LOL

Mike, you are one bitter dude. Couldn't think of any countries that are largely populated by atheists where you're allowed to believe what you want? Not one? Had to pick all oppressive regimes who won't allow people to assemble under any unapproved banner, not just a religious one? How Fair and Balanced of you. Never heard of, say, Sweden? All the scandinavian countries, actually, are rather nonreligious, and have some of the best social safety nets in the world.

But no, you had to go all the way to derpville to equate atheism with totalitarianism and thought police, when it's actually atheists who are suggesting people think for themselves, and not accept the bad explanations of religion for life's milestones.

Go channel Glenn Beck somewhere else. We're full up with religious nutcases here.

"Nonreligious" state = "Atheist State"????

I seem to recall you slagging Christianity on the grounds that it encourages people to do bad things? Or was that someone else?

As i said here, I tend to ascribe these sorts of excesses to the old motives of hegemony and greed,

Are you defending hegemony and greed?

If you are doing an ad hominem meltdown on me, i'd have to remark that you're one hyper-defensive, sloppy thinking and blinkered bigmouth who doesn't do nearly enough research or thoughtful engagement.

Even atheists don't want atheist states, and are not lining up to deny the religious the ability to gather and worship whatever they choose. Most atheists I know would like to see the end of the practice of religious priveledge, like churches being tax exempt. Your club is no more deserving of tax exempt status than any other club is.

Other than that, we want you to be able to worship. That's because we're not all communist dictators, strange as that may sound to you - the only one of us who supposedly engages with thought and research, but comes across like a collector of chain emails.

Atheism doesn't come with a book or any dogma to follow. It's strictly the position that no religion, including Christianity, is convincing in the slightest. And that's what many religious people can't stand - the idea that a growing segment of the population looks at their beliefs with disbelief and dismay. And the more you attack us and our disbelief, especially by equating us with dictators and communists, the worse you're going to look. It's too easy to refute this crap. It's too obvious to point out that North Korea is actually a very religious state, where King Jong Un's grandfather Kim Il Sung, is still the official leader, in death.

Psalm 14.1 tried to build in protections against nonbelief by calling people like me "fools", pitting believer against nonbeliever right off the jump. So yeah, nonbelievers are going to be defensive and aggressive in their position that we're not the ones talking to ourselves. What I wrote on the other thread was that Christianity teaches you to accept bad explanations. Christians will attribute good fortune to divine intervention, and bad fortune to God's will. There are people who are saying today that God saved them from the missing Malaysian Air flight, but apparently God didn't much care for the hundreds of others. God grants Oscar awards to some, but isn't blamed for the kids who are beaten every night.

Once you believe in God, and you start looking for examples of his benevolence, it's too easy to fail to see the good that is innate in others - especially when you think that we're all somehow "sinful". There are often real people behind the good things that happen in this world, and there are often real people behind the bad things, and occasionally, no one is to blame for anything, and it's all just a fluke. I just wish people could be honest about that. I wish they could take credit for their own hard work, admit to their mistakes, and recognize when it's not their fault. We're not innately disordered and in need of religious salvation. Christianity is, at best, optional.

I too would like to see church exemptions cancelled. Exemptions from Human Rights legislation can make them bolt-holes for bigots. And if a church doen't want to provide equal employment opportunities for women and LGBT folk, they should shut their doors. There is no good reason for them to NOT comply… after all, many faithful Christians have long supported human rights causes, back to the days of slavery, votes for women, protection for children and trade unionism.

Some self-professed Christians DO see suspension of their critical faculties a pre-requisite for "salvation"; but that's not really quite what the interpretation of scripture needs to be. There are plenty of injunctions to seek wisdom. And scripture is a particular literary form that calls for a bit of work to mesh with. That entails far more time and attention than a lot of the literalist fundies care to put in so it doesn't happen as it should. Literalism can really mess up your spirit, not just your head. But you can say the same thing about all sorts of people and all sorts of pursuits. Stupid isn't a criterion of religiosity.  I know a very stupid agnostic bank manager. His existence doesn't make all bank managers stupid, nor all agnostics. Stupid Christians don't make all Christians stupid. There are five highly regarded professional scientists in my wife's congregation. None of them is stupid, but they would tell you they are Christians and that they experience "god" in their lives… it's what that "god" word means that matters. Religions are essentially languages for talking about this sort of experience.  And any language carries dangers; languages define categories of experience and set the sorts of relationships that in which they can be held. Grammar and semantics don't cover all the bases… not in any language.

