Atheism

[Guest Raidne]

The fact that it's pretty close to the end of the Roman Republic and the start of the Empire makes it work out OK for me as a western calendar. I've gotten out of the habit of using BCE/CE, but that's a good system.

[Crazydog7]

[quote name='Meili' post='1673490' date='Feb 4 2009, 09.22']Then common sense would be made into another institution just like religion not to mention that since none of us are alike and we don't share any beliefs, it's a bit hard to form a group.


It's not [b]'you guys'[/b] and if you believe a woman was made from a man's rib, try not to state that you think religion 'converts' people logically. And that's not the main argument (non-belief is the [b]only[/b]thing that descibes rationalists) and it's not a conversion to stop believing in god. You didn't 'convert' as a person when you stopped believing in Santa did you?[/quote]


Then I don't get it what it is exactly? And you get a cookie if you can reply without being sarcastic.

[HT Reddy]

[quote name='slick mongoose' post='1673637' date='Feb 4 2009, 16.27']The title is not promising. Atheism seems more popular that it's ever been.[/quote][quote name='Raidne' post='1673652' date='Feb 4 2009, 16.34']The author treats atheism as a movement that is in decline since so-called atheists governments - like the Soviet Union - have collapsed. And he notes that atheism as a movement has led to very bad things, like fascism. I, for one, think it's pointless to talk about what governments who purport to be religious or atheists have brought about - there's plenty of mud to be slung on both sides.

I do there's something interesting there about the notion of having a secular government as opposed to an atheist government, and how atheist governments have been just as destructive to fee thought as religious governments have.[/quote]

Oh yeh I'm not saying that everything he says is right. I just found it quite interesting to read.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Raidne' post='1673652' date='Feb 4 2009, 10.34']The author treats atheism as a movement that is in decline since so-called atheists governments - like the Soviet Union - have collapsed. And he notes that atheism as a movement has led to very bad things, like fascism. I, for one, think it's pointless to talk about what governments who purport to be religious or atheists have brought about - there's plenty of mud to be slung on both sides.[/quote]

Atheism leads to fascism? Did I miss a memo or something? And what the hell do the Soviets and Communists have to do with atheism generally? Yeah its a big part of the philosophy, so what? It has a whole hell of alot of other shits that most atheists don't subscribe to and never did. It was never a movement 'for atheism', that was always a rider that got quickly discarded when in practice when convenient. Its primary focus was completely different. The premise of the book reads like some of the anti-atheist rants I occasionally find on the internet, absurdly trying to lay the atrocities of those regimes at the feet of atheism, which is utter nonsense. You sure the author didn't have an agenda of his own going on?

[quote]What do you think of the A.D./B.C. dating system? Does it lend support to the Christian religion? Ought it to be replaced with the entirely meaningless BCE/ACE system? Or do the Humanist crusaders wish to drop the whole calander and count years from Darwin's birth?[/quote]

To nonsense like this I can only shake my head and laugh. And when I think of all the many people who share similar (thoughtless) thoughts and (ridiculous) convictions, I can only shake my head and cry.

[litechick]

[quote name='Raidne' post='1673652' date='Feb 4 2009, 10.34']The author treats atheism as a movement that is in decline since so-called atheists governments - like the Soviet Union - have collapsed. And he notes that atheism as a movement has led to very bad things, like fascism. [b]I, for one, think it's pointless to talk about what governments who purport to be religious or atheists have brought about - there's plenty of mud to be slung on both sides. [/b]

I do there's something interesting there about the notion of having a secular government as opposed to an atheist government, and how atheist governments have been just as destructive to fee thought as religious governments have.[/quote]

I agree with the bolded part.

I do feel compelled to point out that--what with the Crusades and all--Christians get lambasted regularly for being violent, bloody and repressive by people who seem to imply that without religion the world would be a happier, more peaceful place.

In such cases, it's fair to point out the matching destruction of "godless" people lest the godless get self-righteous and smug.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='litechick' post='1673996' date='Feb 4 2009, 14.10']I agree with the bolded part.

I do feel compelled to point out that--what with the Crusades and all--Christians get lambasted regularly for being violent, bloody and repressive by people who seem to imply that without religion the world would be a happier, more peaceful place.

In such cases, it's fair to point out the matching destruction of "godless" people lest the godless get self-righteous and smug.[/quote]

What destruction can be laid at the feet of godlessness, or godless people primarily due to their godlessness? And even if you can find some bits here and there, how the hell does it come close to being 'MATCHING destruction'?

