Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

In defense of atheism, I haven't heard of too many athiest terrorists lately.

I've heard the argument from people that the fanatics (any religion) are not really a part of their religion. Well, the fanatics believe they are. And people of other religions believe they are. I can see where it is difficult for any religion to distance itself from the perception that these fanatics are part of the flock.

Obviously, you can't just eliminate all religions. But how can non-fanatical religious people convince everyone else that the fanatics are not part of their religion? Too bad you can't revoke their membership.

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

That's extremely prejudice. It's the same as if I say black people are killers and theives. I mean, there certainly are black killers, but it has nothing to do with the color of their skin. Craven has a point on his last comment, but the basis for your argument is invalid.

In what regard is my post "prejudice?" Because it both points out that there are dangerous murderous fanatics in all religions, and that their co-religionists do nothing to stop them, do not preach against it, and simply make the feeble rejoinder: "Well, real ____________ (fill in your preferred superstition) don't act that way?"

Care to do more than make a statement that the basis of my argument is not valid? Care to demonstrate that it is not valid? You stated that: "I don't think you can blame christians for the things that some "christians" do. It's dangerous to label groups." This thread asks why people feel the need to refute christianity, and those of devout nature have come here to make the claim that atheists and agnostics do this as a regular turn of events. That is labelling an entire class of people. I'm not blaming chrisitans for the things that crackpots do in the name of religion, i'm charging them with the hypocricy of denying any ill effect from their particular religion by claiming that others who do not behave as they do are "not true christians." This is a bury your head in the sand attitude which will not look at the huge potential for fanaticism which lies at the core of every system of superstition. And religion is indeed superstition--it is not subject to testing, its claims are not subject to replication; its beliefs are to be accepted, without question, on the basis of bald assertion and no more. It has the same intellectual legitimacy as the claim that breaking a mirror will lead to seven years of "bad luck." I don't care what you choose to believe, as, so far at least, it does me no harm. I will always condemn for the hypocricy it entails with the off-hand contention that this or that person is not "a true christian," because the remark is always an attempt to escape the fact of fanatical potential latent in every such practice.

0 Replies

"fanatical potential" lies in people. It is a form of insanity. Insane people flock to religion to compensate for insecurities. It makes them feel that they are part of some elite group. In that sense there is fanatical potential in religion. Your real problem is with fanatics, not religion. Politics have the same potential for fanatics, but it would be absurd to say that politics should be done away with entirely, or that the need for government created political fanatics. There would be more disorder without politics, and it is worth the potential for fanaticism to invest in government, just as it is worth the potential fanaticism in religion to invest in the establishment thereof. You would be hard-pressed to prove the world would be better without religion, or religious establishments, despite what some crazy individuals or groups have done with it, and WOULD HAVE done anyway if there had been no religion attribute their actions to. Without religion all the religious fanatics would find something else to be obsessed and fanatical about.

0 Replies

All I know is that I have an aunt-in-law who is Islamic and even went to Haj, a Mother-in-law and wife who are Catholic, and a family of my own who are Jewish. We all get along quite nicely, so it must be the rest of the world that is screwed in the head. I'm thinking that I have my bases covered in the afterlife.

0 Replies

sparky makes a point.

In defense of atheism, I haven't heard of too many athiest terrorists lately.
-----------------

0 Replies

The fanatic can exploit people to their own ends. This is much simplified by an appeal to "holy scripture." Such a device for the use of the fanatic, either to recruit or at the least to deflect criticism and interference, is invaluable, and is only found with an equivalent potential to enflame among the idealogues. The potential for a fanatic to "authorize" their behavior and that of others which lies in holy writ has no peer in history, even in politics, which requires of the individual at least a veneer of rationality. One needn't even appear rational to appeal to "god's will."

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

Your real problem is with fanatics, not religion.

My answer to that statement--which i consider to be either naive or disingenuous--is to be found immediately above this post.

Quote:

Politics have the same potential for fanatics, but it would be absurd to say that politics should be done away with entirely, or that the need for government created political fanatics.

This statment shows a presumption on your part, which is classic among the fervent religionist. I have no desire to do away with religion, i just decry hypocricy among the religious (as well as with others), and especailly the unwillingness of the religious to acknowledge the potential for abuse inherent in any system of belief which is not open to question of the base assumptions and core values. Because i have no regard for religion in no way authorizes an assumption on your part that i wish to do away with it, nor that anyone else posting here feels that way. Whether or not they do cannot be considered demonstrable from the bare fact of criticizing the practice of religion and the practitioners thereof. However, it is always important to the fervent to keep a weather eye out for martyrdom, and the institutional paranoia of churches is but another method to manipulate the faithful.

