Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Which has more power at the moment: atheism/secularism or religion? Watch

Announcements
    • Offline

      16
      (Original post by JCC-MGS)
      Yes, refute the claim that the Cult of Reason was driven by its atheism to violence. Do it without gleaning Keckers' post for information you had no prior knowledge of, too.
      This is horsesh*t.

      If you want to substantiate your initial claim ("atheist extremism in three easy steps with historical examples to boot"), then f*ing do it!

      Stop tapdancing around trying to avoid supporting that position, and just say “I’m babbling now, in the hope you’ll forget all the **** I said”.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by The Boney King of Nowhere)
      Yep. It's inspired by antitheism, an actual belief system based on the belief that theists should be persecuted/killed, rather than atheism, which is simply the lack of a belief in God.

      atheism=/=antitheism
      And Islamic terrorism is based on extremist Islamism, rather than Islam. What's your point?

      (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
      This is horsesh*t.

      If you want to substantiate your initial claim ("atheist extremism in three easy steps with historical examples to boot"), then f*ing do it!

      Stop tapdancing around trying to avoid supporting that position, and just say “I’m babbling now, in the hope you’ll forget all the **** I said”.
      You are a prat.
      • Offline

        16
        (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
        Lord Histeria, what don't you get exactly? Atheists can blow up buildings and people due to their discontent for religion just like Christians, Muslims and other religious extremists can blow up buildings and people due to their discontent for religions that oppose their own religion... I don't get what could not be understood here? Atheists can be passionate about their beliefs enough to be terrorists to gain publicity and so forth, for their beliefs... This is obvious, surely? What historical examples would you even need to prove something that could logically happen. Passion for one's beliefs sometimes encourages the use of extreme levels of violence and, even terrorism, for one to get their point across (not that I would endorse such a thing).
        What are you talking about? I have never denied that atheists have killed people .... what is your point? Have you even read my posts here?

        In regards to the general topic, I don't think religious or non-religious values should be forced on people by the state or otherwise. How about just letting people make their own minds up?
        Yet you believe in democracy, ergo a contradiction!
        • Offline

          16
          (Original post by The Boney King of Nowhere)
          Yep. It's inspired by antitheism, an actual belief system based on the belief that theists should be persecuted/killed, rather than atheism, which is simply the lack of a belief in God.

          atheism=/=antitheism
          Oh stop talking ****!

          You obviously don't have a clue what antitheism is either .... Here is a blog I made.

          Oh, I am an antitheist.
          • Offline

            16
            (Original post by Psyk)
            I agree. I'm a strong supporter of secularism, but I think a state which promotes atheism or gives special status to atheists is just as bad as one which does the same for a religion. I think the state should be entirely neutral to religion and hold no opinion on whether god exists or not. The state should protect freedoms of all kinds and there should be no need to single out religious freedoms as a special case.
            Ohhh how are you defining atheism?

            How can the state possibly be "bad" by promoting scepticism? You're right ... we should stick to absolutism ... Do you even know what secularism means?
            Offline

            0
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Psyk)
            They were still atheists. Yes it wasn't just plain atheism that drove them to kill people, but neither is it just plain theism that drives people to kill. It's always something more specific.
            Yeah they were still atheists. So what? What you need to do is pinpoint the actual reason for their actions, not just state incidental facts. The actual reason these people killed is because they had an active hatred of religion and wanted religious people dead - neither of these things are entailed by a lack of belief in God. It's entirely consistent to be an atheist and hold that religious belief is in fact good for the world (if you were a utilitarian atheist for example and felt the happiness produced by belief in God in total outweighed the misery caused)
            Offline

            0
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by The Boney King of Nowhere)
            Yeah they were still atheists. So what? What you need to do is pinpoint the actual reason for their actions, not just state incidental facts. The actual reason these people killed is because they had an active hatred of religion and wanted religious people dead - neither of these things are entailed by a lack of belief in God. It's entirely consistent to be an atheist and hold that religious belief is in fact good for the world (if you were a utilitarian atheist for example and felt the happiness produced by belief in God in total outweighed the misery caused)
            And if you are a religious person you might see no problem with atheism, what's your point? As an atheist I'm hardly trying to imply that atheism and bloodlust are mutually inclusive I'm just pointing out that extremism on grounds pertaining to religious beliefs (or absence thereof), historically, has not merely been the domain of theists.
            Offline

            0
            ReputationRep:
            [QUOTE=JCC-MGS;29056252]And Islamic terrorism is based on extremist Islamism, rather than Islam. What's your point?[QUOTE]

            Here's my point. You can find numerous examples in the Qu'ran of passages which can very easily be interpreted as endorsements to killing. There is nothing in a lack of belief in God which entails the killing of theists. For this you need other beliefs, i.e antitheism.
            • Offline

