Author Topic: Religion  (Read 451510 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SmileyMan

  • Star Wars Padawan
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1620 on: April 12, 2008, 03:59:57 pm »
Saying Marxists oppress in the name of atheism is wrong (Which, by the way, is what I've been debating for the whole time), as atheism, unlike the Abrahamic Trinity etc., doesn't teach any values; it is simply "lack of faith". Marxists believe religion is irrational and stupifies the population, and this is why they oppress religion, but this isn't in the name of atheism - this is a political ideology.


Also:
Quote from: Wikipedia
Discrimination against atheists is a negative categorical bias against atheists or secularism. Such prejudice and discrimination is a type of religious intolerance. Anti-atheist prejudice can be held by individuals or groups, and may be the result of religious fanaticism or bigotry. Anti-atheist discrimination is practiced by opponents of secularism. As a mental and emotional attitude, anti-atheist discrimination leads to stereotyping, hate, and oppression. Anti-atheist prejudice results in the dissemination of hate speech, the commission of hate crimes, and the formation of hate groups, as well as other forms of discriminatory behavior. Widespread anti-atheist discrimination may attach social stigma to atheists or those of secular beliefs, and may result in an experience of social inequality by atheists. In nations where freedom of belief is biased towards established religions, the issue becomes persecution of atheists.

Source
« Last Edit: April 12, 2008, 07:43:17 pm by SmileyMan »

Offline 762

  • Goddess of Phobos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5073
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1621 on: April 12, 2008, 04:01:40 pm »
I think it's fair to say that just about every minority has been oppressed at some point in history or is being oppressed somewhere on the planet today.

Christians were oppressed by the Romans
Atheists were oppressed by the Christians
Atheists will oppress will oppress if they ever get to be in the majority.

Especially if you're going to be so technical about oppression. With your first definition, Dr. Croccer, you'd be hardpressed to find a good parent who doesn't act like a "tyrant."

Spore countdowns: USA Europe

Offline Kcronos

  • Boulder Dasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 3651
  • The Dark Time Lord
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1622 on: April 12, 2008, 04:28:19 pm »
I think it's fair to say that just about every minority has been oppressed at some point in history or is being oppressed somewhere on the planet today.

Christians were oppressed by the Romans
Atheists were oppressed by the Christians
Atheists will oppress will oppress if they ever get to be in the majority.

Especially if you're going to be so technical about oppression. With your first definition, Dr. Croccer, you'd be hardpressed to find a good parent who doesn't act like a "tyrant."

Probably, but they won't oppress in a religious sense, most likely.  Probably would cause a switch over to political ideologies, or even different scientific theories...

String theorists are becoming more and more fanatical every year...
* Plank of Wood slaps


GET A HOLD OF YOURSELF MAN. THE REVIEWS DO NOT EFFECT ANYTHING EVER.

QFT

Offline Dr. Croccer

  • Vanguard Venturer
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Ceci n'est pas un gueu
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1623 on: April 13, 2008, 04:54:56 am »
Saying Marxists oppress in the name of atheism is wrong (Which, by the way, is what I've been debating for the whole time), as atheism, unlike the Abrahamic Trinity etc., doesn't teach any values; it is simply "lack of faith".
Which means it is even easier to fight in the name of it. Pretty much every irreligious person can be considered an Atheist.

And because Atheism teaches no values it's unable to fight in it's name? I fail to see your logic.

 
Quote
Marxists believe religion is irrational and stupifies the population, and this is why they oppress religion, but this isn't in the name of atheism - this is a political ideology.
  How many times do I have to tell you that Marxism has irreligious fundementals. The main point of Marxism is to create a class-less society. The Class society that existed at Marx's time was similair to the class society that existed before. Marx knew that. He quoted examples in the Manifesto of Roman patricians and feudal serfs. The class society consisted of three classes. First was the clergy, second the bourgoise and third the ''classless'', or everyone that wasn't a part of the first or second class. That was the basic social layout from 500 to 1800. A lot of critiscism was expressed towards the clergy. Mainly for being a ruling class that had rights whereas the third did not have any rights and had to pay taxes. During the French revolution for instance, some rebel leaders were called ''militant atheists'' because they sometimes treated the church the same as the bourgoise.

From 1800 to 1920 there was a new social order, mainly due to the Enlightenment, the revolutions and the Industrial Revolution. I think this picture explains it nicely.


The church still was one of the ruling elite and critisced as well. They didn't, like the bourgoise, react positive towards Communism. Most notably the Russian Czars, who still had serfdom untill 1861 after sufficient protests. There still was little attention to workers and there were no guilds untill the creation of Soviets. The Russian Czars were believed to be put in their place by God and only had to answer to the aforementioned. The Russian royal family, like most European monarchies of the time, were closely intertwined with religion, hence the brutal treatment of the clergy under the Commies.

And add the ''opiate of the masses'' and others and it's quite clear that Marxism is anti-religious and/or atheist in general.


Also:
Quote from: Wikipedia
Discrimination against atheists is a negative categorical bias against atheists or secularism. Such prejudice and discrimination is a type of religious intolerance. Anti-atheist prejudice can be held by individuals or groups, and may be the result of religious fanaticism or bigotry. Anti-atheist discrimination is practiced by opponents of secularism. As a mental and emotional attitude, anti-atheist discrimination leads to stereotyping, hate, and oppression. Anti-atheist prejudice results in the dissemination of hate speech, the commission of hate crimes, and the formation of hate groups, as well as other forms of discriminatory behavior. Widespread anti-atheist discrimination may attach social stigma to atheists or those of secular beliefs, and may result in an experience of social inequality by atheists. In nations where freedom of belief is biased towards established religions, the issue becomes persecution of atheists.
Enter the strawman. It's says that discrimination leads to oppression, not that discrimination equals oppression. I.e. they are two different things.

Source

[/quote]

Offline Kcronos

  • Boulder Dasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 3651
  • The Dark Time Lord
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1624 on: April 13, 2008, 05:06:18 am »
Discrimination is the same as oppression.  Ask any African American that lived from 1865 to 1960...
* Plank of Wood slaps


GET A HOLD OF YOURSELF MAN. THE REVIEWS DO NOT EFFECT ANYTHING EVER.

QFT

Offline Mr. Consideration

  • Goddess of Phobos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5089
  • Merry Christmarx, one and all!
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1625 on: April 13, 2008, 05:24:42 am »
Discrimination is the same as oppression.  Ask any African American that lived from 1865 to 1960...

I'm inclined to disagree; Oppression implies it is the action of some kind of authority; I can discriminate against people I have no authority over.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone elses opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation." - Oscar Wilde

Yes, I am aware of the irony.

Offline Dr. Croccer

  • Vanguard Venturer
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Ceci n'est pas un gueu
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1626 on: April 13, 2008, 05:28:02 am »
Discrimination is the same as oppression.  Ask any African American that lived from 1865 to 1960...

I'm inclined to disagree; Oppression implies it is the action of some kind of authority; I can discriminate against people I have no authority over.
Same here. Oppression usually requires authority and/or force, discrimination is usually non-violent injustice rather than police brutality.

Offline SmileyMan

  • Star Wars Padawan
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1627 on: April 13, 2008, 06:19:10 am »
Saying Marxists oppress in the name of atheism is wrong (Which, by the way, is what I've been debating for the whole time), as atheism, unlike the Abrahamic Trinity etc., doesn't teach any values; it is simply "lack of faith".
Which means it is even easier to fight in the name of it. Pretty much every irreligious person can be considered an Atheist.

And because Atheism teaches no values it's unable to fight in it's name? I fail to see your logic.


You need to get into your head that there's a huge difference between atheism and anti-religiosity. You can fight in name of anti-religiosity because it contains values and principles, but you can't fight in the name of atheism as atheism, doesn't contain any values or principles; it is simply lack of belief. The same goes for theism. Theism is empty of principles and values; religions fill out the space by exploiting the belief in a diety/god. Saying Marxists oppress in the name of atheism is like saying Bush invaded Iraq because of his non-belief in the Easter Bunny - they are simply not connected. I do think being anti-religious is easier when you're an atheist, because atheists lack belief in a god, while a theist still has belief in a god but has to reject the system that teaches the values and principles that, supposedly, the god created.

Anti-religiosity is to atheism as christianity/islam is to theism.

The above example isn't completely true because, as I've said, theists can be anti-religious too, but it sort of explains what I'm trying to say.

Quote
How many times do I have to tell you that Marxism has irreligious fundementals. The main point of Marxism is to create a class-less society.

They might've had irreligious fundamentals, but this had no connection to whether they were atheistic or theistic in belief, because both types can be irreligious.


And again, I'm debating against "-in the name of atheism".


« Last Edit: April 13, 2008, 06:40:25 am by SmileyMan »

Offline Dr. Croccer

  • Vanguard Venturer
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Ceci n'est pas un gueu
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1628 on: April 13, 2008, 07:52:03 am »
Saying Marxists oppress in the name of atheism is wrong (Which, by the way, is what I've been debating for the whole time), as atheism, unlike the Abrahamic Trinity etc., doesn't teach any values; it is simply "lack of faith".
Which means it is even easier to fight in the name of it. Pretty much every irreligious person can be considered an Atheist.

And because Atheism teaches no values it's unable to fight in it's name? I fail to see your logic.


