Is Peeing on Jesus Really Funny?

[forlife]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
At least in conflicts where money and power are the driving factors, one can understand the impetus. However all of the death, destruction, and misery the world has suffered resulting from peoples fighting over who’s imaginary friend is cooler? That’s just hard to wrap your head around.[/quote]

Most of the time money and power are the driving factor, a purely religious uprising looks more like Savonarola than the crusades or the Inquisition. [/quote]

That’s what we need: a good old fashioned book burning.

[orion]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
At least in conflicts where money and power are the driving factors, one can understand the impetus. However all of the death, destruction, and misery the world has suffered resulting from peoples fighting over who’s imaginary friend is cooler? That’s just hard to wrap your head around.[/quote]

Most of the time money and power are the driving factor, a purely religious uprising looks more like Savonarola than the crusades or the Inquisition. [/quote]

That’s what we need: a good old fashioned book burning.[/quote]

If we start with Krugmanns articles I might be tempted.

[Schwarzfahrer]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
At least in conflicts where money and power are the driving factors, one can understand the impetus. However all of the death, destruction, and misery the world has suffered resulting from peoples fighting over who’s imaginary friend is cooler? That’s just hard to wrap your head around.[/quote]

Most of the time money and power are the driving factor, a purely religious uprising looks more like Savonarola than the crusades or the Inquisition. [/quote]

That’s what we need: a good old fashioned book burning.[/quote]

If he’d done only that!
Among the flames were Botticelli’s works, thrown in by the master himself.

[forlife]

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
At least in conflicts where money and power are the driving factors, one can understand the impetus. However all of the death, destruction, and misery the world has suffered resulting from peoples fighting over who’s imaginary friend is cooler? That’s just hard to wrap your head around.[/quote]

Most of the time money and power are the driving factor, a purely religious uprising looks more like Savonarola than the crusades or the Inquisition. [/quote]

That’s what we need: a good old fashioned book burning.[/quote]

If he’d done only that!
Among the flames were Botticelli’s works, thrown in by the master himself.

[/quote]

Thankfully, although Michelangelo got caught up in his spell for a time, I don’t believe he ever committed any of his own works to the flames.

[kaaleppi]

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
At least in conflicts where money and power are the driving factors, one can understand the impetus. However all of the death, destruction, and misery the world has suffered resulting from peoples fighting over who’s imaginary friend is cooler? That’s just hard to wrap your head around.[/quote]

Most of the time money and power are the driving factor, a purely religious uprising looks more like Savonarola than the crusades or the Inquisition. [/quote]

That’s what we need: a good old fashioned book burning.[/quote]

If he’d done only that!
Among the flames were Botticelli’s works, thrown in by the master himself.

[/quote]

The first performance artist, way ahead of his time.

[pat]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
He also mentions the Spanish Inquisition, but fails to mention that there were actually four separate inquisitions (Medieval, Spanish, Portuguese, and Roman). One neat thing about the inquisitions, was that it was a terrific time for the Catholic Church to fill the Vatican coffers with wealth confiscated from the evil “heretics”.

Suffice it to say, that religion has killed lots, and lots, and lots of people.

And the beat goes on…
[/quote]

1. The Catholic Church didn’t kill anyone in the Inquisition, the State did as the State made it a capital offense to be a heretic, not the Church.

2. <5000 people were executed during the Spanish Inquisition by the Spanish State.

You know how many Spanish Catholic Martyrs were killed by the Republicans (they were atheists, supported by atheists from atheist countries) during the Spanish Civil War: 6,500.

6,800 Catholic clergy were killed by the Republicans, 55,000 total executions by the Republicans.

In three years 55,000 people were executed without discrimination (well besides them being Catholic and not liking socialism or anarchism) and this is compared to 5000 in 110 years by the Spanish Inquisition.

Atheist kill rate: 50 persons/day
Theist kill rate: 8th of a person/day

That is only in my motherland Spain, my king was acting like the Antichrist himself and using unprecedented authority in ignoring the Pope. Yet, he was still not so cruel to slaughter as the atheists did to my country and her men.

Not only do atheists look like religious, they take on our worst forms in doing so.

