Trek's View of Religion

[Kaziarl]

Well, it didn't exactly happen that way. What happened was that the Roman Empire persecuted Christians for the first 3 centuries, until Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan and proclaimed religious toleration, making Christianity legal; several decades later, Theodosius made it the official state religion, and it remained so in the Western Roman Empire until its fall, and in the Eastern Roman Empire aka Byzantium for another thousand years, until its own fall under the Ottomans. Christianity went from the great internal threat to the cornerstone of the state, and, later, of a religious organization that was even more powerful than kings and emperors during the early Middle Ages. From an extremely subversive and, one may say, revolutionary religious movement that early Christianity was (aimed against the rich, the Roman authorities and the Jewish religious establishment, and in favor of the poor and the outcasts) it turned into a dominant, official religion and the source of power and authority - and increasingly, of intolerance and persecution. The same process can be observed with pretty much every subversive movement, whether religious or ideological, after it gains wide acceptance (say, communism - the parallels can be astounding).

Of course, that doesn't mean that Christianity would not still be subversive in the centuries to come - but that time, it was in the shape of various 'heretical' movements during the Middle Ages, and later Protestant movement, against the official church(es).

You are correct, I did leave quite a bit out. The main point I was trying to illustrate was that initially the Romans weren't quite so "Tolerant" as some believe. And also that yes, these kinds of acts can come from all facets of society. But I thank you for the additional information, I had forgotten about some of that.

 

[lawman]

The time when we get rid of our superstitions couldn't come fast enough, that's what I believe. It only leads to bigotry, death, pain, wars and destruction.

The faster it's gone, the better off we'll be.

Hear, hear.

The problem, of course, is that people who are attached to those superstitions will read this sort of thing and immediately accuse you of wanting to coerce them into giving up those beliefs, through bigotry, pain, etc. It's not what you said, and I'm sure not what you meant, but there's something about the mindset of True Believers in any kind of dogma (religious or otherwise) that assumes disagreeing with someone else's views means you must want to forcibly suppress those views.

And [Bread and Circuses is] one of the WORST episodes EVER, exactly because of this. ...

...the disdain the idiotic Enterprise crew show those who believe in the "sun", until they figure out it's the "son" is just nuts.

Notwithstanding that this episode was written by the allegedly atheistic Gene Roddenberry himself, I'd have to agree with you. The whole episode is weak, but that final scene is just cringeworthy, and completely out of keeping with the ethos of Trek in general.

Unfortunately, your own post demonstrates just as much ignorance and intolerance as you ascribe to Christianity...

3D Master did a pretty good job of defending himself, but let me weigh in here anyway:

No, he doesn't. The only thing he displays "intolerance" of is intolerance itself, which is not a philosophical inconsistency. He proposes no coercion, suppression, or discrimination of any sort, and in fact clearly opposes that sort of behavior. Nor is there any "ignorance" on display, save perhaps a somewhat rosy view of Roman pluralism (though far less distorted than those who believe the Romans spent all their time throwing Christians to the lions).

The kind of people and beliefs he's railing against, as he states quite clearly, is those who "are intolerant, incapable and unwilling to make any kind of compromise," thereby leading to "murdering, persecuting" practices directed at others. This is, indisputably, the history of organized Christianity in every time and place at which it's held serious political power, as well as of most other religions in a comparable position.

...you wouldn't be pleased if I painted all atheists with the same brush, would you?

You can't paint all atheists with the same brush, because essentially the only thing that unites them is a disinclination to be doctrinaire or superstitious.

Those who committed atrocities of that sort "in the name of God" are, as I have stated earlier in this thread, the worst sort of blasphemers in word and action.

Ah, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Unfortunately, you can't just redefine Christianity (or any other religion) to exclude those who practice its beliefs in undesirably zealous ways. After all, anyone who proclaims himself a Christian is a Christian, de facto; there's no final arbiter to determine who is or isn't. (In fact, it's the very desire of various parties to set themselves up as that arbiter that's led to a lot of the intolerance and bloodshed, ironically enough.)

...just because they used it as their excuse does not mean that the faith is inherently evil--only that it has had some really frakked-up followers.

Any belief system based on "faith" rather than reason is setting itself up to attract — indeed, inviting — people who think in "frakked up" ways.

I can name any number of regimes operating under atheistic philosophies that committed horrible atrocities.

No, you can't. No atrocity has ever been committed "in the name of atheism." (As noted, atheists aren't much for doctrinaire behavior. Have you ever tried organizing them?)

If you're thinking of authoritarian regimes like, e.g., Stalin's USSR, your mistake there is in thinking that the official state "atheism" was grounded in any sort of actual philosophy. On the contrary, Stalin (like many similar despots) simply wanted to eliminate any competitors for the loyalty of his subjects, thus reserving it all for the state (i.e., him). Many regimes throughout history have done this by banning all religions save one official one; a few have done it by banning all of them, period — but the unifying characteristic remains the authoritarian enforcement of state power, not the underlying "philosophy."

 

[DevilEyes]

Unfortunately, your own post demonstrates just as much ignorance and intolerance as you ascribe to Christianity and exemplifies the sort of attitude that, if one is not careful, can lead to the exact same sorts of atrocities in the name of atheism. Note that this does NOT mean I believe you personally would run a gulag. It means that those who do could potentially use the same line of reasoning.

Nope, not at all. Nowhere did I even come close to considering that Christianity is wrong...

Oh yes you did.

Followers of the "son" did and will. Followers of the "son" are intolerant, incapable and unwilling to make any kind of compromise.
... the intolerant, murdering, persecuting one that believes in an imaginary being ...

...shouldn't be allowed, shouldn't have the right to do things, and generally should be punished with eternal torture or torment.

That's like saying "I am not a racist. I only said that ____ were morons, criminals and that the world would be better off without them... but I never said they should be killed or beaten up."

Deriding one religion over another is utterly stupid.

Just about the only thing I agree here. The ending of Bread and Cricuses was stupid and clumsy - about as clumsy as Who Watches the Watchers. Fortunately, DS9 gave us examples of Trek treating religion in an intelligent and balanced way.

No, he doesn't. The only thing he displays "intolerance" of is intolerance itself, which is not a philosophical inconsistency. He proposes no coercion, suppression, or discrimination of any sort, and in fact clearly opposes that sort of behavior. Nor is there any "ignorance" on display, save perhaps a somewhat rosy view of Roman pluralism (though far less distorted than those who believe the Romans spent all their time throwing Christians to the lions).
(...)

The kind of people and beliefs he's railing against, as he states quite clearly, is those who "are intolerant, incapable and unwilling to make any kind of compromise," thereby leading to "murdering, persecuting" practices directed at others. This is, indisputably, the history of organized Christianity in every time and place at which it's held serious political power, as well as of most other religions in a comparable position.
(...)
Ah, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Unfortunately, you can't just redefine Christianity (or any other religion) to exclude those who practice its beliefs in undesirably zealous ways. After all, anyone who proclaims himself a Christian is a Christian, de facto; there's no final arbiter to determine who is or isn't. (In fact, it's the very desire of various parties to set themselves up as that arbiter that's led to a lot of the intolerance and bloodshed, ironically enough.)

Hmmm. So to sum up your position:

"I am not intolerant. Really! I am only intolerant of intolerance. And your beliefs are intolerant by nature, they've led to many atrocities throughout the history. No, don't try to convince me that the people who did those were supposedly not true to the essence of your faith and all that crap. You're trying to redefine your beliefs! Face it, your beliefs are by nature intolerant, they pollute society, not to mention that one has to be an idiot to believe in them in the first place. And therefore the world will be better when your beliefs die out."

Tolerance my ass.

 

[Kaziarl]

Any belief system based on "faith" rather than reason is setting itself up to attract — indeed, inviting — people who think in "frakked up" ways.

And only faith based belief systems can be like this?

Ok then, lets look at this through reason.

Science says that things evolved over many hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of years. Which I personally believe by the way, so I'm not trying to say anything against it.

It did this through a couple ways, one being natural selection. Useful things are kept, useless ones dropped. The strong survive, yadda yadda.

But in todays age, we've pretty much taken natural selection out of the equation. Used to be any sort of disability would likely lead to the persons untimely demise before that genetic code could be passed on, but thats not the case anymore.

So me, being a reasoning fellow, am going to take natural selection into my own hands... and kill all the cripples. In the name of reason and natural selection, and certainly NOT any superstition.

[sarcasm] Yup! you're right, those silly superstitions are the only source of any problems we have. [/sarcasm]

 

[Deckerd]

How do you know early hominids didn't look after their disabled? You don't.

 

[Kaziarl]

How do you know early hominids didn't look after their disabled? You don't.

The way evolution and natural selection work in my understanding is that anything which does not benefit the continuance of the genetic line is basically discarded. So a blind flying squirrel will have a lot of headaches in his future, and a hominid born missing a leg won't be able to hunt very well. There are some tribal cultures around the world, even today, that will leave a deformed child in the wilderness feeling that this is a better way then letting the child deal with the deformity.

Also, I'd like to make it clear that I was not, in any way shape or form, suggesting anyone do something like that. I was trying to illustrate that even "non-superstitious" can think in ways that we find disturbing at best, but in that case horrifying.

 

[Deckerd]

What is horrifying? You've lost me.

 

[Kaziarl]

What is horrifying? You've lost me.

um... the whole "take natural selection into one's own hands" part?

 

[lawman]

Nope, not at all. Nowhere did I even come close to considering that Christianity is wrong...

Oh yes you did.

Wrong in the sense of "factually untrue"? Yes, of course. But in the sense of "deserving punishment"? No. You snipped the quote out of context to exclude "shouldn't be allowed, shouldn't have the right to do things, and generally should be punished with eternal torture or torment." And no, he didn't suggest any such thing.

That's like saying "I am not a racist. I only said that ____ were morons, criminals and that the world would be better off without them... but I never said they should be killed or beaten up."

Did you happen to notice my remark a few posts upthread about how some people automatically assume that disagreeing with someone else's views means you must want to suppress them? That's the trap you're falling into here.

There are lots of things in the world that I dislike, disapprove of, and/or would never do myself. That doesn't mean I think they should be prohibited or punished, however. This is a free society of autonomous individuals; other people are not me, and are not obliged to think or act like me.

Let's set religion aside for a moment and try a different example. I think that people who voted for George W. Bush, or who listen to Rush Limbaugh, are morons, and the world would definitely have been better off without them these last few years. I'd be happy to explain why at length. However, it doesn't mean I deny their right to be as stupid as they like, to believe what they want, and to vote and speak and act accordingly... much less think their stupidity should be punishable by law.

Conversely, this also doesn't mean I'll hold my tongue about how wrong and destructive they are, nor hold back from doing everything I can to limit their political influence, counter their agenda, and, perhaps, even persuade a few to see things differently once in a while.

See the distinction here?

Hmmm. So to sum up your position:
"I am not intolerant. Really! I am only intolerant of intolerance. And your beliefs are intolerant by nature, they've led to many atrocities throughout the history. No, don't try to convince me that the people who did those were supposedly not true to the essence of your faith and all that crap. You're trying to redefine your beliefs! Face it, your beliefs are by nature intolerant, they pollute society, not to mention that one has to be an idiot to believe in them in the first place. And therefore the world will be better when your beliefs die out."

Hmmm. So rather than actually respond directly to anything I wrote that you quoted, you'd rather just try to caricature my position in the hope of making it look unpalatable?

Sorry, but that tactic won't work. Certainly not when no one can credibly state what "the essence of your faith" actually is, without a million other believers immediately disagreeing.

Whether couched in nasty language or polite language, the fact is that the beliefs of doctrinaire Christians (and Muslims, and adherents of pretty much any other theistic or supernatural belief system) are intolerant, and ignorant, and unsupported by reason, and have had a net negative effect on human progress for millennia. This isn't the place to rehash the writings of everyone from Bertrand Russell to Richard Dawkins, but suffice it to say that case has been made... and the world will be better off if and when such beliefs die out.

Until then, however, while I don't gainsay anyone's right to believe as they like, I also won't pretend those beliefs deserve any special level of respect. You get the same tolerance as anyone else with whom I strongly disagree about important philosophical matters, no more, no less. Fair enough?

Any belief system based on "faith" rather than reason is setting itself up to attract — indeed, inviting — people who think in "frakked up" ways.

And only faith based belief systems can be like this?

Did I say that? It's not a logical corollary. Reason is a necessary component of a sane and nonviolent belief system, but that doesn't make it a sufficient component.

So me, being a reasoning fellow, am going to take natural selection into my own hands... and kill all the cripples. In the name of reason and natural selection, and certainly NOT any superstition.

You're basically offering up, via hypothetical, the old saw that biological evolution leads logically to Herbert Spencer-style "social Darwinism." It doesn't, and the reasons that it doesn't have been explained at length by both biologists and philosophers decades ago.

But even if some people think it does (Nazi eugenicists spring to mind, of course), that's only a reason to oppose their errors, not to commit an error oneself by choosing to believe in some faith-based origin myth instead of evolution.

 

[Kaziarl]

You're basically offering up, via hypothetical, the old saw that biological evolution leads logically to Herbert Spencer-style "social Darwinism." It doesn't, and the reasons that it doesn't have been explained at length by both biologists and philosophers decades ago.

But even if some people think it does (Nazi eugenicists spring to mind, of course), that's only a reason to oppose their errors, not to commit an error oneself by choosing to believe in some faith-based origin myth instead of evolution.

Ok, so, if I may absorb an interpret this into my own line of thinking.

It's ok for people who follow reason and do good thing(you, i'm assuming) to shun people who follow reason and do bad things(the nazi eugenicists you mentioned, and I agree they were bad).

However it's not ok for people who follow god and do good things (bake sales, charities, humanitarian aid) to shun people who follow god and do bad things (crusades, persecution, the dark ages, hello kitty island adventure)

 

[Penta]

....Damn, reading these last few pages makes me wonder.

I hope nobody here expects atheism to come off looking good from all this - you guys really are sounding like, well...cranky assholes.

It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

The majority of the religiously-inclined people in this thread seem to be saying basically "don't insult us, please?" They're in a really defensive crouch...And so the atheists...go roaring on the attack. And you claim to be persecuted?

What the hell, guys? Really, it's just plain impolite to call the other guy a moron. Think it all you like, lawman, but you come off like a jackass for slamming someone like that in public. If he's as moronic as you claim, I'm sure he'll *show it*. Do *you* need to be so smug?

(I fully admit to a bias here - to me, religion and the struggle with things theological that even the *garden-variety weird shit* we see over a season of Trek would provoke would be good stories to tell. Because hey! Even the most faithful believers (see Mother Teresa) struggle with their belief. I know very few people who follow a religion who do not admit (to themselves, at least) "This could all be wrong. It could be." They don't believe it is, but the possibility always gnaws at most of them.

The key is that the outcome shouldn't be preordained. Space travel and the things encountered shouldn't always make the religious into atheists - for as much as might push someone into that, there's likely equally enough that would *confirm* a believer's faith.)

 

[DevilEyes]

Nope, not at all. Nowhere did I even come close to considering that Christianity is wrong...

Oh yes you did.

Wrong in the sense of "factually untrue"? Yes, of course. But in the sense of "deserving punishment"? No. You snipped the quote out of context to exclude "shouldn't be allowed, shouldn't have the right to do things, and generally should be punished with eternal torture or torment." And no, he didn't suggest any such thing.

Um, no. I didn't "snipe it out of context". I addressed the first part of the statement (Nowhere did I even come close to considering that Christianity is wrong...) and then the second (shouldn't be allowed, shouldn't have the right to do things, and generally should be punished with eternal torture or torment):

Unfortunately, your own post demonstrates just as much ignorance and intolerance as you ascribe to Christianity and exemplifies the sort of attitude that, if one is not careful, can lead to the exact same sorts of atrocities in the name of atheism. Note that this does NOT mean I believe you personally would run a gulag. It means that those who do could potentially use the same line of reasoning.

Nope, not at all. Nowhere did I even come close to considering that Christianity is wrong...

Oh yes you did.

Followers of the "son" did and will. Followers of the "son" are intolerant, incapable and unwilling to make any kind of compromise.
... the intolerant, murdering, persecuting one that believes in an imaginary being ...

...shouldn't be allowed, shouldn't have the right to do things, and generally should be punished with eternal torture or torment.

That's like saying "I am not a racist. I only said that ____ were morons, criminals and that the world would be better off without them... but I never said they should be killed or beaten up."

Did you happen to notice my remark a few posts upthread about how some people automatically assume that disagreeing with someone else's views means you must want to suppress them? That's the trap you're falling into here.

You aren't just disagreeing. I disagree with a lot of what Christians believe, but I don't feel I need to offend every Christian and their beliefs. You, however, are stereotyping an entire religion, denying it any worth, accusing the religion itself for every crime ever committed in its name, basically calling anyone who believes in it a moron or deluded.No, you're not saying that they should be punished, but you're saying that the only way they could be OK members of the society is if they abandoned their awful, ignorant, intolerant beliefs.

