Nope. There are plenty of bad things that aren’t close to being religions.
But I despise Communism for the very same reason I despise fundamental type religion. Adherents of both are so damn certain that they’re correct, that people getting hurt by their policies are just an inconvenience, and that those opposed are wrong by definition. Doesn’t much matter if the unbelievers die at Armageddon or during the final Revolution, does it?
First, I’m an atheist so I have no holy book.
And of course you know what I’m talking about. You’re redefining religion so that bad societal/governmental institutions fit. Let me guess-- Naziism was a religion, too, right? Very convenient.
So, there’s nothing—NOTHING—in what Falwell preaches that you think has a nugget of truth in it? Nothing at all? Nothing about tolerance or the teachings of Jesus or forgiveness? Nothing? Either you have the most closed mind in the history of mankind or your just trying to be childish. I grant you there are other posibilities, as well.
Did you not read my post? I said I skip over them or read them from time to time for amusement. Which I will probably be doing to yours if this is the type of thinking you bring to the table.
And there is plenty of rational non- and anti-religious discussions on these boards. More than you’d find in a lot of places. But even atheists on this board have come in here and seperated themselves from him. But not you, nooooo. Your happy to “take what you can get.” Good for you.
Oh, so in your mind, for something to be a religion, it MUST have oppressed and killed millions of people. I thiink I’m understanding you much better now.
But let me ask you, just by way of clarification, is it possible for something to be a religion and not oppress and kill people? Feel free to expand at length.
I know what you’re saying. But you mistake your sayiing it for it having any basis in the real world. Are you that dumbfuck to not see that you’re simply equating religion with killing people and then shoehorning communism into that definition.
Let me ask a corollary of what I asked previously:Is it possible for somethingto be responsible for the oppression and killing of millions and it NOT be a religion?
Based on your defense of said assholism, your time may not be viewed as being as valuable as you think.
You’re the one who brought up you writing (in)abilities, not I. If you don’t want your possible failings commented on, don’t briing them up on a debate board. Seems kin of obvious, really.
Now you’re catching on. And she’s not the only one who will abandoned a discussion when His Assholeness comes in a spews his insane, predictable, anti-religio, anti-military, anti-American nonsense.
Now if you choose to respond, would you please be kind enough to enlighten me, and others, be answering the two questions I asked of you.
Sure. It’s called “Buddhism”.
There are often parallel subthreads running through these threads. I sometimes respond to him saying he has a good point, sometimes saying he has a bad point, but mostly ignore him, with no ill effects. I don’t usually feel he’s being very useful myself. There is an atheist who sends rants into our local paper every so often, and he is being no more useful than the theists who do the same. I’m not saying you should post into threads you don’t like, but just that unless a thread is 100% hijacked (not that common in this case) there is usually plenty of good discussion going on.
I don’t think the evil or good religionist have done tells us much about whether there is a god or not, which is my main objection to his strategy. I’ve also noted that some very moderate religionists here are hypersensitive to criticisms about their beliefs - things much more mild than claims that they are delusional. It’s true that around here atheists get insulted less (not that we get too upset when told we’re going to hell) but in that big outside world things are a lot different. Notice that politicians only got upset with Fred Phelps when he started attacking servicemen. Before that, I have serious questions about whether he’d lose a popularity poll against O’Hare or the guy who tried to eliminate under God from the pledge.
Ah, but that’s not we’re tlaking about here. We’re talking about religion in any shape or form, not just “fundamental type religion”.
Communism usually comes up when someone claims that atheistic governments are evil, with Russia or China as an example. That’s when we respond with the similarities of Communism and religions. In particular, atheism was not the reason for Communist massacres, but rather the desire to eliminate the competition (read heretics) was. Yeah, they attacked the religious, but many right wing Christians in the '50s would have been happy to return the favor.
Hyperbole aside, I haven’t noticed even DT claim that Unitarians run around slaughtering people. BTW, fascism of either the German or Italian varieties was neither atheistic nor a religion. Calling Franco an atheist would have gotten you into a lot of trouble, for one thing.