I'm not taken with the word "believe", for example. I carries in its roots a meaning of "give alliegance to" which is very different from "accept as the absolute only meaning of". I would hold that there is very little we can say about anything with absolute certainty: reality is more about flows and relationships than it is discrete, unchanging entities. When we attach to what we think are fixed abjects, fixed ways of being, fixed ideas or fixed attitudes, life starts disappointing us, usually in increasing increments.

Personally, my faith in "god" gives me freedom… freedoms… of thought, curiosity, insights and ways to live that atheism did not. That's because in holds in my awareness that it's not about me. I don't have to please "me" to have fun. I can honor commitments and live richly without needing the security of income… I have travelled by making travel a part of what I do. (I'm just back from a month in Bermuda without going near a resort or paying an airfare.)

I still try to read a book a month that lies outside my interests and preferences; I eat new, unfamiliar foods whenever I can and it helps to make me a better cook; I go where I have opportunities to go. My dad encouraged me to ask "why not?" rather than "why?" and that's pretty much the way "god" works in my life too… an inspiration to curiosity, and the removal of fear from life's equations. Scripture affirms me in that, and inspires my creativity in living life fully. And i am grateful… to "god".

So why make that crap OP? Why post something I can eviscerate in my sleep? Why look that petty and stupid yourself?

I understand you're trying to bring me to task for my reasons to be an atheist from the other thread, but those were reasons to be an atheist. I wasn't tasked with coming up with reasons to be a Christian. There simply are a bunch of reasons to be an atheist, and they aren't limited to examples of stupid Christians. If your defense of Christianity is going to involve going on the offensive against atheism, you're going to get your ass kicked. What you wrote above was much better, but again, Christianity is still optional, at best.

political states as atheistic or theistic...?

Separating religion and politics is a recent thing... if memory serves.... driven by religious people wanting to be free of oppressive political control. People have imagined a state ruled by God... a few claimed such states, but I do not recall any...

As I recall my history lessons, people in search of religious freedom have largely driven the curbing of political power. One might say that states should exist to ensure spiritual freedom and well being... or they exist to excert political power on behalf of the powerful...

Belief, spiritual life, faith and religion are all very personal projects. If so, by definition there are no Christian states... never have been. As for those who claim otherwise, I would suggest they are pointing to political states excercising politcal power in political ways (regardless of the 'clothing' or disguise applied).

The call to freedom has always been a spiritual call. In the past this calling has been, and today it is  challenged by every Tom, Dick or Mary who has discovered how to control and manipulate others... whether on a grand scale or a small scale. The challengers reveal themselves in the oppresive excercise of their 'power' ... big or small.

I suppose states emptied of any spiritual content, become machines driven by the needs of the machine or the many cogs in such a machine... I think we come back to existence which is in itself insignificant, meaningless and absurdly without puropse... and with that anything goes... and in a Godless world so it should... shouldn't it?

Chansen: they were reasons? Not very good ones… ones I dismissed after growing out of my adolescent ego. Your idea of "evisceration" is more like parting your hair in the middle. And the failed states do suggest that atheism doesn't necessarily offer too many useful applications to the human condition. The basic issue is than humans aren't half as smart as they think they are… a truismm that includes atheists along with all of the planet's countless other tunnel thinkers.

No, Aldo. Again, you're trying to tell people who don't believe in yours or any other god that our lives are without purpose. Don't you see how this is going to backfire spectacularly?  People are dropping their faith, so let's win them back by telling them that they are machines and their lives are without purpose?

What if they've defined their own purpose? What if they're happier without religion? Now how do you look?

What you have is a simple fearmongering scam. "Let's tell people that atheists don't have purpose in their lives." But even a lot of Christians can tell you that's not true and that your logic is ludicrous.

