Yes, but if the one devout capitalist is the CEO of United Fruit, or some other megacorporation, when the workers get too uppity they call in the goon squads, or stage a coup, or whatever is needed to keep the profits rolling in. A whole lot of the history of South America relates to what European and later American businesses did in the name of profits.
Correction: they didn’t really do things in the name of profits, as that wasn’t a particulary good marketing strategy. No, it was all about freedom or whatever other things they cooked up to send in the police, or Marines, or whoever.
Sure, capitalism isn’t bloodless. I still prefer it to the other two. Heck, as systems of government go, compare Soviet communism at its height, the Holy Roman Empire at its height and, say, the somewhat satirical ultra-capitalism as portrayed in the RoboCop movies. I’ll take Delta City over Florence or Moscow.
Along those lines and considering the correlation between libertarianism and people like Stormfronters and militia members, I’d guess that one devout libertarian in two is potentially homicidal in defending their cause.
Most religious people have been brainwashed. They were taught by their parents that God exists during a very sensitive stage of brain development. Now that they are in their mental decline it will take years of persistent nagging in order to help them realize the truth about their place in the world. Luckily for them, the SDMB offers that service.
That’s not capitalism or any version of libertarianism. Capitalism and libertarianism require that people not be compelled into making their decisions.
ETA: And how exactly do you define “homicidal in defending his cause”? I mean, I would certainly fight anyone who tried to impose Communism by force upon the U.S. (of course, that is a scenario which is just not going to happen), but I suspect that’s not what you meant.
Well, let’s be fair. Communism in theory doesn’t require mass murder, Christianity in theory doesn’t require inquisitional torture, but we examine the practices, rather than the theory. It wouldn’t be fair to dismiss deaths that result from union busting and whatnot simply because in theory they aren’t part of capitalism.
As for what is meant by “homicidal in defending their cause”, I’m considering how likely it is for a devout follower of a particular theory to resort to violence and murder when things don’t go as planned, i.e. when they run into someone who doesn’t accept the theory. Communists were fond of gulags; Catholics were fond of wars and inquisitions; Capitalists are fond of… I dunno, suing people?
I suppose I’m one of the silent majority–the 95% of Christians who are fairly reasonable people, mentioned upthread.
I guess all I have to offer is: it’s not my business what you believe in or don’t believe in. I honestly don’t mind if you’re atheist or Christian or Jewish or Pastafarian or whatever. If you think I’m wrong, that’s fine, we can agree to disagree. I respect you, and I hope that you respect me.
It goes without saying: for those on ‘my side’, or whatever you want to call it, who are acting like asshats–Fred Phelps and etc.–I apologize. We don’t want them in humanity’s roll call anymore than you do.
That’s not what I thought the definition was. I thought it was what you describe below.
And there clearly is a loud anti-religious contingent here. I’ve been on some atheist boards where they foster that. And I’ve been on some atheist boards where they virtually stomp on it. I’d say that it’s allowed here.
But as far as the thread the OP linked, that had less to do with religion than it did with posting style, I think.
Indeed. This is evidenced by the large number of threads that purport to discuss the evils or dangers of religion. These threads invariably lump all religions together and paint them with a broad brush, despite the tremendous variability in religious beliefs.
That’s a pretty good indication that people are arguing based on entrenched antireligious thinking rather than proceeding from empirical evidence.
I think you significantly overestimate the extent of this variability and if it’s all just a matter of selecting this or that set of arbitrary beliefs, what difference could it make?
And does it matter if an atheist acknowledges that 95% or more of religious people aren’t a problem; it’s the loudmouth extremists that create the conflict?
The mere fact that you paint religion in this manner demonstrates my point.
The major religions certainly do not simply “select this or that set of arbitrary beliefs.” Christian theologians, for example, do not simply say, “Ooh, I kinda like this doctrine, so I’ll pick this one to adopt.” Obviously, not all of these beliefs can be correct, but to insist that they are all merely arbitary is a pretty bigoted and ignorant statement.
As I said, your response demonstrates my point… namely, that religion is routinely painted around here with a broad brush, one that fails to consider the nuances of the various beliefs or in the differences between them.
When people start threads about the evils of religion, then their choice of words shows that they are addressing religion itself, not just the extremists.
If they were to merely address the loudmouth extremists, then we would have less cause for disagreement. Instead, religion itself is routinely blamed around here with nary an objection.
Okay, what about Christianity is not arbitrary? What elements of its various dogmas are verifiable by independent research? Don’t expect me to be impressed just because you claim to have taken offense; prove me wrong. As I see it, even Christians aren’t certain what comprises Christian belief, hence the various schisms and reformations and such. If a modern-day Martin Luther came forth and proposed a radical change in Christian belief, would he be right? Would he be wrong? How would you know?
The variable religious beliefs don’t matter, because they all have at least one thing in common : they are baseless. As Bryan Ekers points out; the beliefs in question are all arbitrary; simply declared to be true without any evidence, any basis in fact, and without any way to declare one more true than the other. So, they all do fit in the same category; that of empty, meaningless assertions.
Or to be blunter about it; garbage is garbage, and all religions are garbage. Being garbage is part of what makes a religion a religion; if it was worthwhile, it wouldn’t be a religion. It would have some basis in fact; have some claim to being taken seriously beyond a demand to be taken on faith. Religion is what people label beliefs they want to be taken seriously but they can’t defend. Being wrong, or at least baseless is part of what makes something religious.
The differences that seem so important to you, aren’t important to someone who doesn’t have an emotional investment in taking mythology seriously.
They’re absolutely arbitrary. The mere fact that a believer would choose one religion over another is proof that it’s arbitrary. They like the feel of a particular religion so they choose to attend, study, and believe the teachings of that particular religion.
Sure there are differences. But the god(s) concept is present in all of them. If I can’t get past that common denominator, it really doesn’t make a difference what the rest of it says.
There are evils and there are evils. There are still basics that apply across the board that are considered by many to be detrimental to mankind.
They are not arbitrary within their own belief systems, which I’m sure you’d find baseless. But you’re missing the point. JThunder correctly pointed out how often people on this board paint all religions as the same–toss 'em all in the same pile, there’s no real difference anyway. On cue, you parachute in and basically say, “But all religions are the same!” That’s the point of contention, I believe. You won’t even consider the possibility, apparently, that any two religions might vary significantly in their danger or “evilness,” a notion that is ridiculous on its face, but that dovetails nicely with the orthodoxy of a significant subset of this board. IMHO, of course.