danlowlite

Atheists have, en masse, killed theists.

I may be wrong on the history of this, so correct me if you know better. During the Stalin era, many Christians were killed for their beliefs by an atheist state. Similar stories could probably be brought up from China.

The thing is that it's not really simply atheists that do it. Well, atheists do, but because they are members of a totalitarian mindset which allowed them to justify murder. Like most theists (I hope) don't think "unbelievers" should die(t).

The danger isn't theism or atheism, it's either of them getting power enough to remove the life or rights of those who disagree with their particular (a)theology.

Koyaanisqatsi

Although others have given excellent examples, I think little has been said on the truly detrimental aspects to the lack of critical thinking, since, ironically, that's not really what is going on.

What happens with most cult mentality is that your natural ability to think critically gets perverted, or twisted on its head, so that the ability remains, just the parameters get altered.

A good analogy would be a computer that has been changed to think that "ones" are actually "zeros" and "zeros," "ones." The ability to process is not altered, just the fundamental recognizers of data are changed so that any data fed will immediately yield a false result.

Perhaps a more simple analogy would be that the cult member is conditioned to think that black is white.

Once you've done that (switched the preconditional codes all around), then you can "plug in" your own coding in the proper way so that a positive result to you will come out the other end.

In other words, cult leaders know the code to the "ones" and "zeros" that are fed into the cult members' minds ("computers"), so that the right result for the cult comes out the other end.

This is why you see cult members vigorously defend their beliefs using logic and reason--the same tools we all use--only when they apply those tools, the result is almost always that black is now white.

It isn't that they view their cult as irrational at all! In fact, they think that only they have the rational belief. After all, they can "prove" it using logic and reason (re: Aquinas). The problem being, of course, that without their conscious knowledge, the fundamental elements of logic and reason for them have been skewed, making it almost impossible for them to see the flaws in their reasoning, since the recognizers of flaws (for lack of a better term) have been switched around on them.

This is what allows them to read "I came not to bring peace, but a sword," but think "I came to bring peace, not a sword." That's an extemely powerful mind control in place.

It also allows them to think things like the Sermon on the Mount promoted the oft-touted "doctrine of non-violence" that does not actually exist anywhere in Jesus' teachings. A non corrupted review of the Sermon, for example, shows that Jesus is saying one should praise one's enemies because their continued oppression means those who are oppressed are blessed in heaven. The "meek shall inherit the earth" thus becomes a confirmation of a ruling elite and not a destruction of authority by any means.

Jesus is literally telling oppressed poeple to rejoice in their oppression and not to use methods of non-violence to stop oppression in the slightest. It is a except your slave status instruction, because if you do, then you will win anything off the top shelf once you're dead and it no longer matters.

Thus, christians, especially, see no irony or insult in being referred to as "sheep." They instead rejoice in maintaining their status, because the more an outside force or authority oppresses them, the more they are "blessed in god's eyes."

It is truly appaling and accounts for, IMO, 95% of Western Civilization's inhumanity to man over the centuries, since it is all based on acquiescence to position and denial of everything that is done to them while alive, all based on the false hope of something spectacular that will only come (to a select few, no less) after they are dead and none of it matters anyway.

It is the original snake oil and its skewed mentality is deeply ingrained to the point of "reformed" Christians going around selectively believing whatever the hell they want to believe from the Bible, regardless of the overwhelmingly negative connotations.

This, of course, translates freely to all other aspects of their lives. The reason "war" on Iraq is a perfect example; where millions of Americans were fed the wrong "ones" and "zeros" and yet came out the other end as "Do it! We support you! Hooray!"

There are still people posting on these boards who believe that Hussein had something to do with 9/11, for example, even though the evidence does not exist and, further, what evidence we do have, points to a deliberate deception on behalf of the Bush administration.

How else would it be possible for that to happen unless this kind of deeply ingrained scrambling did not occur? Propaganda is certainly part of it, but if it weren't for the ideas set forth in the christian cult regarding authority and their dominion over you (that you are to "turn the other cheek" instead of fighting back with all of your might and wisdom; that one should "render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's," etc.), then, I contend, it would not have been possible. Americans would have looked at the same evidence presented to Congress and to the UN and made the same conclusions that Germany, France, Russia, China and a divided Britain made.

But the majority of Americans did not. Why? Because they believe there actually could be an "axis of evil" and that there are "evildoers" in this world, at the same time that they do not question authority.

