Pat Condell on Aggressive Atheism

by cantleave 97 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  NewChapter

  a close paralell between atheistic (or anti-religious

  That would be saying that atheistic is anti-religious. That is not necessarily true. I don't think we should tell others what to believe or that they can't be part of a religion---unless of course they have the power to deny other people's human rights---then it is an issue. Rather than say you can't be a Muslim anymore, I as an atheist would say, you can't shoot little girls in the face anymore, or deny them education, or execute homosexuals. If you PERSONALLY don't want to act on your homosexuality, or don't want to go to school, then don't. But you cannot prevent others.
• 

  besty

  Incidentally, there IS a close paralell between atheistic (or anti-religious) forms of government and communism. It goes back all the way to Karl Marx.

  Some communists are atheists, therefore all atheists are....<complete stupid sentence here>
• 

  botchtowersociety

  So again I say - the real human rights advances have come from religions (and non atheistic governments) who have evolved their thinking toward human rights. Not from the atheists - and history is clear on that fact.

  Such progress has historically been through religious evolvements.

  Many atheists are adept at integrating all the good ideas and using all the good things a judeochristian culture has produced.

  We have remarked before that the parasites which live in the intestines of higher animals, feeding upon the nutritive juices which these animals supply, do not need either to see or hear, and therefore for them the visible and audible world does not exist. And if they possessed a certain degree of consciousness and took account of the fact that the animal at whose expense they live believed in a world of sight and hearing, they would perhaps deem such belief to be due merely to the extravagance of its imagination. And similarly there are social parasites, as Mr. A.J. Balfour admirably observes,[10] who, receiving from the society in which they live the motives of their moral conduct, deny that belief in God and the other life is a necessary foundation for good conduct and for a tolerable life, society having prepared for them the spiritual nutriment by which they live. An isolated individual can endure life and live it well and even heroically without in any sort believing either in the immortality of the soul or in God, but he lives the life of a spiritual parasite.

  http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/1/4/6/3/14636/14636.htm

  If the host organism dies, what will happen to the parasites?
• 

  NewChapter

  Nice, Botch. Except atheists aren't parasites. So bad analogy.
• 

  james_woods

  That would be saying that atheistic is anti-religious. That is not necessarily true. I don't think we should tell others what to believe or that they can't be part of a religion

  With this I can totally agree. I am not at all sure that Pat Condell agrees with it, however.

  Some communists are atheists, therefore all atheists are....<complete stupid sentence here>

  I never said anything of the sort. What I did say was this: The only large significant governments (so far) in human history which were based on atheistic values were the communistic ones. Their record on human rights is abysmal.

  The fact that they were communist (for the purpose of my argument) is aside from the point. My point was that their "atheism" did not create a good record on human rights. It is, of course, possible that future "atheistic" governments may do better...but I doubt this, if they do not provide the basic human right of freedom of religion.

  _________

  Incidentally, to ghe probable great relief of NewChapter and others - if I had been Captain Kirk and discovered the Aztecs cutting out human hearts, I would have put a stop to it then and there. Some of the arguments I have made here are rhetoric, not my personal views.
• 

  botchtowersociety

  It is, of course, possible that future "atheistic" governments may do better...but I doubt this, if they do not provide the basic human right of freedom of religion.

  If they did, they would not be atheistic.
• 

  james_woods

  Perhaps we should ask the question then, BTS - "Does Pat Condell support or deny freedom of religion"?
• 

  talesin

  The only large significant governments (so far) in human history which were based on atheistic values were the communistic ones.

  You are talking in circles, James.

  The more correct term for a communist government would be secular. The churches (significantly the Orthodox and Roman Catholic) were abolished by communist governments for reasons of finance and control. I'm sure that as an apparent reader of history, you must be aware of that. Let's not kid ourselves.

  There are 'large significant' secular governments (as NC already brought up) in Scandanavia where the people have the same rights as you and I, and MUCH greater social benefits.

  tal
• 

  botchtowersociety

  Perhaps we should ask the question then, BTS - "Does Pat Condell support or deny freedom of religion"?

  I think he supports it. What he is against is a religious imperialism, where there is an imposition. It seems to me that he has moderated over the past few years. This is an older video (in the OP). It does not strike that tone, nor does it appear to distinguish between categories of religious people. It is one thing to aggressively militate for freedom, yet another to do so against it.
• 

  james_woods

  Not exactly in circles, Talesin. There is a difference in what I would call a "secular" government and what I would call an "atheistic" one.

  The difference being that an atheistic government would try to suppress all religions and promote atheism - which in fact the Russian and Chinese communists did.

  My point still stands that the only significant and "atheistic" governments have proven to be at great fault on human rights issues.