Is there anything else you want to warn people about? Do atheists get more speeding tickets? Are we more likely to be struck by lightning? Do our light bulbs burn out prematurely? Come on, I know you have more public service announcements about the dangers of nonbelief in your back pocket.

What you describe as religion is not anything I can take seriously.

You create a very faciful storey line (perhaps you found it in disneyland?), then discredit it and so it should be discredited because it is a juvenile undertanding... not sure what is accomplished in that merry-go-round..

 I do not see that you grasp much of what I put forward from time to time... if you do, you certainly do not respond with any meaningful content given what I have put forward...

there is no dicsussion when we are that far apart... certainly little evidence of mutual respect... I will leave it at that... I do not argue or 'yell' and I try not to oppress via verbal jousting... I leave the games for others to tilt at...

You can't say any reason to abandon faith is a good one because you've got too much invested in it. Atheists are communists in your mind, and you've got cold war style paranoia about that down pat. Meanwhile, a bunch of peaceful Norwegians are wondering if you had some bad fish for lunch.

And you've written about growing out of your adolescent ego before, but you grew nicely into your adult ego, and based on how you've desribed yourself, there isn't much to choose between the two. Your complaint about atheism and how it made you a bitter young atheist doesn't work in light of the observable fact that you've simply become a bitter old theist. Consider the possibility that you're just a bitter person and your beliefs or lack thereof have had no effect in that department.

You're telling me I'm a machine and my life is without purpose, and I'm the one with no respect? Dude, come on. Anyone can see through that one.

There is a point of agreement available, is there not? Will anyone deny that an atheist may do good as well as a theist? Conversely, will anyone deny that a theist may do good as well as an atheist? Is it not character alone which determines outcomes?

George

That's what I am saying, George. Mike is equating atheists with communists, and Aldo is telling us that atheists are machines with no purpose in life.

If the goal is to be a good person, Christianity is optional, at best.

isn't atheist states that movie where bill hurt gets really in touch with his inner caveman? ;3

Mike, as I read, is saying simply that just as theism (religion) may be the source of travesty, atheisim (irreligion) may be the source of travesty. He is not saying all atheists are responsible for travesty. Very few of us here are.

Neither is a source of travesty, GeoFee.  It's the rest of what one is/believes/feels that can result in travesty.  (A)theism is trivial.

Atheism wasn't the driving force behind the tragedies of communist states Mike listed. The atheism of those states was a consequence of controlling the population, not a reason for the travesties. These states did not want any organization to meet that it did not control.

This is where religion goes off the rails in criticizing atheists. It's such a FoxNews-esque attack, that it invites mockery.

And I see that you're not even attempting to defend Aldo. Smart.

George... you open up the question of whether good exists...

God is rooted in the word itself.. good comes from the word God. If good does exist what is it?

Serious atheists (a few I have known, I few I have read), do not think good exists ... the concept is meaningless to them. For them, existence just is... its neither good or bad... it simply is.

That people do good and know they do is the the start of personal reflection that leads to apprehension of ultimate existential good or significance and that reflection leads to congregate reflections along similar lines.

Hi Azdgari.... I agree. Basically what I intend above, saying: "Is it not character alone which determines outcomes?"

George

Hi chansen...

Not much interested in defending anyone or anything. Simply trying to get past rhetoric and perhaps locate common ground.

George

Again, bullshit. The root of the word "good" has nothing to do with "God". The root of the word "God" has nothing to do with "good".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_(word)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=god&search...

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=good&allowed_in_frame=0

Where do you live that atheists have no concept of "good"?!? Now we're machines with no purpose and no sense of good? Anything else you want to charge us with? Are we terrible drivers? Do we leave the toilet seat up?

I think the best explanation for where atheists derive their morals was written on this site years ago by spockis53:

But no, on top of being purposeless robots, we also don't know what "good" is.

Who takes you seriously?

Good luck. Mike is busy yelling at kids to get off his lawn and Aldo is gearing up to tell us that atheists kick puppies.

That's just silly Chansen, we all know that atheists just kick Christians or anyone else that believes in God.

Worse than that, Mike thinks we're going to wipe you all out in a Stalinist purge. What a relief to know I'm a robot with no sense of good. That's make the whole purge thing easier on my conscience.

Oh, wait, I probably don't have one of those, either.

Again that's silly too, we all know that mockery is an atheists secret weapon.

Mockery is absolutely the best tool at our disposal to oppose ideas that declare themselves immune to reason. There is no substitute.

The problem is not God/NotGod.  The problem is hierarchy, blind group hypnosis, prejudice and outcasting, class system, racism, genderism, superstition and lack of sophisticated education and medical systems.

We don't need God/Not God.   It is inadequate. Our eyes are opened.  It's ridiculous to expect a giant to fit in an infants crib.

In fact, it makes me angry and clausterphobic. 

And don't you DARE come back with some crap about ego and pride - go find your own diapers and live in poop, if you have to be so stupid as to study yourself into idiocy, but I have to survive this stupid yet interesting planet no time for poopbottom.

Perhaps atheism is unaware of a whole new area to use this on, such as fortune tellers, palm readers and psychics. Imagine the posters one could make and the catchy slogans. Why limit the mockery towards religion?

James Randi is on it. And remember Stardust's recent thread about Sylvia Browne?

I do remember. Sort of makes one wonder why Atheism requires a non existent God as a kicking post in order to become a viable option. Is there a reason that Atheism can't move forward solely on it's own merits without the mockery?

or take a different approach?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-carlson/albert-camus-old-antheism_b_4...

Atheism isn't a "thing" without theism. Atheism is simply a reaction to people saying that they have a relationship with this really amazing guy, and no, you can't meet him.

I think you know what I would respond to that.. And I think I know you dont want to hear it. ;)

Hello chansen...

Let's go slowly with this one, and let's try to remember that we are simply persons trying to get along. We will do well to remember at the start that there are differences between us.

It will also serve well to remember that we have many things in common. You will not quarrel with me about our shared need for the air that we breathe. Nor will you argue that we are not comprised, in the main, of water.

Where you and I disagree, which gives me no justifiable cause to call you names or to characterize you as less worthy than me, is on the presence of "this really amazing guy" who you "can't meet".

I say that the person Jesus, and I am not concerned about any factuality specific to his name, has profoundly influenced my experience of being in the world. By reference to this historic personality, I take my bearings in the realm of ethics. 

Jesus is present in the structure of my imagination, to inform and encourage me, as I seek to identify and perform the good, by which the not so good and downright awful may be resisted and overcome.

Jesus is an example for me, of how to become a better person in a world vexed by persons much occupied with the "restless striving of power after power which ceases only in death".  This quoted bit is from Thomas Hobbes, another person whom "you can't meet".

Now you may wish to argue about whether or not I am a becoming a better person because of the influence I attribute to the person Jesus. This would of course require a significant research into my past, asking what kind of person i was in the earlier stages of my development. You would then put that alongside the person I am in the present and see if there is a difference. This could all be done with a great deal of respect for the rules of evidence, which I understand matter to you.

Your "reactions" to my admiration for Jesus have very little to do with my experience of Jesus. Lot's of friends and neighbours were deeply dismayed and distressed about Elwood P. Dowd's invisible friend Harvey. These did not move Elwood in the least.

I identify with Dowd. His experience with Harvey is very similar to my experience with Jesus. I am a likable person who has made a positive contribution to the lives of many persons close to me and many persons whom I have met serendipitously. You may react against this but that reaction in no way negates my experience. It will give all of us here an indication of your values and your experience.

There is no reasonable explanation for the presence of human freedom in nature. The physical evidence is against it and its determinations often work against the evolutionary urge to survival and flourishing. Still, there it is.

I am free to look to Jesus for insight and encouragement. You are free to refuse. This is only a problem where one of us denies or belittles the freedom of the other, as both theists and atheists have done and continue to do.

With respect,

George

here's some successful atheists who have moved forward

George, I have no quarrel with you over this. And I'm not saying that you may not worship Jesus. I take exception to Mike continued sniping and use of debunked arguments against atheism, and Aldo's posts full of obvious bigotry and demonstrable falsehoods.

