Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? Page: <<   < prev  54 55 56 57 [58]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? - 7/7/2010 9:32:42 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: tnai

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tantriqu
Then I say, 'No headline ever read, 'Atheist militia machetes, rapes agnostic village,' and I move on.


What are you talking about here? If you want a list of atheist who commited horrible acts there out there. Joseph Stalin & Khmer Rouge just off the top of my head.


Stalin and Pol Pot were political actors. That Stalin may have been atheist is besides the point. He was raised Russian Orthodox I believe. Who the fuck knows what religious beliefs were held by Pol Pot. This is just more of the same old same old conflating communism with atheism, a socio-economic totalitarianism with free-thinking philosophy. Atheists never burned Believers at the stake nor persecuted them for their religious beliefs as was done throughout much of the history of Europe. It is such a crappy argument you make. Strawman delux.


So i can understand your position better, im going to ask you a question. Please feel free to correct what you believe i have wrong.

If a man declares himself religious, then goes on a mass murder spree, religion is the cause. But if a man denies any religion, and goes on a mass murdering spree, he is just a man killing, or his previous religious leanings come more into play than the denial he has for said religion.

In other words, a religious man kills because or religion, and an atheist kills because of the religion he once had?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 1141
RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? - 7/7/2010 9:36:32 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
Can it be proven that Stalin's formative experiences in a seminary and ejection from the religious order he wanted to join had no impact at all on his later career?
I can see where you're coming from, tazzy, but Stalin was nothing if not a pragmatist, politically: if the Bolsheviks had all been Hare Krishnas he'd have shaved his head and started wearing saffron.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 1142
RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? - 7/7/2010 9:48:21 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
Im not speaking of any one man here, Moonhead. Stalin's belief mirrored Marx's, iirc.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 1143
RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? - 7/7/2010 1:15:11 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Im not speaking of any one man here, Moonhead. Stalin's belief mirrored Marx's, iirc.

Stalin's beliefs did not mirror Marx's. He'd never have done that to the Soviet Union if they did. Lenin's didn't, Trotsky's didn't, Stalin's certainly didn't.
You might as well argue that George W Bush's beliefs echoed those of the founding fathers, to be honest.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 1144
RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? - 7/7/2010 1:16:55 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
So i can understand your position better, im going to ask you a question. Please feel free to correct what you believe i have wrong.

If a man declares himself religious, then goes on a mass murder spree, religion is the cause. But if a man denies any religion, and goes on a mass murdering spree, he is just a man killing, or his previous religious leanings come more into play than the denial he has for said religion.

In other words, a religious man kills because or religion, and an atheist kills because of the religion he once had?

It doesn't seem to me like that remotely resembles Vincent's position, but we'll have to see what he says.

As for me, I'd say that if a particular set of beliefs tells one to go out and kill people and a follower of said beliefs goes out and kills people because of said beliefs then those beliefs are somewhat culpable.

However I'm under the impression that Hitler and Stalin (can't say that I know much about Pol Pot) had people killed not because of their lack of belief in some sort of sky wizard but because of other beliefs and ambitions that they actually did hold.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 1145
RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? - 7/7/2010 2:55:32 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

So i can understand your position better, im going to ask you a question. Please feel free to correct what you believe i have wrong.

If a man declares himself religious, then goes on a mass murder spree, religion is the cause. But if a man denies any religion, and goes on a mass murdering spree, he is just a man killing, or his previous religious leanings come more into play than the denial he has for said religion.

In other words, a religious man kills because or religion, and an atheist kills because of the religion he once had?


I think your example is too simplistic (not you, Tazzy, your example) If a single man in some urban setting proclaimed himself an atheist (in a suicide note maybe) and set about going from church to church to synagogue killing worshippers there is imo a demented connection. On the other extreme, an unaided man hears the vengeful, wrathful voice of God and obediently sets off to a meeting of Atheists and commits mass murder then again imo there is a demented connection. I use the term demented connection because I don't know of any cases where this occurred in either extreme, and the killer would not be considered insane.

So, NO. Your statement does not reflect what I was saying or what I intended to say. I regret leaving you with that impression. I said Stalin's atheism is beside the point. I will try to explain my meaning. Keep in mind please that I was replying to remarks made by tnai and I objected to what I viewed as the tired old strawman of conflating a political dictatorship in the process of consolidating power with a humanist philosophy.

Pol Pot, I don't know. Stalin and Hitler I know a bit and I think I can say without embarrassing myself that their motivations were political and not religious.

I take this position not withstanding the fact that Stalin continued an official State policy of Atheism after Lenin and purged the Russian Orthodox Church, killing many priests. But wrapped around that program were much greater purges of hundreds of thousands of "enemies of the state" NOT identified for their religious affiliation, who were killed, relocated, or starved in far greater numbers than were the religious. Stalin was an indiscriminate murderer.

My contention is that Stalin's principle motivation for the mass killing was consolidation of political empire. The Orthodox Church and other church organizations were potential sources of counter-revolution. During World War II Stalin permitted a reactivation of religious organizations as a tool for wartime patriotism and at the end of the war turned against them again when he no longer needed them. My point is that he was first and foremost motivated by whatever expedient would promote and secure his power.

Was he an atheist? Probably. Was he an atheist who killed? Undoubtedly. Was atheism the motivation for his killing? I don't think so. I think he killed and destroyed organizations out of expediency. I believe his motivation was political and revolutionary. I submit that state atheism was a political convenience to keep organized groups at bay.

quote:

In other words, a religious man kills because or religion, and an atheist kills because of the religion he once had?


Not at all what I am saying. Stalin used atheism as a tool of convenience to amass power. In a similar fashion Constantine used Christianity as a tool of political convenience. I agree with Moon, Stalin was a political pragmatist and maybe imo a bit of a megalomaniac.

tnai is guilty of the old hackneyed, worn out, faulty syllogism: The man was an atheist. The man committed atrocities. Atheism is responsible for the atrocities.

