Come talk to me about Hitchens?

[ICBINEG]

How did I not know about Hitchens?

How do I not stay up all night trawling youtube....

Seriously..I have been a kinda quiet atheist...don't poke me with your religion and I won't poke you with how stupid it all sounds to me.

I feel like someone stuck a fire cracker up my back side.

What if there is a moral imperative that atheists get out there and attempt to rid the world of the evil that is religion?

I am all confused now.

I think I probably do have it in me to be violent and certainly criminal, I am not a natural pacifist. I don't know for certain though. Which church are you backing away from ?

I was backing away from the church full of potentially violent people only restrained by their god!

It's a logical truth that you can't do anything because of what you don't believe in. You wouldn't rob a bank because you don't believe in fairies.

But perhaps I wasn't clear enough. You are saying that you have it in you to be violent. Well, I guess we all do potentially, but you think that you only don't act upon that potential because of your religion?? Well that's a pretty volatile position to be in. It also calls into question your own set of moral values.

I am

"you have it in you to be violent...you think that you only don't act upon that potential because of your religion??" is a surprising interpretation of my saying I think religious conviction has played a part in preventing me being violent.

The OP talks about a possible moral imperative to rid the world of the evil that is religion. It sounds as if, whatever my personal beliefs or behaviour, the fact that I describe myself as a member of a religious group is enough for some posters to want to rid the world of evil me, what with my questionable morals and all . Bit about this.

"you have it in you to be violent...you think that you only don't act upon that potential because of your religion??" is a surprising interpretation of my saying I think religious conviction has played a part in preventing me being violent.

I think it's a reasonable conclusion to what you're saying. Your religion helps stop you being violent.

Anyway, it's not necessarily the individuals who are evil, it's the organisations who control the religions.

Oh, ellie, must we do Hitler AGAIN? He was brought up RC and abandoned it at the age of 14. He did his best to get rid of all Xtian groups but saw it didn't pay politically because he needed the support of the conservatives in the south. It's pointless to talk to someone who prides themselves on their rationality but can't apparently be arsed to check their facts in even the most elementary way.

Let me reiterate. I am NOT saying that all atheists are mass murders, though YOU are inclined to say all Christians are, somehow. I'm simply pointing out the inconsistent bigotry by which you approach the issues.

Sorry, but atheism was not somehow incidental to communism, but fundamental to it. I imagine there's no hope you've actually read Marx, but if you had you would know this. You would also know that the Stalinist regimes in eastern Europe even targeted the YMCA, ffs, because it was Christian.

I KNOW that's not the kind of atheist you are. (Though actually I'm not 100% sure that you couldn't be coaxed to be that quite easily - you're so very very certain you're right and that you know best for everyone). Why don't YOU know that I'm not that sort of Catholic? Your intolerance is the problem because you are so inconsistent - cutting atheists every kind of break, and none for people of faith.

Morning, Sieglinde.

I brought that up as a joke. I couldn't give a flying fart about Hitler's religious affiliations, or lack of them - the man was clearly not above lying for the cause, and pretending beliefs he didn't have to get people to do what he wanted.

Unfortunately, lots of the people who did what he wanted were, in fact, Catholics, and he knew exactly what to say to get them on side - but that's for another thread.

Now, then...you have an annoying habit of using the term "YOU" when addressing me a lot. Do you mean me, specifically, or atheists in general?

If you mean me specifically then this....though YOU are inclined to say all Christians are, somehow is utterly without justification. I have never said or implied any such thing. In fact I am careful, always, to make sure that I don't imply that I hold all members of any religion personally responsible for the atrocities carried out by their churches. I've even said to YOU that I consider you better than the faith you subscribe to - as I do all Catholics.

So, please stop putting words in my mouth. As I'm sure you're aware by now, I am perfectly able to speak for myself.

Sorry, but atheism was not somehow incidental to communism, but fundamental to it. I imagine there's no hope you've actually read Marx, but if you had you would know this. You would also know that the Stalinist regimes in eastern Europe even targeted the YMCA, ffs, because it was Christian

How patronising. I have a degree in Modern History and an MA in Medieval History (not specifically relevant, but anyway). History is my subject - just so you know.

