I would agree with you, under normal circumstances, but in this particular instance, you mentioned that the religious used to be patronising in the past and I brought up the fact that they were way more than that. I did not imply anything about the religious of today. Though now that you mention it...
I don't know how you can say that it doesn't matter what motivated the killings. Anyone who didn't agree with a particular ideology was nipped in the bud. Stalin didn't kill people because he wanted to spread "atheism" (that's non-sensical) he killed anyone who opposed him. As did most religions in the past. It's a historical fact. It's like saying that Mao mass-murdered because he was a vegetarian. I am not extrapolating anything about the current religious. Like I said, you actually brought up the comparison between now
...But I agree with your sentiment: we should be tolerant of course of all kinds of crap, especially in the today world.
Come on, don't ruin it for me
Light-hearted humour has never killed anyone. Nobody claims this 'thread' is "harmful".
Schools providing mis-information to children, on the other hand, can be argued to equal child abuse: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-harm-children * Christianity teaches children that they are intrinsically evil; they did nothing wrong, but just by being born and being alive, they are evil. This is a terrible thing to teach children, not only because it is false, but because it is the exact wrong message children should be taught, which is that they are intrinsically wonderful, noble, and lovable, and that they have boundless goodness inside them.
* Christianity teaches children that there exists a powerful, evil Devil. A most dangerous demon. Beware! This horrible falsity infuses their childhood with needless fear and dread, and teaches them that the world is a dangerous place, with a malevolent demon lurking in the wait. In my own research, I’ve interviewed many adults who describe the whole Satan thing as a decidedly traumatic element of their children, and in some egregious cases, unambiguously abusive.
* Christianity teaches children that God killed his own child to make up for our wickedness. In other words, we are evil, and by killing his own child, our evil is somehow wiped away and forgiven. Our guilt is cleansed. But how does that work? If I abuse my wife, and then a cop comes over and kills my son, does that atone for the wickedness I committed against my wife? How so? Only I can atone for my own wrongdoings and harmful actions. If I abuse my wife, I need to make amends in order to earn her forgiveness. I can’t kill our cat instead. And besides, why couldn’t God forgive us without killing his son? Does he require a blood sacrifice, like some pagan ogre? The entire story of Jesus “dying for our sins” makes no moral or ethical sense, and it is an extremely confusing/disturbing tale to tell our children.
* Christianity teaches children that those who accept Jesus as their personal savior are good/saved/going to heaven and those that do not accept Jesus as their personal savior are sinful and destined for hell. This can cause children to feel smug, superior, self-righteous, judgmental, and to look down upon and condemn others – be they kids on the schoolyard, neighbors, or even relatives.
It's up to you of course to decide whether it's "harmful". I do personally think that the kind of peace that some believers talk about, seems like a very beneficial and valuable thing and I do not mock that. In fact, I am positively jealous that i can't seem to convince myself to believe to have some of that.
I think you still are mis-understanding what "atheism" is. You are confusing militant atheism or anti-theism with 'regular' atheism, if there is such a thing...
How did you arrive at this "scientific" conclusion? (I would be genuinely interested to read more about it as it is a topic of interest for me). I do instinctively think you might be right though. I "fill up my brain" with all kinds of stuff & theories (holographic universe, multi-verses etc). those are all fascinating things to think about. But it's very different from being 100% convinced
about something invisible constantly surveying you...
You're still trying to pin a statement on me which I did not make. What part of "When I was growing up" can't you understand? You brought the history of the world into it. Until then, mine was completely anecdotal. Then, as often happens with atheists, the "violent religious throughout history" grenade was thrown. My point was that people are people, and saying that atheists and the religious are different, because one is one and the other is another, with regards to violent acts against other humans is patently false. The reason that it is brought up by atheists is because they wish to smear all faiths with the taint of violence and oppression. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, regardless of any diversions on some people's part to avoid the comparison.
It's not logical. Religious and non-religious people can be violent, some for secular (godless) reasons, and others for religious reasons. To disclaim the actions of the godless because of their motives is fine, but they still were godless, and still committed atrocities. It can be argued that the faithful fought in the name of their God or gods, but not all, and the results were the same: Murdered innocents. Either way, if one wishes to judge good people on the basis that others were bad, then we're all a part of one group or another who's predecessors committed violent acts against others.
I illustrated your smear against the faithful by resorting to the same strategy against your ideology. You haven't murdered anyone (hopefully) and you resent the comparison that I made. What's the difference between what you've done and what I've done?
It is not your facts or so called facts. It is how you're using them to brand others, but you too can be branded in any number of ways, because your bloodline has existed since the dawn of life, in one form or another, and your associations are many. So, you and I both, by your logic, are guilty of (ironically) an "original sin" of some form or another.
As for you telling me that I don't understand atheism or "atheists", it's the same to me as Christians, Muslims, and Jews telling me that I don't understand them as well. So many sects. How can one keep track? I only go by what they call themselves and their behaviors. You would be well served to go to all of the so-called atheists (who claim the title but don't meet your definition) and tell them that they're not really atheists, that way, the purity of your message won't be tainted by impostors. As for me, you are you. What you label yourself is voluntary, with all of the positive and negative connotations.
I've found that there is always a diversion from so called atheists when one attempts to turn their strategies against them, usually like you have done, by redefining (or in your opinion "properly" defining) the term, conveniently excluding yourself from the negative connotations.
Now, when we get to the issue of scientific evidence of a "faith center" or similar (so many different terms are used) in the brains of humans, I have no desire to dig through my library and scan a bunch of JAMA, AJP, etc., articles, discussions, and papers on the subject, but if you really want to know, you'll find what you seek. In my practice (personal experience/observations), and before that, my tenure, it was a subject of study by many researchers.
Finally, what Christianity "teaches" children is not my area of expertise. It's always about the "poor mistreated children" when someone wants to strike a nerve, isn't it? I digress... I have found no direct systemic correlation between the teachings of Christianity and any harm to children, although I've found bad and good parents, teachers, and others, both religious and non-religious who have intentionally and unintentionally harmed their children. The fact that you, who I presume holds logic as supreme, would single out Christians as being somehow more harmful, shows that you are probably more of an anti-theist than an atheist, at least according to your definition of the term. As for Psychology Today's blog section, it is the McDonald's of psychological thought. Now, a serious multi-year and multi-generational study of religious vs. non-religious upbringings, with a wide cross section of children, coming to the conclusion that "Jesus screws up children", could be taken more seriously than the musings of the occasional non-Christian academic on a blog site. Seriously... that's hard evidence to you?
It is unfortunate, that as an agnostic, you don't have much of an emotional grip on me, or it would probably be more entertaining, no? I suppose you could smear the "I don't know" or agnostic crowd by posting examples of "Agnostics Gone Wild", except agnostics aren't generally the fanatical type. "I don't know" isn't exactly a recipe for fanaticism like religion, atheism (or anti-theism, or militant atheism, or... it's so confusing!) is.