Atheism: the antithesis of cynicism

[_plunderpunk]

past traditions based in submission to blind faith just doesn't cut it anymore.
better informed people are simply more likely to make better choices.

Laughably ignorant. There's no one so arrogant as an atheist.

in the bigger context that my quote was clipped from ...

"our trust in empirical methods are growing at a time when, especially amongst young people,
past traditions based in submission to blind faith just doesn't cut it anymore."

...the idea isn't laughably ignorant, it's all too apparent. people have long held that religion
was basically humanism wrapped in dogma, or maybe the other way round, depending on how you see it. the information age has allowed individuals to confirm this through research on the web that otherwise would not have happened.

the arrogance/ignorance in theism hits full stride when it speaks of the ultimate punishment awaiting those who don't believe in it: horrible, endless torment. drowning forever in lakes of fire.

the "price" for not being an atheist: not being an atheist. at worst, chides on message boards, but no fire to consume you in the afterlife.

[_Quasimodo]

How utteryly predictable. I read the humanist/atheist websites to.

So you want to assert that the references to slavery coincide with slavery as it has been practiced for the last .... oh, let's make it easy on you...400 years? Okay, show me. Just what is a slave in this context?

A slave is a slave. In old Judea, a Jewish slave should be released after six years. Everybody else was in for the duration of their lives. Female slaves could be used for sexual gratification without any legal or religious consequences. Apparently, that was OK with the God of the Bible. Slaves were considered property. Very similar to slavery in the United States.

The Southern Baptists had many Bible passages that supported their view. The Northern Baptists (abolitionists) had none.

If you want to believe in a literal Bible, you will have to take it warts and all. Otherwise you're just cherry picking.

[_Hoops]

A slave is a slave. In old Judea, a Jewish slave should be released after six years. Everybody else was in for the duration of their lives.

fNot quite.

Female slaves could be used for sexual gratification without any legal or religious consequences. Apparently, that was OK with the God of the Bible. Slaves were considered property. Very similar to slavery in the United States.

There are several representations of slavery that don't match what you have here. Gimme a sec.

The Southern Baptists had many Bible passages that supported their view. The Northern Baptists (abolitionists) had none.

Correct. Which is why cherry picking, as you mention below, is illadvised.

If you want to believe in a literal Bible, you will have to take it warts and all. Otherwise you're just cherry picking.

Absolutely. However, a literal interpretation also demands that one consider the Bible as a whole, complete in it's intent. That is a fair tangent from literalness. Definetely there are troubling passages, (which doesn't lend much credence to "it's all made up", but another issue), so Buffalo's habit of plucking those troubling passages from their home doesn't invite much fruitful discourse. He's essentially saying, "See, here's something I don't like so your God must be bad." It would seem that a reasonable position, at the very least, would be that these troubling passages deserve further exploration. At the most, given what the rest of the Bible tells us, deserve the benefit of the doubt.

More in a moment, as I think it speaks to Just_Me's concerns as well. Should she have an ear for it anymore.

Gotta run to the golf course :)

[_Buffalo]

Absolutely. However, a literal interpretation also demands that one consider the Bible as a whole, complete in it's intent. That is a fair tangent from literalness. Definetely there are troubling passages, (which doesn't lend much credence to "it's all made up", but another issue), so Buffalo's habit of plucking those troubling passages from their home doesn't invite much fruitful discourse. He's essentially saying, "See, here's something I don't like so your God must be bad." It would seem that a reasonable position, at the very least, would be that these troubling passages deserve further exploration. At the most, given what the rest of the Bible tells us, deserve the benefit of the doubt.

So far you've refused to even try to provide some sort of explanation or context. I'd love to hear something if you've got it.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Baloney. You'd probably still own slaves.

The abolitionist movement was motivated partly by religious belief, but this was even more true of the pro-slavery movement. Take a look at Mark Noll's The Civil War as a Theological Crisis and Harry Stout's Upon the Altar of a Nation. Both authors basically argue that religion hardened people's positions on both sides of the debate, leading to a such a degree of mutual intransigence that the debate could only be settled by one of the bloodiest wars in American history. By this interpretation, the Civil War was actually a religious war.

Not exactly a glowing endorsement of Christianity's role in the abolition of slavery. And this from two of America's most prominent evangelical historians!

In fairness to Christianity, it did play a more positive role in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. (Though even then, some of the worst KKK haters justified their attitudes through Christian rhetoric and symbolism.)

[_stemelbow]

Does anybody else resent the idea that if there was no Christianity and religion in the past then there wouldn't have been so many atrocities happen in the past?

Perhaps its far too convenient to make such attempts at argument, huh? No one in the world knows that Christianity or any religion caused the atrocities that were committted. No one can possibly solely blame Christianity on slavery or any such thing. The best we can do is assume if not Christianity or other religions, then the same type of atrocities would have happened.

[_Buffalo]

Does anybody else resent the idea that if there was no Christianity and religion in the past then there wouldn't have been so many atrocities happen in the past?

Perhaps its far too convenient to make such attempts at argument, huh? No one in the world knows that Christianity or any religion caused the atrocities that were committted. No one can possibly solely blame Christianity on slavery or any such thing. The best we can do is assume if not Christianity or other religions, then the same type of atrocities would have happened.

If it makes you feel any better, Stem, the Biblical genocides are probably fictional. The Hebrews were just an offshoot of the Canaanites, not foreign invaders.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Does anybody else resent the idea that if there was no Christianity and religion in the past then there wouldn't have been so many atrocities happen in the past?

Juergensmeyer's book Terror in the Mind of God does a good job of showing that ideology is the problem, not just religion. The separation we've made between religion and ideology is itself somewhat arbitrary and ideological.

Unfortunately, it's part of human nature to be ideological. If it weren't Christianity, it would be something else. The best we can do is to cultivate an awareness of the deep and abiding dangers posed by our ideologies, and seek to correct for these dangers by holding our ideologies loosely and always leaving them open to question.

[_Quasimodo]

No one in the world knows that Christianity or any religion caused the atrocities that were committted. No one can possibly solely blame Christianity on slavery or any such thing. The best we can do is assume if not Christianity or other religions, then the same type of atrocities would have happened.

Sorry, Stem.

The ritual killing of Christians (in the arena) by the Roman Empire.

The ritual killing of Pagans (in the arena) by the Christian Roman Empire.

The ritual, religious killing of captives by the Mayans.

The ritual, religious killing of captives by the Aztecs.

The Spanish (Catholic) Inquisition.

The Crusades.

The burning of "witches" and heretics by Catholics.

The burning of "witches" and heretics by Protestants.

The genocide of Native Americans.

The genocide of Jews during the Holocaust.

A very small sample (the list is very long) of religious atrocities.

Most civilizations (if not all) were based on a religious belief of some sort. The religion gave organization to a group of people. The organization allowed the committing of atrocities. All under the blessing of one god or another.

Religions in general have a grizzly history. Would these atrocities have occurred without religion? I don't know. Religion was the excuse used in all these cases, though.

[_stemelbow]

Juergensmeyer's book Terror in the Mind of God does a good job of showing that ideology is the problem, not just religion. The separation we've made between religion and ideology is itself somewhat arbitrary and ideological.

Unfortunately, it's part of human nature to be ideological. If it weren't Christianity, it would be something else. The best we can do is to cultivate an awareness of the deep and abiding dangers posed by our ideologies, and seek to correct for these dangers by holding our ideologies loosely and always leaving them open to question.

This sounds interesting.