Atheism, a dangerous idea?

Harm in what capacity? Christians could argue that atheism harms each person that accepts it by pulling them away from Jesus.Each example of Christianity causing "harm" could be catagorized the same way as you catagorized Bolshevism...incorporation into other ideology. Inquisition was just power-hungry politicos misusing the call by Jesus to convert all nations, for example.Have the basic principles of Christianity caused any actual harm?

Hi, LinearAq.I almost agree with your point, and almost made it myself. However, I do think there is a difference between the Christian/Islamic based ideologies and atheistic ones. Namely, there are plenty of atrocities that are committed by people saying, "I do this in the name of Christianity/Islam/whatever." Very few that I am aware have said, "I do this in the name of atheism."Now, maybe the atheistic part can be blamed when Christians, Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists are singled out for persecution for their religious beliefs; however, these then become a small part of the overall number of victims of ideologies that officially endorse atheism, so it is still possible that the persecutions due to atheism is smaller than those due to other religious bigotry.That said, I agree even so called "religious" conflicts, just like so-called "tribal" conficts, can be traced to more mundane political factors. But plenty of followers have been inspired to atrocities directly by religious fervor; I am having trouble thinking of an example where atheism itself is a direct inspiration to great atrocities.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

Actual harm. Harm in the sense of the OP - a dangerous idea. This is very weak. If Jesus isn't compelling enough to overcome unbelief he isn't worth following. And if someone doesn't find Jesus compelling, one can't blame atheism. Materialism or narcissicism is much more likely to be the reason, imo. But it was the Christian religion that was the source of power that carried out the Crusades and the Inquisition. Bolshevism is not based on atheism, it was based on communism - the "dictatorship of the proletariat", and all of that. Atheism was just a means of trying to wean the people from religion so that their allegiance would then be strictly to Bolshevism. No, and I am not arguing that they have. I am asking for someone to show me that atheism has caused harm and I am saying that imo a better case could be made that religion has caused harm than atheism. In fact what I believe about religion and harm is that all religions have the potential to be beneficial and it is only when religions are corrupted that they are harmful.

Funny how you should mention that. IT seems that is exactly what some religious people do. The insurrection between the shites and the sunnis in iraq seem to have that as a component. The web sites that advocate the murder of gynocologists that perform abortions is another. Oh.. and we must not forget Eric Robert Rudolph, shall we? He used his specific Christian beliefs to justify bombing abortion clinics, and the olympics.

Depends on what you call the 'basic principles'. There is so much disagreement about that.

Actually, the OP only implied harm.... The stock answer is that the very idea that people would be persuaded that there is no God is harmful in that less would commit their lives to Christ and would spend eternity in torment. Both of those are likely to lead to the belief or professing that there is no God in order for the person to justify such selfishness. The religion is not necessarily fully consistent with the intent of the founder's teachings. There is much evidence that the Inquisition and the Crusades were caused by, at best, misconstrued ideas about Christ's teachings or, at worst, cruelly bigoted sadists and land-grabbing divine-right rulers respectively.

Do you have some evidence for that or is this just an assertion? I don't know many atheists. I do know a lot of Christians. And I can tell you that narcissism and materialism are alive and well in Christiandom. Have you ever watched a TV evangelist do his thing? I have even observed rampant materialism among some Amish. And they sure aren't atheists. Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.

And to what would you attribute these statements by Martin Luther?

deerbreh stated

quote:

---

And to what would you attribute these statements by Martin Luther?

---

followed by disparaging statements about the Jews by Martin Luther.I would not attribute them to Jesus The Christ who, by the way, was the founder of Christianity, NOT Martin Luther.I would attribute these statements to a misconstrued notion, prevalent in Christian Europe at that time, that people who did not accept Jesus as their savior were beguiled by Satan himself. Since they were deceived, they deserved nothing but scorn.
It definitely is not the ideas of the person who is quoted as saying "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."Edited by LinearAq, : No reason given.

