Michael Sherlock’s Atheist Atrocities

gottMitUnsMichael Sherlock writes a rebuttal against the popular misconception that Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot were atheists and had they been real Christian their atrocities wouldn’t have happened. If they were Christians, they weren’t good Christians.

Atheism is exploding into sects, branches, and social syncretes of the tautologous but facile idea that atheism just means no gods. Yet atheists want to say they are more moral than the religious or at least as moral to show social and political acceptability. Social justice types go further and say that atheism must include some definitions of morality, or that atheist groups must pay attention to other issues, often member oriented, besides the constant screaming of there is no god.

The easy thing is to pick through history, find the tyrants-conquerers, and then discern whether they were really religious or not. The difficulty of this is that those who follow a religion rarely follow all of it; they prefer to follow certain parts of their faith and reinterpret others. The easy ploy, like “it’s all faith,” is kin to claiming “that’s not my religion.” In conquest the balance of using local religions versus imposing another is difficult. A new religion is like having a common ally against others–the alien theory of social cohesion where everyone bands to gather to fight or endorse yet another party. Or conquer lightly and infiltrate over time.

We have to look over the manifold expressions of a religion to discuss the dogma, or ideology, of the religion. If there is immorality there, then it has to be excised or others can at any time refer to the ideology as support, even, or especially, when many don’t follow that particular part. The difficult part is the response to Hitch, that atheists can’t be moral because they do not make a covenant with god. That’s why religion is systemically poisonous–its premise is no matter how you behave, unless you do it for Jesus you’re immoral–natural morality can be followed with praise but you will not be saved.

Want to make a difference? Take a small part of a religion and elevate it to high status. Old followers see commonality and comfort in familiarity and radicals see the newness and progress towards what they value. All of the time insisting that these truths are absolute and revelation or divinely inspired intuition has motivated the epistemic change.

Hitler is a fine example of a conflicted religious follower. It is unlikely that he was a devout Christian, in the common sense, (does avoiding communion mean you’re not Catholic?) though he does claim such, he does work with the papacy, and he does claim to follow god in his wars to elevate true Christians to world dominance. He mimics Luther’s hatred of Jews in a long history of Christians hating Jews. They were the Christ killers, and they were a competing religion that was having too much success yet were insular, conversion not allowed.

“Besides that, I believe one thing: there is a Lord God! And this Lord God creates the peoples.” [1] ~Adolf Hitler

“We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations; we have stamped it out” [2] ~Adolf Hitler

It would be impossible to deny that John was antisemitic.

From all of the evidence available in the volumes of historical works, both Christian and non-Christian, it is clear that there is an unbroken chain of hatred, intolerance, and racism toward the Jews, which began with “John’s” Gospel (see also the Synoptic gospels) and continued all the way down into the twentieth century, ending with Hitler’s bloody campaign against the Church’s most despised enemies. [7]

More than a few bible scholars have made mention of the virulent anti-Semitism of John’s gospel. This anonymous and falsely named piece of work goes beyond its synoptic counterparts (Matthew, Mark and Luke) to directly accuse the Jewish people of being the “sons of Satan” (John 8:44), thereby demonizing the Jewish people and opening the door to a millennia of Jewish suffering at the hands of credulous Christian maniacs.

But we can better blame Luther for having created World War II against semitism. It goes back through all of the wars before.

“If we wish to find a scapegoat on whose shoulders we may lay the miseries which Germany has brought on the world, I am more and more convinced that the worst evil genius of that country, is not Hitler or Bismarck or Frederick the Great, but Martin Luther.” [24]

Hitler was the logical conclusion of a particular kind of German destiny. In a sense he was a perfect pawn. You can be sure the US didn’t join the war for Jews though. They joined because the Germans and fascists were including Americans as part, a haven, of Jewish culture.

