Of course, but again, this is out of respect for your job, the workplace environment, and your coworkers... not for the beliefs themselves.

I suppose that phrasing did come off a little "preachy." I already believe myself to be capable (or at least, would hope that I am) or examining my own beliefs, I was just affording my imaginary 2nd party the same.

I was picturing a more mutual discussion of what both sides believe and why, than I perhaps communicated there.

Well sure - but, perhaps I shouldn't have qualified what I said about respecting a persons belief (being careful where you have such conversations) ... If I drop the work part, then what?

Sure, sounds good to me.

Wars are usually commercial and the people are often stirred up by politicians with appeals to tribalism/nationalism. Religion may be part of the mix but the fact that the people in the country they want to fight happen to worship the same God does not not stop the politicians.

PS Is there an "atheist nation" ? I suppose Hitler and Stalin were anti-religious but their people kept their religions.

Obviously not.

I think 'State religion' sums up these totalitarian regimes best. I recommend Michael Burleigh's Sacred Causes: Religion and Politics from the European Dictators to Al Qaeda for an in-depth view.

In both cases it's pretty clear that their attacks on churchs was motivated by their passionate insistence that no power base to rival the state should exist.

Stalin wasn't anti-Red Army but that didn't stop him murdering 50% of their officers to ensure they wouldn't pose a political threat to him. And Hitler was notionally Christian, although not exactly a great example of being true to the tenets of Christianity.

Yes, the true reasons for war are often a lot more complex than religion. That's why I said religion is used to justify going to war, not that religion causes the war. My point though was that nobody would ever justify a war by saying that we must save those poor souls from the perils of religion and make them understand that there is no god.

A long-standing atheist poster from RGT made the following comment recently. I'll leave his name out as this post is very much taken out of context given it was part of the back-and-forth in a long debate. I'm presenting it as purely illustrative and am not intending to encapsulate his more nuanced position:
Now his ultimate motivation is that he thinks religion causes harm (he's not calling for pre-emptive strikes against the Quakers). But isnt he basically justifying a war to make people understand their specific god at least doesnt exist?

"I think that the evils that men inflict on each other, and by resection
upon themselves, have their main source in evil passions rather than
in ideas or beliefs. But ideas and principles that do harm are, as a rule,
though not always, cloaks for evil passions."
--Bertrand Russell, 'Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind'

The war would, or would not, be justified based on the actions of its members, God, or no God. Existence doesn't seem to enter the equation.

The quote I found is not ideal, given it came from an intelligent and reasonable person and is somewhat out of context. Nonetheless, I reject the claim that nobody would justify a war based on the enemy's belief in one particular God at least. (I'd be willing to bet the fervent jihadists would claim that we infidel do abominable things - does that mean they're not specifically targetting us because we're not faithful muslims but because of our "actions"?)

There are a number of "anti-muslim" views being expressed in Australia at the moment, for example. They are not specifically targetting the muslims who have acted in particular ways. A cry of "send them back where they came from" is being levelled against any muslim (even against those born here, rather amusingly).

It would be nice if the anti-religious crowd were all paragons of polite, incisive rationality, but it isnt true.

Generally speaking, yes, I think they would targeting us because of our "actions" and not because we're not faithful Muslims. I doubt they would ever attack a Buddhist monastery, for example, but I could be wrong.

Those expressing these sweeping "anti-Muslim" views is most aptly explained by rampant over-generalizations, and not, I don't think, due to an attempt at suppressing belief in a particular deity.

A'int that the truth.

The original claim seemed to me to be saying that theists call for a war against atheists based on their lack of belief but that nobody would ever call for a war against the religious based on their belief. Inasmuch as theists dont do it, I guess atheists dont do it either. Maybe it's all due to "actions" and has nothing to do with membership of some abstract group. I'll concede it's possible, although that isnt my view.

My central thesis is there are irrational idiots on both sides of the fence - calling for war (physical or otherwise) motivated by fear/suspicion and labelling the other side "wrong" based on their religion (or lack thereof) even though that isnt a good reason.

EDIT: Obviously it's not particularly meaningful when it gets down to imputing motive, but I personally believe the "justifications" proffered by either side based on actions are better characterised as rationalisations.

I'm not clear on what your views on 'the jihadists' are (Cos they're all alike, of course ). Do you think they are expressing their crusading anti-Westerner views due to similar things (ie not because of our lack of muslim faith)?

Personally, I think you're giving people too much credit. I take it as self-evident that all of us are irrational and some of us ridiculously so. I think the "go back where you came from" crowd are an emotive, hyped up lot sure. There's also a clear racial element (at least here in Australia). Their anti-muslim stance may well be based on 'rampant over-generalisations' but that doesnt mean they're not the motivating factor in the call for war does it?

I think, for now, it's motivated by their views of our culture and its derivatives. On the other hand, I'm having a difficult time determining if we were to share their moral underpinnings, only under a different God's name, would 'the Jihadists' still feel the need to lash out? Honestly, I don't know.

They could certainly be the motivating factor in the call for war. But again, I think this call would be based on measuring an entire population's pulse by the action of a few.