[HT Reddy]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1673987' date='Feb 4 2009, 20.06']The premise of the book reads like some of the anti-atheist rants I occasionally find on the internet, absurdly trying to lay the atrocities of those regimes at the feet of atheism, which is utter nonsense. You sure the author didn't have an agenda of his own going on?[/quote]

Well he's a Christian theologian, so it's not like he's trying to hide his own view. That said, he is also an academic, and the book is in absolutely no sense polemical. Like I say, it's interesting.

It's basically a book which focuses on some of the consequences of the Enlightenment which are often overlooked by those of a modernist outlook, and that can be helpful.

ETA: to be clear, he doesn't blame the atrocities of atheist regimes on their atheism, but he makes the argument that those regimes were products of the Enlightenment as was the rise of atheism. The two are linked, but not causally

[HT Reddy]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1674000' date='Feb 4 2009, 20.13']What destruction can be laid at the feet of godlessness, or godless people primarily due to their godlessness? And even if you can find some bits here and there, how the hell does it come close to being 'MATCHING destruction'?[/quote]

But atheism really is simply the lack of belief in God. It means nothing to say that more violence has been committed in the name of religion than atheism (this may well be true, I am not making a judgement), but it's not really a valid comparison. Maybe we should be comparing religion to nationalism or ideology or something.

Anyway I don't think it's a fruitful discussion.

[Meili]

[quote name='Crazydog7' post='1673918' date='Feb 4 2009, 13.15']Then I don't get it what it is exactly? And you get a cookie if you can reply without being sarcastic.[/quote]

No problem. You stated that 'we won't convert people to our side' with yada yada. I am stating there is no '[b]we[/b]', there is nothing to '[b]convert[/b]' to and there is no '[b]side[/b]' here. There is no we because atheism isn't a group of likeminded people. There is nothing to convert to because there is nothing you need to believe in. Rationalists don't walk around trying to win people over with some main argument. School and an education should do that. A non-believer simply says 'I don't believe because ....' and religious people intrepit that as trying to win people over. Why? Because they see and practice that tactic every day and can only imagine others do the same.

I know the same thing is going to happen to you along with me when we die. I don't need to convince you of anything. I don't need you to give me tithe to keep a building up, I don't need to think the only way you can really be happy is to believe what I believe, I don't try to save your 'soul' because I care about you. If any group of people can truly let you be and withhold judgement, which none ever have, it would be non-religious people. Because each one of them is living this life, not caring about the way they and their loved ones adhere to certain rules in this one if they want to procede to the next life.

[Meili]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1674000' date='Feb 4 2009, 14.13']What destruction can be laid at the feet of godlessness, or godless people primarily due to their godlessness?[/quote]

There is no mass destruction or war done by 'godless' people do to their godlessness. Some Christians here see an atheist do something and intrepit that as the reason he did it but they can't find a single war, conflict or genocide done by 'godless' people because their godlessness told them to.... the sentence doesn't even make sense. How can nothing make people do something? Anyways EHK, just wanted to validate what you said and agree.

[Jon AS]

[quote name='HT Reddy']But atheism really is simply the lack of belief in God. It means nothing to say that more violence has been committed in the name of religion than atheism (this may well be true, I am not making a judgement), but it's not really a valid comparison. Maybe we should be comparing religion to nationalism or ideology or something.[/quote]

But the comparison with atheism is exactly the point, as atheism is what this thread is about in the first place. The comment was also made in response to the rather nonsensical claim that an equal amount of violent atrocities had been commited "in the name of" atheism as in the name of various religions. Why do you randomly pull out the (easy) strawman of nationalism?

[HT Reddy]

[quote name='Meili' post='1674050' date='Feb 4 2009, 20.49']There is no mass destruction or war done by 'godless' people do to their godlessness. Some Christians here see an atheist do something and intrepit that as the reason he did it but they can't find a single war, conflict or genocide done by 'godless' people because their godlessness told them to.... the sentence doesn't even make sense. How can nothing make people do something? Anyways EHK, just wanted to validate what you said and agree.[/quote]

But we've been through this. In Soviet Russia, priests were murdered precisely because of the specifically atheism part of the governing ideology. You were in the thread when I pointed this out, I don't see why you are ignoring it now.


