Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Is atheism a religion?


Off-Topic Discussions

501 to 550 of 1,394 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

Skeptical comedians.....

Tim Minchan
Mitchel & Webb
Dara O'Brian
Eddie Izzard
Gorge Carlin
Bill Hicks
Ricky Gervais
Penn Jillette
Jimmy Carr
Dave Allen
Patton Oswalt

Just to name a few.... Look them up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Turner wrote:

To Aretas, at al.:

Atheists aren't afraid of satire.

We're not afraid to poke fun at ourselves, and we're not offended when you join in.

1) Those are hilarious.

2) That's a pretty broad generalization. I know plenty of atheists who will rage on satire.

So you know a couple of atheists who aren't afraid of satire. I know a couple of Christians who aren't afraid of satire. That doesn't mean that all Christians are cool. Stupid stereotyping. Dealing with satire has absolutely s&~# to do with what you believe.

Personally, I think most atheists aren't at all any better than the religious types. Here's why. They will read something in a magazine and believe it must be true. They don't really check the credentials, or the science behind it. They aren't any better the masses that sit around and take the word from a religious figure.

There are just as many quarrels about history and what is ethical or moral within the atheist community as there are with people who believe in one or many gods.

One of the dumbest things I've heard was Religion vs Evolution. That doesn't even make sense. You can believe in evolution and still have a religion. I've heard theories about how "God made life able to adapt to survive and grow". It's creationism vs evolution, but people are stupid and mess it up, making broad generalizations.

What do you call people aliens and magic? Are they religious too? Even if they don't believe in gods?

Many atheists are not respectable in my eyes because they act like they are better than most people and yet they're only reporting what they read. No better than a priest, really.

I respect most scientists and people who pursue the truth. To do such is admittance to the fact that there's still things you don't know. The only reason that so many religions are refuted is because of so many claims of things that have been shown to be contradictory to what actually happens or what has been found. I mean would you trust a scientist who's claimed so many things that have been proven to be false?

In fact, if most religions weren't so stagnant from becoming organizations and trying to standardize and preserve their doctrines and control its followers, there'd probably be more religious people.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Andrew Turner wrote:

To Aretas, at al.:

Atheists aren't afraid of satire.

We're not afraid to poke fun at ourselves, and we're not offended when you join in.

On my way out to fabricate more evidence for evolution, I went through the local atheist village and found this wonderful new restaurant. There's a free abortion with every dish! Your empirical mind cannot deny the overwhelming evidence for value this great!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Zombieneighbors, I'm not going to reply to your whole post because most of it was just picking for pickings sake. I just skipped to the end when you asked if I was kidding you for thinking that Christians and Atheists are the same group of people. No, I'm not kidding. You are exactly the same.

If I were to make a gut guess, I'd say Christians were probably better.

If we made a body count of people killed by Christian Governments vs. people killed by Atheist governments, I bet I'd get a higher total if I get to include Stalin and Mao.

If we based who is better on who does more good works, and measure it in dollars donated - you can tally up all of your Atheist organizations and I'll count up the Christian ones, and I bet I crush you 20 to 1.

The only thing you have to complain about is that Christians are disgusted by homosexuality, but I've got news for you, PEOPLE in general often are. The most homophobic people I've ever known weren't religious. Men are afraid of seeing other mens' reproductive parts and they are afraid that gay people want to show them, plain and simply. That's not a Christian problem. That's a human nature problem.

I'm with you on civil liberties. I think Christian groups need to move on with it, but they have men at the helm who are scared of looking at genitalia, are afraid gay people will show it to them, and use their voice to gather groups of people who also don't want to see it. The Presbyterian church just recently started allowing Gay ministers. Are they the good Christians?

You yelling on the internet about how Atheists are better than Christians does nothing but reinforce my mental image of Evangelical Atheist as being exactly like Evangelical Christians. You look and sound just like them.

Andoran

cranewings wrote:


If we made a body count of people killed by Christian Governments vs. people killed by Atheist governments, I bet I'd get a higher total if I get to include Stalin and Mao.

Do I get to count Hitler?

If we are counting those who killed for power vs those who killed for God, Power wins.

If we are counting who killed for God vs who killed because they were non-specifically religious, it's not even close.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
cranewings wrote:


If we made a body count of people killed by Christian Governments vs. people killed by Atheist governments, I bet I'd get a higher total if I get to include Stalin and Mao.

