>> I use the word "faith" because it's impossible to conclusively prove there is no God,

no, you use the word "faith" because you don't have a clue. it's also impossible to conclusively prove there is no Tooth Fairy, which is exactly the sense in which most atheists (including Dawkins) discuss their disbelief.

>> One element of atheism of particular interest is its track record and its legacy

Again, completely ridiculous. How and why should a simple disbelief lead to anything? Atheism isn't a way to live. It is a disbelief in God.

>> To get down to specifics, it's legitimate to ask what and where are the atheistic equivalents of Christian welfare agencies

No, it isn't. It's an absurd question, made of straw.

You are really stretching credibility when you describe atheism as a faith - sometimes it is a belief that there are no gods, just as often it is merely an absence of belief in any gods. The whole premise of the article falls down on this misapplication of 'faith' to atheism. Of course there are no atheist charities - the non-belief in gods is quite separate from the desire to do good and help others.

I sm quite certain that there are many atheists who give generously to a number of Christian charities. Not believing in something supernatural doesn't prevent them from doing this. As an atheist I actually collect for the Red Cross.

Oh dear... who is Rowan Forster?

I looked at his bio: "Rowan Forster is a Melbourne journalist".

Oh dear again.... is Rowan a fashion journalist or a sports journalist, I wonder?

Certainly not any form of investigative journalism, or fact-required journalism.

It is hard to know whether Rowan is being deliberately thick, or he is just a bit obtuse, as the previous authors have pointed out.

'Atheism' is not a 'movement', or an ideology like religion is.

There is no power structure to defend, or win a place in 'the market'. There is no evangelising for converts.

In fact, I know atheists who work in faith schools, hospitals, Lifeline, Mission Impossible, and all sorts of 'faith' based groups.

But none of them 'identify' as atheists, it is not a badge they wear or think about any need to promote to others.

I think Rowan needs to go back to the beginning, and understand better what it means to 'be' an atheist.

Why do so many theists want to attribute bascially religious characteristics to atheism? It is almost as if it is a subconscious effort to reduce us all to the same delusion. ie. Like a get out of jail free card if all can be 'accused' of faith type behaviours.

Atheism is not a faith. If I don't believe in the little green men at the bottom of a garden that is not faith it is probability based on reason.

This article reduces us to the competitive behaviours of "mine is better than yours" and is hardly a Christian tenet.

As for charities - OLO has been down that road before and there are many non-faith based charities including Care Aust, Smith Family, Medicins Sans Frontiers just to name a few.

There are no atheistic charities. Atheism isn't a movement. There are many atheists who volunteer to help others even within Christian organisations.

Why do we have to go over this nonsense repeatedley just to appease a few insecure authors.

Another article from the Christian camp with totally flawed arguments.
There is no such organisation as the Church of the Later Day Atheists, or any other organisation of Atheist persuasion so how can there be an Atheist charity?
From there we go on to a spruiking exercise for a religion that self destructs at any close examination.
It is probably pointless in even bring up the impossibility of the argument with a group who cover ignorance with the words 'faith' and 'belief.' It is simply impossible to counter an argument that has no substance.
I am not an Atheist, but whatever the truth about the existence of God it is certainly not the manufactured images of organised religion.
This is the real problem. There are many people who call themselves Atheists because they see that organised religions are BS when the problem is that we have organisation who claim to have the power to interpret Gods will.
The majority of Atheist arguments I have heard seem to have substance except they have the wrong target. Religion has nothing to do with God. Proving that a religion is BS does not prove that God does not exist, only that religion is BS

How's this for two prime examples of the value of religion, taken from the Australian Prayer Network newsletter today.

Of Islamic followers in the UK:
"Choudary says his group is merely following core Islamic teachings and that Islam is much more than a religion."This particular belief is more than just a religion," he declared. "It is not just a spiritual belief. It is, in fact, an ideology which you believe in and you struggle for and you are willing even to die for, because you believe in that: That is your whole life." Choudary seems to relish being called Great Britain's "most hated man" and pledges to continue his rallies calling for the overthrow of the British system.

Of the Lurv of God in Haiti, having killed all the sinners with His earthquake:

Where were all the people?
They were in churches and makeshift meeting sites. Every church had services, most overflowing into the streets. Services were held outside the ruins of Churches flattened by the earthquake and in homeless camps. Everywhere the nation was gathered to worship and pray. There were no signs of any voodoo, Islamic, or Buddhist services. One Pastor, Pastor Ignace, asked this question: "Can people still say that Haiti is a voodoo country? Twenty years ago I started praying for the Gospel to change the Haitian culture and I am now seeing God do that work."

Amazing what fear, ignorance and human insecurity do to people's thinking

As an atheist I spend much of my celebrating the fact that I disbelieve in Christ, Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Odin, the Old Ones among many others. In fact I spend so much time thinking about the gods I don't believe in, I can hardly do anything else.
I do note two blaspheming heretics are mentioned that betrayed the Bible, God, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Two men whose actions, while perhaps in accordance with their deluded consciences helped overturn a millenia of Biblical and religious traditions.
Of course, I'm talking about W Wilberforce and M L King. Slavery and aparthied, they help destroy were approved and even required by Christian tradition, the word of the one true living God as shown in the Inerrant King James Version and almost all other Bible thumpers then and before and many now.
I do respect many Christians. Almost all are members of the Brethren, Quakers or Anabaptist's. They could avoid trial, even though many are incredibly wealthy, but heretics of any other cult, to avoid being burnt at the stake would have to prove they follow Christ's teaching.

"impossible to conclusively prove there is no God, just as atheists assert that no one can prove there is one."

Hmmm. It's also impossible to conclusively prove that there is no magic teapot circling the dark side of the moon, and to prove that there is no invisible pink unicorn.

The fact that the existence of God cannot be conclusively proven does not mean that the existence of God and the non-existence of God are equally probable or plausible.

Your point about theists having a much better track record of welfare agencies is well taken. On the other hand, atheists have their own pretty good track record by way, for example, of scientific endeavours that have increased productivity, food production, and welfare in other such material ways

Just joining the chorus of those saying this is a very stupid article.

For the record, Mr Forster, atheism simply means the absence of theism. To be an atheist does not require belief in disproof of god. Your notion that atheism is a faith is wrong, or at least, it uses such a strawman version of strong atheism that it can have little bearing on the history of non-belief or indeed the current resurgence in atheism. Very few atheists claim to have proof in God's non-existence because that is impossible. What most thoughtful atheists do is they make arguments based on an epistemic threshold or probability to the exclusion of unseen forces.

An atheist, therefore, adopts a default position of evidence-based epistemology. He or she is simply applying the exact same scepticism of any Christian who assuredly has a similar kind of default non-belief in invisible pink unicorns, tiny teapots orbiting earth, or a range of other dead deities such as Zeus or Thor.

Moverover, Mr Forster's arguments about atheist giving are no less pernicious. For a start, the consequences of belief aren't a valid basis for assessing its truth-value. So even if Christianity promoted charitable deeds more than atheism, that doesn't help rescue Christianity if it is ontologically unsound.

Second, on the facts, it's not clear you have made any real effort at evaluating the proposition, beyond a superficial survey. How many charitable trusts have a purely secular basis in education, health? There are hundreds in Australia alone and thus many candidates for non-religious charity. But you don't consider them. How many atheists give regularly through workplace giving, or private donations? I don't know, but I suspect its a lot. The author provides no sense that he has even entertained these basic questions. Hence I question the lack of research and good faith that has gone into this piece.

Seems like another tabloid-esque article to woo the simpletons when other topics like hooning teenagers and shonky Lebanese builders have run their course with audiences.

Anyway- The reason we get "Christian charities" is most likely because each Christian sect is a formal organization (or club!) and thus there is something for them to represent as a charity. I'd imagine there are no "atheist charities" because there are no "atheist churches" to represent, and an atheist would see no reason to set themselves apart as such from a faith charity and thus is simply a non-denominational charity.

The only situation would be a charity that donates condoms would likely be against the principals of most faith groups and thus would warrant setting themselves apart for.

Nothing to see here, move along.

I agree that this article is a poor exposition of the standard theist attempt to reduce a lack of belief in god/s to the intellectual straitjacket of constituting a 'faith'. However, I expect that we'll see cleverer versions in response to events like the recent atheist convention in Melbourne.

While at one level I think that a convention of atheists of various decriptions, exchanging ideas and engaging in rational bonhomie sounds like a fine idea, at another I think that they set themselves up for this kind of disingenuous attack from threatened theists.

However, maybe that's just what they want :)

Whether or not atheism is technically a "faith" in the same manner as a religion such as Islam or Hinduism, the fact- an inescapable fact, actually- is that atheists do have faith.

Also, Rowan Forster may have gone a little far but nonetheless he does make a good point- the vast, vast majority of charitable organisations are either explicitly religious or were founded by religious people. Unfortunatly, many of them are no longer explicitly religious in name due to political correctness, nonetheless they have a religious heritage. The underpinnings of most modern atheists (naturalism, materialism) preclude them from having a strong foundation for values such as compassion etc. Obviously there are many, many compassionate atheists but my point is that their compassion isn't strictly founded on their worldviews, whereas a Christian's compassion is. Hence, we should find no surprises in the fact that Christians are much more charitable givers, and that they start more charitable organisations.

I always chuckle to myself at those who compare belief in God with belief in the tooth fairy. Why, then do we have the atheist convention? I haven't heard of a global Afairies convention, but if there is, let me know.

Also, Peter Hume's blunder in his post is embarrassing. I might be near the word limit so I'll leave others to point out his horrendous mistake.

The reference to the lack of charitable support organisations by atheists and the emphasis given to the highly organised and profitable church-owned charities, the readers should not be deluded as to the motivations of such organisations detailed by the writer.
If he tries to represent that altruism is the motivation, he would be insulting the intelligence of every reader. That has long since lost any credibility as we see just in Canberra alone 80% of all social clubs run and controlled by the Roman church, cruise boats, golf courses, health clubs, 36 schools and colleges. If altruism existed anywhere in the Catholic philosophy, then the church would sell assets to feed the poor rather than exploit the poor to continue the control of their hearts and minds.
So please do not assume that because the churches have 'charitable' structures that they are there for the good of the poor and destitute.
Anyone thinking that for one second would be naive.
If that is his argument against atheists, he is totally out of touch which the remainder of his writings confirm quite clearly.
If he is a so-called 'journalist' it must be for a church propaganda publication. Any journalist should be capable of rational thinking, sadly lacking in this article.

It may come as a surprise to most of you that the art of ‘Praying’ is still within the compass of old Sherkahn's habits. We Nature lovers; Tree huggers; Pagans; Darwinian realists, (not Atheists thanks!) are fully aware that everything on Earth is ‘The Complete Package’; ie; the God that you believe, is sitting up there, on a cushion twiddling his thumbs, never sleeping one 100th of an OLYMPIC second, seeing ‘round corners, through the bedclothes, down the Mine even into ‘Hades’, is in fact your Subconscious Mind!
You must all have come across the general advice when one has a problem, “sleep on it”. The Conscious mind off-loads or empties the too hard basket into the Sub-Conscious mind during sleep.
The Sub-Conscious does one of two things. It either presents a solution to the problem to the Conscious mind, OR, prepares you for the worst by switching on ‘Hormones’ for the body and Conscious mind to deal with the shock. Your terminology would be, “God came to my rescue”.

Your God is a Palliative necessity for the majority of temperaments of the human mob. Religion is also a great Tribal or Social Club that gives you that necessary Tribal feeling of ‘Belonging’.
I have no desire to see it crushed; I am no Henry V111 or indeed Cromwell or Communist, I love and respect religious architecture and religious music. Each Sunday night at 10.30 pm, with my headphones on, I listen to our wonderful ABC Classic FM program, The God Who Sings, for 2 hours.

What would be wonderful, and fill the churches again, ‘tweaking God’s words a bit’, would be for Religion to stop being so Narcissistic about the Human Supremacy, and worship Nature and all it’s creatures realistically. We may then ‘save the world.
If the world’s population were half of what it is, there would be hope. It is known that, the ‘Farting’ of humans and their food animals creates the majority of climate pollution. We even have an advert on our TV here, “Save the Planet, Go Veggie!”

The non-theist is someone who accepts that there will probably never be any evidence to support belief in the existence of any gods. For most people that only means an increase in gods he or she doesn't believe in by one.
As a sceptic, a secularist and a non-theist in my view the question should be the relative importance of secular charities versus religious ones.
In the secular column we should include, state education, state and federal health care, unemployment benefits, foreign aid, government funded research to overcome all manner of problems and so on almost ad infinitum. Religious charities are, compared to these, almost insignificant and certainly at the margins.
Religious school education has only bounced back from near extinction, apart from for the wealthy, because of state aid, a system foisted on all taxpayers, believers and non-theists alike, by religious twits in power, or vote manipulators, none of whom have, as a main interest, the long term well being of the community.
How much better would this community be in the future if all children mixed in local schools and were taught to think clearly free of the indoctrinations of the various religions?

The first thing to remember is that Saint Jesus of Galilee was NOT a social worker, nor did the radical spirit-breathing Spiritual Way that he taught and demonstrated while alive, have anything to do with a social gospel teaching.

Put in another way, this essay is a typical example of how the radical spirit-breathing Spiritual Way taught and demonstrated by Saint Jesus has been reduced to a social gospel ONLY.

The effect of such being that what is now called religion reduces every one to the mortal meat-body scale only.

No profundity allowed---either investigations or doings.

http://www.dabase.org/tfrbkyml.htm

Saying atheism is a religion is the same as saying NOT collecting stamps is a hobby. Bloody ludicrous.

Didn't I here somewhere from the Bible, "God is in everyone?"
There you go, my Subconscious Mind belief.
Are Christians responsible for Global Warming?
In a mere 2000 years, the Population of the World has increased at least 10 fold. When Jesus is said to have remarked, "go forth and multiply,” I doubt if he meant as human destroyers of the Earth.

Be a realist and worship Nature or the World will be "ONE BIG EASTER ISLAND." What a perversity!

Didn't I here somewhere from the Bible, "God is in everyone?"
There you go, my Subconscious Mind belief.
Are Christians responsible for Global Warming?
In a mere 2000 years, the Population of the World has increased at least 10 fold. When Jesus is said to have remarked, "go forth and multiply,” I doubt if he meant as human destroyers of the Earth.

Be a realist and worship Nature or the whole World will become "ONE BIG EASTER ISLAND."
What a perversity!

Saying that atheism is a religion would be like saying that 2500 atheists would get together in Melbourne to cheer their high priests, encourage one another in their beliefs and congratulate themselves on being superior to everyone else. How ridiculous....

I just love the irony of these protests. And if it's all such obvious nonsense, why the need to react with such offense and vitriol?

Obviously the article doesn't prove God exists, but given the over the top claims about Christianity poisoning everything, atheists can hardly protest when Christians want to set the record straight.

there is nothing at all rational about atheism. One Professor rightly says that scientist are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with there theories when it comes to evolution. Atheism is nothing short of god denial by people who use pseudo science as an excuse to deny the obvious. This is far from rational and is a blind faith. God could not help but to laugh at such pathetic attempts to explain His existence away.

The idea that Religion and Atheism have things in common because their both cannot prove through reason the existence or non existence of God is only superficially attractive.

The substantial difference is the supposed causal power of deities against the causal power of material and non material entities, not the unprovable existence or non existence of deities.

Atheists can prove beyond any doubt that in a material sense deities do not have causal power. Gods can move the mind of people but not make planes take off, buildings stand, engines run etc... On the other hand, Atheists can discover and harness the natural laws of nature for the benefit of mankind.

Atheists are materialist, religious people are spiritualist, and that is not the same thing.

Q: Who were the twentieth Century's greatest individual philanthropists?

A: Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Andrew Carnegie and Nelson D Rockefeller

Q: What were the religious affiliations of these people?

A: Rockefeller was a Protestant. The other three had no connection with religion, and in fact declared themselves to be atheist.

Hilarious and expected responses. Any first year philosopher knows that all knowledge requires faith. Including assumptions about how we know things.

Of course, the common bait and switch tactics are quite evident here.

Claiming on one hand that you, as an individual, has not found proof of God (technically called agnosticism) is one thing. Claiming that God doesn't exist (technically called atheism) is another. This second option is inherent in all the writings of Dawkins. Dawkins has faith that no-one can have warranted belief in God...so he is claiming not only that he hasn't found proof of God's existence, but also that no-one CAN find proof of God's existence (which of course, is only tenable if God really doesn't exist). This is of course, a stealth atheist faith claim. People here who claim otherwise are simply being disingenuous.

Others claim that there are no atheist organisations at all, so how could there be atheist charities (Daviy et al). Um...Skeptics organisations, an organisation organised the atheist convention, Atheist Agenda (who do a bible/porn exchange program)...so many organisations exist, and they are evangelical.

Moral of the story...before you critique an article, try and have a post that is at least remotely accurate.

Whichever editor approved this piece of inflammatory rubbish is getting very perverse in their old age.

Not believing in something and not following rituals for the non-belief in something IS NOT A FAITH.

No more argument to be entered into, apart from the demonstrable evidence for many non-faith charities and humane societies that are not religion based.

And a final note: ONLY the Faith-Based-charities have another agenda - CONVERTS.

Sure good to see the instant crowd of posts to declaim this piece of trivia, hoping that this thread dies out just as quickly.

@The Blue Cross: is Rowan a fashion journalist or a sports journalist, I wonder?

See http://au.christiantoday.com/article/interview-rowan-forster-christian-broadcaster/6601.htm "Rowan Forster Christian Broadcaster"

@Rowan Forster: any charitable enterprise or benevolent agency that was directly and specifically inspired by atheism, founded by devout sceptics, staffed by dedicated nihilists, and fervently supported by devoted anti-religious non-believers. The very concept sounds almost self-contradictory.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is, according to Wikipedia, the largest transparently operated private foundation in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Foundation

It is funded primarily by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Both are self proclaimed atheists. http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Main_Page

It has been shown time and time again, when it comes to doing pro bono work - eg doctors waving fees for the poor, atheists do as at least much as their religious brethren. http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2007/08/20/prsb0820.htm

Severin makes a good point. Conversion is not exactly an altruistic motive, not to mention the harm done to children by some religious charities.

This is not to ignore the good that many religious groups do, many of them do not push the religious agenda quite so much as before.

However if I was needy I would hope for support from those without an agenda other than simply helping another human being.

mikk
stamp collecting - that is probably the best analogy yet. Still laughing.

Other comments left me wondering if this article was not intended merely as a baiting exercise. Its claims are too simplistic.

What a pile of dribble

Here we go again.
Atheism a faith?
There is no evidence for God, and no way of proving God false.
Just like pink unicorns, flying teapots and fairies at the bottom of my garden. Once and for all, the burden of proof is on theists. Why should I accept a hypothesis with no evidence?
Atheists not charitable?
A ridiculous argument, but by way of refutation: The wealth of the Catholic Church in Australia alone is estimated at over $150 billion, with all other churches $220 billion. They don't pay taxes, don't file tax returns, get government concessions and grants, often rely on a volunteer workforce and have zero accountability or transparency. How much do these churches spend on genuine charitable works? Next to nothing when compared with their wealth and revenues.
By comparison, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, both atheists, are donating $70 billion to charity, mainly for the elimination of disease in the third world. In Buffett's case this is 85% of his wealth. A fine example for the church to follow you might think, but don't hold your breath.
So are church charitable works a cover for tax-free wealth creation? Let's separate the genuinely charitable works from their business/religious activities and apply proper taxes to the latter. I wonder how strongly charity would then figure in their activities........

Atheism and religion are just two competing forms of thought. One is anti-faith and the other pro-faith, simple as that. They are both valid in that they give different people the reassurance and protection they require in their life path.

The "mine's better than yours" polemic is rubbish, regardless of who's pushing it.

Rowan Forster for all his protestations of being agnostics spends an inordinate amount of time on christianity.

Thus it is not surprising when he shows about as much understanding of athiesm as a nun does of fast living.

Athiest don't try necessarily to join athiest only organisations, rather organisations for which religion is not a prerequisite. There are no belief based athiest organisations simply because they would be a contradiction in terms.

I don't care whether another person worships God, Allah, a variety of gods, or even the easter bunny, as long as they don't expect me to share their beliefs, or share their opinions which are belief based.

I try and steer my donations or volunteer work away from belief based organisations, but in the absence of a secular organisation I will support what's available such as Vinnie's or the local "soup kitchen".

While the churchs are quick to claim credit for their charities, they shy away from some of damage their faith has caused such as the abstinence based sex education that has helped American teens to record pregnancy levels, and helped boost HIV in Africa.

Rowan Forster

<<< I have yet to hear of any similar transformations resulting from conversion to atheism. >>>

That's quite correct.

Atheists go to counsellors, psychiatrists, psychologists or other professionals for help when having problems or other difficulties in life. And these same professionals do not run around shouting "Hallelujah, I have cured another ill person!".

Another interesting fact is that atheists do not get possessed by demons either.

trav:

>the fact- an inescapable fact, actually- is that atheists do have faith.

in any way remotely like the way christians have faith in biblical twaddle? balderdash.

>> I always chuckle to myself at those who compare belief in God with belief in the tooth fairy.

and i chuckle at your smug chuckling, that you seem to regard virgins giving birth to gods as a superior belief to fairies purchasing teeth.

>> I haven't heard of a global Afairies convention, but if there is, let me know.

don't worry. once believers in tooth fairies start getting tax breaks, and start murdering in the name of their god, once it becomes effectively mandatory for politicians to declare their oneness with tooth gods, there'll most surely be a global afairies convention.

Grey
"Dawkins has faith that no-one can have warranted belief in God...so he is claiming not only that he hasn't found proof of God's existence, but also that no-one CAN find proof of God's existence..."

No he's not. Dawkins explicitly admits the logical possibility that God could exist. But, as he says, that doesn't mean the probabilities of God's existing, and not existing, are equal. On the evidence and reasons for and against, he finds that the probability that God exists is so astronomically (pardon the pun) small, as to be negligible.

I will undertake to conclusively prove there is no God to Rowan Forster's satisfaction, on the following conditions:

1. He sets out an empirical proposition which he believes can be disproved.

2. He explains the steps by which this proposition can be disproved to his satisfaction.

3. We apply those steps to the proposition 'God exists'.

If we use the mathematical sense of 'proof', then no, we can't prove God doesn't exist, but we can't mathematically prove that cows are mammals, or any other empirical proposition, either. But as far as empirical 'proof' goes, of the kind accepted in a court of law or a scientific laboratory, there is no doubt whatever that the non-existence of God is as well proven as the law of gravity or the guilt of Martin Bryant.

