Atheism

@snood,

snood wrote:

I think where the difficulty arises is when one side or the other finds it necessary to be recognized as RIGHT. I think useful discussions last exactly as long as egos allow the participants to carry on without it being important that the 'other side' concedes.

I don't see why the desire to be recognized as right (or to be shown evidence why one is wrong) is a matter of ego. It can just as well be a matter of taking an interest in the question, and in exchanging arguments for deciding it either way. One can take sides in a civil manner. But if the mere act of taking sides is conceived as contentious, I opt for clarity over not coming across as contentious.

1 Reply

@Phoenix32890,

Phoenix, Thanks for that Wiki link on religious wars. It summarizes much of what I suspected for a very long time.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

c.i.- I'm curious. What was it you suspected?

1 Reply

Certainly a lot of wars have had religion for an excuse. The "sins" of religion in slaughtering people have, very often, not had the mantle of war to cover their shame. By the same token, wars which were ostensibly religious wars have not always been either motivated by or maintained by religion. The Thirty Years War is often held up as an example of a religious war. There can be no doubt that sectarianism was at the heart of the war's origin--but politics so often trumps mere religion in events which are so crucially important politically. Protestant England and Catholic France both supported Protestant Denmark when the Danes entered the war to redress the balance of power upset by Imperialist (and therefore Catholic) victories. At the same time, the son of the Danish king (then the richest man in Europe) was the Bishop of Bremen. But Wallenstein and Tilly defeated the newly resurgent Saxons and their Danish allies, and by 1629, Wallenstein was the unchallenged master of northern Germany.

At that point, Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, who had been fighting his uncle, the elected King of Catholic Poland, came to the rescue of the Protestants of Germany. The Swedes carved out a Baltic empire, and the Habsburg empire was shaken to its roots. The mad Emperor Ferdinand II had fired Wallenstein because of complaints by some of the Catholic rulers supporting his cause (Ferdinand was a religious fanatic, and probably can be blamed for the war)--but he was now obliged to beg Wallenstein to come back because Tilly couldn't deal with the Swedes, and had been definitively defeated by Gustavus Adolphus in 1631.

But Gustavus was killed in battle in 1632, and although the Swedes were able successfully to turn, defeat the Danes (two Protestant nations with long-standing grudges) and return to face the Imperialists, it looked as though the Catholic Empire would win. That was not acceptable to the Cardinal de Richelieu of Catholic France for the political reason of the balance of power in Europe, so he supported the Protestant Swedes.

Confused? Well you should be if you think these things are only ever about religion. In war, Politics trumps mere Religion every time. Which is not to say that thousands did not suffer and die for their religious confession in that war.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Thomas wrote:
I wonder what my fellow infidels think of this campaign?

Not worth the powder to blow it to Hell.

Today, I had an experience contradicting the not-worth-it part of that. About the same time I asked the question here, I posted a link to the Consider-Humanism campaign on my Facebook page. Today, my trainer at the gym asked me about secular charities. (We're Facebook-friends.) He had never really thought about the idea that you can, say, support Haiti merely as a matter of humans helping humans. To him, charity had always been interspersed with notions of religious obligation. But then he clicked on my link, somehow found his way to the AHA's webpage on "humanist charities", and realized, to his surprise, that some people successfuly do separate the two. That got him curious---not hostile to the religious charities he'd been supporting until now; not sold on the idea of secular charity; just curious, and intrigued.

Not a bad outcome from the mere posting of a link.

0 Replies

I think that's a pretty odd circumstance. People in the United States give to charities all the time, and not from any religious motivation. Until they shot themselves in the foot with the venality of their national director, United Way was very successful at soliticing charitable donations, and entirely on the basis of helping others, without a hint of religious overtone. The only thing that has changed is that now the United Way campaign in each community is at pains to make sure that people know the money will be used locally, and won't be spent to buy the national director a new mahogany desk.

I think the reply to your example is that one swallow does not a summer make. I'm glad to think that he has charitable urges, and was motivated by your Facebook post--but i suspect that the campaign will do more harm than good. People of religious conviction are more likely to take offense than others of tepid or no religious conviction will be motivated to investigate humanism--in my never humble opinion. I think the result will most likely to polarize a social confrontation that needed no help in being polarized.

EDIT: I'm an atheist becaue i don't believe, not because i have a belief i want to proselytize. Campaigns like this are odious to me, and i suspect, tend to confirm the faulty perception many people have of atheists as just a different type of believer, willing to shove their "beliefs" down other people's throats.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Their motivation to post would be interesting to me. Do they feel threatened by the discussion? Do they feel that the mere existence of such a discussion is a threat to what they believe? It was just vagrant curiousity which moved me to bring it up (again).

My motivation in posting in this thread - each time I've posted here- which has probably been about ten times in two years (I could be wrong - it could be more) is always to address what I believe to be misconceptions about 'believers' when I read them.
I don't have a thing against atheists - I married an agnostic and I'm a parent to another - my other child is a believer (how interesting is that?! And the one who is a believer is tempermentally more like me while the one who isn't is temperamentally more like her dad). I find the psychology of belief fascinating.
So, yeah, I can look at the issue dispassionately. I just don't look at the issue of misinformation which could cause contention or a deeper rift, being spread or shared - and I'm not saying it's intentional at all- as dispassionately.
And I don't believe it should be or has to be contentious at all.
I feel the need to respond when I care about something.

0 Replies

Ten times in two years? The thread is only nine months old.

