I think that sort of argument is a little reductive. It isn't hard to find people of any belief system doing bad things, but if that's all it takes, then someone could point to like the Black Hammer cult as a reason to dismiss communism, and that's obviously absurd, but that's where having a more nuanced look at various belief systems is necessary in order to engage with them and criticize them effectively.
Is it rational to dismiss an idea because people who believe in it have done bad things? Not inherently. When people look at religion, there's this assumption that belief or membership in the religion is supposed to be inherently edifying, supposed to make you a better person - but that assumption doesn't hold true for all religions. Many traditional folk religions, like Shinto, for example, are basically just describing the world and the various creatures and spirits that supposedly inhabit it, and describing what you can do to avoid invoking their wrath. Likewise, an idea isn't necessarily bad or wrong just because it is used in a bad way. Atheism functions as a perfect example of that, actually - we saw how Atheism was used as a tool to breed Islamophobia to justify US imperialism, but that doesn't prove that Atheism is wrong.
That's not to say that these belief systems cannot or should not be criticized, but it's important to understand what claims they make and don't make in order to make meaningful and effective criticisms.
An economic system that has observable real world results is not comparable to belief in invisible magic people.
Is it rational to dismiss an idea because people who believe in it have done bad things?
It's not rational to give any weight to an idea for which no evidence exists and for which the basic premises would require severe deviations from the observable physical laws of the universe.
Shinto
State Shinto was one of the foundations of Imperial Japanese fascism. There are lots of Buddhist fascists, too. The list of religions that haven't been used as a justification to murder people is really short. The idea that some religions are "harmless" because they seem quaint or have a personable façade is not well grounded in history.
that doesn’t prove that Atheism is wrong.
Atheism isn't right or wrong. It's not a belief system. It's simply a recognition that there is no evidence of magic and no reason to treat the suggestion that there is seriously.
I already made the point that an idea being weaponized for bad purposes doesn't disprove it. We could imagine a world where a state reacts to flat-earthers by executing their entire bloodline, for example, but that wouldn't make the earth any less round. It would warrant a critical examination of the round-earthers' beliefs, but we would still have to establish a logical connection for how believing in a round earth would cause someone to be more prone to doing stuff like that.
Shinto
The only thing I said about Shinto is that it doesn't claim to make you a good person. That doesn't mean that I consider it "harmless" or "quaint." As I said, "That’s not to say that these belief systems cannot or should not be criticized."
Referencing the point I made above, we can easily connect Shinto to Japanese imperialism by pointing out the belief in the emperor's divinity. However, there's the question of, is imperial divinity an inherent aspect of Shinto? Traditionally, not really - poor farmers in feudal Japan barely knew who the emperor even was, and nowadays the emperor has explicitly denied being divine, but Shinto still exists. Does a widespread belief in mythological creatures make it easier for fascism to take root? Maybe, but then, fascism took root in Germany without such a belief (though the Nazis loved their mythology, tbf). It might be worthwhile to study how Shinto evolved, to see when and how it acquired a fascist character, and how it changed after WWII, in order to understand how fascism can make use of various belief systems and how those belief systems change in respone to fascism. Not only to better critique Shinto, but also to gain a better understanding of how fascists gain power.
My point is not to defend Shinto, which I have no investment in and I will happily agree is nonsense and bad, but to say that it's better to study and understand beliefs first, and then provide a more nuanced critique, rather than painting things with broad generalizations that are more relevant to the belief systems that you're more familiar with.
Atheism isn’t right or wrong. It’s not a belief system. It’s simply a recognition that there is no evidence of magic and no reason to treat the suggestion that there is seriously.
Atheism isn't a belief system, it's neither right or wrong, it's just the correct set of beliefs that magic isn't real? Is there a difference between a set of beliefs and a belief system? Is there a difference between being "right or wrong" vs being supported or unsupported by reason and evidence? I don't understand what you mean at all.
I personally am a Catholic, I don't hold an anti-theist position. I just wanted to point out to space_comerad that they were really not thinking through their position, there's nothing unique to Abrahamic faiths in their failures. If the criticism of Christianity is that it has been used to oppress people, then that critique must be held to every one of these faiths.