Do I get to count Hitler?

If we are counting those who killed for power vs those who killed for God, Power wins.

If we are counting who killed for God vs who killed because they were non-specifically religious, it's not even close.

I was leaving Hitler out of it. I don't think either Christians or Atheists get him. We could start another thread about what team Hitler was playing for but I bet it would get closed faster than this one will.

As far as it being close, I don't think it is that cut and dry. How do we count "Christians" who are really killing for power? If we don't count them, then Christians don't even have to count the Crusades in my opinion.

This was a big example, but my point is that there isn't anything special about irreligious people. They are, as a group, just as big or bigger pieces of crap as religious folk.

Andoran

cranewings wrote:


I was leaving Hitler out of it. I don't think either Christians or Atheists get him. We could start another thread about what team Hitler was playing for but I bet it would get closed faster than this one will.

As far as it being close, I don't think it is that cut and dry. How do we count "Christians" who are really killing for power? If we don't count them, then Christians don't even have to count the Crusades in my opinion.

This was a big example, but my point is that there isn't anything special about irreligious people. They are, as a group, just as big or bigger pieces of crap as religious folk.

Irreligious people don't kill people because they believe God told them too.

You can't look at history honestly and not realize how many wars were fought over religion. Protestants vs Catholics, Christians vs Muslims, genocides and ethnic cleansing...

You have a better argument for Hitlers genocide being based on Religion than you do for either Stalin or Mao.

I'm personally not a big fan of any "isms" as they all tend to allow people to turn off their brains and follow.

I think we would both agree "isms" have caused most of the wars and genocides.

I don't even really like the term "Atheism"

I just don't think there is a higher power, as there is no credible evidence for one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cranewing wrote:
The only thing you have to complain about is that Christians are disgusted by homosexuality, but I've got news for you, PEOPLE in general often are. The most homophobic people I've ever known weren't religious. Men are afraid of seeing other mens' reproductive parts and they are afraid that gay people want to show them, plain and simply. That's not a Christian problem. That's a human nature problem.

So your argument is that it is ok that religion can make you small minded and bigoted since people are small minded and bigoted for other reasons as well. Seriously? Does that sound like a legit argument to you? Spoiler alert. It isn't. In fact, this paragraph disturbs me deeply and I can't quite put my finger on why. I'll get back to you on that.

cranewings wrote:
If we made a body count of people killed by Christian Governments vs. people killed by Atheist governments, I bet I'd get a higher total if I get to include Stalin and Mao.

But you don't get to count Stalin and Mao, since they did not kill because of their atheism. They killed because they were dictators who needed to consolidate power. Mao was probably an Atheist (do you count Confucianism as a religion) But note that during the battle of Moscow in WWII, Stalin had an icon of the Virgin Mary famous for having repelled invaders from Constantinople flown around Moscow in an airplane to pray for victory over the Germans. That sounds awfully religious to me.

I can point to zillions of instances of sectarian violence, which is killing because of religion. See the difference?

EDIT: Thank you ciretose for ninjaing this point far better than I just did.

Quote:

I was leaving Hitler out of it. I don't think either Christians or Atheists get him. We could start another thread about what team Hitler was playing for but I bet it would get closed faster than this one will.

If I had to guess I would probably mention something about how Hitler was Catholic, and that anti-semitism in times of crisis is a recurrent theme throughout Christian Europe, over the course of centuries. Having happened during each of the Crusades, as well as during the Black Death. So I think that the Christians have to take that one in their column.

Quote:
If we don't count them, then Christians don't even have to count the Crusades in my opinion.

Then you would be wrong, sine the Crusades were started specifically to remove Muslims from Christian holy sites, as well as for some political reasons. When the crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099, they killed not only the Jews and Muslims in the city but also the Orthodox (and to Catholics heretical) Christians. That sounds to me like violence that has gone beyond being racial or ethnic and is entirely sectarian in nature. So I would say that you have to take the Crusades in the "atrocities" column too to a certain extent.


Saint Caleth wrote:
cranewing wrote:
The only thing you have to complain about is that Christians are disgusted by homosexuality, but I've got news for you, PEOPLE in general often are. The most homophobic people I've ever known weren't religious. Men are afraid of seeing other mens' reproductive parts and they are afraid that gay people want to show them, plain and simply. That's not a Christian problem. That's a human nature problem.
So your argument is that it is ok that religion can make you small minded and bigoted since people are small minded and bigoted for other reasons as well. Seriously? Does that sound like a legit argument to you? Spoiler alert. It isn't. In fact, this paragraph disturbs me deeply and I can't quite put my finger on why. I'll get back to you on that.

