A double standard.

[jv1990]

Hey guys. Not sure where to post this, so I'll post it here.

Obviously I'm new here, and a concern arose in me yesterday, that I was hoping you could help with.

Let me start by saying I am a secular Buddhist. I accept no god. I guess I'm an atheist by default. I side with secularists on most social issue (separation of church and state etc.) because a secular country is one that lives in the most peace.

Anyways, after reading a few articles, and viewing a few videos, I noticed a kind of atheist double standard. That is simply put, when a religious person does something wrong, they are blamed because of their religion (which is true in many cases of monotheism, but not all), but when an atheist commits some kind of misdeed secularists tend to shrug it off as 'Oh, you can't blame him for that, (just as an example) why Pol Pot did what he did because he was an atheist, you might as well say he did it cause he had hair' or something to that effect and they just shrug it off and call you crazy.

My view is, is that people do disturbing and disgusting things, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof. Some do it because of their belief, or lack thereof. It seems that both sides of the field tend to try and justify it, instead of acknowledging that bad people do bad things.

That's just my view. I'm aware that they are probably a minority, and I was just wondering how you guys felt about it.

Thanks for taking the time to read it and sharing some feedback.

[dogpet]

Fuck off! Or come back when any atrocities are carried out in the name of non-belief.
We're busy.

[West491]

Welcome to the forum, JV.

I understand what you mean.

I've never said, "You can't blame him for that", because you can. What I do tend to say is that "He didn't do that because of his disbelief". People don't do bad things because they lack belief in something (for example, a god). On the other hand, plenty of people do bad things because of their faith. Or in other words, people sometimes do bad things because they are under the delusion that their faith requires and/or rewards the action.

No doubt though, there are idiotic atheists and stupid theists.

[jv1990]

Yeah, I agree with you, West491. There have been cases in both, of mass murder, and other crimes have been commited by those who belief and disbelieve. Jeffery Dahmer, when he was doing his killings attributed what he did to his non-belief. Then you have things that were more wide-spread, like what the Christian missionaries did to spread their religion, or the conquests of Mohammed.

I just think the human race should all find a way to be tolerant of each other. Thanks for answering me in an intelligent way, I was expecting responses like that dogpet person. lol

[lostsheep]

jv1990 wrote

My view is, is that people do disturbing and disgusting things, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof. Some do it because of their belief, or lack thereof. It seems that both sides of the field tend to try and justify it, instead of acknowledging that bad people do bad things.

That's just my view. I'm aware that they are probably a minority, and I was just wondering how you guys felt about it.

Thanks for taking the time to read it and sharing some feedback.

I agree, and this is one of the main reasons I became an atheist, ironically. I can see no difference in moral behavior, on an individual level, b/w people of various religions or non-believers, on average that is, and in my experience w/ those I have known over the years.

However whether this is true on a larger societal scale, I am not sure. It may be that religion makes people worse. But I can't say that I've seen any proof of this in my personal experience, and proving such a thing even by examining history seems impossible. However, it is clear that at best religion is neutral, it clearly does NOT improve human behavior, which it claims to do. Of course, some people claim the converse, which I think is the point you are making: that is, that atheism DOES lead to better behavior.

I think this idea ties in with the idea behind atheism+, in that it seems to me that the general idea behind atheism+ is that atheism is a result of rationalism and that rationalism will naturally lead to better moral behavior in human beings. Unfortunately the atheism+ thread has digressed into an argument about misogyny, which ironically is what spurred the development of the atheism+ movement, if you can even call it a movement.

[Irreligious]

jv1990 wrote

I noticed a kind of atheist double standard. That is simply put, when a religious person does something wrong, they are blamed because of their religion...

This is a patently absurd statement. Unless someone uses his religion as an excuse for his misbehavior (such as bombing an abortion clinic because he explicitly stated that that's what Jesus would want him to do), his religion is not usually a consideration in ascribing a reason to his bad behavior.

Otherwise, Christians who rape are not typically looked upon by atheists as Christian rapists. Nor are thieves who happen to be Hindus generally viewed by atheists as Hindu thieves. They're just rapists and thieves, and who cares what their religion is?

jc1990 wrote

...(which is true in many cases of monotheism, but not all), but when an atheist commits some kind of misdeed secularists tend to shrug it off as 'Oh, you can't blame him for that, (just as an example) why Pol Pot did what he did because he was an atheist, you might as well say he did it cause he had hair' or something to that effect and they just shrug it off and call you crazy.

Did Pol Pot order the deaths of multimillions in the name of atheism? Did a lack of belief in a supreme diety inspire Pol Pot to mass murder? Do atheists, on the whole, excuse murder in the name of atheism?

If you're going to make these claims, you need to support them with evidence.