If Christians don’t believe it could be true that a people would consider themselves world leaders or the bearer of good news to all, let them look to their own motivations to have everyone saved, or that only through Jesus can one be saved. “With god you can do anything.” Is this really helpful? Psychs say a sky daddy gives strength. Yes, including world domination. “With democracy you can do anything.” “With kindness you can do anything.” “With economic support you can do anything.” The structure becomes meaningless–all that is heard is “you” and “anything” until reflection and then it is the subjective god.

Indeed, the heavy castigation of atheists being so militant is that atheists show the totalitarian and fascist aspects of the religious. Even though atheists are hardly represented in politics even the hint that the religious aren’t the world’s most saved and blessed people is too much to bear. It’s still a huge competition for world domination by religious factions. To disarm the very premise of this causes the religious to ban together. At least some religiosity continues the competition–the only thing worse than losing is being told the competition is invalid.

A big reason atheists hate to claim an inherent morality is many do not want an absolutist morality other than vague abstractions like reason, evidence, and science. One of the reasons many older atheists are *difficult* is that they rebelled against authority and religion long before it was popular and they never cared for any particular moral climate that was impressed upon them. They don’t want to create yet another authoritarian morality. Let atheists be democrats or republicans they say. Yet, politics is the point and always has been. Knowledge without according action is empty. Atheism must show some sort of way to action or it is utterly meaningless like “how many angels on a pin.” Reason has to show itself to morality or why use it?

Sherlock provides a good summary that so called atheists dictators were religious either self avowedly or for reasons of conquest. An ideology of conversion, good news, and idiosyncratic salvation, helps subdue people.

Jim Newman, www.frontiersofreason.com

Atheism as Quasi-Religion

religion as politicsI am adding foam between the framing of a shed to be converted into a play house or for overflow sleeping. It had been going to be a shop but the owners realized that was unlikely, and they really needed a separate space for visiting kids during holidays. They had considered building a yurt but that was equally expensive and less versatile for their needs.

Cutting out squares of foam so they fit and then spraying liquid foam to hold the pieces in place and fill voids is not a difficult task. It is pleasant compared to working with fiberglass batting which is one of the worst construction chores possible.

Though cheap, fiber-glass insulation should be banned. It creates silicosis-causing dust, is extremely itchy, hard to install properly, provides vibrant nesting material for insects vermin, and holds a fair amount of water after water intrusion.

It’s popular for many to call atheism a religion. A News24 post pretty well sums it up.

I believe that atheism, like Islam currently, is also concerned with politics. In politics, secular belief systems, especially, have the character that the world must be changed in order to achieve the perfect state – a secular state. Why else do secular humanists want a secular state if atheism is not a belief system?

I conclude that we deal with much more than a denial of something here and that atheism, shorn of all its semantics is in my opinion a belief system akin to religion and if you look at the nature of the beast you see nothing but a quasi-religious belief.

By this measure my proselytizing that fiber-glass insulation should be banned is quasi-religious. Or do I have to have written 10 posts against fiberglass, or gone on a speaking tour with a new book?

Does a String theorist who spends his life battling against the Classic model a religious proselytizer or just quasi-religious?

Does promoting universal health care or a political party display a religion? Are politicians religious? Educators?

If I am a pain in the ass to my friends, does correcting them when they make errors in critical thinking, memory, and observation make me really just more quasi-religious? Or just an annoying personality, or an oppressed personality that is still privileged enough to complain?

Is the climate change battle a religious battle on the face of it? One world view battling another? Was the morality of women’s and race’s suffragism a religious morality play? There are certainly religious inputs and justifications. Certainly there is prayer for guidance.

When religious dogma has advice on how to live life or what life-reality is then countering those claims do not create another religion. It is too easy to conflate religion as the top, umbrella, world view and every other world-view is a subset. These are epistemic or ontological questions, not choosing a religion.

It gets really tiring that in atheism anyone having a strong opinion, or wearing their opinion on their sleeves is religious. I suppose that makes all of those people wearing pink or yellow or red bands as jewelry religious expressionists, and not just promoting gay, MIA, or breast cancer research.