[quote name='Jon AS' post='1674053' date='Feb 4 2009, 20.50']But the comparison with atheism is exactly the point, as atheism is what this thread is about in the first place. The comment was also made in response to the rather nonsensical claim that an equal amount of violent atrocities had been commited "in the name of" atheism as in the name of various religions. Why do you randomly pull out the (easy) strawman of nationalism?[/quote]

Strawman? In what way is it a strawman? I wasn't portraying anyone else on thread in the argument and being pro-nationalist or something. I am suggesting that, to a very large extent I agree with Meili et al, atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity. Of course religion has caused more violence than atheism - what else would you expect? It's a compeltely trivial point imo. If you want to look at how violent religion has been in history, a better comparison would be with various ideologies.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='HT Reddy' post='1674018' date='Feb 4 2009, 14.25'][b]Well he's a Christian theologian[/b], so it's not like he's trying to hide his own view. That said, he is also an academic, and the book is in absolutely no sense polemical. Like I say, it's interesting.

It's basically a book which focuses on some of the consequences of the Enlightenment which are often overlooked by those of a modernist outlook, and that can be helpful.

ETA: to be clear, he doesn't blame the atrocities of atheist regimes on their atheism, but he makes the argument that those regimes were products of the Enlightenment as was the rise of atheism. The two are linked, but not causally[/quote]

Well, the bolded part would explain a bit. In either case, I just can't see what evidence exists that would support his claim that atheism is on the decline. Hitchen's and Dawkins are regular bestsellers. The viewpoint is getting more airtime than it ever has. Anecdotally I've witnessed people more willing to talk about it openly than before. There's a perpetual flood of them (or leaning that way) on the internet. From everything I've observed, its more mainstream than it has ever been.

And I guess it would depend on just how he presented it and should reserve judgment til I've read the book, but even the mere linking without any claim of causation of atheism with those ideologies can be damning.


[quote]But atheism really is simply the lack of belief in God. It means nothing to say that more violence has been committed in the name of religion than atheism (this may well be true, I am not making a judgement), but it's not really a valid comparison. Maybe we should be comparing religion to nationalism or ideology or something.[/quote]

I was responding to a comparison, not necessarily making one. But as Jon says, the title of the thread is atheism. Comparisons to theism are pretty much the point. In either case, religion doesn't need atheism as a counterpoint. The crimes that can be reasonably tied to religion are damning enough on their own.

And religion comes out worse in any comparison to nationalism or ideology as well. But that's a separate discussion for another thread, one I've had several times.

[HT Reddy]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1674073' date='Feb 4 2009, 21.00']Well, the bolded part would explain a bit. In either case, I just can't see what evidence exists that would support his claim that atheism is on the decline. Hitchen's and Dawkins are regular bestsellers. The viewpoint is getting more airtime than it ever has. Anecdotally I've witnessed people more willing to talk about it openly than before. There's a perpetual flood of them (or leaning that way) on the internet. From everything I've observed, its more mainstream than it has ever been.[/quote]

Of course the Western world is not representative of the whole of humanity, but yeh I know what you mean.

[quote]And religion comes out worse in any comparison to nationalism or ideology as well. But that's a separate discussion for another thread, one I've had several times.[/quote]

Fair enough. Tbh i'm not remotely interested in having that discussion either.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='HT Reddy' post='1674069' date='Feb 4 2009, 14.59']But we've been through this. In Soviet Russia, priests were murdered precisely because of the specifically atheism part of the governing ideology. You were in the thread when I pointed this out, I don't see why you are ignoring it now.[/quote]

I'd assume that doesn't qualify under his definition of MASS destruction. But its bad and probably something that can legitimately be laid at the feet of atheism. (because without that element, its unlikely that said atrocity would've been committed. Even if it had intervening causes like the Soviets being a bunch of barbaric douches) And (getting into the comparisons, sorry) I'll freely accept any other atrocity that can be reasonably tied to atheism. Than I'll sneeze Crusades and they'll all seem rather insignificant by comparison.

[Meili]

I'll agree here HT, whether the belief in god or the disbelief of him has killed more doesn't really matter. (so I'll leave the priest thing for another thread, just wanted you to know I did see it) :thumbsup:

But when talking about religion staying a crucial part of the community people live in, I would imagine each individual religion in question and each community should be examined. That is what the first post talked about, the community. But as far as to it relating to whether or not their is a creator, the argument of murders doesn't matter.

[Jon AS]

[quote name='HT Reddy']Strawman? In what way is it a strawman? I wasn't portraying anyone else on thread in the argument and being pro-nationalist or something. I am suggesting that, to a very large extent I agree with Meili et al, atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity. Of course religion has caused more violence than atheism - what else would you expect? It's a compeltely trivial point imo. If you want to look at how violent religion has been in history, a better comparison would be with various ideologies.[/quote]

I called it a strawman because you brought it up out of left field in a discussion about believe (or the lack thereof). It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand and it looked like you tried to shift the focus of said discussion away from the original subject.

Is the comparison between theism and atheism in this respect particularly meaningful? No, but on the other hand I think it [i]is[/i] fair to point out that you'll be hard pressed to find incidents of atheists killing people for reasons rooted in their atheism, particularly when someone has just claimed the opposite, equalling the bodycounts of religion and atheism.

[The Khaleesi]

A review from NYT
<<Alister McGrath's TWILIGHT OF ATHEISM: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World (Doubleday, $23.95) is a book of religious triumphalism, as learned and as gripping and as limited by its assumptions as Jacoby's. A professor of historical theology at Oxford, and a former nonbeliever himself, McGrath presents a narrative of the rise and demise of atheism. In his forceful telling, atheism ascended as an essential component of the Enlightenment, a means of dissolving the corrupt entanglement of crown and clergy; and descended when it became the tool of Nazism and Communism, murderous ideologies bent on banishing God. But he errs severely in presenting the fall of the Berlin Wall as the end of the story. ''To remove God is to eliminate the final restraint on human brutality,'' he writes, as if the jihadist Islam of Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qaeda are not enlisting God. In a book of impressive intellectual range, the omission is nothing short of intellectually dishonest. >>

[url="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980DE1DA143EF936A35751C1A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2"]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...mp;pagewanted=2[/url]

"The decline of secular thought is the subject of Alister McGrath's provocative and timely The Twilight of Atheism. (...) His aim is not so much to analyse atheism as demolish its intellectual credentials, and in this he is largely successful. (...) At the same time, his zeal as a Christian apologist gives his argument a strident and parochial tone. McGrath's difficulties begin when he tries to define atheism." - John Gray, The Independent

and to be fair:
"In The Twilight of Atheism, Alister McGrath, who was once himself an unbeliever, spells out this story, with much enjoyable anecdote, and with considerable sympathy for the pioneers – poets and novelists, as well as philosophers and scientists – who saw themselves as liberators of the human imagination. He warns, though, that their work has to be understood in context. (...) The origin of this book in a packed Oxford Union debate is an indication that, there at least, the questions are still felt to matter." - John Habgood, Times Literary Supplement

eta doubled up bit.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1674073' date='Feb 4 2009, 16.00']And religion comes out worse in any comparison to nationalism or ideology as well. But that's a separate discussion for another thread, one I've had several times.[/quote]Religion does not exist in a vacuum as a sole motivating factor, but often works side-by-side with numerous other social issues such as economics, politics, nationalism, cultural views, etc. So to simply say that religion is at the heart of it all is a rather one-dimensional analysis.

[EHK for Darwin]

Thanks Khali, that pretty much confirms my suspicions on the guy.

[quote]''To remove God is to eliminate the final restraint on human brutality,''[/quote]

This would be about the point where we make a list of all the examples of human brutality that religion carried out, encouraged, led, facilitated, excused, or is simply to a significant extent responsible for. But why bother, he's pretty clearly an agenda driven hack. This notion seems riddled with the same false and insulting presumptions that I encounter regularly in various net debates; that without God, we're somehow incapable of determining morality or behaving morally ourselves. Its nonsense.

[quote][b]Religion does not exist in a vacuum as a sole motivating factor[/b], but often works side-by-side with numerous other social issues such as economics, politics, nationalism, cultural views, etc. So to simply say that religion is at the heart of it all is a rather one-dimensional analysis.[/quote]

Neither does atheism or anything else for that matter. Including politics, economics, nationalism, culture, etc, all intertwined. But while that means it shares blame in nearly every situation, it certainly doesn't exempt it. We're capable of ferreting out some rough measure of culpability for the various -ism's involved in any atrocity. And we're capable of determining when religion can fairly be called a primary cause or culprit.

I wasn't claiming that religion is at the heart of it all nor would I in most instances. There are always other factors in play as well. But that doesn't change the fact that religion is very often amongst the primary factors.