[jv1990]

Irreligious wrote

Did Pol Pot order the deaths of multimillions in the name of atheism? Did a lack of belief in a supreme diety inspire Pol Pot to mass murder? Do atheists, on the whole, excuse murder in the name of atheism?

If you're going to make these claims, you need to support them with evidence.

I was using an example. Just a quick one, not one to spark a debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot He mirrored Mao Ze Dong, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong Both of these men considered religion obsolete, therefore needed to be eradicated. They obviously used violent means, but they didn't target just religion. Especially Pol Pot, who target those who were educated, spoke more than one language, and even people who looked 'smart (ie wore glasses). Stalin's another example, I don't feel like looking up a reference. All of these men did grow up in very, if not over-religious families. They did what they did for 'secularization', and 'progress' mostly based on a 'survival of the fittest'. Pol Pot killed many monks, burned temples. I know many cambodian immigrants who escaped from his reign, and some have a great resentment toward atheism (though I think it is misplaced) and first hand testimony of the atrocities and reasonings behind his actions. Talk to a cambodian immigrant about it and you'll see. It wasn't in the name of 'atheism' per se, but of 'secularism'. The two go hand in hand. If you are an atheist, you are a secularist. Unless for some reason one decides to want an established religion (I haven't heard that one).

It was their belief in a purely secular state that had led them to do the things that they did. It's not arguable.

Though I grant that the atheists in the USA, and in Europe and in other developed parts of the world are not Maoist, Stalinists, or any other form of Communist that would be associated with something on a scale as large as this. I think we've moved past that point for the most part.

Otherwise, Christians who rape are not typically looked upon by atheists as Christian rapists. Nor are thieves who happen to be Hindus generally viewed by atheists as Hindu thieves. They're just rapists and thieves, and who cares what their religion is?

Not always. When a lady (the name isn't coming to me) kills her two kids because God told her to, she's a religious psychopath. When Jeffery Dahmer says, "If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed in the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime..." (he said this when he became Christian, there's more to the quote, but did anyone claim, at the time, that he was a atheistic psychopath? No. When a catholic priest molests a child, he's a christian pedophile. When Dr. Alfred Kinsey does it, he's remembered as a scientist who worked with sex.

[jv1990]

However, it is clear that at best religion is neutral, it clearly does NOT improve human behavior, which it claims to do. Of course, some people claim the converse, which I think is the point you are making: that is, that atheism DOES lead to better behavior.

I would agree to some extent. Religion can make some people insane. The same goes for if someone drops the belief altogether (until they go to prison where they quickly become religious). I feel it depends on the intelligence and emotional capacity of the person. I've known plenty of good religious people in my day. I've known plenty of bad ones too. Same applies for the non-religious.

[jv1990]

"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?

I should note that I do not agree with his argument.

[ILOVEJESUS]

Interesting, I suppose wanting to kill thousands to eradicate religion, is the same as killing thousands in the name of religion. OI share the idea that bad people do bad things. Religion can be an excuse or an argument for these actions, but naughty people are naughty. One of the good reasons to clear the religion bollocks out of the way and look at the deed. Otherwise you end up all catholic priesty.

[Irreligious]

jv1990 wrote

I was using an example. Just a quick one, not one to spark a debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

A debate about what? The equivalency of subcribing to a religion with tenets and a specific set of beliefs vs. adopting a non-religious position that is completely lacking in any tenets or any unifying beliefs? How are these two things the same or even equivalent, in your mind?

jv1990 wrote

He mirrored Mao Ze Dong, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong Both of these men considered religion obsolete, therefore needed to be eradicated.

Where is it written that atheism requires the eradication of religion?

jv1990 wrote

They obviously used violent means, but they didn't target just religion. Especially Pol Pot, who target those who were educated, spoke more than one language, and even people who looked 'smart (ie wore glasses).

What part of not believing in a god or gods required Pol Pot to engage in mass murder? What part of not being a Christian required Pol Pot to engage in mass murder? What part of not being a German citizen required Pol Pot to engage in mass murder? What part of not being a woman required Pol Pot to engage in mass murder?

Do you see where I'm going with this? Atheism, very specifically, addresses what one is not: A theist. Not believing in a god or gods has nothing to say about what a person is, what he believes or what's compelled to do.

jv1990 wrote

Stalin's another example, I don't feel like looking up a reference. All of these men did grow up in very, if not over-religious families. They did what they did for 'secularization', and 'progress' mostly based on a 'survival of the fittest'.

"Secular" and "atheist" are not synonymous. You ought to know that being a Buddhist. Some Buddhists, like yourself, don't believe in a god, yet Buddhism is not a secular belief system.

jv1990 wrote

Pol Pot killed many monks, burned temples. I know many cambodian immigrants who escaped from his reign, and some have a great resentment toward atheism (though I think it is misplaced) and first hand testimony of the atrocities and reasonings behind his actions. Talk to a cambodian immigrant about it and you'll see. It wasn't in the name of 'atheism' per se, but of 'secularism'. The two go hand in hand. If you are an atheist, you are a secularist. Unless for some reason one decides to want an established religion (I haven't heard that one).

