Religion and torture go side by side

[Energon]

Very true, but none of those monsters killed or tortured in the name of atheism.

Like heck they didn´t. Communist regimes specifically targeted individuals with religious inclinations because they violated the primary tenet of atheism.

The larger point however remains that religion isn´t a specific correlative factor when it comes to committing atrocities.

 

[toxic_pus]

Like heck they didn´t. Communist regimes specifically targeted individuals with religious inclinations because they violated the primary tenet of atheism.

I was not aware that atheism had any "tenet" at all, let alone the "primary" one. Atheism, as I understand, is a simple lack of belief in existence of god. I am curious to know more about the "tenets" of atheism.

Communist regimes targeted anything and everything that they perceived to be antithetical to their system of functioning. When they "targeted individuals with religious inclinations", they did so not because they were looking to establish atheism, but because they wanted to establish a social/economic/political system, where atheism was one of the many ingredients, and certainly not the primary one.

The larger point however remains that religion isn´t a specific correlative factor when it comes to committing atrocities.

I would disagree. But since this is not a forum for such debates, I will not expand on it. Direct correlation between religion, particularly monotheistic ones, and atrocities can be traced.

 

[Nemesis]

Like heck they didn´t. Communist regimes specifically targeted individuals with religious inclinations because they violated the primary tenet of atheism.

What tenets are these? I wasn't aware we had any tenets!!

Personally, i find all religions to be archaic superstitions which have no place in the modern world. But this is just my "extremist" point of view.

 

[wtf]

What tenets are these? I wasn't aware we had any tenets!!

Personally, i find all religions to be archaic superstitions which have no place in the modern world. But this is just my "extremist" point of view.

What about Hinayana Buddhism ? They have pretty much 3-4 postulates. 1) Life is sad, 2) A middle path avoiding extremes might help solve this sadness 3) Treat all living beings nicely.

They don't even really have a well defined god in their beliefs.

 

[Nemesis]

Yes, even Buddhism.

 

[notsuperstitious]

any idea can be / has been / is used by people to justify their personal failures. This is where I'm against all systems based on ideas - religion, communism etc, because their undoing is the people who man them, atleast in democracy these men can be removed.

 

[Nemesis]

any idea can be / has been / is used by people to justify their personal failures. This is where I'm against all systems based on ideas - religion, communism etc, because their undoing is the people who man them, atleast in democracy these men can be removed.

Democracy is an idea as well. There is nothing inherently evil in man that he'll corrupt all Ideas. These corruptions are a result of socio-economic conditions, improving them will result in the improvement of implementation of ideas.

 

[roadrunner]

Bit harsh generalizing relgious people to be this way or that. Though it's probably true they're more segregationist than they admit. I tend to think many of the loud mouthed religious radicals to be hypocrites. I love the "my religion is better than yours, because......."

Having said that, I don't see much difference between mad Christian fundamentalists, Muslim fundies, and Hindu fundies. Perhaps the only difference is that the Christian fundies are more scared of the law cracking down on them. In the same situations, their mindset isn't any different.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Democracy is an idea as well. There is nothing inherently evil in man that he'll corrupt all Ideas. These corruptions are a result of socio-economic conditions, improving them will result in the improvement of implementation of ideas.

Democracy is lack of idea, its people deciding for themselves, it can be one thing today another tomorrow, i did not talk of corruption of ideas, its 'man' who becomes corrupt - with time and power. even in democracy, atleast in democracy you can remove the 'man'!

 

[Nemesis]

Democracy is lack of idea, its people deciding for themselves, it can be one thing today another tomorrow, i did not talk of corruption of ideas, its 'man' who becomes corrupt - with time and power. even in democracy, atleast in democracy you can remove the 'man'!

You're mistaken dude. Democracy is very much an idea. The idea that people are "free" to decide what they want to do, the idea that all people are equal irrespective of their economic or religious status. This is the basis of universal adult franchise.

Man becomes corrupt not because of ideas but because of the conditions that shape his existence. These include all economic and social factors. You can't blame ideas.

By the way, your proposal to scrap all political system based on ideas is also an idea!!

 

[Energon]

I was not aware that atheism had any "tenet" at all, let alone the "primary" one

What tenets are these? I wasn't aware we had any tenets!!

Are you people kidding me?

Atheism, as I understand, is a simple lack of belief in existence of god. I am curious to know more about the "tenets" of atheism.