And in response to the ad hominem attacks...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nontheists

Bushbasher:

[in any way remotely like the way christians have faith in biblical twaddle? balderdash.]

So you’re admitting that it’s ok to have a little bit of faith, but you don’t think it’s good to have a lot of faith? But where do you draw the line?

Atheists all believe in miracles. They just don’t like to admit it.

[and i chuckle at your smug chuckling, that you seem to regard virgins giving birth to gods as a superior belief to fairies purchasing teeth.]

If tooth fairies could reveal themselves personally to people if given a chance, and if there was good historical evidence of fairy miracles like there is for Jesus Resurrection, then you could begin to entertain the possibility of them being on par.

[don't worry. once believers in tooth fairies start getting tax breaks, and start murdering in the name of their god, once it becomes effectively mandatory for politicians to declare their oneness with tooth gods, there'll most surely be a global afairies convention.]

Hook, line and sinker. You fell for it. Have you considered WHY these things happen? It’s because people believe in God. If no one believed in God, then no one would murder in the name of God. But WHY do people believe in God? Why are there innumerable people of incredible intellect who do believe in God? Why are there so many very, very, very intelligent people who consider it rational to believe in God? There’s NO ONE in the same boat who believes in tooth fairies. Have you contemplated why that would be?

To suggest that all of these people are so deluded that they’d openly proclaim belief in something which is as silly as the tooth fairy means that either 1. You’re absurdly arrogant to make that claim, since your power of intellect is only moderate, and much less so than the intellectually gifted theists to whom I refer (I’ll assume...) or b. You haven’t fully thought through the reasons why intelligent theists may believe.

So, which is it?

Actually, Gates and Buffet are self-proclaimed agnostics, not atheists, with much influence from Christian principles.

In fact, if you look at the history of the Gates Foundation, you'll find it being created due to the influence of Melinda Gates' (nee French) mother, who died of cancer and passed on a bible verse to her daughter. The death of the mother and the bible verse are given as pivotal in the creation of the foundation.

But hey...never let reality get in the way of good propaganda.

I find it amusing that Atheists, who can't see what 90% of the world see (higher if you view all of history), think the burden of proof is on the super-majority. Ah well...what can you expect from people who believe they have mutated monkey brains that are not selected for apprehending truth.

Actually, the difference between and Atheism and Agnosticism is that Atheism deals with belief and Agnosticism deals with knowledge. So all Atheists are also Agnostics - as no one can know if a God of any sort actually exists - and most Agnostics are Atheists since they don’t believe in any particular God.

But hey...never let reality get in the way of good propaganda.

I find it amusing that Theists, who can't see that it doesn’t matter how many people believe something, only why they believe it, think the burden of proof is on those who don’t believe in unproven mythological beliefs that others have made the conscious choice themselves to adopt. Ah well...what can you expect from people who think that those who accept evolution believe we have mutated monkey’s brains.

The most disappointing aspect of the article (and much of this discussion) is the belligerent, adversarial stance.

Obviously, both believers and non-believers value the freedom to determine the guiding principles by which they live their lives. Clearly both devote considerable reflection and energy to deciding if these principles will follow a religious, or a non-religious pathway. Demonstrably, both believers and non-believers acknowledge an obligation to contribute back to societies that have nurtured them, and to support other less privileged societies. Indisputably, every day we pass on the street hundreds of upstanding, moral fellow citizens, some believers, some not.

The common discourse in which one side tries to demonstrate the stupid/superstitious/evil/delusional nature of the other side is becoming very tiresome. An acknowledgement that those who base their lives on other principles are nonetheless worthy human beings would help to put some generosity of spirit back into this debate.

Before anyone reading this thinks that these words only apply to one side or other, let me emphasise that in my view the individuals trying to polarise our views are on both sides. We don’t live in a binary world, and straw-man dichotomies like believer vs non-believer are an insult to our very human efforts to find truth and structure in the world.

The Global Atheist Convention notwithstanding, atheism is not an organised religion or 'faith'. Without an organisation that everyone can agree to belong to, it is not feasible to have an 'atheist' charity set up by that non-existent organisation. The best we can do is have the various non-religious charities that the article agrees exist.

And it is no use knocking atheism because it may or may not add value to humanity. If God does not exist, the point that athesim is all about, then there is no point in pretending that he does, just to improve society. A circular argument was used in comparing Christ to your average atheist - because that argument implicitly asks me to believe that Jesus did all the things the gospels say he did. I say he did not.

AJP... do you think Grey would have looked at Nazi Germany, noticed all the weight of the pro-Hitler believers in fascism (and in Italy and the UK, France the US and onwards) and decided that it was, therefore, a GOOD THING?

Because a lot of people must have quite genuinely believed in it.

After all, the trains were improved, and the road system, in a very efficient copying of the old Roman style, is still with us today.

And of course, the same question can apply to all sorts of similar excursions of depravity throughout history, but the German Nazis efforts are still very much 'public memory', so are useful as a single example.

The usual theist response to mentioning Hilter and Co is that he was not a believer, but that is not true at all. And Germany was certainly not an 'atheist' nation then.

Of course, it's probably better all round to look to 'human nature' than the presence or absence of 'belief' in that example, as with all other examples of great works or massive human failings, given that there is no sure-fire promise that simply being a 'believer' of any variety brings with it any guarantee of good moral behaviour...nor being a 'non-believer' either.

As for the inspiration of the bible verse being 'proof' of something, I am not so sure that one has to avoid some of the homespun wisdom the bible contains, just because it is in the bible.

It certainly provides some useful metaphors, sayings and quotes for use within our culture, that are readily understood by many, whether believers or not.

As my children moan about not being told something earlier (they generally have been but didn't listen/hear) I've been known to invoke the old 'Knock, and the door will open: ask, and you will receive'.

Irrespective (or 'irregardless' as Senator Joyce would say) of its source, that is sound advice, and more people should heed it in all sorts of situations.

Just after I posted my previous comment, I read a very relevant newspaper article. While I was correct in saying that a non-existent organisation of all atheists could not set up an atheist charity, I was wrong in believing that such charities, set up by individual atheists do not exist. The article said:

"Singer also pointed out that three of the four great philanthropists of the 20th century were professed atheists: Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Andrew Carnegie."

Thus, the three atheist charities that the article so proudly believed would never be found

Glad to learn that I have faith in a-homeopathy, a-astrology, a-faryism and atheism.
Seriously, Rowan, man, nobody can disprove than ANYTHING does not exists. It’s a non-argument. I can give you a whole list of make-belief characters and challenge you to disprove them.

I like the saying that extra-ordinary claims request extra-ordinary evidence. If I tell you that I bought a new pair of shoes you might not even require evidence and just take my word for it. If I tell you that I have a dragon in my backyard, you might ask for pictures, you might want to visit my place to see it for yourself. If I claim that I have an invisible dragon in my backyard that reveals itself under a full moon but only to me and others who have complete faith in him you would require a significant amount of evidence.

Faith is delusion. Lol- are you saying that sanity is the new mental illness?

OK man, you admit that there are lots of charities that are secular.

Atheists don’t normally brag about being charitable. Atheists don’t do charity in the name of atheism! Bill Gate is not charitable in the name of agnosticism or atheism, he just gets done what he thinks is important, without having to draw attention to his non-existent religious views.

Atheists just donate, they just help, but they don’t necessarily form a group for the sake of recognition.

What about the government? The government, with all the tax-payers' money, have large social and health networks plus top up the religious organisations by giving financial support and tax exempts.

And hey man, I dare you to come up with an atheist organisation that has sexually abused children, brain-washed vulnerable people, and subjugated women. Good luck!

PS
Hey Rowan, man, I noticed that you missed to mention 'MOTHER' Theresa.
Why is that?

Trav,

"To suggest that all of these people are so deluded that they’d openly proclaim belief in something which is as silly as the tooth fairy"

Actually they have. An all powerfull god that does nothing but trivial "miracles" whilst letting really terrible things happen to millions of innocents, smacks of someone making up the rules as they go along.

"You haven’t fully thought through the reasons why intelligent theists may believe."

Actually theists like athiests are people with fears and weaknesses. The belief in god and an afterlife makes the world just a little less scary. The assumption that intelligent people don't need a crutch, or do stupid things motivated by passion or fear is naive.

Grey
The 'super-majority' are no more agreed on the existence of God than the atheists are. In case you haven't noticed, they've got violent differences of opinion on it, the biggest splinters of which are no bigger than the entire body of atheists.

The theists seem to be better evidence of mutated monkey brains not selected for apprehending truth, than they are for the existence of an all-good, all-knowing, all-capable Being.

Many people do charity to ease guilty consciences and to convince themselves that they are righteous because deep down they know they are not. It is astounding how many rock stars, football stars, fallen politicians suddenly find an 'environmental' conscience and start some foundation. One day they will wake up to the fact that no amount of 'good works' will erase a guilty conscience or soften a hard heart. Many of these sports and rock stars think nothing of pooping on their families through unfaithfulness while parading as saviours to the rest of the world. Unfortunately many religous people do the same. Only Christ Himself can change a man's corrupt nature which automatically leads to generosity and good works. Atheism and feeding the poor is really a contradiction. Atheist will tell you that they believe in the survival of the fittest and then tell you that the fittest must stop burning fossil fuels in order to save the weakest. This is just one of their many contradictions despite claiming to be rational.

So we are told that non-belief in God is the same as non-belief in the tooth fairy. So when do we welcome Richard Dawkins et al to the Melbourne tooth fairy conference? Come on guys, let's get serious. Atheism today - whatever it might have been in the past - has become a faith, with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and the others as its active, proselytizing prophets.

@Grey: But hey...never let reality get in the way of good propaganda.

Good advice Grey. You should try taking it some time.

Ever since Gates rich enough to make the question "what are you going to do with your wealth" an interesting one, "give it away" was his answer. It does appear he, like Warren Buffet, had planned to spend more time building up his wealth before starting giving it away, and yes the death of his mother-in-law is what sparked the establishment of the foundation earlier rather than later. However the intent was always there, and religion had nothing to do with it. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bill-gates-where-are-his-billions-going-405626.html

@Grey: Gates and Buffet are self-proclaimed agnostics.

Neither are self-proclaimed, as far as I can tell. I can not find any direct statement from Buffet on his religious beliefs. All we have is quotes from his work colleges, and statements from biographers like this: http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/07/07/warren-buffet-atheist-philanthropist.htm

For Gates we have this exchange:

Isaacson: "Isn’t there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul?"
Gates: "I don’t have any evidence on that."

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=649

I concede I was using the wrong definition of atheist. I thought it was a person who doesn't use a moral framework handed down from the heavens, but the formal definition is some who emphatically denies the existence of any god. An agnostic is "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God". http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic Thus Richard Dawkins is an agnostic. As am I. As are most people who aren't theists.

Back to to the argument Rowan Forster is making, which is that people who say they get their ethics from religion are more likely to be charitable. Clearly neither agnostics not atheists get their ethics from religion, yet they give on at least the same level as theists. Forster is ill informed or lying. Worse, he is then using that falsehood to say his mob (the theists) are somehow morally better than us agnostics and atheists.

I hope you see the irony in this.

I agree it doesn't make much sense to look for atheistic charities in an essentially Christian country. You may find some, but there won't be a lot of them.

However, China, Russia, Cuba and a number of other countries have in recent times been ideologically atheistic, so it should be possible to do a comparison between them and Christian countries of the activities and existence of civil society organisations at those times. And we should also look at Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims. In fact, there would probably be some interesting variances between the religious as well as potentially with atheists.

It would also be interesting to do a study to see whether atheists were any less represented in charitable work than Christians,Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus.

Seems that religion and Christianity in particular, needs to make a lot of noise about how "moral", "compassionate" and "charitable" it is. I believe that actions speak louder than words and all the proselytising in the world will not change good people doing good things irrespective of their beliefs or lack thereof.

And continuing to question the morality of people simply because they don't follow formal religion is only likely to lead to, well, things like the Atheist Convention.

Whichever group of people who found themselves marginalised have taken action, be it women, blacks, homosexuals. If Christianity wants to vilify atheists/agnostics - then bring it on! The majority of the best minds in the world do not subscribe to orthodox religion. So remember, Rowan Forster and others, you reap what you sow.

The Dawkins delusion is simply this: in order to categorically deny the existence of God, one must be all-knowing, therefore, one must be God who alone can be all-knowing.
Atheism just doesn't cut it as a worldview- it is inherently self-contradictory and illogical.
There is no such thing as truth we are told by atheists. Pontius Pilate, arch-atheist and world's first postmodern man, while looking Truth in the face (literally) asked Christ: "what is truth?". There is no such thing as truth, except the statement that there is no such thing as truth. Secular atheism is logical? Give me a break.
An example not given of an atheistic organisation would surely be compulsory secular education which is of a predominantly left wing disposition complete with its very own trinity of race, gender, class; a view of the world that dominates the landscape of school curriculums these days. Am I expected to believe this represents a balanced education?
Christianity is very largely responsible for Western civilisation's greatest cultural achievements. Even more obviously, how can anyone look at a glorious sunset and not see the design and intent of a Creator behind it all?
Atheism is far too small-minded and limited, hardly even able recognise the wonders of creation, and the amazing creativity of man created in God's image (see Genesis chapter one and two).
A man without God is hardly a man at all.

Dear Rohan, As a devout practicing atheist I forgive you for being a Christian. However I can't forgive you for inferring that Christians (or any other religous people) are morally superior to me.
On balance I think that ALL religions have done more harm than good. Certainly some groups do great social work. However considerable damage has been done by zealous missionaries.
On a wider issue I am astonished that the leader af a major Christian organsation, can, in 2010, proclaim that Mary McKillop actually performed miracles. And that schools do teach creation theory. I reckon they should be required to teach the stork theory for human reproduction.
My thoughts have developed to a point where now I realise I am a geriatric man with no invisible means of support. Peace and Love, Alexs

Of the estimated 2500 Gods and religions invented by mankind, Rowan Forster and his fellow cult members are atheist to 2499 of them, the rest of us are simply atheist to all 2500!

Wow. "Runner", you have motivated me enough to register for this forum. You are a creationist. That just invalidates anything and everything you have to say. Your capacity for reasoned thinking is non-existent. Even the pope accepts evolution. Geez, one un-named professor disputes evolution. What about the 99.9% of other scientists who do accept it? Please give us a source for this "professor" so that we can see how the peer-reviewing of his work went.

Yeah, runner, as if you would know.

We've been through this before, haven't we?

Come on, which professor? Said it where? Another one someone else read for you perhaps?

Religionists who *depend* on the shonkiest of not-even-trying pseudo science are so much more to be believed? I think not. You know *all about* blind faith. Got nothing else though.

You have no idea what "god" laughs at. You don't even know what the reasonably educated find funny in that regard, let alone a supposedly supreme mythical being.

Come on runner, cough it up, lets see what else you haven't read for yourself....

Rusty

To call atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair colour.

Science has explained away much of what was one believed to be miraculous but a basic fear of death will make people believe almost anything - some more than others.

duy: [You are a creationist. That just invalidates anything and everything you have to say.]

Someone believes one thing that you obviously consider to be terribly stupid, so therefore everything they say about everything else must also be incredibly stupid?

You just registered for this forum. I hope the level of logic employed in your posts increases substantially from your initial effort...

HFR: [Of the estimated 2500 Gods and religions invented by mankind, Rowan Forster and his fellow cult members are atheist to 2499 of them, the rest of us are simply atheist to all 2500!]

This is a common atheist misunderstanding, and it suggests a lack of thoughtful reflection amongst those who make it.

Things are never as black and white as this makes out. Technically speaking, Christianity actually holds a huge part of Judaism to be true. To a Christian Judaism is the beginning of our faith. Judaism's number one holy scripture is entirely true, to a Christian. We may interpret differently but nonetheless we hold to some of the same core beliefs and we hold the Old Testament to be divine revelation, as do they.

Christianity also holds Islam to be partially true, along with elements of almost every other religion.

It is actually atheists that are the odd ones out, because they hold that there's nothing spiritual or transcendant (Note: "Atheism" itself doesn't make a commitment to this belief, however 99.9% of self proclaimed atheists are naturalists, hence they are committed to this belief).

Shadow minister: Admittedly there have been somewhat persuasive attempts to explain why some religious faithful may hold to their views. But, as you point out- this can go the other way too. For example, religion makes someone believe they're accountable, whereas if you're a naturalist your behaviour is held by no specific code other than whatever feels good to you.

This can't account for the beliefs of all atheists, nor can it account for the beliefs of all the religious people in the world, especially those intelligent philosophers on either side. Hence, you haven't addressed my dichotomy and so I maintain it.

Duy

You seem very naive.If you are to lazy to see the many scientific breakthroughs made by scientist believing in the Genesis account don't ask me to do your work. If you are a little honest you will realise that their are many scientist who believe in creation. Like with the global warming scam don't expect them to receive the funding or get the nobel prizes.

Profeesor Whitten (Professor of Geneitcs, University of Melbourne in his 1980 address said
'Biologist are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly deprived of further research grants.'

Nothing has changed in this dishonest field of evolution.

btw my previous quote re the bending of observations by scientist comes from H.S.Lipson who was a Professor of Physics at Manchester University. Check out 'A physicist look at evolution'. Physics Bulletin vol.31, 1980, p138.

Don't be so naive. You were told the 'science is settled on climate change. Stop believing the evolution dogma and open your eyes to the obvious design of the universe.

runner
Where is your evidence in divine creation? All religious folk believe their God to be the one and only true supreme being - what makes you so sure your choice (by virtue only of your being born into this culture) is the right one. If you were born and raised in the Middle East you would no doubt be a strict Muslim, or in India a hindu etc.

Graham Y
You will not find data on how many atheists volunteer or start organisations. Just as you will not find any data on how many blondes do good works as compared to brunettes.

Charities are not built solely with the purpose of fostering atheism - atheism is not a religion. Charities are set up I would think on the basis to do good which can come from both theist and non-theist motivations.

Which ever way you want to take it, atheism is indespensable to Christian doctrine and the teachings of the Bible. Post-modern deconstruction isnt a piece of atheistic attack .it is essential to open Christian myths to the fresh and critical views of the present world view. Galileo and Copernicus, to mention just two, attempted to do this. You need to make religion relevant in the light of scientific developments to retain any credibility . The world view keeps changing as does the contemporary needs. These cannot be served by the residents of Nicea who are alive and well this day where they hide out in churches and cathedrals and dress in those crazy clothes and silly caps and hats and put on grave solemn looks to preserve their authority and relevance.

socratease

Quite so Socratease, "You need to make religion relevant in the light of scientific developments to retain any credibility . The world view keeps changing as does the contemporary needs".

And this is what happens, isn't it?

Religion becomes more secularised over time, allowing the really silly bits no one supports to be dropped off and ignored.

Things like saints hang around still, but stoning the sinner has fallen off the edge, at least in Christianity.

And even the Pope says he believes in evolution. Only people like Sen. Fielding don't, and most Christians do not want to sound like him.

So, if the process of secularisation tames the rough edges all the time, making an unlikely belief system more 'believable', at least by making it less fantastic and unbelievable, will the process ever be completed?

Will we ever be able to stand up, let go of the coffee table, and stagger forwards a few steps on our own?

It seems unlikely, at least with Rudd and Abbott slugging it out on our behalf, doesn't it?

Trav, one of runners points is that atheists advocate some sort of social Darwinism ie survival of the fittest is how we should live which shows a complete lack of understanding of atheists. 2. Evolution is accepted fact in the way that the theory of gravity is accepted fact. (1 opinion piece from the 80's does not counter the thousands upon thousands of accepted journalised research documents on the subject. Also, what creedence should a physicist hold on the subject? Would not a biologist be more appropriate for the task?) 3. Global warming scam? I'm three and zero so far so to blanket dismiss this person seems a fairly reasonable position.

Runner and his quotes again.

Please note that runner gives no more information than is included in the bibliography of the cheat-sheet he uses.

Looking elsewhere:
Max J. Whitten in Entomol. exp. appl. vol 53 pages 1-16. 1989.
"If we successfully combine the tools of molecular biology and genetics with the more traditional disciplines of physiology, ecology, taxonomy, and evolutionary biology, we can truly come to grips with a range of processes and phenomena concerning insects."

Given his extensive background in the emergence of insect resistance to pesticides, I am willing to take a chance on asking the man himself. Max Whitten is a contributor to this forum and I have emailed GrahamY to *please* if reasonable, bother the professor to give his personal opinion of the quote runner has supplied.

I am, of course, on tenterhooks.

Lipson clarifies his own position in a later issue in the same volume:
H. J. Lipson, "A physicist looks at evolution - a rejoinder", Physics Bulletin, December 1980, pg 337.
"Several people have given clear indications that they do not understand Darwin's theory. The Theory does not merely say that species have slowly evolved: that is obvious from the fossil record."

Rusty

Trav,

Your posts read like someone who has just finished reading Lee Stobels’ fallacious The Case for Christ, and now thinks they’re ready to take on all those Atheists.

<<If tooth fairies could reveal themselves personally to people if given a chance...>>

I like how your God reveals himself to people.

Someone like Dawkins continues to speak out against your invisible friend to the whole world, and not a peep. Yet some bozo who was indoctrinated as a small child gets has some special revelation that most others apparently don’t deserve?

Or some alcoholic, or wife-beater, or problem gambler, or convicted criminal, whose life has hit rock bottom, gets some special revelation that most others don’t?

This alleged God of yours can’t be very omnipotent or omnibenevolent if someone has to feel lost, or their life has to go down the tubes before he decides to reveal himself.

<<...and if there was good historical evidence of fairy miracles like there is for Jesus Resurrection, then you could begin to entertain the possibility of them being on par.>>

What evidence?

There are no contemporary writings from or about Jesus. There are no carpentry works from Jesus there is nothing to suggest that the alleged Jesus actually existed.

We have no idea of who wrote the Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but we have a pretty good idea that none of them were written while Jesus was alive, and none of them were written by eye-witnesses nor did any of the authors actually meet Jesus. They’re all hearsay accounts. The Gospels about Jesus are essentially stories about stories that the authors heard.

I don’t know for sure that Socrates existed, but there are no outlandish claims about him, so I’m willing to take it at face-value that he did. But if you want to claim that Jesus performed miracles and was the son of a God, then that’s going to take some extraordinary evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Although we do have first-hand accounts from alien abductees. Does this mean you hold them to be even MORE reliable?