Because, since religion reinforces and legitimizes their prejudice, they don't have to admit that it's just their own fear and disgust?

And how much of the "fear of seeing other men's genitals" is cultural/religious anyway?


Saint Caleth, I believe that the Crusades were a land grab in Europe for their majority. Hitler was no Catholic. He was involved in a number of magical and esoteric practices, most of which point to insanity than being really religious.

My point about human nature vs. religion is that the religions aren't MAKING people homophobic. They are catering to it. People are homophobic without them.


thejeff wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
cranewing wrote:
The only thing you have to complain about is that Christians are disgusted by homosexuality, but I've got news for you, PEOPLE in general often are. The most homophobic people I've ever known weren't religious. Men are afraid of seeing other mens' reproductive parts and they are afraid that gay people want to show them, plain and simply. That's not a Christian problem. That's a human nature problem.
So your argument is that it is ok that religion can make you small minded and bigoted since people are small minded and bigoted for other reasons as well. Seriously? Does that sound like a legit argument to you? Spoiler alert. It isn't. In fact, this paragraph disturbs me deeply and I can't quite put my finger on why. I'll get back to you on that.

Because, since religion reinforces and legitimizes their prejudice, they don't have to admit that it's just their own fear and disgust?

And how much of the "fear of seeing other men's genitals" is cultural/religious anyway?

I'm not good enough at Google to find a link to anything to support this statement, but I read an article a long time ago about a study where they watched the brain with an MRI or some such thing of straight men and gay men, and its response to different images. In straight men, the image of a penis elicited a response in the same area of the brain as an image of a knife. Want to see some pictures from a gay pride parade as evidence for why people might think homosexuals want to show off their junk?

I'm sure nurture plays a roll in it, but it wouldn't be there in the first place if some of it wasn't nature.

Andoran

cranewings wrote:
People are homophobic without them.

From wikipedia (with a citation attached in the article...).

"In a detailed compilation of historical and ethnographic materials of Preindustrial Cultures, "strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures; it was accepted or ignored by 21%, and 12% reported no such concept. Of 70 ethnographies, 59% reported homosexuality absent or rare in frequency and 41% reported it present or not uncommon."


ciretose wrote:
cranewings wrote:


I was leaving Hitler out of it. I don't think either Christians or Atheists get him. We could start another thread about what team Hitler was playing for but I bet it would get closed faster than this one will.

As far as it being close, I don't think it is that cut and dry. How do we count "Christians" who are really killing for power? If we don't count them, then Christians don't even have to count the Crusades in my opinion.

This was a big example, but my point is that there isn't anything special about irreligious people. They are, as a group, just as big or bigger pieces of crap as religious folk.

Irreligious people don't kill people because they believe God told them too.

You can't look at history honestly and not realize how many wars were fought over religion. Protestants vs Catholics, Christians vs Muslims, genocides and ethnic cleansing...

You have a better argument for Hitlers genocide being based on Religion than you do for either Stalin or Mao.

I'm personally not a big fan of any "isms" as they all tend to allow people to turn off their brains and follow.

I think we would both agree "isms" have caused most of the wars and genocides.

I don't even really like the term "Atheism"

I just don't think there is a higher power, as there is no credible evidence for one.

I think a lot of evil has been inhibited in people who believe it was wrong because of their belief in god, and I think a lot of killers / conquers could have been subdued by the proper implementation of religious ideals.

The pull to kill for religion is just one manifestation of militant enthusiasm that all people are subject to. Just because someone isn't religious doesn't mean that they won't fall for Patriotism or any other motivator. In a vacuum without isms, I believe people will develop militant enthusiasm for the first thing they come across. Atheists rub me the wrong way because I think they are experiencing the feelings of militant enthusiasm for a group that doesn't have the power to do 'anything'. At some point, Dawkin's Atheism may become the killing force. I wouldn't be surprised. There isn't much redeeming about it outside of its views on civil liberties. I find its attitude towards reckless science and archeology to be disgusting.


ciretose wrote:
cranewings wrote:
People are homophobic without them.

From wikipedia (with a citation attached in the article...).

