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

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

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    For instance:

    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Nobody has killed people on the grounds of scepticism about God.
    An example. And yes, they have done.

    You're simply picking incidences where atheists were involved in killing people, and saying "arh, atheism makes people kill".
    No-one is (or rather I personally am not) saying atheism makes people kill just like no-one is saying Islam or Christianity makes people kill because of their religion. Rather, we are trying to say that some people take their religious (or anti-religious) beliefs to what they *believe* is the logical conclusion of violence for the sake of "the means justify the ends* and this is how terrorism is born about.

    Hitler was a vegetarian, presumably vegetarianism is a sick cult of death?
    This is circular logic.
    • Offline

      16
      (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
      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.
      It's not just that though. It is about the actual "cause" itself. Theism is a body of morals and codes by which how we ought to live our life - according to God. What is the atheist body of rules? They don't have any. Thus, when an atheist kills, it is not because of his atheism (as it would be if he was a theist). He kills because his moral code says so, and his individual ethical beliefs make it acceptable for him.

      For instance:

      An example. And yes, they have done.
      Where are they? I would like to see substantiate a claim that very few have managed to argue.

      No-one is (or rather I personally am not) saying atheism makes people kill just like no-one is saying Islam or Christianity makes people kill because of their religion. Rather, we are trying to say that some people take their religious (or anti-religious) beliefs to what they *believe* is the logical conclusion of violence for the sake of "the means justify the ends* and this is how terrorism is born about.
      You really haven't read my posts. Religion doesn't make anyone do anything. The interpretation makes people do whatever they think it says.

      You're looking at this from the point of view "oh, they're terrorists. They must have done this-that-and-the-other" .... when, in fact, they are doing nothing more than all the other religious folk.

      This is circular logic.
      And that only strengthens my case ....
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
      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 think what causes the violence is intolerance. Christians have killed non-Christians, Muslims have killed non-Muslims and some atheists have attacked and killed theists, but what caused the violence was not directly related to the actual belief. To use the violence done by some religious groups to say they are untrue and horrendous is not to get to the point. If we respect the right of other people to choose what they think there would be no violence. I am not arguing 'for' the theist side here, but saying intolerance is the reason, and that is unacceptable. Modern Christianity does not require violence, and neither does atheism, and long may that continue. There is nothing in atheism (that is a belief there is no god) to drive people toward violence, there may be things associated with the atheism, i.e intolerance, but not the atheism itself, do you agree? If not explain please? it is an interesting discussion, even if i don't add anything to it

      (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
      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 did a quick Islam and economics search on google so hardly a thorough investigation, but this came up
      http://www.ya-hussain.com/int_col1/I..._and_islam.pdf
      and other stuff, what do you think of Islam then?
      From what I have read it is a very intrusive thing, that seeks to control everything in that persons life and then the life of a community and then a nation. I am a Christian I really value the society we have in the UK, in which we have been gifted with free speech and much individual liberty, something which I do not see in the Islamic world as much. Mind you what I have read on islam is mostly by a guy called Patrick Sookhdeo, he wrote something on the Islamification of Britain which was fascinating, but I am not sure how you would view it from your atheistic (thats right isn't it?) perspective.

      (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
      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.
      There have always been people who have not believed in God and there always will be. The current breed of atheism is a newer type though, the extension of the theory of evolution to say life has no meaning, I would dare to venture atheism has become more aggressive/prominent etc yes? The 'scientific' atheist is new, because the 'scientific age' has not been around for that long. And yes the political and social landscape has changed to make such beliefs acceptable, which is good, whether epode are right or wrong suppression leads to bad things.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
      It's not just that though. It is about the actual "cause" itself. Theism is a body of morals and codes by which how we ought to live our life - according to God. What is the atheist body of rules? They don't have any. Thus, when an atheist kills, it is not because of his atheism (as it would be if he was a theist). He kills because his moral code says so, and his individual ethical beliefs make it acceptable for him.
      Ah I see now what you are trying to say. No atheism is no moral code of *how to live your life* as such like religion. But it is possible then that since religion is a moral code of *how to live your life*, we have atheists saying "religion is the cause of all evil!" and "let us blow up churches and mosques to destroy the evil institution of religion which tells us how to live our lives!" This is the argument. There may, or may not be a historical example where it was a clear cut example of some sort of ethical cult of atheist fanatics who wrote a book of ethical guidelines and enforced others to live their lives according to the "Book of Science and Reasoning" and from here influenced a series of suicide bombings but the point still stands.

      And this is what I said, is it not? That it is people's own interpretation of religion rather than the holy book itself that causes people to act in a particular way. For instance, the Qur'an states that he who dies fighting in a holy war in the name of his God will escape the wait until judgement day and leap straight into the arms of Allah (my apologies if this is not 100% accurate to anyone who believes in Islam). Of course, some Islamic extremists saw this as an excuse to bomb the twin towers; after all it was a "holy war" they were fighting against the US.

      But by the same token, though, if one believes that the ends justify the means then one's own interpretation of atheism who acts in an aggressive manner upon any religious institution - it is their own interpretation of the belief that causes them to act that way, rather than the set of beliefs that is atheism itself.

      You're looking at this from the point of view "oh, they're terrorists. They must have done this-that-and-the-other" .... when, in fact, they are doing nothing more than all the other religious folk.
      They are doing nothing different to the other religius folk acting as terrorists in that they are acting upon interpretations rather than belief, no.

      And that only strengthens my case ....
      As far as I know Hitler's vegeterianism was not his prime motivation in the onslaught of Jews *but* if it had been, it would have been his own interpretation of vegeterianism rather than vegeterianism itself. I understand what you are saying but you are stating the obvious, no?

      This thread of discussion started because the user JCC-MGS corrected another user who stated that it was only religion that caused suicide bombing. He did not say it was the interpretation of atheism rather than atheism itself but you decided to be pedantic over nothing.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by gladders)
      Norway has a state church
      Yes, it's a little strange. I'm hoping it will be removed. But Norway is not a very religious country at all. Quite secular. Norway has one of the lowest church attendance in the world, and most don't care. Religion has little/no influence. The Norwegian Humanist Association is the world's largest humanist association per capita as well. The state church doesn't matter.
     
     
     
    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
  1. 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.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. 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.

  4. 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.