Saw this question on r/atheism today.

[Darwin333]

You could ask the same question toward well known atheist states in human history many of which practiced communism.

Where they rational in behavior when it came to forcing people with opposing political and religious views into gulags, re-education/slave labor camps and operating secret police forces?In addition to violently quelling calls for greater individual freedoms among their own populace.

I keep seeing this argued by both sides. The ugly truth is that in both cases (non-religious states and religious states and historically religion in general) has been used as a means to control a populace. For communist societies the communist leaders wanted complete control and didn't want religion to get in the way. On the flip side, religion has and is wildly used as a means to control a populace as well. Its simply the means in which they employ to achieve the same gains.

 

[Darwin333]

I guess about 85% of the world's population is irrational.

Cut that 85% into a few triangles and you have billions of people that think billions of other people are going to be smited by their god because the other group believes in the wrong god. Even better is, the predominant religion in the US believe people are going to be sent to hell who never even had an opportunity to learn about the "right" religion. God being omnipotent knew this ahead of time so he purposely put people on Earth who, at least according to his followers, never had a chance of going anywhere but hell. Pretty shitty deal if you ask me.

Is that rational or not?

What if we go back in history, were the people who believed in the old and now defunct religions "rational" in their religious beliefs? Was it rational to believe that the Sun was really a wheel on some gods chariot? Is it still rational to continue the entire "God of the gaps" argument that has been used since the dawn of religion?

 

[Darwin333]

To the extent that people are controlled by their beliefs or non-beliefs and get into endless internet arguments over it, it is just like another religion.

Having a debate on a public forum is not being controlled by so do you have any other examples? I personally can give you TONS of examples of religion being used as a tool of control but I am struggling to find one for atheists.

Edit: BTW, I am absolutely positive that you could easily get atheists to not only agree but to start advertising their non-belief as a "church" if we could get the same tax free status.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Having a debate on a public forum is not being controlled by so do you have any other examples? I personally can give you TONS of examples of religion being used as a tool of control but I am struggling to find one for atheists.

Edit: BTW, I am absolutely positive that you could easily get atheists to not only agree but to start advertising their non-belief as a "church" if we could get the same tax free status.

Here's one I saw today.

http://www.abc6.com/story/20932258/...t-cranston-florist-for-not-delivering-flowers

Edit: Here's some interesting background info on this.

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/03/rho..._refusing_to_deliver_flowers_to_atheist_teen/

 

[Atreus21]

Having a debate on a public forum is not being controlled by so do you have any other examples? I personally can give you TONS of examples of religion being used as a tool of control but I am struggling to find one for atheists.

Edit: BTW, I am absolutely positive that you could easily get atheists to not only agree but to start advertising their non-belief as a "church" if we could get the same tax free status.

What examples? What examples that are called "tools of control" don't boil down to simply examples of people either moving as a herd or following the leader, which happens irrespective of religious affiliation? Do you really think that atheists are on the whole any more immune to groupthink or arrogant certainties than theists? One would think this thread by itself is disproof of that ("we alone know the truth, and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid").

It's delusional to think that by simply denying mankind's most pervasive superstition atheists somehow are liberated of mankind's most pervasive habits and tendencies.

 

[Ausm]

I think Religion is great for anyone incapable of critical thinking but with that said, I don't give a fuck what you believe just don't push it on other people.

 

[Retro Rob]

Cut that 85% into a few triangles and you have billions of people that think billions of other people are going to be smited by their god because the other group believes in the wrong god. Even better is, the predominant religion in the US believe people are going to be sent to hell who never even had an opportunity to learn about the "right" religion. God being omnipotent knew this ahead of time so he purposely put people on Earth who, at least according to his followers, never had a chance of going anywhere but hell. Pretty shitty deal if you ask me.

Is that rational or not?

What if we go back in history, were the people who believed in the old and now defunct religions "rational" in their religious beliefs? Was it rational to believe that the Sun was really a wheel on some gods chariot? Is it still rational to continue the entire "God of the gaps" argument that has been used since the dawn of religion?

Welcome to fundamental Christianity 101.

You guys really kill me, though, painting that broad-brush. You probably need to educate yourself a lot more on the actual people belonging to the said religion(s).

It's almost like saying all non-religious people are rational, which is probably the furthest thing from the truth.

 

[Atreus21]

I think Religion is great for anyone incapable of critical thinking but with that said, I don't give a fuck what you believe just don't push it on other people.

Define "push". Can we still proselytize?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What examples? What examples that are called "tools of control" don't boil down to simply examples of people either moving as a herd or following the leader, which happens irrespective of religious affiliation? Do you really think that atheists are on the whole any more immune to groupthink or arrogant certainties than theists? One would think this thread by itself is disproof of that ("we alone know the truth, and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid").

It's delusional to think that by simply denying mankind's most pervasive superstition atheists somehow are liberated of mankind's most pervasive habits and tendencies.

I think that it is a facet of human nature to pursue self-interested avenues that increase a person's individual power, and that often includes control over populations of people. For that reason, there will be theists and atheists who are guilty of those same pursuits.

It is a mistake, however, to suggest that atheism as an aspect of people's philosophies can be responsible for motivating those pursuits. Atheism makes no such mandates or prescriptions. In fact, it makes no mandates or prescriptions whatsoever.

Many, if not most religions, in contrast, do include evangelization commandments to increase the religions following, often coupled with instructions to persecute those that do not assimilate. I think it is a legitimate criticism of religions, in this way, and not something that can be charged against atheism.

Of course, none of this has to do with the intrinsic validity of theism or atheism.

 

[Ausm]

Define "push". Can we still proselytize?

I wouldn't waste your time on this Godless heathen.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

There are actually plenty of words for people who don't do things that are commonly done. For example, "abstainers" or "teetotalers" for those who don't drink.

 

[Atreus21]

I wouldn't waste your time on this Godless heathen.

Oh I'm not. I'm asking if by push you mean we can make no attempt to convert people.

 

[Ausm]

Oh I'm not. I'm asking if by push you mean we can make no attempt to convert people.

Why? What benefit would it provide these people except an income stream to the Church?

 

[IBMer]

Here's one I saw today.

http://www.abc6.com/story/20932258/...t-cranston-florist-for-not-delivering-flowers

Edit: Here's some interesting background info on this.

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/03/rho..._refusing_to_deliver_flowers_to_atheist_teen/

You have a weird concept of "control".

 

[Atreus21]

I think that it is a facet of human nature to pursue self-interested avenues that increase a person's individual power, and that often includes control over populations of people. For that reason, there will be theists and atheists who are guilty of those same pursuits.

Agree.

It is a mistake, however, to suggest that atheism as an aspect of people's philosophies can be responsible for motivating those pursuits. Atheism makes no such mandates or prescriptions. In fact, it makes no mandates or prescriptions whatsoever.

In theory I agree.

Many, if not most religions, in contrast, do include evangelization commandments to increase the religions following, often coupled with instructions to persecute those that do not assimilate. I think it is a legitimate criticism of religions, in this way, and not something that can be charged against atheism.

Ah, I think the Soviet Union might contradict that. Atheists have persecuted the religious in at least that example.

Of course, none of this has to do with the intrinsic validity of theism or atheism.

Good. Let's not debate that.

 

[Atreus21]

Why? What benefit would it provide these people except an income stream to the Church?

That's their call to make. And I don't provide much of a revenue stream to my church, frankly. Apart from the odd $0.50 in spare change I might have on Sunday for the collections.

 

[IBMer]

Ah, I think the Soviet Union might contradict that. Atheists have persecuted the religious in at least that example.

You should understand the difference between "people who are Atheists" and "Atheists" as a collective.

People who are Atheists persecuted the religious in the Soviet Union. Atheists as a collective have no directive to persecute the religious. If you had read what he was establishing you'd understand the difference.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You have a weird concept of "control".

She got her way and offended most of her community doing it. That's control. Now the ACLU wants to prosecute a couple florists who didn't appreciate her actions for not wanting to send flowers to her. Really?

 

[piasabird]

People are already irrational. Go look at hitler and mousallini and the emporer of Japan, and China, and north korea, and Russia, and Cuba. What did the lack of religion do for the communists and the dictators? I dont think Religion has anything to do with irrational behaviour. Power corrupts.

 

[IBMer]

Actually, its in defiance of control. Both cases are about laws that were broken and the people in control allowing it despite it because illegal.

In the case of the florist, they did not want to full fill the order which would have been acceptable. Instead they stated they wouldn't full fill the order because of the religion of the customer, which is against state law.

 

[IBMer]

People are already irrational. Go look at hitler and mousallini and the emporer of Japan, and China, and north korea, and Russia, and Cuba. What did the lack of religion do for the communists and the dictators? I dont think Religion has anything to do with irrational behaviour. Power corrupts.

Look up Shinto and the Emperor of Japan if you want to make that argument. It was a poor choice for an example in this case.

 

[Arglebargle]

....

Ah, I think the Soviet Union might contradict that. Atheists have persecuted the religious in at least that example.



.....

Pragmatically speaking, the church was a power base that supported the previous (fallen) regime, had their own self serving ideology, and had outside interests that diverged from those in power.

Note how Putin (Mr. KGB) has gotten real tight with the Orthodox church, now that it has fallen in to support for his regime, as it has done historically.

Ruthless politicians of all stripes have no issues with persecuting others, beyond their cost benefit analysis of the situation.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Ah, I think the Soviet Union might contradict that. Atheists have persecuted the religious in at least that example.

Let me put it this way: as a theist, you probably do not want to accept the implication inherent in "theism is as theists do." Likewise, atheism is not as atheists do.

Good. Let's not debate that.

I wouldn't want to debate that either, if I were a theist.

 

[OCNewbie]

Your "just don't care" mindset about the greatest threat is just irrational.

I wouldn't say it's irrational, per se, but perhaps a little naive. Or perhaps he really just doesn't care one way or the other.

 

[Moonbeam]

I seem to remember long ago reading a Dostoevsky novel in which there was a story about some atheists who die and find themselves on a road to heaven that will take them 1000 years to travel and they refuse because they don't believe. So the sit there for so many years that they are dying all over again from boredom. So they arrive in heaven after a thousand year trip and are no sooner in the door when they exclaim in unison, I would walk a thousand times farther for this.

Now we rational types know that no living person has ever been to heaven, good heavens, it probably doesn't exist, but if it did and you could enter today, what do you imagine you would say if you did? My guess is that it would make you a believer.

And that's really a shame because if all the mumbo jumbo has some analog meaning then we will have to take as gospel the notion that you can't enter heaven unless you be like a child. Anything but that, please. I did that once and it was awful. No way I'd ever allow myself to be that vulnerable ever again unless, of course, there was some ache in my soul I just couldn't repress.

The Christian mystic Meister Eckhart said "the eye with which I see God is the same eye with which he sees me". Maybe if I could only learn to share.