The more tiresome phrase, “it’s all faith,” tells us nothing about what to believe but attempts to make choosing impossible, there is no ultimate true faith, just mine and yours, no real proof, stop asking. But when a faith, just like a material, causes harm then demanding it to be banned or removed is nothing more than consideration of harm and benefit, along with mediation to freedom and privacy.

If we were talking taxes and why one tax system is better than another would that be a religious discussion? Tax systems embrace nearly all parts of our life including issues of social, government, and moral goodness and worth. Not just money, but ideology. The money lender fables are ubiquitous. The castigation to belief and faith is political and insular. Nothing more.

I saw this idiotic style present in computer wars where one side says they will never use Windows and another side says they will never use a Mac.  it became an all encompassing world view including the work environment (no Macs/PCs here), the real environment (the Green/Ruinous machine), and the user environment (ease of use, versus expert efficiency–doer vs tinkerer). More people spend time on their computers than in church by far. After awhile I wanted to make both of them use an abacus and pencil again.

Football, sewing circles, book clubs, all become quasi-religions by this measure. Which is nonsense. Religion is not the definition of social structure, it is an example of it.

When you hear someone whine faith or belief it is nothing more than a shield to halt discussion.

Jim Newman, www.frontiersofreason.com


The Myth of Religious Violence

religious violenceRebuilding windows yesterday, a neighbor came over and said our horses had got out again. Our fences are difficult to maintain with deer breaking through them, trees crashing down, and lightning strikes destroying fence charges. I got them back without using halters. They are like little kids prancing around me, fighting for position close to the snacks I brought. I wish I had the time to spend with them. They enjoy the company and like to work. Today I must go chainsaw up the fallen trees and repair fence. Yet, I linger on this device unhappy that Karen Armstrong’s big reviews are almost always positive.

With 2-3 politicians openly atheist, it’s hard to imagine that atheists are such a cultural problem. With so much damnation that if secularism were true it would catch on like a smart phone… With popular atheists acting as wrongly sexist, and more so than the general population, her arguments will no doubt appeal.

It is quite unlikely that I will read “Fields of Blood” by Karen Armstrong. Perhaps it’s because I haven’t agreed with what she has said so far. Perhaps, it is because I am on a limited budget or what seems limited to me. The reviews of her book appear in the Guardian, the Spectator, Kirkus, the Telegraph, the Scotsman, and whyevolutionistrue. The Scotsman states her premise

Armstrong is right – very right – to point out that all societies are founded on theft and intimidation, and that a systemic violence underpins and upholds the concept of civilisation itself. That we have science, art, culture, engineering, cities and philosophy at all is bought by the blood of billions of anonymous humans who died tens of thousands of years ago.

The growing trend of excusing religion and attacking secularism often pins on the insistence that cultural, political, material, and biological reasons create the massive violence, xenophobia, misogyny, and general dishonesty in the world.

The difficulties ensue. If religions don’t foster violence, or provide cover to violent urges, how do we begin the discussion with those who say their violence is most definitely for religious reasons?

Relating that religions were never separate from culture before the axial age is a bit like saying there has always been science even in hunter-gather culture because they saw things and made hypotheses, tested them, and then kept what was true or useful. It’s true but doesn’t describe the evolution of science in culture. Perhaps we should eliminate the word religion and call the phenomenon “world view” and religion an industrial world view or commodified world view or politicized world view or what? It really doesn’t matter in helping decide whether modern or old religion is a cause of human violence and suffering. Certainly the trust in a shaman or sorcery that caused harm still caused harm just as the trust that a jealous god demands no competition creates harm.

Armstrong maintains there are secular wars that have nothing to do with religion, which is true in some cases. But saying Germany and Hitler had nothing to do with Judaism or religion is just plain false. Based on the belief that the Jews had a disproportion of wealth and intellectual accounts doesn’t mean Hitler and others did not see this religion as both a means of identity and a scourge. He certainly didn’t forgive marginalized, disenfranchises, or Jews that were by relation only. He certainly didn’t go after wealth, the means of achievement, or the basic support of the system that created the wealth. He went after a people, and a religion, because they were religious, and the people followed that hook.