Was Stalin a communist? That's highly debatable - his actions & attitudes certainly bore very little relation to anything written by Marx or Engels. There's nothing within their writings that could lead to mass murder, purges and gulags. Nothing at all.

So while a society free of religion (because of it's oppressive nature) may have been advocated by Marx (for ideological reasons) this was not, absolutely 100% not, what Stalin was aiming for. Stalin couldn't have given a shit whether people were being oppressed or not - he was chiefly concerned that any oppression be done by him & the state.

Stalin's regime was totalitarian - a universe away from Marxism. He demanded total control of everyone and everything and was prepared to kill to get it. If people were getting together to worship their god, then Stalin wasn't the ultimate authority that he was determined to be. Religion, in this respect, was a rival institution.

He invented his own ideology - we have a name for it. It's Stalinism. And there's no way that you can make a logical link between not believing in a god (or anything else) and mass murder on the scale that we saw in Stalinist Russia.

you're so very very certain you're right I usually am though, which is why I make you so cross

A little thought experiment for you, Sieglinde.

As you know, I loathe the religion you subscribe to. I think it's inherently evil and is directly responsible for a great deal of physical and psychological suffering on this planet. I don't think you are evil, and I know that there's much of the doctrine that you reject - you've told me and I believe you. Now, if it was me, I could not bear to be part of an organisation capable of such atrocious acts. I would leave. Simple as that. I'd find another way to worship God.

Now, you clearly have similar feelings about atheism...that it's been responsible for many deaths and so on.

So, by the same token - could I leave atheism in protest? Surely, if atheism is responsible for so many evil acts, why would I want to be part of such an organisation?

Er, no. I couldn't, could I?

And why not? Because it's not an organisation that I have joined - there are no doctrines or dogmas for me to turn my back on. There are no rules for me to disapprove of. Nothing has ever been done in my name for me to be ashamed of.

My atheism is only the response I make to the theism of another. Nothing more. It's not a positive thing, a belief in it's own right - it's the rejection of your belief that I haven't been persuaded to share.

I could, however leave Stalinism, if I'd ever been part of that ideology. I could protest those atrocities by defecting, or whatever. But I can't leave atheism.

So, you see - your attempt to conflate the atrocities committed IN THE NAME OF and BECAUSE OF your religion are in no way equal to the actions of a man who happened to be an atheist but, more importantly subscribed to a particular ideology that, he decided, were best served by mass murder.

Do you see? Frankly, I'm doubting it.

"Not supported by any evidence. There is a very clear correlation between levels of religiosity in a country and crime.

The most atheistic (or non-religious would be a fairer way to put it) on Earth are those with the lowest crime levels - Sweden, Japan etc. Those with the highest number of religious people, like America, have the highest."

You just made that up though.

The US has high murder rates, a fact that many link to high levels of gun ownership (NOT a religious issue), but rape statistics, for example, in Sweden are DOUBLE those of the US. Assault statistics are more than THREE times higher in Sweden. Burglary levels 50% higher. Vehicle theft rates 70% higher.

www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

And beyond the fact that you just made that up, and it's just not true, unsupported by evidence, there are many in the US who say 'but crime is a racial issue', and would say that the reason that US murder rates are so much higher than Sweden is because Sweden is a white country, whereas the US has a lot of black people. E.g., Ann Coulter suggested that the white murder rate in the US was the same as that of Belgium. www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/337839/ann-coulters-truthful-rhetoric-gun-violence-and-race-greg-pollowitz

But if anyone came out on mumsnet and said 'but these high crime rates are because there are too many black people', providing statistics to support this claim, they would be accused of bigotry. When you however say that crime is due to religiosity, without providing any evidence of that, and with no justification for any correlation, and when in fact the statistics don't support your claim, people just say 'that's really interesting', and nobody suggests you are bigoted, even though it clearly is.