It's none of their concern, because what happens in this life is none of their concern and whatever authority figures say must either be true or none of their concern either.

The same is true when it comes to the murder of innocent people. While most christian cult members will say they're against it, they will also say in the very same breath, "but, of course, in a time of war, it's unavoidable."

Why would they say such a thing if both Jesus and God commanded against this very thing? If Jesus were truly a man of non-violence and preached non-violence to the point of "turning one's cheek?" If that were the true message of Jesus (as many here have tried to put forth, citing personages such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi as examples) then the only christian response to 9/11 would have been to open our border to all Taliban and al Qaeda operatives.

But, as you can plainly discern, this is not the true teachings of Jesus/God or there wouldn't be such support by the majority of christian cult members in this country for what is going on. I even saw a popular televangelist gleefully declaring that this meant the "rapture" was close at hand! Literally telling the untold millions that watch his show that they should rejoice in this war and others because it means Jesus will be returning!

A christian in the White House fabricates the instigation of a war (the first time in American History, no less) against an impotent one-time ally that we already kicked into submission and the majority of our christian nation stands up and applauds.

Now, how does that happen if the doctrine of christianity is peace above all else and one shalt not murder? The fault of the millions of christians who apparently just aren't "true" christians?

No. It is the doctrine that is false and the doctrine that so deeply corrupts otherwise intelligent, innocent people into thinking that black is white and this scenario has been played out successfully for thousands of years, which is why it works and why it is continued to be taught and apologized for.

It is, indeed, a control mechanism, but of the worst kind, since it effectively turns individuals into "sheep." What no one ever seems to factor in, however, is that sheep, although cared for and loved by the shepherd to be sure, eventually end up being shorn, blunt-force trauma killed and eaten when their use runs out.

Koyaanisqatsi

For being theists?

Under Stalin, some twenty million people were allegedly killed for being enemies of the state. Was theism the reason? Doubtful. Was theism a stated reason. Certainly, though I'm a product of American shooling, so take it with a grain of salt.

There's a tremendous difference between the two, don't you agree?

Socialism was the new "religion" of the State; meaning, that if you didn't adhere to the tenets stated by the State, you would be victimized or even killed.

Same thing happened under the Christians, mind you.

The point being to replace one belief with another and not necessarily a genocide necessarily against any "god" believers because they believed in a god or gods. A citizen's beliefs are a very powerful ally (or foe), so to gain converts (as the christians taught the world), one must kill all "heretics" to the religion/state.

Find me an example in human history where an atheist killed a theist solely because they believed in a god or gods and not because the very fact that they had a belief meant that their "hearts and souls" were not with the State first and foremost.

Do you see the qualitative difference?

Both Soviet Russia and China sought to convert the same religious fervor their citizens once applied to deities toward their leaders, so this is not a good example. Mao and Stalin were gods to their citizens; or at least supposed to be, so this analogy fails.

But not because they were "atheists!" They justified murder and a totalitarian mindset because of power. Their lack of a blief in a god or gods (if granted, and I don't at all where Stalin is concerned; I think it was mere pretense, but that's neither here nor there), was not the reason they murdered enemies of the state.

I have heard it said from Russian emigres that the ruling power would kill people for wearing glasses (i.e., because that meant they were intellectuals), so it is not warranted to claim that they were an atheist nation committing a Holy War, so to speak, against anyone who believed in a god or gods per se.

It was any belief that did not adhere to the Nation State that was routed out, which is exactly what the early christian cult did for centuries.

Correct, but much worse. Most theists "know" that "unbelievers" will be punished eternally for their lack of belief. They don't want them to die, necessarily, they want them to convert to their cult and become cult members just like they are.

The exact same propaganda was used by the Russians and Chinese, by the way. Nobody "wanted" to kill anybody; had they all just converted and "seen the light" it wouldn't be necessary and blah, blah, blah.

In short, there is no difference at all between what the Russians and the Chinese did to their citizens to what the early christian cult did to their own dominion. They all said, "Believe as we tell you to believe or die."

I agree and disagree. Again, Stalinists were not "atheists" as much as they were "Stalinists," a significant, if subtle, difference. It all comes down to who is controllable and how they are controllable.

As history amply shows, theists are abundantly controllable. Atheists? Unknown. If this board is any example, however, I would contend, not.

