Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Militant Atheism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    Yes, and those all have one obvious thing in common, which isn't atheism.
    They all share two things in common. Everyone of them is atheistic and they're all left wing. But I'm sure that's merely a coincidence.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      They all share two things in common. Everyone of them is atheistic and they're all left wing. But I'm sure that's merely a coincidence.
      Communism in particular. The specific government structure responsible for these atrocities would have to be the more immediate culprit than an underlying ideology that may or may not be directly relevant. I suspect authoritarianism more broadly is at issue, thus Pinochet, who seems to be disturbingly popular among some conservatives today.
      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        They all share two things in common. Everyone of them is atheistic and they're all left wing. But I'm sure that's merely a coincidence.
        As I said - you have correlation not causation. And you paint (or imply) a false dichotomy. There are proportionately more black people committing crimes than white people. That does not make "committing crimes" causally linked to skin color. Nor is it a coincidence. It is not an either/or proposition. Neither is it with the incidents you cite. If you have evidence to show causation, by all means present it. Otherwise, there's nothing here except an assertion.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
          Communism in particular. The specific government structure responsible for these atrocities would have to be the more immediate culprit than an underlying ideology that may or may not be directly relevant. I suspect authoritarianism more broadly is at issue, thus Pinochet, who seems to be disturbingly popular among some conservatives today.
          Autocrats come with or without religions. It does not seem to me that the specific belief in god or not god does anything to reduce the propensity for such leaders to commit atrocities and entice others to join them. This old canard is just another example of the tendency many theists have to paint atheists as immoral and "bad." Most of us are pretty much like everyone else: pitch in when a neighbor needs help, try to raise our children well, pay our taxes, and put our pants on one leg at a time. The bogeyman vision of atheism gets a bit old, I have to admit.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            OBP - you (and others) seem to take comments like "land-owners" and translate it into "every white person everywhere." Of COURSE abolitionists resisted, and there were abolitionists both north and south. Some spoke publicly, some acted "underground" (so to speak), and some did both. That the privileged were white, wealthy, connected land owners does not mean every white person was "pro-slavery." And "whites accustom to their privilege" does not mean "all whites were privileged." While it is true that white people in that era were generally more privileged than black people in that era, there are always white people who have less privilege and black people who have more.

            The knee-jerk reaction from the right to the idea that systemic racism existed, and continues to exist, is somewhat amazing to me. It's discouraging that we can be in 2018 and in such denial of the long term impacts of our country's history. Racism is so insidious. Right now I am traveling through the south on business. I have stopped at two hotels, a Costco, a Target, and two grocery stores. So far - 100% of the time, the people doing the front-line jobs were mostly being done by black people, with the next largest population being Latino and a smattering of white people: cashiers, stock people, housekeepers, front desk clerks. But the managers and owners? So far every one I have met or have seen has been white. That aligns with my experience when I lived here (New Orleans) from late 1977 to mid 1979. Managers and owners tend to be overwhelmingly white, and line workers are heavily black and Latino. I will be interested to see if it remains the pattern as I travel (drive) through Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia over the next 17 days.

            The institution of slavery ended as a legally sanctioned reality in 1860s with the Emancipation Proclamation and the conclusion of the Civil War. Legally sanctioned racism continued on through the 1960s and into the 1970s at several levels of government. Even in 2018, the Alabama constitution still calls for the segregation of black and white students, and every attempt to amend the constitution to eliminate this component has failed. The results of so may centuries of slavery followed by so many decades of institutional racism cannot be erased in a couple of decades. We still have institutionalized, systemic racism in this country. Turning a blind eye to it is not productive.

