Another question for atheists

[fangjian]

How long have you got? I can show you plenty of wars purely about land, wealth ( not necessaroty money btw) and power. The world has a long history of such wars, what do you think the Roman empire was about?

My areas of study would be martial arts and a few sciences. I will not pretend that I know exactly what Rome was all about. Let's say that "there are wars fought solely about land". Ok. So you think that wars or conflicts haven't occurred because of conflicting religious views?

 

[Razor]

I assume nothing having studied the causes of wars at Staff College, so show me any conflict that is about religion alone.

You do however seem to be assuming that I think the only bad thing that has come of religion is conflict. So, what have you to say about fundamentalist terrorism? Maybe they want money or power instead, or don't really believe in religion?

 

[Tez3]

My areas of study would be martial arts and a few sciences. I will not pretend that I know exactly what Rome was all about. Let's say that "there are wars fought solely about land". Ok. So you think that wars or conflicts haven't occurred because of conflicting religious views?

It's a convenient title to ensure that ones followers, follow. The war isn't likely to be about the religion per se but about grabbing land etc but you aren't going to get many to support your invading your neighbour is you say that so turn it into a 'Holy' war and there you go, people fighting for righteousness.
the Roman Empire was solely about land, wealth and power, not religion, they didn't convert anyone to theirs, just invaded, took over and became rish and powerful.

Show me a war that is about religion then and I'll show you the real motives behind it.
What makes you think fundamentalists are immune to power and wealth?

 

[Sukerkin]

From a historical perspective, it is nigh impossible (if not actually impossible) to separate out the various elements that caused a war to begin.

What has been seen is that it is very much easier to evince the support of the population if there is a way to 'demonise' the opposition. Historically, this has been most easily done by the use of religion as a 'lever of difference'. It should be noted that this has not always been at the behest of the holders of religious authority but almost without exception it has been with their complicity (very often with a baggage of most un-spiritual goals).

With the rise of nationalism it has become possible to replace an 'appeal to God' with an 'appeal to country' but in our current crop of conflicts, it is seem that, once again, it is the religion of the enemy that is the drum that is beaten.

 

[Blade96]

I'm agnostic. And as my fb profile says if I ever need a religion I'll worship tetley tea.

That said no i do not get together with other agnoztics. I talk to anyone who's nice. people of all beliefs about anything.

 

[David43515]

Only had time to read Bill`s origin post so far (fear not, I plan to read it all after lunch because it sounds like an interesting topic and I honestly want to hear what people think) but the first thing I thought of was the Gentlemen`s Club (no, not stripjoint) that was run by Sherlock Holmes brother, Mycroft, ran in some stories. It was a club for people who didn`t like clubs....the members were free to use all the facilities as long as they didn`t speak to each other.

 

[Balrog]

OK, maybe a side-question. How many of you are not religious, versus anti-religion?

I'm agnostic, not atheistic. I am, however, strongly anti-religion. I found out quite some time ago that religion is a lie from start to finish.

 

[cdunn]

So tell me, atheists. Do you get together with other atheists on a regular basis (you know, kind of like religious folk go to services) and if so, what on earth do you talk about? Assuming it's not a secret, of course.

OK, maybe a side-question. How many of you are not religious, versus anti-religion? I have noted that some atheists aren't just non-believers, they also seem to have a problem with people who are, either due to having been persecuted (in fact or imagination) or they think that they're being oppressed by living in a society that clearly celebrates religion in public with all the holidays and such.

I haven't gotten my *** out to the "local" meetings, mostly cause of how far away they are, but mostly, the meetings tend to, as I understand it, generally be social hour, with a bit more science talk than you'd get at your local bar. Individuals may or may not gripe about the religious.

If you look at the convention schedules, they tend to bring in speakers to talk science, especially evolution, ethics, philosophy, and yes, arguments against religion. There are discussions of personal experiences. There is the general community mixing, which can be worthwhile on its own - It's good to socialize, and it feels good to socialize with those who generally share portions of your background. People are tribal.