"In a detailed compilation of historical and ethnographic materials of Preindustrial Cultures, "strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures; it was accepted or ignored by 21%, and 12% reported no such concept. Of 70 ethnographies, 59% reported homosexuality absent or rare in frequency and 41% reported it present or not uncommon."

Hey, maybe. Sure would be nice if ancient people were better than us and we are just experiencing idiocracy now. But I don't know enough about that to have an opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

Irreligious people don't kill people because they believe God told them too.

You can't look at history honestly and not realize how many wars were fought over religion. Protestants vs Catholics, Christians vs Muslims, genocides and ethnic cleansing...

You have a better argument for Hitlers genocide being based on Religion than you do for either Stalin or Mao.

Actually most wars were fought for territory and economy. Even those religious wars. Religion is just a big excuse. Most people don't fight wars because "God told them too". Most people fight wars because they are paid and/or their authority told them too. Sometimes they will have "God's support" according to their priests, higher ups, etc. However, that's not the reason people usually fight. Religion is really only there to comfort them for if and when they die.

You use religion as a scapegoat, leaders use religion as a tool, but soldiers use religion as a comfort.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:

Saint Caleth, I believe that the Crusades were a land grab in Europe for their majority. Hitler was no Catholic. He was involved in a number of magical and esoteric practices, most of which point to insanity than being really religious.

My point about human nature vs. religion is that the religions aren't MAKING people homophobic. They are catering to it. People are homophobic without them.

The First Crusade was a land grab insofar as it began with a plea from the Byzantine Emperor to the Pope to help reclaim the Holy Land from Muslim rule. So it was partially over land, but just as much over differences in religion.

That does not change what the crusader armies did to the population of Jerusalem. After the Western Christians took the city, they then refused to hand it over to the Byzantines like the original plan had been. This was in fact a land grab, but it too was religiously motivated by the Great Schism which had happened between the Eastern and Western churches about 50 years before.

When you are talking about Homophobia, remember that the construction of what was an "appropriate" sexual act/orientation for a man is not universal. It is drastically different in many ancient and non-western societies. If your assertion were true, don't you think that this would be normalized across all cultures. Your views seems too simplistic. Also I would be very interested in seeing the actual paper that you read, because I bet that you selectively read it and missed some very important caveats. As ciretose also points out, your premise is factually incorrect.


cranewings wrote:
thejeff wrote:


And how much of the "fear of seeing other men's genitals" is cultural/religious anyway?

I'm not good enough at Google to find a link to anything to support this statement, but I read an article a long time ago about a study where they watched the brain with an MRI or some such thing of straight men and gay men, and its response to different images. In straight men, the image of a penis elicited a response in the same area of the brain as an image of a knife. Want to see some pictures from a gay pride parade as evidence for why people might think homosexuals want to show off their junk?

I'm sure nurture plays a roll in it, but it wouldn't be there in the first place if some of it wasn't nature.

That's silly. The brain can't react because of cultural programming? Culture teaches you another man's penis is a threat, so the part of your brain that reacts to threats responds.

And there have been plenty of cultures much more accepting of casual nudity than we are. I wonder how they would have reacted?

Alternately, knives are phallic symbols, no wonder the brain responds the same way. </snark>

Andoran

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:


You use religion as a scapegoat, leaders use religion as a tool, but soldiers use religion as a comfort.

I don't use religion as a scapegoat. I agree 100% that leaders use religion as a tool and soldiers use it as a comfort.

If soldiers didn't believe in an afterlife, they would be less likely to follow leaders on religious grounds.

I am not absolving the evil rulers, I'm pointing out that if they didn't have religion in the toolbox, less people would follow them.

I will personally fight and give my life for a just cause, even thought I don't believe in an afterlife.

I won't crash into a skyscraper to show the infidels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
You use religion as a scapegoat, leaders use religion as a tool, but soldiers use religion as a comfort.

But this is a bad thing in its own right. Maybe it would be harder for tyrants and dictators to manipulate populations if we didn't have a societal blind spot of non-critical thinking that they could exploit.

Just offering the other side of the coin.


The Jeff :) I don't think our culture springs up out of nothing. We built it because it is in us. We made this culture because it was our nature to do so. Believing that a power from beyond us gave us a culture is for religious people to believe.


cranewings wrote:
ciretose wrote:
cranewings wrote:
People are homophobic without them.

From wikipedia (with a citation attached in the article...).

