Is it possible Atheism could turn into an Inquisition?

Following on from the highly disturbing 'manifesto' thread I have been thinking again about Harris's views that it is ok to kill people for certain beliefs and also the idea expressed earlier in that thread that atheists in Public Office cannot express their beliefs and adherence to atheism because of the religious-fundie hold on US life. As it is slightly a spin-off from the thread eulogizing Harris's manifesto I think a new one is necessary as this is not about Harris per se but rather the possibilities of violence and murder that his views seem to engender and, in some sense, glorify.

Harris's beliefs that murder is ok and the close correlation between his position and the Neocon one - in fact he has expressed support for the extreme-right won Dutch racist Gert Wilders so possibly he is more correctly place alongside traditional European racist movements than the US Neocon ideology - gives cause for concern about his 'manifesto' and the atheist agenda in general. I believe these factors add up to a chilling possibility that -given the right circumstances - should the current atheist fad gain sufficient traction and build up a power-base there may well be some sort of pogrom and 'Star Chamber' instituted that may well legitimize torture at the very least and judicial deaths at worst.

I do believe this is a real possibility. In fact, one may even see it as inevitable given the right conditions - hopefully they will not occur but let's look at the facts:

1) It is well known that when a Fundamentalist movement gains power it WILL seek to neutralize and eradicate the 'sinners' and, given the extreme nature of the view under consideration, this will involve murder. Though they will never call it that.

It happened with the Spanish Inquisition. It happened with the Nazis. It is happening now with Wahabi-sponsored Islamism.

There is no reason to believe - no 'evidence' hahahahah - that atheist Fundies will be any different should they gain power.

There are chilling indications they will be the same.

2) Exhibit A: Sam Harris. Atheist poster-boy and archetypal atheist role-model (hence this thread)

Harris believes it is ok to torture:


Note two things there: first the acceptance of torture but second - and this is the key: acceptance of torture in the light of the WAR ON TERROR


Ie: Harris accepts the ideology of the 'War on Terror" - accepts there is and can be such a things as the WOT and accepts its necessity. He also argues it is ETHICAL. Not even all right-wingers go that far. So we can position him nicely on the political spectrum. Hold that while we look at his other key positions...





So this is the position. It is a Neocon one for sure but that is not my point…my point is more about what atheists will do if they gain power and also the hypocrisy of their oft-stated position "religion is the cause of violence". Clearly that is a lie. Or else Harris is religious.

Also the opinions re Islam above by Harris are as noxious as those of most racists and Islamophobes, but they are also a lie and widely known to be untrue..they are therefore, irrational….it is not a 'religious obligation' to fight for Islam for example and of course he offers no proof of this because there is none. And also 'proof' is of course, something only religious-believers need to provide. But on….

3) A contention was made in the original Harris thread that "Atheists in political power cannot admit they are atheists in the US". Let's assume this is true.

When a religious Fundie behaves irrational, shows racism, expresses violent or murderous tendencies etc….then it will be obvious that this is being done by a religious fundie. Because of the above circumstance.

Now unless there are no atheists in government, when an ATHEIST does the equivalent (forget for a moment the idea that atheists could not or would not do 'bad things' or contemplate the Harris quotes again) it will not be obvious. In fact, no-one will know an atheist did anything at all.

Put another way: it is highly likely there are atheists in Government. given Harris's views above, it is highly likely they are devising schemes - perhaps even DID devise such things as Abu Ghraib etc - to kill Muslims and torture those they believe to be in need of it.

Or, if you prefer, just read again Harris's beliefs and imagine he was not a celebrity atheist but rather someone with the same beliefs he holds but in a military or other Governmental policy-making position.

Then imagine a legion of Harris's disciples moving on from the eradication of Muslims (by whatever means) and turning their attention to members of other faiths………

The possibilities are disturbing.

I didn't put a time limit on it. I'm just asking: is the propensity there?

Besides, it could happen quicker than you think. A few more ultra-high-profile terrorist attacks would accelerate the atheist hate for Islam for example and enable draconian legislation...

You do know about something called the Spanish Inquisition right? And you do know that the capitalization of the initial 'I' refers to it right?

We can assume that deep as the ignorance is in certain quarters on these forums the mis-education deos not perhaps stretch so far.

Which leaves us with a chilling:

My personal answer: I really hope so!

I expected deflection of Harris's comments from people who possibly agree with them but do not have the cajones to actually say so but I never thought an atheist would come out in agreement....

Bravo! Possibly the first time ever here someone in the anti-Islam/torture/hate group has actually admitted it instead of obfuscating to hide what everyone really knows. SOME sort of respect is due for that.

Just to check though..... please confirm you'd be happy to agree with Harris's Statements:


A simple yes or no will do.

Do you support the statements?

You'll be given time to expand on each of them later - perhaps even the anti-Islam ones if you can be coherent on that - but for now just a yes or no....

Yeah I get that...I was just kind of running it up the flagpole to see who salutes kind of thing...

I actually don't think atheism is a nutball belief - imo it is a legitimate path to enlightenment. But then I feel the same about religion.

It just seems that if you say that though then both sides will turn on you in tandem - bit like how if you see a woman being hit by her boyfriend and you step into help they'll BOTH start beating YOU up.

It's my theory that just as most Christians and Muslims aren't really Christians or Muslims at all (when judged by the teaching of the founder they claim to follow) then also most atheists aren't really atheist at all too.

I'm just checking and researching

Hi Trump, thanks for understanding what I was getting at. Actually you have hit the nail on the head and said it much better than I did.

I shouldn't have gone into the right-wing stuff you're right...I just could not resist it as it was such an open goal but it was probably a bit lame. It does detract I think because it is not the point.

I snipped a bit of your comments for space there but want to pick up from your general gist.

The reason I think one can take the structure away from atheism is exactly what you say: the stories don't have to be true (except that atheists and religious literalists claim they are MEANT to be understood literally) and it really doesn't matter.

I was thinking about this the other night watching the world cup. Argentina was playing and the commentator was saying how good Messi is and what an inspiration he is to kids wanting to play.

I live in Barcelona as you know and he is a God here - all kids want to be him and they are always playing football in the streets shouting "Messi!!!!!!!" when they score.

I was thinking how useful it is to have such a role-model if you aspire to some sort of greatness in sport (or anything). Some of those kids MAY grow up and be great players. They MAY play for Barca. It's possible and if they do then it will be because of their inspiration by Messi (or whoever).

I was thinking then that if Messi did not exist, if all the Barca players were crap, then it would be harder for those kids. They might still do it but it might be more of a struggle. maybe they'd do something else.

So in short, if Messi did not exist it might be necessary for this purpose to invent an equivalent. Or project the qualities you want on to someone. In this case, arguments about whether it was 'true' or 'proof' that 'Messi' does not exist would be missing the point.

That's how I see religion.... it's a method of making oneself better. Where it gets into 'absolutes' it tends to fail. I personally think change can only come on an individual level and that no 'changing the world' is possible or desirable. We each have our own goals and it's up to us to develop ourselves and achieve them if we want.

Conceptions of God can do this. So can Atheism....it really does not matter if it's true (though it may or may not be but that's a completely different area and dos not overlap imo) it's like using apples in learning to count.....you get told "2 apples plus 2 apples is four" and when you've grasped the concept you can move on.

Luckily, in education no-one storms in shouting "prove to me these apples exist!! Where are these apples - you do not have any".

So, to me, if atheism makes you develop and reach deeper understanding of the human condition and puts you in harmony with your fellow beings then fine..is 100% the correct path and no need for another. Same with religion or sex or anything at all.

If any of those things make you want to hate and kill or proclaim "the absolute truth" or 'convert' people to your view rather than allowing them to follow their own, then this is a sign there's a problem imo.

If there's no institution there cannot be a manifesto...but oh look...there is. And if there's a manifesto there'll be sheep to follow it.

And who knows? Maybe some wolves too?

As to your religious violence examples...love to see them (for the hundredth time) - Start a thread about it... with examples like I did for Harris above. I'll answer everyone one of them un like you when I post Harris's calls for violence.

In return you can give me your answer on these (2nd time you've avoided...go for a hat-trick):


Would like an opinion.

So far from the atheists we have Wormhole agreeing and actually wanting an Inquisition (whether you think there can be one or not if he's typical you'll probably get one anyway) and Tonton as the sole sane rationalist you claim all atheists are by definition.

What's your take on these comments?

Ok because it's Muslims suggested to be killed and tortured? Ok because Harris is an atheist? Or perhaps it does not go far enough?

Or maybe he should just keep quiet and that's the real problem - ok to believe it but don't blow your cover?

Land. Politics. Racism.


Absolutely. Pope = utter scumbag wanker.

No argument from me about his nature. He's worse than Harris in my book.

My argument is more about what you call religion.