              16
              (Original post by strainerkid)
              I think to directly link atheism with violence is a very loose sort of thing to say. Religion and atheism often come as part of a wider cultural package, rather than being completely centred on one system of belief. For instance, Islam is not just a belief in Allah, it is a political and economic system as well, but that is all part of the parcel. So when you have Islamic terrorists, they may believe they are defending an entire way of life in their country/community, rather than following a direct command to go and kill the infidel. I think this issue has been oversimplified.
              Also bear in mind that Atheism in its current form has not been around for that long, the denial of the supernatural on the basis that it cannot be proved scientifically is recent (relatively) whilst societies with a belief in a deity of some form have been around for much longer. In probability terms when there have been aggressive secular societies around for much longer the atrocities committed by such societies will increase, not to say that they will do that on the basis there is no god, but there will be a basis for the said offences.
              We need to examine the people and the exact situation behind the violence, Religion can sadly be used to make people do horrendous things, which is shocking and no-one is asking anyone to say that that is o.k. But there will be violence due to other causes, not just religious ones, it may be used as a screen but directly linking the belief in a 'God' to extremism and violence , whilst it has a basis, is a mass generalisation.
              I have to disagree, and I am happy to defend my position. I also don’t see how you have added anything to the discussion, with respect.

              The charge on this thread is that atheists have committed violence, BECAUSE OF atheism. Obviously, there have been atheist murderers. That is obvious – but to say that “atheism” (as a belief) mandates violence is an unfounded claim. And I am here to dispute such nonsense.

              I appreciate what you’re saying about Islam, but I think you’re misinformed about its nature – although, I am glad you recognise it as a political ideology too (something I have been saying endlessly to TSRian dullards). Not sure, how it is “economical”- at least, by the definition of economics as a discipline. But I’m happy, also, to go into some detail for you.

              I would also dispute the charge that antitheism is itself a “new” position. There have always been people who have had – like me – such sentiments. However, under the religious environments of the 18th century etc … it would have been political & social suicide.
              • Offline

                16
                (Original post by JCC-MGS)
                And Islamic terrorism is based on extremist Islamism, rather than Islam. What's your point?

                You are a prat.
                I am going to assume I have won this argument, as I always do when an adversary resorts to such juvenile sh*t.

                You're obviously don’t understand anything about the nature of Islam and terrorism. Debate me when you're opened a few books on atheism too.
                Offline

                0
                ReputationRep:
                (Original post by JCC-MGS)
                And if you are a religious person you might see no problem with atheism, what's your point? As an atheist I'm hardly trying to imply that atheism and bloodlust are mutually inclusive I'm just pointing out that extremism on grounds pertaining to religious beliefs (or absence thereof), historically, has not merely been the domain of theists.
                Yeah, so call these other people antithiests and not atheists. By calling them the latter you're missing out on the causal impetus for their actions, which is the antitheism.
                • Offline

                  16
                  (Original post by The Boney King of Nowhere)
                  (Original post by JCC-MGS)
                  And Islamic terrorism is based on extremist Islamism, rather than Islam. What's your point?
                  Here's my point. You can find numerous examples in the Qu'ran of passages which can very easily be interpreted as endorsements to killing. There is nothing in a lack of belief in God which entails the killing of theists. For this you need other beliefs, i.e antitheism.
                  Bingo. We have a winner!

                  Although, I am not sure how antitheism can drive violence. Antitheism is the opposition to theism. But no where, are antitheists encouraged or mandated to use violence ...
                  Offline

                  0
                  ReputationRep:
                  (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
                  Oh stop talking ****!

                  You obviously don't have a clue what antitheism is either .... Here is a blog I made.

                  Oh, I am an antitheist.
                  Jesus Christ on a stick. Well what the hell do you call what I described then? Extreme antitheism? It certainly is a form of antitheism anyway. No need to get belligerent bub, we're arging the same things.
                  Offline

                  12
                  ReputationRep:
                  (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
                  I'm honestly not sure.

                  Although more and more people seem to be leaving religion, the role religion has on the state seems to be getting stronger: proliferation of faith schools, religious hate speech legislation, the government being committed to religion, etc.

                  So which one do you think has more power at the moment? And what about the future?
                  secularism=/ atheism

                  but if u asked me to rank the 3 in terms of power i would say
                  secularism>religion>atheism, although day by day atheism is getting stronger and religion is getting weaker
                  • Offline

                    16
                    (Original post by The Boney King of Nowhere)
                    Jesus Christ on a stick. Well what the hell do you call what I described then? Extreme antitheism? It certainly is a form of antitheism anyway. No need to get belligerent bub, we're arging the same things.
                    I know, I know. I only noticed after having made that post.

                    I appreciate your efforts & you strike me as one of the more intelligent people on this thread, but I don't see how there is any link between antitheism and violence.