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 1146
RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? - 7/7/2010 4:04:48 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Was he an atheist? Probably. Was he an atheist who killed? Undoubtedly. Was atheism the motivation for his killing? I don't think so. I think he killed and destroyed organizations out of expediency. I believe his motivation was political and revolutionary.
quote:

I submit that state atheism was a political convenience to keep organized groups at bay
.


quote:

Not at all what I am saying. Stalin used atheism as a tool of convenience to amass power. In a similar fashion Constantine used Christianity as a tool of political convenience. I agree with Moon, Stalin was a political pragmatist and maybe imo a bit of a megalomaniac.

tnai is guilty of the old hackneyed, worn out, faulty syllogism: The man was an atheist. The man committed atrocities. Atheism is responsible for the atrocities.


These two parts really jumped out. Especially the bolded parts. The Spanish Inquisition used religion as a tool to keep power. Jim Jones used religion to maintain power over his "flock" Many men, and women, have used the guise of religion to amass power, to keep power, to reward thmeselves. Yet, repeatedly, i have been told i was wrong when i have said that.

Can you explain to me what the difference is between....

Stalin used atheism as a tool of convenience to amass power

Constatine used religion as a tool of convenience to amass power.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 1147
RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? - 7/7/2010 7:18:48 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Was he an atheist? Probably. Was he an atheist who killed? Undoubtedly. Was atheism the motivation for his killing? I don't think so. I think he killed and destroyed organizations out of expediency. I believe his motivation was political and revolutionary.
quote:

I submit that state atheism was a political convenience to keep organized groups at bay
.


quote:

Not at all what I am saying. Stalin used atheism as a tool of convenience to amass power. In a similar fashion Constantine used Christianity as a tool of political convenience. I agree with Moon, Stalin was a political pragmatist and maybe imo a bit of a megalomaniac.

tnai is guilty of the old hackneyed, worn out, faulty syllogism: The man was an atheist. The man committed atrocities. Atheism is responsible for the atrocities.


These two parts really jumped out. Especially the bolded parts. The Spanish Inquisition used religion as a tool to keep power. Jim Jones used religion to maintain power over his "flock" Many men, and women, have used the guise of religion to amass power, to keep power, to reward thmeselves. Yet, repeatedly, i have been told i was wrong when i have said that.

Can you explain to me what the difference is between....

Stalin used atheism as a tool of convenience to amass power

Constatine used religion as a tool of convenience to amass power.


None! i don't think you were wrong. In fact, that issue was high on Luther's list of complaints as I understand it and why he wanted to go back to the church of the Gospel. Certainly, at first, Queen Isabella used the Inquisition to consolidate her power. I remember eyeopened made that point quite well. And when the Evangelical Reformation came along in Northern Europe many a Prince and even City Councils burned books and heretics willy-nilly to establish their power, and Luther ended up supporting the Nobility against the Peasants. Nothing is simple.

However, if you take a close look at what went on in Spain as the years passed and in the North after 1526 or so when the "Peasants' Rebellion" was smashed there was (from what I read) a great deal of persecution over doctinal differences. The Anabaptists were especially on the receiving end as where more "charasmatic" leaders and their followers. The city of Munster in Germany was the scene of a pretty serious smash-down of a heretical group. Some one or two of the Spanish Grand Inquisitors came to relish their work to the point where even Monarchs were put off I think. So, it was a mixed bag but generally I agree with your premise. I came across a phrase "Magisterial Protestantism" that encapsulates the relationship between Crown and Cross. Yep, I agree with you. Even the Crusades had their political dimensions I suspect, although they are sketchy to me except that the westward advance of the Ottoman Empire had Europeans wetting their pants.

And when a Council or a Pope declared a belief to be a heresy it is sometimes a little difficult to tweeze out the political motivations from the religious motivations. I forget which Pope persuaded Vatican I to approve the doctrine of papal infallability in the 1870s but although a religious doctrine it had a lot to do with the revolutionary politics that were going on in Europe. As I said, it is often a mixed bag. Again, nothing is simple.

< Message edited by vincentML -- 7/7/2010 8:03:44 PM >


_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 1148
RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? - 7/10/2010 8:11:14 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
Sorry for my less than prompt response, I was on vacation and following that was a little put off by your gigantic text and having to go back and find what we were discussing, here it is:


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyCimarron
In fact one could pose the argument that your "confidence or trust" that there is no God takes the same kind of faith as a God believers "confidence or trust" that there is a God.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
People commonly do pose that argument to atheists and it's often a straw man because the poser has to give his opposition that position of confidence in order to make it. Furthermore, even if Moonhead did take that position, I seem to recall a study showing that belief and rejection were not the same brain process; I'll look it up when I get home.


I was making a point that belief and disbelief aren't the same thing, to quote from the study:

"Results: The states of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty differentially activated distinct regions of the prefrontal and parietal cortices, as well as the basal ganglia." (pg1)


(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 1149
RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? - 7/10/2010 9:05:00 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
 as in the trust that i have my keys in my pocket... but i have no trust... not Faith... that i do because i have a bad habit of forgetting my keys.



quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
That sentence still makes sense.

I dont have trust that i have my keys.

You're leaving out the other part of the sentence, you know the part that directly conflicts with that.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 1150
RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? - 7/10/2010 9:08:57 PM   
mikeyOfGeorgia


Posts: 451
Joined: 3/8/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist?


i actually prefer the term "Realist" rather than atheist.

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 1151
Page:   <<   < prev  54 55 56 57 [58]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? Page: <<   < prev  54 55 56 57 [58]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.238