Saw this question on r/atheism today.

[Retro Rob]

Really Rob? I didnt think youd go this low. You are now lashing out as if backed into a corner (which i believe you are) per the discussion.

Actually, I'm quite serious. You actually think its ok to say "fight against" religious teaching in this world for the so-called "sake of man" so to speak?

No, this isn't directly suggested, but this is the tone Im getting.

If history tells us something, it tells us violence breeds violence, intolerance breeds intolerance (on both fronts). Religious suppression only helped spread it.

The best way to keep peace and promote it is to mind your own business, worry about what your kids are learning. If someone wants to go to church, pray 40 times a day, read their holy book, pass this down to their kids, how does this affect you one bit? Now there are some religious rituals that I don't agree with, but who am I to tell this person that they can't/shouldn't do it, or pass this down to their kids?

 

[soulcougher73]

Actually, I'm quite serious. You actually think its ok to say "fight against" religious teaching in this world for the so-called "sake of man" so to speak?

No, this isn't directly suggested, but this is the tone Im getting.

If history tells us something, it tells us violence breeds violence, intolerance breeds intolerance (on both fronts). Religious suppression only helped spread it.

The best way to keep peace and promote it is to mind your own business, worry about what your kids are learning. If someone wants to go to church, pray 40 times a day, read their holy book, pass this down to their kids, how does this affect you one bit? Now there are some religious rituals that I don't agree with, but who am I to tell this person that they can't/shouldn't do it, or pass this down to their kids?

It affects us because of the things relgiion teaches. Christianity teaches to spread the word. Well that isnt minding your own business now is it? It breeds bigotry against gays for example which we then have to fight against you on because you are "not minding your own business".

 

[Retro Rob]

It affects us because of the things relgiion teaches. Christianity teaches to spread the word. Well that isnt minding your own business now is it? It breeds bigotry against gays for example which we then have to fight against you on because you are "not minding your own business".

Spreading the word only means taking to people about it. You can accept or decline. That isn't getting into your business.

Some religious people are outright bigots, hateful. And so are some secularists. It's a human problem.

 

[Retro Rob]

Stalin was never atheist. He just embraced the thought of atheism because of marx and lennon. They wrote that religions were a usurpation of power of the state and people. Since Stalin was massive persuaded by everything that was communism, he readily embraced the idea of eradicating outward religious practices for HIS country during his reign. He actually support religious organizations throughout the world even while in power.

Don't blame atheism for what Stalin did. Blame communism if you are going to place blame on any intangible idea for his atrocities. Atheism has no set of doctrines, rules, or even real guidelines about anything. It's a complete lack of belief in anything religious. Communism on the other hand, at least those ideas from Marx and Lennon, state the eradication of any power with the control over the minds of the people is needed for a successful communistic government. Major difference.

Now mass murderers have apologists too.

Sad.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Now mass murderers have apologists too.

There was not one word of apology in his post.

Spreading the word only means taking to people about it. You can accept or decline. That isn't getting into your business.

That may be what it means to you, but it's not what it means to many, many others.

Some religious people are outright bigots, hateful. And so are some secularists. It's a human problem.

Yes. The difference is in the relative proportions.

 

[Juddog]

Spreading the word only means taking to people about it. You can accept or decline. That isn't getting into your business.

Some religious people are outright bigots, hateful. And so are some secularists. It's a human problem.

It's a human problem as opposed to what? A divine being problem?

 

[randomrogue]

Take a continent. Then look at the affect religion has had on it. Both positive and negative.

Asia: Middle East is a nightmare with no end in sight. Hindu vs Islam has been a nightmare. The Portuguese had their own lovely inquisition in India. Buddhism seems fine except that you have China suppressing its people much like the USSR did.

Europe: Christianity vs Islam a nightmare. Crusades, Inquisitions. Religious problems here are obvious and continue today.

North America: The most religious and prude people of Europe came over and wiped out multiple civilizations, partly in the name of God. Manifest Destiny led to the death of about 100 million people or 95% of the indigenous population. The effects of slavery are still felt today.

South America: Much like North America. You had different nations involved however. Cortez wiped out the Aztecs but motivations are slightly unclear. I'd give this one a pass and blame it mostly on gold and greed except that he put the time into converting natives to Christianity. Incas for also forced to convert or die.