You're a professed atheist. Yet you also subscribe to a religion: Buddhism, which is not a secular belief system. How do you explain that? And what is "secular" in the context that you are using that word? Is it any belief or attendant behavior that is not specifically endorsed by a religion? Communicating over the internet is not specifically religious. Does that make it an exclusively secular activity? Are the religious prohibited from indulging in it?

Atheism has nothing to do with killing monks or burning temples any more than theism, on the whole, explicitly does. These are wholly "secular" activities that can be indulged by theists and atheists alike.

jv1990 wrote

It was their belief in a purely secular state that had led them to do the things that they did. It's not arguable.

Are atheists required to believe in a purely secular state? Buddhists don't seem to think so.

jv1990 wrote

Though I grant that the atheists in the USA, and in Europe and in other developed parts of the world are not Maoist, Stalinists, or any other form of Communist that would be associated with something on a scale as large as this. I think we've moved past that point for the most part.

So atheists in the undeveloped world are required to be Maoists, Stalinists or some form Communist? Where is that written? And what do you contend atheists in the USA and Europe are required to be? Ayn Randians or adherents of some other political belief system? Is that what we're moving towards, according to you?

jv1990 wrote

Not always.

Yes, always. As I said, unless a person explicitly states that he or she is killing on behalf of a god or killing specifically because they don't believe in a god, we don't ascribe religious motivations to people's behaviors.

jv1990 wrote

When a lady (the name isn't coming to me) kills her two kids because God told her to, she's a religious psychopath. When Jeffery Dahmer says, "If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed in the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime..." (he said this when he became Christian, there's more to the quote, but did anyone claim, at the time, that he was a atheistic psychopath?

So, what specific atheist tenet can be construed as requiring one to kidnap people, drug, rape and eat them? Is that something atheists are inspired to do for lack of a belief in a god? Would being a Christian have kept Dahmer from doing any of things? Or is it more likely that getting caught and being imprisoned helped Dahmer to mend his ways?

jv1990 wrote

No. When a catholic priest molests a child, he's a christian pedophile. When Dr. Alfred Kinsey does it, he's remembered as a scientist who worked with sex.

What does atheism have to do with sex? What does atheism even have to say about sex? Anything?

[Smellyoldgit]

Irreligious wrote

What does atheism have to do with sex?

There's no fucking god?

[Irreligious]

Smellyoldgit wrote

There's no fucking god?

If there is a god-- whatever that is-- does it even give a fuck?

[Kate]

I think it sells it. 10% of your money, or somesuch.

[ghoulslime]

JV, I am curious to know if you even understand the difference between an atheist and a Communist. I concur that people often do wicked things regardless of any religious or political motivation. However, it is usually when people are motivated by religious or political fervor that they raise to a perverse level the viciousness inherent in human nature as a consequence of Darwinian evolution.

Incidentally, Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist. Of course, his monstrous behavior was likely the result of the fact that he was a delusional megalomaniac, rather than a Buddhist and an aspiring Maoist. Mao himself, often blamed for the "killing" of millions who mostly died from famine, was an idealistic Communist with delusions of grandeur, who thought the means of his political excess was justified by the end. Stalin certainly didn't commit his acts of political atrocity because he was raised as a Russian Orthodox, nor because he secretly had no belief in the existence of the imaginary god of this religion, nor because of a fervent commitment to the tenets of Communist doctrine, but certainly because he was a self-serving, psychotic, megalomaniac who was willing to do anything to maintain his grip on political power. The same might also be said of Mr. Hitler and his fun and games in Nazi Germany. Jolly Adolf may have hid his true motivation behind nationalism and furthering the righteous cause of Jesus Christ, but in fact, he was just another sick fuck who thought he was more important than his fellow humans - a psychopath with delusional fantasies of glory, who had a bad mustache.

This false assignment of famous wicked people into arbitrary categories of theism or atheism fails at a fundamental level. Atheists reject the assertion that there are gods, because it is a baseless one. This is the only thing which makes one an atheist. The rejection of gods is the only commonality between one atheist and another. Atheism is a consequence of honesty and reason. Whether an atheist applies the same level of reason to other aspects of his or her world view is beside the point.

"Mao didn't believe in Jesus, therefore he was an atheist who did naughty things!" is a statement which fails to point out why he engaged in the excesses which he did. Hitler didn't believe in Santa, therefore he put people in gas chambers, huh?

Seek to be reasonable in all things, JV! I will venture to say that very few violent excesses have been committed by people who were too reasonable. Welcome to our forum!