            To be fair, it is also not productive to point to every little thing said or done and label it "racism" if it disproportionately impacts one race more than another. All THAT does is sensitize everyone to the term "racism" and rob it of its true meaning.
            Seems to be some conflation here of "slavery" and "racism." For the most part, slave owners didn't care about the race of their slaves - they were as happy to have white slaves as black (except that white slaves tended to be more expensive and in shorter supply.) Nor was it whites alone who owned slaves, there were also black slave-owners. And just as an aside - women were more aggressively opposed to manumission of slaves than were men (on average).
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by tabibito View Post
              Seems to be some conflation here of "slavery" and "racism." For the most part, slave owners didn't care about the race of their slaves - they were as happy to have white slaves as black (except that white slaves tended to be more expensive and in shorter supply.) Nor was it whites alone who owned slaves, there were also black slave-owners. And just as an aside - women were more aggressively opposed to manumission of slaves than were men (on average).
              Tab, with all due respect, that there were a few black slaveholders (and there have been black slaveholders in history) and that there were a few white slaves as well does not alter the place slavery played in American history and the history of racism. IMO, it's a sidetrack. Slavery was not a "one issue" thing across the board. It had racist roots in the belief many slaveholders had that black people were simply inferior. It had broad economic roots in that it represented a massive pool of inexpensive labor. It was justified economically, religiously, and by pretty much any other means the people who engaged in it could rationalize their choices. And it has had lingering effects that have rippled down into the modern day, effects that many, today, deny even exist. Most of these issues have, IMO, been very poorly addressed, or not addressed at all.

              For me - the issue is not "I am guilty and need to do something about it." It is "there is an ongoing injustice at play, and I would like to contribute to ending it." Racism and its legacy are only one such injustice. Gender discrimination, age discrimination, and all of the other ways we systemically undermine others should all be given their due attention.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Tab, with all due respect, that there were a few black slaveholders (and there have been black slaveholders in history) and that there were a few white slaves as well does not alter the place slavery played in American history and the history of racism. IMO, it's a sidetrack. Slavery was not a "one issue" thing across the board. It had racist roots in the belief many slaveholders had that black people were simply inferior. It had broad economic roots in that it represented a massive pool of inexpensive labor. It was justified economically, religiously, and by pretty much any other means the people who engaged in it could rationalize their choices. And it has had lingering effects that have rippled down into the modern day, effects that many, today, deny even exist. Most of these issues have, IMO, been very poorly addressed, or not addressed at all.

                For me - the issue is not "I am guilty and need to do something about it." It is "there is an ongoing injustice at play, and I would like to contribute to ending it." Racism and its legacy are only one such injustice. Gender discrimination, age discrimination, and all of the other ways we systemically undermine others should all be given their due attention.

                As I have commented before - The slavers (for the most part) bought slaves from traders and resold them. The people the slavers bought them from were of the same race (for the most part) as the slaves ... that is, they were selling their own people into slavery. Their trade had roots in history extending to well before white slavers started buying from them. While white societies have banned slavery, the descendants of the black slavers continue the trade, primarily with certain countries in the Middle East. So - due attention has its appropriate territory.

                that there were a few black slaveholders (and there have been black slaveholders in history) and it continues through the present ... American society's slave holdings have been relegated to history - few black slave-holders on American territory, but elsewhere in the world?
                and that there were a few white slaves as well ... There were significantly more than a few; they were mostly called indentured labourers.
                does not alter the place slavery played in American history ... past history
                and the history of racism ... there are as many black racists as there are white (and other colours to boot).
                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                .
                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                Scripture before Tradition:
                but that won't prevent others from
                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  For me - the issue is not "I am guilty and need to do something about it." It is "there is an ongoing injustice at play, and I would like to contribute to ending it." Racism and its legacy are only one such injustice. Gender discrimination, age discrimination, and all of the other ways we systemically undermine others should all be given their due attention.
                  I cannot begin to tell you how refreshing it is to hear that from someone on this site and (generally) from the right. Too often what I hear is denial the situations exist (e.g., white privilege, male privilege, youth privilege, etc.) and insistence that those of us sensitive to these issues are just trying to make everyone feel guilty.