Edit: Better watch out, we still have the Office of Inquisition! Though…it is called by the less striking name Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith[/quote]

The Spanish Inqisition what the work of Ferdinand and Isabel, (yep the same ones of Christopher Columbus). After the 100 year war they wanted all non-Christians out of the country. It was convert or be killed. Pope Sixtus, when he found out about the tortures and murders vociferously protested, but the King and Queen threatened to pull their troops from Turkey if he didn’t shut the fuck up so he did. The Moores were invading and they needed every available army.

[orion]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
At least in conflicts where money and power are the driving factors, one can understand the impetus. However all of the death, destruction, and misery the world has suffered resulting from peoples fighting over who’s imaginary friend is cooler? That’s just hard to wrap your head around.[/quote]

Most of the time money and power are the driving factor, a purely religious uprising looks more like Savonarola than the crusades or the Inquisition. [/quote]

That’s what we need: a good old fashioned book burning.[/quote]

If he’d done only that!
Among the flames were Botticelli’s works, thrown in by the master himself.

[/quote]

Thankfully, although Michelangelo got caught up in his spell for a time, I don’t believe he ever committed any of his own works to the flames.[/quote]

Working mainly with or on stone does have its advantages.

[forlife]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
At least in conflicts where money and power are the driving factors, one can understand the impetus. However all of the death, destruction, and misery the world has suffered resulting from peoples fighting over who’s imaginary friend is cooler? That’s just hard to wrap your head around.[/quote]

Most of the time money and power are the driving factor, a purely religious uprising looks more like Savonarola than the crusades or the Inquisition. [/quote]

That’s what we need: a good old fashioned book burning.[/quote]

If he’d done only that!
Among the flames were Botticelli’s works, thrown in by the master himself.

[/quote]

Thankfully, although Michelangelo got caught up in his spell for a time, I don’t believe he ever committed any of his own works to the flames.[/quote]

Working mainly with or on stone does have its advantages. [/quote]

Indeed, stone is less susceptible to the flames than paintings and heretic priests.

[jasmincar]

That is why I like christians more than muslim: if someone was to do this but with mohammed instead you would see thousands of animals-people getting out in the street of their miserable overpopulated limitless thrash filled cities, burning stuff and throwing rocks all over the place.

[Cheeky_Kea]

Atheism is a religion?

Yes…just like baldness is a hair colour.

Atheism itself isn’t a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a fat person is being killed in the name of fatness.

The Christians who were killed under totalatarian governments were not killed simply because they were Christian. Communists typically regarded religious organizations as a hinderance towards the creation of a worker’s paradise. Some religious groups also opposed the communists. These ARE generally political issues, not a question of atheism.

Even if some people were killed simply because they followed a religion, it does not follow that they were killed in the name of atheism. Why? Because atheism is not inherently opposed to religion: it is possible to be both an atheist and religious and some religions are themselves atheistic. Atheism also isn’t a belief system or ideology which can, by itself, inspire people to do things – good or bad.

Theism by itself does not kill people either.
How many people were killed during the Inquisition in the name of theism?..None.

Those doing the killing acted not because of theism, but rather because of Christian doctrines. The belief system is what inspired people to act (sometimes for good, sometimes for ill). The single belief of theism, however, did not.

Similarly, communism certainly inspired people to act and gave them motivations to do certain things, but atheism, which is the absence of a belief and not even a belief itself, did not. The assumption that people in Russia and China were killed merely on account of atheism is based upon two myths: first, that atheism is itself some sort of philosophy or belief system which can motivate people, and second that atheism is somehow interchangeable with the actual belief system of communism. It also pretends that all the various elements of communist totalitarianism were irrelevant to what happened…which is disingenuous.

Atheism and theism may not themselves be sufficient to justify violence and murder (or good behavior, for that matter), but belief systems which incorporate them are more than sufficient. Communism (or at least certain forms of it) can be blamed for communist violence; Christianity (or at least certain forms of it) can also be blamed for Christian violence. As a belief system with specific doctrines that were openly held up as justifying or sanctioning violence, religion must be held responsible for the violence committed in its name.

Whether theism can be slightly more culpable than atheism is a matter of dispute. Not being any belief at all, atheism can’t motivate anyone in any direction to do anything. Theism is a belief, however, so at least the potential for some sort of motivation in some direction exists. It’s been argued, for example, that monotheism is inherently more prone to violence because of the way it tends to be exclusivist — unlike polytheism, which tends to be more tolerant of cultural and religious differences.