I'm not much of one for religion, personally. I think it's irrational, but, aside from making sure that people understand that, hey, it's okay not to believe, I would be happy to live and let live. However, I find that the responses of organized religion to various social ills tends to make extremely, extremely poor public policy, and then you read the personal horror stories.

 

[CoryKS]

I mean, once you've established what you don't believe, what else is there to talk about?

I don't know, maybe they could talk about politics. You know, like we do on a forum devoted to martial arts.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Thought I'd start a new thread so as not to crap on the other one. But it reminded me of a question I have been meaning to ask.

I've got a friend on Twitter (and now FB) who is an atheist. She's a good person and I like her just fine (despite her being liberal as well, hehehe). But she's into this atheist thing and I find some of what she does somewhat mystifying.

For example, she belongs to an atheist group that has meetings on a regular basis. I'm thinking to myself WHAT on earth do they talk about? I can picture it now.

"Well, there's no God, I'm pretty sure of that."

"Yep, no God."

"Definitely! Just say NO to God."

"Uh, OK, then. What do we talk about for the next hour?"

I mean, once you've established what you don't believe, what else is there to talk about?

And she goes to atheist conventions? Really? What on earth for? A whole bunch of people all in one place for a week or so, all saying "Yep, we sure don't believe in God. Sure don't. Nope, not at all....[crickets]..."

So tell me, atheists. Do you get together with other atheists on a regular basis (you know, kind of like religious folk go to services) and if so, what on earth do you talk about? Assuming it's not a secret, of course.

OK, maybe a side-question. How many of you are not religious, versus anti-religion? I have noted that some atheists aren't just non-believers, they also seem to have a problem with people who are, either due to having been persecuted (in fact or imagination) or they think that they're being oppressed by living in a society that clearly celebrates religion in public with all the holidays and such.

I have to say the whole bit about "atheist group that has meetings on a regular basis" is currently making as much sense to me as an Anarchist convention

I don't know, maybe they could talk about politics. You know, like we do on a forum devoted to martial arts.

Stop being so damn logical... :uhyeah:

 

[Steve]

I'm not so much an atheist as I am areligious. I don't give religion much thought, nor do I give people who are religious a hard time. As far as I'm concerned, it's your thing. We're all making our own way in this world and no one has all the answers. I enjoy learning about religions. I like hearing the stories and philosophies and histories. I am not at all interested in discussions about whether they are factual or not.

Regarding what an atheist meeting might talk about, I would assume (but this is just a WAG) that they talk about issues related to religion. For example, efforts by school districts to teach creationism as a science, or to teach evolution as a religious belief might be very concerning to an organized atheist group. The resurgence of religious rhetoric in politics. That sort of thing.

 

[fangjian]

I'm not so much an atheist as I am areligious. I don't give religion much thought, nor do I give people who are religious a hard time. As far as I'm concerned, it's your thing. We're all making our own way in this world and no one has all the answers. I enjoy learning about religions. I like hearing the stories and philosophies and histories. I am not at all interested in discussions about whether they are factual or not.

Regarding what an atheist meeting might talk about, I would assume (but this is just a WAG) that they talk about issues related to religion. For example, efforts by school districts to teach creationism as a science, or to teach evolution as a religious belief might be very concerning to an organized atheist group. The resurgence of religious rhetoric in politics. That sort of thing.

Big time!

 

[oftheherd1]

Perhaps, but not generally. Last research I looked at showed a mild negative relationship between levels of fundamentalism and education. That was from a while ago though, it would be interesting to see if and how it has changed.

Okay, well that's just a difference of opinion then isn't it. I think it is unfair to lump all of these conflicts together. You cannot just assume that land and power (or any causes) are the dominant factors in all conflicts. Religion can be another cause of friction between people, functioning as yet another dividing line which exacerbates existing problems.