Don’t you know religious people who aren’t stupid? Do you know anyone with considerable education and knowledge who have spiritual beliefs?
Religious beliefs have a connection to something within us that is separate from just intellect. Perhaps it’s the desire for love and trying to understand exactly what that is. The spiritual journey is pretty subjective. If someone likes classical music and you don’t does that make one of you stupid? Nope. I think we need to accept that different people are moved by different things and try to respect that.
If someone was repeatedly unnecessarily nasty to pyramid boy I think even those who don’t agree would consider them an asshole. I don’t think religion should get special consideration. I agree with Der Trihs about that. I think religious beliefs that spill over into the lives of everybody else are fair game. When my brother sent me a Christian book called “Know the Truth” I take that as an open invitation to express my beliefs. If people want to preach to me they’d better also be prepared to listen. Here on the boards we have stories of atheists being treated rudely by jackasses who claim to be Christians. Is “you’re a gullible irrational fool, and oh yeah, scum as well” more polite than “you’re immoral and going to hell”?
I’ll grant you that. If it is intended as and presented as a generalization as part of communication that’s okay. I still prefer the correct qualifiers. That’s not what we’ve come to expect from DT
I don’t think respect is the right word. It’s hard to respect an asshole just because they’re blatant about it.
I appreciate honesty and straightforwardness. That’s not the same as respect. The compulsion to constantly expound bigotry is also something I can’t respect. I might wonder where it all comes from just like I would wonder about other outrageous attitudes but I doubt I’d respect it.
It’s one thinig to point out siilarities between communism and religion, it’s another to say communism is a religion. Big difference. And as far as pointing out the similartities in these discussions, why? It seems that it is merely a tactic to move the discussion away from the role that atheism may have played in Communist Russia. It seems that is a legitamte discussion to have (if only to point out that there were other and larger factors). But the only reason to bring up religion (other than deflect the debate) is to attempt to equate communism with religion. And that just ain’t the case.
Saying Communism is a religion may or may not be correct depending on one’s definition of a religion. Saying it shares many of the characteristics of a religion is more supportable.
My problem with the whole “atheists killed people” argument is why would we? Why would we suppress religion at all? Now, if you consider opposing establishment and blue laws and religious based prohibitions on abortion and sexual activities oppression, fine. Atheists, however, feel that it doesn’t matter what you believe so long as it doesn’t affect us. Those religionists who oppress people sometimes do it for “their own good” (like forced conversions) or because God told them to (like opposition to homosexuality) or to grab power. But the Communists (or Bolshies, but not a lot of Menshiviks around these days) had power anyway, and oppression of religion seems to make more sense in maintaining power than in terms of atheism. Look at China today. The issue with the ordination of cardinals is not atheism, but the need to prevent an independent power center from springing up.
I gave lots of examples of the near equivalence. BTW, I agree that the cult of personality was not the religious part. That was more like the Roman emperors making themselves divine.
What are you talking about here? Don’t you think his extremism gets him dismissed as easily as it gets him noticed.
I don’t agree. You can strongly vehemently and consistantly oppose without becoming what you decry.
Ineviitable perhaps. That doesn’t mean they’re not both assholes.
Is this your own bias showing?
If you don’t spend much time in GD or the pit then you’re missing it. There are several atheists here who provide a fine example of a better way. Hell, I’m a believer and I can’t stand Falwell or Swaggart. I just don’t think their atheistic clone is all that helpful.
I see what you’re saying and if someone was being an extremist as a form of satire I might agree. If the goal is to show the opposite to stop both thats another issue. I don’t think thats the game plan here. Fighting fire with fire is not the same as fighting unreasoning bigotry with more unreasoning bigotry.
MAybe it’s because you have stopped listening after being exsposed to his BS too often.
They’re right next to the republics oppressed by Buddhism, The Jehova’s Witnesses and The Church of the SubGenius.
Damn, stop pulling a MSwas on the term religion.