And in the face of this, why does it fall on me to take these two on? Where are the Christians who are tired of being associated with these posts? When we do see truly aggressive atheists, calling Christians "stupid", I'm the one opposing them because I don't want to be associated with that. We've got Christians here calling atheists communists, totalitarians, purposeless, and free of morals. That is going to go predictably poorly for Christians, but perhaps in the spirit of ecumenicism, no one else says a word to them. You decide to only approach me with soft words. Why?

And then to finish, you can't help but make a religious claim:

Do you really want to hash that one out? Really?

And again, the only disrespect that is being addressed is mine toward Christians. If I'm saying your Christian friends are being idiots, maybe that's because your Christian friends are being idiots. Try addressing them as well.

Chansen

You make tiresome, endless, barbed, repetitive and inaccurate remarks about Christianity and religion, accusing it of inflicting all sorts of harm on individuals and societies. 

Yet you yelp pathetically when I point out that “atheism” is no answer to the World’s griefs and sorrows. This amounts to "continued continued sniping and use of debunked arguments against atheism"??? Really? Isn't that being more than a little precious?

What you seem to harbor in your heart is anti-religious bigotry — and bigotry truly IS a damaging attitude.

History shows that core causes of strife have far more to do with human failings, particularly greed and the desire for hegemony. I’d trace both of these impulses to fear, an emotion which healthy religious practice expels. On balance, I would argue very strongly that religion has done humanity vastly more good than harm.

Religion used as ideology, as a tool of political or mercenary ends (as it has been in colonialism and times of war) is a perversion of faith. If you don’t know the difference, Chansen, you really need to study what you rail against a lot more discerningly.

Where religion is seen as the cause of war, spite and grief, it is being hijacked or traduced by groups or individuals who are exploiting its potent attractions to further their own self-interest.

In identical ways, we have seen all sorts of fine-sounding causes and ideals abused in exactly the same way. The religious impulse has long been (and still is) a near-universal human trait.

This renders it vulnerable to abuse, in the same way as other human impulses are abused. Religions, moreover, do not gather only the “good” … they attract the needful and the dangerous because they offer hope and answers. To judge a religion by its most base adherents is simply stupid reasoning.

Literalism and exclusivism are NOT religious impulses. Religions are, in their meaningful essence, about fostering faith in the face of existential mystery. They are languages to facilitate this connection with what it means to be fully human. When they distort or exploit that need to find faith, they are turning their backs on “god” and deserve uncompromising critique. But criticism has to be aimed at the flaws, not the inspiration.

I am not campaigning against atheism: but your brand of it continually reveals a closed mind, flawed and biased information and knee-jerk irritation, which you express when you accuse me of campaigning against you.

It is your conceit, ignorance and ranting language that gets a response from me from time to time. I feel you should have grown up more than you seem to have, and that you should have got over some of your apparently extreme ego-entitlement if you are going to join discussions about religion in any constructive way.

The Thirty Years War (1618 to 1648) devastated and de-populated Germany like no other war before or since. It was a religious war, Protestants versus Catholics, and the cruelty and destructiveness of both sides became legendary. The Peace of Westfalia (1648) was a draw, not a victory by either side.

The region of Bavaria where I grew up in was so depopulated by the Thirty Years War that they brought in people from Croatia to re-populate it. There must have been plenty of friction between the Croatian immigrants and the indigenous Bavarians because, when we children did something bad, we were called "you Croats!" 

Atheism, like all other "isms," including theism, is a thought or belief system. It is neither good nor bad. But what humans do can be good or bad.

"Tell me, Phaedrus, what is good, and what is not good?

And do we need anyone to tell us these things?"

-From the Dialogues by Plato

As for atheists being communists… that hasn't been my impression at all.

Commmunists are often atheists because they take Marx to heart. They become idiologues, and there's danger in that.  Most atheists i know are fairly unreflective ordinary folk, inclined rather more towards self-centredness than the good of the proletariat. But that'd be their society talking. 

I don't think atheism makes them happier, better people, more curious, more fulfilled or more generous-spirited. Most, I find intellectually lazy (but not much more than most folk). They mostly buy into the bullshit of contemporary Canadian consumerism. As, I'd suggest, do most church-goers. Going to church doesn't necessarily make people "religious" or lead them to "faith". 

In my experience, the counter to the tedious rut of convention and consumption is faith… not belief, mind, but curiosity-stirring, fear-banishing, energising and daily refreshing faith and the love it stirs in my soul.

Church, Scripture, prayer, Christianity, "religion", "god", "Jesus"… they are all critical to the health of my faith. I know many other people for that's also the case, and their experience.

Armi: the 30 Years War was about the balance of power within the Holy Roman Empire: the old Bourbon-Hapsburg enmity was at the core of it (hegemony again) became more and more "public" as it dragged destructively on. Reiigion was the device used to herd the boys out of their homes, villages and communities and get them butchering each other and destroying each others' homes. villages and communities in the name of "Jesus"… religious? Phooey! … manufactured hate!

The wars of the Reformation were vile across Europe but all were part of longer-standing rivalries and enmities between aristocrats. In Scotland, the myth's arisen that Bonnie Prince Charlie (Charles Edward Stuart) was going to give Scotland independence: nonsense… all he wanted to the Crown of England (AND Scotland) and to re-establish a flagrantly corrupt Stuart Dynasty. He ditched his Catholic supporters and fled the moment that ambition looked futile and left them to the guns and gallows of the Hanoverians — rival German nobility pursuing their own material ambitions in someone else's country.Then Queen Voctoria brought the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha into it. It's superficially surprisingthat Britain fought on the side it did in the First World War.

All of these aristocratic swine were still playing their greedy games in shaping the antecedents to the First World War… and there are still some of them around in the basements and corridoors of power. They have always seen people as their rightful property to dispose of without qualm whenever it seemed expedient. Democracy has yet to be realised, I'm afraid.

Unfortunately when Religion is attacked with an often ignorant ferver it is our nature to defend. I believe I can reasonably assume this holds true with atheism also. 

What I've noticed more and more is the quality of the argument has degenerated into meaningless dialogue, especially when the tactic of, let's call it "mockery", is brought forth. Atheism now has a very loud voice in it's young people that can often be observed on internet boards. If anyone professes their faith, it doesn't take very long for the attack to begin and the believer to become something that is to be devoured. The ignorance is astounding, much like an atheist will observe at times from those new to the faith in Christianity.

There are many fine atheists that if I were one I would be proud to emulate or promote, such as Quentin Smith or Graham Oppy. Highly acedemic arguments that promote understandings rather than create a defense. Compare that to some controversial books written by the current "New Atheism" such as "The God Delusion", "Mother Theresa: The Missionary Position",  "God is not Great" ,which automatically creates division even with it's initial presentation from the onset. Not that there isn't obviously a convincing argument for those so inclined to agree, but does the argument always have to portray "the ignorance" of believers and that our indoctrination is the reason we are unable to think? Common ignorances have had to be dismantled on a continuous basis. For example the once held belief that Religion has been the cause of most wars, which takes us back to the OP. It's a downright lie, that unfortunately still pops up in arguments. Another is that religion poisons everything or believing that Norway is the only and best example of people living together harmoniously that far outweighs a Christian society, is another,

I really don't have a problem with someone choosing atheism, but I will tend to speak up on this board against ignorant pot shots taken. Mockery has not place in any argument, IMO. If I am asked why I believe, I take that as an invitation to answer and respectful debate is welcome.

IMHO, atheists and theists(including myself), have a long way to go in realizing that it's possible to exist together without taking away the freedoms of the other in order to accomplish a peaceful existence on this our planet earth.

Hi chansen.

You allow that I am free to worship Jesus. Let me assure you that I have no interest in worshipping Jesus. So let's move on to what I do have an interest in.

I would be delighted to go the distance with you on this.

First, you could show me why you take my statement to be a religious claim. Once we settle that, we can move on to explore just where human freedom has its origens. Maybe Dawkins will be helpful?

I have no interest in defending myself when the evidence contradicts me. You will be doing me a good turn by showing me where I am getting it wrong.

George

Yes, Mike, I agree. But the official version was that it was a "religious war," and that God was siding with the "right" side, which each side pretended was them.

My own and my wife's ancestors fought on opposite sides of this wretched war, but we are happily married. Some progress has been made, eh?

Sure, Armi… and atrocity begets atrocity until whole communities, cultures and ways of life become demonised, and so it goes, leaving an aftermath of smouldering hatreds that can be re-ignited at a breath generations later… 

[Quote=Atheism, like all other "isms," including theism, is a thought or belief system. It is neither good nor bad. But what humans do can be good or bad.[/quote]
Yup, that's pretty much the case.

Well put, sir.

If you have to assert that atheism is nothing without theism, the tautology must be true.  Theism does not exist without it's contradition and discussion.  However, to disregard theism or atheism as componants of any dialogue can be done.  If one raises the question of theism or atheism in a discussion about abortion for example, it can merely be a subsection of a scientific, social work, socioeconomicpolitic, et al.  It is not a right of atheism/theism or any religion to call dibs on any human discussion.  It is only a subset called "myth structures relevant to some".

Yes, unfortunately.

The mutual intolerance and contempt between the Lutherans and Roman Catholics of Germany continued right into our times. The village priest in the Catholic village I grew up in said "Martin Luther was a criminal!" to which my mother commented contemptuously, "Catholics are stupid!" She was against me marrying a Catholic girl. But I married her anyway, and did not regret it.

Only in recent years (500 years after the Protestant Reformation!) have there been serious attempts at reconciliation between these two major German Christian denominations. And this at a time when the pews of the churches of both denominations are emptying rapidly. One almost feels inclined to say, "too little, too late."

But then this is a trend even in countries that are homogenously Lutheran or Catholic. The Scandinavian countries, for instance, used to be uniformly and staunchly Lutheran, but now hardly anyone there goes to church any more. But the Protestant Ethic must have imprinted itself on the Scandinavian people because these countries arguably are the most humanistic in the Western world (matched, perhaps, by New Zealand :-)

I've been following this thread but, given the inflammatory OP, I've been trying to resist posting.

I do not think that religion is automatically a cause of oppression or other evils, but it can be.

I do not think that opposition to religion is automatically a cause of oppression or other evils, but it can be.

We have seen all religious and philosophical views, including atheist ones, take stands in support of suppressing views opposed to their own. It all comes down to how extremely and exclusively you define your viewpoint (religious or otherwise).

Maoism, for instance, suppressed pretty much everything, not just religion. Traditional Chinese philosophies like Confucianism were targeted, too, so you can't just paint it simplistically as an attack on religion or Christianity. Christianity was not targeted in China simply because it believed in God, but also because it was (and still is by many) seen as a Western influence and Mao saw Western influence as, in general, being opposed to what he was trying to accomplish. Buddhism was also targeted as being opposed to Mao's definition of communism (oddly, I suspect Marx would also have been purged had he lived in Mao's China). Mao was suppressing anything that he saw as an impediment to himself and his self-focussed ideology, much as the old emperors and pre-1948 warlords had. He was a divine-right emperor who didn't actually believe in a divinity, if you like.

Mercifully, the CCP has restructured in a way that should prevent another such leader from arising (leaders are chosen by the inner circle of the party for ten year terms with grooming from their predecessors). Far from democratic, but less autocratic than during Mao's time. They have also loosened up on religion, including Christianity, to some extent though the requirement for religious groups to be approved and licensed by the state sticks in the craw of some Western religious groups (eg. Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants) who find the state will not approve them in the way they want. Though that, again, is as much because of the fear of a renewal of Western domination such as occurred during the late Empire and pre-1948 Republican era as it is about enforcing atheism.

In the end, it is human greed and need to control that leads to oppression. Religion may become the basis for that oppression (e.g. in various European societies during the days when The Church was dominant), but it is human behaviour that is the root cause. The sad part is that religion as taught by persons like Jesus and The Buddha should be the undoing of that behaviour, but instead ends up being used to justify it.

Mendalla

Thank you. I appreciate that someone else is willing to say this.

Where have we seen examples where atheism was the driving force or justification for suppressing non-atheist views?

That's an important question.

Exactly. If religion isn't making people act better and is not the leading force for morality, and actually has to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to moral conclusions, then to borrow from Stephen Fry, "What the hell is it for?!?"