AIBU to find this slightly odd behaviour from atheist friends?

[handsandknees]

I am an Evangelical Christian. People who know me well know that. I am happy to talk about it if people want to, but I don't go on about it.

Last Easter one of my friends posted a long status on facebook basically ranting against the Christian Easter message and saying that she didn't want or need Jesus to have died for her, thank you very much. Up to her what she writes of course, but the tone was very aggressive and I wondered why. I didn't comment but later she sent me a personal message asking me what I thought of her post.

Then this week another friend posted a photo on my wall which said "Proud to say I'm an atheist". I haven't responded but just wondering why would someone do this? I am not offended just find it a bit strange.

Why do you think they would do this?

Frank H, NO, things have NOT been done in the name of Atheism. Terrible things have been done by regimes that are atheistic. There is a world of difference between the two examples. Terrible things have been done in the name of many major religions, however.

If you want to say that a regime aligned with a certain belief which carries out atrocities automatically does those crimes in the name of that belief, then we must start seeing the Holocaust as a specifically Catholic crime, as the beliefs and rules, etc., of the Nazii party that led to the Shoah, as well as other terrible stuff, was directly informed by their Catholicism.

However, we don't say that the Holocaust is a Catholic crime because we can see that whilst Catholicism informed the beliefs and actions that led to it, it was not done specifically and deliberately in the name of Catholicism. Thus, the same rules must be applied to regimes involving Atheism, even if you want to remove the Personality Cult factor from all arguments on the matter (which is impossible).

ALSO! Even if Atheism and religion were 50-50 in terms of crimes specifically carried out in their name, it's irrelevant to any discussion on faith or lack thereof. It's a silly smokescreen, a diversion, a sophisticated way of covering up that the best argument a person can come out with is 'yeah, but...'. If it makes religiouspeople feel better to lie to themselves that Atheism has brought about as many horrors as religion, then they are free to do so. But it doesn't make it true.

Holo - thank you :).

Sorry - you are nitpicking. If there's a "silly smokescreen", it's the sort of procedure you are following. Actually, I don't want to call you "silly", because I don't want to adopt the contemptuous attitude towards Atheists which many Atheists have towards those who don't agree with them.

Incidentally Nazism, whatever its roots, was basically not "Catholic" but atheistic, elevating the "Aryan race" to the position which a god might have held. As for "Personality Cults" - they occur among all groups, but it could be argued that an atheistic background makes one easier to set up - less opposition to the idolisation of such as Stalin, Mao, Kim il-Sung etc.

Many people have been persecuted, tortured, and killed in Atheistic countries (Soviet Union, China, Eastern Europe) because they have opposed the Atheistic policies of their governments. Ever read of what has happened to Buddhist monks in Tibet? If those aren't terrible things done in the name of Atheism, then I suppose "Atheism" has been so defined in a way that it would be impossible to blame it for anything. End of intelligent discussion.

I think it is pointless to indulge in this "who is responsible for more atrocities" sort of thing. As I pointed out, all major ideologies have their evil, and their good, sides. The sort of "point-scoring" on atrocities seems to be mainly indulged in by the arrogant and intolerant, on all sides.

There are Christians, Moslems, Atheists, Sikhs, etc.etc. who are filled with contempt for all those who don't agree with them, and are constantly trying to denigrate the others as uneducated, silly, stupid, evil etc. - Atheism is certainly not free from this tendency. There are also those in all these groups who are more concerned to bring about understanding, tolerance, and respect for those whose views they don't agree with.

I know which of these alternatives I would rather be my goal, though being a fallible human being, I don't always manage to live up to it.

Frank, Nazism was not atheistic at all, Hitler and his fellow fucknuggets believed in any amount of woo-bollocks, both Christian and pagan. He had people out hunting for relics of the mythological Crucifixion FFS.

Mrs DV - yes, they did do that - I think the point is that those atrocities arose out of the totalitarian mindset, not atheism per se - atheism has no prescribed dogmas. But TBH I'd use similar arguments in relation to religion - although atrocities are explicitly done in the name of various religions, I don't think the guilt by association you too often see when debates get to this point are valid. Others (obviously) may disagree.

I don't think there has ever been a regime that had atheism as it's core belief and who committed atrocities justified by the persuit of atheism, has there? Or has there? Communists are generally atheists, but I don't think it's a requirement. And Nazis certainly weren't atheists- didn't lots of then believe in the Norse gods?

I was surprised to find how large a part atheism played in the chaos following the French Revolution. People were sent to the guillotine purely for following a religion- any religion!

The point is that atheists are just as capable of being vile as anyone
else- but they don't have an ideology to justify their behaviour with, Well not a supernatural one, anyway. Atheists can be racist, misygnist, any other iist you care to name-they just aren't deist!

I heard a sermon a while ago in which the preacher totted up all the good that's been done to the world by Christians, as against all the bad...I can't remember how the sermon went from there, but it's clear that both very good things and very evil things have been done in the name of Christianity. I don't know a single Christian who would deny this; if anything, we talk more about the bad things (collective guilt) than the good things. This might just reflect my type of Christianity, though (hand-wringing liberal do-gooders) :)

Mrs D, tell me about it (the C of E. As Archbishop Rowan said, 'we've got a lot of explaining do.') :(

And then the 'Cult of Reason' atheists all got the chop by the deistic 'Cult of the Supreme Being'. Dogmatic beliefs (of any sort) + power rarely works out well.

(sorry, slow post - referring to French Revolution)

MrsD, I really understand where you're coming from, but there's something very deep inside me that rises up when I hear that kind of fuckwittery, a different sort of 'not in my name' I suppose, and I refuse to let the Fuckwits win. Not on my watch!

Without wishing to be inflammatory to anyone, I think that one of the things that my friends and I realised last week with the Synod vote is just how incredibly important if is to stand up and be counted, make your voice heard etc. Because if you don't, others with a different agenda will. So the vote in Synod has made me more determined to get involved with the church, not less.

Contrary to what some have claimed, there have been atrocities committed against religious believers under atheistic regimes, specifically because they are religious believers.

But it's of course quite possible to define "atheism" in a minimalist sort a way, that so absolves it from direct responsibility for any atrocities committed in its name.

I could also re-define Christianity to just those parts of it I agree with - which would not have led to any of the atrocities committed in its name, and would also not have led to the vote against women bishops.

But I don't do this because I think such a procedure is intellectually cowardly. And by not adopting this approach, I am required to examine why a faith based on the revelation that "God is Love" can be so perverted, that the action of "official" Churches has all too often led to Love being ignored - and power, riches, domination etc. being the motivation. It further provokes me not to be apathetic, but to do what I can to ensure that the Christian gospel is not further perverted.

Each theological or ideological position, Christian, Moslem, Atheist, Buddhist etc., has its own problems, its own strengths and weaknesses.

It might be better if we all spent more time examining the wrongs committed in our name - while not ceasing to critically but fairly examine the record of other "faith" and non-faith groups.

Frank - while I agree with the thrust of what you say, there still is a difference with atheism because of itself its not a 'movement', its not an organisation, there's no founder, no rulebook. I don't think there's really a thing 'Atheism' which to which can be attributed either good or ill, in the same way as you could to religious and political movements (christianity, Islam buddhsm, hinduism, communism, etc etc) . I see 'atheism' as a sort of null... yes, it is minimalistic because its a non-belief. There are ideological positions which are atheistic - communist, humanist, Buddhist... that is the level of 'in my name', I think.

I don't hold Muslims or Hindus to account for what's been done in gods name by 'christians' or vv - so should I hold humanists or Buddhists accountable for what was done in the name of communism?

Ross Douthet said that for an otherwise sane person to commit a terrible act it takes an immense sort of idea...be that a religion that causes people to bomb, or the secular ideals of communism or whatever. Not religion as such, or atheism as such.

Well, that's kind of what he said. I need coffee.

I think that's about right, CY. (except 'the secular ideals of communism' maybe isn't a good description...the secular ideals of the Founding Fathers of the US were a good big idea!)

CY, I'm just about to look for something I read today in The Salmon Of Doubt and send it to you on FB. Not because it's about religion, it is and it isn't, but because it's funny, clever, funny and completely spontaneous. It's funny too. Honest, I alternated between snorting with laughter and ooh, never knew that. Trying to discuss it with some random person in a cafe is apparently frowned upon. :o

Grimma

I don't hold people responsible for any actions which they either haven't personally done or encouraged others to do, unless they have helped to create an atmosphere of hatred and suspicion, which causes atrocities to be perpetrated.

Hence I don't blame all Atheists for atrocities perpetrated in the name of Atheism. Exactly the same principles apply to atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or whatever.

But I am not prepared to make an exception for Atheists on this - because in my experience there are also arrogant, bigoted Atheists a-plenty. Perhaps fewer than exist in other categories, but more than enough for me not to be able to turn a blind eye.

Of course there are plenty of nice, kind, tolerant, humane Atheists - as there are such Christians, and yes, many such Moslems - I have the privilege of teaching quite a few at the University at which I lecture.

Yes it was Grimma. :) I didn't mean the secular ideals of communism, I mean the atrocities of Stalinism etc.

"Contrary to what some have claimed, there have been atrocities committed against religious believers under atheistic regimes, specifically because they are religious believers."

Could we have some examples please?

Soviet Union and Communist China, to name but two, put many thousands of religious believers in prison, and worse.

Read the history of these regimes, and their attitude towards religion.

Frank, the problem is that you seem to be defining 'nice kind acceptable' atheists as ones who are prepared to concede that the imaginary friends of the superstitious are worthy of consideration. I hold Jesus, God, Allah, Zeus, Rama and all the rest on exactly the same level as Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy - imaginary friends that are only my problem or my business when people start bothering me with them. When they start crying about how their imaginary friend is much more SPESHUL than all the rest, and how it's rude to equate their special imaginary friend with other people's imaginary friends, then that kind of makes them fair game for laughing at.