Too many say that it is the action that is unsupported and the knowledge-base is irrelevant. Thievery is bad and whether they do it for need, religion, or life-vitality is most relevant. It is convenient to do this to allow some sort of acceptance of contrary views, or those who have left a view but value its tradition, but at some point you have to acknowledged that it is the knowledge base that empowers, delineates, and formalizes the action. Would Christians have gone for Jerusalem if they didn’t have a Christ they thought born there? More importantly what other outlet would there have been for their cultural and political issues? Certainly more peaceful outlets could occur. An individual, when losing their temper, can beat their spouse, kick the cat, go for a run, chop wood for the fire, meditate, or seek their therapist. Which you do makes all the difference in the world, and which you do depends on the culture that uses their religion or world view to define what is appropriate. Much like TV may not create violence but violent acts are copycated. If they had known a positive resolution they likely  have imitated that.

Religious rituals can embrace material causes. Marvin Harris rightly noted that pigs were hated after their habitat was gone. The aggressive and surviving animals wrecked havoc on cities, and became so great a nuisance, and so quick to replenish, that some massive cultural change was needed to prevent any outliers from starting the whole problem over again. A modern example would be to use religion to create universal vaccination without exception, or climate change prevention. This is why religious people call big tent issues religious. They seem all embracing, and evidence of a basic world view.

But this isn’t what secularists are saying. They do not say religion is bad because everyone follows one to create universal change. If the manifold and many religions of the world collide together there must be some sort of means of resolution to get things done that must be available to to all. Democracy requires a majority to agree, and that the balance of that tyranny is met by rights. The only way to do this with modern mobility is to not allow any one religion, culture, or politics to dominate. Does it matter if you call it a religion? If the people who vote say they are voting because their sacred text says so or their religious culture says so you do have to take them at their word. Yes, the religious view can be deconstructed to other causes to help the case; your religion says to stone adulterers, we don’t do that now. But there had better be some good reasons not to other than it just seems better not to, or my religion says no to stoning. Discussion has to center around whether stoning is effective or desired, and why, in a way that everyone can relate to, or make some sort of effective opinion, or create change. Reasoning must have a place or we might as well stop talking.

Reasoning itself is an antidote to outright violence. Religions deny the value of reason for sorcery, magic, and the primacy of the subjective experience as universal.

The push against essentialism and biology holds to a point. We wish to avoid stereotyping and not treat individuals as such. Why? It is easy to mistake the motivations and reasoning of the person(s) involved. If there are 10, 20, or 100 variables that make up a person’s decision process, focusing on the ones you think they may be jumps to conclusion. Yet, acknowledging that biological anger (if it exists) or patriarchy (if it is cultural) are very real systemic or endemic problems helps inform remediation and restoration. If a culture shows great evidence that sexual predation has a high recidivism then those crimes and restitution would be different than thievery which shows to have low recidivism. That this is a state or dynamic issue acknowledge that it could eventually be different and require knew rules and processes. It is also wrong to assume that every sexual predator will be recidivistic. If you don’t know the actual reasons you have to have multiple resolutions until you do. And some things become so serious they monopolize the conversation.

The modern difficulty is the abstraction of knowledge of the individual to laws that apply to all. In once case Jill makes a bad mistake, really knows better, and will unlikely do it again. In another, Joe may be going to do it again without question. It’s one of the reasons that analysis of character applies in sentencing and even in assessing guilt. In societies where people no longer closely associate with each other it is near impossible to provide good analysis. The easiest solution is the demand to follow authority, whether it’s a person, a people, a law, or a culture. Indeed the current trend to virtue ethics is just that. To divorce the individual from having to reason, which is time consuming. It makes sense as a way of treating people as whole units and not judge by ether personality, situation, or motivation. We simply don’t care because it’s about building a character that generates good action.

