The X virtuous men of history or whatever

[Starmaker]

Dude, the Cathars and millions of people still died...

I'm not arguing they didn't die. In fact, I brought it up first in a thread on Tome of Virtue in IMHO. I'm arguing that it was genocide, not religious persecution. The latter idea arose in late 1800s by what Pegg terms arguing from silence (the more conventional term is "making shit up"). History has, well, a history of making shit up.

Example: there was a guy named Pythagoras, leader of what supposedly was a mystic cult that concerned itself with fundamental principles like "when thou gets up, thou shalt first put thy left foot on the floor then thy right one lest giant frog cometh and eateth thee". However, the fact is the earlist mentions of these superstitions (akousmae) date back to some three centuries after Pythagoras's death, and Pythagoras already had a hard time being ridiculed by contemporaries for his belief in reincarnation - imagine what excellent material akousmae would have provided if they were real.

There's no evidence of an alternative Church active in Provence at the time of the Albigensian Crusades. It wasn't even invented by crusaders as a reason for the invasion (see WMD in Iraq) because Catholics were utterly devoid of elementary logic and did not need a logical reason.

Example: a man gets attacked by a (supposedly devilish) cat. A sane religious person would think, "That man must be especially virtuous if the devil assaults him". But no, their radars scream, "Attention everyone! Easy target detected!" and the man gets burned for heresy.

The Albigensian Crusade was sparked by the murder of a papal legate, but the actual reason was that the Provencals were peaceful, wore tight clothes and yellow boots and had their own religious customs, i.e. were easy targets.

"We'll murder your people until you confess your sins!"
"Ok, I confess, just stop the madness already!"
"Aha, so you ARE a heretic! Kill everyone! Blood for the blood god!"

...all these atrocities we're talking about are not just because of religion, or nationalism or whatever, it's all resource acquisition or an expression of power to make future resource acquisitions easier.

Absolutely true, but no one appeals to logic while preparing for an act of mass murder, otherwise some of the perpetrators might empathize with the victims and even voice concern that they might very well be next in line.

And as far as the legends of the Cathars are concerned, perhaps religious persecution was a topic historians were more comfortable with than genocide. Or maybe people wanted to see a secret society where none existed because that would imply the crusaders had failed in their horrible mission and the noble and righteous Cathars yet survive, somehow - and the rise of mysticism provided more than enough "heirs".

Finally, Pegg's book is not "omg sekrit history" and not a naked attempt to earn cash. No "modern historians are fucking stupid or maliciously disinformative" remarks from Pegg - in fact, he's somewhat happy that the legends exist because they make people interested in actual history, like several archeologists mentioned the positive effect of the Indiana Jones franchise on the popularity of actual archaeology.

Every marketing specialist except those employed by WotC would tell you that de-mystifying is not a good marketing strategy. Mundane evil does not sell well, especially the evil that's being committed as we speak (to quote Frank: Evil, if defined as "things we don't like", is pretty much exclusively composed of things we don't like), but a mystery about ancient conspiracies and religious persecution of which the Western civilization is gloriously free (yay!) makes for an excellent bedtime story.

A Most Holy War (2007) by Mark Gregory Pegg: Amazon.com Sales Rank: #413,945 in Books
The Da Vinci Code (2003) by Dan Brown: Amazon.com Sales Rank: #5,390 in Books

Also, I'm a girl.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

On the Cathars: to the best of my recollection, they were a bunch of hard core aesthetics who likely were not big art producers or lovers.

Nitpick: I think you mean "aescetics."

[PhoneLobster]

Anti-religious atheism is just as bad (if not worse) a form of bigotry as many of the things people complain about religious people doing.

Remember everybody, this is important.

Religions have killed and repressed uncountable numbers of humans since before recorded history and religious fanatics will beat, oppress and kill you for marrying wrong, looking wrong, having sex wrong, creating art wrong, using a mobile phone on the wrong day of the week or just plain not being one of them.

But atheism is just as bad maybe even WORSE because atheists make religious people feel bad by pointing this out.