"In a detailed compilation of historical and ethnographic materials of Preindustrial Cultures, "strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures; it was accepted or ignored by 21%, and 12% reported no such concept. Of 70 ethnographies, 59% reported homosexuality absent or rare in frequency and 41% reported it present or not uncommon."

Hey, maybe. Sure would be nice if ancient people were better than us and we are just experiencing idiocracy now. But I don't know enough about that to have an opinion.

Not nicer. Different. They had their own hangups.

The point is, these things are cultural. If they weren't they'd be much more universal.


cranewings wrote:
The Jeff :) I don't think our culture springs up out of nothing. We built it because it is in us. We made this culture because it was our nature to do so. Believing that a power from beyond us gave us a culture is for religious people to believe.

But our culture isn't the same as other cultures. If our culture was innate in humanity, it would be much more the same throughout the world and throughout history.

I agree that culture doesn't spring out of nothing and there are innate limits on it, but largely it's shaped by history, by the multiple past cultures that influenced past generations. Not by some "power from beyond", but also not by our genes.


Just noticed something...

cranewings wrote:
Saint Caleth, I believe that the Crusades were a land grab in Europe for their majority. Hitler was no Catholic. He was involved in a number of magical and esoteric practices, most of which point to insanity than being really religious.

I will concede that Hitler's religious views remain a point of historical contention. You assertion that being insane and believing in occult practices is mutually exclusive of being Catholic is absurd. They are not mutually exclusive things. It is true that Hitler was both insane and interested in the occult, but that did not stop him from internalizing the Christian legacy of anti-semitism as part of his beliefs.


ciretose wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:


You use religion as a scapegoat, leaders use religion as a tool, but soldiers use religion as a comfort.

I don't use religion as a scapegoat. I agree 100% that leaders use religion as a tool and soldiers use it as a comfort.

If soldiers didn't believe in an afterlife, they would be less likely to follow leaders on religious grounds.

I am not absolving the evil rulers, I'm pointing out that if they didn't have religion in the toolbox, less people would follow them.

I will personally fight and give my life for a just cause, even thought I don't believe in an afterlife.

I won't crash into a skyscraper to show the infidels.

People don't need religion to fear, kill, steal, or want. You don't need religion to twist someone to do something for you. Hitler didn't use religion to start WW2, he used the bruised and broken dreams of Germany and their want for nationalism to be once again a prosperous country and their hate for those that did this to them. He made missions, targeted "the enemies', made feel people feel comforted and justified in what they were doing. All you need to do is find what people are afraid of (for most people that's death and the unknown) or what they hate and convince them that following you is justified (having authority or being known for wisdom) and will bring about what's right and happy.

You use suicide bombers as examples, but that would be no better than using a school shooting where the kid asks his victims, "Where is your God now?".


Saint Caleth wrote:

Just noticed something...

cranewings wrote:
Saint Caleth, I believe that the Crusades were a land grab in Europe for their majority. Hitler was no Catholic. He was involved in a number of magical and esoteric practices, most of which point to insanity than being really religious.
I will concede that Hitler's religious views remain a point of historical contention. You assertion that being insane and believing in occult practices is mutually exclusive of being Catholic is absurd. They are not mutually exclusive things. It is true that Hitler was both insane and interested in the occult, but that did not stop him from internalizing the legacy of anti-semitism essentially as old as Christianity as part of his beliefs.

Anti-semitism isn't a Christian deal, it is a Roman one. The fact that we got our culture and religion from Rome gives us the anti-semitism. Even if Christianity vanished off the planet along with all the Christians, the legacy of hating Jews would still be around. We basically are Rome.

I also use the definition of Catholic that Catholics use. If you are involved in the Occult, you aren't a genuine Catholic.


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:


You use religion as a scapegoat, leaders use religion as a tool, but soldiers use religion as a comfort.

I don't use religion as a scapegoat. I agree 100% that leaders use religion as a tool and soldiers use it as a comfort.

If soldiers didn't believe in an afterlife, they would be less likely to follow leaders on religious grounds.

I am not absolving the evil rulers, I'm pointing out that if they didn't have religion in the toolbox, less people would follow them.

I will personally fight and give my life for a just cause, even thought I don't believe in an afterlife.

I won't crash into a skyscraper to show the infidels.

