Why Anti-Religious and Anti-Theistic Thinking Miss the Mark

[Shadow Wolf]

A central source of guidance? Thats not relevant to your defence of atheists no matter who they are, what they have done, and your defiance to fact that these atrocities were done in the name of atheism, and with atheism as their main theme, philosophy and communication protocol. Still, its not the fault of atheism, its not the fault of all atheists, all atheists are not like that, atheists are in general wonderful people. I am showing your ignorance on the matter and your prejudice which will always make you bias and blind. When someone is so tribally inclined to safe guard the name of their tribe no matter what, its religious fanaticism. Nothing more nothing less.

When the Bolsheviks took over their path was to eradicate religion and "FORCED" secularisation. Their mission goes back prior to 1918 confiscating church property, Innocent priests and church employees were taken forcibly and sent to Gulag, Russian labour camps. Priests were dragged away from villages, under the protest of people, to never be seen again. Soviet policies aimed at strangling faith and promoting atheism is very well documented. The were the first to make this kind of brutal attack recorded history has ever seen. I am showing the same gutter game you play, and will insist on playing.

If you want bible passage cut and pastes I can give you plenty. But that's an uneducated, unsophisticated thing to do. Anyone can do that. There are lists on the internet. In sociology, what you are doing is absolutely antithetical. You should not be so driven by your prejudice. Its blinding you. What ever bad experience you had with religion is by far anecdotal so opt to study. Some innocent child or grown up somewhere does not deserve your blind hatred. Either study philosophy or sociology of religion. Something.

And yet you can't point to a single atheist book that commands and dictated with the Bolsheviks did. While, for a few pages now, example after example has been given where the Bible has been used to justify evil, pointing to specific passages used, specific people and events, even using direct quotes such as "the Lord knows his own. Let him sort them out." You aren't playing the same game as you are failing to do this.
And are you sure the Bolsheviks were the first? Danish vikings invading the Briton Isles made sport of killing priests and mocking the Christian faith. The Romans occasionally fed a Christian to the lions. Genghis Khan expected Christians and Muslims in lands he captured (he saw them as slaves) to eat to food his culture brought, and banned Halal butchering. And, of course, Protestants, Catholics, and Angelicals have sometimes had violent wars and bloody death among each other.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have long ceased to think highly of pretty much any of the "New Atheists," most especially the "Four Horsemen." Online atheism in general has also had this creeping alt-rightness to it: too often do I hear SJW used as a pejorative, anti-feminism, the old "facts don't care about your feelings" canard (despite the absence of facts in their position), etc.

Nearly every online atheist group on Facebook I've ever seen is a toxic cesspool, and they all worship the ground Dawkins and Shermer and Hitchens walk on. Very sour look, to me.

One thing that does consistently disappoint me about Sam Harris is, though he is very highly informed, he has a purely academic understanding of Christianity. His writings bleed heavy with it. He does make some very good points, but he has no idea the depths behind it and just how right he is about it at times.

 

[firedragon]

And yet you can't point to a single atheist book that commands and dictated with the Bolsheviks did.

Haha. The most silly argument I have ever come across.

You should understand with your own argument that a book is not necessary to be that nasty. Even Atheism.

There maybe no books, but the modern day atheists have evangelic scripts like in any evangelical religious seminary.

Anyway, you have no platform. Just bias.

Keep at it. ).

Edit: Ill tell you what. I will play your gutter game of hatred. Applying the same standard you are applying, "MAYBE ATHEISTS HAVE BEEN THE NASTIEST THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN IN HISTORY BECAUSE THERE IS NO BOOK".

 

[MonkeyFire]

The first amendment protects freedom of religion. They hate God for suffering, but how I remember it was hate and suffering who rebeled against God resulting in this existence. As far as I know it the angel of knowledge watching us suffer and that includes FAITH.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Haha. The most silly argument I have ever come across.

You should understand with your own argument that a book is not necessary to be that nasty. Even Atheism.

There maybe no books, but the modern day atheists have evangelic scripts like in any evangelical religious seminary.

Anyway, you have no platform. Just bias.

Keep at it. ).

Edit: Ill tell you what. I will play your gutter game of hatred. Applying the same standard you are applying, "MAYBE ATHEISTS HAVE BEEN THE NASTIEST THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN IN HISTORY BECAUSE THERE IS NO BOOK".

Interesting.

 

[ecco]

Hitler was an individual with agency, whereas religious texts are more often than not mere tools in the hands of the people who choose to employ them in different ways. The impact of any given religious text on the world is often a function of how people interpret and act on it (or not); this isn't the case with a genocidal dictator who explicitly had the goal of eradicating other peoples based on his vision of how the world ought to be.

In all that you ignore that Hitler used the teachings of the Bible, and personified by people like Luther, to inflame German Christian's hatred of Jews.

Your "individual with agency" used religious texts as instruments of hatred. That was easy to do since there is so much hatred in the Bible and religious writings. Hitler just used those parts that were readily available to him.

He probably could have found and used the same lessons in non-religious writings. But by using the religious ones, he had the support of the authority of God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you have any research to show that the world could do better without those books, and that they have been nothing but detrimental to this world?

1. he didn't say that they have been "nothing but detrimental"

2. look up societal health statistics of the world's nations. Secular democracies score the highest. The higher the religiosity of a nation, the lower they score. The more serious the "holy scriptures" (be it the bible OR the quran) are taken, the worse the societal health indexes are.

Sure, correlation does not imply causation.
But it certainly is an obvious correlation.

The higher the religiosity, the worse of the society is.
The more important religious texts are, the more atrocities and trampling of human rights that occurs.

So yeah, the evidence is not at all in favor of them books.

Is there any study properly done you could cite?

Sure. Any study into societal health indexes will do.