Atheist Slogans on Buses

[Darth Avlectus]

@ Bimmerman: Agreed. Freedom of speech. Also I do believe America does draw the line at some point.

 

@ thread: In general I personally have no problem with atheism making slogans. I used to be one. Now that I am not, I still say that theistic side is no less beholden than atheists to respect one another. As I did as an atheist.

 

For atheism/agnosticism and religion I have the same general caveat: remain respectful. Once it crosses that line and it is not for the sake of merited debate, that's a no-no. While there is civil punishment for such things, there is also the proactive brand of karmic justice.

 

If you call someone an idiot, you'd best be prepared for the backlash.

 

Freedom is not free or dumb. It comes with responsibility. Requires you treat it and use it respectfully.

 

@ Dagobahn Eagle: Achillies no longer posts in Kavar's. Out of respect for Achilles, please, everyone, do not discuss this issue further. Thanks, Jae.

 

Welcome to Kavar's, for what it's worth. This place, though similar to the senate, and was a proxy for the senate for a time ...I guess is considered the serious (though not necessarily political) zone of the kotor section.

 

Because they're tired of fundamentalists running banners linking to sites that condemn atheists to hell, or contain other offensive messages. I'm tired of people who allow the religious to say whatever they want, no matter how hateful, offensive, intolerant or deluded, because "we're supposed to respect religion", while atheists are supposed to shut up, grin and bear it. If person a can state his mind about person b, person b is entitled to reply.

 

I can respect the insult that one feels, ensuing from reading messages from opposing groups (or at least slightly different and at odds) that one particularly perceives to be arrogant. I'm pretty sure at one point or another for all groups, in America there is a line drawn between free speech and just plain defamatory/hateful sentiment, alignment of group affiliation notwithstanding. Is it particularly bad where you live?

 

"Religion" is not a word to describe stances that are vehemently "preached", and lots of religions out there don't have missionary traditions. Jews and Buddhists, for example, are known for not trying to convert people.

 

A "religion" is a system of belief in a personal god, some sort of life before and/or after death, and other mystical, supernatural beliefs. Atheism, by its very definition, is the absence of religion.

 

Well, maybe it's just me but, the very fact that you are defending, formulating ideas about, and in a certain sense making a vie for Atheism and that these things are not there or do not exist, to me, at least says there is something there. If not a being in similar vein to a deity or deities, at least in the sense of structure similar to that of religion and, shall we say 'codes' of ethics. That isn't to say, though, that science can necessarily replace religion.

 

Pah, my attitude is let them get their foot in their mouth. I also think a good boot to the head is a form of speech and expression--albeit not a verbal one.

 

I am a bit brutish, I'll admit. I do think most people could benefit from being in a situation where you must not speak out of turn...for fear of reprimand.

Could be military service or martial arts. I.E. For me at a local Aikido dojo that also teaches Kendo, when grand master sensei speaks, you do not; correctional disciplinsation admistered in the form of a bokken to the ribs or somewhere). I do not believe free speech should be limited like this but do believe everyone could benefit from having been in a situation like that in order to appreciate freedom when they do have it.

[Totenkopf]

Holy thread bump from the dead, Batman!

 

To keep my post on topic, I have no problem with tastefully done atheist or religious slogans on buses. When they are no longer tasteful and are antagonistic, then I don't want to see them.

 

I concur. As long as they're paying for the ads and they are done in an inoffensive manner.....it's still a free country.

[lukeiamyourdad]

That is completely incorrect. More people have died under atheist regimes of the last century than died in all previous centuries due to religion combined.

 

See an article here and this site.

 

Deaths from people being killed under atheist regimes or specifically for being religious in just Russia, China, and North Korea since 1917--about 82 million, not including deaths from WWI and WWII. Some will argue the numbers are even higher.

 

In addition, were the Crusades wars about religion? No. Religion happened to be an excuse. The Crusades were wars about who was going to control and profit from the important Middle Eastern trade routes. Calling them wars of religion is looking at them entirely superficially.

 

I wanted to post a reply to this as a way to debunk popular misconceptions.

 

First...

 

More people died from wars and dictatorships in the last century then before.

 

There is no denying this, but some things have to be taken into account.

Since the 19th century, political turbulence trying to change the social order has been central in the evolution of what can now be properly called nations. The political began to split from the military, the people started to question their leaders instead of submitting to heavenly law. It is the first ingredient for death on a massive scale.

Monarchies repressed Republicans in blood and Republicans did the same to monarchists.

Let's add something else. New ideologies are pushing for a total change of the social order. Communism is one of those and to achieve their ends, they will do what "must" be done.

Now add another thing...social darwinism. The idea that your "race" needs to be strong to survive leads to two elements. The first, is a total disregard for another human of another "race". Since that person is inferior, that person can die and the world should not weep for his weakness. Nazi you say? Not just Nazi. Before the beginning of World War I and even after, this sentiment was generalized in the Western world, from Britain to Russia. Social darwinism leads to the last thing...

Total War. Development in military technology made old school line battles impossible, starting with the Franco-Prussian War (in a beginning form). Essentially, weapons. especially artillery, became too deadly, giving armies the ability to inflict massive casualties in battle. Of course, the same weapons are used when besieging a city for example, so the body count of civilian climbs up too.

 

I could also add that there are more humans too, so more die in wars. You'd need a percentage of casualties to properly compare.

 

Dictatorial regimes are responsible for wars and deaths and kill their own people.

 

A common misconception. The list of wars where democracies are involved can be made and you'd realize they are just as numerous if not more then with dictatorial regimes. Are they responsible you ask? Hard to say, mainly because dictatorships do not evolve outside of the world. They have to coexists with democracies and play in the same diplomatic system. As such, everyone is a bit responsible for certain wars. When you look at what happened before World War II, you can see that the diplomacy, including that of the Western allies, failed to give results or to stop it. War was not inevitable, from our present point of view.

 

Dictatorships kill their own people? Is Stalin the only communist leader the United States remembers? Yes, Stalin impose a great terror on his people, but you have to realize one thing...they cried when he died. No, not tears of relief, tears of sadness. So he must have done something right? The state of mind of Soviet citizens was that Stalin did what he did to strengthen the country against Germany. If that's what they wanted...who's to say they're wrong?

Only when Stalin died did Khrushchev start the de-stalinization of the USSR. Only then did people realize the great terror. While it was in place, they didn't seem to mind it that much...hell, some even took the opportunity to rise in the communist party, seeing the old guard, people loyal to Lenin or Trotsky's ideas, killed off by Stalin.

Life in the USSR was not so bad after Stalin died either. Many economic failures, but the people had decent lives. Just because it wasn't the american standard does not mean it was bad. Remember: this is a country devastate by World War II. It's going to take a while to rebuild. The USA never was touched on its mainland soil by massive German bombings. The infrastructure was intact and the economy could flourish.

 

Under Khrushchev era USSR and later, such massacres on a massive scale were rare. Outside of political repression in satellite countries, the body count certainly is not impressive.

 

What is the point of killing your own people? There is none really when another solution is possible. This is true of the Nazi regime too. When you look at their actions prior to the start of the war, you'd notice the Nazi trying to push the Jews out of the country rather then outright extermination. They're not stupid and it's easier to push people out then to create the infrastructure to destroy them.

 

I can't say about the situation in China and in North Korea, but I assume the same holds true. They won't kill for nothing.

 

 

Religion is the cause of wars.

 

Yes and no. Religion has always been used as a supporting ideology to other goals. That means it's certainly a part of the general rationale for going to war.

To say the Crusades were motivated by religion is only looking at one side of the larger picture. Saying that it's about economic control is the same.

 

The first thing to take into account is that control of the trade routes would have made the local conquerors wealthy. Basically, European nobles who went to the Crusades would be the ones gathering the wealth and not the monarch who supposedly sent them. This is mainly because nation states as as they are known today did not exist. France or England cannot expect a proper return for their crusading activities.

The other fact is that raising armies and sending them to what amounts to an expedition that would take years to complete is extremely costly. Lords who raised armies and kings who gave them support had to spend a lot of money. Would control of the Middle-East have offset the money drain? Doubtful.

Lastly is that the regions the Crusaders ended up controlling simply did not have the same economic value as Constantinople for example. Only the Fourth Crusade, led by the Venitians, took control of the city. If trading was the main factor, this would have been a goal. Except that it wasn't.

 

Saying that religion is just an excuse for the Crusades is utterly false. If that was the case, the People's Crusade would not have happened. Neither would the enterprise know its success in garnering support. The world is not only guided by material gain or else a religious man would not be religious. As such, Crusaders truly believed in their purpose to reclaim the Holy land.

 

The exact same thing can be said of modern day crusaders. Suicide bombers used by terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda truly believe their goal. The leaders also believe their goals to be righteous or else they would not do it. Why would a wealthy man like Osama Bin Laden live his miserable life if he did not believe in his vocation?

 

The same goes for any ideology. No, religion alone may not be the only factor, but saying that religion is not a factor is just as false. Religion is part of the greater scheme of things, not just a tiny footnote.

 

 

 

 

With that being said, I'm not saying don't have an opinion on the actions of those regimes, only that you should think about their situations and try to understand their point of view, whether you find it twisted or not. It may be considered relativist, but you need that to understand the other side and maybe use the analysis to better change things

[Totenkopf]

With that being said, I'm not saying don't have an opinion on the actions of those regimes, only that you should think about their situations and try to understand their point of view, whether you find it twisted or not. It may be considered relativist, but you need that to understand the other side and maybe use the analysis to better change things.

 

If by understand you mean be sympatheitc or even empathetic to their "peculiar" pov, then that would be relativistic. If you merely mean that you should understand your enemies/opponents to best figure out how to defeat or overcome them, then that is merely good advice.

[lukeiamyourdad]

If by understand you mean be sympatheitc or even empathetic to their "peculiar" pov, then that would be relativistic. If you merely mean that you should understand your enemies/opponents to best figure out how to defeat or overcome them, then that is merely good advice.

 

 

maybe use the analysis to better change things.

 

You can't find a solution when you can't understand something.

[Totenkopf]

You don't actually have to be sympathetic to someone's pov to find a solution. If you can understand that someone's aims are diametrically opposed to yours, that is often enough to change things. For instance, being sympathetic to a regime that is expansionistic is not going to change anything for the better, unless you think that their taking over other people's countries to make room for their population is a positive thing. Not being sympathetic or empathetic does not equal being perplexed about the nature of someone else's goals.

[Q]

Holy thread bump from the dead, Batman!

Apparently, things were slow in the Senate and somebody got bored.

[Jae Onasi]

Apparently, things were slow in the Senate and somebody got bored.

It wasn't a spam resurrection, and it seems to have generated some new discussion, so it works.

 

With that being said, I'm not saying don't have an opinion on the actions of those regimes, only that you should think about their situations and try to understand their point of view, whether you find it twisted or not.

I can understand how serial killers get screwed up as children, be sympathetic to the childhood abuse many of them suffered, and understand the bizarre motivations that lead them to torture and kill someone. However, that doesn't mean I'm ever going to approve their actions, and they are indeed twisted, sick and evil. They should be locked up away from society forever so they can't hurt anyone else. Declaring something is wrong is not the same as being unsympathetic.

[EnderWiggin]

That is completely incorrect. More people have died under atheist regimes of the last century than died in all previous centuries due to religion combined.

Correlation does not imply causality.

 

The fact that it was an atheist or religious regime proves nothing.

 

_EW_

[Jae Onasi]

Correlation does not imply causality, Jae.

 

_EW_

That's why I linked the site so you could look at the data and draw your own conclusions. It is the unfortunate but logical progression of nihilist and marxist/communist thinking taken to the extreme.

In addition, Mao's and Stalin's zeal to expunge any religion from their states resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people solely because those victims were people of faith. I'm not sure how much more causality you need there than Mao's statements on how he wanted to stamp out religion and the religious.

[Emperor Devon]

That is completely incorrect. More people have died under atheist regimes of the last century than died in all previous centuries due to religion combined.

 

more people were also born in the last century than any other. i think it's unfair to criticize stalin and mao's regimes for killing as many people as they did because of atheism when they were working with significantly larger population sizes (and had far better tools to commit genocide with) than any other regimes before theirs had had (well, except hitler. but he doesn't count since he wasn't a real christian)

 

as wonderful as your above quote might sound, you should consider the context of genocide in the 20th century. if any other earlier religious regime was able to work the same population sizes and make use of the same technology that mao and stalin did, i think they could have easily killed a comparable number of people

[Totenkopf]

What ifs don't really count though. If you kill one person in a village of 100, you've still killed only one person. If you kill ten thousand in a population of a half-million you're still a bigger mass murderer, even if the impact on the overall local population is less. Arguably, if unstopped, people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others could have killed even more people in a shorter time frame, even as a %, than their religious counterparts centuries ago. And precisely for the reasons you've stated....better technology. I'd say that ahteists aren't any less blood thirsty than any other group of people. Nor any more, for that matter, either.

[Lord of Hunger]

After reading this, it brought up an interesting point in my head: The West is gradually moving away from theism, yet we still utilize the common Christian morality system. You'd expect that there would be a significant shift in Western culture as to what is acceptable moral behavior. We still believe that a man should marry and then have sex with a woman to produce a bunch of kids rather than marrying another man and adopting kids, marrying multiple women, or not even bothering with marriage and just having sex with a woman because he feels like it. I'm not saying I'm for or against any of that (my general position on these things tends to be apathy), but it is still interesting that such a shift has not occurred yet.

[EnderWiggin]

After reading this, it brought up an interesting point in my head: The West is gradually moving away from theism, yet we still utilize the common Christian morality system. You'd expect that there would be a significant shift in Western culture as to what is acceptable moral behavior. We still believe that a man should marry and then have sex with a woman to produce a bunch of kids rather than marrying another man and adopting kids, marrying multiple women, or not even bothering with marriage and just having sex with a woman because he feels like it. I'm not saying I'm for or against any of that (my general position on these things tends to be apathy), but it is still interesting that such a shift has not occurred yet.

 

This is absolute nonsense, as 76% of Americans have Christian religious beliefs whereas only 15-16% (depending on the study) are athiest/agnostic. As long as 3 out of 4 Americans are Christian, we're still going to maintain the Christian Morality System here in the US of A.

 

_EW_

[Darth InSidious]

This is absolute nonsense, as 76% of Americans have Christian religious beliefs whereas only 15-16% (depending on the study) are athiest/agnostic. As long as 3 out of 4 Americans are Christian, we're still going to maintain the Christian Morality System here in the US of A.

 

_EW_

US = the entire western world?

 

Golly. I'd better get a flag to salute with a copy of the KJV.

[Web Rider]

After reading this, it brought up an interesting point in my head: The West is gradually moving away from theism, yet we still utilize the common Christian morality system. You'd expect that there would be a significant shift in Western culture as to what is acceptable moral behavior. We still believe that a man should marry and then have sex with a woman to produce a bunch of kids rather than marrying another man and adopting kids, marrying multiple women, or not even bothering with marriage and just having sex with a woman because he feels like it. I'm not saying I'm for or against any of that (my general position on these things tends to be apathy), but it is still interesting that such a shift has not occurred yet.

 

The "Christian" morality system is by and large more generic than people give it credit for. With some specific exceptions, such as who's god to worship and when, the basic moral code of Christianity is the same as every other one. And often the same as "natural" morality. And I do mean basic stuff, 10 commandments basic, yes theres plenty more to the moral codes but I'm not talking about that.

 

This is absolute nonsense, as 76% of Americans have Christian religious beliefs whereas only 15-16% (depending on the study) are athiest/agnostic. As long as 3 out of 4 Americans are Christian, we're still going to maintain the Christian Morality System here in the US of A.

 

_EW_

 

America alone does not equal the West. Much of Europe has been moving away from religion for some time. As well, saying 3/4ths of Americans are Christians is like saying the world is made out of dirt. From a generic POV it's true, but there are important differences in those religions, and not all of them fall into the stereotypical uptight-religiously intolerant christian group.

[Totenkopf]

So, which particular Christian groups fall into the stereotype? Calvinists? Lutherans? Catholics? I often find the expression "open-minded liberal" to be quite oxymoronic. EW's basic point is still valid, as he was addressing the US, not the world. ~75+% of the US is Christian and thus much of American morality, at least, will continue to be influenced by it. With a few exceptions, Christain morality isn't all over the map. While there are many denominations, they mostly hew to the 10 Commandmants in arriving at moral decision making (as you yourself note). Most are still largely traditional, at least by "modern" standards. New/modern doesn't axiomatically mean better/more enlightened.

[EnderWiggin]

US = the entire western world?

 

Golly. I'd better get a flag to salute with a copy of the KJV.

 

Pardon me, I misread his post. In my haste I responded fallaciously, but I think the point still holds barring the fact that the statistics are wrong. Sorry about that.

 

Thanks for your understanding.

 

_EW_