Africa: A clusterfuck of ethnic and religious struggles from the top to the cape.

Australia: The aborigines mostly died to disease but children were also taken from their families and forced into white schools by a combination of the government and churches.

Has religion stopped any wars? Have they cured any diseases? What exactly has Religion done that's positive and worth all the negatives?

 

[HumblePie]

Now mass murderers have apologists too.

Sad.

Fucking idiot post. I was explaining the true motivations for his atrocities. That is not the same thing as condoning them.

 

[Retro Rob]

Fucking idiot post. I was explaining the true motivations for his atrocities. That is not the same thing as condoning them.

Ok so do you think Christians are apologists for trying to explain motives behind things in the Bible?

 

[OCNewbie]

Ok so do you think Christians are apologists for trying to explain motives behind things in the Bible?

What such things? How would Christians know? Does one really have to do something special, other than claiming to be a Christian, to be a Christian? So, all you have to do is claim to be a Christian, thus making you a Christian, and now you're an expert on the Bible?

 

[Retro Rob]

What such things? How would Christians know? Does one really have to do something special, other than claiming to be a Christian, to be a Christian? So, all you have to do is claim to be a Christian, thus making you a Christian, and now you're an expert on the Bible?

I was just asking in general.

 

[randomrogue]

Are you guys trying to refer to this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

I don't see any plea for forgiveness. What he wrote about Stalin was definitely not in line with this. Rob are you apologizing for Christians?

This makes no sense.

 

[Retro Rob]

Are you guys trying to refer to this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

I don't see any plea for forgiveness. What he wrote about Stalin was definitely not in line with this. Rob are you apologizing for Christians?

This makes no sense.

I sure hope not, but I was just asking.

To me it seems that its not ok to explain the bible without being apologetic (for instance, if someone explained an event taken out of context). But one can explain Stalin's motives and not be apologetic.

Is it only apologetic if its involves the Bible, is my question.

 

[HumblePie]

Ok so do you think Christians are apologists for trying to explain motives behind things in the Bible?

Depends on how they are trying to explain things I guess.

For reference, you were giving a hint in the post I originally quoted that the reason for Stalin's atrocities were because of his atheistic views. I countered by saying, no it was because of his communistic views as outlined by Marx and Lennon. And then further put in a correction that Stalin himself was not an atheist. Attempting to remove religion as a political power is not the same thing as being an atheist.

Neither of which is in the least apologizing for his actions. They are just corrections to your incorrect statements and their indirect implications.

As for what religious people try to explain in how the Bible is written versus their interpretation, most of it is apologist. For example, slave ownership. In the Bible it's okay to own slaves. In today's world we know slavery is pure evil. Those that try to say that slavery was OK at the time because of the Bible are apologists. Those that say, "Yah the people that wrote the Bible fucked up on a lot of their moral codes and not all of it should be taken with intense speculation" is not an apologist. Those that spout of crap like, "despite a few misunderstandings, the Bible is the moral code for all mankind" is apologistic. I've seen such explanations given by people and it's stupid.

 

[Retro Rob]

Depends on how they are trying to explain things I guess.

For reference, you were giving a hint in the post I originally quoted that the reason for Stalin's atrocities were because of his atheistic views. I countered by saying, no it was because of his communistic views as outlined by Marx and Lennon. And then further put in a correction that Stalin himself was not an atheist. Attempting to remove religion as a political power is not the same thing as being an atheist.

Neither of which is in the least apologizing for his actions. They are just corrections to your incorrect statements and their indirect implications.

As for what religious people try to explain in how the Bible is written versus their interpretation, most of it is apologist. For example, slave ownership. In the Bible it's okay to own slaves. In today's world we know slavery is pure evil. Those that try to say that slavery was OK at the time because of the Bible are apologists. Those that say, "Yah the people that wrote the Bible fucked up on a lot of their moral codes and not all of it should be taken with intense speculation" is not an apologist. Those that spout of crap like, "despite a few misunderstandings, the Bible is the moral code for all mankind" is apologistic. I've seen such explanations given by people and it's stupid.

That's a fair assessment.

I really wanted to see how you'd define an apologist.