But that may not be helpful in the long run. Virtue of care, healing everyone becomes dust when care is met by retaliation, destroying the caregiver. People, need their reasons and so called emotions. Change also creates outliers and outlier communities that are going to create friction. Mobility has to give way to creating consensus for decisions that affect multiple disparate groups and some will not be pleased. A misogynist being told they are naturally that way, or that their sacred text caused them to be that way, is not going to create the change until they recognize themselves that they are even misogynistic. You have to sling a bunch of causes to them and assume that what sticks is at least a start. We have to deal with individuals, their individual reasons, and somehow create a coherent, effective,  society that spans across religions, cultures, politics, biology, situations, and environment.

If a religion says to do something for some reason we must address that just as secularists must address their own issues of, for example, embedded sexism. If atheism really means “no gods” and nothing more that is as vapid as saying everything is field and energy. How are you going to grow corn with that? There is a way. It means understanding the structures entailed by the ideology as it is experienced now and observed by others.

Jim Newman, www.frontiersofreason.com


“Me and Dog,” Moral Atheism

me and dogThe Concord Monitor reviews the children’s book “Me and Dog.” It includes parts of an interview of its author Gene Weingarten.

Q: How did you come to write this book?

A: I stepped on my dog’s foot. That actually happened. The whole book was created in four seconds of insight. My dog – like the one in the book – is named Murphy. I stepped on her foot, she howled and then asked me, clearly: “What have I done wrong? What did I do? I won’t do it again.” The whole idea flashed in my mind: I am her God!

The allegory sprung to mind. That there is a controlling presence. That we can importune him with favors. That all things happen for a reason. We may not understand the reason, but somebody up there does. This is a book that is a sweet little book. It’s not hectoring anyone, but it’s trying to start a conversation with a very young person: What if things happen just because? Is that something to fear? And the book says: No, we have each other, we have love and the world is full of endless possibilities. Why should that be frightening?

Much of my life involves working and being with animals. I have often wondered if the god-human relationship came from this differential in power and lack of understanding. More easy has it been for me to see how humans could be animists considering themselves and animals to be on a more level field of consciousness and sense of  interchangeable identity. This has long been pushed aside as anthropomorphism but many have to acknowledge the growing evidence that humans really aren’t so different.

But when that god becomes all powerful then I have to wonder if that isn’t the result of oppression. It works both ways. You can either feel arrogant that you’re master of all or you can feel puny and just a small cog. And all of the steps in between.

…One of the best-selling books today is Todd Burpo’s Heaven Is for Real, about Burpo’s son who claims he went to heaven. Why are we troweling that kind of crap into the heads of our kids? This book is an alternative to that, it is an antidote to Heaven Is for Real. . . . I hate the fact that Heaven Is for Real is a runaway best-seller.

Atheists always get this question: How can you be an ethical, moral person? Which is annoying and insulting. It demonstrates a fundamental disconnect. Do you really need fear of hell to make you do good, moral things? I don’t need to fear the devil to do good. I know that it’s fundamentally right to do good. And that’s what I tried to teach my children. I have ethical and moral children.

For me and animals it has meant spending more time communicating, trying to make myself clear, while trying to listen to them. It really has nothing to do with religion but more to do with relationships with those who are sufficiently different than you as to make communication, understanding, and empathy difficult.

Q: You say you “want to start a conversation.” Is this advocacy? Is that you?

A: I’m not that earnest. I wanted to do a really entertaining book that didn’t patronize children and that made a very gentle statement. If there is no deity, and that’s what we have, that’s not a frightening thing. The world is full of beauty and hope and we should treat one another with respect and love, and that’s a pretty great situation.

Empathy and tolerance are popular words these days as is love but it doesn’t address the very sticky issues of moral choices that define ourselves and the future. I am sure climate deniers and vaccine deniers are sincere they are saving mankind from unnecessary pain. Decisions of great consequence must be made.