Your response is reasonable enough, but i don't think it explains most of the sightings of religionists in this thread.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Oh sorry - ten times in nine months -on this thread.
But there was another thread on atheism I used to post on - maybe that one was two years ago- or maybe it was the one before that and it's been thirty times in five years....who knows.

1 Reply

@aidan,

aiden, There's been several threads on "atheism" and "atheists." I wouldn't worry too much about it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I don't need to worry none - I done been SAVED!!!

(little joke= ha, ha)
but yeah - I'm not much of a worrier - that's conditioning from my dad - who tole me when i was just a chile being brainwashed - 'Don't worry about what you can't change.'
So I don't.

1 Reply

@aidan,

That's a lesson most of us learn too late in life. We worry about unimportant junk that only ends up harming our health.

That's one of the life lessons that needs to be taught to our school children early in life. That there will be things that impact our lives that we have no control over, and worrying about them doesn't do anything but make us depressed and unhappy.

Even knowing that, once in a blue moon, something will bother me; I always think it's based on my biology, because it doesn't seem logical to me to worry, and I know it'll pass with time.

The human brain works in mysterious ways.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I don't think anyone need apologize for posting here, and that's not
what i was saying. I did say that n0ne of us can stop anyone else from
posting here. I do find it ironic that in a thread which is about the
experience of being atheist, so many religious people appear. Their
motivation to post would be interesting to me. Do they feel threatened
by the discussion? Do they feel that the mere existence of such a
discussion is a threat to what they believe? It was just vagrant curiousity
which moved me to bring it up (again).

As for George's feeble attempt at humor, General W. A. Sherman
actually said: "The road to heaven is paved with good wars."

I can enlighten you as to my motivation. I originally posted to this thread
when it was intended to be a place for atheists to freely speak about
their atheism. It was a very interesting discussion for a while there.

I am interested in how atheists came to be so and had some assumptions
of my own that I asked about. My questions were, I believe, empathetic
not confrontational at all. In fact, one poster sent me an email asking
whether I was an atheist.

Then the grits hit the pan. I still look in from time to time, but seldom
post. I couldn't resist this time because I've heard that statement
that religion is responsible for most wars so many times without ever
seeing it challenged. It just does not pass the sniff test.

Sherman is quoted as saying "War is hell." A good assessment, whether
or not the war is caused by religion.

2 Replies

@Phoenix32890,

That religious wars were to some extent between countries or internal within factions. Also that many of the religious wars were based in Europe where catholicism and protestanism caused friction and wars such as the crusades and inquisition.

It also clarified for me that the war in Northern Ireland wasn't so much a religious war as it was a "territorial" war between the Irish and Britain. Also learned something "new" about Islam and jihad.

It's nice to have some things confirmed or refuted, and to learn new stuff about any topic as broad as religion.

I would also like to add that there is a news report today that there was a Holocaust in Romania:

Quote:

A Mass Grave Raises Ghosts of Romania's Holocaust Past
Time.com

By RUPERT WOLFE MURRAY / IASI Rupert Wolfe Murray / Iasi – 54 mins ago

One day in 1941, Vasile Enache was tending his cows in the forest of Vulturi, near the city of Iasi, 260 miles (420 kilometers) northeast of Bucharest, when he heard people sobbing. He went to investigate and saw hundreds of civilians being marched through the forest by Romanian Army soldiers. Enache didn't know it at the time, but he was witnessing part of Romania's "Iasi pogrom," which resulted in the deaths of an estimated 14,000 Jews.

For almost 70 years, successive Romanian governments have downplayed the nation's role in the Holocaust. But now a suspected mass grave has been found in the Vulturi forest and some are hoping that the discovery will help Romania face up to one of the darkest periods in its history. (See pictures of Auschwitz after 65 years.)

0 Replies

@George,

I didn't comment on the claim that most wars are caused by religion because it's just too silly to warrant comment. As you will have noted, i don't even think that most "religious" wars are really about religion. Which is not to say that religious motives have not moved men to the slaughter, literally, of millions. It is usually not through the agency of war, though. It is considerably less charming to slaughter the alleged pagan or infidel if he has some capacity to fight back. Anselm, who was raised in the court of Charlemagne, and is therefore as close as we have to a contemporary biographer, reports that they went out to kill the pagan Saxons every year for more than 30 years. That's how such things usually get done--just out and out slaughter, when and if you can get away with it.

1 Reply

@George,

Maybe I can help you feel a bit better, George. I haven't got a list of all the wars fought since the beginning of time...so I can happily retract the word "most" from my statement. I know that differences in religion have caused - and continue to cause - a lot of strife among people and countries.

2 Replies

@Lash,

If I used "most" in any of my posts, I retract that word to replace it with "many." If we count the number of dead and maimed in the so-called religious wars, I think we can still safely assume they're pretty significant. Even when its about the persecution of one sect or another.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I didn't comment on the claim that most wars are caused by religion
because it's just too silly to warrant comment. As you will have noted,
i don't even think that most "religious" wars are really about religion. . .

Yeah, I hadn't read up to that post when I wrote that.
I agree: religion is often the cover for greed, vainglory and power-lust

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Maybe I can help you feel a bit better, George. . .

That does feel a bit better, thank you.
Now about this itch between my shoulders.
Higher.
Higher.
A little to the right.
Ahhhh.
Thank you.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

If I used "most" in any of my posts, I retract that word to replace it
with "many." If we count the number of dead and maimed in the so-called
religious wars, I think we can still safely assume they're pretty significant.
Even when its about the persecution of one sect or another.

No argument from me.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know