My areas of study would be martial arts and a few sciences. I will not pretend that I know exactly what Rome was all about. Let's say that "there are wars fought solely about land". Ok. So you think that wars or conflicts haven't occurred because of conflicting religious views?
Another question for atheists
- Thread starter Bill Mattocks
- Start date
You do however seem to be assuming that I think the only bad thing that has come of religion is conflict. So, what have you to say about fundamentalist terrorism? Maybe they want money or power instead, or don't really believe in religion?
It's a convenient title to ensure that ones followers, follow. The war isn't likely to be about the religion per se but about grabbing land etc but you aren't going to get many to support your invading your neighbour is you say that so turn it into a 'Holy' war and there you go, people fighting for righteousness.
the Roman Empire was solely about land, wealth and power, not religion, they didn't convert anyone to theirs, just invaded, took over and became rish and powerful.
Show me a war that is about religion then and I'll show you the real motives behind it.
What makes you think fundamentalists are immune to power and wealth?
From a historical perspective, it is nigh impossible (if not actually impossible) to separate out the various elements that caused a war to begin.
What has been seen is that it is very much easier to evince the support of the population if there is a way to 'demonise' the opposition. Historically, this has been most easily done by the use of religion as a 'lever of difference'. It should be noted that this has not always been at the behest of the holders of religious authority but almost without exception it has been with their complicity (very often with a baggage of most un-spiritual goals).
With the rise of nationalism it has become possible to replace an 'appeal to God' with an 'appeal to country' but in our current crop of conflicts, it is seem that, once again, it is the religion of the enemy that is the drum that is beaten.
What has been seen is that it is very much easier to evince the support of the population if there is a way to 'demonise' the opposition. Historically, this has been most easily done by the use of religion as a 'lever of difference'. It should be noted that this has not always been at the behest of the holders of religious authority but almost without exception it has been with their complicity (very often with a baggage of most un-spiritual goals).
With the rise of nationalism it has become possible to replace an 'appeal to God' with an 'appeal to country' but in our current crop of conflicts, it is seem that, once again, it is the religion of the enemy that is the drum that is beaten.
Blade96
Senior Master
I'm agnostic. And as my fb profile says if I ever need a religion I'll worship tetley tea. 
That said no i do not get together with other agnoztics. I talk to anyone who's nice. people of all beliefs about anything.
That said no i do not get together with other agnoztics. I talk to anyone who's nice. people of all beliefs about anything.
David43515
Master Black Belt
Only had time to read Bill`s origin post so far (fear not, I plan to read it all after lunch because it sounds like an interesting topic and I honestly want to hear what people think) but the first thing I thought of was the Gentlemen`s Club (no, not stripjoint) that was run by Sherlock Holmes brother, Mycroft, ran in some stories. It was a club for people who didn`t like clubs....the members were free to use all the facilities as long as they didn`t speak to each other.
Balrog
Master of Arts
I'm agnostic, not atheistic. I am, however, strongly anti-religion. I found out quite some time ago that religion is a lie from start to finish.
cdunn
2nd Black Belt
I haven't gotten my *** out to the "local" meetings, mostly cause of how far away they are, but mostly, the meetings tend to, as I understand it, generally be social hour, with a bit more science talk than you'd get at your local bar. Individuals may or may not gripe about the religious.
If you look at the convention schedules, they tend to bring in speakers to talk science, especially evolution, ethics, philosophy, and yes, arguments against religion. There are discussions of personal experiences. There is the general community mixing, which can be worthwhile on its own - It's good to socialize, and it feels good to socialize with those who generally share portions of your background. People are tribal.
I'm not much of one for religion, personally. I think it's irrational, but, aside from making sure that people understand that, hey, it's okay not to believe, I would be happy to live and let live. However, I find that the responses of organized religion to various social ills tends to make extremely, extremely poor public policy, and then you read the personal horror stories.
CoryKS
Senior Master
I don't know, maybe they could talk about politics. You know, like we do on a forum devoted to martial arts.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
I have to say the whole bit about "atheist group that has meetings on a regular basis" is currently making as much sense to me as an Anarchist convention
Stop being so damn logical... :uhyeah:
Steve
Mostly Harmless
I'm not so much an atheist as I am areligious. I don't give religion much thought, nor do I give people who are religious a hard time. As far as I'm concerned, it's your thing. We're all making our own way in this world and no one has all the answers. I enjoy learning about religions. I like hearing the stories and philosophies and histories. I am not at all interested in discussions about whether they are factual or not.
Regarding what an atheist meeting might talk about, I would assume (but this is just a WAG) that they talk about issues related to religion. For example, efforts by school districts to teach creationism as a science, or to teach evolution as a religious belief might be very concerning to an organized atheist group. The resurgence of religious rhetoric in politics. That sort of thing.
Regarding what an atheist meeting might talk about, I would assume (but this is just a WAG) that they talk about issues related to religion. For example, efforts by school districts to teach creationism as a science, or to teach evolution as a religious belief might be very concerning to an organized atheist group. The resurgence of religious rhetoric in politics. That sort of thing.
Big time!
oftheherd1
Senior Master
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Messages
- 4,685
- Reaction score
- 817
I don't think religion is usually the main or even partial cause of war. As other posters have mentioned, things are done in the name of religion, and people can be convinced to buy into religion as a reason for conflict. However, most religions teach some form of love for fellow man, which normally precludes war as a means of solving problems. As a Christian, I deplor the use of the term Christian describing one side in a conflict for just that reason. I don't think a true Christian can buy into killing others only because they are not Christian.
My personal belief is that most who hide behind religion to engage in criminal activity are in fact criminals seeking cover for their crime sprees. Murder is murder, theft is theft. Hiding it behind false religious interpretations doesn't change that. I don't know of a major religion that truely advocates violating law as justifiable. If someone is a practioner of a religion that does, please correct me and show me in your sacred writings where that is true.
EDIT: Razor - I meant to ask, what is your definition of a fundamentalist? I ask that since I am a fundamentalist, but I don't fit in the "fundamentalist terrorism" category. When applied to religion, based on my belief that most fundamentalist terrorists are hiding behind religion, I almost think religious fundamentalist terrorism is an oxymoron.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Messages
- 4,685
- Reaction score
- 817
Interesting side topics:
If you are an atheist, must not all religions then be based on science?
If there is a "resurgence of religious rhetoric in politics" how do you define it as wrong? The founding fathers seem to have believed in religion having written it into some of our founding documents. And they only seem to have believed that the federal government should stay out of religion since they didn't prohibit the States from doing so; not prohibiting those States that had State religion.
Bill Mattocks - if you think that is derailing you thread let me know and I will delete this post and perhaps start another unless the mods object.
Many of the violent among the religious populations, are simply only doing what the gods commanded from the beginning. The only reason the mainstream don't 'kill unbelievers' or 'stone their children', is because their views are also influenced by the modern age. Extremists are just pure uncut religion. The bible and Quran say some of these things and they are doing as commanded.
How is that? Science as most define the topic, is the methodology of observation and experiments to verify hypotheses. Many religions deal with the exact same questions (how did the universe begin, how did life begin, why is life so diverse ? ), except they do not use the same rigorous methods. Like if a supposed miracle occurred, it is asserted that it occurred, and there are no experiments/observations done to find out was is true and what isn't.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Not sure what you're suggesting. Atheists don't disbelieve in religion. Religions exist, whether there is a god or not.
Just to be clear, I don't attend atheist conventions, so I don't speak for them. I was simply speculating at what they might talk about. My thought is that an organized atheist group will have a political agenda that likely includes limiting the influence of religion in government. We see now as we have in the past politicians using religion to influence voters. The truth of the religious beliefs are irrelevant to the uses of religion to control and influence people. I would think this would be concerning to a group of organized atheists.
Nomad
Master Black Belt
In answer to your first question, nope. I have better things to do with my time and money than attend such a conference. I will have civil discussions with anyone of similar or opposing beliefs to mine, which I think help to clarify my own reasons for the beliefs I do hold and those that I simply don't buy into. Often over a few drinks. I don't try to "convert" anyone so much as explain my own world view; hopefully to foster acceptance of differing viewpoints with each other.
In response to your 2nd question; I have no difficulty with anyone else's faith. I get very angry however when people use religious beliefs to push policy, foster hatred of others, or bully those who believe differently than they do, or who attempt to convert or "save" me. Faith is fine; zealotry is abhorrent to me. Disregarding the best information that modern science has on many of the fundamental questions (such as how we got here) in favor of folktales and parables written thousands of years ago to answer the same questions is both foolhardy and dangerous.
Doesn't seem to be the cause of many conflicts any more, but my point is, it's another dividing factor which causes social friction needlessly. Religion is generally inherently insular; although it may bring together people who have the religion in common, it de facto separates them from other groups, much like tribalism. In many ways this has declined greatly in modern countries (I don't think it makes much difference to people going about their daily lives), but it can still influence how people may interact at the individual and group levels.
I've heard this one before many times before, many religious people are adamant than people who disagree with them and commit crimes are not a true part of the religion. I can understand why the upstanding majority would want to disown them, but I don't think that the argument is valid. Maybe they think that you are not the true believer. See my point? Also, many extremists really believe in what they are doing; they are not evil, just extremely faithful to whatever interpretation of religious texts they have.
On a lighter note, I believe Pastafarianism advocates piracy; I'm sure it's there somewhere in the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti....
A fundamentalist is somebody who believes in the literal interpretation of religious texts, doctrines, theologies etc. Of course, I'm sure many fundamentalists are not terrorists; the terms are not interchangeable. Many just believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that an intermediary fossil has to be half one thing, half another thing or perhaps that they should throw acid in the faces of females who dare to go to school. They could be at many points on the scale, but of course, fundamentalists don't necessarily do anything wrong.