Well. I suppose that's the sort of further conclusion that is inevitable when you wholeheartedly accept the stupid argument that the potential for unknown evil automatically justifies any known evil. Since after all if stuff which never even happened is equally as, or more evil, than say mass religious genocide, why then making someone feel bad about committing or supporting mass religious genocide is ALSO clearly just as or more evil.

[mean_liar]

Atheism isn't bad unto itself, but when you remove religion from the public sphere it gets replaced by something else. Usually that something else gets abused and flogged and rationalized just as much as religion did, until a few centuries later everybody just kind of admits, "hey colonialism was really awful", without realizing that in the meantime they've replaced that with something else, and something else, and something else, each one just as bad as the previous one.

In terms of genocide, modern governments have been killing more than anyone previously. It's not because modern governments are inherently evil, but because they're in charge and genocide and mass killing is the most effective way to get what you want as a nation if your target is close and industrialization has made it much easier to kill people. Nuclear war is another proposition that creates brakes on similar activities continuing today, but that's fear, not humanism, to the rescue.

The point isn't that it's religion that's inherently bad or evil, but that organizations are powerful and generally don't overly worry about mass murder. The fact that Europe was effectively ruled by the Catholic church for 1200 years or so means that they rightfully get the blame for the awful things that happened in that time frame, but those awful things didn't uniquely happen because a religion was calling the shots.


...


Starmaker - everyone on the internet is a guy. True story.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I know I get attacked for this, but I just don't think that humans are inherently not violent and stupid and something makes them that way as an outside source.

I don't think religion makes people violent, I think violent people invent religion to justify themselves. If the church after the fall of Rome wasn't stomping art and science in the dirt, people would have invented something to justify them stomping art and science in the dirt.

Too many people here seem to have taken "The Devil" from abramaic myth and just assigned him a new office. The Devil isn't some outside force making us evil, nor is it organized religion. Evil is within all of us, we just need to proper motivation.

[Crissa]

As a percentage of population, though, modern governments keep far more people, art, and culture around, too.

And you'll be surprised to find a pluralistic culture tends towards governments in which... There are no pogroms, no ethnic cleansing, etc.

The US government is a model for this - a strange one, but one none the less - that as less religion is allowed at the top and more communications as to what they're doing, less outright murder happens. Each successive war is further and further apart and the people tolerate killing far fewer in them. Even at home this is true, with fewer lynchings and posse justice. Not that it doesn't happen any more, but it's far rarer than it once was.

Secularists are nice to each other out of social contract. Religionists aren't. It's really that simple.

-Crissa

PS - Starmaker doesn't have an avatar, nor a gendered name. Also, in California, 'Dude' is non-gendered. No, really. Unless you really want to be a dude-ette.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Ah, but are secularists nice because they are secularists, or do nice people just happen to be secularists?

Also, are religionists assholes because of their faith, or do assholes just create belief structures that tell them it's okay to be assholes?

I'm not arguing against correlation, but correlation is not the same thing as causation.

[Username17]

The Danes.

With Religion (Wotanism):


With Religion (Christianity):


Secular:




The people who brought you the viking invasions when they were religious are now the most secular, and coincidentally happiest and least violent people on Earth.

-Username17

[Caedrus]

Okay, so I've been looking through statistics and studies, and here's the thing...

Points for the atheists:
-By far less people in prison per capita.
-Positive correlation between lack of religiosity and average IQ. And vice versa.
-Count the nobel prize winners. Compare to any other group.
-Surprisingly, less divorce rate amongst atheists, even though they don't have a divine mandate to stay married or anything like that.

So yeah, I'm finding it hard to believe these arguments that "secular people would still be just as violent." All studies I've looked at actually show a positive correlation between atheism and non-violence, science, IQ, low crime rates, and even lower divorce rates.

And of course, like Frank said. The Danes are super-happy super-peaceful, and super-non-religious. Back when they were religious, they'd hack your head off for a shiny thing.

I can't think of any examples to support the assertion others have made for where "whenever people turn secular some more distorted thing comes up and replaces it that is just as bad as religion." Except maybe the French Revolution, if you try really, really hard to argue that stuff like their "rational supreme being" and so forth were really representative of atheism, instead of Robespierre and others revolutionary leaders being complete assholes.

