I'd say that "honest" may not be the right word here, but I think that an Atheist Agnostic(they are not mutually exclusive, since you can be an atheist and still be open to the possibility of a God) possition is more realistic and more "honest" when it comes to the evidence. Or more precisely, the lack of evidence in favor of the existance of a god.
It's faster to just move into the i17th dimension, where paradoxes don't matteU̟̰̜̳̪̱ͮ̄̉͒̍̏̓ͣṉ̵̢̡̭̣̀ͨͅi̳̦͚̺̣͚ͬ͗̏̽̎́̕f̲̠̼̦̗̲̞ͨ̓͆̔͛̆͆̆i͎̺͉̪͓͓̫̬͆ͧ͗̏̾̈͑͊͑c̸̴̟͙̰̘̟̄͑̈́̄ͮ̄̀͌̕a͓̘̹͖̼̬̺̻̅ͣ́t̎ͭ͏̧͎͕̘̥̣̻̩i͖͍͈̞̬ͧ͗ͯ̔͠o͈̹̼̜͚̞͇̼̳͐͆̏ͯ̔ͥ͘ņ͎̉ͨ̏̀̓͊͊̑́ͅǝʇʇɐɯ ʇ,uop sǝxopɐɹɐd ǝɹǝɥʍ 'uoısuǝɯıp ɥʇ71ı ǝɥʇ oʇuı ǝʌoɯ ʇsnظ oʇ ɹǝʇsɐɟ s,ʇı
I'd change it to: "Religion is opinion, atheism is opinion, too" Saying this as an agnostic (a person who nor firmly believes in existence of God, nor firmly refuses it, so I basically don't follow Christianity or believe there's an old man in the sky who judges all of us when we die or deny it, I just don't give a single duck about religion (or non-religion))
On second the other hand, you can`t really say only Atheists are bad for that. How often do people yell that Hitler was atheist for example? Or that atheism alone was responsible for any marxist inspired totalitarian regimes? I am not sure I could produce a list as long as your own below, but someone could.
I would say that from accounts we can say he was likely to be some form of religious, I just do not think anyone could categorize it that easily.
For instance certain accounts said he didn`t really like catholicism much, he only declared support for because without the support of german catholics he wouldn`t have had much support at all. All I can say fairly safely is that any blame in either direction in this debate/catfight is thus far unjustified.
Do you mean that part when atheists object to the claim that Atheism was the cause of some of the horrible things that happened last century(Stalin, Mao etc.) and not highly dogmatic political ideologies who set up the government leaders as god-like figures? because of that is what you refer to, you should really re-read some history on the 20th century.
I was actually referring more both to that, which is semantics that any real historian would tell you to get out if you tried to pull, but also the erroneous simply incorrect beliefs about things ranging from now to before there was even recordings of events.
You're telling me that "real historians" doesn't make a distinction between Atheism, which is one position on one issue, and ideologies like Leninism and Maoism who have a structure of dogmatic beliefs? I am not so sure the historians you refer to can be called "real historians" at that point, because to say that Leninism and Maoism is just a semantics issue away from being Atheism shows an incredible lack of insight in what these things actually are.
As for the rest, care to give examples? "Erroneous simply incorrect beliefs" sounds bad, but doesn't mean anything unless you can come up with examples.
A real historian would understand Atheism for what it is. Leninism and Maoism are(if I remember correctly) atheistic political ideals. Any real historian would quickly be intellectually kicking the shins of anyone attaching moral blame to religion OR athiesm for historical... events of a macabre nature.
Lol, the edginess. XDD. What are you, twelve? I love how you constructed a whole narrative not only that you originally brought up, but that you then imagined that I responded to exactly like how you were hoping I would. Because obviously everyone in the world is stupid enough to fall for arguments based on semantics and hoping that no one will reason them out. People like you are of course exactly the type of dishonest person I'm talking about.
Atheism is a basic building block, among other things. The fact that it is not stalinism does not give atheists free reign to wash their hands of every possibility that comes from it, because if they refer to atheism itself as an individual thing from which many various combinations of things draw from, all possibilities which inevitably tie back to it are doing exactly what it sounds like they're doing. The building block ideas that compose them are what makes them up. Obviously random modern atheists in the west have little direct ideological relation to stalin, but if they're identifying as part of a huge umbrella of things, they have to accept that realistically everything that follows from it is part of that general direction. It's not like evangelicals are the same as thor-worshippers just because they're both theists either. But if you're having a discussion about theism in general rather than specific ideologies which come from it, then likewise, you have to accept everything which could come from it. You used the word "dogmatic" which makes it obvious that you know what I mean, since that's a general idea which often can seem to be an express followup of the original.