                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  As I have commented before - The slavers (for the most part) bought slaves from traders and resold them. The people the slavers bought them from were of the same race (for the most part) as the slaves ... that is, they were selling their own people into slavery. Their trade had roots in history extending to well before white slavers started buying from them. While white societies have banned slavery, the descendants of the black slavers continue the trade, primarily with certain countries in the Middle East. So - due attention has its appropriate territory.
                  This I cannot comment on at present, other than to note it at least partially does not align with what I think I know. But I will dig around and see what I can find. While I know some of this (traders being of the same race as the traded) existed in the 1400s-1800s, my understanding was that the vast majority of slaving came from white raids on black villages throughout Africa (and other places). But I have to admit that I learned much of that in school, which gave us Columbus as a hero, and a great deal of other "cleaned" history. So...I'll put any further response on hold until I have a chance to look into it. That it is happening today I absolutely agree.

                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  that there were a few black slaveholders (and there have been black slaveholders in history) and it continues through the present ... American society's slave holdings have been relegated to history - few black slave-holders on American territory, but elsewhere in the world?
                  So this may be out disconnect. My comments were about American slavery and the impact on racism and racial differences through to the present. I was not making global statements.

                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  and that there were a few white slaves as well ... There were significantly more than a few; they were mostly called indentured labourers.
                  This is another distinction. Indentured laborers fall along a spectrum. At one end are those who were fairly treated and it provided a mechanism by which they could achieve a goal (i.e., come to America, secure land, etc.). At the other are those who were unscrupulously locked in indefinite servitude by the terms of the indenture - making them no better than slaves. Between those two extremes lay a lot of variation. So I don't simply equate indentured servitude with slavery.

                  And how much difference is there, I wonder, between abusive indentured servitude, and the bank that knowingly grants a mortgage to someone who cannot afford it, then waits for them to fail and repossesses their home, leaving them bankrupt and (potentially) homeless?

                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  does not alter the place slavery played in American history ... past history
                  First - "past history" is redundant.
                  Second, I'm not sure what your point is.

                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  and the history of racism ... there are as many black racists as there are white (and other colours to boot).
                  Racism is not limited to any one race. But, in my experience, most "black racism" (again, speaking about America) is not "blacks are superior to whites" so much as it is an angry response to the lot the black person in America has had to face for so many centuries. While it has become significantly better in the modern day, the damages resulting from all those decades of broad-based racism and the ongoing reality of systemic racism still results in (on average) a significant gap between the white experience and the black experience. That doesn't make black racism right, but I don't see it as the same as white racism.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    I cannot begin to tell you how refreshing it is to hear that from someone on this site and (generally) from the right. Too often what I hear is denial the situations exist (e.g., white privilege, male privilege, youth privilege, etc.) and insistence that those of us sensitive to these issues are just trying to make everyone feel guilty.
                    Extend the list - female privilege, black privilege etc. which don't get the kind of recognition that other privileges do. Women engage in domestic violence - the stereotypical "hen-pecked husband" is no less the victim of domestic violence than the "rooster pecked wife," just as one example. Female sex predators are not unknown, but there's always an excuse for why they aren't really the perpetrators, just victims of something else (male perpetrators generally have similar histories as victims.)

                    This I cannot comment on at present, other than to note it at least partially does not align with what I think I know. But I will dig around and see what I can find. While I know some of this (traders being of the same race as the traded) existed in the 1400s-1800s, my understanding was that the vast majority of slaving came from white raids on black villages throughout Africa (and other places). But I have to admit that I learned much of that in school, which gave us Columbus as a hero, and a great deal of other "cleaned" history. So...I'll put any further response on hold until I have a chance to look into it. That it is happening today I absolutely agree.
                    Simple economics - it was easier and cheaper to buy from established slave traders than to mount their own slave hunting expeditions. (of course, slave hunting was preferable to having no slaves)

                    So this may be out disconnect. My comments were about American slavery and the impact on racism and racial differences through to the present. I was not making global statements.
                    The disconnect is in the parameters. No race doesn't have a history of racism. Given the same military advantage over whites that whites had over other races, and it would have been the whites on the receiving end. That plays out in history before white domination, and afterward in areas where white influence came late. Racism came to be recognised as an evil during and after WWII, but mostly among European based societies - and it would be hard to argue that the influence of WWII wasn't almost solely responsible.