You need to get into your head that there's a huge difference between atheism and anti-religiosity.
Please quote the post where I denied that, for I'm having a hard time finding it. Atheism =/= anti-religion per se but because it's such a broad term it can refer to anything from simply being irreligious to hating theism with the intensity of a thousand desert suns. Hence why I have ''and/or''.

Quote
You can fight in name of anti-religiosity because it contains values and principles, but you can't fight in the name of atheism as atheism, doesn't contain any values or principles; it is simply lack of belief. The same goes for theism. Theism is empty of principles and values; religions fill out the space by exploiting the belief in a diety/god.
Now you've completely lost me. There is a rulebook for hating religion? And again, please explain how you can fight in the name of something with values and principle but can't with something that has neither of the two. And Theism is religion. Polytheism, monotheist religions, agnosticism, etc. I have no idea how your logic works and I would like to see some elaboration.

 
Quote
Saying Marxists oppress in the name of atheism is like saying Bush invaded Iraq because of his non-belief in the Easter Bunny - they are simply not connected.
They obviously are, did you miss my damn lecture or something? Seriously, read a book. The Communist Manifesto preferably. It's quite obvious from reading it that Marxism is against the classes that ''oppress'' the people: the bourgoise, clergy, government and army. Clear dislike towards the clergy, notably the pope and the Czar and Marx portays both as enemies of Communism. The intro of the Manifesto:

''A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of Communism. All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.
Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?''

And the ending.

''The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE! ''

As well as the fact that pretty much all Communist nations have enforced state Atheism. Look it up.


 
Quote
I do think being anti-religious is easier when you're an atheist, because atheists lack belief in a god, while a theist still has belief in a god but has to reject the system that teaches the values and principles that, supposedly, the god created.
An anti-religious theist is quite the oxymoron. As a theist is religious, when he becomes anti-religious he is anti-theist or/and atheist. Once again, your logic astounds me.

Quote
Anti-religiosity is to atheism as christianity/islam is to theism.
No ****. I see contradicition in your posts though.

Quote
The above example isn't completely true because, as I've said, theists can be anti-religious too, but it sort of explains what I'm trying to say.
Again, how can someone be theist and anti-theist at the same time? It's like saying that a anti-Commie can be Commie at the same time, which is impossible.

Quote
How many times do I have to tell you that Marxism has irreligious fundementals. The main point of Marxism is to create a class-less society.

Quote
They might've had irreligious fundamentals, but this had no connection to whether they were atheistic or theistic in belief, because both types can be irreligious.
They obviously did because every Communist nation enforced State Atheism and several persecuted the devout. And once again, Wot.


Quote
And again, I'm debating against "-in the name of atheism".
Which is a lost cause. You say that you can't fight in the name in theory, even though it has happened more than once. It's like saying that you can't fight in the name of Islam because there are no infallible Imams, yet that doesn't stop Al Queda and other gangs from doing so.



[/quote]

Offline SmileyMan

  • Star Wars Padawan
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1629 on: April 13, 2008, 08:15:21 am »
Dr. Croccer, you repeatedly miss the point I'm trying to make. You can't fight in the name of theism/atheism/polytheism, because the three don't have values or principles in THEMSELVES.

(Poly)Theism: "I believe in God/gods"
(Poly)Theism combined with religion: "I believe in God/gods, and He says I must hate them immigrants, or else I'm going to Hell" (Example)

Atheism: "I don't believe in God/gods"
Atheism combined anti-religiosity (Which was the case with communism): "I don't believe in God/gods, and religions must be destroyed"

You can't fight in the name of atheism because it, like (poly)theism without religion, has no values or principles. A thing needs values and principles before you can say "-in the name [thing]" If you say "In the name of atheism", all you saying is "In the name of the lack of belief in a god(s)" - why say that? There's no reason to say that, is it doesn't have any values or principles. Now, if you say "In the name of anti-religiosity" then there's a lot of values and principles, like "Religion is bad. It must be removed" etc. Atheism/Theism/Polytheism and entirely neutral in themselves.

Now, do you agree with me that you can't say "Killing in the name of atheism"? Please provide arguments if not. And nothing of what you wrote in your post really argued against what I'm trying make clear here.

Quote
They obviously are, did you miss my damn lecture or something? Seriously, read a book.

Ad hominem.

Offline Dr. Croccer

  • Vanguard Venturer
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Ceci n'est pas un gueu
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1630 on: April 13, 2008, 08:55:16 am »
Dr. Croccer, you repeatedly miss the point I'm trying to make.
No, you failed to provide some elboration, which is here finally.

 
Quote
You can't fight in the name of theism/atheism/polytheism, because the three don't have values or principles in THEMSELVES.