Ah, but are secularists nice because they are secularists, or do nice people just happen to be secularists?

Also, are religionists assholes because of their faith, or do assholes just create belief structures that tell them it's okay to be assholes?

I'm not arguing against correlation, but correlation is not the same thing as causation.

I will argue for causation, if you'd like. There are just TONS of things in religion (perhaps ESPECIALLY the Abrahamic religions) that strongly encourage violence, unreason, stagnation, hatred, apathy, hypocrisy, willful ignorance, prejudice, even destruction of the environment. Moreover, major religions tend to employ blatant and powerful brainwashing tactics, which is absolutely a direct cause for people following these negative guidelines.

Unfortunately I gotta elaborate on all that later, because I need to leave now...

[mean_liar]

Other non-religious governments included Maoist China and the Soviet Union.

Those are only the actively atheist countries, though - the real measure is when a theocracy or religiously-supported government is replaced by a secular government.

The same competition for resources exists.

Most peaceful countries are peaceful because they're happy capitalists with no need to compete for resources.

[Maj]

I can't think of any examples to support the assertion others have made for where "whenever people turn secular some more distorted thing comes up and replaces it that is just as bad as religion."

China? Russia? North Korea?

Hmm... I'm seeing a correlation here. Obviously Asians are assholes.

[Username17]

I can't think of any examples to support the assertion others have made for where "whenever people turn secular some more distorted thing comes up and replaces it that is just as bad as religion."

China? Russia? North Korea?

Hmm... I'm seeing a correlation here. Obviously Asians are assholes.

North Korea is a theocracy. There is state mandated ancestor worship and the head of state is a dead man who nominally leads the nation from beyond the grave through magic signals that he gives to his son.

China is... an interesting case. While they don't follow any western recognized religion, it s still essentially the Imperial Cult. It's a complex situation and I don't think it has clear statements in support of pro-religious or anti-religious sentiments.

Russia improved across the board when they went Stalinist. I live in Eastern Europe and study its history a lot, and I can tell you without fear of contradiction that all of the crazy crap that people complain about with the Soviets was actually a literal improvement over what came before. It's basically Peter the Great's Bureaucracy run amok, but it's been doing that for hundreds of years. At least under the Soviets they started writing it down and giving a shit when people starved.

-Username17

[Psychic Robot]

Ah, but are secularists nice because they are secularists, or do nice people just happen to be secularists?

Also, are religionists assholes because of their faith, or do assholes just create belief structures that tell them it's okay to be assholes?

I'm not arguing against correlation, but correlation is not the same thing as causation.

All people are assholes. The idea that secularists are happy-go-lucky and tolerant is a myth. They're simply intolerant assholes in different ways, and they're less likely to tell you that you're going to hell.

Anyway, what people seem to be ignoring in these analyses--I hesitate to call them that out of the fear of giving them anything that might be considered merit--is the history and demographics of the countries. The United States is a nation of war. Our ancestors were ready to fight for what they believed in, and that's been passed down from generation to generation: be prepared and willing to fight.

Then again, let's look at Denmark this way:

You're surrounded by people who believe what you believe. You have free healthcare, you live in areas with a relatively low population density, and your climate isn't blazing hot in the summers. What's not to like?

Then there's the States:

You're surrounded by people who often times don't believe what you believe. You're in a constant culture war against those people who don't believe what you believe--on gay marriage, on abortion, on stem cell research, and on the myriad of other issues that come up in politics. You live in cramped quarters; you're probably squeezed into the city alongside a thousand other people. You might not have adequate health care, and for fuck's sake, it gets hot in the summer. And you can get guns.

I'll tell you what. Put a group of Christian fundamentalists in the conditions of Denmark and put a group of atheists in the condition of America. See which ones end up being happier.

EDIT: I should also add that religion itself is used as a balm by those who need to soothe their consciences. Do you think that slavery was an institution supported by Christianity? Of course not. (There's an entire book in the Bible about freeing slaves, you know.) Do you think that people became slave owners because they read in their Bibles that slavery is a good thing? Of course not. Rather, you had people who took slaves as part of a societal norm, and they used Christianity as their tool to excuse their wickedness.

