Althouse: "As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of religion."

February 25, 2009

"As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of religion."

The Freedom From Religion Foundation appropriates Butterfly McQueen to proselytize atheism.

70 comments:

KCFleming said...: Evangelical atheism on the rise concurrent with a ramping up of socialism worldwide.

I wonder where I've seen that coalition before?; 2/25/09, 7:07 AM
George M. Spencer said...: Imagine buses with no advertising posters plastered above seats.

It's easy if you try.; 2/25/09, 7:09 AM
traditionalguy said...: Every one is free from religion in America. That is why the Pilgrims took their Pilgramage to the Cape Cod wilderness 389 years ago. And every one can also confess and live out his faith in God in America without the government appointing a single state suported church thereby challenging the legitimacy of yours. Only in the past 40 years has that tradition been seen to prohibit most free exercise of religion on the grounds that the State has created its own religion free zone in which the State bans all traditional religious expressions, except for pagan folk cultures, eastern meditation practices, and government established Earth PseudoSciences pleasing to the new Puritans of Ecology, and their government paid Priesthood..; 2/25/09, 7:17 AM
jayne_cobb said...: Meh,

Ads like this (not just for atheists but for religions as well) have always just struck me as being counter productive. Nobody really pays attention to them and it just wastes money.; 2/25/09, 7:57 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Evangelical atheism on the rise concurrent with a ramping up of socialism worldwide.

I wonder where I've seen that coalition before?

Heh. Maybe we should start memorizing the Horst Wessel; 2/25/09, 7:58 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Brilliant quote, absolutely brilliant.

I'm no socialist, Pogo, but damn it, just like Butterfly McQueen, I want out of the illogical religious idiocy this so-called "freedom" has set me into, no matter what the belief system. I left the ghetto in hopes to find something better and only found more of the same - even worse, actually, when I include the murderous NewAge beliefs (the most danger I encountered from religious belief in South Central, Los Angeles was a fat lady who "got the spirit" falling on me - not sexually active killer quack doctors with "spiritual" cures, or scientists who want to break America to "save the planet," and psychic con men committing fraud on every street corner, with a media elite who buy into the whole thing - as long as they can back it with a black face like our "messiah" Obama with his NewAge pimp, Oprah). It's just too much.

I applaud this move by the atheists of Madison - if only for bringing that quote to my attention:

It's the whole issue in a nutshell.; 2/25/09, 7:59 AM
KCFleming said...: "It's the whole issue in a nutshell."

Sure, but what issue, exactly?; 2/25/09, 8:05 AM
George M. Spencer said...: Canned tuna.
Peanut butter.
Grape jelly.
Baked beans.
Canned beans.
Canned vegetables.
Macaroni & cheese.
Canned Stews.
Canned Fruit
Rice.
Instant potatoes.
Coffee, tea, hot chocolate.
Powdered milk.
Mayonnaise.

Next time you go shopping, buy these and have them bagged separately. (Better to box them.)

Deliver to church, synagogue, etc. of your choice.

Free someone from hunger.; 2/25/09, 8:32 AM
George M. Spencer said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/25/09, 8:32 AM
MadisonMan said...: It's ridiculous for Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, to say this is hate speech. Hate speech is saying something like Kill Christians.

Happy Ash Wednesday.; 2/25/09, 8:34 AM
Anonymous said...: I really hate it when the atheists come banging on my door at five-friggin'-o'clock Sunday morning, proselytizing with their children in tow and a pamphlet in hand.; 2/25/09, 8:35 AM
Fred4Pres said...: When Athiests start passing the hat for ads like this, you will know things have gone full circle.

I am not enslaved by anything unless I let it enslave me. Believing in no faith or a particular faith is not enslaving, it is how people are.; 2/25/09, 8:53 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: It's ridiculous for Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, to say this is hate speech. Hate speech is saying something like Kill Christians.

I would agree with you MM. However, accusations of hate speech, much like racism has been dumbed down to being meaningless anymore.; 2/25/09, 9:00 AM
MadisonMan said...: There is one of these billboards down on Regent Street, and I have to say it's clever and witty as far as billboards go. (Can't remember what it says though)

I'm all for clever and witty billboards -- but maybe I should be for memorable ones.; 2/25/09, 9:11 AM
Jason (the commenter) said...: I'm an atheist and I do not approve of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Is there a Freedom From the Freedom From Religion organization I can join?; 2/25/09, 9:25 AM
Jason (the commenter) said...: "She said people are entitled to their own opinions, adding if posted signs read, “God is great,” people would not take offense either."