No issues from me.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

HumblePie wrote what I was going to write nearly word for word. Thanks. 🙂

 

[zsdersw]

Apologists make excuses and rationalize. Everyone else explains the reasons without putting either a sympathetic or antagonistic spin on it.

 

[jackstar7]

Also, just because I'm that kind of person today: It's Lenin. Not Lennon.

Marx and Lennon is about Groucho and John, not Karl and Vladimir.



And also, the Bible is a fun mythology book, nothing more. Sometimes less.

 

[LunarRay]

Spreading the word only means taking to people about it. You can accept or decline. That isn't getting into your business.

Some religious people are outright bigots, hateful. And so are some secularists. It's a human problem.

I don't mind you standing on a soap box in your front yard orating the 'truth' but I'd prefer you do it in your garage or living room... But, certainly not on our public streets... Our streets are our passage ways of freedom.

What each of us does on Sunday or Saturday if you're so inclined is up to you and yours. What I do is up to me. IF John and Bill want being Married or Suzy and Linda, that is for them and even comments against it should be seen as slander or libel until all folks recognize that all other folks are folks who may not only think differently but act and love differently.

No harm no foul.... what don't violate another persons Rights can never be seen to be afoul of our Rights to individual Freedom.

Statistically, probably at least 50 members of Congress are Atheist and that is good... I'd prefer it if they all were...
Everyone of the Political folks save one profess some religious affiliation and seek to change our laws to reflect that affiliation's belief... Change the law to what they and their constituent majority believe and all cuz the rest of us must be some sort of misguided pagans in need of control by them for their piece of mind.... Absurd!

God don't run this country nor any one of the gazillions of religious belief systems seeking to install their god endorsed leader upon us all.... its citizens do and each and every one of them is part of the whole... hurt one and you hurt them all...

Why you have to defend your belief in any forum is insane until you do get atop a box and spout off about it being THE belief system... it threatens us all and we rebel and call your belief garbage in defense of our own... Sad... but true... You should hold your belief and live it to the fullest and applaud the fact that you can as you observe others enjoying theirs...

 

[randomrogue]

Is your life better because of medicine? Well think of your life with medicine and then without and everyone will say yes. You've probably even had a time where you didn't have access to medical care right when you needed it or there was a wait for the paramedics. You can relate to both your life with care and without.

Is your life better because of religion? Can you even do this mind game? You probably can't because you have always had religion. However you should be able to say that your life is better because of religion with 99%-100% confidence if religion was truly good for you. Unfortunately you probably can't since you have no way of removing religion from your life. You can't even comprehend that concept. I on the other hand can imagine embracing religion and could easily do so. I choose not to. The choice was given to me and the choice is still there. I can confidently say that I am 100% better without it.

Keep in mind that by embracing a religion your are passively supporting its positions. If you are Christian and the Church is against homosexuals, birth control, evolution, and stem cell research then that cloud hangs over you. If you just had faith and weren't affiliated with an organized religion then you could still believe in God but not be cornered in these debates.

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't mind you standing on a soap box in your front yard orating the 'truth' but I'd prefer you do it in your garage or living room... But, certainly not on our public streets... Our streets are our passage ways of freedom..

I hope I'm reading you correctly, forgive me if I am not. I hope you aren't suggesting that your freedom is being somehow impeded if a religious person approaches you outside your home. Honestly, if an atheist or a group of them, for instance, decided to preach about there being no God, I wouldn't like it, and would want them to stop too, to be honest.

But since they have every right to do it, I really can't tell them to leave it at home.

If you mean public office, shucks, you have my full support on that front.

 

[randomrogue]

I have never seen an Atheist preach anything. Atheism is not a belief system. Has ANYONE here ever had an atheist knock on their door? What the fuck would they even say!??!?!?

 

[Retro Rob]

I have never seen an Atheist preach anything. Atheism is not a belief system. Has ANYONE here ever had an atheist knock on their door? What the fuck would they even say!??!?!?

Did you read my post? I said "for instance", a theoretical example is what I was making.

I know Atheism isn't a beleif system.

 

[zsdersw]

Proselytizing is amusingly stupid, IMO. Rather than let the "product" speak for itself, it has to be sold.. door to door. That doesn't say anything good about the product.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Some atheists do preach. Not door to door, but in places like this. I believe there was even an atheist ad campaign run in London that ruffled a few feathers.