(Poly)Theism: "I believe in God/gods"
(Poly)Theism combined with religion: "I believe in God/gods, and He says I must hate them immigrants, or else I'm going to Hell" (Example)

Atheism: "I don't believe in God/gods"
Atheism combined anti-religiosity (Which was the case with communism): "I don't believe in God/gods, and religions must be destroyed"

You can't fight in the name of atheism because it, like (poly)theism without religion, has no values or principles. A thing needs values and principles before you can say "-in the name [thing]" If you say "In the name of atheism", all you saying is "In the name of the lack of belief in a god(s)" - why say that? There's no reason to say that, is it doesn't have any values or principles. Now, if you say "In the name of anti-religiosity" then there's a lot of values and principles, like "Religion is bad. It must be removed" etc. Atheism/Theism/Polytheism and entirely neutral in themselves.
What a way to miss the point. Even though you are right, it means jack****. Once again, what you are talking about is the schematics and details and generally being apologist about it. That doesn't mean that less educated people didn't fight in the self-proclaimed and nonexistant name of Atheism. It's like giving good arguments on why you cant fight in the name of Christ but that doesn't mean the Crusades werent fought or are forgiven.

Quote
Now, do you agree with me that you can't say "Killing in the name of atheism"?
Duh. But again, that doesn't mean people didn't do it. Get it now? Technically, you can't fight in the name of Christ because the Pope doesn't represent him nor does Catholiscism and he's dead after all but that doesn't mean that the Crusades weren't waged by Christians dead certain that they were fighting in the name of Christendom.

Just because they aren't representative and probably wrong, doesn't mean that they will be considered *insert group here*

Quote
Please provide arguments if not.
Again?

 
Quote
And nothing of what you wrote in your post really argued against what I'm trying make clear here.
Don't flatter yourself. If your original arguments had any point at all then we still would have been comparing religious and Atheists in terms of atrocities rather than ''killing in the name of''.

Quote
They obviously are, did you miss my damn lecture or something? Seriously, read a book.

Ad hominem.
[/quote] Why do people always quote only partially to make others look bad?

Look a little further. Ad hominem indeed.

Offline SmileyMan

  • Star Wars Padawan
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1631 on: April 13, 2008, 09:32:04 am »

What a way to miss the point. Even though you are right, it means jack****. Once again, what you are talking about is the schematics and details and generally being apologist about it. That doesn't mean that less educated people didn't fight in the self-proclaimed and nonexistant name of Atheism. It's like giving good arguments on why you cant fight in the name of Christ but that doesn't mean the Crusades werent fought or are forgiven.

You still haven't understood what I'm trying to say. You can fight "in the name of Christ" perfectly fine, because "Jesus Christ" contains values and principles about different things in the christian religion. No values and principles; no "-in the name of". People who say "... in the name of atheism" are wrong and must replace "atheism" with something else; in the communists' case it is state atheism and anti-religiosity.

I'm not an apologist; I'm clarifying a common error people make with both with atheism and theism. I agree that communists killed in the name of state atheism and anti-religious political ideologies, but they did not do it "in the name of atheism".

Quote
Duh. But again, that doesn't mean people didn't do it. Get it now? Technically, you can't fight in the name of Christ because the Pope doesn't represent him nor does Catholiscism and he's dead after all but that doesn't mean that the Crusades weren't waged by Christians dead certain that they were fighting in the name of Christendom.

You can say 2+2=5, but you're still wrong. Same goes with this. And as I pointed out above, you can fight in the name of Jesus Christ/Christendom/Islam/Muhammed/Hindu/Capitalism/Communism/Marxism/whatever, as long as it contains values and principles.

Quote
Don't flatter yourself. If your original arguments had any point at all then we still would have been comparing religious and Atheists in terms of atrocities rather than ''killing in the name of''.

Wrong. Once again you show your misunderstanding of what I'm trying to say here. Either change it to

religious and anti-religious
or
theists and atheists (Which would be an error, therefore the first one is the only valid one)

Offline Snake Plissken

  • Phoenix Fighter
  • **
  • Posts: 153
  • Resident Evil 5 coming in March 13, '09
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1632 on: April 13, 2008, 09:53:52 am »
I HATE when people get Ireland and Scotland confused.

They're not actually that similar!

I got the same opinions like you. The only thing is, I get Ireland and Italy. confused too often. I blame myself for something like that.

Offline Tesla

  • Street Fighter Champion
  • *****
  • Posts: 10604
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1633 on: April 13, 2008, 10:40:02 am »
Ireland and Italy?!

I'm lost.
No way dude, you're trolling me.

Offline Mae

  • Moon Patroller
  • *****
  • Posts: 1476
  • NOOO!
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1634 on: April 13, 2008, 10:41:55 am »
Pizza... Ale.


They'd be difficult to confuse, at least in my mind.