In Madison, Wisconsin? I find that hard to believe.

"Additionally, Gaylor said it was especially important to put a quote from Butterfly McQueen, a black actress popular in the 1940s and 50s, because February is Black History Month."

Is someone who is best know for the "I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies!" scene in Gone With the Wind really the best person to use for black history month?

"However, Gaylor said the FFRF has been an influential anti-religion group since 1976, and the organization, based in Madison, now has national appeal."

However, the ad campaign is mysteriously only in Madison, Wisconsin.; 2/25/09, 9:49 AM
Anonymous said...: It sure would have saved everyone a lot of trouble, once, if people could have freed themselves from slavery just by not believing in it. Perhaps "slavery" is not quite the right word?; 2/25/09, 9:56 AM
traditionalguy said...: Religious deceptions are a mental enslavement. The newly translated scriptures,cheaply printed by Gutenberg's new method, freed the enslaved minds of millions, and they still do so today. There was a real war over their power to free men's minds 400 years ago, just as there is today. Education as we know it today came from the Reformation's teaching creating a 92% adult literacy rate in John Knox's Scotland. The people of the Book are our intellectual ancestors. Throw those scriptures out again over homosexual rights issues at your own peril.; 2/25/09, 10:29 AM
Cabbage said...: These guys sound like Sith Lords

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Code_of_the_Sith; 2/25/09, 11:04 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: "Sure, but what issue, exactly?"

The issue of belief itself, and the (supposedly) metaphysical warfare that goes on because of it. I just did a post outlining (part of) the warped nature of reality when seen through the lens of nonsense of belief - the sense of stupidity, and deception, is breathtaking to me:

http://themachoresponse.blogspot.com/2009/02/its-all-made-up-like-bed-to-look-good.html

Actually, practically my whole site is about this - even the political posts - because I don't understand how anyone can be surprised when things go wrong (say, with the economy, etc.) when so many are praying to sky gods and spiritual "jokers" instead of using the real life experience and good sense they were (again: supposedly) born with.

Where are the lessons of The Enlightenment taught in our school system? How much is critical thinking emphsised (instead of stupidly being dissed because it includes the word "critical")? Where is any investigation of the negative effects that 40 years of bogus teachings have had on us as a society - from est and The Landmark Forum cult (both of which were taught, as "motivational" courses, in our nation's boardrooms and the government) the Maharishi Mahesh ("I can fly on my butt") Yogi cult (spread by The Beatles, and even continues after he and, the now celebrity, Deepak Chopra tried to deceive the Journal of American Medicine) all coupled with the constant prodding and endorsement of fringe beliefs (Scientology, Kabbalah, etc.) from Hollywood and celebrities?

TIME Magazine has a new issue on "Faith and Healing" which touts one bogus study after another - and lots of information for "seekers" - but only one or two mentions of anyone who disagrees with the whole "seeking" concept. And there are no - not one - atheist voice in the whole issue. I'm no "Take God out of the Pledge of Allegience" guy, but I'd think, at some point, we'd be wise enough to bring this stupid "spiritual" charade (and that's what it is) to an end. I don't need God or a church to feed the poor, Great White Father George, and I've seen my ex-wife now kill three people because of her beliefs - the first being her own mother - with no punishment because it's all cloaked in her beliefs and the (supposed) all-important respect they deserve.

Our current problems as a country aren't the result of America losing it's way, but of humans doing so - too many want to be "progressive" with no idea of progress. That was true of slavery, with it's religious justifications, and it's still true today. But just because some people (probably the majority) would feel bad, or even lost, without it doesn't mean it's not our only hope.

I feel the same way about the "stimulus," BTW.

LOL.; 2/25/09, 11:23 AM
Host with the Most said...: Pogo,

You have again rendered an invaluable service in bringing the point to it's logical head.

traditionalguy,

Your explanation is brilliant.