It’s difficult to say, though, how many of these problems are really inherent in the type of theism and how many are cultural products of the religious belief systems that incorporate them.

[forlife]

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:
Atheism is a religion?

Yes…just like baldness is a hair colour.

Atheism itself isn’t a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a fat person is being killed in the name of fatness.

The Christians who were killed under totalatarian governments were not killed simply because they were Christian. Communists typically regarded religious organizations as a hinderance towards the creation of a worker’s paradise. Some religious groups also opposed the communists. These ARE generally political issues, not a question of atheism.

Even if some people were killed simply because they followed a religion, it does not follow that they were killed in the name of atheism. Why? Because atheism is not inherently opposed to religion: it is possible to be both an atheist and religious and some religions are themselves atheistic. Atheism also isn’t a belief system or ideology which can, by itself, inspire people to do things – good or bad.

Theism by itself does not kill people either.
How many people were killed during the Inquisition in the name of theism?..None.

Those doing the killing acted not because of theism, but rather because of Christian doctrines. The belief system is what inspired people to act (sometimes for good, sometimes for ill). The single belief of theism, however, did not.

Similarly, communism certainly inspired people to act and gave them motivations to do certain things, but atheism, which is the absence of a belief and not even a belief itself, did not. The assumption that people in Russia and China were killed merely on account of atheism is based upon two myths: first, that atheism is itself some sort of philosophy or belief system which can motivate people, and second that atheism is somehow interchangeable with the actual belief system of communism. It also pretends that all the various elements of communist totalitarianism were irrelevant to what happened…which is disingenuous.

Atheism and theism may not themselves be sufficient to justify violence and murder (or good behavior, for that matter), but belief systems which incorporate them are more than sufficient. Communism (or at least certain forms of it) can be blamed for communist violence; Christianity (or at least certain forms of it) can also be blamed for Christian violence. As a belief system with specific doctrines that were openly held up as justifying or sanctioning violence, religion must be held responsible for the violence committed in its name.

Whether theism can be slightly more culpable than atheism is a matter of dispute. Not being any belief at all, atheism can’t motivate anyone in any direction to do anything. Theism is a belief, however, so at least the potential for some sort of motivation in some direction exists. It’s been argued, for example, that monotheism is inherently more prone to violence because of the way it tends to be exclusivist — unlike polytheism, which tends to be more tolerant of cultural and religious differences.

It’s difficult to say, though, how many of these problems are really inherent in the type of theism and how many are cultural products of the religious belief systems that incorporate them.

[/quote]

Good post. The only valid counterargument I can see to this is the assertion that people must believe in a god in order to value human life, so atheism must result in placing no value on human life. Of course, I disagree with this assertion, as there is abundant evidence of atheists who not only value human life, but actively promote the well-being of others, often at the expense of their own personal well-being.

[cloakmanor]

“Is Peeing on Jesus Really Funny?”

No. Just gross. This is art? I guess I could shit in a can, spray paint it green and call it kosher then it should be displayed as art. Why not, Any moron can be gross and call it “art.”

[Sloth]

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:

Atheism itself isn’t a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a fat person is being killed in the name of fatness.[/quote]

Unless they do.

The Christians who were killed under totalatarian governments were not killed simply because they were Christian. Communists typically regarded religious organizations as a hinderance towards the creation of a worker’s paradise. Some religious groups also opposed the communists. These ARE generally political issues, not a question of atheism.

Cool, I hereby absolve religion of it crimes, based on the governmental/economic systems present.

Even if some people were killed simply because they followed a religion, it does not follow that they were killed in the name of atheism.

Of course it does. Peaceful and violent atheism are just as valid. There’s no dogma or doctrine for which to judge when an atheist has gone off the reservation.

[quote]Theism by itself does not kill people either.
How many people were killed during the Inquisition in the name of theism?..None.[/quote]

Well, Theism must be culpable, if we’re indicting systems. One must be a theist to be a Christian. A

Those doing the killing acted not because of theism, but rather because of Christian doctrines. The belief system is what inspired people to act (sometimes for good, sometimes for ill). The single belief of theism, however, did not.