Continued...

...Continued

Perhaps you could fill me in. What’s this “good historical evidence” for Jesus and his miracles?

<<Have you [Bushbasher] considered WHY [tax breaks, etc.] happen?>>

Because the Churches have been powerful and there was once a time where the vast majority of the population just assumed it to be true?

Now governments are too scared to do anything about it because they fear retribution from the religious voter but not the Atheist voter.

<<It’s because people believe in God.>>

Oh!

But people believe in astrology too and psychics don’t get tax breaks.

<<If no one believed in God, then no one would murder in the name of God.>>

Yeah, that’s what I keep saying, but other Christians keep dodging the point.

<<But WHY do people believe in God?>>

Usually for emotional reasons.

Because they feel lost; or need meaning in life and can’t find it any other way; because some regret their actions and find the ultimate forgiveness in a God; because they fear death and need to believe they will live for an eternity and be re-united with loved ones when they die.

Or sometimes it’s because they were indoctrinated as young children and don’t know life without religion.

<<Why are there innumerable people of incredible intellect who do believe in God?>>

Because emotions and intellect are two very different things, and intellect - just like common sense - can go straight out the window when emotions are involved.

<<Why are there so many very, very, very intelligent people who consider it rational to believe in God?>>

Because death is an unavoidable reality and a universal fear.

<<There’s NO ONE in the same boat who believes in tooth fairies.>>

That’s because the Tooth Fairy doesn’t offer eternal life. Just a crappy dollar coin and no one likes to feel ripped-off.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Have you contemplated why that would be?>>

Did I mention emotions?

Shadow Minister gave you some good answers, so then you changed the topic a little to something you thought you could win...

<<...religion makes someone believe they're accountable, whereas if you're a naturalist your behaviour is held by no specific code other than whatever feels good to you.>>

That sounds to me like you’re trying to argue that no sane person is going to want to believe in something that’s going to make them feel accountable for their wrongs, so they must be basing their belief on something that they have evidence for.

Right?

Wrong.

Religion feeds off guilt. It takes something that we’re going to do no matter what (usually sex and lustful feelings, etc., sometimes food) then makes its victims feel guilty about it so that the believer has to keep going back to it to feel any sort of solace in life.

Anyway, if you could provide me with some evidence for Jesus, that’d be great. I’ve heard and discredited a lot in the past, so if you have something new, that’d be a nice change.

Thanks.

Just doing some thinking about all the charity and volunteer work I have done....

Not once was I asked if I was religious.

Probably because it simply doesn't matter.

Thank you AJ Philips for taking the trouble to rebut ridiculous claims.
Religions exist because of the indoctrination of children, the expert use of fear and the promise of good things now and hereafter.
Imagine a world where no religion was taught until the age of 18. Then allow religions to present their case. Virgin births! Miracles! Resurrection! They would be properly laughed off the planet.

This from Isaac Asimov:
"Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly".

Runner
That reminds me of someone who suggested to the biologist J.B.S. Haldane that he believes the theory of evolution as a matter of blind faith, asking what would he ever accept as disproof.

“Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian.” Haldane replied.

TAC
> The Dawkins delusion is simply this: in order to categorically deny the existence of God...

Dawkins doesn’t categorically deny the existence of God. He acknowledges that the existence of God cannot be disproved, just as the existence of the magic teapot circling the dark side of the moon cannot be disproved.

He just finds that there is no evidence or reason to believe that it’s true, that all the ‘proofs’ offered for the existence of God presuppose what is in issue, and that the probability that it is true is so small as to be negligible.

While I'm at it, some more interesting and relevant quotes:

Many religious beliefs decline as education level rises. -- George Gallup, Jr.

There is in every village a torch: the schoolmaster -- and an extinguisher: the parson.-- Victor Hugo

The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence. Science is simply common sense at its best -- that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.
-- Thomas Huxley

I certainly had no idea how little faith Christians have in their own faith till I saw how ill their courage and temper can stand any attack on it. -- Harriet Martineau

Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration -- courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the truth. -- H. L. Mencken

An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanished, war eliminated. -- Madalyn Murray O'Hair

The habit of religion is oppressive, an easy way out of thought.
-- Peter Ustinov

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. -- Seneca

Religion to me has always been the wound, not the bandage.
-- Dennis Potter

There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing, which man should not wish to learn. ~ St. Augustine, Augustine of Hippo

I can't leave this discussion without saying that every time a Christian praises Alcoholics Anonymous I roll my eyes.

The 12 step program is ineffective because they have a 5% success rate, which is no better than the rate of spontaneous remission in addicts.

I know some people who have gone to these meetings and for whom the program failed.
They were told that there is nothing wrong with the AA's program, but people can fail!
The program is perfect, rrrrright but 95% of the people who enrol must just be failures because they didn't try hard enough.

As another poster already mentioned, religion is very much about creating guilt. Create guilt first and then tell them they need religion to fix it.
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html

Daviy,
atheists really DO exist, you know ;)

ahh...seriously guys. Do some reading of a more educational nature before you try and tell everyone what an atheist or an agnostic really is.

As an example, the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

It's important to understand the different positions and their different levels of epistemological warrant.

For instance, claiming that 'there can be no evidence that God exists' (which is Dawkins' position) is a claim on an even worse epistemological level than saying that "God doesn't exist", because you can have evidence that things exist, even when they don't. I.e. Even if God doesn't exist, there could be things that would class as evidence that God did exist.

Dawkins is an atheist, because to claim that belief in God is delusional, you have to believe God doesn't exist.

Buffet's agnosticism claim referenced here
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/faces3.html

Bill Gates' agnosticism is referenced in the celebatheist.com link a previous poster gave where he says "Gates: In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid."

Thanks to rstuart for posting the atheism.about link, as that once again made my point. On Buffet "He adopted his father’s ethical underpinnings".

When atheists and agnostics come from a christian culture, they take the ethical principles from Christianity. When atheists come from a non-christian culture, you get 200 million dead in 100 years.

Some other links that may be of interest
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html
Religious people are far more likely than secular ones to give to charity.

Atheists who believe religion has a positive, needed impact on the world.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece#
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-10-19-atheism-belief_N.htm

"When atheists and agnostics come from a christian culture, they take the ethical principles from Christianity."

Is that so?
Slavery and beating slaves was, according to Jesus, not immoral- in fact he gave the 'masters of slaves' some practical advice about how hard to beat their slaves. Not a very loving and ethical principle, is it?

* "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

* "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them." (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

* "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)


* "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Oh I love the morality of God and Jesus!

Celivia

Just to ensure I understand:

When atheists do good it is because they have the moral foundation of Christianity in their cultural background.

When atheists do bad, it is because they have no moral foundation of Christianity in their cultural background.

And I have a penny with 'heads' on both sides.

Oh, but Celivia, you must be quite wrong.

You must not take the Bible literally... that is what a fundamentalist does, and 'most' Christians are not that, are they?

No, no, it was Christians that did away with slavery from this world.

That great man, Wilberforce, single handed, brought an end to slavery.

I know, because Christians never fail to keep telling us this.

Never mind that this man was a complex mix of mean-spirited harshness towards 'the workers' as well, and did not-enough to end workplace slavery within his electorate, as well as clearly having something of a 'reasonable' social conscience at the same time.

I think he might better be described as 'a human' rather than 'a Christian', but they seem to cling to their preferred title so they can demonstrate the 'gains' brought by 'the lurv of Jesus'.

But back to the Good News book... I am sure that cannot be true.

Jesus must have been 'taken out of context', I am sure.

If this keeps up, he might have to resign his position to 'spend more time with his family' as so often happens to those public figures who are 'taken out of context'.

AJ Phillips:
[Someone like Dawkins continues to speak out against your invisible friend to the whole world, and not a peep. Yet some bozo who was indoctrinated as a small child gets has some special revelation that most others apparently don’t deserve?]

This is the sort of atheist arrogance I’m referring to. You talk about Dawkins like he’s some kind of authority on the topic of religion. But he’s not. Numerous atheist philosophers have pointed out how weak his arguments against God are (Ruse, for example), not to mention all the Christian ones who’ve done the same (Plantinga, Craig etc). His knowledge of theology is particularly weak. He makes numerous historical blunders. Just to repeat: I’m pointing out things that his fellow atheists have said- Dawkins level of reflection on religion is surprisingly shallow, and his book is more about rhetoric than rigorous analysis.

[This alleged God of yours can’t be very omnipotent or omnibenevolent if someone has to feel lost, or their life has to go down the tubes before he decides to reveal himself.]

Not at all. Christianity teaches that mankind in itself is effectively incomplete- or, lost- without God. Most believers recognise this, not just the ones who have gone through an incredible crisis of some description.

[There are no contemporary writings from or about Jesus. There are no carpentry works from Jesus there is nothing to suggest that the alleged Jesus actually existed.]

Nor should we necessarily expect a great wealth of contemporary materials. Not when we’re referring to a travelling Jewish teacher with a small band of followers who confines his activities to a relatively small corner of the globe, in an oral culture (NOT a literary one) 2000 years ago.

However, what we DO have- the four gospels and a few other scattered references- provide us with good tools for study. Historical study has made many of the events around Jesus’s life historically certain, or beyond any real reasonable doubt- for example his crucifixion and the fact that his followers believed he appeared to them afterwards.

continued

There is a “resurrection shaped dent in history”, as one historian puts it. The facts are very difficult to account for unless you entertain the possibility of divine intervention

The denial of Jesus existence is historically equivalent to a scientist arguing that the world is 6000 years old. It requires a selective reading and twisting of most of the body of evidence we do have, complete ignorance of some of the rest, and a wild imagination. This, of course, is quite ironic in light of people like the aforementioned Richard Dawkins who take great pleasure in ridiculing young earth creationists, but then go and show sympathy towards this idea that Jesus probably never existed!

For more on this topic I recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Jesus-Five-Views/dp/0830838686/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268694053&sr=8-

[Now governments are too scared to do anything about it because they fear retribution from the religious voter but not the Atheist voter.]

Give me a break.

You think the government is scared of retribution from the 15 or 20% of the population who take their religion seriously enough to let it inform their voting, a 15 or 20% who is incredibly diverse in their political views- and so, impossible to please- anyway?

There’s a strong case to be made that it’s the atheists who get too much attention in our society. They just held a convention and got attention in the Herald Sun, The Age, and several programs on the ABC. This was billed as the “biggest atheist event in the world!” and hyped up to no end. It was “sold out months ago!” Umm, yes...it was quite “big” wasn’t it. Yes, they did sell it out months ago. With what....a couple of thousand people attending? Lol

Trav... "You think the government is scared of retribution from the 15 or 20% of the population who take their religion seriously enough to let it inform their voting, a 15 or 20% who is incredibly diverse in their political views- and so, impossible to please- anyway?"

This tax/council rates/legislation free status is worth billions per year.

It's worth more per year than Rudd doles out in the GFC spendathon, but do we hear any caution from 'the usual quarters' on this fiscal fantasy?

And don't forget, most of our politicians are inside-the-tent in the first place, so will never go against their own 'faith' beliefs.

So, we are stuck with paying for this nonsense, whether we like it or not.

Thanks Grey. I had a look at the article and it does seem to show an empirical case that religious people per se, not just Christians, are more likely to give to charity, at least in the US. It also shows that substantial percentages of secularists do as well, but doesn't appear to have any figures on atheists as a group on their own.

Which then leads to questions of why this might be the case. Could be that religion is transformative and that the secularist position is the default position for people without religion? Or it might be that people who believe you should give are more likely to be religious?

Or at least more likely to attend church, because the statistics examine behaviour, not belief.

And then there is the issue as to whether these stats hold outside the US.

BTW, Celivia. Not one of those quotes you attribute to Jesus are actually his, apart from the one that has nothing to do with slaves. Some are Paul's words and some come from one of the oldest books in the Old Testament written long before Jesus time. I think we can discard the Exodus quote, which leaves the Pauline ones. I don't think you can take these quotes outside their context at the time. Slavery was a fact of life in the Roman Empire, which Paul was accepting and giving advice to the slaves (not the masters) about how to behave.

...continued

[But people believe in astrology too and psychics don’t get tax breaks.]

Why should they? Astrologists and psychics charge their clients a dollar rate per hour- (either over the phone or in person)- and have the express purpose of profiting from their activities. Religious organisations do not exist with a profit making intention, they exist primarily for the benefit of their members and the public. And contrary to many atheist whingers, rich ministers of religion are about as rare as rich dole bludgers. They very rarely get paid a decent salary at all.

[Did I mention emotions?]

You did. Several times in fact. But you made very few arguments at all. It was mostly just assertions, mixed with talk of death being a “Universal fear”. Well if the evidence so strongly supports atheism and naturalism as many suggest, why would one be scared of death anyway? Unless, of course, it doesn’t.

It’s an interesting tactic, I’ll give you that. Forget about all the bright minds who make reasonable arguments for belief in God. It’s all about emotion!

[That sounds to me like you’re trying to argue that no sane person is going to want to believe in something that’s going to make them feel accountable for their wrongs, so they must be basing their belief on something that they have evidence for.]

I’m arguing that the accountability factor is a strong psychological reason to avoid believing in God or any religion. Whether you believe in a naturalistic conception of man or a theistic one, you should recognise that humans are innately selfish. Who wants to be given a moral code to live by? Who wants to believe that there’s a God looking over your shoulder? If it was purely down to moral considerations, one would be crazy to even consider religion. So this is a strong psychological reason to avoid belief, just as fear of death is a strong psychological reason to have belief

More quotes:
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity.”
Jefferson

“Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.”
Jefferson

Grey
> claiming that 'there can be no evidence that God exists' (which is Dawkins' position)

This is the third time I am correcting your misrepresentation of Dawkins. He doesn't say 'there can be no evidence that God exists'.
On the contrary, he says that the proposition that God exists is a question of fact which is amenable to scientific inquiry like other questions of fact. He looks at the evidence and reason in favour of the proposition that God exists, and considering the evidence and reason against, concludes that the belief is not reality-based.

Thus he does not reason: there can be no evidence that God exists and therefore God does not exist. Rather, he reasons: there can be evidence that God exists, there isn't any, the reasoning that He exists is circular, and therefore God does not exist.

Have you read The God Delusion?

<<<< There is a time when a Christian must sell all and give to the poor, as they did in the Apostles times. There is a time allsoe when Christians (though they give not all yet) must give beyond their abillity, as they of Macedonia, Cor. 2, 6. Likewise community of perills calls for extraordinary liberality, and soe doth community in some speciall service for the Churche. Lastly, when there is no other means whereby our Christian brother may be relieved in his distress, we must help him beyond our ability rather than tempt God in putting him upon help by miraculous or extraordinary meanes.

— John Winthrop, “A Modell of Christian Charity” (1630) >>>>

Christians are charitable for a number of reasons:

They are exhorted to, because they were taught Christ believed in helping others.

They are reminded to when attending their regular bible studies or church sermons.

Christians also wish to secure a place in heaven.

And they think that that is what god wants them to do.

____________________________________________________________________________

Atheists aid others because they want to help.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Considering that atheists are not admonished to donate or volunteer at nowhere near the rate that Christians are, the percentage of altruism on the part of atheists is admirably high.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Is this "contest" then a desperate attempt to malign a diverse group of people, simply for not believing in religion?

Not very, charitable behaviour on the part of Forster and others attempting to take the moral high-ground.

_____________________________________________________________________________

What WOULD Jesus think?

Yes Severin that’s right, but also:
When Christians do good, it is because they have Christian morals.
When Christians do bad, it is because they are not ‘real’ Christians. They simply can’t be… otherwise they would not do bad!

Lol The Blue Cross, quite so!
Wilberforce, in his suit of diverse sorts, must’ve not been a ‘real’ Christian.
If he had been a ‘real Christian’, he –just as Jesus would’ve failed to do- would not have expressed any objection to slavery.

Graham,
I do understand there are ‘bad translations’ or ‘out of context’ readings, but no matter how you read the NT, there is no condemnation of slavery to be found anywhere in the NT. Why did Jesus not condemn it if it is immoral?
Jesus did NOTHING to stop slavery!

Why did people who came long after Jesus decide that slavery is unethical? Hardly because of Jesus' teachings!
Slavery ended despite of Jesus' acceptance of it.

IF Jesus had told Paul that slavery was unethical, then Paul would’ve been advocating FOR the slaves, not told slaves to obey their masters.
Anyone who does not condemn slavery is, by today’s morals, not fit to set any moral standards. Jesus did not condemn slavery- still, Christians insist that they got their morals from Christianity.

Celivia...I told you someone would claim Jesus was quoted 'out of context', and GrahamY did that for us.

As I recall, Jesus wrote none of the NT, all was written long after the event, and much of what was written was not from first hand experience.

So, in truth, no one knows what Jesus ever said at all.

It is just a little too smart to claim Paul enthused about slavery, not Jesus though.

Slavery, in some forms, may be more frowned upon now than then, but sure-as-Hell it continues to power the global economy today. We all remember the pious Liberal Party and their wage-condition reductions so eagerly supported by all those 'Kevin Andrews' types, do we not?

And the sex-slave industry the Commonwealth Government seems happy to encourage still, along with all those business people who 'own' them, and the punters who punt them. Then there's all the Catholic sex-fandangoes that go on with under aged boys, and girls, and 'celibate' priests...oh yes, a truly useful organisation, 'the Church'.

But of course.... none of these are 'real' Christians, are they?

Celiva there is condemnation of slavery because everyone caught in sin including yourself are slaves. You might not like to admit it but as Bob Dylan use to sing everybody got to serve somebody. The likes of Dawkins serve their own egos despite being a slave to it. The more someone is trapped to sin the more in slavery they are. Ask Tiger and he will tell you.

@Grey: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html

I saw that, but didn't trust the figures. I have since found http://www.ifs.org.uk/fs/articles/fspharta.pdf which gives the difference as 9% vs 10% from your link. So I have to accept it for now.

@Grey: Religious people are far more likely than secular ones to give to charity.

10% is your definition of "far more likely"?

@Grey: Buffet's agnosticism claim referenced here http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/faces3.html

The word "Buffet" doesn't appear in that link.

@Grey: Do some reading of a more educational nature before you try and tell everyone what an atheist or an agnostic really is.

You don't view a dictionary isn't educational? How odd. Your link says essentially the same thing as the dictionary. The first line: ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

@Grey: Dawkins is an atheist, because to claim that belief in God is delusional

You really should try reading Dawkins before criticising him. He book title was designed to generate sales, not summarise the contents. He doesn't claim belief in God is delusional. He thinks taking the bible literally where clear scientific to contrary exists is delusional. An example would be insisting the earth is 6000 years old. He then goes on to point out the single best predictor for such behaviour is strongly held religious beliefs, which is in turn predilected by a feverent belief in some God.

@Grey: When atheists come from a non-christian culture, you get 200 million dead in 100 years.

So your position isn't that theists are morally superior to everyone else, but rather just Christian theists are.

*twitch*

I can't respond civilly to this.

@Grey: Bill Gates' ... but I think religious principles are quite valid

He was almost certainly referring to religious principles like "help thy neighbour" - you know, the ones you Christians use to market yourselves. He wasn't referring to God since he can see no evidence for him, and he certainly wasn't referring to the principles that somehow lead to active campaigning against condoms in Africa, which has caused millions of unnecessary deaths.

(cont'd...)

(...cont'd)

But returning back to your central thesis, which is a thinly disguised attempt at "my morals are better than yours, because I get mine from my Christian God". Your paper http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html made this observation: secularists support greater public spending for social programs — even if it means higher taxation.

There is a reason for this which the paper doesn't mention. Once you have a strong rich state, it is simply better at helping the poor than the church ever was. States do it transparently, with audited books. They do it consistently - skipping on paying your dues to help the no so well off in this world is much harder. And they make a real attempt to include everybodies values in determining who to give it to, via democracy.

Compare the fate of the poor say here, where they are looked after by a socialist state, and say in the US, where things are done on more of a private / church level. The poor here are just better off, even while the US is richer on average. Our poor have a guaranteed income, and have guaranteed medical services. And this is despite that fact that in the more religious US, people contribute much more to charity!

Thus, deciding to let the state handle charity is a very rational decision. Deciding to give what everybody else does, and having the state enforce it, is a very rational decision. Deciding you are willing to pay more in taxes, but not more in charity, is a very rational decision. Dropping the church and charity when a decent state based systems comes along is a very rational decision. Which explains why, as pointed out in the paper above, why the people is Spain did did exactly that when they finally ditched Franco.

In fact, in the face of such evidence, I'd say claiming a charity based system over a state based one is somehow ethically or morally superior, is, to borrow Richard Dawkins term, delusional.

You have to have a giggle about articles like this.

Why does OLO commit so much time to these "Atheists bad, Christians good" type articles?

If religous people are so secure about their positions why this continuous effort to denigrate non-believers or others of different faiths.

This is just really the stuff of kindergarten.

Why can't people (atheist and theist alike) just live their life being true to their own values and principles without such continual harsh judgement of others.

When it is all said and done we are known only for our acts, our beliefs are just window dressing.

'Actually, the difference between and Atheism and Agnosticism is that Atheism deals with belief and Agnosticism deals with knowledge. So all Atheists are also Agnostics - as no one can know if a God of any sort actually exists - and most Agnostics are Atheists since they don’t believe in any particular God.'
AJ Philips

Again, what rubbish. This is not the position of agnostics at all.

Religion is BS. In this I (as an agnostic) I concur with the Atheists. But just because religion is BS that does not mean that God is BS. The Atheists seem to be continually making the mistake of pointing out the ridiculous nature of religion and ascribing this ridiculousness to God when God (if it exists) has nothing to do with religion.

As an agnostic I reject both the religious and atheist dogmas. I reject the religious as purveyors of ignorance and BS. I reject the atheist position for confusing religion with God.

Is there a God? I don't know. Yes, agnostics do deal in knowledge and if the knowledge is not available they say 'I do not know.' This is a rejection of both religious and atheist thinking because both claim to have knowledge they do not have.

No Celivia, I did not say that Jesus was taken out of context. I said that the words you had attributed to him were not his, except in the one case where they don't refer to slavery.

I wonder why you are so concerned to lumber Jesus with views you don't like on slavery? To the extent where the fact he said nothing about slavery becomes to you proof that he must have approved of it!