"See, it says here in the Good Book that a slave should obey his earthly master, and you coloreds are cursed into bondage as the descendants of Ham, so you best get workin' if you know what's good for you."

To paraphrase Harriet Beecher Stowe, if slavery suddenly became economically unfeasible or socially unacceptable, you would hear the same pastors who defended slavery with the Bible turn to attack it.

[Caedrus]

Do you think that slavery was an institution supported by Christianity? Of course not. (There's an entire book in the Bible about freeing slaves, you know.)

There is an entire book about freeing Jews because Yahweh is a racist who likes the Jews best and who works in "mysterious ways" like mass scale child murder. There are plenty of lines in the Bible that actually do endorse slavery and people would reference them in the slavery debate.

But yeah, feel free to just make shit up, PR. I mean you contradict this sentiment later in your own post:

"See, it says here in the Good Book that a slave should obey his earthly master, and you coloreds are cursed into bondage as the descendants of Ham, so you best get workin' if you know what's good for you."

To paraphrase Harriet Beecher Stowe, if slavery suddenly became economically unfeasible or socially unacceptable, you would hear the same pastors who defended slavery with the Bible turn to attack it.

And of course, this follows the entire notion that the Bible is just used as a source to justify whatever the brainwasher wants from you. You can seriously defend just about any side of an argument by referencing the Bible because it is a relentlessly crappy book that doesn't actually stand for anything consistent other than "do what I tell you."

[Psychic Robot]

There is an entire book about freeing Jews because Yahweh is a racist who likes the Jews best and who works in "mysterious ways" like mass scale child murder. There are plenty of lines in the Bible that actually do endorse slavery and people would reference them in the slavery debate.

Translation: "I am a gigantic [EDITED] who won't actually address anything important that PR wrote. Instead, I will piss and moan about the Bible, bawwww."

And of course, this follows the entire notion that the Bible is just used as a source to justify whatever the brainwasher wants from you. You can seriously defend just about any side of an argument by referencing the Bible because it is a relentlessly crappy book that doesn't actually stand for anything consistent other than "do what I tell you."

More bawwing. Did you have something useful to say, or would you like to start a new thread crying about ebil Xtians?

[Crissa]

Strangely, there are many groups in America which are secular (a large portion of the population) and a large group (over 10% of the general population) who are atheist.

Strangely, they seem to be able to suffer all those problems and still have lower proportion of the criminal population.

Weird, huh?

-Crissa

[Psychic Robot]

What's weirder is not taking into account devoutly religious folks and "nametag" religious folks. For instance, the aforementioned Denmark has a very irreligious society, but many of the population there are considered Lutheran.

And, amazingly, when atheists in a society are the minority, they are also the minority in prison.

[Crissa]

The word 'proportion' does not mean what you think it means. Admittedly, that means that not only do atheists not get imprisoned at the same rate of the nation, it means that while discriminated against, police or systemic discrimination is not what they suffer.

But that's sorta how blacks and latinos get arrested more often than gay and lesbians; yet they still are equally or disproportionally discriminated against in other areas.

Yes, fewer atheists are convicted of crimes than any other religion population that exists at more than a percentage of the population in the US. Strangely, the 'refuse to state' group is 20% in both.

-Crissa

[Psychic Robot]

I suppose you're right. Similarly, blacks make up a disproportionate percentage of the prison population. I guess we can assume that being black makes you more likely to commit a crime.

That's the logic you're using.

EDIT: Thread doesn't look broken to me.

[Caedrus]

There is an entire book about freeing Jews because Yahweh is a racist who likes the Jews best and who works in "mysterious ways" like mass scale child murder. There are plenty of lines in the Bible that actually do endorse slavery and people would reference them in the slavery debate.

Translation: "I am a gigantic [EDITED] who won't actually address anything important that PR wrote. Instead, I will piss and moan about the Bible, bawwww."

And of course, this follows the entire notion that the Bible is just used as a source to justify whatever the brainwasher wants from you. You can seriously defend just about any side of an argument by referencing the Bible because it is a relentlessly crappy book that doesn't actually stand for anything consistent other than "do what I tell you."

