[ajuc]

> Atheists are, by nature, less violent. Not because they are somehow enlightened, but because there is at least one major grievance removed from the equation. Atheists don't tend to burn down other buildings because they are different, or ravage an entire community because they aren't secular.

Replace atheists with "people that think independly", and I could agree.

As it is I cannot. One counterexample - most of the people in the Red Army were atheists. That did not changed the fact, that significant part of red army pillaged and raped what they could on their way to Berlin (including civilians and nations they were supposedly "freeing" of Germans).

Not beliving in gods don't make you automaticaly less violent. Both nazi Germany and communist Russia were more or less atheists. They instead developed new rituals and mythology to serve the same purpose. Gods are not needed to make people kill people.

Authority and group thinking suffices.

[kls]

Right, I am always skeptical of simple answers to problems when humans are involved. I like simplicity and elegance in solutions, but if there is one thing that I have realized in life is generally when humans become a variable in the equation, simplicity goes right out the window.

I really don't think simple solution like abolish religion are the answer when dealing with the complexities of human nature. I think a scientifically valid test for identifying psychopathy would do far more for ridding the world of inequality than abolishing religion and personally, I think even that would maybe fix 1% of the issues, the reality is it is layers and layers or personal, cultural and societal behaviors, cultures and norms that together build systems of inequality. Generally simple solutions like get rid of those guys are just schemes concocted by another psychopath trying to control one group against another. You can count me out of any solution that requires alienation or elimination of a group of people based on a common identity, because that only shift the equality onto another group and it opens up a dark, dark door.

[tomkin]

> Right, I am always skeptical of simple answers to problems when humans are involved. I like simplicity and elegance in solutions, but if there is one thing that I have realized in life is generally when humans become a variable in the equation, simplicity goes right out the window.

Can't argue with that.

> You can count me out of any solution that requires alienation or elimination of a group of people based on a common identity

Hate groups would probably agree with you since they generally have a hard time seeking support. Even though they are a group based on a common identity.

Damn, there goes that argument. Forgot about that. There was a time when people were trying to abolish slavery. Trying to highlight how – if you take a deeper look – you can see how it harmed others. And that that matters.

Put slavery in a chocolate coating, put a shiny wrapper on it and all of a sudden, we don't have a problem! As long as we don't have to look at it. And as long as it makes people feel better about themselves.

You don't need to ban religion or burn bibles. You just need to have an adult conversation about what religion's implications are, denounce it and see it for the foolishness that it is.

[tomkin]

> most of the people in the Red Army were atheists.

  Orthogonal. The Red Army, nor Nazis used their atheism as a "guiding light" or a 
  tool to get people to do what they wanted – they used military force.

> They instead developed new rituals and mythology to serve the same purpose.

  Yes. It's called a religion. 

> Gods are not needed to make people kill people.

  God and religion aren't the same. Scraping religion doesn't remove the possibility 
  of a god, or the belief in one.

[blafro]

Wow. Talk about being blinded by religion. (In this case atheism).

[electromagnetic]

Ditto. Being agnostic in the truest sense (I don't believe the existence of god is provable or disprovable and as such find it an irrelevance in my life and less relevant than debating philosophical what ifs like "is a glass half-full or half-empty") I am actually scared by the fervour in the "atheists". They're building religious tension between the religious and the anti-religious.

The atheistic community is developing a hubris and don't realise that by creating such a polarised ideal they themselves are becoming a religious problem.

I don't defend religions, I think they've long been the root cause of most of the strife in the world. I don't think atheism in its current popularised form is little more than replacing one dictator with another. Our society, our world doesn't need another religion or an anti-religion to follow, we simply need to stop FOLLOWING.

I've said this again and again here, and I always get down-voted to oblivion for not following the atheist masses. Or I get called an atheist for not believing in 'god' despite believing the mere thought is irrelevant and an unnecessary waste of intellect.

All the wrongs in the world have been committed by people who wilfully neglect to think about the consequences of their actions. How they do this varies, by demeaning women and calling them second class citizens. Or by calling Blacks and other non-white ethnicities sub-human or some other variants to justify using or abusing them.

Bad people do bad things. Good people, no matter what will do the good/right thing. The true evil in this world is the normal person who will blindly look away so long as they believe they won't be harmed or involved.

[tomkin]

More dancing around the subject. As I said before, you're for large groups of people thinking together without critical thinking...or you're not. It's that simple. If you're for it, check the "socially acceptable" bullshit at the door and be prepared to see your argument through.

I agree that atheism has become somewhat of a religion, which is also a very bad thing. No disagreement there.