[sub]This will probably piss a few people off, but…[/sub]
I like Der Trihs. I find both his views and his presentation refreshingly honest and unpretentious. For years, I’ve been baffled by the special priviledges granted to religious claims in public discourse. They seem to exist inside some intellectual twilight zone, the inhabitants of which have all conspired never to treat them as claims about the world that can be checked. Moreover, it is considered the height of impolitic to deny the veracity of the religious beliefs of others, no matter how batshit insane they might be. A man can claim he is in dialogue with the creator of the universe, that an ordinary snack cracker can be transformed into the living flesh of the Godhead when placed in close proximity to a few latin verses, and that on death his spirit will shed its corporeal ballast and ascend into the heavens for all eternity, and propriety dictates his bizarre assertions remain unquestioned. Yet is there any doubt whatsoever that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad?
People like Der Trihs are keenly aware that organised religions are nothing more than arcane agglomerations of culturally acceptable delusions, supported by not even the merest scintilla of empirically verifiable evidence. Furthermore, they resent the fact that these delusions are taken into account when those in power make decisions which potentially affect them. Perhaps his abraisive manner was forged through repeated encounters with people who believe, as over 20% of Americans do, that Jesus will personally descend from the heavens, like some demented Marvel action hero, to smite the wicked and reward the righteous some time in the next fifty years. Whatever influenced his approach, I find it a pleasing antidote to the forced deference pervading the posts of those labouring under the specious ideology that religious beliefs should be accorded more respect than, say, historical ones.
So you and Der Trihs think that the best way to present your argument is without support by not even the merest scintilla of empirically verifiable evidence? Huh.
Since you and Der Shit are so keenly aware that religion is so riduculous, perhaps you can share your proof with us. You show the same disrespect and that shithead, albeit coated in a syrupy suger coating. Has it dawned on you that you may, just maybe, maybe, maybe be wrong. If not, you seem to be just as close minded as the religious fanatics you detest.
The same threshold cannot be used for evaluting religious beliefs. It seeks to answer differetn questions than science. Science is more concerned with “how”, while religion is more concerned with “why”. Religion involves faith, which by its very definition, is not in the realm of the provable.
Communism is not a Religion (big “r”). Period. Can you couch it in a way that it shares characteristics with religion? Or contort the defintion enough as to make it easier to slide communism into it? Sure. Why you would want to go through those contortions is beyond me. I’m sure I can contort the definition of a pinball machine to say it is a rabbit.
But atheists did kill people. Million of them. Religious people have, as well. Those are facts. The reason, the ideology they espoused didn’t seem to be working and they thought they’d “help” it out. I don’t know why you (and others) are so afraid of the facts of history. No one is saying that atheist necessarily kill people. I know many atheists who have killed know one. The problem seems to arise when someone buys into Soviet style communism.
You have failed to attain The Slack. Fear the Stark Fist of Removal!
I’m going to TRY to be serious now. Anyone who says all religions by their very nature, or by their very existence are evil or kill people or are the sole cause of all bad things, whatever, is just lazy.
People have used religion, fascism, communism, nazism, nationalism, ALL SORTS of “isms”, “my king’s better than your king”, reasons or excuses to kill someone else. Wipe all religion from existence, and people will STILL kill each other. There will always be greed, ambition, hate, etc. It’s people that are the problem.
bolding mine
Yes. Amen. Absofuckinglutely.
-Denis (who has stopped laboring to achieve the Slack, and thus, has it)
I’m not sensing honesty from Der Trihs.
As I said in the linked thread, they don’t make liberals like they used to. I protested war before DS was born because I became a pacifist. He makes war almost wherever he posts.
How rational and honest is this statement?
One can’t exaggerate for effect and be literally honest at the same time. Der Trihs makes too many exaggerated claims for me to take him seriously when I would like to.
You do have my curiousity up. Has Der Trihs been attacked by “hellfire and brimstone” fundamentalists at SDMB? (I don’t always read the religious threads.) I am not implying that all fundamentalists are “hellfire and brimstone.” I hope that that term conveys something more specific.
Would someone please ask a mod to fix my miserable coding?