The Lone Ranger

Absolutist, dogmatic faith, not religious belief per se is what leads to hatred and intolerance of those who fail to share one's beliefs. Absolutist faith need not be specifically religious in nature, but many religions do encourage such faith. Any belief system which encourages its followers to believe absolutely and discourages them from thinking can inspire hatred and intolerance.

If one is convinced beyond any doubt that one's beliefs are right, then it necessarily follows that those who fail to share those beliefs are wrong. Since most religions teach that belief and morality are inseparable, it naturally follows to those of a Fundamentalist mindset that unbelievers are evil (or at best, misguided).

So, dogmatic, unquestioned beliefs (not necessarily religious in nature) naturally tend to encourage intolerance and hatred, especially if the belief in question is linked with morality.

***

For the record, I've never heard an atheist claim anything so obviously stupid as that any other than a tiny minority of theists could do such a thing. It's fanatacism, not theism per se that inspires such actions.

On the other hand, I frequently hear theists insisting that atheists are immoral people by definition. Go figure.


Cheers,

Michael

Sabine Grant

well I am not sure your assumption based on the fact that you believe that a christian will automaticaly kill people is valid. I mean you are assuming that... are you not ?
Or do you leave room for the possibility that faith can actualy prevent someone from killing someone else? you are aware of christian groups who will even refuse to partake in acts of war right? or are all the objectors of conscience non religious individuals?

As for the extremists fundamentalists muslims who are the authors of the quoted atrocity, you do not seriously believe that they are supported by all muslims? your statement reveals that you tend to project the thoughts that only religious individuals are motivated into acts of violence. In other words, non theists would never harm others.. only the religious ones do. I think it might be helpful to rebalance your comments after reviewing the history of our world.

Sheep in the big city

So you theists are saying an atheist who does not believe in an afterlife in heaven as a reward for suicide missions is just as likely as a theist who believes that crap to engage in such activities?
As a theist, if you really believed in an afterlife, you should be eager to die and go to heaven. So if your religion offers you the suicide mission shortcut option it's seems like a nobrainer to take it. Of course that is not the case for christians but we are talking about theists in general. I can't think of a sound reason for an atheist die the kamikaze death. It's just so stupid that because of the complete lack of rational reasons you need religion to motivate people to do that and the attitude to believe nonsensical doctrine without questioning that is nourished by religion.
I've never heard of an atheist suicide killer, I hear of religious ones every week. Sure the bombings in the middle east are also politically motivated but it is my opinion that there would be a serious recruiting problem for terrorists if it was not for the reward in afterlife and positive aspects of killing oneself that only religion provides.

Again I'm not saying that applies to all or even most religions but certainly more to them than an atheist worldview.
But even if you are a pacifist nonviolent christian you still believe in the afterlife in paradise -so why does it even bother you when christians are killed? According to your beliefs they go to eternal happiness in heaven a few years early - if you really believe I do not see why you would have a problem with that?

Sabine Grant

Is the " you " me and are you asking that question assuming that I have no problems with anyone dying?

Or do you think that christians should not grieve when a loved one passed away?

Or that christians should all commit suicide to be with God earlier?

There are so many assumptions in your comments that I need a bit of help. Can you phrase your question more clearly please? I am just getting more and more confusing when questions are formulated on the premises of assumptions that I, the person I am, abides to one thing or the other.

Sheep in the big city

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sabine Grant:
<strong>

Is the " you " me and are you asking that question assuming that I have no problems with anyone dying?

Or do you think that christians should not grieve when a loved one passed away?
</strong>

Yes, you can read those as questions addressed to you. If you think earth is the place where we are as punishment for the original sin and that believers go to heaven - a place of unimaginable bliss close to your loved God I do indeed not see why a christian would have a problem with death.
To me it seems a logical consequence of your (yes, you as a christian) believe system that you should be happy if someone dies who believes in Jesus.

<strong>
Or that christians should all commit suicide to be with God earlier?
</strong>

That would indeed be logical, wouldn;t it? I assume someone put a clause in the Bible or other christian lore somewhere that suicide automatically condemns you to hell. Come to think of it that seems to fall under "thou shalt not kill" so it's taken care of.
I guess the muslims just forgot to put that one in or more likely just chose to interpret their Koran differently. Wouldn't have become a world religion if you could not find quotes to back up a wide range of views.
But still, provided you think you will go to heaven, you should be happy if someone else would kill you.
I assume that is not the case but would be interested to know why.


PS: If you loved someone more than yourself should you not be tempted to kill him/her? It would of course mean eternal damnation for you but you would buy the person you love so much an early entry to paradise. Aaaah, that's such a sweet thought.


PPS: Also there should be a statistical predisposition of theists to basejumping, freeclimbing and similar activities since it's a nice combination of the trust in God, believe in predetermination and deathwish they should have.
Why do you think there is no such predisposition? Lack of real faith?
[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: Sheep in the big city ]

[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: Sheep in the big city ]</p>

Kassiana

Sheep:
So you theists are saying an atheist who does not believe in an afterlife in heaven as a reward for suicide missions is just as likely as a theist who believes that crap to engage in such activities?

Kass:
Considering I started this thread because I saw atheists here accusing all theists of believing things they do not, I find it ironic that you attribute the above to me when I said no such thing. Please point out where I did.

Sheep:
As a theist, if you really believed in an afterlife, you should be eager to die and go to heaven.

Kass:
A. You're not a theist, so telling us what we should do has no authority.

B. The afterlife is not a focus of my particular religious practice. While sure, like everyone else, I wouldn't mind it if I had a nice one, I don't focus on it. So no, your inaccurate assumption about me (again) is false. I don't focus on an afterlife.

C. Most theists believe we have a physical life for an important reason, so even those far more dedicated to an afterlife than I have a good reason for not departing it prematurely. But of course, if you're an intelligent person and have actually researched this, you already know it and were just trying to yank our chains...which I don't appreciate.

Sheep:
But even if you are a pacifist nonviolent christian

Kass:
Nope. I'm a liberal neoPagan.

Sheep:
you still believe in the afterlife in paradise -so why does it even bother you when christians are killed?

Kass:
Obviously inflammatory, insulting rhetoric which deserves no reply for the reasons enumerated above re the afterlife.

Writer@Large

Sheep, I have to agree. That kind of an argument--"Well, if Heaven is so grand, why don't you go ahead and die?"--as as much a straw-man argument as "well, you don't believe in God, why aren't you out there raping children?" Certainly, we can be more constructive than that.

--W@L

Writer@Large

How common is this, exactly? I've seen one or two people throw it out, usually in the middle of RRPEtc (not the source for civil discourse), but is it really that "common" in, say coversations in the EoG forum?

OTOH I've seen plenty of arguments that "religion was responsible for 9-11," but that claim is undeniably true.

--W@L

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Writer@Large ]</p>

Kassiana

I wouldn't know about EOG, as I don't hang out there. It tends, in my opinion, toward debunking Christianity. Since I am not a Christian and have no real interest in Christian belief, I don't find it necessary to talk there. This particular debate was started up as a result of some comments to HD in NARP about his likelihood to murder people because he chose theistic belief. I find it unlikely, given what I know about HD, that he would ever choose to murder people due to his having religious beliefs/beliefs in Gods. I find it amazing that someone even here decided to defend that position...and as far as I know this person wasn't one of the ones attacking HD.

And yes, I have seen atheists using variants of this argument outside of RRP numerous times. Can't count up exactly where and when, but seeing that I've been talking with atheists since 1999 on a variety of religious forums, I hope I can be forgiven.

Writer@Large

There are a lot of positions out there that amaze me that anyone would defend, from all sides of the issue.

I wasn't doubting it had ever happened, just stating that I've not seen it much. You labeled it as "common," but it seemed to me decidedly uncommon. It just goes to show, even atheists can sometimes find themselves on the wrong side of good arguments.

--W@L

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Writer@Large ]</p>