Yeah, but they weren't murderous dictators due to their atheism, or crusading solely (or mainly) in the name of their atheism.

Hi ernie – still don't care…

Keep reminded me ………. won't you ? 8)

'Cause I'd be gutted if I felt you didn't care enough to remind me 😐

I'd disagree, I think atheists who are vocal have no choice but to consider others and their views in order to highlight the issues with their beliefs.

ernie: still don't care…

I feel it 8)

Atheism is too easy nowadays

Karl Marx : "Philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it."

Yeah, sez you.

Atheism – a non-prophet organisation.

snarf!!

Most religous people are fairly devout, pretty decent people if you ignore their organisation, view of women, non believers, homosexuals, history of oppresion and the fact they have no independently verifiable evidence to support your position.
When this is pointed out to them, rather than defend your position, they attack aethists as devout and preachy which is a fairly weak argument and irony of the highest order.

As an athiest, I have to say at the moment Coyote is coming out tops in this discussion. He has his beliefs and isn't drumming them in but it does seem that the anti-religious people are getting a bit too aggressive. Live and let live he suggested which is a sound practise to support on all sides.

The leader of the atheist movement is the same person they worship. No-one!

I'm pretty sure large numbers of people died as an indirect result of the actions of a number of despotic leaders during the last century, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot among them

But they didnt do it in the name of atheism!

Fair comment. I was commenting on their enthusiasm for promoting their own point of view and complete disregard for others.

But you make two points here. The first is not a criticism although I suspect you are infering that it is. The second you pass off as fact but provide no evidence. Similar to Ernies baseless assertions that some atheists incite hatred.

Live and let live he suggested which is a sound practise to support on all sides.

If only, Samuri. Only one side advocates this message. Its naive to assume that religion is a harmless belief system.

Only one side advocates this message. Its naive to assume that religion is a harmless belief system.

Complete rot. I think you'll find that the vast majority of people be they Christian, Sikh, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, Pagan, Flying Spaghetti Monsterist etc just want to get on with their lives without being told they are wrong. At least that's my experience. There are however extremists on all sides who will not accept someone else's right to hold beliefs.

There are however extremists on all sides who will not accept someone else's right to hold beliefs.

By holding these beliefs the moderate majority give credence to the nutters.
The negatives outweigh the positives and in simple terms religion is not true.

I come over as aggressive on this subject simply because I despise religion with a passion and it's hard to stay civil.

Complete rot. I think you'll find that the vast majority of people be they Christian, Sikh, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, Pagan, Flying Spaghetti Monsterist etc just want to get on with their lives without being told they are wrong. At least that's my experience. There are however extremists on all sides who will not accept someone else's right to hold beliefs.

I dont think you will find the head of the flying spaghetti monster church advocating that the use of condoms between married couples (when one is infected with aids) is wrong, hence contributing to the spread of aids.
Dont recall him (or her, or it!) more recently trying to cover up child abuse within his own church by recommending that perpetrators are not reported to the police.
Indeed I am not sure if it is encumbered by the historical baggage of more established religions and as such it does not benefit from the consierable tax breaks it receives in this country and the US. Thus reducing the resource that could more justly be spent on education or health, to name but two.
Nor am I aware of the spaghetti monster religion lobbying to restrict funding into stem cell research. (One of the most promising and groundbreaking areas of investigation) on the basis of inconsistent, illogical and misinformed fairy stories.

Not really "rot" when you look a bit closer is it Coyote?

The fact that the vast majority or believers in established religions are just "everyday folk" I would not disagree with. However that has nothing really to do with it in the same way that concentration camp guards went home to their families every night and were loving parents.
Some would argue that the above simply gives cover to more extreme views by broadening the base and adding an air of legitimacy to unsubstantiated claims.
While we are on the subject of unsubstantiated claims, do you yet have evidence for the assertion you made earlier that Atheists have no regard for others?

Complete rot. I think you'll find that the vast majority of people be they Christian, Sikh, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, Pagan, Flying Spaghetti Monsterist etc just want to get on with their lives without being told they are wrong. At least that's my experience. There are however extremists on all sides who will not accept someone else's right to hold beliefs.

That's perfectly fine as long as they don't want to have special schools funded by the state to promote their beliefs, or special priveleges.