You say that religion is the cause of war etc. Fine. Then you say Pope is representative of religion..problem.

Religion to me is the teaching of the founder. The Pope is the opposite of this in his religious case.

So that needs addressing. You either need to say there are TWO irrational phenomena - the 'religion' of he Pope and the opposite 'religion' of the founder - but then they may not have much in common as they are opposites.

Or else you focus on one. Saying they are the same thing is not really a very serious way of debating. It's ok if you're Wormhole or NoahJ but if you want to make a point....


In a way you have. I would respond exactly the same if we had Fundie Xians coming on here with Manifestos or sermons. Strangely (luckily) they don't do it. Which is odd given your contention religion is so rife.

If we did a straw poll - and I've monitored this - atheists have done far more thread starting on their 'theme' than any fundie here. But I don't make a distinction between the two.

So, yes, fundie-ist irrationality hits a nerve.... "I am down on fundys and I shant quit ripping them till I do get buckled"


It doesn't ensure rationality at all. In a way, much like religion, it is a product of irrationality.

That's all I'm saying.


Yes....but it's ducks in a row isn't it? I AGREE with you about Popes and fundies and all the rest of them so we can put them in Room 101.

Now we have Harris out of the way he can go in there too - with Wormhole for company.

Let's do Dawkins...or better still Hitchens.....you set 'em up...I'll show you the irrationalists.

Eventually it'll be just me, you and Tonton left standing so we'll have to find something else to talk about.

It's kind of not so funny but I get the point.

As you know I was brought up by fundies and a lot of it is not so funny. I saw an exorcism once when I was about 8...a woman was getting dragged around by her hair. I knew her well. She escaped the house and slashed her wrists on the window of a telephone box outside which she smashed with her shoe screaming all the time.

And I've seen much worse than that. You don't need to tell me about the dangers of irrational belief but also I know it is not religion either.

Not that this makes 'religion' good per se but there are very few religions that you could argue actually ALLOW violence.

If you wanted to debate it I think you'd be down to Islam, Judaism and perhaps the strand of Buddhism followed by the Dalai Lama.

We could debate those but it would have to be serious... and based in the Scriptural textual statements of the religion and most atheists don't dig this deep or want to.

The fact is though that any tribe or community that becomes 'exclusive' will become violent under certain circumstances when meeting the 'other' not of their tribe. Witness football hooligans.

There's nothing 'belief-based' about it.

Fine.

I'd like to see militant atheists and any other idiotic fundie go the way that these idiots have never gone and which is why the world is so fucked up.

You see the bottom line is that if you or other atheists did not actually push your agenda then you'd never know people like me exist - and that's how it should be.

I've got literally nothing to say unless I hear some bs that needs to be addressed.

Whether that is from atheist nuts or religious nuts is all the same to me. Just another loon telling me they have 'The Truth' and what they want should happen. Like you did above...in your first sentence.

I'm surprised you can't see it. But I guess it is not surprising - there is something in the system underpinning atheism and religiosity that blinds people to other options.

I think you would be freer if you developed yourself and expanded your view but the difference between you and me is that I am not telling you there is any reason why you should or that it would be better or even RIGHT.

meant to say the following but got off on a tangent:


Why?

Why is it not enough for you to quietly believe what you believe? Or know what you know if you prefer?


Which crowd? Who are they?

Every believer of every religion? Can you be more specific?

Are all religions the same in this regard?


Why not?

How do you know what I feel when I see the universe? Or what the Pope does? Or what Dawkins does?


It may not STEM from that but its proponents make it that.

Just like religion actually - which is the point I have made 1001 times and you have not yet addressed.

How can I honestly say it?

It's quite easy...all you need is a passing acquaintance with Christian theology.

This is exactly what I have been saying and I am glad someone has finally cottoned on to it.

When an atheist says 'religion' I am assuming they are are referring to BOTH these things:

a) The Teaching of the Founder - JC or whoever
b) The Teaching of the Churches and other institutions.

As you have said - and I agree and have been saying for post after post - these two things are not the same.

So if atheists when they say 'religion' mean B - I agree...I am totally with you.

If atheists mean A - then I disagree, would ask for evidence not related at all to B and would also ask "what about the excess of B?"

If atheists mean both - then I'd have to say that is irrational if one puts both as being subjected to the same criticism as - as you have conceded - they are two different and opposite things.

Ok..it's worse than I thought.

Note to self: even if an atheist seems to be making a rational point....DON'T RECOGNIZE IT....