/etc)

You blame Christianity for the Crusades/etc, but Christianity had just as much to do with the Crusades/etc as Stalin's purges and Mao's Culture revolution had to do with Atheism.



JM

Actually the faith element of the Crusades is fairly major- it's why they were declared Crusades! You really need to read up on the history of the Crusades- not just the main Mediterranean/Middle East ones, but the ones against the Albigensians/Cathars, the Prussians/Lithuanians, the Spanish Reconquista, et cetera.

Even the extermination of large groups of Amerindians was justified because their artwork (depicting anal/group sex, fellatio, et cetera) was taken to mean that they were beyond the grace of God- much the same justification being used for the enslavement of black Africans by the Portuguese and the Dutch and the English.

That there might also have been a profit motive (land, free if enforced, labour) does of course play a part.

[Elok]

The punishment for atheism in several European countries was death.... of course, blasphemy could be (and was) conflated with atheism, and authors such as the anti-Trinitarian philosopher and scientist Michael Servetus were executed- in his case by an (unholy) alliance between Calvin and the Roman Catholic Church. Of course what defined an atheist in those days depended on the ruler, the religion of the state, et cetera, et cetera.

Probably best not to be a Unitarian or ant-Tinitarian in a country which had its own branch of the Inquisition...

Yes, but that's beside the point, or at least beside mine: that comparing those killed "in the name of" or because of atheism--a simple negative statement--to those killed because of the complex ideas of a religion is really apples and oranges. The RCC killed/persecuted atheists for offending against the theistic part of their creed. They did the same to Jews, Protestants, heretics, heathens, etc. who agreed on that part but not others. Likewise the Soviets were brutal to Christians for believing in God, but also to plenty of the religiously indifferent or inoffensive for being from the wrong class or otherwise offending Marxist-Leninist ideals. I'd say that's a more fair comparison.