Anyway, it sent me off to do some useful research on first century slavery in Palestine. Turns out it was something fairly different from what we think of as slavery, based on the North American model. This page seems to give a fair summary http://www.bga.com/~wdoud/topics/servant.html. And that summary means that the slave trade would have been disapproved by first century Jewish teaching. Their slavery was more a form of indentured labour.

One of the things that strikes me about the militant atheists like Dawkins is that they have a poor understanding of what they are criticising. There appears to be an a priori decision that religion is an evil, and then everything must be twisted to fit that thesis.

Pelican, there is a good reason why we devote time to '"Atheists bad, Christians good" type articles'. That is what people are arguing about. Look at the length of this thread and the publicity that Dawkins has gained while he's been over here.

What with him and Monckton, we've had a couple of months of dotty condescening poms monopolising the airwaves!

"There appears to be an a priori decision that religion is an evil, and then everything must be twisted to fit that thesis."

There is also a similar view that lack of belief in a supreme being is evil or somehow found wanting. I guess these discussions are inevitable given the new found voice of non-believers in a world that has up until modern times been dominated by religious righteousness.

I don't believe Dawkin's actually extends the idea of evil done in the name of Religion to express the idea that all Christians or theists are evil. Dawkins expresses the view that religion is a by-product of evolution. Dawkins is an individual he does not represent the views of all atheists in totality.

It seems as if believer and non-believer alike are destined to continue the same old meaningless battles to prove their worldviewse. This, despite the fact we are all whistling in the wind about matters which we cannot possibly 'know' only that we all in one way or another seek explanations or purpse for existence.

I suspect the length of religious threads is purely due to sensitivities on both 'sides' of the debate.

>> There’s a strong case to be made that it’s the atheists who get too much attention in our society.

trav, you're a scream.

>> Hook, line and sinker. You fell for it

as others have pointed out, you've only succeeded in hooking yourself. mass belief is proof of nothing.

>> it doesn't make much sense to look for atheistic charities in an essentially Christian country.

and which essentially christian country would you be referring to, graham? uganda?

>> However, China, Russia, Cuba and a number of other countries have in recent times been ideologically atheistic,

whatever "ideologically atheistic" means.

>> so it should be possible to do a comparison between them and Christian countries

no. the natural comparison is between theocracies and secular states.

>> One of the things that strikes me about the militant atheists like Dawkins ...

one of the thing that strikes me about smug religious creeps is how disgusting is their use of "militant" to label speakers such as dawkins, when militant religion actually involves people being murdered.

Want to know what gives 'religion' such a good name with non-believers?

Take a look at this crackpot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM0oBuhTLRI

It doesn't cover every angle I do realise, but it's hard to imagine the AFA people handing out thousands of Dawkins/Hitchens/Onfrey/Darwin books in a mad and desperate effort to 'convert' people to 'the truth', isn't it?

In fact, it looks like a very militant view from the fellow in the chair, not the sort of slouch I've seen Dawkins adopt on Q&A.

And here is a journal article for those who scrabbled about to find 'proof' that Christians give more then atheists, particularly when there is a tax deduction in the offing:
http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP073984414.pdf

It concerns higher levels of crime where religion is to the fore.

Naturally, its findings are contested, particularly by US Christians...but also by 'ordinary' researchers. I've lost the list of articles but it would be easy enough for others to google them up.

Coupled with some of the Pew survey work showing religious countries to be, generally, poorer countries, it does make sense.

The US, of course, is both rich and poor, clever and ignorant at the same time as being overtly 'religious' across all categories, but it is something of an exception to the rule.

The 'new' Darwin book on the utube film really is a classic piece of 'religious porn', and just the sort of tripe non-believers do not want to be used in schools, as Christians want to do.

At least in the US they have the right idea of 'church and state' issues, and ban Gideons, prayers and the 10 Commandments from their public schools.

Here teachers, principals, chaplains and education ministers, to say nothing of premiers, fall over themselves trying to appease the religious extremists who want to poison children's minds with this 'religious porn'.

Bring on the High Court challenge to funding religion in state schools: http://highcourtchallenge.com/

A strawman argument, coupled with the ‘Argument from Authority’ fallacy. A nice start to your response to me, Trav.

<<You talk about Dawkins like he’s some kind of authority on the topic of religion.>>

No. I used him as an example of who your God could convert because he’s a well-known and outspoken Atheist.

<<Numerous atheist philosophers have pointed out how weak his arguments against God are (Ruse, for example)...>>

Ruse’s main beef with Dawkins is that he thinks that Dawkins isn’t taking his opponents seriously enough. The irony here is that Ruse is making exactly the same mistake he accuses Dawkins of.

<<...not to mention all the Christian ones who’ve done the same (Plantinga, Craig etc).>>

Oh, such shining examples of intelligentsia.

The problem with Christian apologetics is that the arguments fall down at their premises.

A classic example is the ‘Kalam Cosmological Argument’ that Craig uses...

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

We don’t know that the universe has a cause, particularly now that quantum physics is starting to challenge what we know about cause and effect.

Craig also wrongly claims that moral standards require God. Mind you, this is the same God that intelligently designed childhood cancers.

Then there’s Matthew Slick’s ‘Transcendental Argument’ (http://www.carm.org/transcendental-argument), which starts off nice, then falls down at 6-A, because Slick makes the fallacious argument that logical absolutes are "conceptual by nature". He does this by talking about ‘logical absolutes’, then switching to just ‘logic’.

But my favourite is the ‘Ontological Argument’, which after wading through the obfuscation is simply: “I can conceive God, therefore he exists.”

I can conceive Santa, but that doesn’t mean he exists.

<<Just to repeat: I’m pointing out things that his fellow atheists have said- Dawkins level of reflection on religion is surprisingly shallow...>>

I don't care about what Dawkins has said. It was you who asserted that I saw him as “some kind of authority on the topic of religion”.

Continued...

...Continued

But I hope you’ve got that off your chest now, because that strawman took a real pounding.

<<Christianity teaches that mankind in itself is effectively incomplete- or, lost- without God.>>

Of course it does. That’s one of the ways it tears people down so that it can build them up again with itself as the center of what makes the believer feel good.

<<Nor should we necessarily expect a great wealth of contemporary materials [to prove the alleged Jesus].>>

I didn’t say we should. Just that there aren’t any.

Although, considering the magnitude of the alleged visit, it could be argued that one should rightly expect it.

<<Not when we’re referring to a travelling Jewish teacher with a small band of followers who confines his activities to a relatively small corner of the globe...>>

Interesting point.

Here we have this superior being, and the best way he can spend a mere 33 years with Humans showing them he’s God, is to confine his activities to a relatively small corner of the globe performing petty miracles to relatively small crowds, then disappear for thousands of years leaving nothing but hearsay stories of his brief stay.

Why couldn’t he reveal himself to other cultures too? Why wouldn’t he have taught us something useful instead of stunting our progress with myths of demon possession as a medical diagnosis?

<<Historical study has made many of the events around Jesus’s life historically certain, or beyond any real reasonable doubt- for example his crucifixion and the fact that his followers believed he appeared to them afterwards.>>

Hearsay recorded decades after the alleged incident.

Hardly “historically certain”.

<<The facts are very difficult to account for unless you entertain the possibility of divine intervention>>

What facts? You haven’t given me any yet.

<<The denial of Jesus existence is historically equivalent to a scientist arguing that the world is 6000 years old.>>

And yet you’re unable to provide any evidence at all. Just assertions.

<<You think the government is scared of retribution from the 15 or 20% of the population who take their religion seriously... >>

Continued...

...Continued

Considering most Atheists have shown themselves to not let mainstream religious belief affect the way they vote... Yes.

Considering wealthy lobby groups such as the ACL are willing to donate money to election campaigns... Yes.

<<You did. Several times in fact. But you made very few arguments at all. It was mostly just assertions...>>

I’ve already dealt with this a lot recently at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3495&page=0

I used to be a Christian myself. I have many Christian friends and relatives and know of many conversion stories, and every time, they have all involved some sort of life crisis. There is even a story in my immediate family of tragedy turned conversion.

No well-adjusted person who feels they have some purpose in life just decides one day that they’re going to take up a religion, and like Rowan Forster said: "I have yet to hear of any similar transformations resulting from conversion to atheism."

Of course, you have the occasional fraudster out there like Lee Strobels who pretends he used to be a thinking Atheist who looked at the evidence objectively and started believing, but there is no ‘case for Christ’, or any other religion (as you’re helping me to show). It takes a willingness and desire to believe in religion, and that willingness comes from emotion, not objectivity or rational thought.

<<I’m arguing that the accountability factor is a strong psychological reason to avoid believing in God or any religion.>>

Accountability is nothing when you think there is a reward of eternal bliss waiting at the end.

No one in their right mind would trade an eternity of bliss for 80 or so years for selfish pleasures.

<<Who wants to believe that there’s a God looking over your shoulder?>

Insecure people; parents who can’t watch their children every minute.

Making people feel like worthless wretches in need of grace is what Christianity relies on to keep its believers, because if you can convince someone that they need the religion for some reason or another, then you’ve created a dependence necessary for the religion to survive.

Religion is like a virus.

Wow, Daviy! Such a fiery outburst for such a trivial point. One has to wonder what your issue really is.

<<Religion is BS.>>

Agreed.

<<In this I (as an agnostic) I concur with the Atheists.>>

Agreed.

<<But just because religion is BS that does not mean that God is BS.>>

Agreed.

<<The Atheists seem to be continually making the mistake of pointing out the ridiculous nature of religion and ascribing this ridiculousness to God...>>

Not usually.

Although there’s bound to be a very small proportion of blowhards who do, since there is no set way of ‘Atheist thinking’ or ‘dogma’.

<<...when God (if it exists) has nothing to do with religion.>>

Agreed.

<<As an agnostic I reject both the religious and atheist dogmas.>>

Atheism doesn’t have a “dogma”.

<<I reject the religious as purveyors of ignorance and BS.>>

Agreed.

<<I reject the atheist position for confusing religion with God.>>

They do? ALL of them? Where’s this written? Who decided on it?

You may want to break it to the many out there who never even considered religion or God/s that this is what they think.

<<Is there a God? I don't know.>>

Neither do I. No one does, and no one other than Theists claim to know, as you can’t usually disprove the non-existence of something.

Again though, there’s bound to be a few blowhards out there who think they “know”.

<<Yes, agnostics do deal in knowledge and if the knowledge is not available they say 'I do not know.'>>

So, do all the Atheists I know of.

<<This is a rejection of both religious and atheist thinking because both claim to have knowledge they do not have.>>

Again... Where’s this written? Who decided on it?

You’re making the same mistake that most Theists make in thinking that Atheism has a doctrine or a way of thinking or is like a religion. But Atheism has no more of a way of thinking than a-fairyism has.

By your definition, virtually no one is an Atheist. You’re punching at shadows.

Come back to me when you’ve learnt what Atheism is... http://tinyurl.com/yleu6x8

A J Phillips, it is possible that Agnostics don't have some sort of dogma, but it is not possible that Atheists don't, brief as it might be. They have a faith.

One of the things interesting me about this debate is the number of straw men flying about on both sides. It's not really possible to make too many useful generalisations about Christians per se because there is such a wide range of belief and practice. You really need to be talking about specific Christian denominations, or perhaps Christians in a particular social context.

A liberal Christian is not the same as a fundamentalist Christian, and it doesn't make a lot of sense in a lot of contexts to conflate them.

The same holds true with Atheists. There are different types of Atheists, and to characterise them all on the basis of Marxist Leninists or Maoists would be wrong. But likewise to characterise them on the basis of yourself would be equally wrong.

And when you treat Communism as a denomination of Atheism then you can see a lot of the hegemonic behaviours exhibited by some medieval Christians.

I'm not going to argue that all Atheists should be treated on the basis of the behaviours of 20th Century Communists, nor should anyone argue that Christians ought to be treated based on the behaviour of 12th Century crusaders.

But I would argue that since Atheism has become expressed in institutional and systematic ways it exhibits similar behaviours to many other isms that have become institutionalised. That includes proselytisation, which is exactly what many of the Marcist "action" groups you see out on street corners distributing literature and gathering signatures on petitions of one sort or another are about.

What about the following definitions:

epistemic scientism: the view that “the only reality that we can know anything about is the one science has access to.” (example: E.O.Wilson), and

ontological scientism: puts limits on what exists objectively because it holds that “the only reality that exists is the one science has access to” (example: Carl Sagan).

(both definitions taken from Mikael Stenmark, Scientism: Science, Ethics and Religion; Aldershort-Ashgate, 2001).

Does this clarify anything - maybe by replacing “scientism” with “atheism” - in spite of the subjective ambiguity of ‘knowing’ as “being absolutely certain or sure about something” (as in my dictionary)?

>> One of the things interesting me about this debate is the number of straw men flying about on both sides

yep. now, do you practise what you preach?

>> it is possible that Agnostics don't have some sort of dogma, but it is not possible that Atheists don't, brief as it might be. They have a faith.

nonsense. this has been explained, many times.

>> And when you treat Communism as a denomination of Atheism ...

anybody who treats "communism as a denomination of atheism" has lost all touch with rational thought.

Graham,

Why do religious always try to ascribe faith to athiests? Faith is belief without necessarily proof or reason.

Athiests require substance on which to base belief.

For example I believe in evolution even though it cannot be conclusively proven in my life time, the over whelming body of evidence makes any other conclusion difficult.

Similarily I believe that there is no God, as there no evidence to suggest he does, nor scientific reason to suggest we need to look for one.

Treating communism as a denomination of athiesm is pathetic. Stalin and Lenin saw the church as a threat and tried to undermine the considerable power of the established church.

Similarily Hilter courted the church to support his ends against communism, so is Nazism a denomination of christianity?

Finally, perhaps you could point out this athiestic "dogma", as other than a non belief in god there is no other common point.

AJ Phillips

I'm not sure if you are aware, so maybe a little background would help.

Graham Young claims he was originally Christian, then became an atheist and then returned to his religion again.

Graham, apologies in advance if I have misinformed. But I am sure that you once posted you were an atheist.

However, I thought AJ would be interested in some insight into the background of someone he has been debating, particularly in light of his comments:

<<< Of course, you have the occasional fraudster out there like Lee Strobels who pretends he used to be a thinking Atheist who looked at the evidence objectively and started believing, but there is no ‘case for Christ’, or any other religion (as you’re helping me to show). >>>

<<< It takes a willingness and desire to believe in religion, and that willingness comes from emotion, not objectivity or rational thought. >>>

As an agnostic whom similarly observes the common sense of the Confucian position, when in circa 250 b.c. the people wanted to revere him as a deity, he responded; “I am only a man, I know nothing of God,” it appears exceedingly dishonest to contend conclusive evidence of either position of the existence of God, when no such evidence exists.

It was recently reported only 5% of donations from one or more of the AID concerts in the 1990’s[?] reached those intended to receive them. I have worked on international concerts, and from my experience, placing trust for such responsibility in concert promoters is synonomous of putting a fox in a chicken run. This is a rerun of the World Vision scam back in the 1970’s.

I further perceive of the AID fundraising, if institutional religion was involved, when the two representative entities engaged, they would have felt right at home with each other. I’ve worked with U2, and can advise Bono is an airhead. e.g. during a sound check of one of their gigs I worked on, over the PA he enquired of the production manager why they were playing in a dump, a question which everyone else involved realised it was because that’s where their numbers of fans who had shelled out excessive prices for their tickets, were coming to see them. Continued

In perspective, some in the churches have done, and continue to do, great altruistic works, however, that is balanced by observation of the great misdeeds many have been, and continue to be, responsible for.

In Queensland it appears the Irish Catholic church has succeeded in realising the new childrens’ hospital and upgrades, being located at their facility in a congested corridor of Brisbane, when the existing RWBH facility retains the research facilities, and adjoining tertiary institution, without such anomalies.

The same church influence may ostensibly be further observed responsible for the recent protracted parliamentary sittings on abortion legislation, when other States and Territories are observed to have dealt with the issue long before. I think the Premier may belong to this church, although I‘m not sure of the affiliations of the Treasurer, or the Opposition leaders.

Observing all these machinations is like observing a rerun of the reformation, where the punters are out there wreaking havoc on each other while the powerbrokers continue their insidious scheming.

It suggests the meek may eventually realise their inheriting the earth, but perhaps with a car bomb.

GrahamY, << it is possible that Agnostics don't have some sort of dogma, but it is not possible that Atheists don't, brief as it might be. They have a faith. >>

I think this must be a valid point. An agnostic simply does not support either position therefore no justification is required. An atheist on the other hand has taken up an equally strong yet opposite position as a theist, therefore the position must be justified by an equal and opposite amount of faith.

Perhaps after centuries of unsuccessfully proselytizing to agnostics, the theists see the opportunity to increase their target audience by “bundling” agnostics with atheists? This provides “harder” targets and potentially justifies greater munitions intensity. This pattern is evidenced by the transition in the AGW debate as greater focus and venom are directed at denialists rather than agnostics.

Perhaps agnosticism can have dogma by association and intent, rather than being different types of atheists. Communism is a good example, where agnosticism gained dogma from political influence to further the totalitarian regime. Likewise, Islamic theology is used to “bind and control” socio-political attributes, to support totalitarian clerical, military and benign dictatorship regimes.

The Christian crusaders had similar “political value” to the Papacies in their ability to raise funds, oblige European aristocracy to raise armies and control the masses.

So could it be said that theists and atheists have similar (complementary) political value (exploitable), whereas agnostics do not? And does this mean that theist/atheist passion can be seen in today’s world in the light of purpose and intent, to be used for political gain more than for religious value?

>> An atheist on the other hand has taken up an equally strong yet opposite position as a theist,
>> therefore the position must be justified by an equal and opposite amount of faith.

NO! it doesn't matter how many times you guys say it, it isn't true.
what you're engaging in is second rate 1st year philosophy, disputing knowledge like a bunch of postmodernist clowns.

it does NOT take an equal and opposite amount of faith to disbelieve in the tooth fairy? i KNOW there is no tooth fairy in any reasonable sense of the word.

similarly, it does NOT take an equal and opposite amount of faith to disbelieve that mary was a virgin (if and) when she gave birth to jesus.

similarly, it does NOT take an equal and opposite amount of faith to disbelieve that a dead mary mackillop cured cancer.

and on and on.

it makes perfect sense to say we KNOW these things are not true. it is not a matter of faith. it is a matter of not spending time considering ridiculous beliefs unless someone gives a compelling reason to do so. and you guys never do so.

AJ Phillips:

You’ve obviously got a lot of time on your hands.

<<Numerous atheist philosophers have pointed out how weak his arguments against God are (Ruse, for example)...>>

[Ruse’s main beef with Dawkins is that he thinks that Dawkins isn’t taking his opponents seriously enough. The irony here is that Ruse is making exactly the same mistake he accuses Dawkins of.]

This a quote from Ruse “Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing”.

Hence, we’re both right on that particular score.

<<...not to mention all the Christian ones who’ve done the same (Plantinga, Craig etc).>>

[Oh, such shining examples of intelligentsia.]

Indeed they are. Probably Plantinga especially, because he’s had some intriguing ideas and forced so many of his contemporaries to rethink their views on many topics. For example: His ideas about belief in God being basic, and his argument against naturalism.

[A classic example is the ‘Kalam Cosmological Argument’ that Craig uses...

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

We don’t know that the universe has a cause, particularly now that quantum physics is starting to challenge what we know about cause and effect.]

Quantum physics has not shown that something can come from nothing. Craig discusses this in great detail in his books and journal articles. Have you read them in any detail, or just the summary you’ve posted here?

<<The facts are very difficult to account for unless you entertain the possibility of divine intervention>>

[What facts? You haven’t given me any yet.]

<<The denial of Jesus existence is historically equivalent to a scientist arguing that the world is 6000 years old.>>

And yet you’re unable to provide any evidence at all. Just assertions.]

What is your definition of evidence? What type of evidence are you after?

continued:

Historical evidence can be found in the form of documents. In Jesus case, I refer to the four gospels, and references from Tacitus, Josephus and other sources.

Historical study of these documents yields that certain things are historically certain. But I’ve already explained all that- so what are you asking- are you asking me to explain the historical methodologies in more detail?

[Accountability is nothing when you think there is a reward of eternal bliss waiting at the end.

No one in their right mind would trade an eternity of bliss for 80 or so years for selfish pleasures.]

We’re talking accountability in the here and now versus unknown bliss at some future point. Besides, if people thought there was no reason to believe in the future bliss, why would they continue believing it?

[Making people feel like worthless wretches in need of grace is what Christianity relies on to keep its believers, because if you can convince someone that they need the religion for some reason or another, then you’ve created a dependence necessary for the religion to survive.]

We are most definitely beings in need of grace. There’s no doubt about that. One doesn’t need to live long to figure that one out.

The only remaining question is whether or not there’s actually a provider of that grace. Is our need for grace the result of “blind, pitiless indifference” as Dawkins suggests, or the result of our need for God, as the Christian tradition suggests?

Bushbasher.

[it makes perfect sense to say we KNOW these things are not true. it is not a matter of faith. it is a matter of not spending time considering ridiculous beliefs unless someone gives a compelling reason to do so. and you guys never do so.]

I find your views interesting for two reasons.

Firstly, atheists always complain that there are no compelling reasons to believe in God, but they rarely attempt to articulate what sort of evidence or reasons they'd EXPECT to see if a God DID exist. And the fact that they rarely articulate this makes me question whether they've even carefully reflected up on it.

Secondly, what are your reasons for believing that, say, miracles are ridiculous? Or that belief in God is ridiculous?

Trav, can you help please?

What was God doing for 4000 years allowing people to believe in a wide range of gods, and not Him?

What was the purpose of that exercise?

Where/how did it benefit the people who were here then?

And what about all the human sacrifice that has gone on in His name?

I don't understand how that all adds up to a 'good plan of action'.

It seems to be true, that God moves in mysterious ways, but there must come a point where He needs to make it all just a little bit clearer.

That might have been 2000 years ago, but why wait so long after Eden fell to pieces?

Surely, you do not believe in the literal reading of Eden, or do you?

And in fact, what about other believers here on this thread?

I think we need to clear the air a little here and those who are 'believers' should really say to what extent they accept the Bible as 'truth' and to what extent it is merely 'a guide'.

After all, Lonely Planet puts out very good 'guides' but are they really representing 'the truth' about the nation-state they describe?

And if you follow the LP book and delve nowhere else within that country, will you really be 'seeing' it properly?

Trav,

None of the gospels were written by authors that lived in Jesus' time, and generally several generations later.