Put a gun to any of our heads and you'll probably have a different story, but, at least this is true, posit a belief system and the mandatory adherence to that belief system and we'll certainly chomp at the bit.

Theists, on the other hand, will, largely, not, IMO, unless, of course, it's a belief system they haven't been conditioned to accept, in which case, more conditioning is needed.

Hence, "reformed" christians instead of deprogrammed atheists.

AspenMama

danlowlite-- this is a gross mis-statement and an inappropriate venue to begin such a discussion. This forum is meant for secular support and the original topic was "what's bad with religion?" Would you like me to split this off so you and Koyaanisqatsi can continue this in a different forum? Koyaanisqatsi-- nice response, but again this isn't a debate forum.

AspenMama, SL&S Moderator

(Atheist, and NOT a member of any totalitarian mindset).

Alonzo Fyfe

Actually, the issue is not that atheists have killed theists or vica versa.

The issue is that every religious text has more than one passage within it telling its members that they OUGHT to hate atheists. Their moral code demands that they regard the "infidels" and "heathens" as inferior beings, creatures of a lower grade.

There may be examples of atheists who have killed theists, and done so for the reason that they were theists (as opposed to self-defense from the attacks of theists). However, nowhere within atheism will you find a prescription that they OUGHT to do so.

Therein lies the difference.

danlowlite

Whoa, calm down, I musta misstyped or something. I did read the thing over three times. But I'm not perfect. My foible totally reverses the meaning of the post.

I meant that anyone can justify murder if they have a totalitarian mindset. I meant the particular totalitarian idea as a subset of atheism (as a hierarchy, part of but not representative of the whole). A totalitarian ______ can justify murder of a ______ because that's what their book tells them. Doesn't matter if that book is Das Kapital or the Koran or the Bible or a little red one. Extremism is the problem.

Sorry for the misunderstanding to you, AspenMama, Koyaanisqatsi, and anyone else that I accidently mislaid on a path to . . . confusion, I suppose.

GunnerJ

Actually, in the example you used, atheism was a subset of a philosophy (dialectical materialism) which was a subset of a totalitarian ideology (Stalinist communism).

danlowlite

Hmm, I think we disagree on what it means to be an atheist. Stepping off topic only to return shortly.

We are atheists, this is likely the only thing we have in common. Some of us are anarchists, technocrats, communists, republicans, facists, democrats, whatever. So the atheist of the communist(totalitarian) variety, would put the state ahead of the person, therefore allowing the death of the individual to serve the state.

Like in Goedel (sp) Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, there are some dialogues with an Anteater, who is eating the ants of a colony. I lent out my copy, so this may be loose. The ant colony shows the anteater who to eat for the better of the colony. Not that the deaths weren't tragic or wrong or sad or uncalledfor or whatever, but as an organism, it sought to eliminate those parts of which endangered the whole. As communism sees it, the belief in God endangers the state because it allows people to see a power beyond that state.

We're gonna get back on topic shortly.

I think it would go the other way, but I can see how it could be organized your way. Does the person become an atheist because of Stalinist Communism, or was the person an atheist first and replace the deity with the state?

It's married to it, surely, but, and hopefully I haven't mistyped, or anything: putting anything ahead of the individual, god or state, is what causes harm in this world. I was just being difficult by finding sanctioned murder by atheists against theists. But that was because of their political ideology. A cohesive view of history is better than a partial one, IMO, but I don't know everything, either.

The actual reply to the threadstarter is that: the line of argument is not a good one to follow, IMO, unless you are careful to pull those who have done these horrors away from the fact that they are atheists but had a "higher power" in any case (being the state), while tying the religion, by way of their holy books, the basis of the religion, to the horrors that the religions have caused.

If you could give us the specific example that they gave you, theIPU, then I think someone with a little more knowledge could help in that instance.

Sorry for confusion. I majored in English, not spelling, nor Philosophy. (Though I'm thinking of another Bachlors . . . )

GunnerJ

Which person?

AspenMama

GunnerJ--- I think he means the hypothetical person who is living in a communist and officialy atheist country.
danlowlite-- you are correct that it is important to correctly portray history. However, deaths that occured under the communist regimes are not exclusive to an atheist philosophy. They were done in the name of a polticial viewpoint and meted out to a wide variety of dissenters, not just those who clung to a theistic viewpoint.