Well yes. But neither is Martin Luther some run of the mill Christian. He even has a denomination named after him as well
as being credited with being one of the founders of the Reformation and author of a popular hymn sung in Protestant churches ("A Mighty Fortress is our God") So it seems that an atheist he is not. And so far I have come up with more examples of where Christianity seems to be more of a motivation for venal behavior than anyone has for atheism. In fact, I don't believe anyone has managed a good example of how atheism leads to behavior that might be considered dangerous to the health and well being of other groups. And note that I have not even gotten into Islam yet, or Northern Ireland, or India/Pakistan.

Is this the riVeRraT conveys his thoughts badly thread?Some people, schraf, and I know exactly why I am being mis-understood, maybe one day you will understand. I am not the best at conveying my thoughts into writing, I have admitted that many times. What bothers me most is when people like you do not take the time to find out exactly what it is I mean. I take the time out to make I understand your posts, you could at least give me the same respect, and stop ganging up on me all the time. It's a poor show. Keep attacking me, and that is what you'll get. Lots, and everyone, are a lot closer to each other, than the actual truth. You make it sound like there is some kind of EVC conspiracy against the ratboy from hell.If .999... can equal 1, then lots can equal everyone, whats the problem?

I thought I did, when I mentioned the ways Jesus is trying to teach us?
Let him without sin cast the first stone, love your enemy, turn the other cheek, etc.I cannot speak for the actions of the OT, well because I just didn't live during that time. Maybe it was a necessary evil? God did send evil into the world. I don't think Christian morals are absolutes, otherwise there wouldn't be so many denominations. They are however debatable since there is a book to go off of. Atheists morals are not debatable. They draw their moral standard from their own mind.But I understand what your saying, and many Christians will draw their own moral standard also, and not really follow "the good book". But that is the point of reference I am talking about.
But I guess faith is so dam confusing these days, that you could be 100% correct. I would guess that the OT would be closer to an absolute morality, than nowadays. The law was pretty strict. If you expect me to answer why God told people to kill, I cannot. The God I know doesn't do that anymore.If I had to guess, it would be that the Jews were the only ones that really had God in their hearts, and everyone else's hearts were hardened, and their fates sealed. If there is one thing I have noticed in my life, and that is that all the good, and the bad has led me to a better understanding of God. What I used to percieve as bad, I now see the good of it. Having an experience with God, has helped me see it also. But He is not done with me yet, still got a long way to go. I was thinking about that the other day, and I used to take it the way you said it, but he didn't say pay taxes, he said "give to Ceasar what is due to Ceasar" Maybe Ceasar doesn't deserve a dam thing. Maybe that's why we have a declaration of Independence. Was just a thought. again, I think it comes down to a matter of heart.

quote:

---

Keep attacking me, and that is what you'll get. Lots, and everyone, are a lot closer to each other, than the actual truth.

---

Digging your heels in now, are you?Funny how you keep fulfilling my description of your tactics, be they consciously done or not!

quote:

---

You make it sound like there is some kind of EVC conspiracy against the ratboy from hell.

---

If you call my honest assesment a conspiracy, so be it.

quote:

---

If .999... can equal 1, then lots can equal everyone, whats the problem?

---

So, by this logic I may make note of a position held by "many" Christians and then state that "all" Christians hold that position.Is this what you are saying?If "many" Christians in Pre-Civil War America supported the institution of slavery, then it can be said that "all" Christians in Pre-Civil War America supported it.Correct?"Many" and "all" have practically the same meaning, according to you, don't they?Or, have I just "misunderstood" and "misinterpreted" you when you said:

quote:

---

...then lots can equal everyone, whats the problem?

---

Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

My statement was the one of the stock answers from the repertoire of fundementalist answers to tricky questions. I am not prepared to defend it, just making you aware of the thoughts in that community on that particular subject.

Are you saying that any killing is a sin? Then the new Testament makes no distinction between killing and murder? What is your Biblical basis for this? Is it the "turn the other cheek" stuff?
What about the Ananias and Sapphira? What about the end times when the believers are supposed to fight the unbelievers in the last battle? Obviously, God has plans to use his chosen people to exact punishment upon the heathens in the future. He has done so in the past. What makes this time in between different? Most of all, how does this apparent variability get me closer to understanding the absolute morals of this God? Yeah-yeah...those babies hearts were so hard that I'm suprised they could pump any blood at all. It wasn't like that was colateral damage from a bomb. Those Hebrew soldiers had to look the baby in the eye and stab it with a sword.