They acted on something, but it wasn’t authentic Christianity. More like a basic “blame those people for our woes.” Good old secular feelings and thoughts.

Similarly, communism certainly inspired people to act and gave them motivations to do certain things, but atheism, which is the absence of a belief and not even a belief itself, did not.

To hell it didn’t. They despised religious thought, seeking a ‘scientific’ mindset.

The assumption that people in Russia and China were killed merely on account of atheism is based upon two myths: first, that atheism is itself some sort of philosophy or belief system which can motivate people

It does motivate people…You don’t see the dehumanizing language? Sheeple, child-abusing brainwashers, etc. Or, provocative language like; sky wizard, fairy tales, spaghetti monster, etc. Sounds passionate to me.

and second that atheism is somehow interchangeable with the actual belief system of communism. It also pretends that all the various elements of communist totalitarianism were irrelevant to what happened…which is disingenuous.

K, I write off the crusades and the inquisitions to political-economic circumstances, too.

Christianity (or at least certain forms of it) can also be blamed for Christian violence…

Nope, in fact, out of the two, one can authentically commit violence and remain true to atheistic thought. Not so with Christianity. Anyone can can commit any sort of act under the name of anything. The question is, how true does the act come to foundational philosophy. Torture, burning at the stake, stoning, not authentic christian acts. Certainly not Christ-like.

Not being any belief at all, atheism can’t motivate anyone in any direction to do anything. Theism is a belief, however, so at least the potential for some sort of motivation in some direction exists. It’s been argued, for example, that monotheism is inherently more prone to violence because of the way it tends to be exclusivist — unlike polytheism.

Uh, polytheistic folk have been killing from day one. The earliest Christians could tell you that much.

[Spartiates]

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:
Atheism is a religion?
[/quote]

Yes. You need a complex mythology or creation story to have a religion. The assertion that there is no god is a religious assertion about the true, metaphysical, nature of the universe, same as saying there is a god.

[Cheeky_Kea]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Good post. The only valid counterargument I can see to this is the assertion that people must believe in a god in order to value human life, so atheism must result in placing no value on human life. Of course, I disagree with this assertion, as there is abundant evidence of atheists who not only value human life, but actively promote the well-being of others, often at the expense of their own personal well-being.[/quote]

I agree, this one of the most weak sauce arguments.
Why must people believe in God to value life?

It is perfectly possible to not believe in God and still be a very moral and just person.

Disbelief does not make one amoral or immoral any more than belief in a God automatically makes you good and moral.

[Cheeky_Kea]

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:
Atheism is a religion?
[/quote]

Yes. You need a complex mythology or creation story to have a religion. The assertion that there is no god is a religious assertion about the true, metaphysical, nature of the universe, same as saying there is a god.[/quote]

Whaaaaaaat??

You need a complex mythology or creation story to have a religion.
The assertion that there is no god is not a complex creation story, is it?

The answer to the question “is atheism a religious belief?” depends crucially upon what is meant by “religious.”

“Religion” is generally characterized by belief in a superhuman controlling power–especially in some sort of God–and by faith and worship.

(It’s worth pointing out in passing that some varieties of Buddhism are not “religion” according to such a definition.)

Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor is it categorized by worship in any meaningful sense.

Widening the definition of “religious” to encompass atheism tends to result in many other aspects of human behavior suddenly becoming classed as “religious” as well–such as science, politics, and watching TV.

Look, it’s not entirely clear that skeptical atheism is something you actually believe in.

Secondly, it is necessary to adopt a number of core beliefs or assumptions to make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we experience. Most atheists try to adopt as few core beliefs as possible; and even those are subject to questioning if experience throws them into doubt.

Science has a number of core assumptions. For example, it is generally assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers (or at least, all observers in inertial frames). These are the sort of core assumptions atheists make. If such basic ideas are called “acts of faith,” then almost everything we know must be said to be based on acts of faith, and the term loses its meaning.

Faith is more often used to refer to complete, certain belief in something. According to such a definition, atheism and science are certainly not acts of faith.

Of course, individual atheists or scientists can be as dogmatic as religious followers when claiming that something is “certain.” This is not a general tendency, however; there are many atheists who would be reluctant to state with certainty that the universe exists.

Faith is also used to refer to belief without supporting evidence or proof. Skeptical atheism certainly doesn’t fit that definition, as skeptical atheism has no beliefs.

Even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to refer to experimental data (or the lack of it) when asserting that God does not exist.

[Spartiates]

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:
Atheism is a religion?
[/quote]

Yes. You need a complex mythology or creation story to have a religion. The assertion that there is no god is a religious assertion about the true, metaphysical, nature of the universe, same as saying there is a god.[/quote]

Whaaaaaaat??

You need a complex mythology or creation story to have a religion.
The assertion that there is no god is not a complex creation story, is it?

The answer to the question “is atheism a religious belief?” depends crucially upon what is meant by “religious.”

“Religion” is generally characterized by belief in a superhuman controlling power–especially in some sort of God–and by faith and worship.

(It’s worth pointing out in passing that some varieties of Buddhism are not “religion” according to such a definition.)

Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor is it categorized by worship in any meaningful sense.

Widening the definition of “religious” to encompass atheism tends to result in many other aspects of human behavior suddenly becoming classed as “religious” as well–such as science, politics, and watching TV.

Look, it’s not entirely clear that skeptical atheism is something you actually believe in.

Secondly, it is necessary to adopt a number of core beliefs or assumptions to make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we experience. Most atheists try to adopt as few core beliefs as possible; and even those are subject to questioning if experience throws them into doubt.

Science has a number of core assumptions. For example, it is generally assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers (or at least, all observers in inertial frames). These are the sort of core assumptions atheists make. If such basic ideas are called “acts of faith,” then almost everything we know must be said to be based on acts of faith, and the term loses its meaning.

Faith is more often used to refer to complete, certain belief in something. According to such a definition, atheism and science are certainly not acts of faith.

Of course, individual atheists or scientists can be as dogmatic as religious followers when claiming that something is “certain.” This is not a general tendency, however; there are many atheists who would be reluctant to state with certainty that the universe exists.

Faith is also used to refer to belief without supporting evidence or proof. Skeptical atheism certainly doesn’t fit that definition, as skeptical atheism has no beliefs.

Even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to refer to experimental data (or the lack of it) when asserting that God does not exist.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, I mis-typed. I meant to say that you don’t need a complex mythology, you just need to be making metaphysical assertions.

Saying atheism is a religion might be too broad: it’s like saying theism is a religion.

If we were to chart it out we’d have “Religion” and below that we’d have atheistic and theistic religions. You can then split theistic religions in mono and polytheistic, exe.

[therajraj]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Of course it does. Peaceful and violent atheism are just as valid. There’s no dogma or doctrine for which to judge when an atheist has gone off the reservation.
[/quote]

This is Bullshit. It’s also thinking like this that causes such a stigma around atheism.

There’s no such thing as ‘peaceful and violent atheism.’ Atheism is merely a specific stance on a specific issue. You cannot take atheism and get to killing people without attaching something to it.

You are just stretching the term atheism and being disingenuous. Please stop.

[Sloth]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Of course it does. Peaceful and violent atheism are just as valid. There’s no dogma or doctrine for which to judge when an atheist has gone off the reservation.

therajraj wrote:

This is Bullshit. It’s also thinking like this that causes such a stigma around atheism.

[/quote]

No it’s not. Peaceful atheism is not a ‘doctrine’ of atheism. You pretty much say as much. Therefore, an atheist can be violent, without betraying some pacifist doctrine.

[therajraj]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Of course it does. Peaceful and violent atheism are just as valid. There’s no dogma or doctrine for which to judge when an atheist has gone off the reservation.

therajraj wrote:

This is Bullshit. It’s also thinking like this that causes such a stigma around atheism.

[/quote]

No it’s not. Peaceful atheism is not a ‘doctrine’ of atheism. You pretty much say as much. Therefore, an atheist can be violent, without betraying some pacifist doctrine.
[/quote]

Yes an atheists action can be peaceful or violent. But his/her actions have nothing to do with atheism itself. It’s not atheism that “has gone off the reservation” it’s the person behind those actions. Sure there are no scriptures to tell an atheist they should not kill. But human beings, through their ability to empathise, are capable of determining ethical ground.