Listen up: I'm not here to pick on atheists. I do have many friends who are and I think I see many who behave more decently than many religious.
It is only when someone mounts sweeping attacks on all or specific religions, based on things that, -while done in name of said religion-, are not described in the sacred texts of said religion, -then I do use the opportunity to gove a little history lesson.
Because if I and other Christians should feel bad because genocide of X, Y and Z then certainly atheists should feel bad because of the reign of terror, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.
Or rather; not. None of us should. If we should feel bad about anything it is that we aren't doing more now. That certainly bothers me.
As an atheist, why should I feel bad because someone else also lacked a belief in any particular religion? There's no atheist text to follow, no atheist moral guidelines. It's just an absence of belief in religion - there's no shared base there.
Similarly, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot weren't working off some sort of atheist guidebook; atheism was incidental to their 'religion', which was communism. They didn't spread atheism for atheism's sake, they oppressed religious powers because they were competitors for power.
And as the OP said, Christianity today is still used to persecute and oppress. Catholicism still covers up paedophile priests. There are states in the US where an atheist is barred from holding office. Fake 'faith healers' continuously bilk people out of their money. Some flavours of the faith don't allow women to be priests.
Yes, there are abusive atheists in modern western democracies, but those atheists are not saying things like "women can't hold positions of power" or "ain't no paedophiles here" or similar to protect their atheism.
You're tired of feeling bad because of the dark corners of your religion? I'm tired of the canard of Stalin/Mao/Pot.
A lot of the confusion here has to do with the lack of regulation around the word "Christian". If a genuine evil person is deluded enough to call himself Christian, does that make Christianity responsible for his deeds? When a Muslim murders a club full of gay people or slits the throat of a Catholic priest, does HN upvote a comment that blames Islam?
> Some flavours of the faith don't allow women to be priests.
The only thing (arguably) Christian mentioned in this thread is this doctrinal issue because it's the only thing supported by some amount of scripture (though good-faith Christians disagree on this particular issue).
> And as the OP said, Christianity today is still used to persecute and oppress. Catholicism still covers up paedophile priests. There are states in the US where an atheist is barred from holding office. Fake 'faith healers' continuously bilk people out of their money. Some flavours of the faith don't allow women to be priests.
I defend none of it.
Just be so intellectually honest as to admit that Christianity brought a number of good things and Atheists hasn't been without fault and we can meet in the middle.
As I have mentioned before I don't like religious flamewars on HN.
Thats really what I got out this particular segment. Religion to the individual is more important than the political implications. Theres an argument to be made about what the human mind is more likely to latch on to and what is worth having faith in. But here we see that it is a stronger power than those who try to abuse its name. And that in itself is rather beautiful in my opinion
It is only when someone mounts sweeping attacks on all or specific religions, based on things that, -while done in name of said religion-, are not described in the sacred texts of said religion, -then I do use the opportunity to gove a little history lesson.
Because if I and other Christians should feel bad because genocide of X, Y and Z then certainly atheists should feel bad because of the reign of terror, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.
Or rather; not. None of us should. If we should feel bad about anything it is that we aren't doing more now. That certainly bothers me.