More bawwing. Did you have something useful to say, or would you like to start a new thread crying about ebil Xtians?

Boy, I can't argue with that. I mean, I addressed what you said, but truly, it wasn't anything important that you said. Your logic is irrefutable, your case ironclad. You totally win, PR.

Seriously, how is what you just did any different than Roy going "hurk durk hurk, hurk durk hurk"? There is no excuse for acting like that, PR. And you're not intimidating anyone by throwing a little tantrum.

And, amazingly, when atheists in a society are the minority, they are also the minority in prison.

Like Crissa said, you don't seem to understand what people are saying here. We are talking about less people in prison per capita.

I suppose you're right. Similarly, blacks make up a disproportionate percentage of the prison population. I guess we can assume that being black makes you more likely to commit a crime.

That's the logic you're using.

Ah, I forgot the part where atheism was a race, not a system of beliefs (or lack thereof).

But of course, if I were to call that an unfair analogy that does not accurately represent Crissa's logic, that would just be bawwing about the unimportant things you say.

Anyways, for the sake of argument, let's say that the disproportionate black prison population is a direct result of discrimination against minorities with bad reputations in the overall culture they live in, and that's the whole of it.

So now how do you explain that atheists, despite being a minority with a bad reputation (godless, no source of morals, etc) are at the exact opposite end of the scale, representing such a significantly smaller part of the prison population? We're talking more than 10% of the population representing less than 1% of the prison population (whereas with, say, Christians, you've got a far more even ratio). Is there some extreme prejudice in American culture that atheists are stand-up guys that you shouldn't convict? Because I'm just not seeing it.

From my perspective, it seems that atheists are having a significantly lower per capita prison population despite discrimination.

What is your explanation for these statistics? What about others we've referenced?

Anti-religious atheism is just as bad (if not worse) a form of bigotry as many of the things people complain about religious people doing.

Remember everybody, this is important.

Religions have killed and repressed uncountable numbers of humans since before recorded history and religious fanatics will beat, oppress and kill you for marrying wrong, looking wrong, having sex wrong, creating art wrong, using a mobile phone on the wrong day of the week or just plain not being one of them.

But atheism is just as bad maybe even WORSE because atheists make religious people feel bad by pointing this out.

[Heath Robinson]

The two facts are related. Nobel prize winners don't go to prison. Well educated, middle class people don't go to prison. People are more likely to self-identify as atheists after being exposed to non-mandatory education, and the middle class are more likely to have children that attend institutes of higher learning.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Hmm... I'm seeing a correlation here. Obviously Asians are assholes.

Every asian I know says this. Except most of them phrase it as "Except us, we're cool".

I dated a chinese girl when I was in high school a couple of times who only dated white guys because it pissed her father off so much. (His father never discrininated based on race as far as I could tell, but he was racists as fuck).

[Count Arioch the 28th]

The Danes.
The people who brought you the viking invasions when they were religious are now the most secular, and coincidentally happiest and least violent people on Earth.

-Username17

I'm not arguing the correlation, it's obvious that there is. And I'm not arguing that religious people aren't a danger. I'm saying that it's possible that violent and stupid people invent ways of thinking that justify them in being violent and stupid.

Self improvement is hard. The very first step is admitting that you've acted like a cock up to this point, then change the behavior. Change is also hard, and most people don't train themselves to adjust to it quickly.

All that's hard. It's just easier to make up reasons as to why you don't have to change because an invisible man tells you it's okay. I'm arguing it's possible that violent people gravitate towards abramaic religions instead of abramaic religions making people violent.

[tzor]

The Danes.

Gosh Frank, and here I was thinking it was all that legal pot and prostitution that made the Danes so mellow today. (And that "Damm Good Bier") I mean those Norsemen would have never gone to Vineland if they only had a little smoke and sex every so often.

But it was obviously the notion of religion that made them seek out the Birts and Irish for pillage and rape.

[mean_liar]

It was a throwaway argument and an excuse to toss up some images.

A better, more pertinent one is this: