What did Atheists do before Dawkins?

[SqueakyVoice]

Squeaky. Is there an element of surprise in your post that the Reverend Buddes speech is something you'd expect more from an atheist.
I can't remember when we have been in discussion, if everbut you seem to have come out of a bag at me as if I were your worst enemy.

Chunsty, I've  been trying to think about this for the last few days and I think almost everytime I try an explanation, it makes me read like a Messianic tosser.
For now; No you are not my worst enemy. You may have many good intentions and I do disagree  with some. For now I shall leave it there.

Can't swear to not being guilty of that but without the encouragement of Dawkins and Internet anonymity I'm sure more gracious discussion was the order of the day.

... anything he's said about Smolin is ludicrous even for you. Your posts appear unhinged.

So, have I been demoted?

[Sassy]

It was Dawkins who urged atheists to be more vocal and antitheistic. And they did.
How then, before Dawkins and the rise of religion forums did members make their atheism and antitheism public?

Hi Walt.

Did they need to?  Times change and so do the people.  After the war ended people were so glad to be safe and yet at the same time mourned their lost loved ones' and friends.
Religion was not really an open topic was it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Walt.

Did they need to?  Times change and so do the people.  After the war ended people were so glad to be safe and yet at the same time mourned their lost loved ones' and friends.
Religion was not really an open topic was it?

Hello Sassy, it’s so nice to have you back where you belong. Times do change indeed.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Has anyone suggested that the whole of religion is condensed to that? It was a striking, undeniable demonstration of the potential for religion to be harmful. Once that was overt and incontravertible, the conversation changed.

I'm curious about what was particularly striking to you about this demonstration of the human ability to direct the explosive power of machines and flammable substances to kill people in the US?

Buildings with civilians in them in other parts of the world were getting blown up periodically over the 20th and 21st century by the US and its allies and proxies - the justifications put forth were various political/ economic/ national interest reasons. Many of us watched these events on the news. Why wouldn't there be blowback? The only surprising element was that it did not happen earlier.

The bit I am particularly curious about is why is it worse or "striking" because a god was invoked during the explosions by some of the participants rather than the usual commentary participants cite during mass murder - national security, patriotism, collateral damage etc?

To me that seems irrational - similar to being more horrified when a female police officer kills someone in the line of duty compared to when a male police officer kills someone in the line of duty.

Is it striking to you because of assumptions you hold about religions or religious people - e.g. do you expect them to behave differently compared to non-religious people when it comes to reacting to US aggression - did you have an expectation that the religious would "turn the other cheek"? If there are many of the non-religious voting public voting for politicians with the demonstrable capacity to sign off on violent attacks on civilians in foreign countries, why would you think religious people would refrain from similarly supporting leaders who sign-off on death to civilians for political gain?

In both scenarios the people and their leaders are killing based on their beliefs about what is morally right - why is it more striking to you if their morals beliefs are based on their interpretation of a religious philosophy rather than their interpretation of a non-religious philosophy?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

NS,

So does, for example, nazism. I also think nazism does more harm than good. So what?

Religion covers a wide range of ideas and philosophies - if you don't mean all religions, which ones do you mean?

Nazism is a much more specific idea or philosophy.

What aspects of Nazism does more harm than good?

In relation to these aspects, please list some of the similarities between Nazism and all religions. 

[jeremyp]

Religion covers a wide range of ideas and philosophies - if you don't mean all religions, which ones do you mean?

Nazism is a much more specific idea or philosophy.

What aspects of Nazism does more harm than good?

The anti-semitism, the racism, the expansionist policies necessitated by poor economic management.

I could probably think of more.

In relation to these aspects, please list some of the similarities between Nazism and all religions.

The anti-semitism, the racism, the expansionist policies

OK, that's just Christianity and Islam, but there are other similarities such as the cult ideologies.

[Outrider]

I'm curious about what was particularly striking to you about this demonstration of the human ability to direct the explosive power of machines and flammable substances to kill people in the US?

What made it different was that it targetted the US, and therefore caught the attention of the US media machine who then exported their conversations.