There are no actual eye witness accounts of what happenned, only stories passed down, with the reliability of a 1000 man chinese whisper.

Considering the absolute levels of proof asked of evolution by the fundementalists, Christianity is on very shaky ground.

TBC:

What was God doing when he allowed X/Y/Z? There's plenty of crazy things that go on in the world. I don't necessarily see why you'd want to have an answer to questions like this before first confronting the question of God's existence and whethr Jesus has anything to offer. And once you've confronted those questions, secondary questions like this become of comparitively little importance.

Secondly, I personally don't feel that we'd necessarily be able to answer every single question like this in the case that God does exist.

Thirdly, if you dispute this, why? You're asking for answers to questions which effectively ask the Christian to map the mind of God's decisions. But why should a Christian be obliged or even necessarily be able to find an answer to every question? After all, there's plenty of questions the atheist has no answer for- for example, why matter is eternal or why matter came from nothingness? So I don't see why it's fair to hold theists to a much higher standard. If God does exist, there's most certainly a mysterious element to him.

Shadow:

[None of the gospels were written by authors that lived in Jesus' time, and generally several generations later.]

"Several" = stretch. Mark was most likely written around 70AD, although many scholars argue the 60's. 30-40 years. Paul wrote about Jesus 15 or 20 years after, using language which strongly suggests he heard about Jesus within 5 years or less of his alleged resurrection.

[with the reliability of a 1000 man chinese whisper.]

1. These stories were publicly read/taught. Chinese whispers is private. Instantly a bad analogy.

2. This was an oral culture, only 10% of people could read. Their memories were trained from a young age and thus 100 times more reliable in passing on information than ours today.

[Considering the absolute levels of proof asked of evolution by the fundementalists, Christianity is on very shaky ground]

In the sense of scientific evidence, I'd agree. Except I don't hold that God would reveal himself scientifically anyway, so the question is of little consequence to me.

@Trav: Quantum physics has not shown that something can come from nothing.

I suggest you paste that statement into Google and look at what you find. Quantum physics has indeed shown something can come from nothing, and in fact it happens all the time, and more to the point has been observed.

Trav,

A generation is generally accepted as 20 years or less.

Whether you call it chinese whispers or whatever else, stories carried linguistically tend to evolve and be embellished.

The gospels are extremely unlikely to be an accurate account.

trav, i'll take your questions seriously, though i think they consistently get the wrong end of the stick.

>> but they rarely attempt to articulate what sort of evidence or reasons they'd EXPECT to see if a God DID exist.

it is not my job. i simply see no need to consider such notions, and no evidence for believing in anything like god-as-thinking-being. there are gaps in my understanding of the universe and my place in it, but i don't see invoking a god as helping.

>> Secondly, what are your reasons for believing that, say, miracles are ridiculous?

in general, if i cannot explain something, i am happy to say that i merely don't know the explanation, rather than covering the gap of my understanding with "god did it".

however, there must be some point where properly documented "miracle" would make me question. perhaps, if there was evidence that praying cured a few amputees, i'd consider miracle cures. but, a couple of unexplained cancer cases doesn't even remotely cut it.

let's turn your question around: why do you think the catholic church is so eager to declare mckillop a saint on such farcically flimsy evidence? why do you think the australian media has reported this nonsense in such a compliant and uncritical manner?

>> Or that belief in God is ridiculous?

it depends upon what you mean by "god". there are people who talk of "god" in a strange, amorphous manner. i don't find such beliefs ridiculous, merely incomprehensible.

what i find ridiculous are substantive beliefs, of the nature i have outlined. mary was a virgin or she wasn't, and it is prima facie ridiculous to believe that she was. so, if you can give me no reason to consider this belief, other than that millions of others believe, i will chuckle and consign such belief to the tooth fairy bin.

there are many christians (though i'd guess a tiny minority) who seem to make fine sense of christianity without such substantive beliefs. i don't know how they do it. but again, i don't find this ridiculous, just incomprehensible.

GrahamY, you say that atheists have faith, which led me to Google 'faith'. One of the definitions I found was "Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing." On that basis I'd have to say that my atheism (and I do not speak for anyone other than myself) is definitely not faith based. I am merely without any belief in the existence of any gods, just as I am any without belief that the sun will set in the east tonight or that I will be ten centimetres taller tomorrow morning

Yet another discussion thread hijacked by believers resorting to all kinds of theological sophistry to obfuscate and avoid central issues. And we atheists frequently fall into the trap of debating them on their turf.

I'm a simple fellow and like to keep things simple, so can you believers kindly provide me with straightforward answers to a few basic questions?

1. Why do you believe when there is no evidence for a god/gods? Nothing, not one whit, no miracles, diddlysquat? No sophistry please.

2. When there are so many religions on offer, why are you so sure yours is the right one? Try to be honest here - how did you choose?

3. Your churches generally present your god as benevolent, omniscient and omnipresent. Why does your god choose not to do good? Example curing children with cancer. Straightforward answers please.

4. Do you believe in sacrifice for the sins of others? Does this concept trouble you or should you follow god's example?

I am sure my fellow atheists have plenty of other and better questions, but can you believers please start with these?

Theists are wrong when they say that atheism is a faith and that atheism is a religion or even that atheists are proselytising.

Atheists do not reject the possibility of a god (I leave a tiny gap so that I can accept that there is a God in the very unlikely case that I find proof that one exists); atheists are just not convinced that there MUST be a god. As an atheist, I expect positive assertions (“god exists”) to be based on evidence, to be supported by evidence. Atheists don’t see any value in gullibility.

Atheists are not selling another religion. They are just not buying the 'products' religions are selling.
I heard someone say that atheists can be compared to consumer watchdogs. They focus on what the religious are selling and whether their product (read Claims) are supported by evidence.

Someone in this discussion said that atheists are proselytising. Atheists are not promoting themselves; they're promoting such things as clear thinking, evidence, reason, logic.
Helping people see that there is no good reason to believe in unsupported, ridiculous nonsense without evidence is not proselytising. They are not promoting ‘atheism’ as such. Atheism is something that would not even exists without theism.
So, if they promoted atheism as some sort of philosophy or religion, then they would eventually negate atheism since atheism wouldn’t even exist without theism.

Sam Harris once said that there shouldn’t even be a word such as atheism. There are no words for not accepting other baseless nonsense such as homeopathy, or astrology.

Bushbasher,
“… how disgusting is their use of "militant" to label speakers such as dawkins...”
You took the words out of my mouth! Religion needs to fly planes into buildings or blow up abortion clinics before labelled ‘militant’. Atheists just need to express their view, question unsubstantial claims and they are labelled militant, or strident! Ain’t it strange how gullibility is glorified by theists and doubt is called evil?

Trav... 'principles' has aspects of my questions to be answered.

This is yours:

"You're asking for answers to questions which effectively ask the Christian to map the mind of God's decisions" but isn't that what they do, when we are told that God sent his son to...etc etc.? If God is so mysterious, then mere mortals would never comprehend the purpose, or they'd then be equal to God, would they not?

"But why should a Christian be obliged or even necessarily be able to find an answer to every question?" simply because they make so many claims about 'what is' but rarely if ever produce evidence, apart from Mary McKillop style of course.

"After all, there's plenty of questions the atheist has no answer for- for example, why matter is eternal ('eternal'? Is it really? How do we know that since we are not there yet? Surely, if it were eternal, then it would have had no start date either? Particularly a mere 6000 years ago) or why matter came from nothingness?". Did it?, no idea on that one, and it's really not something that concerns me at all either.

Some things just 'are' or at least until we have a better explanation for them.

I suspect nobody knows whether there is a supernatural god of any sort.

That's why people call their hunch, 'faith'.

They have no real idea, only faith...little more than hope, or in Howard terms, an 'aspiration'.

Celivia reminded us of the Harris argument that we should not have the word 'atheist', and a few point to the 'religion' of afairyism too.

It seems too easy an explanation for 'things' to me. Far harder to comprehend, is the idea that it really doesn't matter.

"So I don't see why it's fair to hold theists to a much higher standard (as far as I can tell, believers have no standards at all, just assertions). If God does exist, there's most certainly a mysterious element to him" (a bit more than an 'element' I'd have thought, particularly from the believer's side).

I suspect that the very basis of the atheist's rejection of God is the awareness of the transcendence of a God who can never be defined because to try and define God, as christians in particular like to do, is to limit God. Therefore the only way out of the mess is to deny the existence of God. It is the theistic God that Christianity worships and tries to force on human beings.It is the theistic God that atheists reject for this reason whether they are aware of it or not.
I, lke the atheists, too deny God. BUT it is the theistic God I reject. I believe that God is. The rest of the predicate is irrelevant. It isnt the transcendence that I respond to but the immanence of God.

socratease

Atheists are shallow and self-centered sad individuals with no depth to them at all! And usualy criminal in their contempt! Why do the right thing! is their moto!

Excellent posts Celivia, TBC, Bushbasher and Principles.

One thing this thread has clarified for me is my label which is:

A-theist, A-Fairy, A-Easterbunny, A-Santaclaus and I guess I'm A-Christ as well because virgins giving birth is only possible for hermaphrodites - humans require two sexes. Now if Mary was a hermaphrodite, she could only have given birth to a clone of herself - a female, not Jesus. Methinks that Joseph had some input into Jesus.

Another thing I and many other people who do not believe in god or formal religions, are decent law-abiding, caring and compassionate people. With these qualities in mind, I will forgive the likes of Peterson for their childish name calling and contempt.

Also I would like to reinforce what Celivia has already pointed out to those carrying such awesome planks in their eyes, that calling someone like Dawkins extremist or militant while, through their silence, condoning the murder of doctors, harassment of women, homosexuals and the bombing of medical clinics is at the very least hypocritical and at most reprehensible.

All Dawkins has done is given his reasons - well-researched and evidence based reasons, for not believing in a god and rejecting the dogma that has been written by men about this deity. At no time has he exhibited strident behaviour or encouraged anyone to harm others, which religious people do frequently, tax-free and with impunity. Until now. Until people have started to say enough is enough.

We were born with the ability to reason, to think, to assess the real from the fantasy based on example and evidence - to blindly follow religious dogma is to deny the very abilities we were born with.

>>Yet another discussion thread hijacked by believers<< (principles)
I went through the motions of checking: of the 45 contributors to this discussion thread, 33 called themselves explicitly atheists or expressed sympathies for atheist positions.

Clearly, Severin, you are an A-lister!

Peterson,

Having read your hateful and vitriolic posts, athiesm stands head and shoulders above your bigoted and vile religious beliefs.

Grow up, your kind is what drives decent people away from the church.

When are the Atheists in this debate (and Mr Dawkins) going to realise that attacking religion as a way of proving that God does not exist is not a valid argument. Proving that religion is all smoke and mirrors is easy. But proving religion is smoke and mirrors does nothing to prove there is not a God. God and religion are two separate issues.

There is no possibility of convincing anyone with a religious bent that there is no God because what they believe in nothing (even if they think it is something) and you are attacking nothing. It is like attacking the morning mist with a sword.

As an Agnostic I can say with certainty that religion has no substance, it is nothing. How about giving the Atheist argument without resorting to attacking nothing? If you attack nothing your proofs are nothing. Do your arguments have substance?

I’m gonna start a new law and call it “AJ’s Law”:

"As an online discussion about religion grows longer, the probability that a Theist will mention Marxism approaches 1".

Graham,

There’s not much I can add to what Shadow Minister and Bushbasher have said other than to point-out that you are giving religion an undeserved legitimacy by asserting that those who don’t believe it still have a “faith” - even if just a little bit.

If there were even the slightest bit of evidence for religious belief then you may have a point, but since there isn’t, you’re effectively saying that anyone can invent any old nonsense and those who don’t accept, or think about it have a “faith”.

Sure, many people hold religious beliefs, but pointing that out would be a fallacy when there is nothing to rationally or objectively justify those beliefs.

Severin,

I’d rather not go into the individual cases of people posting here, but in my experience, Christians who claim they were Christians, then became Atheists, then became Christians again, actually mean they were Christians, got angry and rebelled against the God they still believed in, then forgave that God and went back to the church.

Theists often mistake ‘not believing’ for ’believing, but hating a God’ (e.g. Runner). Just as self-proclaimed “Agnostics” mistake ‘a lack of belief in God/s’ with ‘a claim to absolute knowledge on the topic’.

To clarify though, I would never suggest that Graham was a “fraudster”. He doesn’t profit from his story.

Trav,

It may appear as though I have a lot of time on my hands, but the arguments for religion are so flawed that it really doesn’t take that long to slap a response together.

<<Hence, we’re both right on [Ruse’s opinion of Dawkins]>>

Do you know what I mean by ‘Argument from Authority’ and why it’s a fallacy? You’re arguing against Dawkins as if I rely on his credibility. Please leave the strawman alone.

I’ve read a bit of Plantinga and Craig (among others) but it’s difficult to continue reading something that falls down at its premise.

Continued…

…Continued

These guys are pretty light-weight philosophers if li’l ol’ me can spot the flaws in their arguments.

A good critique of Plantinga’s flawed ontological argument can be found at http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/01/on-plantingas-ontological-argument.html

<<Quantum physics has not shown that something can come from nothing.>>

I didn’t say it had. Only that it challenged what we know about cause and effect.

My point was that we don’t know whether or not the universe had a cause. Quantum physics isn’t needed for that.

<<What is your definition of evidence? What type of evidence are you after?>>

I define ‘evidence’ as a reason for belief or disbelief. I’m after any sort of reliable evidence. Ancient texts from ignorant sheep herders are not reliable.

<<Historical evidence can be found in the form of documents.>>

The documents in themselves are not reliable. The only thing they prove is that some people wrote a story about a guy who was allegedly the son of a God. That’s it.

The Gospels and Tacitus and Josephus are all hearsay. There’s a reason hearsay is rejected in a court of law.

Going by your logic, the testimony of alleged alien abductees is reliable too. Of course, you don’t think that. Your willingness to believe in your religion makes you selective about what evidence you think is reliable.

<<Historical study of these documents yields that certain things are historically certain.>>

The only historical certainty is that someone, or some people wrote some stories. That those stories are accurate is a leap-of-faith that you’re taking.

<<...are you asking me to explain the historical methodologies in more detail?>>

If you think it’ll make a difference. I suspect those “methodologies” will still rely on the assumption that the stories are actually true though.

<<We’re talking accountability in the here and now versus unknown bliss at some future point.>>

My point is that people are going to be fine with accountability if they think they’re going to earn themselves an eternity in Heaven.

Continued...

...Continued

But what of the large percentage of religious people in prisons?

Religion obviously didn’t make them feel accountable, and those who converted in prison only help to prove my point about conversion stories.

<<Besides, if people thought there was no reason to believe in the future bliss, why would they continue believing it?

They wouldn’t.

You made the point that people who choose to believe, do so despite the notion of being held accountable.

So I countered it by explaining to you that no one is going to stop believing just because they don’t want to be held accountable, since trading and eternity of bliss for 80 odd years of selfish pleasures would be stupid.

<<The only remaining question is whether or not there’s actually a provider of that grace...>>

My point was that religions uses devious and manipulative tactics to drawn in and keep their followers.

A good indication that it’s all fake.

<<...why should a Christian be obliged or even necessarily be able to find an answer to every question?>>

Exactly!

An omnibenevolent God is obliged to provide the answers rather than hiding in obscurity.

<<...there's plenty of questions the atheist has no answer for- for example, why matter is eternal or why matter came from nothingness?>>

And there’s plenty of questions the Theist has no answer for- for example, why God is eternal or why God came from nothingness?

Or we could take Carl Sagan’s application of Occam’s razor here and simply save a step by concluding that the origin of matter is unknowable, or that matter is eternal:

“In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?” (Carl Sagan, Cosmos, page 257)

Anyway, there’s been many posts going back and forth here and still we haven’t even started building a ‘case for Christ’.

AJP, rules like Godwin's Law and the newly-minted AJ's law seem to just be attempts to shut down legitimate discussion by ridiculing individuals.

One of the basic tenets of Marxism is atheism. It is an atheistic philosophy which in various forms has hegemonic aims which include converting others to its way of viewing the world.

It may not be your form of atheism, but to deny that it is an atheistic philosophy as you appear to do is as illogical as me denying that Catholicism is a form of Christianity because I don't like a lot of its tenets and beliefs, not to mention behaviours.

One of the rhetorical tricks to try to villify religion and advance atheism is to characterise religion by the behaviour of its worst adherents, but to define atheism so narrowly that it has no adherents who do anything less benign than write books and argue on Internet forums.

Just as I can't disown the inquisition, you can't disown Stalin's gulags.

You've missed the point on "faith" too, which means to believe in something without being able to prove it. Atheists believe that the material world is all there is to know. I don't think you can fundamentally prove that, or at least prove it given our current knowledge. In which case it is an assertion, or a form of faith. I'm not defining it as faith by reference to religion.

For me there is a mystery at the heart of life which is most probably not accessible by human conscious or knowledge. I call that mystery God. Jesus and his teachings present a way of approaching that mystery which is for me valid and insightful and which provide a set of principles and ways of behaviour that promote a good life. They are also a cultural testament to man's developing understanding of the world philosophically, theologically and scientifically.

"The Gospels and Tacitus and Josephus are all hearsay. There’s a reason hearsay is rejected in a court of law."

Yes, in fact one of the sources of authority on which Christians rely for evidence of facts is 'Church tradition'. For example there is no evidence that Moses wrote the book of Genesis, nor that St Peter was even in Rome apart from a very attenuated and uncertain piece of hearsay. Yet the entire story of the Catholic church depends on these propositions of fact. In this line of reasoning, the longer the Church tradition, the more authoritative it is.

But of course the more mouths hearsay passes through over a longer time, the *less* reliable it is, not more: thus the church's approach is the opposite of a rational approach to evidence.

>> AJP, rules like Godwin's Law and the newly-minted AJ's law seem to just be attempts to shut down legitimate discussion by ridiculing individuals.

AJP? the one person above all who has been patiently addressing religious arguments? it's that AJP who is attempting to end discussion?

but, of course. it's not that graham could in any way be engaging in manipulative, Reds In The Head mccarthyist slurs.

>> you can't disown Stalin's gulags.

yep, guess i was wrong. it's just AJP stifling debate.

>> Atheists believe that the material world is all there is to know.

i guess it's o.k. to fib if you fib for jesus.

>> You've missed the point on "faith" too

i would've though it was the theists trying to prove their god real who have missed the point.

>> For me there is a mystery at the heart of life which is most probably not accessible by human conscious or knowledge.
>> I call that mystery God. ...

good for you. i can't see how it helps to wrap mystery in godness, but as long as you stay away from pregnant virgins and cancer-curing corpses, as long as your "mystery God" doesn't provide you with moral absolutes, i have no objection. not sure the overwhelming majority of christians would agree, but you can have it out with them.

There are many atheist good works. One difference between atheist good works and religious good works is that atheists are not trying to convert anyone to anything and do not restrict the benefits of their good works to atheists. Another difference is that atheists do not do it as part of a group but make individual contributions.

Bill Gates, an atheist, has made large contributions to such important issues as education and fighting AIDS. He has not emphasised his lack of religious belief nor denied the benefits to those who believe in some religion. Warren Buffett, another atheist, is second in philanthropy only to Bill Gates. Andrew Carnegie, another atheist, is largely responsible for the excellent public library system in the USA. He made his money go far as he would build up libraries in widely scattered areas, and others in nearby areas would be encouraged to match his contributions.

Atheist charities are not diverted to expensive religious edifices and displays.

GrahamY

<<<<<<<<< Just as I can't disown the inquisition, you can't disown Stalin's gulags. >>>>>>>>>>>>

The Inquisition, Stalin's gulags, Hitler's Holocaust, genocide in Rwanda, Pol Pot's killing fields and many, many more atrocities are the fault of human beings - are our inheritance whether we like it or not; whether you like it or not we are all in this together.

Your blame game, Graham, is in complete antithesis to Christ's teachings - claiming all atheists are Marxists is like claiming all Christians are Ku Klux Klan members - you are intelligent enough to know that neither statement is true. Your deliberate obfuscation is insulting to all intelligent contributors to your forum - be they religious or not.

Working my way from believing in Christianity to simple non-belief in ANY religion, is like dissolving a dark veil - I could never return to believing in an interventionist god, an impossible birth, nor the superiority of one religion over the other - rank arrogance!

It is not delusional to not believe in something that is not there, however it is close to a mental disorder to believe in something that is not and has never been.

Shadow Minister! You sould learn to digest the english language properly! so as not to suffer "Foot in Mouth". PS: I'm not the one playing in the gutter!

Funny how the god-botherers have all failed to answer my post of Wednesday, 17 March 2010 4:10:26 PM. All I wanted was simple answers to simple questions.
My point was to bring the discussion back to the basics and avoid being dragged into theological hair-splitting; arguing about definitions; and debating spurious philosophical points.
So again:
1. There is no evidence for god/s. Why believe a hypothesis for which there is no evidence? Just because many people believe something does not make it true.
2. As presented in their holy books, the gods of christianity, islam and judaism are either absent or neglectful or mean and spiteful or all three. The willful ignorance of their priests and followers on this is truly startling and shameful.
Come on believers - how about a genuine attempt to address my basic questions and stop quibbling around the edges?

Ah Principles, I think the article is about whether Atheism is a faith or not, so your questions are diverting the thread. One reason I'm not going to buy into them.

I thought some of you would have jumped on this article http://bit.ly/aBnA76 or another like it which reports research suggesting atheists and left-wing voters are smarter than the religious and conservative voters. Though before you get too excited, the average atheist intelligence was only 103, so nothing to write home about.

Severin, think you better go and read my post again. I didn't say that all atheists were Marxists. Should I also infer from what you have written that religion had nothing to do with the inquisition? So all these things happen just because we are human and nothing else? Are you letting religion off the hook that Dawkins wants to put it on?

Thanks Bushbasher.

Graham,

The reason for the ‘law’ joke, was because Marxism is totally unrelated here and acts only as a red herring, as I will demonstrate…

Firstly, the ‘A’ in “Atheism” (a-Theism) is a prefix that means ”without”, “lack of” or “absence of”. Atheism essentially and literally means “not a theist”. Thus most Agnostics are Atheists and all Atheists are Agnostics. The two are not mutually exclusive. “Agnostic” is a useless and unhelpful term.

That being said; because of your misunderstanding of what Atheism is, you’re effectively saying that no one can “disown” an historical negative; everyone is guilty; we are all born with the burden of an historical negative of some sort.

