Religion: The Methamphetamine of the Masses...

...religion is a harder drug, one that makes people do harder, more unsavory things than just sitting around bleary eyed and happy. Like killing people.

I continue to be fascinated at how some ScienceBloggers go all gaga when they rant about religion, and how they abandon just about all notion of arriving at evidence-based conclusions.

I've read the stories behind the links given, and if there's any evidence given that religion caused this, I can't see it.

How did you conclude this? Or was this just a kneejerk reaction - "creationist stabbed someone .... obviously religion made him do it."

Scott, you miss the point of these types of posts. Religion's apologists insist that only through the "guiding light" of religions can there be any morality. Religion is supposed to ameliorate bad behavior. The bloggers who comment on the violence incited by the religious is a clear indication that religion provides no such guiding light.

People are people, they do bad things no matter their religious positions. Religion has had enough millenia to improve the human condition and it not only has failed to do so, but it has often made thing worse.

So, if religion didn't make the creationist stab someone, neither did it prevent said murder.

Is that easy enough?

Scott Belyea writes:

I've read the stories behind the links given, and if there's any evidence given that religion caused this, I can't see it.

Well, the article says that "an argument between York and the pair about creationism versus evolution escalated into a shouting match" and that "York had taken a more biblical view of history". From this, I infer that York is a pro-creation christian. The York-Boa argument was defused and then "it became inflamed again". Ultimately, York stabbed Boa "as the argument escalated". From this, I infer that the pro-creation christian committed manslaughter as a result of a religiously inspired argument.

Funny, I wrote something close to this awhile back.

Chairman Bob!

In your argument that religion makes people actively do unsavory things like kill people, you trumpet a book by a man that headed The Revolutionary Communist Party, who actively promoted for decades after it was known what really happened, a cultural revolution in the United States modeled after Mao's Cultural Revolution. The Cultural Revolution resulted in conservative estimates of 3 million dead. For the history see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

That you think Avakian is a good representative for your argument is woefully ignorant. I might call it ironic, if it were not so stupidly tragic. If it slips your notice, the Cultural Revolution was led by atheists who believed that religion was the opiate of the people.

The straw man that religious people think that morality can only come from a belief in God, that is not the point. The point is that in a world of only men, then whatever humanitarian kindness and generosity some atheists feel in their opinionated personal philosophy, their humanistic argument has no inherent rightness in it. It is merely one opinion, and has no difference from the opinion that power and personal survival and benefit at any cost is the only true morality.

To put it on a basis that you might understand, you have no argument that stands up against the argument of Quirrel/Voldemort in Harry Potter: "There is no such thing as good and evil, Harry, there is only power and those too weak to take it."

As a personal note, I happened to knock on the residential commune of the RCP in LA back in the early 80's, fundraising for an anti-communist organization. They chased me down the street threatening to kill me. Were you one of those non-violent atheists, Greg?

Interesting argument, bgoogle. What Avakain writes, his ideas on atheism, are not worth a hearing because of who he is, and more so, because of a tenuous connection between who he is and what China did. If I follow your argument to its logical conclusion, if we accept Avakian's (unread) arguments, we'll all go on a maoist killing spree.

He may be a communist, but he's an atheist too. His book is about atheism. Perhaps we should read it before we dismiss it as communist propaganda.

That you think Avakian is a good representative for your argument is woefully ignorant.

This is not a sentence.

bgoogle, this is a civil blog. I would have assumed that this post would initiate a lively conversation. But if you continue to rant incoherently and obnoxiously I will do things with your IP address. Don't get me started.

In the 1970s, my friend's apartment was ransacked and burned by an agent from the Taiwanese Secret Police because she was a communist. I knew the secret agent pretty well, he was my math teacher. He was a really crappy math teacher but OK at making firebombs.

So we all have our little stories. When you've spent more than a few nights in a third world prison, or have been beaten unconscious a few times by Men in Blue, you can talk to me about politics. The commies chasing you down the street must have been funny. You were a running dog. I assume you are a delusional skitzo.

But I promise you, if I find out that this Avakian guy really killed several million Chinese people, I'll be pissed. But mostly I understand he's the son of Armenian Immigrants and he spent a little time in Berkeley where he got all radical and shit. I'm sure his book is interesting.

Thanks for the response, Greg.

The sentence you think is not a sentence actually is, with a phrase as the subject. If you want to waste time parsing grammar, the one that begins "The straw man..." is more problematic.

Civility obviously is in the eye of the blogholder, since you feel free to return my mild comments by calling me a delusional skitzo running dog. Ha, ha, that is almost as funny as my Harry Potter dig.

Going apesh*t bizzaro, by implying that I said Avakian was responsible for millions of Chinese deaths or even that he did it himself is just plain childish and silly. I said that he advocated implementing the ideology and policies in the USA that led to those deaths in China. That is very different, but you obviously have trouble making those fine little distinctions.

As for the person who says that I said you shouldn't read his book because of who he is, that too is pretty typical of the logic I see used by angry atheists. I said that it was somewhat hypocritical and/or ignorant to use that book to support your attack on religion as the causation of people doing unsavory things like killing people. The original blog post seems to be making the argument that religion is the cause of so much of the ills in the world, and implying that all these horrible human rights abuses would instantly stop if atheists were in charge and religion, and if they get in the way, religious people, were abolished. It is important who Bob Avakian is in this argument, since he is a supporter of an ideology that is likewise responsible for hundreds of millions dead in the last century. According to Lenin, that ideology is (read the same as) militant atheism.

So, contrary to your fantasy where all the world's ills would be unimaginably lessened, perhaps even eradicated, if religion were gone and rational atheists were in charge, recent human history has pretty good evidence that that is not so, and is instead, just your own pet delusion.

While there is a lot of ills in the world that can be laid directly at the feet of religionists, there is a lot of good that can be laid there too. A lot more good, imnsho, than can ever be claimed to have been done in the name of atheism.

Even the pretty isolated example of the creationist that knifed an atheist, is really only remarkable because the creationist failed to live up to his professed morality. It would have been somewhat unremarkable the other way around because there is no professed morality that all atheists would be expected to live up to.

Other than the legal code, that is, which is supported by government force rather than individual morality, and which, if you are honest, has it roots and legitimacy in the religious morality of our ancestors.

bgoogle: You are so right about the Straw Man sentence!

Bob Avakian is putting forward a new synthesis that draws from both the advances and mistakes of the past (Communist Movement). For his latest contributions of more sweeping scope, check out the free audio downloads (2 dealing directly with religion) at
www.bobavakian.net

It is interesting how those with such critical and analytic minds (in terms of religion) can in one quick swoop take up the garbage they've been fed about Mao/Cultural Revolution by U.S. media/society without thinking twice. People should check out some of the misinformation at thisiscommunism.org or read some of William Hinton's books, who was actually in China when all of Mao's supposed horrors took place.

Remember, much of the information we get here in the U.S. came directly from those (a minority!) who fled China after exploiting it's people for centuries.

Uh-huh, Sam.

That's why those who weren't Mao, but who were involved in the Cultural Revolution are pretty much dishonored.

Thanks for letting us know what you want to bring to the US.

Chairman Bob has all the same excuses. True Marxist Communism has never been tried. At least not by the really smart people, like him.

Who gives a flying fuck about communism - marxist, leninist theoretical or practical? It's a relatively discreditied economic theory.

The book referenced in the OP is about atheism. Why don't you criticize the book and it's subject matter, not the author.

>Who gives a flying fuck about communism - marxist, leninist theoretical or practical? It's a relatively discreditied economic theory.<

From the original post:

>Avakian takes an explicitly Marxist approach to examine the question of what harm can come from believing in god (any god).<

So, SI, Avakian and the reviewer make it relevant. Or didn't you actually read the OP?

>The book referenced in the OP is about atheism. Why don't you criticize the book and it's subject matter, not the author.<

I attacked what the author stands for and what he believes in and what the results of those beliefs are. If I wanted to attack Chairman Bob, then I would note that in the USA he is still a wanted fugitive for attacking a policeman.

Again, since the OP started out:

>But it could be argued that religion is a harder drug, one that makes people do harder, more unsavory things than just sitting around bleary eyed and happy. Like killing people.<

Then the fact that what Avakian supports has resulted in the deaths of millions, based on an ideology which the founders themselves define as militant atheism, is totally relevant.

As much as you would like to put your hands over your eyes and scream "LALALALALALALALA!" so you can pretend otherwise, it is relevant.

Sorry to burst your bubble with reality.

BTW, from the original unsavory things like killing people link...

Doesn't it seem likely that overimbibing of alcohol had a lot more to do with it than religion?

bgoogle:

Just to be clear, I said "explicitly Marxist." I did not say communist. As far as I know "communist" is not an analytical method as is Marxist.

We spent 50 years listening to our leaders scare us with communism. Now it's being used as an excuse to scare us away from atheism.

Oh, wait. Stalin was an atheist too! And he killed all those people! So, therefore, atheism makes no sense.

Excuse me while I go join a church.

If you want to be able to blame all believers in religion and scare people away from religion based on the small harms that some few do, then buck up and take responsibility for what the militant atheists do too. Stalin's purges, Lenin's shooting of the workers that struck his worker's paradise and Mao's cultural revolution... all far surpass any damage of the Spanish Inquisition.

Greg, you are being semantical.