By "justification" I meant used as an argument in convincing your people that it is morally justified to take to arms and kill other people. Such arguments can include:
-They have weapons of mass destruction and will kill our women and children sooner or later if not stopped.
-They are violating human rights and slaughtering their own people who oppose the regime.
-They declared war on us and are coming here to enslave us.
-They don't believe in our god and are therefore savages that don't deserve to live.
-God tells us to do so.

(Note that the real reasons for going to war are not on that list, such as "they have the oil and we want it" or "I am a power-hungry maniac that simply won't stop before the whole world bows at my feet".)

Can you construct an atheist argument to add to the list above? An argument that would justify atheists taking to arms against specifically a religion?

Believing in god is dangerous. We should get them before they get us.

I think quite a lot need to happen before that is accepted as a reason. I'm talking about appealing to the collective mindset of a large group of people. Some small groups of radical militant atheists could follow the agenda you mentioned, but on a nationwide scale that would not be considered a valid reason to kill people. Not in any nation that has existed up until this point in history.

I've been misunderstanding, I think. I was responding to this comment:

"My point though was that nobody would ever justify a war by saying that we must save those poor souls from the perils of religion and make them understand that there is no god."

but didn't look back at your initial comment. I have been responding as if you were referring to individuals - not nations. I agree a "militant atheist nation" is a long way off. Sorry about that.

I have heard people declare that the "religiosity of a nation" is sufficient to warrant war. I don't grant any chance of that actually resulting in a war though.

I think it's less to do with their views of our culture and more to do with retaliation against everything we've done in their neighborhood of the world. It is easy for the Jihadists to recruit locals to their cause when they can present evidence such as dead children from drone strikes. (My perspective on this mostly comes from Ron Paul.)

Plenty of people want to be left alone, and I can respect that. Of course, once they start getting forward with it, which religious people have a tendency to do, I agree the gloves come off.

There's a difference between respecting someone's religious beliefs, and respecting someone's right to hold a religious belief imo. No religion has "earned my respect" as far as being logically valid/probable/etc, but I do respect some of them for cultural/social positives, and regardless I'd never attack anyone who was minding their own business because they have a right to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't affect me (or anyone else).

1: Pretty much nobody is only going to keep their religious beliefs to themselves at very least they are going to brainwash their children.

You see, I am one of those kids that spend at a lot of time at church and even more time praying. I am now aware that I will only live once and to think how much valuable time I've lost makes me sick and VERY angry. Instead of enjoying "the best" years of my life I was busy feeling guilty,scared and in need of apologizing for every ****ing thought that makes me human.

2: One could argue that some parents are only going to teach their kids religion but not in a way where kids spent so much time praying etc. Well, they are still teaching them something that is not based on ANY real evidence and VERY bad for developing mind.



My conclusion: religion = bad

And just as I can't respect someone being racist(bad) I can not respect someone being religious(bad).

Totally agree with this. I was raised Christian and was the allstar kid at church for all things Christianity. Once I started thinking on my own towards the end of high school and beginning of college, I was annoyed a lot at my parents for it all. Not that they were a-holes, but they never gave me a chance to make up my own mind, and they painted the world in Christian-defined good/evil stereotypes.

Granted I turned out differently than you. After I went through the rejection phase, I started exploring on my own, and ended up back in Christianity, but this time of my own volition.

And now I'm a father of two kids (oldest is only 4). My God, what a struggle. Because as a Christian, I definitely believe that there are eternal consequences to how my kids choose their philosophical/religious/whatever lifestyle. But I definitely want them to have a reasonable choice, and not brainwash them towards what I believe is the correct choice. Based on my experience with my parents, I know I'll err on the opposite side of exposing them to all kinds of options.

But wow, it's a crazy journey as a parent. Your kids basically see you as the source of all truth. So you can easily bias them towards Christianity. You can easily bias them towards anti-theism. It's a sickening amount of responsibility.

Had this awkward exchange with my 4 year old a few days back:

him: How sick is Great-grandpa Joe?
me: He's really really sick. He's probably going to die in the next few days.
him: Why is he going to die?
me: Well, that's what happens to really really old people. When you get too old, you die.
him: Oh. And that happens to bad people too.
me: Well, no, just because you're bad doesn't mean you will die.
him: Like Pharaoh. He was really bad, and then he got died in the water.
me: .... uhhh....

(at this point you realize how quickly kids latch on to the stories you read to them.)

Another similar convo the next day:

him: What happens to Great-grandpa Joe after he dies?
me: Well, I don't know. That's up to God. Maybe he will go to heaven then.
him: So he will come back to life again?
me: Yeah, I guess you could say that.
him: So when he comes back to life, he will be a baby again!
me: .... uhhh.... well, no. Uhhhh... we can talk about this later.

Dammit, parenting is hard enough just with the responsibility of keeping kids alive and healthy and all that. No one prepared me for the responsibility of developing their minds/life outlooks.

I'm surprised you can agree since so many people on 2+2 bandy the word "brainwash" around too lightly.

It's hardly ever accurate to use the word unless you're speaking of imprisonment or a totalitarian cult.