I'm pretty sure large numbers of people died as an indirect result of the actions of a number of despotic leaders during the last century, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot among them

"But they didnt do it in the name of atheism!"

It shows how little you know about Stalinism. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all persecuted people for their religious views precisely because they were atheist and there is no God. To believe that there is a God, was to contradict their belief system. It was all done very much in the name of atheism. Obviously there are few such examples because atheist states and governments are extraordinarily rare.

Persecution by atheists of people with religious views continues to this day. And it isn't just the Dalai Lama and his followers who suffer, in fact the Falun Gong suffers incomparably more.

The Falun Gong which operates quite freely and legally in 70 countries around the world, has been labelled as an "evil cult" by the atheists in power in Beijing. It's followers are regularly arrested in their hundreds every month, they have been imprisoned and tortured – there are over 3000 documented deaths since Falun Gong was first banned 10 years ago.

But as I said earlier, it would be wrong to tar all atheists with the same brush – in the same way as it would be wrong to tar all Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc, with the same brush.

Similar to Ernies baseless assertions that some atheists incite hatred…………Its naive to assume that religion is a harmless belief system.

You can't see the connection with claiming that religion is dangerous, and inciting hatred ? If I claimed that homosexuality was "dangerous" I wouldn't be inciting hatred against other people's life style ? 😕

Stalinism. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all persecuted people for their religious views precisely because they were atheist and there is no God.

They mostly persecuted people for religious views because the church was an alternative power structure that they didn't control. You could easily argue that the personality cults which such leaders created were a form of religion.

The fact that the vast majority or believers in established religions are just "everyday folk" I would not disagree with. However that has nothing really to do with it in the same way that concentration camp guards went home to their families every night and were loving parents.

Interesting comparison there.

To believe that there is a God, was to contradict their belief system. It was all done very much in the name of atheism. Obviously there are few such examples because atheist states and governments are extraordinarily rare.

But that shows how little you understand, Atheism is not a belief system. Grumms hit the nail on the head with this one anyway.

You can't see the connection with claiming that religion is dangerous, and inciting hatred ?

No I dont see it. Where are all these atheists whipping up hatred? Can you point to any or are you saying the comment that "religion is dangerous" is sufficient to constitute hate speech?

….the church was an alternative power structure that they didn't control

That is very true – they saw religion as dangerous as it didn't fit into their belief system. But I'm not sure whether anything which claims that there is no God can be described as a 'religion'. Although I take your point that it satisfied a common human need. Atheists still need to believe in something……dialectical materialism, evolution, science, etc

Coyote…seems to think faith gives him the moral high ground, typical god botherer! :roll:I don't have religion to burden or judge me..I leave that to the missus.

You may wish to look up the faiths views of infidels, kafirs , gentiles etc if you are calling them benign and tolerant.
You may wish to view their history of forced conversion via conquest and murdering those who refused.
You may wish to look at the Spanish Inquisiton to see their tolerance at work.
You may wish to read about their duty to convert you to save your soul if you think they are benign.

That is very true – they saw religion as dangerous as it didn't fit into their belief system

Your doing it again, what belief system?
In communist countries mistrust of alternative power structures was based on a perception of capitalist exploitation, a belief system based on economics. Religious groups were one part of that, Stalin murdered millions based on political views, race, ethnicity and religion. He did terrible things because he was a terrible person, not in the name of atheism.

Religious people, although it may be comforting to you, there is absolutely no evidence for your belief in higher-beings. These beliefs came about as a result of people trying to explain various natural phenomena and have been refined, by humans, into ways to influence people over the past centuries. Some of these beliefs are philanthropic and others very much less so….

Blind Faith is not a virtue, it just indicates ignorance.

In this country we are constantly forced to consider & 'respect' religious beliefs and we even have representatives of a religion in our upper house of Parliament.

Having no religion requires no leaders, but does make you consider how/why it is that religion has so much influence in society.

You may wish to look at the Spanish Inquisiton to see their tolerance at work.

People aren't "benign" Junkyard. They kill and commit barbaric acts for all sorts of reasons, including religion, politics, race, nationalism, etc.

The Spanish Inquisition no longer operates, and yet people still go to church in Spain.

Atheists still need to believe in something……dialectical materialism, evolution, science, etc

Well edited!

Are you comparing belief in the supernatural to the belief in logic or evolution. One requires belief based on faith the other requires proof and is constantly open to challenge.

He did terrible things because he was a terrible person, not because he was or in the name of atheism.

Surely you could say the same about crimes committed in the name of religion? Lots of atrocites occurred because of greed for power, land, wealth etc.

The thing I always dislike in these conversations is the undercurrent of contempt. It is simply WRONG to assume that someone is stupid because they have religious beliefs. In the same way that it's wrong to believe that those without faith are lacking morals. Neither is a healthy state of mind.

Surely you could say the same about crimes committed in the name of religion?

Not really – nothing that Stalin etc did was ever justified on the basis of there not being a god that wanted it to happen.

It is simply WRONG to assume that someone is stupid because they have religious beliefs

Maybe, maybe not. Hemmingway had a strong opinion!

Well edited!

Edited ? I didn't change anything. I simply added that by "believe in something" I meant for example, dialectical materialism, evolution, science, etc 🙄

You could add "democracy, free speech, tolerance etc"….if you want

belief, it's a funny word.

i don't believe in evolution any more or less than i believe in my kettle.

i know my kettle exists because i remember using it, if i turn around i can see it from here, and i have a hot cup of tea steaming in front of me.

And if i ever start to doubt the existence of my kettle, i can see it, or even use it to make a cup of tea.

But thats not faith in the "blind" sense though it it.

You could rightly go further and argue that people kill for their beliefs, democracy, freedom etc. But those "beliefs" are not baseless.

nothing that Stalin etc did was ever justified on the basis of there not being a god that wanted it to happen.

Stalin justified his persecution of religions on the basis that there is no God.

I'm surprised how many people appear unable to see that point……or maybe not.

oh, and i'm an 'agressive atheist' – mumbo jumbo is taking over the world, and my money is being used to help it, thankyou comrade Tony.

(i'm scared that my nephew will never get to play football / cricket / jumping bricks on a shonky old bmx with a friend called Abdul/ Parminder/ Malik, because all the brown kids get sent to one school to learn about a cloud-man called Allah, and all the pink kids get send to a different school to learn about an invisible friend called jesus/ peter/ gabriel/ monotheism my ar43 – and my money is helping this devisive process, yes i'm an Atheist, and i'm bloody annoyed by all this religion that's still trying to take over the world, seperating people, persecuting individuals who don't conform to a 4000 year old rule book, and demanding special tax-free priveledges while it does so)

(/rant)

These are the same old chestnuts I hear over and over again. Pol Pot this Stalin that etc etc.

Please provide demonstrable evidence for a supreme being and then I'm happy to be converted.

The arrogance of the religious sickens me, not only do you know there is a god but you know it's mind and desires, the hubris this demonstrates is truly remarkable.

Maybe, maybe not.

No. I absolutely assure you that it isn't a healthy way of thinking. You can disagree with people on this issue without holding them all to be idiots. They may be wrong, but that doesn't make them stupid. Especially given the indoctrinating tendencies of religion. If you want to educate people, holding them in contempt to begin with does not seem like a good move. If however, you just want to ridicule people? It's your life.

Hemingway lol. A model of tolerance there!

The thing I always dislike in these conversations is the undercurrent of contempt. It is simply WRONG to assume that someone is stupid because they have religious beliefs. In the same way that it's wrong to believe that those without faith are lacking morals. Neither is a healthy state of mind.

Pretty much the point I'm trying to make.

Oh, and those who know me would laugh their collective arses off at the very notion of me being a Gog-botherer. Shows how quick some people are to judge…

i don't believe in evolution any more or less than i believe in my kettle.

LOL ! I "believe" in evolution …. I consider it to be both "true" and "real" 😀

As I do dialectical materialism and science.

On that ……….. I think I'll leave it 8)

Stalin justified his persecution of religions on the basis that there is no God.

I thought we dealt with this earlier? Stalins motivation was the destruction of potential alternative power sources. He even reinstated the church later when it suited his needs. Hardly the work of someone apparently idelologically opposed to religion.
Stalin was pragmatic in his pursuit of power.
Hitler was a Roman Catholic and was evil. I think he manipulated religion because he was evil however unlike atheism that has no central "belief system" religion lends itself to mass control around a central idea.