Il noto ateista Piergiorgio Odifreddi, sul suo nuovo blog , ci delizia con mature e profonde riflessioni. Il titolo “Se fossimo tutti atei” è seguito dal commosso richiamo del compianto Saramago, whose stupidity earned him - of course - the Nobel Prize. "José Saramago liked to say - write our own - that the world would be much more peaceful, if we were all atheists."
And so, therefore, with the parade of examples of religiously motivated violence. Hindus, Christians, Muslims. Do not miss any call, only atheists. In fact it seems that atheists are perfect creatures, absolutely unable to feel the slightest negative feeling. We have seen demonstrations against the English pope, full of love and tolerance.
The basic problem is the improper association between atheistic and moderate. Pirandello said that fascism was a "Empty container" in which each takes what he wanted. In fact this definition is quite fitting for atheism. Who are, in fact, atheists? Everyone, and no one hundred thousand (to be more in Pirandello). Piergiorgio Odifreddi presents itself as champion of human rights as an atheist. But nothing prevents, for example, Peter Singer of support - as an atheist, too, that human rights are a form of discrimination "religious" against animals.
course, in all cultures and traditions can also find differences abysmal. But if I speak of Christians, I already have a theoretical framework of reference. For atheism not, because is by nature an "empty shell" with all the advantages and disadvantages of the case.
Now, the ideological violence can have many causes, such as the fear of difference or the will to impose his own thought. There is no reason why an atheist should be genetically immune to these ills. Indeed, as this story shows us the truth that Odifreddi can not see. All ideologies of the 900 had a bloody atheist character intimately and / or ancticristiano. And many of the dictatorships that still afflict the world, are the same as requiring the state atheism.
laughable even to the other claims. Odifreddi, in fact, equivocal (hopefully intentionally) the controversy over the visit of Gaddafi missionary in Rome to say that the Vatican wants the religious freedom of others alone in the house. And then:
Such behavior is typical of religions, and especially of the monotheistic religions. Anyone who thinks they have the absolute truth, relativism does not fight alone: \u200b\u200bhe claims the right to go and tell others what you would not want others to come and say to him.
And who said this is a fantastic world full conformity with their own ideas. An atheist and relativistic world. If this is the behavior of the monotheistic religions, then the atheistic relativism is certainly counted among them. Since it is an indisputable truth, of course (that is not There is the truth) that the whole world would do well to embrace.
In fact, any world unified under even the most violent religions would be 'a bit more peaceful. " If the world were entirely Islamic, probably there would be fewer attacks. And the same for a world entirely Hindu, and so on. It is, therefore, is as banal as fallacious reasoning. In fact, the violence can be generated even hatred for a culture just different, but no one would dream of saying, "Well, if that's the case then we eliminate the culture." Just as wars are usually for economic reasons, but nobody thinks - at least not more - To resolve the problem by eliminating the property or money. Or again, the war may have a political motivation. But no one - apart from some dreamer - follows from this that a world without politics or without a state would be "more peaceful".
taken to the extreme this sort of reasoning, one can also say that a world populated by zombies docile, unintelligent would actually be more peaceful. No more controversy, none more so than trying to impose their ideas: to eradicate the root cause of such harmful ideas, intelligence. More peaceful, maybe. Most desirable at all.
Even a two year old child, creed, these would be too trivial arguments. It probably would understand that the solution is to try to make good use of culture, economics, politics and religion. Since this is strictly human quality. And Let's face it, if atheists are - like everyone else - political animals, economic and cultural, are undoubtedly also religious. And unaware that religions can be even more violent than traditional, from communism to today's techno-scientism.