...But there's no point in rationally bothering explaining that to you. If you can't use logic on it alread, which you obviously can't if you bothered asking, then it's a waste. I'll go to the second part. Various fallacies atheists try using as regards historical context. Note that all of these are in spite of the fact that historians will tell you that they're incomprehensibly incorrect.
Here's a small handful of things. See if you can't recall various people (usually atheists) making these arguments in spite of them being radically historically incorrect. (No offense to nontheists who are not edgy internet asshats.)
1: Religion as a whole caused so outrageous an amount of war and violence that if it never existed the world would have been peaceful for a long time.
2: Religion has been the source of most conflict. Somehow if it didn't exist, differing ideologies would have gotten along far better.
3: Colonialism was almost exclusively religiously based.
4: The crusades were exclusively religious, and nothing analogous of them would have happened without it.
5: The inquisition was so outrageously horrifying of an event that it completely stands out from how other dissenters of government were treated at that time. The death toll is in the tens of thousands. (Note that this is a relatively commonplace event for those times, but this and the crusades are what are always mentioned.)
6: There was never even a historical Jesus. (This is my favorite one. There's literally countless books and sites from random people who are not historians trying to "prove" this. You can compare the incoherent things they consider "evidence" to how creationists make arguments. You can't even try to deny that one.)
7: Countless retconning of historical figures they approve of into atheists. (To be fair, this one goes both ways.)
8: Retconning the many, many modern atheist or otherwise nonreligious dictators who they disapprove of into being religious. Or even when they get cornered "their dogmatism makes them not the same as 'regular' atheists."
9: Christianity almost singlehandedly caused the dark ages.
10: The dark ages were long and drawn out compared to how long it took society to advance to that stage the first time.
11: The age of enlightenment was significantly less religious than the time leading up to it, which is what sparked it's occurrence.
12: All kings and leaders of countries during the dark ages took religion 100% seriously. Their systems were somehow exclusively justified by religion, even though the things being taught were contrary to what they actually did. They did these things because of their beliefs.
13: No king or religious leader took religion seriously. It was never anything but an oppression tool. (Note this contradicts the previous one, but you'll hear the same people say both were the general state depending on which suits their argument.)
14: Ancient greece and rome were a paradise. and were incredibly moral societies compared to medieval europe. Nevermind that they're comparing how the upper classes lived in Rome to how peasants lived in the middle ages. And that they still had plenty of genocides, and a giant coliseum in the center of the city. And that they represented further states of a progression into a society.
14: Retconning of any science done by religious people out of existence. From the middle ages straight up to today. Nevermind that it was kings who for nonreligious reasons wanted serfs to stay ignorant, and that monasteries were pretty much the only place for the non rich to get educated during those times.
15: The evolution of societal beliefs is close to linear, and modern humanist atheists represent some kind of advanced philosophy no one ever had before. (Except any historical figure retconned into a 'before their time' atheist.) This most specifically relates to individual advancements not counting setbacks, and ties in to #18
16: Racism and sexism were all but invented by religion, and would barely have existed if religion didn't. (This is actually the most confusing one of all, since anyone who understands evolution should realize their actual sources. And that if anything creationism is more egalitarian a belief than real life.)
17: Religion has barely any role in the advancement of societies.
18: Anyone who was distasteful in history is reconnected into something analogous of a modern conservative. And conservatives are somehow equivalent to people from 1000 A.D. Nevermind that many of the things people hate conservatives for now were not even considered issues until the last few hundred years. The middle ages were "uberconservatism."
19: Retconning every religion from before the time of Jesus that could possibly have been heard of in that portion of the world to having the exact same story as Jesus. (Mithra is the most common comparison.) Note that half of this is done deliberately knowing that such a similarity has illogical bases such as the date of christmas.
20: Ignoring the fact that many things which are called religions today were essentially atheist or at best apatheistic schools of thought for the time periods they were from. And that in greater concept, they were not absences of anything during the time, but simply different versions of the same thing. Which slightly damages their narriative.
Whew. I could go on, but it would probably get into logic rather than history. And my neck hurts, because I need sleep. And no, I didn't really need to come up with examples, since all of this is readily accessible to anyone not trying to block it out.
No, I'm not twelve. I happen to be nineteen. Small difference, I am sure, but a difference nonetheless. Not sure what the point of the ad homenim comments are, but whatever.
The "Building block" approach is hardly a pragmatic one, seeing as if that is the case you are already back at ground zero. More or less all ideas have been incorporated in some form into an oppressive culture or institution. Nor can you use that against a specific building block, since it is the combination of many that causes whatever you object to and by itself it does nothing.