In the various atheist circles a tremendous amount of energy is being spent to deal with the higher than average amount of sexism in their groups. Too many say atheism is nothing more than no belief in gods. If that is so then how can they possibly also say that being atheist does’t make you immoral, atheists are moral too. You simple wouldn’t know either way. Not a good position statement. Nor particularly accurate. Atheists would do well to abandon the “no gods only” definition and begin to reason just which morals atheism entails.

Jim Newman, www.frontiersofreason.com

Pope Says Extremists Pervert Religion

jesus and hellThe Pope like so many is determined to show that it is the perversion of religion that explains extremism. Many extremists say they are being more true to their religion. Should we believe them or their apologists?

“Let no one consider themselves the ‘armor’ of God while planning and carrying out acts of violence and oppression,” he said in the presidential palace in Tirana, responding to an address by Albanian President Bujar Nishani, who is Muslim.

The Bible and Koran are full of violence. It can’t be explained away. Even when placed in the context of history, what is to prevent someone from reading it and saying “See, we should do this again. We must return to the original.” There are no comments that say “don’t do this anymore.” The later stories, admonitions,  justify what came before or just add contradicting remarks, leaving it to the reader to decide–the big reason Catholics and others only want you to read selected sections, but refuse to edit the books as that would erode the dogmatic aspects of them being eternally true.

“May no one use religion as a pretext for actions against human dignity and against the fundamental rights of every man and woman, above all to the right to life and the right of everyone to religious freedom,” he said.

As long as it’s not women we’re talking about, and a bunch of other issues. As long as freedom means we can convert, evangelize, and threaten with damnation as we please. Do people really think the pope is saying be any religion you want? He’s a cosmic salesman saying any religion is OK but really you should buy mine? It’s like a perversion of a car salesman at a Ford conference saying all car brands are good, but hint, hint, GMCs are much better.

But extremism is all a mistake. A vicious perversion.

“This is especially the case in these times where an authentic religious spirit is being perverted by extremist groups and where religious differences are being distorted and instrumentalised,” said Francis.

It’s popular now among moderates to insist that this is true. That it is not ideology but culture, economics, desire to do great things, and reaction to conquest that causes extremism. Do they really think that if these sacred texts didn’t have images and words of violence, xenophobia, and misogyny, there would still be extremism using religion? If these texts were about flowers, flowing waters, being compassionate, and eschewing violence it would be damned hard if not impossible to pervert them to violent extremism. Here let me show you how to twist these flowers into a noose and strangle someone as it really says to do.

Some moderates see it as a tactic to get people to at least change their religion because they believe people can’t or won’t leave their religion. But they have no further strategy for going beyond the mental gymnastics required to make their texts and traditions humane. Soft religion is a methadone for the religious without a pathway to get rid of the methadone.

image source

Jim Newman, www.frontiersofreason.com

Air Force Changes Oath Policy

airmen oathWhat a night. Work late getting windows at L’foes. In bed, realize Pig the cat is locked out somewhere, on second floor porch. Took forever to figure that out. Then stray cat gets in house in early AM. Pig chases it. Pig gets put in room with me while ugliest stray cat ever gets chased out. Now Pig standing guard. I’m seeking coffee. Not looking forward to another stray cat extrication.

The Air Force has changed its mind on forcing reenlistments to say the oath.

The U.S. Air Force said Wednesday that enlisted members and officers are permitted to omit the phrase “so help me God” from their oaths if they so chose. In a statement Wednesday, the Air Force said it arrived at the decision after consulting with the Department of Defense General Counsel; last week an airman who was prohibited from re-enlisting until he uttered the phrase threatened to sue if the Air Force did not change their policy.

“We take any instance in which Airmen report concerns regarding religious freedom seriously,” Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James said in a statement. “We are making the appropriate adjustments to ensure our Airmen’s rights are protected.”

Really? Being threatened to be sued, and the huge media coverage might have something to do with it.

I tried to find a photo of group giving oath with someone declining. Nada. Had one local military person say he could opt in Army but when he did it was like he was the odd man out, and sore thumb of ranks.

Image source.

Jim Newman. www.frontiersofreason.com