All sounds very ‘original sin’ to me.

I agree that Christians can’t “disown” the Inquisition. I also agree that Atheists can’t “disown” Marxism, and that’s because Atheists never “owned” it in the first place.

Atheists don’t need to take ownership of Marxism because Atheism is the default position.

Just as a Juror needs to start with “not guilty” as the default decision until “guilty” is proven, people start with Atheism as an automatic/default position until something is (or they think is) proven.

<<[Marxism] may not be your form of atheism...>>

Marxism is not a form of Atheism. Marxism is a form of political/social ideology.

<<...but to deny that it is an atheistic philosophy as you appear to do...>>

I don’t deny that. But there’s a big difference between Marxism being a “form of Atheism” and Marxism being an “Atheistic philosophy”.

So how did you go from the former to the latter? I don’t know. But the discrepancy invalidates your analogy...

<<...is as illogical as me denying that Catholicism is a form of Christianity...>>

Yes, Catholicism is a form of Christianity; Marxism is not a form of Atheism.

<<One of the rhetorical tricks to try to vilify religion and advance atheism is to characterise religion by the behaviour of its worst adherents, but to define atheism so narrowly that it has no adherents who do anything less benign than write books and argue on Internet forums.>>

Continued...

...Continued

It matters not what the adherents do, but why they do it.

There have been many horrors throughout history committed in the name of religion, but the Marxist dictators of the 20th century did not do what they did in the name of Atheism. They did it in the name of a political ideology; a political ideology that consisted of, but was not fundamentally reliant, on Atheism.

Remove the elitism attached to the church and there is no reason why religion couldn’t have been compatible with Marxism - especially after the teachings of the alleged Jesus. Collectivism and an anti-capitalist stance were at the heart of Marxism. Atheism - again, by default - was compatible due to the lack of elitism attached to it. After all, who could possibly be elitist about a non-belief in something?

Conflicts have been fought in the name of religion, but I don’t know of any that were fought in the name of Atheism.

<<Atheists believe that the material world is all there is to know.>>

No, that would be a ‘Materialist’. A Materialist is an Atheist, but an Atheist isn’t necessarily a Materialist. My wife is an Atheist, but staunchly rejects Materialism.

<<I don't think you can fundamentally prove [that the material world is all there is to know], or at least prove it given our current knowledge.>>

I don’t know anyone who thinks you can prove that. Most people are aware that you can’t usually disprove the non-existence of something.

<<For me there is a mystery at the heart of life which is most probably not accessible by human conscious or knowledge. I call that mystery God.>>

That’s fine.

But to put a label on that mystery and assign characteristics to it; and then jump to the conclusion that “Jesus and his teachings present a way of approaching that mystery” is - in my opinion - irrational, because you are seriously limiting what your findings will be in any search for the answers to those mysteries.

But that’s just my opinion.

I recall working with a young woman who made all her decisions by asking herself "What would god want me to do?".

Fortunately 'god' never appeared to want her to bring an Uzi to work and let fly or to step in from of a train. The fact that she could simply use her own reason and conscience in order to make decisions never occurred to her.

Graham, my point (which seems to always evade you) was that we are all human beings for better or worse, that many atrocities have been committed in the name of some ideology or other - therefore I am certainly NOT "letting religion off the hook" and you know it, unless you are not as intelligent as you like to appear. However we do need to learn from history - is that too difficult? And try to be accepting of others despite them not believing as you do - this would eliminate a lot of disputes. For myself the great mystery is not answered by Jesus; the great mystery of life, the universe and everything continues... that's what makes it a mystery.

Atheists are as likely to be communists as they are capitalists - given the penchant for the individualism of neo-cons, one would expect to find many atheists following unregulated consumerism just as AJ Phillips has pointed out that in following Christ's teachings one would also expect to find many socialists.

>> I think the article is about whether Atheism is a faith or not,

The answer is "no". the answer is obvious. the answer is only not obvious if you engage in the most absurd kind of word-manipulation, definition-stretching and special pleading.

so what would you like to talk about now?

Severin.... "Fortunately 'god' never appeared to want her to bring an Uzi to work and let fly or to step in from of a train. The fact that she could simply use her own reason and conscience in order to make decisions never occurred to her."

Yes, I wondered about Blair when he said he prayed at night before launching the UK into war.

What was he getting back from Mars? Was it a simple 'yes-no', or did he get redirected to the excuses for war, the 'just war' stories Christians rely on before setting off to slaughter?

I'm reminded of Luke Rhinehart's 'Dice Man', which I tried to follow once. Naturally, if you are making up the choices for yourself to follow 'by chance' when your hand plunges into the bucket of 'options' you've just written and put in there, then it's no surprise that you end up doing something you had just thought of doing.

There may indeed exist a God of the wishy-washy variety that inspires GrahamY, but those who seem to regard it as a more 'tangible intangible' do seem to use it as an excuse for their good or bad behaviour, depending on their mood or even general character.

And of course, atheism is not a faith of any sort.... just an absence of a faith...should we coin 'afaithist' to make it clearer?

Dear AJ,

This does not stand up to any sort of scrutiny:

"There have been many horrors throughout history committed in the name of religion, but the Marxist dictators of the 20th century did not do what they did in the name of Atheism. They did it in the name of a political ideology; a political ideology that consisted of, but was not fundamentally reliant, on Atheism."

Marxism is fundamentally built on Atheism. It holds that there is nothing but the material. It rejects any notion of god. It expresses that rejection in the repression of religion. Marx is often quoted as saying that religion is the opiate of the masses. It is atheistic and anti-religious. Atheism is at the core of Marxism. To deny that is to deny history and fact.

You want to have it both ways. Lumber Christians with actions taken by state actors who are Christian but absolve Atheists of the actions taken by state actors who are Atheist and who promulgate an atheist code.

BTW, you can't use some sort of etymological reductionism to define Atheism. Agnosticism does mean something different to Atheism. Agnosticism is scepticism and atheism is non-belief. You can be an agnostic without being an atheist and it is a useful term. Words do not always conform to a strict interpretation of their precedents.

I know there is a lot of point scoring on these forums, but why does it have to be that way?

TBC

I too read the Rhinehart's 'Dice Man' many moons ago now. And can appreciate the analogy that even though the protagonist was using dice as random means to make a decision - he had still thought of all the choices himself.

GY

<<< Marxism is fundamentally built on Atheism. >>>

Taking your claim to its logical conclusion, a couple of points spring to mind:

1. That while in your "atheist period" you must've by default supported Marxism.

2. That you believe all atheists to be Marxists.

Else why continually banging on about Marxism and atheism? And please explain numerous atheists such as Bill Gates, atheist, entrepreneur (ie NOT Marxist) and now very charitable - please don't trot out claims like his wife being a christian, neither of us know for sure, and besides, I think Bill can make his own decisions about his money.

Finally, by inferring the culmination of meaning of your posts on this topic, why are you so determined to cast atheism as, well, wrong?

What's it to you that there are atheists? We don't get special tax breaks, people can say what they like about us - we don't get any special 'anti-vilification' privileges, nor do we proselytise - one international meeting of like minded people doesn't count as proselytising. Atheists would be hard-pressed indeed to campaign like evangelists - mainly because we have better things to do, like going to the museum, art galleries, football, movies, rock concerts, astronomy displays, playing with our children, jogging with the dog, volunteer work, sitting looking at nature, being totally gobsmacked by holding a 400 million year old orthoceras fossil (bought just recently and sitting next to my computer) and just being happy and grateful for being here. I guess Runner will be disappointed to hear that I'm not out pillaging and raping.

>> Marxism is fundamentally built on Atheism. It holds that there is nothing but the material.

there's nothing like debating with someone who steadfastly makes stuff up, and refuses to read precise clarifications and refutations of what they keep banging on about.

but no, severin, graham is not saying that all atheists or marxists. what he is saying is that all marxists are atheists. in fact i doubt very much that that is true. but anyway, of course all marxists breathe oxygen, so i guess marxism is a denomination of oxygen breathers.

i'm also sure marx had little time for the flying spaghetti monster. so, i presume marxism is a denomination of anti-spaghettism as well, and that anti-spaghettiists cannot disown stain's gulags either.

what graham's macarthyist crap boils down to is this. once we accept that don't have a god or god-given principles to guide us, we accept that we have to figure this out for ourselves. for some, that may be cartoon materialism, for others a genocidal nihilism. for the overwheling majority, neither. but in any case, this is simply that the freedom to think gives the freedom to think poorly. and the only alternative is religious fundamentalism

graham, it is ridiculous to slur current christians with the crusades. but it is not ridiculous to point out that the crusades were justified at the time as acts of christianity, with references to sacred texts. those same texts are still pretty damn prominent.

so, it is perfectly reasonable to ask current christians what "christianity" means, how and why modern christianity (not counting uganda, and parts of america) is different from medieval christianity? why is it more than a bunch of humans trying to figure out the world, guided by a very old human book which contains both the beautiful and the barbaric?

there is no corresponding question you can legitimately ask of atheists.

graham, you, and other christians, are frustrated by atheism being such a small target. i'm sorry, but that's the way it is. atheism is saying very, very little: "don't believe god stuff unless and until someone supplies a compelling reason to do so". atheists know there is no god, the way they know there is no tooth fairy. they do not and will not consider either belief unless you give reason to do so.

that's it, all your cheap agnosticism-atheism sophistry notwithstanding. all atheists can be convinced in the belief of god. there is no atheist who would remain an atheist if a bearded guy in the sky started smiting people. but it is an absurd use of language to suggest that these people are therefore not really atheists.

graham, in your frustration, you keep fibbing. you keep making stuff up in order to have a bigger target. it's idiotic. and, it makes your whining about others' straw men really, really funny.

BB

<<< but no, severin, graham is not saying that all atheists or marxists. what he is saying is that all marxists are atheists >>>

I KNOW THAT. Duh.

Just very tired of attempts to link atheism with some kind of ideology in order to make it (as you say) a bigger target.

Dawkins got it right when he said that trying to organise atheists is like trying to herd cats. Atheists come from every part of human culture from Anglos to Inuits, from Asian to African. Poor Graham trying desperately to find a label with which to tar and feather atheists.

I have no doubt that there are Marxists who believe in some kind of supreme being - but wisely would've kept their mouths shut.

The only generalisation possible about atheists is that they do not believe in god or gods. After that, we differ, often greatly.

PS

I agree with AJ that Graham was never seriously atheist.

Bushbasher and Severin, just so you can stop operating in a content free zone I suggest you go and Google "Marxism Atheism". This link from Cambridge University might help you to understand the central role of Atheism in Marxism, and modern Marxism in particular.

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html

Severin will especially love it because it uses the term "militant atheism". For example: "However, in 1955/6 militant atheism in the USSR was once more actively promoted, with the establishment of a Chair for Scientific Atheism in Moscow in 1963.[3] This trend was also reflected in policies in the Eastern Bloc and China."

This conversation isn't going to go anywhere unless you get a better grasp on the strands of the belief system that you claim to follow. It is an essential part of any Marxist revolution that people be freed from religion.

graham if this conversation isn't going anywhere it's because you ignore anything which actually deals with your crap, and you're apparently as dumb as a rock. i addressed almost every bit of what you just wrote in the two posts which you just chose to ignore. ajp addressed it before that.

1) ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM

the fact that people say "we're atheists? now what?" has no more content than "there are no god-given laws, and we're free to think: now what?"

it doesn't mean that atheism CAUSED stalinist nastiness any more than the freedom to think, and to not call on god for moral laws caused stalinism.

the alternative, you god-bothering moron, is religious fundamentalism. if that's what you want, good for you. but thank christ i live in an age and a country where the majority of people think people such as you are religious twats.

2) no one denied the possibility of a militant atheist. i have no idea what the writer of your link, or what the ussr at various times regarded as a militant atheist. it may well be they are referring to people for which the adjective "militant" is appropriate.

3) the problem was, you called dawkins a militant atheist. on what grounds? either substantiate it, or retract it, you slurbag.

GY

I have no doubt that militant Marxist atheists exist. As do militant religious fundamentalists. I don't NEED to google either nasty minorities.

Therefore, what is your point?

While I do not concur with BB's level of vitriol I do agree with his final question to you:

<<< you called dawkins a militant atheist. on what grounds? either substantiate it, or retract it >>>>

And I repeat my question:

Finally, by inferring the culmination of meaning of your posts on this topic, why are you so determined to cast atheism as, well, wrong?

Yep Severin, Bushbasher is on the verge of being suspended. You can get away with flaming me more than you can flame anyone else on the forum, but there comes a time when you've over-stepped the mark.

My point is that Atheism cannot avoid its association with nasty behaviour anymore than Christianity, or Buddhism, or Islam or Hinduism can avoid their associations with nast behaviour. Atheists pretend that they can. It's a nonsense.

It doesn't follow from this that I am saying that atheists or atheism is evil. However I would argue that it is of its nature more prone to oppressive behaviour than at least Christianity, if not some of the other religions, because it encourages an unrealistically high assessment of human infallibility. Lack of humility is a strong element in many of the oppressive behaviours in which mankind has indulged, certainly those behaviours driven by belief.

If what I have stated to you is indeed flaming, then there's not much I can say is there?

You da boss.

Well Graham, Stalin was also a non-Fascist, and I am fairly sure so are you. Pol Pot, Mao, and Godfrey of Bouillon were also Non-fascists.
It appears that militant Non-fascism has a certain nature that lends itself to violent atrocities doesn't it?

In this way I can also associate you with the Stalinist atrocities.

This is fun eh?

stoopid, but.

What is all this about all Marxists being atheists?
Just because Marx was the first to separate –already existing- communism from the Christian principles doesn’t mean that Christians suddenly all became non-communists. They didn’t embrace Marx’s philosophy, but didn’t oppose many of his economics.

I really do not find this Marxism argument a significant argument to support the stance that ‘atheists have faith’.
So what, if Marx was an atheist? Big deal; if anything, Jesus (if he existed) was not a capitalist and would’ve spoken out against capitalism and class (and I believe that he did just that, on some occasions).

Graham,
“My point is that Atheism cannot avoid its association with nasty behaviour anymore than Christianity, or Buddhism, or Islam or Hinduism can avoid their associations with nast behaviour. Atheists pretend that they can. It's a nonsense.”

It's not nonsense because nasty behaviour has happened, no doubt, by atheists.
But was this behaviour in the name of atheism? Atheism has no dogma, has no umbrella for all atheists to sit under apart from the 'not-convinced-that-there-is-such-thing-as-a-god umbrella.
There are socialist atheists, libertarian atheists, capitalist atheists, charitable atheists, destructive atheists like there are all kinds of people in these categories.
Atheists can fit under almost any other umbrella EXCEPT the theist umbrella.
Atheism does not form a ‘group’ apart from not accepting without sufficient evidence that there is a god. That’s why ‘atheism’ cannot be blamed for ‘nasty behaviour’ as such. What atheist do, they do as individuals, or from under a different umbrella, not from under the atheist umbrella.

All that is needed to turn atheists into theists is proof.
Religious faith, will only continue to exist as long as there is no sufficient evidence of a God.
That's why atheists can not have faith.

We've all witnessed the level of vitriol and nastiness this topic has caused. Get anyone talking about God or the denial of God and there is enough heat to bring all close to violence if not murder.
Funny what religion can do to people.

socratease

Dear Graham,

There is one important point here that you are missing: Atheists are not the ones who are making a claim. Theists are.

Now, I know you’re itching to jump in here and say that some Atheists are making a claim, by saying that God/s don’t exist or that religion is rubbish, but that’s irrelevant and here’s why...

Firstly, the onus is on the believers to provide the evidence. Secondly, there is no objective evidence for a God; no rationalisation that can be based on any sort of practical knowledge; no philosophical argument that doesn’t fall down at some point; nothing.

So to claim that Atheism is anything more than the absence of a religious belief or a demand for evidence is to give religion an unearned legitimacy and this is where you keep slipping up. From your claim that Atheists can’t disassociate themselves with Marxism, to your claim that Atheism is a faith position.

<<Marxism is fundamentally built on Atheism ... Atheism is at the core of Marxism. To deny that is to deny history and fact.>>

Some of the social aspects of it were based on an Atheistic viewpoint, but to say that Marxism is “fundamentally built on Atheism” is to imply that all or most tenets of it were logically derived from Atheism.

Not all of Marxism is NECESSARILY Atheistic as you are trying to make out.

One cannot go from, “I don’t believe in any Gods”, to logically conclude that therefore, “the working class must seize political power internationally through a social revolution to expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership”.

Collectivism and anti-capitalism are stances that can be taken by religious people too. In other words, it is not impossible to be a collectivist and anti-capitalist and still be religious.

To think otherwise is very McCarthyist.

<<You want to have it both ways. Lumber Christians with actions taken by state actors who are Christian but absolve Atheists of the actions taken by state actors who are Atheist and who promulgate an atheist code.>>

Continued...

...Continued

Given all of my points above, I think I can have it both ways. But I’m happy to absolve Christians of the acts of those who have committed atrocities in the name of their religion as my arguments against religion in general don’t rely on such rhetorical tricks.

<<...you can't use some sort of etymological reductionism to define Atheism.>>

Not only can I, but doing so is necessary since some Theists simply invent attributes to assign to Atheism willy-nilly in order to confuse simple issues and make false claims of "faith" and such.

<< Agnosticism does mean something different to Atheism.>>

I know.

One is to do with 'belief', the other is to do with 'knowledge'.

<<Agnosticism is scepticism and atheism is non-belief.>>

Atheism is also “scepticism” just as Agnosticism can also be “non-belief”.

<<You can be an agnostic without being an atheist...>>

I know.

An Agnostic can be someone who believes in a God, but doesn’t think anyone can know what that god is.

<<...and [Agnostic] is a useful term.>>

Given what I’ve said above, and that most - if not all of us - fit into the category, I don’t think it is. It’s certainly not helpful anyway.

<<This conversation isn't going to go anywhere unless [some here] get a better grasp on the strands of the belief system that [they] claim to follow.>>

Atheism is not a belief system. If you think it is, then please name for me a tenet of Atheism other than the disbelief, or lack of belief in any God/s.

<<...I would argue that [Atheism] is of its nature more prone to oppressive behaviour than at least Christianity, if not some of the other religions, because it encourages an unrealistically high assessment of human infallibility.>>

Again, Atheism is not a 'faith' or a 'belief system' any more than Bugsy’s “Non-Fascism” is.

But what makes this claim even more absurd is your glaring over-sight of the fact that religion provides a justification to commit atrocities that no “aspect” of Atheism could ever possibly compete with:

Devine reasoning.

Actually Graham, there is one other major - and probably the most important - distinction between lumbering Christians with the actions taken by state actors who are committing atrocities in the name of Christianity and absolving Atheists of the actions taken by Marxists, and that’s the fact that Atheists don’t share a book/doctrine with Marxists that (depending on which parts of the book we choose to follow) contains justifications for the actions of all Atheists.

If Christians don’t like being lumbered with the actions taken by state actors who are committing atrocities in the name of Christianity, then they can simply remove the parts of the Bible that we now know/believe to be irrelevant and unacceptable in a modern society and/or at least change the name of their belief system.

That’s a luxury you’re afforded. Atheists aren’t afforded that luxury.

Atheists can’t just move off and form another version of unbelief. Atheists have nowhere else to go. They can’t just choose another label like Christians can so it is unreasonable and unfair to lumber Atheists with Marxists for nothing more other than simply exercising a basic level rational thinking in demanding evidence before they believe something.

Christians have made the conscious decision to skip the step of demanding evidence first, and have adopted the same label as those who have done horrendous things in the name of the very label they have wilfully chosen for themselves.

No matter which angle you approach it from; no matter how you look at it; no matter how you define Atheism, you simply cannot justify the expectation that Atheists take “ownership” for the actions of Marxists.

After re-reading GrahamY's post 2 or three times, the light finally went on; GY was warning bushbasher for flaming, not me. GY mentioned my name at the beginning of his remonstrance to BB, because, dunno, but at least I wasn't being warned off from asking GY questions he finds very difficult to answer.

Apologies GY.

I have also been thinking of ways to raise the profile of atheists. We are in every sector of society (some of us even preach religion - Fr Peter Kennedy as an example) and are therefore, indistinguishable from the garden variety Christian.

I have discussed this idea with an atheist friend and she thought it most excellent. Atheists should carry little business cards stating:

"You have been helped by an atheist"

which we could hand to anyone for whom we have provided aid, like jump starting someone's car, or helping little old ladies with their grocery trolleys and other such good deeds. Otherwise we tend to be mistaken for Christians, even though we don't go around saying "God Bless" whether people have asked to be blessed or not.

Be interested in others' thoughts on this idea.

Cheers

I was a bit surprised when you read the flaming admonition as being directed to you, Severin, though it was couched in slightly ambiguous language.

I'm not keen on being a card carrying atheist, and if anyone helps me I just assume they are kind and thoughtful and religion doesn't even enter my head. Would you suggest that criminal and ne'er do well atheists also carry cards? 'You have just been burgled/bashed/abused by an atheist'. Could be counterproductive.

This forum has made me think hard about whether there is anything in the 'miracle' line that might make me believe in god. I always used to trot out the one about restoring amputated limbs, but on reflection I'm pretty sure I would just regard it as some sort of amazing regrowth, like a starfish growing an arm. We can already grow back fingertips before a certain age and under the right conditions, so why not a leg?

Marxism has many gestalts taken from Christianity. There is an Eden in the form of primitive communism. There is a period of class struggle, and a millennial apothesis in the eventual classless society. There is original sin in the invention of cpitalism which made man emerge from the Eden of primitive communism. It is another we/they philosophy which dehumanises its opponents as class enemies in the way that missionary religions such as Christianity and Islam dehumanise those who do not accept thewir faith as individuals. Marxism, like the JCI religions, is based on belief in unprovable propositions.

It is better to discard all we\they missionary faiths whether the superstition is Marxism, Christianity or Islam.

Candide

My suggestion for a card saying "You have just been helped by an Atheist", is a bit of satire. My point is that no-one knows who an atheist is by appearance, we are throughout all stations of life; from the 7-11 clerk to a QC. Just a conspicuous lack in politics - unless they are 'in the closet'.

When helping people, I know from their response a few have assumed I'm a Christian, having received many a "god, bless" from grateful people, nor have I bothered to disabuse them of their opinion - really, isn't providing help what it is all about? At least that is what I used to think until reading people like Forster.