And just to make it clear, I'm not trying to debate any link between race and crime, just pointing out that your claims are false, and bigoted.

When you however say that crime is due to religiosity

Where did I say that?

Oh, you mean when I said....

I'm NOT saying this is all down to religion, or the lack of it, but if you were right there would be some evidence suggesting that religious societies are more likely to be law abiding than non-religious ones and that is simply not the case

Learn to read, please.

I was responding, as you are clearly incapable of understanding, to the suggestion that religion stops people behaving badly. Clearly it does not. This is not AT ALL the same thing as suggesting that all crime is due to religiosity.

Really - how fucking dare you call me a bigot because you aren't bright enough to understand what I actually wrote?

Go away.

But if anyone came out on mumsnet and said 'but these high crime rates are because there are too many black people', providing statistics to support this claim, they would be accused of bigotry. When you however say that crime is due to religiosity, without providing any evidence of that, and with no justification for any correlation, and when in fact the statistics don't support your claim, people just say 'that's really interesting', and nobody suggests you are bigoted, even though it clearly is.

Except that nobody chooses the colour of their skin but everybody chooses their religion. So these are not at all comparable and just another example of how the religious think they should be afforded special treatment because of their religion.

By the way - Sweden has a higher level of REPORTED rapes, because people are more likely to report it to the authorities there than anywhere else.

This has to be taken into consideration when looking at any crime rate figure - it usually reflects a societal willingness to engage with law enforcement more than anything else.

But you just carry on calling me a liar and a bigot. Don't let any pesky facts get in your way, eh?

moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.pdf

An article in the Journal of Religion and Society proving my points.

Read it and apologise.

Here's a summary for anyone not wanting to plough through an academic paper:

Several weeks ago, a ground-breaking study on religious belief and social well-being was published in the Journal of Religion & Society. Comparing 18 prosperous democracies from the U.S. to New Zealand, author Gregory S Paul quietly demolished the myth that faith strengthens society.

Drawing on a wide range of studies to cross-match faith ? measured by belief in God and acceptance of evolution ? with homicide and intimate behavior, Paul found that secular societies have lower rates of violence and teenage pregnancy than societies where many people profess belief in God.

Top of the class, in both atheism and good behavior, come the Japanese. Over eighty percent accept evolution and fewer than ten percent are certain that God exists. Despite its size ? over a hundred million people ? Japan is one of the least crime-prone countries in the world. It also has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy of any developed nation.

(Teenage pregnancy has less tragic consequences than violence but it is usually unwanted, and it is frequently associated with deprivation among both mothers and children. In general, it is a Bad Thing.)

Next in line are the Norwegians, British, Germans and Dutch. At least sixty percent accept evolution as a fact and fewer than one in three are convinced that there is a deity. There is little teenage pregnancy , although the Brits, with over 40 pregnancies per 1,000 girls a year, do twice as badly as the others. Homicide rates are also low -- around 1-2 victims per 100,000 people a year.

At the other end of the scale comes America. Over 50 percent of Americans believe in God, and only 40 percent accept some form of evolution (many believe it had a helping hand from the Deity). The U.S. has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and homicide rates are at least five times greater than in Europe and ten times higher than in Japan.

All this information points to a strong correlation between faith and antisocial behavior -- a correlation so strong that there is good reason to suppose that religious belief does more harm than good.

There's an email address for the author should anyone want to let him know he's a bigot Let me know if you want it.

Alas, ellie, you are more often wrong than right. Loudly wrong. This time I am addressing you. Last time I was addressing the group of tireless atheist bigots here. Clear now?

Your zany claim that Stalinism and marxism are distinct is a new low. I note you are now trying to hold on to Marx too, as well as atheism, perhaps because not even you think Marx was anything but a militant atheist. of course there are many forms of marxism, of which Stalinism was one, and Leninism another, and Maoism a third, but I challenge you to tell me of a form of Marxism in politics since 1918 that is tolerant of religion.