Quote:

There would be more disorder without politics, and it is worth the potential for fanaticism to invest in government, just as it is worth the potential fanaticism in religion to invest in the establishment thereof.

This is a statement from authority which you do not either offer as an opinion nor support even with a casual reference to an interpretation of history, human nature, the character of polities. There is no good reason that you have advanced why one should consider government and religion as having equivalent benefits for people.

Quote:

You would be hard-pressed to prove the world would be better without religion, or religious establishments, despite what some crazy individuals or groups have done with it, and WOULD HAVE done anyway if there had been no religion attribute their actions to.

Here we go again, with the assumption of contempt being equivalent to destructive intent. There is no reason for you to assume that i or anyone else wishes to do away with religion. You have no reason to assert that the world would be worse off had religions never been foisted upon the human race--in many cultures, they have not been imposed upon people.

Quote:

Without religion all the religious fanatics would find something else to be obsessed and fanatical about.

See what i wrote above--religion provides specious justification for fanaticisim as has no other appeal to authority in history.

0 Replies

I take additional issue with this one:

Quote:

Without religion all the religious fanatics would find something else to be obsessed and fanatical about.

Elements of many religions -- perceived persecution, obsession with death and suffering, the categorization of others as not only different in belief but evil -- not only give marginal personalities an outlet for their frustrations, but give them nourishment, as well. There is a logic inherent in certain interpretations of religion that holds that the more vehemently people disagree with you, the more right (and righteous) you must be. Religion amplifies paranoia; this is one of the reasons it is such an effective tool for social control.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

I take additional issue with this one:

Quote:
Without religion all the religious fanatics would find something else to be obsessed and fanatical about.

Elements of many religions -- perceived persecution, obsession with death and suffering, the categorization of others as not only different in belief but evil -- not only give marginal personalities an outlet for their frustrations, but give them nourishment, as well. There is a logic inherent in certain interpretations of religion that holds that the more vehemently people disagree with you, the more right (and righteous) you must be. Religion amplifies paranoia; this is one of the reasons it is such an effective tool for social control.

You know Patio - I think I disagree with that.

Since I believe that people invented the religions, then I think there is something about us that somehow creates all of the above - just look at how easy it is for political ideologies to behave the same way as religions. Even academic allegiances and allegiance to scientific theories can activate some of the same behaviour - but the exclusion etc is generally accomplished with lesser bloodshed!

What do you think?

0 Replies

Well, I have to admit, you absolutely ripped me to shreds. And believe it or not, I agree with most of your points. I have to disagree on some trivial points, but nothing that affects to core issue.

0 Replies

I think it flows both ways -- clearly (to me) the imagery springs from the human imagination, and I'm no stranger to grim thoughts. I do think, however, that religion has the potential to create a sort of feed-forward mechanism with these sorts of things -- especially if religion suffuses every aspect of life. If every waking moment is spent contemplating the prospect of martyrdom -- of the holiness of Christ's suffering, for instance -- it is not unreasonable to expect that it might become a sort of goal.

I don't mean to say that religion is the source of violent behavior (be it inwardly or outwardly directed). We are chimps, after all. But people are very malleable critters, and received ideas are internalized and do influence behavior.

0 Replies

It does take a view of what is "righteous" in order for someone to develope a self-righteous attitude.

0 Replies

(Well -- I do have that without the religion...)

0 Replies

I don't need religion to be righteous!

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

Well, I have to admit, you absolutely ripped me to shreds. And believe it or not, I agree with most of your points. I have to disagree on some trivial points, but nothing that affects to core issue.

I would prefer that you think that your arguments were beaten down. I have no personal animosity, and i feel safe in suggesting as much about PPD and DLowan (who in fact, disputes one of our points). This is not about you personally, and i would hope that you would believe that. Your point about being self-righteous is well taken, and i would also hope that we all avoid that pitfall.

0 Replies

I didn't take it personally, I was just being honest. You presented your points very well, and I am forced to withdraw some of my own.

0 Replies

truth
I also agree with Sparky's point. Atheists have been known to kill, but not in the name of antheism.

0 Replies

That seems true, but I'm sure at least one atheist has gotten sick enough of religion, that it motivated murder. In that sense it could be in the name of atheism.

0 Replies

Well, for someone who simply does not accept the concept of a deity, there is no atheism, that is something ascribed by them to others. ALthough i can't know of what case you refer to, it sounds like one of those variety of "atheists" for whom atheism (as a set of beliefs) is important. There are those who make a religion of their opposition to religion, which could easily introduce the sort of fanaticism which leads to tragedy as with the theists and the ideologues.

0 Replies

I propose a new class of people: "Ismists", basically empty unthinking souls who buy into whatever belief system is convenient for them at the time.

0 Replies

Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know