An example we can take here, to stay with the same theme, is Theism and Religion. Of these, I'd say it is Religion who is causing harm, because Religion is a result of other building blocks, like dogma, being added to Theism. Theism in itself is not responsible for what a Religion did since it is merely the belief in a(personal) God.
Of course, by your argument Thesim and Religion cannot wash its hands from a any of the horrible things done by most states leading up until very recently, since in almost all nations religion was a constitution of power, and laregely invalidating your 1st example of Athesit dishonesty when it comes to history since it must have been a part of the cause if it is a building block.
And then there is the part about what ideologies that comes out of a building block. You may disagree with me on this, but I am pretty sure Leninism and Maoism was actually based on the philosophical ideas of Karl Marx and not Atheism, even though a non-belief in God or Gods were a part of that. You'd have an easier time affiliate Social-Democracy with these ideologies than a non-belief in God, I think, since both draw much inspiration from this philosophy.
To be honest, I think it is important to distinguish between the building blocks when we look at the composition of an ideology. Not all are of equal importance and not all of them can be said to be "pillars" in said ideology.
As for many of the other examples, I think many of those things are pretty seld explainatory. I'll address the ones I have something to add to. The other ones sounds like you have listened to people without any knowledge of history, or that you are making strawmen of their position for the sake of this list.
Wars is rarely caused directly by religion, but it has been a very common justification of them and it has been used many times as a motivation factor. I am sure you know of a great many wars and genecides justified by religion. Religion has been used to justify some of the other things you list, and I am sure you can figure out which ones, and that is my problem with religion in those instances.
The Inquisition was a horrible event, even if it was relatively commonplace. When I bring it up it is to have a specific and widely recognized example, though I cannot speak for others who use it.
The retconning of modern non-religious dictators doesn't seem to have a reason behind it other than the "guilt of association" aspect, but I think people have a point when they point out that what these people do doesn't need to have anything to do with a lack of a belief in a God. Most religious people I have seen invoking the Stalin-Atheist thing have done so with a "This is what Atheism leads to" attitude, and not a "Leninism opposed religious beliefs" position which is much more accurate.
I recognise parts of the examples you bring up, but I have heard very few of them in the way you put them(adding to my belief that this list is composed of strawmen). Mostly they seem to come up more in the "These are things religion has justified(and at times promoted)" or in the "The texts of this religion include X, so how is it a good source for morality or laws in this day and age?" or other more nuanced positions.
So... you described that religion and theism are not inherently the same thing, and that they could be done differently. Well, everyone knows that. The world is not perfect; there's nothing on earth that could not be done better if people all had the ability to both think logically and emphatically. I'm not here to defend retarded crusty fundamentalists either; just point out that building blocks lead to things. Dogma (and relevant equivalents) exists because there will not be a time within the next million years that any group will honestly trust the average person to make decisions totally accurately in a vacuum. And this is religious and nonreligious alike.
You can say that many dictators were not explicitly using atheism, but that's exactly what the point is. Atheism by it's nature does not have to be explicit. Conclusions that certain people of power draw from it implicitly are, however. Certain possibilities like: "There is no higher authority than the state. Therefore, right and wrong are not absolutes, and I feel free to use people as nothing but meat to feed into the state. If the state does well, 'humanity' is doing well."
Do all atheists think this? No, but certain ideas like non-existance of morals as a real thing are certainly tied more in with atheism than with religion. And some ideas even were explicitly anti religious. Karl marx believed religion as a whole was another structure that had to be gotten rid of or severely diminished in order for his ideas to work. So anyone drawing on his ideas, and like in Russia by extension used authoritarian power to start deliberately trying to shut churches down, you can easily imagine that this is an ideology which fairly explicitly has antitheism in a core part of it. Dictators often like the concept that there is no higher authority than them, since it means they have nothing they have to answer to for whatever they do.
As for the list; no, it's not strawmen either. Obviously not everyone does every single one of these things, but they are all things you can see people do if you want to turn it into a checklist and look out for them. If you consider empathetic language the same as straw-men, I guess. But you asked, so it wouldn't make sense to not list them. Unless I was not answering.
I suspected they were strawmen because they were so simple and overly easy to refute, and because there has always been a much more nuanced aspect of them whenever I have actually heard them used. Of course, knowing the stupidity of the human species, I wouldn't be surprised if some people actually used them in such a simple form.
We seem to share the same basic sentiment about the building blocks leading to whatever in question, but with a key difference in how we further associate two groups who share 1 basic block. I also see no reason to continue this debate, as I don't see it going much further before it will be repeats of the same points over and over. We might just as well agree to disagree now, rather than draw this out unecessarily.