But not according to Forster, GY and other christians, they are out to prove that atheists are selfish, uncharitable and materialistic. I and other atheists have every right to be affronted by these claims. Notice how GrahamY, CEO of OLO has not answered a single question I or any other atheist has asked on this forum. He has made many claims about us, but not answered the most telling of all:

"why so determined to prove atheists as less charitable"? The very basis of the claim for this article.

My only explanation is that many like Forster and Graham cannot deal with the fact that the majority of atheists are decent, generous and law-abiding people - like most Christians.

Most telling of all, it means if people can be 'good' without a religion, then why do we need religion at all?

>> Notice how GrahamY, CEO of OLO has not answered a single question I or any other atheist has asked on this forum.

which is why i yelled at him. of course graham then used that as an excuse to avoid another round of responses and questions, but he would have avoided it anyway.

graham loves to be sanctimonious about politeness. he has every right to make the rules/standards, and i don't totally disagree: i'm basically not sufficiently tolerant or polite for OLO culture. i'd not whine as it being inappropriate if he suspended me (but i wouldn't return).

but one thing about OLO which gives me the irrits, especially by the religious guys, is the conflation of politeness with respect. in fact, i usually read carefully what others write and usually try to respond to it with genuine content. i give my opponents the respect to read and to respond to their arguments. until at some point i give up. by comparison, the majority of what theists write here is insulting and obfuscation, nastiness delivered in gentle tones.

my impoliteness to graham on this thread pales in comparison to his disrespect of others.

Graham
Marx was an atheist, but marxism did not emerge primarily as an atheist movement. It's goals were political and more about distribution of wealth.

If you google Christian socialist you will find a myriad of Christian folk who believe in socialism and social justice issues. Not surprising when one thinks of the story of Jesus and the ideals he projected.

Marx saw the Church as supporting the old structures of the ruling classes. He also believed in the greatness and potential of man and the rule of reason.

Marx was not a secularist that is for certain and he fell into the same quagmire as many revolutionaries - that is becoming a despot to fight a despot. However, to compare atheism with marxism as one of the same achieves no purpose in this debate.

Many of the atheists on OLO are on the free market libertarian side of politics and would probably baulk at being compared with Marxism.

Considering the vicious, authoritarian regimes under the church in the dark ages, the statement that athiests are more prone to authoritarian, oppressive regime is a little rich.

The argument can easily go the other way.

Evil people are evil irrespective of their supposed belief. I have never tried to claim athiests are less prone to violence, or any other vice. However, there is no evidence that they are more prone either.

Religion does not make you a better or worse person. There are stinkers in all forms.

Well explained, Pelican.

Severin,
>>My suggestion for a card saying "You have just been helped by an Atheist", is a bit of satire."<<
I was surprised that someone didn't grasp that. Teee-heee the thought of handing out a business card after every good deed :)

In the past, I used to grin and bear it when people took me for a Christian. I've certainly become less shy and more outspoken during the last few years. If people tell me that I'm a good Christian I now ask them what makes them think I'm a Christian, and then enlighten them.

Shadow Minister,
>>Religion does not make you a better or worse person.<<

I can't remember who said this but I do tend to agree with it:
"Without religion you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things it takes religion."

Without religion, people wouldn't want to become suicide bombers.
Without religion, some children wouldn't be accused of witchery and burned at the stake or buried alive either.

"Without religion you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things it takes religion."

steven weinberg said it, though maybe not originally. freeman dyson replied:

"But in order for bad people to do good things: That, too, takes religion"

Bushbasher, the absolute weakest of excuses is "He made me do it". In its extreme it's called the Nuremberg defence.

There is also a good reason why I will not get diverted answering your questions.

I'm interested in the assertions that Atheists have never done anything to convert others to Atheism, particularly of a violent nature, and also the idea that Atheism doesn't have a belief system. If you want to talk about something else, then talk about it, but don't expect me to join the conversation. It's a free world (see my first comment above).

Pelican, Marxism is an atheist movement, and its actions prove that. It also has concerns about equality, wealth, distribution of power, but you don't understand it if you don't understand that it is underpinned by a radical humanist view of the world which is materialist.

Socialism is not Marxism. Christian socialists are not Marxists.

It's interesting that a number of posters have so much trouble accepting that Marxism is founded on atheistism. Interesting too that there is little knowledge of what Marxism is, just a lot of assertions about what people say it means. Nary a relevant citation. And then attempts to suggest that because I point out that Marxism is atheistic that I am therefore saying all atheists are Marxist. Yeah, just like all Christians are Quakers!

Celivia, in this respect you need to do some more research into suicide bombings - you'll find they were pioneered not by religious fanatics, but by Marxist Leninists in Sri Lanka - the Tamil Tigers. That is Atheists are responsible for the invention of the technique. Credit where credit is due. http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=182&issue=110

Someone earlier on suggested that Atheism is the default position. In fact, religion is the default position - you find very few natural Atheists in the history of the world until after the Enlightenment. That's because you needed the Enlightenment and the scientific revoultion to provide the philosophical tools. Which underlines the fact that it is a belief system. It depends on a particular theory of how the world operates to be viable.

Graham, while most of what you say is blindingly obvious and trivial (ie socialists are not marxists, atheists are not marxists but marxists are atheists etc), there is something unclear in your last sentence.

What "particular theory of how the world operates" that atheism requires are you talking about exactly?

I just know I'm going to regret asking the question, but I just gotta ask it.

I've always been intrigued by the Church's support of capitalism, and condemnation of marxism/socialism.
"It would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to pass through the gate of Heaven".
Capitalism?
What about the parable about 'the last shall be first'? Paying the grape picker who only worked for an hour the same amount as those who worked all day. Does that sound like capitalism?
"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes... Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?"
"Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in Heaven that will not be exhausted..."
JC sounds a bit like one of those godless bloody commos, to me.
A final (topical) quote from Romans, 14: "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters."
These debates on OLO have, I believe, given me a new insight. I think not only do posters like Petersen, Runner and JP genuinely need to believe in God, but I fear society needs them to believe also.
Decent Atheists help others simply because they believe it's the right thing to do, without any carrot or stick.
Imagine taking religion away from these God botherers who cannot understand this, and only do the right thing through fear of God.
Is this what makes Stalins, and Pol Pots?

>> Bushbasher, the absolute weakest of excuses is "He made me do it".

graham, i wasn't excusing myself, i was only explaining myself. if you read any note of apology to you in my post, please unread it now. of course, as soon as you're ready to apologize for your disrespectfulness ...

>> In its extreme it's called the Nuremberg defence.

well, someone's got perspective! (and arguing provocation is hardly the same as arguing that one was following orders. sheesh!)

>> There is also a good reason why I will not get diverted

by "diverted" you mean actually addressing the issue of this thread, that the starting article is in fact baseless. yep, you wouldn't want to be diverted by relevance.

>> answering your questions.

or anybody's.

>> I'm interested in the assertions that Atheists have never done anything to convert others to Atheism,

huh? who claimed this? does trying to reason with someone count?

>> particularly of a violent nature,

who claimed this? all i, and about 10 others on this thread, want you to do is to justify referring to dawkins as "militant".

>> and also the idea that Atheism doesn't have a belief system.

it's not an idea, it's a blatant fact. and atheists/atheism are not responsible for or answerable for anybody who claims "i'm an atheist, and i think atheism means it's o.k. to send people to gulags". atheism is nothing but the disbelief in god. that's it, that's it, that's it. why is that so tough for you to understand?

graham, your post is not merely ridiculous on its merits, it also ignores ajp's, and many others', very clear, very pertinent posts on exactly these issues. ajp's latest, excellent posts hit the nail on the head, and of these you say not one word in response. that's what i mean: i'm impolite, but the level of your disrespect is unbelievable.

you're not debating, you're not even listening. you're preaching.

No, no, Graham- the CONCEPT of suicide bombing comes from the
holy books.

Take the Bible:

God gave Samson his power back KNOWING Samson’s intention was to kill himself and others:

["Then Samson prayed to the LORD, "O Sovereign LORD , remember me.
O God, please strengthen me just once more, and let me with one
blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes."
(From the NIV Bible, Judges 16:28)" ]

Then, Samson was able to use his strength to kill himself
and others, out of revenge!

["Samson said to the servant who held his hand, "Put me where I can feel the pillars that support the temple, so that I may lean against them."
Now the temple was crowded with men and women; all the rulers of the Philistines were there, and on the roof were about three thousand men and women watching Samson perform. Then Samson prayed to the LORD,
"O Sovereign LORD , remember me.
O God, please strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes."
Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand
on the one and his left hand on the other, Samson said,
"Let me die with the Philistines!"
Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it.
Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived.
(From the NIV Bible, Judges 16:26-30)" ]

YAWN. YAWN.
Aren't you guys finished with this yet? There's no flesh on the bone.
Someone begin another thread.

socratease

Graham,
I agree with much of what you are saying, however I think one should distinguish between Marxism (an abstract theory) and Marx-Leninism as practiced in the Soviet Union and its satellites for many decades. Since I have already outed myself (on another thread) as having grown up in Stalinist Czechoslovakia, with compulsory “scientific world-view classes” instead of RE so - in distinction to your adversaries here, who, I think, are at most “armchair Marxists” - I have had practical experience with the atheist underpinnings of Marx-Leninism:

When the peasants took to their scythes to defend their parish priest (taken by police as a “Vatican spy” or on some similar accusation) they saw in the new officials first of all atheists, not Marxists or what. Of course, many people rejected Marx-Leninism for reasons only marginally related to religion, however many others, not only peasants, saw (and suffered from) the new political system as primarily atheist and only secondarily as based on an ideology incompatible with any decent Western world-view, theist or atheist.

As a child and adolescent I was happy to regurgitate to my Marxist teachers their doctrines and slogans to get through my studies; I was only scared of having to proclaim in front of the class that I did not believe in God (as a 12 years old I actually did once, and I was thankful to my father who explained to me why I should not feel guilty).

I was spared of this later, because the comrades made the mistake of rewarding the country’s first three (I think) in the Mathematical Olympiad with admission to a university of their choice without entry exams, which also meant without ideological/political scrutiny (next year the rewards were only financial). So I managed to get my degree, even a position at my university after graduation, until they found out about my Catholic background. I was sacked because as one who was “burdened by religion” (or whatever the proper translation) I was not allowed to be in contact with young people.

GrahamY

I freely acknowledge there are many wonderful Christian people (but I suspect it is not their religion that makes them so). People who accept others of diverse religious beliefs, such as Buddhism which has no god and people like, yours truly, who hold no religious beliefs at all.

I agree with Bushbasher - you have not shown the slightest respect to posters who have provided courteous, articulate and reasonable posts in response to your claims that atheism is NOT the FOUNDATION for Marxism as AJ Philips and DavidF have both clearly demonstrated. Care to refute their arguments? I think not.

However,now I notice you are doing a sleight of hand vis a vis socialists - because the character of Jesus was so obviously in favour of the masses?

<<< Socialism is not Marxism. Christian socialists are not Marxists. >>>

You got the first part correct, but there is no reason to assume that there are no Christian socialist/Marxists. However that may appear to you, that state of being is no more oxymoronic than fascist Christians - suggest you do some research, here's a hint: Dorothee Solle.

Again, I ask you why, in the face of demonstrable evidence do you wish to paint ALL atheists with the one brush? A brush smeared in aspersions and outright lies?

>> however many others, not only peasants, saw (and suffered from) the new political system as primarily atheist

they may have SEEN the system as primarily atheist, but that doesn't make it true; the fact that they see it may have as much to do with their religiousness than their tyrants' atheism.

their belief doesn't mean they in fact SUFFERED because the system was primarily atheist. in fact they didn't. in fact, there is no such thing as a "primarily atheist" system.

let's take another example. plenty of people, not just peasants, see (and claim they suffer from) the world banking system as primarily jewish. it doesn't make it true, and we don't treat such belief as anything but disgusting, antisemitic paranoia.

george, you post is a red herring, most of it very red (pun sort of intended). graham's job is to go from the definition of atheism to a system of belief. he can't do it, and in its place he obfuscates and smears. don't help him.

Graham you speak about humanism as if it is a bad thing. There are Christian and non-theist humanists all striving to achieve the same humanitarian goals.

I liken the Marx argument to a claim that George Bush's Republican Party is part of a greater Christian movement, which could be arguable on Bush's own claim that God advised him to invade Iraq and that it would be almost impossible for an atheist to be elected to the US Congress let alone selected for candidacy for President.

Writers who claim that atheism was a religion under Marxism forget religion requires a belief in a supreme or supernatural being. Atheism is a feature of Marxism, one part of a highly political movement of which many Christians subscribe to (without obviously taking on Marx's atheistic or opiate of the people viewpoint).

I tend to agree with Severin that the good in people comes from within, if some people gain help to express the good through their religion they are harnessing something that already lies within. If it didn't religion could not hope to harness it.

Goodness knows no boundaries, neither does evil, but these attributes, I believe, exist regardless of one's religiosity. Is it too out of the square to believe that a good Christian would be good even if they were an atheist.

As one poster said previously, we do tend to pick the bones on these conversations repeating much of what has been said before with most of us acknowleding the freedoms of belief as well as the freedom of speech.


(PS: I have always like the Quakers)

Graham, let's have a closer look at the point you make here.

>>Someone earlier on suggested that Atheism is the default position. In fact, religion is the default position - you find very few natural Atheists in the history of the world until after the Enlightenment. That's because you needed the Enlightenment and the scientific revoultion to provide the philosophical tools. Which underlines the fact that it is a belief system. It depends on a particular theory of how the world operates to be viable.<<

Ignore for a moment the crop of organized religions that have sprung up over the past few thousand years, and take your mind back to a time when communication between individuals was quite poor. Primitive sounds, primitive "writing" and "reading".

Despite this, there is a fair body of evidence that suggests these folk were "religious".

http://studyingsocieties.wikispaces.com/Early+Human+Cave+Paintings+and+Religion

http://www.philipcoppens.com/cavepaintings.html

Which would support the part of your theory that suggests that a belief in (a) higher power(s) has been part of mankind since its existence.

However, the Enlightenment came with increased communication, as well as broader and deeper education.

It could be argued that the same tools that allowed us to understand that the sun does not revolve around the earth, also develop the understanding that the concept of gods is something that we have created for ourselves.

The understanding that the earth is no longer the central point in the universe is now the "default" position. In the same way, our new perceptions of the value of religion in our society allow us to start from the "no god" premise, while accepting that religion is still required by some. And quite possibly, always will be.

But the new "enlightened" default position in the twentyfirst century could quite justifiably be described as atheist, depite the tens of thousands of years in which the existence of gods was taken for granted.

George,

Since you have so much more knowledge and experience than us armchair experts (and yet somehow still needed to resort to a red herring that Bushbasher demonstrated to be nonsense anyway), perhaps you could address a point of mine that Graham has dodged:

If Marxism is so fundamentally built on Atheism, then how does one logically go from...

“I don’t believe in any Gods”

...to...

“The working class must therefore seize political power internationally through a social revolution to expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership”?

Pelican,

An Atheist’s understanding of the term “Humanist” is often very different to a Theists understanding. In my experience, when a Theist thinks of a Humanist, they think of a person who puts people in an unjustifiably exalted status as if to replace God with mere “self-righteous” humans. (e.g. Runner)

This goes back to Graham’s failed point earlier about Atheism supposedly being potentially more prone to oppressive regimes “because it [supposedly] encourages an unrealistically high assessment of human infallibility”.

Mr Young,

<<I'm interested in ... the idea that Atheism doesn't have a belief system.>>

Yet you dodged my question in regards to this point. Doesn’t sound like you’re genuinely interested at all.

A “system” is a group of interrelated elements combined to work coherently together. So I’ll ask again:

If Atheism is a belief system, then please name for me a tenet of Atheism other than the disbelief, or lack of belief in any God/s.

Since “systems” require MULTIPLE (I wish we had italics) elements, surely you can name at least a couple more.

Remember, all it takes for an Atheist to become a Christian is evidence. Exercising the rationality to demand evidence before one believes something does not constitute a “belief system”.

Period.

<<Marxism is an atheist movement, and its actions prove that. It also has concerns about equality, wealth, distribution of power, but you don't understand it if you don't understand that it is underpinned by a radical humanist view of the world which is materialist.>>

Continued...

...Continued

Same old assertion, again, backed with no examples or reasoning. I refer back to my point to you earlier that I’ve now put to George.

<<...[suicide bombings] were pioneered not by religious fanatics, but by Marxist Leninists in Sri Lanka - the Tamil Tigers. That is Atheists are responsible for the invention of the technique.>>

A convenience of circumstance.

So are you saying that if bombs had been invented hundreds of years before they were, we’d still need to wait for Marxism to enter the scene and invent the idea of suicide bombings? None of the religions would have come-up with it?

If not, then you’re point is pretty weak.

<<Someone earlier on suggested that Atheism is the default position.>>

That would be me.

<<In fact, religion is the default position...>>

In fact, it’s not.

If you are going to continue down this line, then please tell me why my ‘juror’ analogy is inaccurate rather than dodging the point and continuing as if it never happened.

<<...you find very few natural Atheists in the history of the world until after the Enlightenment.>>

You’d probably also find that those who were Deists would likely have been Atheists had they had the scientific knowledge we now have on which to base their scepticism of religious claims.

<<That's because you needed the Enlightenment and the scientific revoultion to provide the philosophical tools.>>

Scepticism and disbelief do not rely on “philosophical tools” to exist. Scepticism can be a gut feeling not based on rational thought processes. Your failure to recognise this is where your argument, again, falls down.

Like I said before, it doesn’t matter what angle you approach it from...

<<Which underlines the fact that it is a belief system.>>

Given what I’ve said above, I’d say this is quite the non sequitur.

<<It depends on a particular theory of how the world operates to be viable.>>

No, it depends on the courage to say "I don't know", along with the total lack of evidence for any Gods; A total lack of evidence that was around long before the Enlightenment.

If "religion is the default position", why are we born with no religion? Religion has to be taught. Atheist is natural - a baby has no knowledge of god. However, it does has knowledge of love - in most cases from its first breath.

Again I ask:

Why do you wish to cast a non-belief in religion as tainted?

Why does it matter weather you're are a believer or a non-believer? There are good & bad on both sides.

Pericles, that is my point. Atheism is a belief system that holds that all there is to know can be known by scientific inquiry, and because scientific inquiry has not thrown up any evidence of God or gods then he, she or they do not exist. So part of the atheistic belief system is to believe that you cannot know anything apart from a scientific or logical context.

But this goes beyond the claims that science makes for itself, which is what makes Atheism a faith as well as a belief system, because faith pertains to that which you cannot logically prove.

Many of those posting on this thread seem to think that because something is obvious to them it is just fact, not a belief system, but they are ignoring all the factors that go to make us believe that this is just the way things are.

If the atheistic worldview is fact, it has not just happened as fact but has developed along with a whole lot of ways of approaching the world. So, the atheistic belief system privileges logic and physical ways of knowing. It also privileges man's intellect as the pinnacle of ways of knowing and understanding.

Marxism plays some interesting riffs on this. Dialectical materialism, which claims to be scientific, sees reality as being a function of power interplays, so to some extent malleable. So it is not scientific in the term that I am using science. Making its brand of atheism even more a faith than that of the western Atheist in a capitalist society.

But at the same time demonstrating that science and what it means is a contestable term, which underlines that when you refer to science you refer to a belief system, some of whose assumptions are questioned by others.

And before anyone accuses me of being opposed to science, I'm not. I hold to the standard Western Popperian view of what science is and should be.

George, thanks for your timely intervention. It seems too few people these days have any idea of what Marxism, in particular Soviet Marxism, was about. I've also been doing some googling on Marx and religion which throws up a lot of useful links. Bushbasher and others might like to read this one http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/03/13/karl-marx-religion-2.htm. It's written by an Atheist. Not all Atheists have a problem with the proposition that Marxism is an Atheistic movement.

Severin, there may be some Marxists who call themselves Christian, but as this Wikipedia post makes clear, while there are Christian Communists, they are not Marxists although they may share some beliefs with them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism. Fascism doesn't have a religious basis, so I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with your reference to Christofascism.

Bushbasher demands that I justify my description of Dawkins as a militant Atheist. Too easy. Wikipedia provides a definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_atheism. "Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense and the second is that it is usually or always harmful." Dawkins would happily plead guilty on both counts, as would many of those on this thread.

To understand the term in context Bushbasher should also research Militant Christianity, and the Church Militant. These are descriptions many Christians wear with pride, and which have nothing to do with physical war (if that is Bushbasher's problem on this issue). I could call Dawkins an evangelical Atheist, which would mean a similar thing to Militant Atheist.

There is a bit of discussion here about whether religion is the default position at birth. Some say it is, some say it isn't. You are all wrong.

There is a fair amount of evidence that spirituality is both innate and heritable. Innate means we are programmed with a biological bias one way or the other that we can't change (like sexual orientation), and heritable in this case is good evidence for this preference coming from our genes rather than upbringing or other external factors. http://www.acperesearch.net/aug05.html

From what I can tell, this innate inclination towards spirituality is rather weak when to compared to something like sexual orientation, but nonetheless it is there. Weak or not, it is relevant to this discussion. People genetically programmed to prefer spirituality will have religion as their default position when born. And the reminder won't have religion as their default position. Since the world is made up of all types, you can not make a blanket statement about "the" default position.

Whether Atheism is a belief systems seems to be a similar question. As I understand it, disproving the statement "God exists" is impossible. Therefore to absolutely deny god exists is a statement of belief, just as currently absolutely insisting god does exist is a belief. So Atheism as defined by the dictionary (ie a absolute denial of the existence of god), is belief system just like religion.

The only problem is, I don't know of a single person who has adopted that belief system. Even Dawkins doesn't. Instead all adopt the position that they can't see any evidence of god they assume he doesn't exist. This is not much difference to say a persons belief in Einstein's theory relativity. In essence, they would be happy to throw it away if something that was a better fit for the evidence came along. This is a very different position to the absolute position of Theist and the Atheist (as defined by the dictionary).

AJ Phillips
You make a good point, I can see why some theists might view humanism in that way. Generally I don't believe that view is widely held ie. humanism is not to exalt man as a supreme being as some theists might think. But then I cannot really be sure what discussions take place within the Church.

I have read humanism described in different ways one that humanism wishes to advance the wellbing and advancement of humanity; and that humanism places man as supreme to everything else. The second being less flattering and misleading in my opinion. Wishing for the wellbeing and advancement of humanity is not the same as thinking that man is supreme. Indeed man is just one part of a wider ecoystem with the benefit of higher intellectual thought processes.

