Another Denier Wakes up and smells the coffee,,

I'll throw out a couple of the bigger names. Stalin and Mao. Religion may be the opiate of the people, but if you practice it openly in some countries you go to jail or get shot.

I see a bunch of ghg democrats that seem a little too well fed. I'm just saying. Some preach environmentalism but practice the opposite. I believe in personal liberty, but when one group tries to force their views on another it is a problem. My problem is the politicians and energy executives that want ghg laws but exclude many of the other polluting culprits.

I don't think she would like if I posted a picture. When I first got my prius we had a discussion about her new Yukon, but hey its a hybrid. To tripp, I do think she drinks free trade coffee. Most would consider her hot in an athletic hot way. But the milf comment wasn't really about this particular woman, but more about letting the prettier people get away with false arguments, or equally some women not being taken seriously because they can't be pretty and smart.

 

"I'll throw out a couple of the bigger names. Stalin and Mao. Religion may be the opiate of the people, but if you practice it openly in some countries you go to jail or get shot. "

I'll take your word for it that these two were atheists, but neither persecuted theists per se. Stalin tried to destroy the church because it was a political opponent. Mao viewed anti-communists as worthwhile road-kill.

See the difference ?

 

They suppressed all religions so I think that's a reasonable fair comment. Certainly worth bring up. The MO may, however, not been religious though as Sage points out. It may well have had more to do with the right to assemble. There's also the idea that there's something bigger than the state there... no dictator wants that sort of thing floating around. Of course, you'd have to include all sorts of groups in this case that don't fit the traditional western concept of religion. So while the Soviets and Maoists may have banned religion, they also banned all sorts of groups and thus singling out religion isn't really of much value. I'm not sure of the answer there, but I have my suspicions.

 

The Dali Lama is an interesting case. For one, an argument can be made that Buddhism is not really a religion. It's more a philosophy. Among supernatural belief systems, the Wiccans and neo-pagans are my favorites, as I've said before, for their Earth-centered beliefs which lead them to respect the environment. The Buddhists are a close second for their humanist focus.

The other unusual thing about the Dali Lama is that, since he was forced into exile at an early age, he was never in a position of political power. He is widely respected, and viewed by many as a spiritual leader, but he's never had a large institutional "church" to rule over.

It also helps that he is a kind and sensitive person, which undoubtedly has something to do with his philosophy and probably has a lot to do with his native character, but it also probably influenced by his life of exile and lack of power over an institution.

(Note that Tibet under his predecessors was one of the most desperately poor places in the world, where people without enough to eat were brainwashed into supporting an idle and parasitic class of monks.)

* * * * *

Non-religious despots like Stalin et. al. are the reason I say that only half of all avoidable suffering is directly caused by religion. But where someone like Stalin rules for a generation, a religious institution like the Catholic Church tortures and murders people for centuries or millennia.

 

Stalin most definitely killed and imprisoned communist mulems, christians, and jews when they practiced their religion. Mao also killed and imprisoned those practicing religion, but I doubt that in all cases these citizens opposed communism though some did. Destroying the lamas and monks was one reason for the subjugation of Tibet. Mao justified some attrocities by declaring "religion is poison". How much do you know about chinese or russian history?

The regimes in the soviet union and china also were intolerant of other things than religion. Whether its the bin laden or pol pot it's the intolerance of the other, not the religion that seems to cause the atrocities.

 

Stalin and Mao killed people because they were brutal dictators, not because they were perceived to be atheist.

 

I just read Eaarth by Bill McKibben..and then I bought a Prius.

 

Wow, this thread has gotten ugly. I would like to say that I can agree that mankind has and will eventually have more and more environmental impact on our planet, its unavoidable. Are we ever going to be convinced regarding religion, probably no, Are we ever going to be convinced that we are trashing our plant, probably no. Religion and global/climate change are very similar, you can get some to believe/follow, but not all.

 

But many of the world's religions breed and actually dictate that intolerance... "Thou shalt have no other gods before thee" to quote a certain book in a particular religious text.

I agree. My father looks at it as a psychology and has used many tenants of it in treating hard core eating disorders (and quite successfully too, I might add). Buddhism, as many practice it, is a religion, but I think the original form was much more a philosophy as you say.

 

I am quick to agree that religion and philosophy are different, but I have to admit that I find it difficult to define the difference if pressed to do so.

Both seem to start with tenants and then build a rational structure from that foundation.
Philosophy might say "man is basically good" and go from there,
while a religion might say "Mary was a virgin when she gave birth" and go from there.

One tenant might seem reasonable and the other foolish, but that does seem a matter that is in the eye of the beholder.

It seems a bit blithe to say the difference is tenants about man's nature is philosophy as compared to tenants about nature is religion, since the latter is really man trying to place man in context to its surroundings and to each other.