Buildings with civilians in them in other parts of the world were getting blown up periodically over the 20th and 21st century by the US and its allies and proxies - the justifications put forth were various political/ economic/ national interest reasons. Many of us watched these events on the news. Why wouldn't there be blowback? The only surprising element was that it did not happen earlier.

To an extent, yes, and the resulting conversation was overdue, as well.

The bit I am particularly curious about is why is it worse or "striking" because a god was invoked during the explosions by some of the participants rather than the usual commentary participants cite during mass murder - national security, patriotism, collateral damage etc?

Implicit in a political decision to undertake such activities is the idea that a counter-case can be made. You can't argue, though, with the divine revelation that my god wants me to blow you up - religion is authoritarian, by nature, and authoritarianism and violence is a dangerous mix in a way that even politics and violence isn't.

To me that seems irrational - similar to being more horrified when a female police officer kills someone in the line of duty compared to when a male police officer kills someone in the line of duty.

I don't see that the gender of the police officer is really a determining factor in that, so I'd agree that's not a meaningful differentiation.

Is it striking to you because of assumptions you hold about religions or religious people - e.g. do you expect them to behave differently compared to non-religious people when it comes to reacting to US aggression - did you have an expectation that the religious would "turn the other cheek"?

I don't expect them to act any differently at all. I expect everyone else to stop treating religion like it's beyond question, that's it's a demonstrable benefit. That has happened since the conversations that started after 9/11 - it's acceptable to criticise religion, now, it's appropriate to weight the benefits and the detriments. I wonder, if religion were still afforded the diffidence that was the case prior to this, whether things like the child abuse allegations against Christian denominations would have been given the same coverage?

If there are many of the non-religious voting public voting for politicians with the demonstrable capacity to sign off on violent attacks on civilians in foreign countries, why would you think religious people would refrain from similarly supporting leaders who sign-off on death to civilians for political gain?

You could always criticise the politicians, and you could always criticise individual religious people. However, you couldn't criticise religion like you could, say, neocapitalism - political systems weren't 'sacred' like the notion of religion was.

In both scenarios the people and their leaders are killing based on their beliefs about what is morally right - why is it more striking to you if their morals beliefs are based on their interpretation of a religious philosophy rather than their interpretation of a non-religious philosophy?

I hope, by now, I've shown that I don't think that, I'd apparently not adequately made the case before.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The anti-semitism, the racism, the expansionist policies necessitated by poor economic management.

I could probably think of more.The anti-semitism, the racism, the expansionist policies

OK, that's just Christianity and Islam, but there are other similarities such as the cult ideologies.

Please clarify:
You think Islam (a philosophical idea) is antisemitic, racist and expansionist or people are antisemitic, racist and expansionist? If you think Islam is all these things, rather than people, please provide evidence.

For example, the Quran reveres all the Jewish prophets - Adam, Abraham, Moses etc, which is evidence of Islam not being antisemitic.

Similarly, what is your evidence for Islam, the religion, being racist?

Also please clarify what you mean by "expansionist" and why you think it is bad - philosophical ideas are spread by people - that is the nature of all ideas and thoughts.

People form cult ideologies so what is your evidence that cult ideologies are intrinsic to Islam?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Implicit in a political decision to undertake such activities is the idea that a counter-case can be made. You can't argue, though, with the divine revelation that my god wants me to blow you up - religion is authoritarian, by nature, and authoritarianism and violence is a dangerous mix in a way that even politics and violence isn't.

I find this assertion to be nonsense unless you can evidence it.

Firstly, I disagree that it is implicit in a political decision that a counter-case can be made. You make it sound like there is some kind of objective counter-case to be made, when in fact any counter-cases hinge on differing political moral beliefs.

Secondly I disagree that a counter-case cannot be made in religions. Similar to opposing and varied political beliefs, there are opposing and varied religious beliefs.

The divine revelation you mentioned is someone's interpretation of an idea communicated to them, and their interpretation is a product of their beliefs and thoughts based on their nature/ nurture. This is also how interpretation of political ideas work e.g. drawing arbitrary lines in the sand to differentiate countries based on race and culture and then killing to protect those demarcated boundaries.