I don't think religion is usually the main or even partial cause of war. As other posters have mentioned, things are done in the name of religion, and people can be convinced to buy into religion as a reason for conflict. However, most religions teach some form of love for fellow man, which normally precludes war as a means of solving problems. As a Christian, I deplor the use of the term Christian describing one side in a conflict for just that reason. I don't think a true Christian can buy into killing others only because they are not Christian.

You do however seem to be assuming that I think the only bad thing that has come of religion is conflict. So, what have you to say about fundamentalist terrorism? Maybe they want money or power instead, or don't really believe in religion?

My personal belief is that most who hide behind religion to engage in criminal activity are in fact criminals seeking cover for their crime sprees. Murder is murder, theft is theft. Hiding it behind false religious interpretations doesn't change that. I don't know of a major religion that truely advocates violating law as justifiable. If someone is a practioner of a religion that does, please correct me and show me in your sacred writings where that is true.

EDIT: Razor - I meant to ask, what is your definition of a fundamentalist? I ask that since I am a fundamentalist, but I don't fit in the "fundamentalist terrorism" category. When applied to religion, based on my belief that most fundamentalist terrorists are hiding behind religion, I almost think religious fundamentalist terrorism is an oxymoron.

 

[oftheherd1]

Perhaps, but not generally. Last research I looked at showed a mild negative relationship between levels of fundamentalism and education. That was from a while ago though, it would be interesting to see if and how it has changed.

Okay, well that's just a difference of opinion then isn't it. I think it is unfair to lump all of these conflicts together. You cannot just assume that land and power (or any causes) are the dominant factors in all conflicts. Religion can be another cause of friction between people, functioning as yet another dividing line which exacerbates existing problems.

I'm not so much an atheist as I am areligious. I don't give religion much thought, nor do I give people who are religious a hard time. As far as I'm concerned, it's your thing. We're all making our own way in this world and no one has all the answers. I enjoy learning about religions. I like hearing the stories and philosophies and histories. I am not at all interested in discussions about whether they are factual or not.

Regarding what an atheist meeting might talk about, I would assume (but this is just a WAG) that they talk about issues related to religion. For example, efforts by school districts to teach creationism as a science, or to teach evolution as a religious belief might be very concerning to an organized atheist group. The resurgence of religious rhetoric in politics. That sort of thing.

Big time!

Interesting side topics:

If you are an atheist, must not all religions then be based on science?

If there is a "resurgence of religious rhetoric in politics" how do you define it as wrong? The founding fathers seem to have believed in religion having written it into some of our founding documents. And they only seem to have believed that the federal government should stay out of religion since they didn't prohibit the States from doing so; not prohibiting those States that had State religion.

Bill Mattocks - if you think that is derailing you thread let me know and I will delete this post and perhaps start another unless the mods object.

 

[fangjian]

Hiding it behind false religious interpretations doesn't change that. I don't know of a major religion that truely advocates violating law as justifiable. If someone is a practioner of a religion that does, please correct me and show me in your sacred writings where that is true.

Many of the violent among the religious populations, are simply only doing what the gods commanded from the beginning. The only reason the mainstream don't 'kill unbelievers' or 'stone their children', is because their views are also influenced by the modern age. Extremists are just pure uncut religion. The bible and Quran say some of these things and they are doing as commanded.

Interesting side topics:

If you are an atheist, must not all religions then be based on science?

How is that? Science as most define the topic, is the methodology of observation and experiments to verify hypotheses. Many religions deal with the exact same questions (how did the universe begin, how did life begin, why is life so diverse ? ), except they do not use the same rigorous methods. Like if a supposed miracle occurred, it is asserted that it occurred, and there are no experiments/observations done to find out was is true and what isn't.

 

[Steve]

Interesting side topics:

If you are an atheist, must not all religions then be based on science?

Not sure what you're suggesting. Atheists don't disbelieve in religion. Religions exist, whether there is a god or not.

If there is a "resurgence of religious rhetoric in politics" how do you define it as wrong? The founding fathers seem to have believed in religion having written it into some of our founding documents. And they only seem to have believed that the federal government should stay out of religion since they didn't prohibit the States from doing so; not prohibiting those States that had State religion.

Just to be clear, I don't attend atheist conventions, so I don't speak for them. I was simply speculating at what they might talk about. My thought is that an organized atheist group will have a political agenda that likely includes limiting the influence of religion in government. We see now as we have in the past politicians using religion to influence voters. The truth of the religious beliefs are irrelevant to the uses of religion to control and influence people. I would think this would be concerning to a group of organized atheists.

 

[Nomad]

So tell me, atheists. Do you get together with other atheists on a regular basis (you know, kind of like religious folk go to services) and if so, what on earth do you talk about? Assuming it's not a secret, of course.

OK, maybe a side-question. How many of you are not religious, versus anti-religion? I have noted that some atheists aren't just non-believers, they also seem to have a problem with people who are, either due to having been persecuted (in fact or imagination) or they think that they're being oppressed by living in a society that clearly celebrates religion in public with all the holidays and such.

In answer to your first question, nope. I have better things to do with my time and money than attend such a conference. I will have civil discussions with anyone of similar or opposing beliefs to mine, which I think help to clarify my own reasons for the beliefs I do hold and those that I simply don't buy into. Often over a few drinks. I don't try to "convert" anyone so much as explain my own world view; hopefully to foster acceptance of differing viewpoints with each other.

In response to your 2nd question; I have no difficulty with anyone else's faith. I get very angry however when people use religious beliefs to push policy, foster hatred of others, or bully those who believe differently than they do, or who attempt to convert or "save" me. Faith is fine; zealotry is abhorrent to me. Disregarding the best information that modern science has on many of the fundamental questions (such as how we got here) in favor of folktales and parables written thousands of years ago to answer the same questions is both foolhardy and dangerous.

 

[Razor]

I don't think religion is usually the main or even partial cause of war. As other posters have mentioned, things are done in the name of religion, and people can be convinced to buy into religion as a reason for conflict. However, most religions teach some form of love for fellow man, which normally precludes war as a means of solving problems. As a Christian, I deplor the use of the term Christian describing one side in a conflict for just that reason. I don't think a true Christian can buy into killing others only because they are not Christian.

Doesn't seem to be the cause of many conflicts any more, but my point is, it's another dividing factor which causes social friction needlessly. Religion is generally inherently insular; although it may bring together people who have the religion in common, it de facto separates them from other groups, much like tribalism. In many ways this has declined greatly in modern countries (I don't think it makes much difference to people going about their daily lives), but it can still influence how people may interact at the individual and group levels.

My personal belief is that most who hide behind religion to engage in criminal activity are in fact criminals seeking cover for their crime sprees. Murder is murder, theft is theft. Hiding it behind false religious interpretations doesn't change that. I don't know of a major religion that truely advocates violating law as justifiable. If someone is a practioner of a religion that does, please correct me and show me in your sacred writings where that is true.

I've heard this one before many times before, many religious people are adamant than people who disagree with them and commit crimes are not a true part of the religion. I can understand why the upstanding majority would want to disown them, but I don't think that the argument is valid. Maybe they think that you are not the true believer. See my point? Also, many extremists really believe in what they are doing; they are not evil, just extremely faithful to whatever interpretation of religious texts they have.

On a lighter note, I believe Pastafarianism advocates piracy; I'm sure it's there somewhere in the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti....

EDIT: Razor - I meant to ask, what is your definition of a fundamentalist? I ask that since I am a fundamentalist, but I don't fit in the "fundamentalist terrorism" category. When applied to religion, based on my belief that most fundamentalist terrorists are hiding behind religion, I almost think religious fundamentalist terrorism is an oxymoron.

A fundamentalist is somebody who believes in the literal interpretation of religious texts, doctrines, theologies etc. Of course, I'm sure many fundamentalists are not terrorists; the terms are not interchangeable. Many just believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that an intermediary fossil has to be half one thing, half another thing or perhaps that they should throw acid in the faces of females who dare to go to school. They could be at many points on the scale, but of course, fundamentalists don't necessarily do anything wrong.