I think enough evidence has been accumulated through the historic experiences of mankind to prove that the words "simple" and "belief" never go hand in hand. And while heterodoxy has always given hope to many, it should also dawn upon people that certain aspects of the non conformist movements (rejecting belief in a supernatural entity being one of them) have been just as politicized and radicalized as the very mainstream ideas (religion being another) they were meant to counter. Atheism promoted through Communism is the best embodiment of this phenomenon.
Atheism in the developed world (far too commonly mistaken for modernist enlightenment) is about as noxious, oppressive and radicalized as the remnants of conservative religious movements. True enlightenment through modernism resulted in tolerance for all ideologies including heterodoxy, not just atheism.

Communist regimes targeted anything and everything that they perceived to be antithetical to their system of functioning. When they "targeted individuals with religious inclinations", they did so not because they were looking to establish atheism, but because they wanted to establish a social/economic/political system, where atheism was one of the many ingredients, and certainly not the primary one.

Communists are/were very much looking to establish a unitary society that is/was categorically subservient to the central authority as opposed to an 'imaginary supernatural being', so yes, atheism was very central to the construct of communism and has been pursued with devastating tenacity. What you're overlooking here is that religious movements too are/were very much designed to provide a comprehensive makeup of society through a variety of very elaborate systems encompassing (among other things) politics, economics, jurisprudence, social welfare, military and other utilitarian organizations where matters of divinity was but one of many componenets.

Extreme behavior violent or otherwise, is far more correlative with group-think that emanates from ideology based organization which endorses a sense of being persecuted (externally imposed or voluntary; usually both). The exact nature of the ideology is for the most part a non sequitur. Religion as an ideology that propagates organizations just happens to be the most high profile entity and hence gets the most coverage; it is however by no means unique or even the most prevalent for that matter. Ethno-sectarian-tribalism (by far the most prevalent), nationalism, social/political ideology (including both communism and industrial-capitalism) etc. can all bear the same ills and exact damages in equal magnitude when compared to religion. After all, the first thing any radicalized movement achieves through its group-think is to "target anything and everything that is perceived to be antithetical to their system of functioning."

What you are attributing to monotheistic religions (and I have looked into that argument quite a bit) while based on empirical data is actually also a byproduct of a flawed sampling. This is undoubtedly a rather extensive tangent albeit an interesting one which is beyond the scope of my post.

Of the many thinkers, academicians and authors I have referenced on this topic, I've found Dr. Amartya Sen's works to be of particular significance. I think he has done a far better job of elucidating upon these matters than I have or ever will. Please PM me for specific reference material if you're interested.

 

[notsuperstitious]

You're mistaken dude. Democracy is very much an idea. The idea that people are "free" to decide what they want to do, the idea that all people are equal irrespective of their economic or religious status. This is the basis of universal adult franchise.

Man becomes corrupt not because of ideas but because of the conditions that shape his existence. These include all economic and social factors. You can't blame ideas.

By the way, your proposal to scrap all political system based on ideas is also an idea!!

Well you everything is an idea by your definition. What I mean - an ideology - an idea that pushes an agenda.

Even if you call democracy an ideology (like the religious people like to call atheism a religion / blind belief system), its the best we've got where people have a say, nobody is vilified and rulers can be changed, thus minimising corruption.

Democracy is indeed a govt system, hence it prescribes the way govts are chosen. but its not an ideology that tells the govt what to do and how to do it once its chosen.

 

[Nemesis]

Well you everything is an idea by your definition.

Yes, thats true. Everything - political system/opinions - are based on some sort of ideology. For example, a lot of middle class citizens in India say that they "arent interested in politics." To be not interested in politics is the most pervasive ideology in India.

What I mean - an ideology - an idea that pushes an agenda

Dude, you're missing the point. Every idea pushes some sort of agenda.

Even if you call democracy an ideology (like the religious people like to call atheism a religion / blind belief system), its the best we've got where people have a say, nobody is vilified and rulers can be changed, thus minimising corruption.

I'm not disputing this. Yes, it is the best system we have. Though it is not perfect.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Yes, thats true. Everything - political system/opinions - are based on some sort of ideology. For example, a lot of middle class citizens in India say that they "arent interested in politics." To be not interested in politics is the most pervasive ideology in India.

Dude, you're missing the point. Every idea pushes some sort of agenda.

I think we'll agree to disagree on this. In my opinion democracy is only hygeine, a system of electing govt. What the govt does is not defined in democracy. Where this system ends, ideology starts - its about what the govt is supposed to do.

also don't agree that to be not interested in politics is an ideology. however i understand why its important for idelogies to look for competing idelogies where they don't exist. As I said, we'll agree to disagree.

You can have the last word, and have a nice day mate.

 

[Halaku Khan]

Before some people start railing at Islam, know that Islam strongly forbids torture. To go against this is an act of disbelief, and those people cannot be considered adhering or 'religious' Muslims.

I'm afraid that the Prophet Muhammad did torture people with great brutality. Proofs can be given - if you like start a thread for it.