                    Theism isn’t merely just a position, but whole body of laws. It is a moral system. Thus, there is absolutely nothing “wrong” with using violence if genuinely believe that your God wants you to do so. Atheism (and antitheism) is not a moral system. It doesn’t have an “atheist 10 commandments”. It doesn’t tell people how they ought to live. So, people individually have to decide on a moral system of their own. They don’t have to resort to some sort of objective moral code. So, when an antitheist uses violence, it is not because of his position wrt God, but rather his own moral system. In short, it is the difference between scepticism and absolutism. The sceptic doesn’t have a God from whence laws are derived. He must use rational thought to decide upon what he thinks is the moral and virtuous life. That is the ultimate difference.
                    Offline

                    0
                    ReputationRep:
                    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
                    I know, I know. I only noticed after having made that post.

                    I appreciate your efforts & you strike me as one of the more intelligent people on this thread, but I don't see how there is any link between antitheism and violence.

                    Theism isn’t merely just a position, but whole body of laws. It is a moral system. Thus, there is absolutely nothing “wrong” with using violence if genuinely believe that your God wants you to do so. Atheism (and antitheism) is not a moral system. It doesn’t have an “atheist 10 commandments”. It doesn’t tell people how they ought to live. So, people individually have to decide on a moral system of their own. They don’t have to resort to some sort of objective moral code. So, when an antitheist uses violence, it is not because of his position wrt God, but rather his own moral system. In short, it is the difference between scepticism and absolutism. The sceptic doesn’t have a God from whence laws are derived. He must use rational thought to decide upon what he thinks is the moral and virtuous life. That is the ultimate difference.
                    Fair enough.
                    Offline

                    14
                    ReputationRep:
                    (Original post by The Boney King of Nowhere)
                    Yeah they were still atheists. So what? What you need to do is pinpoint the actual reason for their actions, not just state incidental facts. The actual reason these people killed is because they had an active hatred of religion and wanted religious people dead - neither of these things are entailed by a lack of belief in God. It's entirely consistent to be an atheist and hold that religious belief is in fact good for the world (if you were a utilitarian atheist for example and felt the happiness produced by belief in God in total outweighed the misery caused)
                    All of that could just as easily apply to theism. Hating people and wanting to kill them isn't entailed by a belief in god. The fact that someone believes in god will not by itself lead to them wanting to kill people. It's specific beliefs about the nature of that god that will drive them to kill people. Likewise with atheism. The lack of belief in god won't drive people to kill by itself, but specific philosophical or political beliefs related to that lack of belief in god might do.

                    I guess the point I'm making is that atheism is comparable to theism rather than any particular religion. Neither atheism or theism by themselves are specific enough to make people want to kill, but specific theistic or atheistic ideologies might.
                    Offline

                    14
                    ReputationRep:
                    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
                    Ohhh how are you defining atheism?

                    How can the state possibly be "bad" by promoting scepticism? You're right ... we should stick to absolutism ... Do you even know what secularism means?
                    I define atheism to be lack of belief in any gods. So I suppose you could say I think the state should be atheist in the sense that it should not profess any belief in god (but neither should it claim god does not exist). But I don't think the state should push individuals into being atheists, basically because I think it's none of their business.

                    I'll admit I don't know an exact definition of secularism. But I'm fairly sure the belief that the state should be completely neutral when it comes to religion comes under secularism in some form or another.
                    Offline

                    0
                    ReputationRep:
                    (Original post by Psyk)
                    All of that could just as easily apply to theism. Hating people and wanting to kill them isn't entailed by a belief in god. The fact that someone believes in god will not by itself lead to them wanting to kill people. It's specific beliefs about the nature of that god that will drive them to kill people. Likewise with atheism. The lack of belief in god won't drive people to kill by itself, but specific philosophical or political beliefs related to that lack of belief in god might do.

                    I guess the point I'm making is that atheism is comparable to theism rather than any particular religion. Neither atheism or theism by themselves are specific enough to make people want to kill, but specific theistic or atheistic ideologies might.
                    Yeah, I should have been clearer that by `theists' I was referring to those of a particular religion i.e Christianity or Islam, in whose holy texts you can find endorsements to killing. You're right that the mere proposition `There is a God' does not entail violence just as the mere proposition `There is no God' doesn't entail violence. It's the fact that people use atheism to mean different things that generates the debate.
                    Offline

                    1
                    ReputationRep:
                    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
                    What are you talking about? I have never denied that atheists have killed people .... what is your point? Have you even read my posts here?
                    Yeah I read all your posts so far. You are not denying atheists can be murderers; what you are denying though, is that atheists can kill in the name of their cause (the active disbelief in God or religion in general) or try to abolish religion coercively. I won't elaborate on this though, I just don't see what there is to argue with.

                    Yet you believe in democracy, ergo a contradiction!
                    No, I believe in free association. With present day society as it is, though, the choice is either the worst form of tyrannical despotism or a constitutional monarchy with the government as a representative democracy; I'll go for the latter and keep it secular.
                   
                   
                   
                  Reply
                  Submit reply
                  TSR Support Team

                  We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

                  Updated: December 29, 2010
                • See more of what you like on The Student Room

                  You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

                • Poll
                  Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
                  Useful resources

                  Groups associated with this forum:

                  View associated groups
                • See more of what you like on The Student Room

                  You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

                • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

                  Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

                  Quick reply
                  Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.