I think that sort of argument is a little reductive. It isn't hard to find people of any belief system doing bad things, but if that's all it takes, then someone could point to like the Black Hammer cult as a reason to dismiss communism, and that's obviously absurd, but that's where having a more nuanced look at various belief systems is necessary in order to engage with them and criticize them effectively.
Is it rational to dismiss an idea because people who believe in it have done bad things? Not inherently. When people look at religion, there's this assumption that belief or membership in the religion is supposed to be inherently edifying, supposed to make you a better person - but that assumption doesn't hold true for all religions. Many traditional folk religions, like Shinto, for example, are basically just describing the world and the various creatures and spirits that supposedly inhabit it, and describing what you can do to avoid invoking their wrath. Likewise, an idea isn't necessarily bad or wrong just because it is used in a bad way. Atheism functions as a perfect example of that, actually - we saw how Atheism was used as a tool to breed Islamophobia to justify US imperialism, but that doesn't prove that Atheism is wrong.
That's not to say that these belief systems cannot or should not be criticized, but it's important to understand what claims they make and don't make in order to make meaningful and effective criticisms.
An economic system that has observable real world results is not comparable to belief in invisible magic people.
It's not rational to give any weight to an idea for which no evidence exists and for which the basic premises would require severe deviations from the observable physical laws of the universe.
State Shinto was one of the foundations of Imperial Japanese fascism. There are lots of Buddhist fascists, too. The list of religions that haven't been used as a justification to murder people is really short. The idea that some religions are "harmless" because they seem quaint or have a personable façade is not well grounded in history.
Atheism isn't right or wrong. It's not a belief system. It's simply a recognition that there is no evidence of magic and no reason to treat the suggestion that there is seriously.
I already made the point that an idea being weaponized for bad purposes doesn't disprove it. We could imagine a world where a state reacts to flat-earthers by executing their entire bloodline, for example, but that wouldn't make the earth any less round. It would warrant a critical examination of the round-earthers' beliefs, but we would still have to establish a logical connection for how believing in a round earth would cause someone to be more prone to doing stuff like that.
The only thing I said about Shinto is that it doesn't claim to make you a good person. That doesn't mean that I consider it "harmless" or "quaint." As I said, "That’s not to say that these belief systems cannot or should not be criticized."
Referencing the point I made above, we can easily connect Shinto to Japanese imperialism by pointing out the belief in the emperor's divinity. However, there's the question of, is imperial divinity an inherent aspect of Shinto? Traditionally, not really - poor farmers in feudal Japan barely knew who the emperor even was, and nowadays the emperor has explicitly denied being divine, but Shinto still exists. Does a widespread belief in mythological creatures make it easier for fascism to take root? Maybe, but then, fascism took root in Germany without such a belief (though the Nazis loved their mythology, tbf). It might be worthwhile to study how Shinto evolved, to see when and how it acquired a fascist character, and how it changed after WWII, in order to understand how fascism can make use of various belief systems and how those belief systems change in respone to fascism. Not only to better critique Shinto, but also to gain a better understanding of how fascists gain power.
My point is not to defend Shinto, which I have no investment in and I will happily agree is nonsense and bad, but to say that it's better to study and understand beliefs first, and then provide a more nuanced critique, rather than painting things with broad generalizations that are more relevant to the belief systems that you're more familiar with.
Atheism isn't a belief system, it's neither right or wrong, it's just the correct set of beliefs that magic isn't real? Is there a difference between a set of beliefs and a belief system? Is there a difference between being "right or wrong" vs being supported or unsupported by reason and evidence? I don't understand what you mean at all.
I personally am a Catholic, I don't hold an anti-theist position. I just wanted to point out to space_comerad that they were really not thinking through their position, there's nothing unique to Abrahamic faiths in their failures. If the criticism of Christianity is that it has been used to oppress people, then that critique must be held to every one of these faiths.
I see, fair enough.
uhh you know about the thing, right ?