Evidence shows that political beliefs, like religious beliefs, can be deeply held and entrenched views that are not changed by evidence. So no meaningful difference between religion and politics. Similarly, both religious and political beliefs can be less dogmatically held and open to change.

There are numerous authoritarian regimes, religious and non-religious, where regardless of whether they hold elections or not, a counter-case will get you killed/ imprisoned/ tortured, therefore people are not permitted to make counter-cases and brute force is needed to overthrow the regime.

Even in liberal democracies, there are many obstacles to making any counter-case even if a person holding a political belief was likely to be swayed by them, which they often aren't. Obstacles such as corruption, a lack of transparency and lack of information including baked in legal methods e.g. classified information to obscure the truth to prevent a counter-case being made due to "interests of national security" a.k.a. self interest.

If we unpick the "can't argue with divine revelation" assertion so beloved by some atheists,  what is the meaningful difference in holding an unevidenced belief in "divine revelation" that means I think I should blow you up versus an unevidenced belief that "my country right or wrong" means I think I should blow you up?  Any "divine revelation" claims can be countered by an opposite "divine revelation" that I should not blow you up.

Any "my country right or wrong" justifications to blow you up can be countered by the belief that even if other countries are doing the morally wrong thing, I can believe that my country should do the right thing no matter what the cost to my country or me.

The belief that it is morally right to die for an abstract construct or cause (political or religious) is often nothing more than a moral justification for horrible acts to further some personal cause such as asserting and enforcing personal morality over others, acquiring personal power or wealth or to be celebrated and rewarded as a patriot or a religious or political martyr or hero.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't expect them to act any differently at all. I expect everyone else to stop treating religion like it's beyond question, that's it's a demonstrable benefit. That has happened since the conversations that started after 9/11 - it's acceptable to criticise religion, now, it's appropriate to weight the benefits and the detriments. I wonder, if religion were still afforded the diffidence that was the case prior to this, whether things like the child abuse allegations against Christian denominations would have been given the same coverage?

You could always criticise the politicians, and you could always criticise individual religious people. However, you couldn't criticise religion like you could, say, neocapitalism - political systems weren't 'sacred' like the notion of religion was.


O.

My experience has been different from yours. I grew up in London in the 70s and 80s.I watched Life of Brian and read Terry Pratchett. Once I was old enough to think through arguments about religion and gods, I found that I could discuss and criticise religion and belief in god with my parents, the wider community and my peers at school.

I did not particularly notice if others felt religion was too "sacred" to critique - many of my peers were either atheists or found religion irrelevant and the few religious in school were considered the weird ones.  But I did come across the idea that people's beliefs (whether religious or not) matter to them and for us to all get along as a community in school, school policies would be introduced to try to direct my youthful ardour in challenging religion to more thoughtful, less egotistical, attention-seeking ways to challenge beliefs - ways that actually invited discussion.

This next bit isn't about you. As a teenage atheist my ego preferred to go down a more  "confrontational" route when challenging people's moral or religious beliefs but now I look back at my need to be arrogantly confrontational about what people consider sacred and think I might have been enjoying myself but it rarely works in getting people to actually think about why they believe what they believe.

Most people, when confronted this way about their religious and non-religious beliefs, find it easier to dismiss the argument, regardless of how good it may be, and become more entrenched in their beliefs - because if the confrontation of the belief seems to be a personal attack or criticism, rather than a discussion of the idea, people's minds switch off. For some reason that's how human minds work. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/true-believers/201603/5-reasons-why-people-stick-their-beliefs-no-matter-what?msockid=37424fc5d3706b4a14025ab3d2bb6a0a

[jeremyp]

Please clarify:
You think Islam (a philosophical idea) is antisemitic, racist and expansionist or people are antisemitic, racist and expansionist?

I think Islam encourages antisemitism, racism and expansionism amongst its adherents.

I think it's bleedin' obvious that that is the case, if you look at its history and its role in current affairs.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think Islam encourages antisemitism, racism and expansionism amongst its adherents.

I think it's bleedin' obvious that that is the case, if you look at its history and its role in current affairs.

What is "bleedin' obvious" to you depends on your particular set of unevidenced beliefs.

[jeremyp]

What is "bleedin' obvious" to you depends on your particular set of unevidenced beliefs.

There's nothing unevidenced about (as examples) The Islamic Caliphates or the Hamas charter.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

There's nothing unevidenced about (as examples) The Islamic Caliphates or the Hamas charter.

You do know that just stating vague words such as "Islamic Caliphates" or "Hamas Charter" is meaningless and therefore not evidence. You've been on this forum long enough to know what counts as evidence for a convincing argument - so do better.

Alternatively, if these words are all the evidence you want for your beliefs, the same way people who believe in gods have all the evidence they want for their beliefs, then no point having a discussion about it. You're free to stick with your beliefs. 

[jeremyp]

You do know that just stating vague words such as "Islamic Caliphates" or "Hamas Charter" is meaningless

These are not vague words. They refer, respectively to the expansionist Islamic empires and a document outlining the aims of Hamas.

If you want to suggest that neither really exist(ed), you need to do a bit more research.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

These are not vague words. They refer, respectively to the expansionist Islamic empires and a document outlining the aims of Hamas.

If you want to suggest that neither really exist(ed), you need to do a bit more research.

I did not suggest that Muslim Caliphates and the Hamas Charter do not exist.

You already linked to the 2017 Hamas charter on another thread, thereby acknowledging that Hamas has revised its charter to say that Hamas' fight was not with Jews as such because of their religion but with the Zionist project. You also had not come up with anything to counter Hamas leaders saying they do not have a problem with Jews but have a problem with people who are illegally occupying someone else's land, regardless of the race, religious or political beliefs of the occupying force. Presumably you knew all this when you linked to Hamas' Charter and proclamations as evidence for their attitudes.

I asked for evidence to justify your belief that Islam encourages antisemitism, racism and expansionism amongst its adherents. Given that some Muslims are antisemitic or racist or expansionist and some are not, you need to provide evidence of causation rather than correlation. 

Jewish religious books seem to describe the Jews at various times as being racist and prejudiced and expansionist, considering Gentiles as inferior, conquering lands and ruling kingdoms well before the birth of Prophet Mohammed. There is plenty of evidence of Zionist political groups making racist and expansionist statements.

Without Islam being involved, the US, the UK and most of Europe followed policies for centuries that encourage antisemitism, racism and expansionism among their population. Hence I asked for evidence on how you managed to isolate Islam as the cause, given people are a mix of nature and nurture, and given antisemitism, racism and expansionism was an integral part of Western culture.

Rather than your unevidenced black and white beliefs about Islam, evidence suggests the historical reality is a lot more nuanced - e.g the Jews, many of whom were and still are racists, had periods where they could practise their culture and religion under Berber Caliphates and periods were they faced significant restrictions under Berbers. Jews were treated far more harshly under the Visigoths before the Muslim caliphates in Spain, and also treated far more harshly by the Christian kingdoms that overthrew the Muslim Caliphates in Spain and forcibly expelled/ converted/ executed hundreds of thousands of Jews. Many Spanish Jews were given refuge in the Muslim Ottoman Empire. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/turkey-virtual-jewish-history-tour

Jewish people lived continuously in the middle east and north Africa for over 2,600 years, paying taxes to the state and participating in state affairs, although they paid a different tax to the state from the taxes the Muslims paid. In 1945, 856,000 Jewish people lived in the middle east, north Africa and the Gulf region, and it wasn't until the UN partitioned Palestine and Israelis killed or violently expelled Palestinians from their villages, creating a political conflict over land, that a large number of Jews were expelled from the Arab countries or were encouraged by Israel to settle in Israel.

You need to provide evidence that the conflict over land is due to antisemitism as opposed to grievances over Zionist forcible expulsion of Palestinian people from land that those  families have lived on for centuries.

Not that I am surprised by your racism or bigotry - you are the idiot who believed and repeated the lies of Israeli first responders about Hamas beheading babies. Of course you're not the only racist idiot - Biden and many Western media outlets and the general public also did not bother to fact check or look for evidence before they adopted beliefs based on Israeli lies. These unevidenced beliefs were their justification for supporting the Israeli government's genocide and war crimes against the Palestinian civilian population.