Tolerance indeed.

Hmmm. So rather than actually respond directly to anything I wrote that you quoted, you'd rather just try to caricature my position in the hope of making it look unpalatable?

Caricature? What was a caricature about that? I just summed it up. Can you tell me one thing that was different about what you actually said, only in a lengthier way? You provided an example that people who like to pronounce how tolerant they are, are usually not tolerant at all.

You want me to respond directly to the stuff you wrote? Fine.

The time when we get rid of our superstitions couldn't come fast enough, that's what I believe. It only leads to bigotry, death, pain, wars and destruction.

The faster it's gone, the better off we'll be.

Hear, hear.

The problem, of course, is that people who are attached to those superstitions will read this sort of thing and immediately accuse you of wanting to coerce them into giving up those beliefs, through bigotry, pain, etc. It's not what you said, and I'm sure not what you meant, but there's something about the mindset of True Believers in any kind of dogma (religious or otherwise) that assumes disagreeing with someone else's views means you must want to forcibly suppress those views.

See above.

And [Bread and Circuses is] one of the WORST episodes EVER, exactly because of this. ...

...the disdain the idiotic Enterprise crew show those who believe in the "sun", until they figure out it's the "son" is just nuts.

Notwithstanding that this episode was written by the allegedly atheistic Gene Roddenberry himself, I'd have to agree with you. The whole episode is weak, but that final scene is just cringeworthy, and completely out of keeping with the ethos of Trek in general.

I also commented on that one, and said that it's the one thing I agree on.

3D Master did a pretty good job of defending himself, but let me weigh in here anyway:

No, he doesn't. The only thing he displays "intolerance" of is intolerance itself, which is not a philosophical inconsistency. He proposes no coercion, suppression, or discrimination of any sort, and in fact clearly opposes that sort of behavior. Nor is there any "ignorance" on display, save perhaps a somewhat rosy view of Roman pluralism (though far less distorted than those who believe the Romans spent all their time throwing Christians to the lions).

Also already answered.

The kind of people and beliefs he's railing against, as he states quite clearly, is those who "are intolerant, incapable and unwilling to make any kind of compromise," thereby leading to "murdering, persecuting" practices directed at others. This is, indisputably, the history of organized Christianity in every time and place at which it's held serious political power, as well as of most other religions in a comparable position.

True. But it also happens to be true that every state where atheism held a similar position (as opposed to simply secular states where matters of state and matters of religion are separate, and where pluralism of thought is allowed) were equally intolerant, incapable and unwilling to make any kind of compromise.

TYou can't paint all atheists with the same brush, because essentially the only thing that unites them is a disinclination to be doctrinaire or superstitious.

I didn't see anyone in this thread painting all atheists with the same brush. I do, however, see a few people painting all Christians, or even all religious people, with the same brush.

TAh, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Unfortunately, you can't just redefine Christianity (or any other religion) to exclude those who practice its beliefs in undesirably zealous ways. After all, anyone who proclaims himself a Christian is a Christian, de facto; there's no final arbiter to determine who is or isn't. (In fact, it's the very desire of various parties to set themselves up as that arbiter that's led to a lot of the intolerance and bloodshed, ironically enough.)

Oh, I agree that you can't deny anyone the right to be considered Christian, Muslim, atheist, socialist, conservative, feminist... whatever. But there are and have been all sorts of different versions of Christianity, just as there have been all sorts of Islam, socialism, capitalism, liberalism, feminism, you name it. A fact that seems to escape you. When someone paints all the Christians with the same brush and accuses them of the things done by zealots, you can't blame a Christian, like Nerys, trying to distance themselves from the zealots.

...just because they used it as their excuse does not mean that the faith is inherently evil--only that it has had some really frakked-up followers.

Any belief system based on "faith" rather than reason is setting itself up to attract — indeed, inviting — people who think in "frakked up" ways.

The burden of proof here is on you. You have to prove that your generalization is right.

I can name any number of regimes operating under atheistic philosophies that committed horrible atrocities.

No, you can't. No atrocity has ever been committed "in the name of atheism." (As noted, atheists aren't much for doctrinaire behavior. Have you ever tried organizing them?)

If you're thinking of authoritarian regimes like, e.g., Stalin's USSR, your mistake there is in thinking that the official state "atheism" was grounded in any sort of actual philosophy. On the contrary, Stalin (like many similar despots) simply wanted to eliminate any competitors for the loyalty of his subjects, thus reserving it all for the state (i.e., him). Many regimes throughout history have done this by banning all religions save one official one; a few have done it by banning all of them, period — but the unifying characteristic remains the authoritarian enforcement of state power, not the underlying "philosophy."

Oh come on. That's just a cop-out. Those atrocities were indeed committed in the name of a certain ideology/philosophy, and no amount of "it's just some bad people who wanted power" talk is going to change that. That ideology was communism, and atheism was its integral part. It's not like the church and religious groups posed any direct threat to the ideology or the state - the underlying philosophy had already included the premise that religion was bad and should be done with ("opiate to the masses"), from the start, even before it ever came to power, and persecution was based on that idea. Marx and Engels didn't say that religions should be banned or persecuted, but I don't remember Jesus ever saying that non-believers should be persecuted, do you? But that didn't stop people later committing atrocities in the name of Christianity. If you're going to use the old "it's not the underlying philosophy that is to blame" and "it's just some bad people who wanted power using it as an excuse" arguments, at least don't try to deny that the other side can use the exact same arguments. This way it just looks like a double standard.

 

[3D Master]

Unfortunately, your own post demonstrates just as much ignorance and intolerance as you ascribe to Christianity and exemplifies the sort of attitude that, if one is not careful, can lead to the exact same sorts of atrocities in the name of atheism. Note that this does NOT mean I believe you personally would run a gulag. It means that those who do could potentially use the same line of reasoning.

Nope, not at all. Nowhere did I even come close to considering that Christianity is wrong...

Oh yes you did.

No, I didn't.

That's like saying "I am not a racist. I only said that ____ were morons, criminals and that the world would be better off without them... but I never said they should be killed or beaten up."

There's nothing bigoted about the truth. And I indeed never said they should be killed or beaten up. Anyone who tries to place those words in my mouth, is a liar and a charlatan.

Deriding one religion over another is utterly stupid.

Just about the only thing I agree here. The ending of Bread and Cricuses was stupid and clumsy - about as clumsy as Who Watches the Watchers. Fortunately, DS9 gave us examples of Trek treating religion in an intelligent and balanced way.

You're right. People who believed in the prophets are a bunch of superstitious nutcases that believe some aliens living in a wormhole are gods, and when those gods are shown to be not quite as all powerful as they imagined, they turn to worshiping essentially the devil as a way to get back at them.

Sounds about right to me.

Hmmm. So to sum up your position:

"I am not intolerant. Really! I am only intolerant of intolerance. And your beliefs are intolerant by nature, they've led to many atrocities throughout the history. No, don't try to convince me that the people who did those were supposedly not true to the essence of your faith and all that crap. You're trying to redefine your beliefs! Face it, your beliefs are by nature intolerant, they pollute society, not to mention that one has to be an idiot to believe in them in the first place. And therefore the world will be better when your beliefs die out."

Tolerance my ass.

Apparently you do not understand what tolerance means. To tolerate something, is to allow something, to give a pass to people doing something you find not desirable. They can continue to live without you hurting them, killing them, or otherwise make their lives a living hell.

It does NOT mean that you can't speak out about your belief that it is not desirable, nor that you can't try to convince people it is indeed not desirable.

If I thought superstition was completely nice and sweet, I wouldn't need to be tolerant toward it.

but I don't remember Jesus ever saying that non-believers should be persecuted, do you? But that didn't stop people later committing atrocities in the name of Christianity. If you're going to use the old "it's not the underlying philosophy that is to blame" and "it's just some bad people who wanted power using it as an excuse" arguments, at least don't try to deny that the other side can use the exact same arguments. This way it just looks like a double standard.

Yes, actually, I do. There is this parable where he likened himself to a king away from his country and one person didn't have enough faith in the king. When the king returns he murders the one who didn't have faith, and then punished the others for not doing it for him ages ago. Or rewards them for having done it for him, I can't remember which of the two it was.

Anyway, he just said there, anyone who doesn't believe in him, is evil and must be slaughtered.

So, it is the underlying philosophy with Christianity, Islam, Judeaism and the like that is to blame.

Atheism on the other hand, is just: There is no god. So with that, killing people, can't ever come from the philosophy. Hell, strictly atheism isn't even a philosophy. It's just the lack of any faith in the existence of a god or gods.

 

[lawman]

It's ok for people who follow reason and do good thing(you, i'm assuming) to shun people who follow reason and do bad things(the nazi eugenicists you mentioned, and I agree they were bad).

However it's not ok for people who follow god and do good things (bake sales, charities, humanitarian aid) to shun people who follow god and do bad things (crusades, persecution, the dark ages, hello kitty island adventure)

No, that's not quite it. Regardless of one's own beliefs, one is of course always free to shun people who do bad things.

What one's not free to do, because it's intellectually dishonest, is to try to insulate one's own belief system by excluding believers who do bad things because Christianity (or Islam, etc.) is only good "by definition." Sorry, but Torquemada was as devoutly Christian as anyone's ever been... and those beliefs weren't incidental to what he did, they were intrinsic to it.

(Incidentally, this touches on the problem of how we know what is "good," which was posed by Socrates 2,500 years ago before Christianity even existed. To paraphrase: is something "good" simply because the gods say it is, or do the gods call it so because it's "good" for independent reasons? In the first case, we're at the mercy of the gods' arbitrary whims; in the second, good is something we can determine on our own and the gods become superfluous. See the dilemma?)

I hope nobody here expects atheism to come off looking good from all this - you guys really are sounding like, well...cranky assholes.

...The majority of the religiously-inclined people in this thread seem to be saying basically "don't insult us, please?" They're in a really defensive crouch...And so the atheists...go roaring on the attack. And you claim to be persecuted?

You know, it's amazing how much "concern trolling" has been directed these last few years at Dawkins, and Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, and the rest of the "new atheists," just because they're finally saying openly what used to be, y'know, sort of kept on the down-low. "Why can't they be more polite?"

Sorry, but neither they nor I are treating religious believers any differently than anyone else we disagree with: Republicans, or racists, or people who think Star Wars is better than Star Trek, or what have you. In every case, I simply try to lay out my position and my reasoning in as direct and matter-of-fact a way as possible. I'm a rationalist and a secular humanist, and I defend that point of view as vigorously as I can.

The thing is, believers are used to being treated with kid gloves. They're used to hearing "one nation under God" in classrooms every morning and "God bless America" at the end of every political speech and living in a country where 60% of people don't believe in evolution and taking it all for granted as if no one has reason to be bothered. Why can't we malcontents just extend the sort of respect and deference traditionally accorded to people who behave reasonably six days a week and then spout ridiculous nonsense on the seventh?

So, no, it's not nonbelievers who "claim to be persecuted." It's believers, despite the fact that they're by far in the majority.

And if pointing this out makes me seem "cranky" or "smug" to you, well, sorry, that's not my intention, but the attitude is all in the eye of the beholder. Think what you like. I'm content to have reason on my side.

Space travel and the things encountered shouldn't always make the religious into atheists - for as much as might push someone into that, there's likely equally enough that would *confirm* a believer's faith.

For heaven's sake, anything can "confirm a believer's faith." Devastating, life-destroying natural disasters seem to do it on a regular basis, for example.

 

[Kaziarl]

It's ok for people who follow reason and do good thing(you, i'm assuming) to shun people who follow reason and do bad things(the nazi eugenicists you mentioned, and I agree they were bad).

However it's not ok for people who follow god and do good things (bake sales, charities, humanitarian aid) to shun people who follow god and do bad things (crusades, persecution, the dark ages, hello kitty island adventure)

No, that's not quite it. Regardless of one's own beliefs, one is of course always free to shun people who do bad things.

What one's not free to do, because it's intellectually dishonest, is to try to insulate one's own belief system by excluding believers who do bad things because Christianity (or Islam, etc.) is only good "by definition." Sorry, but Torquemada was as devoutly Christian as anyone's ever been... and those beliefs weren't incidental to what he did, they were intrinsic to it.

(Incidentally, this touches on the problem of how we know what is "good," which was posed by Socrates 2,500 years ago before Christianity even existed. To paraphrase: is something "good" simply because the gods say it is, or do the gods call it so because it's "good" for independent reasons? In the first case, we're at the mercy of the gods' arbitrary whims; in the second, good is something we can determine on our own and the gods become superfluous. See the dilemma?)

Points for mentioning Torquemada

But you basically said that yourself. It's ok to shun people who do bad things, but when christians try to distance themselves from things that have been done in the name of god everyone says "You can't do that, you're changing how you think to avoid it!" I'm sorry if you disagree, but to me that is hypocritical.

People, regardless of what they believe, are capable of doing very bad things. If it's not religion, I'd be willing to bet you'd have wars about weather the universe will expand forever, or eventually collapse.

Edit: Oh, and 3D master, sorry i didn't see that little bit at the end responding to me. I wasn't saying the Holy Crusade were about making people believe one thing or another, I was listing things that had been done "In the name of God"

 

[3D Master]

Edit: Oh, and 3D master, sorry i didn't see that little bit at the end responding to me. I wasn't saying the Holy Crusade were about making people believe one thing or another, I was listing things that had been done "In the name of God"

I think the whole point is to name things that were done in the name of god that were BAD. Slaughtering Christian pilgrims in the name of Allah/god, and attempting to conquer Europe in the name of Allah/god, THAT was bad. The crusades were what was done to make them stop. And that's a GOOD thing.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

How do you know early hominids didn't look after their disabled? You don't.

The way evolution and natural selection work in my understanding is that anything which does not benefit the continuance of the genetic line is basically discarded. So a blind flying squirrel will have a lot of headaches in his future, and a hominid born missing a leg won't be able to hunt very well. There are some tribal cultures around the world, even today, that will leave a deformed child in the wilderness feeling that this is a better way then letting the child deal with the deformity.

Also, I'd like to make it clear that I was not, in any way shape or form, suggesting anyone do something like that. I was trying to illustrate that even "non-superstitious" can think in ways that we find disturbing at best, but in that case horrifying.

Actually, I seem to recall reading something that stated there WAS evidence that at least one group of early humans--or near ancestors of humanity--did indeed care for their disabled, as evidenced by a burial site found for a man whose arm was deformed/paralyzed, and it appeared to be a congenital defect. He had lived to a normal age for his time, and appeared to be in good health...which meant that the tribe had to have been hunting on his behalf, defending him, and otherwise helping him out with whatever he had difficulties with.

BTW--I would have said more on this thread, but as it turns out, DevilEyes has pretty much covered all of the bases I would have.

 

[Kaziarl]

How do you know early hominids didn't look after their disabled? You don't.

The way evolution and natural selection work in my understanding is that anything which does not benefit the continuance of the genetic line is basically discarded. So a blind flying squirrel will have a lot of headaches in his future, and a hominid born missing a leg won't be able to hunt very well. There are some tribal cultures around the world, even today, that will leave a deformed child in the wilderness feeling that this is a better way then letting the child deal with the deformity.

Also, I'd like to make it clear that I was not, in any way shape or form, suggesting anyone do something like that. I was trying to illustrate that even "non-superstitious" can think in ways that we find disturbing at best, but in that case horrifying.

Actually, I seem to recall reading something that stated there WAS evidence that at least one group of early humans--or near ancestors of humanity--did indeed care for their disabled, as evidenced by a burial site found for a man whose arm was deformed/paralyzed, and it appeared to be a congenital defect. He had lived to a normal age for his time, and appeared to be in good health...which meant that the tribe had to have been hunting on his behalf, defending him, and otherwise helping him out with whatever he had difficulties with.

BTW--I would have said more on this thread, but as it turns out, DevilEyes has pretty much covered all of the bases I would have.

oh, do you know where? I don't think I've read anything like that. Sounds pretty interesting.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Unfortunately I think I read it in a kids' book, which I don't believe I have anymore. :-/ But the story stuck with me because in a lot of ways, it would be first archaeological obvious instance of compassion.

Here is one (slightly) more recent example discovered...this man was most definitely cared for by those around him. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/08/06/paralyzed-human.html

 

[lawman]

I think the whole point is to name things that were done in the name of god that were BAD. ... The crusades were ... a GOOD thing.

That's a very ... novel perspective on history.

As to early humans showing compassion, yeah, I've read evidence of that as well. No surprise; humans are very social animals. Really, from the moment we developed conscious self-awareness, we've been gradually separating ourselves from the otherwise unforgiving process of "natural selection"... it now operates more at the level of society-wide memes than that of ordinary genes.