Atheistic Atrocities

Originally posted by clearlight
Another tedious thread. Atheists do not commit atrocities in the name of atheism - the fact that an atheist may or may not commit an atrociity is irrelevant to their being an atheist. The same can not be said of atrocities commited in the name of God.

See, scottishinnz?

This is the type of ignorance I dislike about some of my fellow atheists. They speak with this type of conviction without a clear knowledge of history.

Sadly, it seems to have become the gospel among our majority.

Originally posted by Palynka
See, scottishinnz?

This is the type of ignorance I dislike about some of my fellow atheists. They speak with this type of conviction without a clear knowledge of history.

Sadly, it seems to have become the gospel among our majority.

"But the particular gorilllas in question ARE trying to make everyone join in, they are promulgating their rules, to try and fundamentally change the rules under which we live." -- scottishinnz

I will now perform a miracle: Replace 'gorillas' with 'Muslims' and scottishinnz is transformed into Der Schwarzer Ritter.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
"But the particular gorilllas in question ARE trying to make everyone join in, they are promulgating their rules, to try and fundamentally change the rules under which we live." -- scottishinnz

I will now perform a miracle: Replace 'gorillas' with 'Muslims' and scottishinnz is transformed into Der Schwarzer Ritter.

I must have really hacked you off.

Such a happy feeling inside.


But yes, ALL religions are trying to increase their numbers of followers, and increase their influence in society, and that is a bad thing. The difference between me and DSR is that I don't think the people are inferior, just deluded.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I will now perform a miracle: Replace 'gorillas' with 'Muslims' and scottishinnz is transformed into Der Schwarzer Ritter.

Why do any replacing? It was quite clear which "particular gorillas" he was referring to, and I am sure that the Muslims are within that set of gorillas. I do not think he used 'gorillas' in a derogatory way but was simply going along with the analogy.

Since I agree with his statement and know nothing about Der Schwarzer Ritter can you perhaps enlighten me as to how I am like him/her? Is that statement his/her defining point? Is that a bad thing?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why do any replacing? It was quite clear which "particular gorillas" he was referring to, and I am sure that the Muslims are within that set of gorillas. I do not think he used 'gorillas' in a derogatory way but was simply going along with the analogy.

Since I agree with his statement and know nothing about Der Schwarzer Ritter can you perhaps enlighte ...[text shortened]... as to how I am like him/her? Is that statement his/her defining point? Is that a bad thing?

Strange reaction.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Name some atrocities that have been carried out in the name of atheism.

Could the problem lie, not with carrying out atrocities in the name of God or atheism, but with carrying out atrocities in the name of any guiding utopian ideology, wherther sacred or secular?

My motto: be pragmatic and realistic, not fanatic and idealistic.

Originally posted by scottishinnz

But yes, ALL religions are trying to increase their numbers of followers, and increase their influence in society, and that is a bad thing.

So is practically every organization under the sun, from the local youth club to multinational corporations. Perhaps every form of corporate activity is bad. I've certainly met people who would demonise your line of work.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Could the problem lie, not with carrying out atrocities in the name of God or atheism, but with carrying out atrocities in the name of any guiding utopian ideology, wherther sacred or secular?

Self-evidently.

Originally posted by twhitehead
'the Muslims'

Grammatical bigotry.

If you're happy to make sweeping and possibly harmful generalisations, then you're like DSR, ie. a bigot.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Could the problem lie, not with carrying out atrocities in the name of God or atheism, but with carrying out atrocities in the name of any guiding utopian ideology, wherther sacred or secular?

My motto: be pragmatic and realistic, not fanatic and idealistic.

Pretty much. The thing is there isn't a real ideology to atheism as I see it, although some people attach other ideologies to it.

Atheists are equally as prone to the human tendency to organize themselves in groups and the desire to think that their group is superior and they are equally as prone to fanatical ideologies too.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Self-evidently.

Well, okay, atrocities are self-evidently bad.

The point I want to make is that any all-conquering ideology, be it theistic or atheist, can lead to the rationalization of evil acts, which would otherwise be regarded as atrocities.

What should be decried is not necessarily belief in God or disbelief in God, but rather any belief or disbelief in X that comes to be regarded in itself as the sine qua non of morality, or as a sure sign that one endorses some set of beliefs or practices that is regarded as sine qua non of morality. One belief or disbelief in X acquires this status, it can be used to justify all manner of outrages.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Grammatical bigotry.

If you're happy to make sweeping and possibly harmful generalisations, then you're like DSR, ie. a bigot.

Is everyone who is happy to make sweeping and possibly harmful generalizations a bigot, or only some?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Well, okay, atrocities are self-evidently bad.

The point I want to make is that any all-conquering ideology, be it theistic or atheist, can lead to the rationalization of evil acts, which would otherwise be regarded as atrocities.

I get it, already. I was doing my best to agree with you. Your point about rationalization is what seems blindingly obvious.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Is everyone who is happy to make sweeping and possibly harmful generalizations a bigot, or only some?

I left out a 'such'.

But yes, more or less, yes.

Is your statement a sweeping and possibly harmful generalization, or does it stand up to scrutiny? Shall we fabricate some generalizations and test their potential for harm?

Complete this sentence:
All women are ...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I get it, already. I was doing my best to agree with you. Your point about rationalization is what seems blindingly obvious.

But not to theistic and atheist ideologues, who identify the source of all evil in one another, rather than in own their tendency to do so.