People don't need religion to fear, kill, steal, or want. You don't need religion to twist someone to do something for you. Hitler didn't use religion to start WW2, he used the bruised and broken dreams of Germany and their want for nationalism to be once again a prosperous country. He made missions, targeted "the enemies', made feel people feel comforted and justified in what they were doing. All you need to do is find what people are afraid of (for most people that's death and the unknown) and convince them that following you is justified (having authority or being known for wisdom) and will bring about what's right and happy.

But Hitler did use religion. Convincing people that he could save them from the evil Jews is nothing but using old religious hatreds.


Romans and Jews

Christianity just picked up the antisemitism when it was taken up by Rome.

Andoran

cranewings wrote:

Romans and Jews

Christianity just picked up the antisemitism when it was taken up by Rome.

How does this help your point?


thejeff wrote:
But Hitler did use religion. Convincing people that he could save them from the evil Jews is nothing but using old religious hatreds.

Are you implying that hating someone's religion is a religious belief?

Andoran

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But Hitler did use religion. Convincing people that he could save them from the evil Jews is nothing but using old religious hatreds.
Are you implying that hating someone's religion is a religious belief?

I think he is implying that if you convince people they are acting according to the will of a god, they will forgo their humanity.


ciretose wrote:
cranewings wrote:

Romans and Jews

Christianity just picked up the antisemitism when it was taken up by Rome.

How does this help your point?

It is a side point. I was pointing out that Christianity isn't the source of antisemitism. You know, threads start to be about other things after you get sick of talking about whatever it was.


cranewings wrote:
Anti-semitism isn't a Christian deal, it is a Roman one. The fact that we got our culture and religion from Rome gives us the anti-semitism. Even if Christianity vanished off the planet along with all the Christians, the legacy of hating Jews would still be around. We basically are Rome.

I've got no idea how to respond to that.

Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with the religion that pushed it for centuries. It's only related to an Empire that's been gone for around 1500 years.


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But Hitler did use religion. Convincing people that he could save them from the evil Jews is nothing but using old religious hatreds.
Are you implying that hating someone's religion is a religious belief?

Are you implying that religious persecution isn't related to religion?


cranewings wrote:

Romans and Jews

Christianity just picked up the antisemitism when it was taken up by Rome.

1500 hundred years isn't enough to own it?

Get over it or own up to it.


cranewings wrote:
Anti-semitism isn't a Christian deal, it is a Roman one. The fact that we got our culture and religion from Rome gives us the anti-semitism. Even if Christianity vanished off the planet along with all the Christians, the legacy of hating Jews would still be around. We basically are Rome.

I have no idea where you are getting that it was a "Roman deal" from, because it is not true. In the ancient world, anti-semitism that existed would have grown out of general xenophobia. The Ancient Egyptians and the Ancient Greeks did have some nasty things to say about Jews, but they had nasty things to say about everyone who wasn't them. The Romans treated the Jews no better or worse than any other non-Roman group in the Empire. As long as they paid their taxes and worshiped the emperor (the Jews got a buy on this one and only had to pray on behalf of the emperor), they were left alone, just like everyone else. They were a relatively low social class, but that was only because they were non-citizens. The only times that the Romans ever violently persecuted the Jews was when Judea revolted in 66 AD and again in 150 AD, at which point the Romans came in, leveled Jerusalem, dispersed the population and renamed the area Palestine.

It was only with the rise of Christianity, and the need for Christianity to differentiate itself from Judaism that anti-semitism was institutionalized in Europe.

cranewing wrote:
I also use the definition of Catholic that Catholics use. If you are involved in the Occult, you aren't a genuine Catholic.

While it is true that occult and mystical traditions are more prevalent in the Orthodox church, the Caltholics have had their fare share of esoteric practices. There have been plenty of thinkers throughout history that have professed both Catholic and occult beliefs, whether your particular definition brands them heretics or not. I, for example, would call most practitioners of exorcism occult because they deal with mysticism, magic and supernatural affairs


thejeff wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But Hitler did use religion. Convincing people that he could save them from the evil Jews is nothing but using old religious hatreds.
Are you implying that hating someone's religion is a religious belief?
Are you implying that religious persecution isn't related to religion?

What I'm getting at, is with all the people that are hating on Christianity, I doubt all of them are religious.