 

The hypocrisy is that both sides (theist and atheist alike) equally damn the other side at one time or another, though neither side is provable.

Ben Stein - Wikiquote
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Wikiquote

 

With all due respect, it doesn't seem unreasonable to place the burden of proof on those making the claims.

Of course, making such a recklessly bold statement quickly 'outs' me as a 'denier'.

 

If you're an atheist, you're making the claim that there is no god. Theists do the opposite. As Hill said, those are both unprovable claims at this point. I find one to be far more reasonable than the other (guess which), but I remain agnostic for the reason that I refuse to make the claim... and it's not because I'm hedging my bets. If there is a god, it isn't anything like the gods of man. Not being able to measure this entity, however, precludes me from making the assertion that it exists. I simply leave open the possibility. I'm open to the "truth", if you will, and I will do my best to see things as they (although this is something that I thing most humans have trouble doing most, if not all of the time).

 

lol. So you are going to forgive the atheists their intolerance, their attrocities and religious persecution because.... you percieve them as brutal dictators.

I guess you missed the point. Those with no religion create struggle and pain just like those that do it in religions name.

you seem quite the denier. You don't think intolerance had anything to do with the crusades! Convert or die, can you find that somewhere in the bible? As for Jihad, it often means struggle as in internal struggle. When it is used to murder the infidels it is all about intolerance and nothing about islam.
SO yes, those popes, those inquisitors, those mullahs that preach hate use religion as a crutch. Because those are evil men do you really want to throw all the religious people under the bus with them?

I find the evidence compelling, and the theory usefull. When we talk about the true believers in a theory it stops being a theory and starts becoming an act of faith.

If you read a few lines down in the text a follow up line when translated properly is "You should not murder". Muslems used to take them together and place higher taxes if you weren't muslem. In Malaysia today there is shira law in 3 states, but it does not apply to you if you are a non-believer. Those imams preaching that the koran calls for suicide bombers are an intolerant lot, and do breed intollerance. The same goes for many priests. These same people would preach hate no matter what the source, but find willing followers when it is in the name of god, or comunism, or skin color tribalism. The religion does not breed the problems, but the clergy often do.

 

R

No, I'm not forgiving any atrocities. You're blaming them for being atheists, and I'm blaming them for being ruthless dictators. It's not just a semantic difference.

 

Some say warming alarmists are like a religious cult.
I tend to agree.
Brainwashed at least.

 

... other Jews. Read Numbers... god commanded the wholesale slaughter of non-jews on a regular basis. In fact, he became disgusted with the isrealites when they failed to kill everybody in a city... he gave them a bollicking and sent them in to finish the job. So, thou shalt not murder was obviously a pretty pliable commandment.

Now, having said that, I agree with you that no particular group is immune from intolerance and bigotry. There's plenty of evidence to implicate just about any group, though for some, you have to go back a ways in history. However, in my mind religion lends itself pretty well to this sort of intolerance... it's a good motivator of people who otherwise have nothing to gain from a conflict. Suicide bombers are an excellent example. The sectarian violence we see around the world, particularly in the middle east, South Asia, and Ireland (and to a much lesser extend, Scotland). Esp in the first two, it's hard to think of another reason these people are killing each other, the Sunni/Shia and Sunni, Shia/Sufi conflicts in Pakistan, for example.

 

Actually, I agree with you on the substance, but I use the words a bit differently: We are in agreement that given the usual definition of god in the major western monotheistic religions it is not possible to know for a fact whether there is a god or not.

But to me, the definitions of theist, atheist, and agnostic have to do with an individual's beliefs. I call myself an atheist because, while I acknowledge that I cannot know, I believe firmly that there is no god and that there are no angels, demons, sprites, orishas, etc. A theist may think he knows there is a god (many have made this assertion to me) but in fact he cannot know. Rather, he believes that there is a god (or gods, etc.) To me an agnostic is someone who holds no belief one way or the other.

Not long ago I was at a county fair where a church had a booth. Their display said: "Name 4 things God cannot do." Then you could life the covers off of four large panels, and underneath each was a statement that God could not do this or that. I'm don't remember them all, but two of them were:

God cannot Lie.
God cannot change.

I asked the guy, "How do you know what God cannot do? Who are you to put limits on God?" He replied that he knew God could not do these 4 things because the Bible said so. An almost two-thousand-year-old anthology of writings dating between three thousand and two thousand years ago, compiled and vetted by a power-hungry institutional church with aspirations to wealth and political power.

Seems to me that if there is a God, he could lie and he could change if he wanted to. Bible thumpers usually also seem to think that god has no sense of humor. Odd, that they would deny god the ability to make a few jokes. Hell, if there is a god, this whole world is one colossal joke!