                    This is another distinction. Indentured laborers fall along a spectrum. At one end are those who were fairly treated and it provided a mechanism by which they could achieve a goal (i.e., come to America, secure land, etc.). At the other are those who were unscrupulously locked in indefinite servitude by the terms of the indenture - making them no better than slaves. Between those two extremes lay a lot of variation. So I don't simply equate indentured servitude with slavery.
                    And how much difference is there, I wonder, between abusive indentured servitude, and the bank that knowingly grants a mortgage to someone who cannot afford it, then waits for them to fail and repossesses their home, leaving them bankrupt and (potentially) homeless?
                    Very little. And here we have an interesting phenomenon, in that malefactors frequently take advantage of the unthinkable to hide their activity. It was unthinkable that a priest could be a paederast - so paederastic priests managed to hide in plain sight - protected by the fact that such an accusation was wholly unbelievable. The same with financial sector perfidy - the idea that financial sector executives could or would behave less like bank managers than bank robbers was unthinkable. And so, they continued to get away with activity, un-investigated, that in any other sphere would have been investigated. Of course, all that changes when the facts are inescapable - then the idea becomes thinkable, and the people involved then get investigated.

                    First - "past history" is redundant.
                    Second, I'm not sure what your point is.
                    past history, recent history, the rare current/on-going history, or future history.

                    Racism is not limited to any one race. But, in my experience, most "black racism" (again, speaking about America) is not "blacks are superior to whites" so much as it is an angry response to the lot the black person in America has had to face for so many centuries.
                    The declaration that whites are evil racist slave-owner-wannabees - the meme promoted by black activists - isn't just an angry response, it's thorough going racism. They're claiming moral superiority on the basis of their skin colour. It comes down to deciding whether racism, or only white people's racism is an evil. (and whether sexism, or only male sexism is evil, come to that) In either case (and others besides) I'll back the first options, without making excuses for anyone. "Playing the race card" as an excuse for accosting an innocent student while he waits for a bus (admittedly, the perpetrator wasn't black but it is the most recent example) - or declaring that the shooting of a black man was a white racist's hate crime when the killer (who wasn't being accused of murder) wasn't even white?

                    While it has become significantly better in the modern day, the damages resulting from all those decades of broad-based racism and the ongoing reality of systemic racism still results in (on average) a significant gap between the white experience and the black experience. That doesn't make black racism right, but I don't see it as the same as white racism.
                    People who focus on seeking retribution for such crimes generally do NOT go on to overcome their difficulties. Extending validity to groups who want retribution does no more than enable them to wallow in an unchanging situation. [there was a time when I had to chip a Christian for trumpeting the vilification he was receiving as evidence of their opposition to the truth. I pointed out that he was being vilified because he was behaving as an odious prat, not because anything he said was true ... and almost nothing of what he was saying was even a distant cousin of truth.] Same here, offensive people claim that reactions against their offensiveness is racist/sexist et al. when the boot is in reality on the other foot. It also happens that even fair minded people exposed to such treatment tend to look on other members of such groups with a certain suspicion. People (and even entire peoples) who work to improve their position and to overcome injustices past can improve their lot. I'll back any programme that sets out to overcome the difficulties and establish level playing fields. "Equal opportunity" and "affirmative action" are mutually exclusive processes, with the latter being inherently racist or sexist. Programmes that enhance a person's prospects of achieving their potential need to be adjusted depending on the impediments experienced by the individual, but that is a whole world different to making adjustments on the basis of class, gender, or creed.

                    However, I also see no problem with people who act to improve things for their own identity group, provided that there is no attempt to tear others down in the process.
                    Last edited by tabibito; 05-06-2019, 05:15 AM.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment

                    widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                    Working...
                    X