Saint Caleth wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Anti-semitism isn't a Christian deal, it is a Roman one. The fact that we got our culture and religion from Rome gives us the anti-semitism. Even if Christianity vanished off the planet along with all the Christians, the legacy of hating Jews would still be around. We basically are Rome.
I have no idea where you are getting that it was a "Roman deal" from, because it is not true. In the ancient world, anti-semitism that existed would have grown out of general xenophobia. The Ancient Egyptians and the Ancient Greeks did have some nasty things to say about Jews, but they had nasty things to say about everyone who wasn't them. The Romans treated the Jews no better or worse than any other non-Roman group in the Empire. As long as they paid their taxes and worshiped the emperor (the Jews got a buy on this one and only had to pray on behalf of the emperor), they were left alone, just like everyone else. They were a relatively low social class, but that was only because they were non-citizens. The only times that the Romans ever violently persecuted the Jews was when Judea revolted in 66 AD and again in 150 AD, at which point the Romans came in, leveled Jerusalem, dispersed the population and renamed the area Palestine.

First off to Jeff, I don't have to own anything. I'm not Christian. I'm not homophobic. I'm not antisemitic. I'm just hear to talk about how I think that Atheists are no better than Christians because they are nothing but crappy groups of crappy people.

Caleth, I'm not a Roman history major. I did take a couple of classes and I got a very clear picture that beyond those two revolts their were tensions with the Jewish people for a very long time because of how their cultures clashed. I also believe that we inherited our culture and world view from Rome, and along with it antisemitism.

If you have something "short" I could read about this, I'd be more than happy to.


thejeff wrote:
cranewings wrote:

Romans and Jews

Christianity just picked up the antisemitism when it was taken up by Rome.

1500 hundred years isn't enough to own it?

Get over it or own up to it.

Nope. I think we are the same now as then.


What about all the Muslim hate that came in after 9-11. Is that all religiously based?

Or was that just a stereotype that all Muslims are possible suicide bombers? There were plenty of atheists that threatened anyone that looked like they could be a Muslim.

Qadira

A highly regarded expert wrote:
The "atheism is a religion" argument comes solely from the religious, who feel some need to ascribe fanaticism to atheists of some imagined stripe. It's a straw man argument.

Which is utterly unneccessary because fanaticism isn't an exclusive property of religion. But that's something which confuses me often. Religion is about the metaphysical universe, which (if it exists) by its very definition cannot be proven or disproven with scientific means. Why religious people even feel the need to argue with means of the physical universe or try to make science part of the metaphysical universe is totally above me. There is simply no need to make atheism a religion. As their is no need to even try and refute scientist arguments against the existence of god. But well, everyone has the right to choose in which traps to step in, I think

ciretose wrote:

If soldiers didn't believe in an afterlife, they would be less likely to follow leaders on religious grounds.

I am not absolving the evil rulers, I'm pointing out that if they didn't have religion in the toolbox, less people would follow them.

I will personally fight and give my life for a just cause, even thought I don't believe in an afterlife.

Well and that's why the lack of religion wouldn't change anything. The "just" cause is just an excuse to make soldiers fight and give their life. If it isn't for religion, it is for democracy, human rights or some other thing the Powers that be don't care for the least. Every single war has been fought for Power and for nothing else. The lack of religion wouldn't change a thing, it would just mean the use of another excuse.

Saint Caleth wrote:
but that did not stop him from internalizing the Christian legacy of anti-semitism as part of his beliefs.

Interestingly enough, the Nazis didn't persecute the jews because of them "being the murderers of Jesus". In fact, they got rid of that reason and instead invented the communist world conspiracy. The Holocaust wasn't justified with Religion which is part of what I said before.


cranewings wrote:
If you have something "short" I could read about this, I'd be more than happy to.

I'm not a history major either, but I'm happy to oblige. These are just encyclopedia articles, but they should get you started. I didn't have time to check them all, but the references look legit.

History of Anit-semitism

Jews in Ancient Rome

The understanding that I had is that under the Late Republic and the first few emperors, the Jews were tolerated at exactly the rate that "Easterners" with (to the Romans) weird beliefs and customs were. The Jews were just the most prominent example of a non-Roman culture which refused to assimilate. There were dozens of synagogues in Republican Rome, some in relatively upscale neighborhoods (like just down the road from Julius Caesar's house).

The popular understanding of the Romans is interesting because it portrays them as both better and worse than they really were, depending on the area people are talking about. I'd love to talk about that but it is a huge tangent, even for this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:
thejeff wrote:
cranewings wrote:

Romans and Jews

Christianity just picked up the antisemitism when it was taken up by Rome.

1500 hundred years isn't enough to own it?

Get over it or own up to it.

Nope. I think we are the same now as then.

We're Roman?

I don't mean you need to own it necessarily. If you're not anti-semitic, there's no need to. Sorry if I implied otherwise.

I just think, even if anti-Semitism is Roman in origin (and I have reservations about that), if the church took that up, preserved it and continued it for ~1500 years it becomes their problem somewhere along the way.

By analogy: someone could be racist because they were raised that way. But they're still racist. They don't lose culpability because someone else started it. They could learn better. If they don't, they have to own it.


WormysQueue wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
but that did not stop him from internalizing the Christian legacy of anti-semitism as part of his beliefs.
Interestingly enough, the Nazis didn't persecute the jews because of them "being the murderers of Jesus". In fact, they got rid of that reason and instead invented the communist world conspiracy. The...

But institutionalized anti-semitism in a time of crisis is a legacy of Christian Europe, repeated dozens of times throughout the Middle Ages and beyond. During every Crusade, the crusaders marching east carried out wide scale violence against Jews

To finance his crusades Loius IX of France ejected the Jews from his kingdom and confiscated their property. The ostensible reason was that they were breaking the Biblical injunction against usury by being moneylenders. Edward II of Engand did the same thing to finance his wars, for a religious reason as well. Loius IX is now a saint.

During the Black Death, there was again violence against Jews, who were blames for the epidemic. They were forced out of cities and towns and made to wear yellow badges (gee, sounds familiar) and distinctive hats so that they could be recognized. Entire populations were rounded up and burned to death.

So, after WWI, when Hitler wanted a scapegoat, he turned to the traditional scapegoat, the Jews. Even though for the most part, his rhetoric was not religious, he was still utilizing the fact that Christianity had over the course of a millennium at least, made the Jews in particular the traditional scapegoats for crises.


Jeff, my overarching point is that the church is preaching to the people what they want to hear. The institution is homophobic and antisimetic because that's what these people want to hear. These people would still feel the same way even if the institution vanished.


cranewings wrote:
Jeff, my overarching point is that the church is preaching to the people what they want to hear. The institution is homophobic and antisimetic because that's what these people want to hear. These people would still feel the same way even if the institution vanished.

Feedback loops. The church preaches that to them because that's what they want to hear. They want to hear it because the church teaches it to them.

The church reinforces and legitimizes existing prejudices. It's far easier to claim "I hate gays because God hates them." than to admit "I hate gays because they make me feel icky."

Qadira

Saint Caleth wrote:
So, after WWI, when Hitler wanted a scapegoat, he turned to the traditional scapegoat, the Jews. Even though for the most part, his rhetoric was not religious, he was still utilizing the fact that Christianity had over the course of a millennium at least, made the Jews in particular the traditional scapegoats for crises.

I'm not denying that. I just find it stunning how easy it was to replace "Religion" by "Communism" for no obvious reason (antisemitism was prevalent before the Nazi takeover, so they could have played that card without changing the reasoning behind it).

Apart from that I agree. In "christian" Europe it was easy to play the antisemitic card. But while religion served as justification for the prosecution of the european jews, it - as you also explained - wasn't the true reason.


But there was also a religious component to his anti-semitism, find the Wikipedia page that I linked to about it above.


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

What about all the Muslim hate that came in after 9-11. Is that all religiously based?

Or was that just a stereotype that all Muslims are possible suicide bombers? There were plenty of atheists that threatened anyone that looked like they could be a Muslim.

None of the ones I knew. Nor the politicians.(Trick statement. Almost no atheist politicians.)

I'm sure there were some. It's a big country, with lots of stupid people. Atheists aren't exempt.

But there was a huge religious component. The parts that lasted after the initial reaction faded are almost entirely religious. The idiot burning the Koran. The panic over Shariah law. The uproar over building mosques. That's all religious.


cranewings wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:

Just noticed something...

cranewings wrote:
Hitler was no Catholic. He was involved in a number of magical and esoteric practices, most of which point to insanity than being really religious.
I also use the definition of Catholic that Catholics use. If you are involved in the Occult, you aren't a genuine Catholic.

He may not be a genuine Catholic, but interest in the occult certainly doesn't make him an atheist.


Totally biased commie propaganda, BUT, fun stuff about the history of anti-Semitism.

501 to 550 of 1,394 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Is atheism a religion? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.