Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: It would be wrong to expect atheists or antitheists to answer for a murderer who used those labels. [View all]gcomeau
(5,764 posts)76. Well, you got the thread title right at least...
And then it immediately went wrong.
"It would be equally wrong to blame someone who honors the Bible and interprets it non-violently for someone else's interpretation that justifies violence."
No, it would not be anywhere near equally wrong. Because you see people who hold their religious beliefs based on the bible as holy text have a common set of doctrines that are supposed to regulate their moral and ethical behavior as a collective group.
The. Bible.
And if members of that group are using those doctrines to justify murderous and atrocious behavior, which happens on a regular basis, it is at the very least justified to expect the rest of the group to engage in some pushback or explanation defending the practical impact of those doctrines being advocated as something people are supposed to use to guide their lives.
The reason it is ridiculous to hold the set of all atheists responsible for the actions of any one individual atheist is because there is no such shared set of doctrines or beliefs. The one, single, solitary, ONLY unifying characteristics all atheists share that makes them atheists is that they do not believe God exists. the end. That's it. Atheism does not have a holy text.
So holding them all responsible for the actions of one would be be exactly as stupid as holding all non stamp collectors responsible for the actions of Timothy McVeigh because he also didn't collect stamps. Even though stamp collecting or not stamp collecting has no discernible relationship to the morality of blowing up government buildings full of people.
Or holding everyone who doesn't believe in Bigfoot responsible for the actions of the 9/11 hijackers because they also didn't believe in Bigfoot. Because clearly believing or not believing in Bigfoot has some relationship to whether a person will think it is acceptable to fly planes into buildings.
That's stupid. I think that's obvious.
But that is not the case when we are talking about pretty much any religion, which are absolutely saturated in claims to provide moral guidance to their believers.
Or are you arguing that being a Christian (for example) has no relationship or relevance whatsoever to what moral philosophies the practitioners of that religion embrace? That Christianity has *nothing to say* on the matter of morals? Noting to be found in that book you mentioned that bears on moral behavior? Or... alternatively... that the bible is not the common holy text all Christians are supposed to be paying attention to but rather just some random book that some of them may like but which has nothing to do with them being Christians?
Because either of those would be a really fascinating argument to hear you try and make.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
112 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It would be wrong to expect atheists or antitheists to answer for a murderer who used those labels. [View all]
Htom Sirveaux
Feb 2015
OP
Clearly some people are very uncomfortable with this subject and they should not be.
hrmjustin
Feb 2015
#1
Simplistic, tunnel vision misses a larger picture. Equating theists with the KKK is a cheap shot.
pinto
Feb 2015
#15
I feel a murderer should be held personably responsible if convicted in a court of law.
pinto
Feb 2015
#6
Where are the ancient atheist texts containing exhortations to violence, part and parcel with
AtheistCrusader
Feb 2015
#7
I'm glad you agree, but then I don't see where I've committed a false equivalency.
Htom Sirveaux
Feb 2015
#13
Because there's no connection between atheism and any other ideology, violent or not.
AtheistCrusader
Feb 2015
#26
What were the websites general message? end all religion by force or argument?
hrmjustin
Feb 2015
#31
You may be right, but, that sort of speculation and the undoubtable 24x7
AtheistCrusader
Feb 2015
#63
Is it prejudice when the guy who these three religions claim as their founder was a monster?
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2015
#25
I understand that atheism is not functionally equivalent to an entire religion.
Htom Sirveaux
Feb 2015
#30
While I, in general, agree that individuals are not responsible for the actions of others...
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2015
#32
I don't like interpretations of religious texts that justify violence either.
Htom Sirveaux
Feb 2015
#35
Its not so much interpretation as it is what you decide to selectively focus on...
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2015
#46
Feel free to reinterpolate Deut. 7.1-2; 20.16-18 into something other than god-mandated violence.
AtheistCrusader
Feb 2015
#58
I will. My tolerance level for the personal stuff is very low after the past 24 hours.
hrmjustin
Feb 2015
#91
Would it be wrong to expect LGBT activist to answer for a murderer who advocated for
Warren Stupidity
Feb 2015
#80