Your thought experiment amounts to this - because there's nobody to whom you can hand in your resignation, you need accept no responsibility for any acts committed as hate crimes against people of faith by people whose beliefs you support and defend in other key respects. Frankly, it's just special pleading. MORE special pleading.

Your zany claim that Stalinism and marxism are distinct is a new low

Marxism is a form of communism. Communism promotes the idea of common ownership etc etc

Totalitarianism is the exact opposite - the state owns and controls everything.

If you are incapable of understanding even this much then I strongly, strongly suggest you don't attempt to get into this with me.

And if you're addressing me - please find and quote for me exactly where I claimed that all Christians are mass murderers.

The rest of your post is too stupid for me to respond to.

And you're on the wrong thread.

"Except that nobody chooses the colour of their skin but everybody chooses their religion. So these are not at all comparable and just another example of how the religious think they should be afforded special treatment because of their religion."

Everybody chooses their religion? So the 90%+ of Indonesians who are Muslims all chose that did they? Whereas the 90% of neighbouring Filipinos who are Christian likewise chose Christianity?

You don't have to believe in your religion. It's a choice. Unless it's an indoctrination, in which case there's a whole other conversation to be had.

So, just going to ignore your mistake and the despicable personal attacks based on it, then?

wow just wow.

There isn't actually any point engaging with sieg is there? I have made several posts directly to them labelled sieg and none have been responded to.

for what its worth I think you argument regarding the organisations you subscribe to is a very interesting and valid one.

I am atheist. All by myself. But I may or may not join the humanist society. IF the humanist society blow up a mosque then I would leave them immediately. If the humanist society only offered aid to people who renounced their faith I would leave them immediately.

If they did these things and I still remained a member than I would consider myself culpable in their crimes.

So you believe in the catholic version of God. But you choice to belong to the catholic church. If the catholic church refuse aid to those who do now convert than you are culpable for that crime if and only if you are a member of the church. Your belief in the catholic god is entirely separate to that.

sorry you = ellie

"An article in the Journal of Religion and Society proving my points.

Read it and apologise."

???

This man appears to be an 'evangelical atheist', a member of the Council for Secular Humanism, who in addition maintains a personal website saying how stupid religious people are.

He has a massive axe to grind.

Besides which, the article clearly states:

"Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular
democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and antievolution America performs poorly."

This article is not about crime, as you in fact claimed:

"There is a very clear correlation between levels of religiosity in a country and crime"

It's just a random collection of social ills, for instance he argues that

"Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5),
especially as a function of absolute belief"

In fact, if you look at figure 5 there doesn't appear to be any correlation at all.

Looking at his cherry picked selection of stats, you can see:

Figure 2 (homicides):
no evidence of correlation, but the US has much higher rates

Figure 3 (suicides at a certain, arbitrary age (15-24)):
no correlation at all

I got bored at this point, he's so obviously a bigot, and his article is basically based on the Bangladeshi Butter Indicator, except that in this case rather than trying to figure out how to make money in the markets, he has written this article in order to 'prove' his pre-determined point-of-view, namely that religion is evil. And whereas the Bangladeshi Butter Indicator correlates rather well, his stats do not (even though he can cherry pick the ones he wants to use, and discard similar stats that don't fit hs pre-determined conclusion).

So rather than as a normal, rational, non-bigoted person might do, saying 'Hmm, the US has infant mortality rates that are 50% higher than the UK, maybe there is something different about their respective healthcare systems, income equality, etc.', he just blindly asserts that this is because of religion, based on a sample, of er, one.

And again where he looks at life expectancy, rather than saying 'Many Americans are obese, and are suffering premature death as a result, maybe US planning laws encourage urban sprawl, overuse of cars, portions are too large, diets unhealty, etc.', and comparing it with European-style living with car use heavily taxed, etc., he, based on nothing at all, decides that it's all to do with religion.

Absolutely the definition of a bigot.

Here's another one

www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf

There's been quite a few. That I can produce any proves that I haven't just made it up.

You owe me a fucking apology.

www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf