They have a point when the question is, as it was, religions and not religious people. Their holy texts both present particular genocides as good things and include directions to commit genocide against apostates. Whatever we might say of the historic position of Jews as social minorities, the content of the Tenakh, etc. is well-suited to justifying an ethnostate.
I do think they are generalizing to strongly in that regard, since the Abrahamic religions are all especially bad in this regard compared to the others that have made it to the modern day, with the possible exception of Hinduism (I don't know enough about it). Edit: I think Islam is the least bad of the three, but it's also the one I'm the least familiar with.
I'm not really interested in arguing for some particular prescription based on this, I just don't think we should close our eyes to obvious truths in the name of pushing some silly idea about religion being benign as a rule. I'm also not saying the Crusades are Christ's fault or any of that bullshit (nor that the Nakba is the fault of Moses, to be on topic), I'm just saying that when a text says "The appropriate response to someone preaching heresy in a town is to slaughter the villagers, raze the buildings, and salt the earth," that's what it says.
Edit 2: I probably didn't do enough to distinguish religion as a historical force from religion as a set of doctrines, but it should be obvious that I'm talking about the latter. Again, Christ did not order the Crusades.
Edit 3: Obviously, even without the convenient doctrine, Israel would be Israel, I'm merely saying the doctrine is convenient.
I do think they are generalizing to strongly in that regard
That's exactly my point. Saying "religions bad" does fucking nothing in the world we live in except establish oneself as an abrasively smug asshole, especially in the context of people currently in dangerous living conditions that may very well be killed in part because of their religious identity.
Especially because of the anti-Jewish smugposting, which involves a religious identity that has a secular side to it and is inherited, such atheist smugposting may as well say "hah, well you're wearing those silly badges! Sucks to suck!" during WW2 Germany.
That's an amusing decontextualization of what I said, but I don't think it gets us closer to mutual understanding.
Especially because of the anti-Jewish smugposting, which involves a religious identity that has a secular side to it and is inherited, such atheist smugposting may as well say “hah, well you’re wearing those silly badges! Sucks to suck!” during WW2 Germany.
Well, the Nazis were really attacking the Jewish ethnicity, it's not like Jews could survive by deconverting or even by having never practiced, but that's maybe less important than the fact that it's an equivocation beyond absurd to say that criticizing the moral/political doctrines in Jewish texts "may as well" be saying that Jews deserved Nazi persecution.
idk, people are all for "ruthless criticism of all that exists" when it comes to things they dislike, but then when they either have a sentimental attachment to something or just a strong contrarian streak because they know assholes who also criticize it, suddenly popularity is a perfect justification and saying bad things about something popular is "setting yourself apart from the global proletariat." Encounters with pseudo-intellectualism should not turn you into an anti-intellectual.
That's an amusing decontextualization of what I said, but I don't think it gets us closer to mutual understanding.
You're not here for that. You just want to emphasize really, really hard just how superior you are to religious people.
I'm not religious myself, but I stopped saying "atheist" as a self-descriptor because it has been lately tarnished by sanctimoniously secular people that bloviate over others about their default state of superiority.
To put it in a less "amusing decontextualization" way, that's you.
idk, people are all for "ruthless criticism of all that exists" when it comes to things they dislike
Encounters with pseudo-intellectualism should not turn you into an anti-intellectual.
"Agree with me or you're not an intellectual."
Do you have any self awareness at all or are you still stuck years back in Reddit's Faces of Atheism mode?
You just want to emphasize really, really hard just how superior you are to religious people.
You are projecting on me what you encountered in the past from nuatheist types. I am not them, and have explicitly said multiple times that what I am referring to is religious doctrine, even going as far as pointing out that the doctrine is at odds with their history especially in the case of Jews, who have overwhelmingly (from the time of the Roman Empire to now) been the ones on the receiving end of brutal discrimination, genocide, etc. I don't know how I can make it more clear, because I feel like no matter what I say you'll just say that I feel superior to Jews and would support them being made to wear stars, etc.
This is kind of a known problem with you that I've seen others complain about, that you bring in all this baggage and dump it on people when your . . . uh . . . sensor goes off. Perhaps you could take this opportunity to reflect on it. Like, you know me, and I don't think you especially like me, but this vitriol you're poring on me is a bit much, and it's assuming that I'm coming from a much worse place than you have any reason to believe I would come from (whatever rightful misgivings toward me you may have).
“Agree with me or you’re not an intellectual.”
That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that rejecting criticism categorically is anti-intellectual and a betrayal of Marxism. You don't need to agree with my criticism, but if you're going to attack me for it, I'd hope you'd have a better reason for why it is wrong other than what it is addressed towards.
You are projecting on me what you encountered in the past from nuatheist types.
No need to do that because you've been doing it in this ongoing comment chain and you apparently don't even notice it, up to and including the "civility" masked put-downs and condescending remarks.
I have no need of that because I know what I'm seeing and I don't like it.
and have explicitly said multiple times
Yes, and I'm calling bullshit each and every time because whatever you want it to look like it still reeks of a sense of superiority over the unwashed religious masses.
You don't need to agree with my criticism, but if you're going to attack me for it, I'd hope you'd have a better reason for why it is wrong other than what it is addressed towards.
This isn't Reddit. I don't even see the purpose of your "religion bad" smugposting on this particular board, let alone this particular thread. You're not going to get congratulated much for the euphoria of being enlightened by your own intelligence here.
They have a point when the question is, as it was, religions and not religious people. Their holy texts both present particular genocides as good things and include directions to commit genocide against apostates. Whatever we might say of the historic position of Jews as social minorities, the content of the Tenakh, etc. is well-suited to justifying an ethnostate.
I do think they are generalizing to strongly in that regard, since the Abrahamic religions are all especially bad in this regard compared to the others that have made it to the modern day, with the possible exception of Hinduism (I don't know enough about it). Edit: I think Islam is the least bad of the three, but it's also the one I'm the least familiar with.
I'm not really interested in arguing for some particular prescription based on this, I just don't think we should close our eyes to obvious truths in the name of pushing some silly idea about religion being benign as a rule. I'm also not saying the Crusades are Christ's fault or any of that bullshit (nor that the Nakba is the fault of Moses, to be on topic), I'm just saying that when a text says "The appropriate response to someone preaching heresy in a town is to slaughter the villagers, raze the buildings, and salt the earth," that's what it says.
Edit 2: I probably didn't do enough to distinguish religion as a historical force from religion as a set of doctrines, but it should be obvious that I'm talking about the latter. Again, Christ did not order the Crusades.
Edit 3: Obviously, even without the convenient doctrine, Israel would be Israel, I'm merely saying the doctrine is convenient.
That's exactly my point. Saying "religions bad" does fucking nothing in the world we live in except establish oneself as an abrasively smug asshole, especially in the context of people currently in dangerous living conditions that may very well be killed in part because of their religious identity.
Especially because of the anti-Jewish smugposting, which involves a religious identity that has a secular side to it and is inherited, such atheist smugposting may as well say "hah, well you're wearing those silly badges! Sucks to suck!" during WW2 Germany.
That's an amusing decontextualization of what I said, but I don't think it gets us closer to mutual understanding.
Well, the Nazis were really attacking the Jewish ethnicity, it's not like Jews could survive by deconverting or even by having never practiced, but that's maybe less important than the fact that it's an equivocation beyond absurd to say that criticizing the moral/political doctrines in Jewish texts "may as well" be saying that Jews deserved Nazi persecution.
idk, people are all for "ruthless criticism of all that exists" when it comes to things they dislike, but then when they either have a sentimental attachment to something or just a strong contrarian streak because they know assholes who also criticize it, suddenly popularity is a perfect justification and saying bad things about something popular is "setting yourself apart from the global proletariat." Encounters with pseudo-intellectualism should not turn you into an anti-intellectual.
You're not here for that. You just want to emphasize really, really hard just how superior you are to religious people.
I'm not religious myself, but I stopped saying "atheist" as a self-descriptor because it has been lately tarnished by sanctimoniously secular people that bloviate over others about their default state of superiority.
To put it in a less "amusing decontextualization" way, that's you.
"Agree with me or you're not an intellectual."
Do you have any self awareness at all or are you still stuck years back in Reddit's Faces of Atheism mode?
You are projecting on me what you encountered in the past from nuatheist types. I am not them, and have explicitly said multiple times that what I am referring to is religious doctrine, even going as far as pointing out that the doctrine is at odds with their history especially in the case of Jews, who have overwhelmingly (from the time of the Roman Empire to now) been the ones on the receiving end of brutal discrimination, genocide, etc. I don't know how I can make it more clear, because I feel like no matter what I say you'll just say that I feel superior to Jews and would support them being made to wear stars, etc.
This is kind of a known problem with you that I've seen others complain about, that you bring in all this baggage and dump it on people when your . . . uh . . . sensor goes off. Perhaps you could take this opportunity to reflect on it. Like, you know me, and I don't think you especially like me, but this vitriol you're poring on me is a bit much, and it's assuming that I'm coming from a much worse place than you have any reason to believe I would come from (whatever rightful misgivings toward me you may have).
That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that rejecting criticism categorically is anti-intellectual and a betrayal of Marxism. You don't need to agree with my criticism, but if you're going to attack me for it, I'd hope you'd have a better reason for why it is wrong other than what it is addressed towards.
No need to do that because you've been doing it in this ongoing comment chain and you apparently don't even notice it, up to and including the "civility" masked put-downs and condescending remarks.
I have no need of that because I know what I'm seeing and I don't like it.
Yes, and I'm calling bullshit each and every time because whatever you want it to look like it still reeks of a sense of superiority over the unwashed religious masses.
This isn't Reddit. I don't even see the purpose of your "religion bad" smugposting on this particular board, let alone this particular thread. You're not going to get congratulated much for the euphoria of being enlightened by your own intelligence here.