Jason,

Thank you.; 2/25/09, 11:27 AM
Host with the Most said...: "As my ancestors are free from slavery"

But her ancestors were SLAVES.

They are free now from slavery.

Because they are DEAD.

What the F does she mean then?

Is she dead?; 2/25/09, 11:29 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Host With The Most,

You just topped your last illogical post (the one that congratulated Pogo - for not being able to grasp the topic - and Traditional Guy, for bringing up a topic - the gay agenda - that no one here has advocated for) with an even more illogical post.

You may be "The Host With The Most" but what you're full of is debatable.; 2/25/09, 11:38 AM
Host with the Most said...: Crack

First, you are a funny guy - love ya, mean it.

Second - Myshout out to traditionalguy was to his first comment at 7:17am, not the later ones.

Third - take me on, dude! You call me illogical, but you don't provide any support.

Engage!; 2/25/09, 11:41 AM
Michael Haz said...: What do atheists say to someone who has just sneezed?

God bless you and all of its variants won't work because of the obvious reference to God doing something nice, blessing you.

I have never knowingly sneezed in the presence of atheists, so I don't know how they react.

My guess is the the club by-laws require that they say something that does not invoke the existence of God.

Something like "There's snot on your chin."

I prefer God bless you.; 2/25/09, 11:49 AM
Original Mike said...: {mutter}Oh, God{/mutter}; 2/25/09, 11:50 AM
KCFleming said...: Crack Emcee,
Thanks for the response.

Non-belief has had its own dark history of slavery, violence, repression, and genocide, shaping much of the 20th century.

Rationalism, the Enlightenment, and all, added much, but were not any final answer to life's problems.

There have been several brilliant writers on the issue; my own thoughts pale before them. I offer only

G.K. Chesterton
"If there were no God, there would be no atheists."

"If a key fits a lock, you know it is the right key."

and finally
“The mark of the atheistic style is that it instinctively chooses the word which suggests that things are dead things; that things have no souls. Thus they will not speak of waging war, which means willing it; they speak of the “outbreak of war,” as if all the guns blew up without the men touching them. Instead of saying that employers pay less wages, which might pin the employers to some moral responsibility, they insist on talking about the “rise and fall” of wages. They will not speak of reform, but of development. The atheist style in letters always avoids talking of love or lust, which are things alive, and calls marriage or concubinage “the relations of the sexes”; as if a man and a woman were two wooden objects standing in a certain angle and attitude to each other, like a table and a chair.”
G. K. Chesterton - “The Flying Authority” Eugenics and Other Evils; 2/25/09, 11:52 AM
KCFleming said...: And the fuller G.K. Chesterton quote is better:

"Atheism is the supreme example of a simple faith. ...But, anyhow, when he has said it, he has said it; and there seems to be no more to be said. The truth is that the atmosphere of excitement by which the atheist lives, is an atmosphere of thrilled and shuttering theism, and not of atheism at all; it is an atmosphere of defiance and not of denial. Irreverence is a very servile parasite of reverence; and has starved with its starving lord. After this first fuss about the merely aesthetic effect of blasphemy, the whole thing vanishes into its own void. If there were not God, there would be no atheists. If there were not God, there would be no atheists."
Where All Roads Lead," Collected Works, vol. 3; 2/25/09, 11:59 AM
Sofa King said...: "What do atheists say to someone who has just sneezed?"

I would think that "gesundheit" - German for "good health" - would suffice.; 2/25/09, 12:16 PM
Michael Haz said...: Nope. "Gesundheit" means "God bless you" to many people.

Achoo! "No blessings for you!"

Doesn't work.; 2/25/09, 12:28 PM
Original Mike said...: I've come to the conclusion that believers (at least some of them) do not "live" in a place where they are capable of understanding non-believe. They start from the premise that there is a God, and then proceed to conclude that atheists are rebelling against this self-evident fact. How else to explain this:

The truth is that the atmosphere of excitement by which the atheist lives, is an atmosphere of thrilled and shuttering theism, and not of atheism at all; it is an atmosphere of defiance and not of denial.

What drivel. This non-believer looks for evidence, finds none, and that's that. There is no excitement. There is no rebellion. There is simply a conclusion that the evidence for existence is lacking.

If there were not God, there would be no atheists."

Is this suppose to be profound?; 2/25/09, 12:32 PM
traditionalguy said...: Crack... The gay agenda is OK with me. Let anyone marry anything and get pre-nuptial agreements from us lawyers or do your own on line. Welcome to the party. The denial to gay's of the right to be married like everybody else was a blindspot for me, I guess. Who knew? That hot button issue is now being used inside old line Denominations to justify throwing out the authority of all scripture so as not to offend gay people. That's like giving up on all use of modern medicines because of a discovered misuse of antibiotic therapy treating viruses. The war for men's minds and hearts goes on everywhere, as it must.; 2/25/09, 12:37 PM
Molly said...: Nope. "Gesundheit" means "God bless you" to many people.

Uhh, that's nice. However, it means "health" in German, a language in which word definitions don't change just because people aren't aware of them.

But I think you're missing the larger point that a lot of atheists probably say "bless you" when other people sneeze because it's a social convention. Not believing in God doesn't mean you are on a constant rampage to expunge all reference to God from reality. God is a very, very pervasive literary and historical idea so I don't see that happening anytime soon. Who cares.; 2/25/09, 12:47 PM
traditionalguy said...: Original Mike... the evidence you do not find is in over in the arena of supernatural spiritual experiences. That makes it untestable in scientific experiments. The explanation to men of men's reason to exist here in this world is revealed in such spiritual experiences and by the "voice" recieved from the hearing of the scriptures. a/k/a faith.; 2/25/09, 12:49 PM
Original Mike said...: traditionalguy... I'm not here to debate the existance/nonexistance of God. That's a nonstarter if there ever was one. My point is you can not "analyze the atheist mind" from the starting point of belief. If you do, you'll simply get the wrong answer.; 2/25/09, 12:57 PM
TMink said...: OM wrote: "I've come to the conclusion that believers (at least some of them) do not "live" in a place where they are capable of understanding non-believe."

I have felt the same, if you change the order of the belief structure. But rarely, if ever, here. My non-believing friends here are all thoughtful, reasoned, and kind. I am happy to read what you say and correspond with you.

Trey; 2/25/09, 1:28 PM
Original Mike said...: Aww, Trey. I'm touched (truly). You stand out as someone who seeks to understand the others point of view. I've often felt "I should be more like Trey".

When I said "There is no excitement. There is no rebellion" I could have added that there is a touch of sadness. I think I understand believers to a pretty good degree, having been raised as one. I only came to my current position over many years, in large part due to my background in science.

Molly said: Not believing in God doesn't mean you are on a constant rampage to expunge all reference to God from reality.

It certainly doesn't have to. It doesn't for me. I'm repeatedly trying to make this point against those who seem to love having a straw man to pummel. I've wondered why I'm so compelled to respond. I think it's because I see the caricatures and need to object "that's not me. Why is he saying those things about me? He doesn't know what he's talking about." Not everybody is Annie Gaylor. I cringe whenever she's in the spotlight. I find her actions hurtful and counter productive. (And why does she have to be from Madison?); 2/25/09, 2:04 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: Sofa King,

I'm an atheist and say "god bless you" (sometimes geshunteit) and "Merry Christmas". I celebrate the fun Christian holidays (I just wished someone a happy ash Wednesday for some reason). I also take the lord's name in vain. And I see none of this behavior as inconsistent with atheism.; 2/25/09, 2:19 PM
KCFleming said...: "those who seem to love having a straw man to pummel."

I like your point of view on this, Mike. My ire has been raised by the near-continuous evangelical atheism of the past year.

I'm mostly tired of the assumption by many atheists in this forum that begins the discussion with the premise that theists are fools and slow-witted, as if we've never considered the question before.; 2/25/09, 2:54 PM
Original Mike said...: evangelical atheism

I don't like those guys either, Pogo.; 2/25/09, 3:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Michael Hasenstab --

Nope. "Gesundheit" means "God bless you" to many people.

And? Those many people are wrong. It means good health. Ahchoo is simply a sound word. Crack a dictionary, Webster's is my suggestion.

Pogo --

Chestorson is an idiot with an agenda. So what? Atheists talk of waging war, they write emotional and animate prose, and even construct fables and god tales. If there were no wet, there would be no dry. Big deal.

I like your point of view on this, Mike. My ire has been raised by the near-continuous evangelical atheism of the past year.

I echo Mike, and you've seen it here and can find it elsewhere. Fanatics are asshats, regardless of their orientation. Like when, out of the blue, someone injects the "atheists are evil" into a topic. Same stupidity.; 2/25/09, 3:20 PM
KCFleming said...: "Like when, out of the blue, someone injects the "atheists are evil" into a topic. Same stupidity."

Not fair, O.
I am pointing out what atheists refuse to do, when talking about the "slavery of religion" and such: the slavery that has followed in the wake of atheism.

Is it atheism per se?
Same answer as for "Is it religion per se?"; 2/25/09, 3:33 PM
KCFleming said...: And it's hard to take seriously the claim the Chesterton is an idiot.

I mean, come on.; 2/25/09, 3:34 PM
Original Mike said...: And it's hard to take seriously the claim the Chesterton is an idiot.

I don't know who Chesterton is. All I know are the quotes from this post. And based on that I'd have to say that the proposition that "Cherteron is an idiot", while not confirmed, and while not busted, is certainly plausible.

(Does this mean the Kumbaya moment is over?); 2/25/09, 3:45 PM
blake said...: ...I don't understand how anyone can be surprised when things go wrong (say, with the economy, etc.) when so many are praying to sky gods and spiritual "jokers" instead of using the real life experience and good sense they were (again: supposedly) born with.

Crack, things go wrong regardless of belief (or not) in God. Believing, praying, worshiping does not prohibit you from using your real life experience and good sense.

For some people, belief seems to help. The idea that there is an ultimate ethical Judge who watches what you do can inspire good behavior and limit bad. (This can also be twisted to encourage bad behavior and suppress good.)

It's fine to be an atheist, but to know human nature is to understand our faults do not lie in our stars.; 2/25/09, 4:29 PM
KCFleming said...: I've always hated that effing Kumbaya song.

Now it's in my head. Thanks alot.
=P; 2/25/09, 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Pogo --

Not fair, O.
I am pointing out what atheists refuse to do, when talking about the "slavery of religion" and such: the slavery that has followed in the wake of atheism.

To be honest, you're only pointing out your perception. If you'll recall my commentary right here on this blog, you'll also recall this atheist coming down on the radicals on the atheist side. And I can recall several others who do the same.

I will also note a dearth of responses from the religiously inclined here when people label atheists evil. No one, I repeat, no one takes the time and effort required to provide a fairness doctrine type approach to comment debates.

And it's hard to take seriously the claim the Chesterton is an idiot.

The man gives us such gems as "the atheistic style is that it instinctively chooses the word which suggests that things are dead things", "The atheist style in letters always avoids talking of love or lust". Both of which are idiotic false statements, easily seen as purposeful lies by simply looking at the people around you.

His having a degree and using a bunch'a words doesn't change my opinion of his thoughts.; 2/25/09, 6:07 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: I'm at work so I can't answer everything I'd like but here's a few points:

* Evil doesn't erupt out of atheism as it has out of spirituality: atheists have done bad things, but not because of atheism, as spiritual people do bad things "in the name of God."

* Evangelical atheism is as bad as any other kind of fanaticism (that's why I took the time to state I'm not a "take 'under God' out of the Pledge" guy).

* It bothers me when I can state I've seen three deaths on account of spiritual beliefs (by my ex - including her own mother) and people act like I never said it. If it happened to any of you, I'm sure the defenders of belief would change their tune pretty quick. Pretend it was your wife, daughter, mother - whatever - would it be worth a belief, with no justification than it makes you feel better about life, generally, to endure such a thing? We're talking murder here, folks. And people are still either A) insisting we must "respect" her beliefs, or B) trying to dance around it, or C) trying to talk to me without acknowledging the horror that it can happen and nobody will really do anything about it. If she was a rapper, she'd be under a jail, but she's a NewAger so, instead, they make excuses and/or give it a pass.

It's total fucking insanity, from top-to-bottom.; 2/25/09, 6:07 PM
reader_iam said...: G.K. Chesterton did not have a degree.

Unrelatedly, and funnily enough, he married a woman name Blogg.; 2/25/09, 7:17 PM
reader_iam said...: He's one of the historic figures whom I think would have been a marvelous blogger. Very witty. He also maintained long-term friendships with people with whom he profoundly disagreed (George Bernard Shaw, for an obvious example).; 2/25/09, 7:25 PM
reader_iam said...: He was smart as hell, too.

Which, of course, doesn't automatically make him right.; 2/25/09, 7:27 PM
Host with the Most said...: * Evil doesn't erupt out of atheism as it has out of spirituality: atheists have done bad things, but not because of atheism, as spiritual people do bad things "in the name of God."

THAT takes the cake for MOST STUPID FUCKING STATEMENT OF THE YEAR.

What century were you born in brother?

Atheistic Communism put over 160 million people to death in less than 50 years.

SHIT! What an idiot!; 2/25/09, 9:15 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: It bothers me when I can state I've seen three deaths on account of spiritual beliefs

Are all "spiritual beliefs" equal? I realize that some, though not all and probably not most, atheists would say "yes," but I think that's a bit of a facile response. We use reason to discriminate between all sorts of ideas. Why not different spiritual beliefs? Can't one sort of spiritual belief be more or less logical than another? Might some beliefs be damaging while others are not? Might some even be, just maybe, a source of individual or societal improvement?; 2/25/09, 10:01 PM
blake said...: Interesting point, Freeman.

Could not, in fact, scientific methods be applied to beliefs, in order to determine which ones are, in fact, beneficial, even if the reasons for them are not fully understood?; 2/25/09, 10:19 PM
Anonymous said...: reader-iam --

All I have to base my opinion on are the religious anti-atheist stuff of his that I've read. In other areas he may well shine. There, he's an idiot.; 2/25/09, 10:20 PM
Original Mike said...: Atheistic Communism put over 160 million people to death in less than 50 years.

Atheism was not the driving force behind communism. The politicians who sought to impose communism found the competition from religion inconvenient. Theirs was an atheism of convenience.

Not the same thing as "behead the infidel for the greater glory af Allah!"; 2/26/09, 8:13 AM
Original Mike said...: Now it's in my head. Thanks alot.
=P

It was in my head too last night. Serves me right.; 2/26/09, 8:15 AM
blake said...: Theirs was an atheism of convenience.

Isn't it always a matter of convenience?

Not the same thing as "behead the infidel for the greater glory af Allah!"

It effectively is. Sure, atheists don't use "behead the [non-conformist] for the greater glory of [a non-existent God]!" But they demonstrably have no issues with the whole killing thing. Typically the cry is something along the lines of "kill the enemies of the state".

Religion is a vector for the drive to kill, but in its absence the disease finds other vectors: states, ideologies, "science", whatever.

Religion also has the potential to stop the other vectors.; 2/26/09, 3:21 PM
Original Mike said...: But they demonstrably have no issues with the whole killing thing.

Oh, God, not another one. Atheism means one thing. I don't believe in God. WHY is that so hard to understand??? I'm an atheist. I have a huge problem with killing. Capice?!; 2/26/09, 4:02 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: All beliefs are not equal but they are all prisons and, the more you believe in them, the more you force others in the cell with you.; 2/26/09, 5:02 PM
blake said...: I think you misconstrued my comment, Mike.

I wasn't saying that "all atheists have no problem with killing"; I was saying, "as a group, atheists appear to be no less inclined toward killing than the religious."

This was in direct response to your comment that killing in the name of Allah (synecdoche for religions in general, presumably) was somehow different.

We can argue whether the tendency to kill is greater or less--I'm not sure how you'd prove such a thing--but the point is, if you argue that "religion causes violence"--or indeed that religion plays any role, positive or negative with regards to violence--you have to first demonstrate that there's any difference at all between religious groups and non-religious groups with respect to tendencies toward organized murder.

I'm not pointing out all the people killed under atheist regimes and saying, "See! Atheists are murderous scum!" I'm saying, "If religion is such a huge factor in violence, how come so much violence occurs where there is no religion?"

Indeed, in the 20th century, there's no doubt that the atheists outstripped the religious in terms of the various -cides.

If you want to point to Christianity's multitude of historical sins but won't allow the Christian to say, "That's not Christianity", then it's hardly fair to try to defend atheist sub-groups (such as Marxists and Maoists) on the basis of their not being atheists.

Are you so sure that atheism doesn't lead to totalitarianism as a natural consequence? Is there any group situation where it hasn't?; 2/26/09, 6:49 PM
Original Mike said...: And I was not arguing that atheist are any less inclined to killing, either. I was commenting on Host's moronic implication that atheism was a driving force in Communism. Power and greed were the driving forces of the communist states of the 20th century..

I do think that people can use religion to justify their killing (e.g. jihad).

Are you so sure that atheism doesn't lead to totalitarianism as a natural consequence? Is there any group situation where it hasn't?

Again, I do not believe the communist movement started with atheism, and then proceeded from there. I think, as all politicians are wont to do, the communist movement was appropriated by people who wanted power. Religion, or lack thereof, had nothing to do with it.; 2/27/09, 8:38 AM
blake said...: Again, I do not believe the communist movement started with atheism, and then proceeded from there.

Do you see that it might be a necessary step, at least?

I think, as all politicians are wont to do, the communist movement was appropriated by people who wanted power. Religion, or lack thereof, had nothing to do with it.

Do you see that you could replace "communist" in the above with any given religious ideology of your choice, and be just as right?; 2/27/09, 1:17 PM
Original Mike said...: Do you see that it might be a necessary step, at least?

I don't. If you see a casual connection between atheism and communism, you'll have to explain it to me.

Do you see that you could replace "communist" in the above with any given religious ideology of your choice, and be just as right?

Absolutely. I don't know what I've said that would lead you to believe otherwise.; 2/27/09, 2:08 PM
blake said...: Absolutely. I don't know what I've said that would lead you to believe otherwise.

It was where you said Not the same thing as "behead the infidel for the greater glory af Allah!".

It really is (the same thing). It's all just window dressing.

I don't. If you see a casual connection between atheism and communism, you'll have to explain it to me.

No, not quite.

But as you said the communist (or, really, totalitarian) state eliminates religion as competition. (Or sometimes it subsumes it.)

This is all hypothetical anyway, isn't it? Has atheism ever come to dominate a society without the state enforcing it? (Hey, there's another thing atheism and religion have in common!) So we'll never know what happens if everyone suddenly gets unreligion.; 2/27/09, 3:30 PM
Original Mike said...: It was where you said Not the same thing as "behead the infidel for the greater glory af Allah!".

The people seeking control can appeal to the religious beliefs of susceptible individuals in a way that atheism can not.

"For Allah!" can be used to much greater effect than "For Nothing!"; 2/27/09, 3:41 PM
Original Mike said...: And I do think that there are religious nuts who believe they are killing because God wants them to. This is not a symmetric situation. It doesn't even make sense to posit that there are people out there killing because "Nobody" told them to.; 2/27/09, 3:45 PM
blake said...: Yes, I already said atheists don't lead charges of "for nothing". My point is: The characteristics of Man are such that the drive exists independent of how it's dressed up.

So, when atheists go out to kill, they have other "reasons", but there's no indication that atheism or religion matters even a little bit in terms of the amount (or even character) of killing being done.

This is what we're objecting to, right? Maybe I'm missing your argument completely. Is it not your point that religion is a cause of violence? I thought the whole thing was "Religion is bad because religion makes people kill." Something like that.

My point is: No, it doesn't. Religion is simply one facade, along with nationalism, communism, racism, etc., that is used to dress up killing. Get rid of one "reason", and another will fill the vacuum. Get rid of ALL the reasons, and people will make new ones up.

You've changed nothing.

But maybe we're just talking in circles now.; 2/27/09, 5:21 PM
Original Mike said...: Is it not your point that religion is a cause of violence? I thought the whole thing was "Religion is bad because religion makes people kill." Something like that.

That is NOT my point. I actually think religion is, on the whole, good. When I say I'm an atheist, ALL I am saying is I don't believe there is a God.

I think you and I are in agreement.
This started with my objection to this utter stupidity from Host:

"THAT takes the cake for MOST STUPID FUCKING STATEMENT OF THE YEAR.

What century were you born in brother?

Atheistic Communism put over 160 million people to death in less than 50 years.

SHIT! What an idiot!"; 2/27/09, 5:56 PM
blake said...: Fair 'nuff.; 2/27/09, 6:39 PM