Other living beings don't seem to concern themselves with spirituality they are more focussed on where the next meal is coming from, or defending their territory, finding a mate and caring for young. It could be seen as both a curse and a privilege.

Christian friends and colleagues have described themselves as secular humanists so the perceptions vary widely.

rstuart for once I can agree with you. :)
Humans do seem to have some innate need for spirituality which manifests itself in many ways, not just via religion.

pft Humanism. It's just a recently trendy way to say I don't believe in god, but I want everyone to know I have morals. It's just the latest trend of the lefties. They made it up while sipping Chardonnay I believe.

To all the atheists here: You're showing how scared you are that you may be wrong.

To all the religious here: You're showing how scared you are that you may be wrong.

Mother is the name for god in the hearts of all children.

Religion is the theft of this love by evil men.

Pelican,

It’s been about 17 years since I stopped going to church, so perhaps things are changing now. But from my experience in a mainstream (Lutheran) church, the Theistic view of Humanism I gave earlier was very much a majority view.

Graham,

I can appreciate that you’d want to save face here being the chief editor and all, but all you’re doing is digging yourself in deeper.

Did you actually read what you linked to (http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/03/13/karl-marx-religion-2.htm)?

“According to Marx, religion is an expression of material realities and economic injustice. Thus, problems in religion are ultimately problems in society. Religion is not the disease, but merely a symptom.”

If what you’re saying is true, then you’d think it would read:

“...Religion is not merely a symptom, but the disease.”

<<Atheism is a belief system that holds that all there is to know can be known by scientific inquiry, and because scientific inquiry has not thrown up any evidence of God or gods then he, she or they do not exist.>>

No, again, that’s Materialism. A Materialist is an Atheist, but an Atheist isn’t necessarily a Materialist.

That being said, the following proves nothing...

<<But this goes beyond the claims that science makes for itself, which is what makes Atheism a faith as well as a belief system, because faith pertains to that which you cannot logically prove.>>

You’re inventing attributes to assign to Atheism willy-nilly and presuming to know what Atheists believe, hence the need to go back to the bare-bones definition of ‘Atheism’.

We can’t just re-define reality to suit ourselves.

<<Not all Atheists have a problem with the proposition that Marxism is an Atheistic movement.>>

I admitted earlier that Marxism was an Atheistic “philosophy” (not an actual “movement” as my clarification of your link shows), I then built on that to show that Marxism wasn’t “fundamentally” built on Atheism, but all you’ve done is dodge and weave and continued to make the same assertions without anything to back them.

Not very helpful to the discussion - which coming from the founder of this site - isn’t very encouraging.

I would have to agree with AJ here.

Religion was seen as a tool being used by the capitalists to oppress the masses.

Under Lenin and Stalin all forms of capitalism were ruthlessly stamped out and anyone with dissenting views was eliminated.

The church as an organisation was oppressed and so were many followers, however, if religion was anathema to marxism / communism, the church would have been eliminated not oppressed. The churches would have been levelled or converted, and all the clergy shipped to Siberia.

Ownership of the means of production was the main aim of Marxism, religion was entirely a side issue.

The website about.com is an american religious website whose interests are to tar athiesm with whatever odious associations it can. For unbiased opinion this is not the place to come.

Graham

Did an atheist drive over your pet budgie or something?

Your posts are becoming increasingly absurd - a poor excursion into semantic obfuscation. Despite your 'best' efforts your attempts at religious alchemy will not turn non-belief into belief.

A Marxist is most likely atheist, but an atheist is not necessarily a Marxist.

A Jew may be atheist, but an atheist not necessarily Jewish.

A flying spaghetti monster worshipper is not an atheist.

A Christian is not an atheist.

A Muslim is not an atheist.

A Hindu is not an atheist.

But...

A buddhist can be both atheist and buddhist - no deity but there is the matter of reincarnation.

An Australian can be both atheist and Australian.

A 'Calathumpian' may be atheist and 'Calathumpian'.

A person may not believe in any religion and refuse to label themselves an atheist - because they hate labels. I'm not keen on being labelled an atheist, not because I am anti religious, I just don't believe IN religion and its attendant deities.

Again I ask why is this so important to you? Why can't you just believe in your son of god, virgin births, resurrection and leave the rest of us NOT believing in any of that stuff?

_______________________________________________________

Why do you need to cast aspersions on non-believers?

_______________________________________________________

Having followed this thread for a while I’ll throw in a couple of observations.

Many Christians are not theists. (Let’s not call them “atheists” because the word carries too many connotations.) They believe in God but assert that God is not a being and is not supernatural. This view, which I myself hold, is becoming increasingly common.

“Atheists” – as they usually present themselves here and in the wider global debate in recent years – seem to believe a priori that logical empiricism is the only way to establish the truth of something. In other words, to test the hypothesis one must make deductions from it, gather publicly verifiable data (preferably quantifiable) to test the deductions, and then deduce conclusions from it. The reasoning, data and process must be readily accessible to other people. The results need to be repeatedly replicated and similar conclusions drawn.

As I understand it, this is the scientific approach. Since it is based upon a priori beliefs (faith) is it not then a “belief system”?

It is a mistake to use the scientific approach to test the reality of God. Non-empirical perception (e.g. awareness of one’s own unpublicised feelings, images, thoughts and intuitions) is central to this task. Feeling-judgements (not emotional decisions) can be just as helpful in their own way.

When communicating publicly about one’s findings in all of this, I suppose coherence demands logic and empirical awareness. I do my best.:)

Crabsy,

One could argue that you’re still a Theist. Either way, an Atheist can simply be someone who has no belief one way or the other, or never even thinks about religion or Gods. This is often confused with “Agnosticism", which is actually to do with knowledge, not belief.

<<“Atheists” – as they usually present themselves here and in the wider global debate in recent years – seem to believe a priori that logical empiricism is the only way to establish the truth of something.>>

The more outspoken Atheists are the only ones who talk of empiricism as a means of explaining their lack of belief. So it still doesn’t mean that Atheism is a “belief system” as there are many Atheists who do not fit your above description.

But if that did make Atheism a belief system, then it’s a pretty good and rational belief system that I’d be proud of adhering to considering empiricism is the only way we’ve ever actually known to be able to find the truth (i.e. a verifiable fact).

I appreciate that you are (or at least sound like you are) trying to be somewhat of a mediator here, and you sound like a nice person, but unfortunately, when most Theists use the term “belief system” and apply it to Atheists, they do it in a “Ha ha, you’re just as stupid and dogmatic as we are” kind of way.

And that’s what I think has been is going on here.

I think there is someone somewhere giving out gold stars if you can catch me out making an error. How else to explain the vigilante behaviour of a group of OLO posters? I checked out my first post on this subject - it was a suggestion that you could test the assertion of the article by a natural experiment. This is what I wrote:

"I agree it doesn't make much sense to look for atheistic charities in an essentially Christian country. You may find some, but there won't be a lot of them.

However, China, Russia, Cuba and a number of other countries have in recent times been ideologically atheistic, so it should be possible to do a comparison between them and Christian countries of the activities and existence of civil society organisations at those times. And we should also look at Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims. In fact, there would probably be some interesting variances between the religious as well as potentially with atheists.

It would also be interesting to do a study to see whether atheists were any less represented in charitable work than Christians,Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus."

Nothing inflammatory here, just a suggestion that we could find some empirical evidence.

We had a couple of responses on point but the rest of the responses have been intimidatory blasts designed to "prove" that Marxists aren't atheists, or to define atheism so it can't include Marxism, or that I think all Atheists are Marxist. I am interested in this site because I hope it might encourage rational debate, but all I see is illogical restatement of previously held positions.

This is particularly illuminating given that Atheism clams to be empirical. It may be, but that is not the practice of Atheists on this forum.

bushbasher,
I offered my personal experience with Communist atheism, as atheism was understood then (i.e. explicitly anti-theist, anti-religion, anti “belief in God”, not the present meaning often fused with what used to be called agnosticism). Your experience must be different if you are so sure to know better what was “primarily” true about the system I lived in for over 20 years.

I respect and believe the negative personal experiences of some people with their religious education in Australian schools (as often recorded on this OLO), without calling their stories red herrings or trying to explain them away by claiming to know better than they what was true.

>>plenty of people … claim they suffer from the world banking system as primarily jewish … we don't treat such belief as anything but disgusting, antisemitic paranoia <<
I would not thus offend people (if such existed) who were prosecuted by a secret police in the service of “Jewish bankers”, sentenced by a Jewish judge to years of hard labour, their only crime given as “being an anti-Jewish spy”. For instance, my uncle was sentenced for nine years at the age of 25 as a Vatican spy only because he was caught translating from French, (and trying to distribute), a “modern” prayer book. He was certainly not the only one prosecuted for his/her religious, not political, affiliation and beliefs.

Communism was unthinkable without atheism (or anti-theism, if you like) the same as Inquisition without Christianity or Mccarthyism without anti-Communism. Of course, it does not follow that every atheist, or Christian or anti-Communist is morally on the same level as Communists, Inquisitors or Mccarthyists respectively.

If one understands atheism as a synonym of materialism (like the Communists did) then it can indeed be expressed as based on one belief, the Carl Sagan maxim, spelled out by Graham.

Though atheism (however you define it) is probably not a faith (again whatever one understands by it) many defend it with religious fervor.

I do not understand what those who attack Graham are after. After all, there were many societies built on religion - organised or not - that survived for centuries. The Communist experiment was so far the only one trying to built and organise a society without religion. The experiment failed in a couple of decades. We shall probably not live to see if other attempts to build a society based on atheist values only will be more successful, but I doubt it if anti-religion atheists cannot accept that in that failed experiment attrocities were commited IN THEIR NAME: not to admit guilt but to learn.

AJ Philips,
I certainly did not make that implication, neither do I believe Graham did.

>>an Atheist isn’t necessarily a Materialist<<
>>Atheist can simply be someone who has no belief one way or the other, or never even thinks about religion or Gods<<
I can understand what materialism or scientism (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10176&page=0#165070) is. I can understand that somebody “never even thinks” about something, though that would hardly make him/her able to make informed statements about that something. On the other hand, I do not understand what having no belief “one way or the other” means, unless one spells out what is here the “one way” and what the “other”, and describes the third way that is neither the one nor the other. There were no such ambiguities with the classical definition of atheism and agnosticism.

Shadow Minister,
I don’t know how old you are, but you should have told that “religion was entirely a side issue” to the hundreds of thousands of ordinary people (I personally knew many of them), who could not care less about Marx, but were sacked, transferred to menial jobs, or even jailed, just because their religion was not deemed “private” enough.

A general remark:
Graham facilitates the discussions/disputes on this OLO for which I think he deserves some appreciation, if not respect, also from those who do not share his world-view. I certainly learned here a lot about contemporary Atheism and Atheists, what makes them tick, and I am grateful for that.

George

Until I started reading theists views here at OLO, I had no idea how disturbed and threatened they are by non-religious people.

For the record, I no more hold Graham Young responsible for witch burnings or the bombing of medical clinics, than I do for 9/11.

Therefore, I find his persistence in generalising about atheists, who are among the most diverse peoples on this planet, as somehow secret Marxists or uncharitable, lacking in compassion as extremely unbecoming for someone who holds the position of editor-in-chief of OLO. I also find his claims that not believing in a supernatural deity as being a belief - beyond belief!

As has been acknowledged, ad nauseum, there is good and bad among all people irrespective of belief.

Get out Severin the athiests seem just as threatened by the religious here.

I'm deeply religious, as I don't believe that Tom Cruise is an alien.

It's my belief system

I think one of the main reasons there’s some confusion in the Theist camp here, is because Atheism actually has a title. I mean - going back to my juror analogy - it’s not like we call jurors the “Not-guiltyists”.

George,

<<...there were many societies built on religion - organised or not - that survived for centuries.>>

This is a spurious statement. While generally true, the fact that they were “built on religion” wasn’t necessarily the reason they survived so long.

Australia wasn’t necessarily “built on religion” and it’s doing alright.

<<The Communist experiment was so far the only one trying to built and organise a society without religion.>>

Yes, but remember that the “without religion” part was an aspect - an important aspect even - but not a fundamental basis. Whether or not one could possibly imagine communism without Atheism.

Religion was apparently a symptom, not the disease.

<<The experiment failed in a couple of decades.>>

Here you’re tying to imply that religious societies last longer because they’re religious.

You need to remember that the major reasons Marxism failed was because it was an economic and social disaster. It didn’t necessarily fail because it was Atheistic. Just as the societies built on religion didn’t necessarily succeed because they were built on religion.

<<We shall probably not live to see if other attempts to build a society based on atheist values...>>

Hold up!

“Atheist values”?

You’ve been deliberately ambiguous here and I’ll explain why.

Firstly, you either mean “Atheistic values” or “values of people who happened to be Atheists”.

You know that if you say “Atheistic values”, it would be too easily countered because Marxism doesn’t necessary represent the values of all Atheists.

You also knew that that if you said “values of people who happened to be Atheists” (which was actually more the case), that the following would be nonsense...

<<...but I doubt it if anti-religion atheists cannot accept that in that failed experiment attrocities were committed IN THEIR NAME: not to admit guilt but to learn.>>

Continued...

...Continued

No, the communist regimes of the 20th century did what they did in the name of a political ideology. They did not do it in the name of Atheism.

Please don’t try to use your experience as a means to obfuscate. It’s a cheap shot.

<<I certainly did not make that implication [of one being able to go from “I do not believe in any Gods” to “The working class should therefore...”], neither do I believe Graham did.>>

Graham did imply that by claiming that Marxism was fundamentally based on Atheism. You seemed to imply it too by saying that you agreed with much of what Graham was saying, then sharing your experience as if to provide some support to the arguments against the claims of the “armchair” experts.

<<...I do not understand what having no belief “one way or the other” means, unless one spells out what is here the “one way” and what the “other”, and describes the third way that is neither the one nor the other.>>

One does not need to spell out what either way is to have an absence of a belief. I don’t see how that’s difficult to understand, sorry.

<<There were no such ambiguities with the classical definition of atheism and agnosticism.>>

And there is nothing ambiguous about what I said either. Particularly since I’m adhering to the classical definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism. Hence Graham’s claim earlier that one allegedly “can't use some sort of etymological reductionism to define Atheism”.

One deals with belief, the other deals with knowledge.

How is that ambiguous? What on Earth would you actually consider “simple”?

Please don’t try to turn my accusation of others re-defining words, or obfuscating their definitions, back on to me. It won’t work.

George,

With all due respect, the oppression of christians in communist Russia, while barbaric in western terms, was comparitively a slap on the wrist compared with punishments for possessing "capitalist" literature, which usually met with summary execution, or a long trip to Siberia.

For example in the Stalingrad campaign when soldiers were in demand and there was "comparative" leeway given to grumbling, about 15000 were executed for unpatriotic talk such as suggesting that the communist party was incompetent.

I see a vast gulf between people who are 'atheists' in the view of theist's because they do not believe in a god...and those 'Atheists', with a capital A, who insist on cramming their unbelief down everyone's neck.

I inhabit the former camp, and am increasingly fed up with the sort of nonsense Atheists write in their justifications.

But worse, of course, is the led-blind, those who spruik mindless and endless nonsense about what they believe in, an unproven invisible nothing, that may or may not exist, and none of us will ever know.

In the meantime, there is nothing at all to recommend organised religion, unless you have a penchant for mafia-like crime bosses and their dodgy dealings in business and sex.

I see no 'moral behaviour' being practised by any religions, or their followers, that would indicate it came from gods, or God, and was worth emulating.

In the Oz, on Monday, p.15, we can read yet more about the evil of the Roman Catholic church. Observe the probably solid gold crucifix dangling from the Popes' neck and wonder about the wealth of this crime syndicate.

In a small box mid story is a section "Abusers 'must face justice'", and we all know it will be a feather duster delivered by a boy chorister or young girl, not a trap door swinging, or a 15 stretch in some German Stalag Luft 69 that these scumbags will be copping.

But there is an interesting quote from the Pope, who explains away all the 'unfortunate' incidents, not on himself and his predecessors, as he should, but on 'inadequate procedures' when selecting men, slack seminaries (as if they were somehow not his fault)... the 'religious life'... but he still insists on celibacy.... and...wait for it.... "a tendency in society to favour the clergy and other authority figures".

Well, he's a Clever Trevor, ain't he?

Isn't that what 'faith' is all about? Unquestioning, obedience, status quo, subservience, blood sacrifice and all the other ghastly phrases that spew out of the mouths of the pseudo-religious cranks, on this and every other outlet?

@TBC

Don't forget the Pope follows the "one true faith".

@George

Is your religion the "one true faith"? Or are you strictly non-denominational Christian?

Which leads me to religion in general:

Is Anglican the "one true faith" and Graham is 'right' (all the other Christians are wrong), or Judaism, or Scientology, or Hinduism, or do the Buddhists have it right, or maybe the Rastafarians? I'm hoping it's the Rastas, mon.



All we atheists do is base our actions on the best of our knowledge and our consciences, we don't always get it right, but we get by. Atheists have yet to fly plains into buildings or bomb family planning clinics - I'm not saying this would never happen, but I do know religion would not be the catalyst.

Severin...indeed He does (I afford him a capital cos he IS Christ's vicar after all, the lone rep on Earth for the heavenly Father..unless you happen to be Jewish, or Muslim, or.... as you point out.

Defender of 'the faith', but certainly not defender of the truth or any observable morality.

As for Canterbury, that's as big a joke as being 'the only gay in the village' these days, so it seems to me.

Do use the googles for this paper... "Believers' estimates of God's beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people's beliefs",
Epley, Converse, Delbosc, Monteleone, Cacioppo.

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0908374106

An oops on spelling "plains" should read "planes".

TBC - Thanks for following my 'logic' such as it is.

A pleasure Severin.... did you read that short paper I posted?

It rather shows how slim 'belief' really is, and also points to my comment before about "The Dice Man", where you own thoughts create the answers, not some external agency.

It was Bush that told himself to go to war, not any god.

It was Blair who told him to kill hundreds of thousands of people, not any imaginary gods.

It is the essentially life sustaining thought that drives people to help each other, not any gods.

It is the bad character that drives Catholic abusers, and crime figures who deal out thieving and murder, not any imaginary devils or demons.

I have no idea what prevents others from having sufficient belief in themselves to handle the 'void'.

Too much proselytising in childhood I suspect.

“Religion was seen as a tool being used by the capitalists to oppress the masses.”
Exactly, thank you Shadow Minister.
Where, in all the Gospels is there any indication that Jesus was a Capitalist, or would have supported Capitalism?
For at least 1500 years, the priestly caste has been closely allied to the nobility, with the robes and vestments, the pomp and ceremony, the reverence, bowing and scraping, kissing rings etc, etc. In direct opposition to the 'God' they professed to worship; a lowly carpenter who owned nothing, and washed his disciples feet.
Some of the comments of Pope Pius X11 tend to indicate his support of Hitler and Mussolini against the Communists wasn't just about atheism; he apparently felt the 'working classes' should be obedient to private capital, and not “nameless collectives”.
Personally, I can easily see how a Christian can be a socialist; what I have never been able to understand is how any rich man (Capitalist) can claim to be a Christian.
I have always described myself as a 'de facto' atheist; I don't know if there is a God (although I suspect, in a fractal universe a supreme being/mind is statistically inevitable) but I do know that I refuse to believe in a personal God who can be petitioned through prayer -but only responds to the favoured (very very) few, while the vast bulk of humanity suffers.
This God fails Jesus' own test; like the two 'men of religion' in the parable of the Good Samaritan, God appears to spend all his time crossing the road.
He (God) definitely doesn't treat the vast majority of us like 'neighbours'.
So perhaps George's comment about Graham is a truly 'Christian attitude'.
He who makes the rules shouldn't have to abide by them.

You posters might seriously consider the following:

There is no God, but God.

socratease

Socratease

I suspect you have that wrong.

Shouldn't it read, 'there is no god, but God'?

The research you cite might just show TBC that if you believe you are following a religious path, then you will believe that your beliefs equate with God's commandments.

But you're completely off-topic. What about finding some research about what Atheists believe? On the basis of the discussion here thus far I'd suggest that most Atheists think that Atheism is whatever they believe. Very egocentric (if we must use that term, which I think is inappropriate in the circumstances of your cited study), but completely parallel to the research you cite.

I checked out Wikipedia earlier today. For those really interested in what Atheism is it is a good starting point. It supports AJ Philips contention that "classically" as in "classical Greece" it encompassed agnosticism, but not that this is still the meaning of the word http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism.

Shadow Minister,
>>With all due respect, the oppression of christians in communist Russia … was comparitively a slap on the wrist compared with punishments for possessing "capitalist" literature<<
Due respect or not, my experience I wrote of was with post-WWII Communism in Eastern Europe. I never lived in Communist Russia to be able to make that comparison. Did you?

There are many injustices and sufferings that are/were not as hard as what people went through in the Gulag or Auschwitz, however I consider it rather cynical, if not arrogant to use the term “slap of the wrist” to describe other people’s sufferings by those who were lucky enough not to have to endure them themselves.

AJ Philips,
I personally did not live under Nazism, but I would never belittle the stories of its victims (well, those who survived), calling these experiences “means to obfuscate”, “cheap shots” or by insisting that I knew better than they what drove their prosecutors or what was the source of their ordeal.

I could not make it more clear and explicit that I used “atheism” in the sense Communists understood it. I knew that was not the meaning accepted by many today, hence my questions about its definition.

Maybe I am too simple to understand your definition, but if we were discussing for instance Australian politics, and somebody said he/she had “no belief one way or the other” it would be natural to ask whether it meant he/she supported neither Rudd nor Abbott, or that he/she was neither conservative nor liberal, or was neither in favour nor against tax exemption for Churches, or what.

I know what "belief" means for e.g. a Christian, but he/she cannot “have” it (one can have or loose faith). Christians build their world-views on some beliefs, so does, for instance, Dawkins, (though, of course, on different ones) that he is not shy to spell out. The same my favourite atheist Carl Sagan.

Severin,
>>are you strictly non-denominational Christian? <<
As I already said it somewhere, my world-view is what you call “theist” (see e.g. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150883 or my discussions with Squeers), my religion is Christian, my religious orientation/tradition is Catholic. I was baptised, married etc in a Catholic church, so I suppose you could not call me non-denominational.

My preference for the Catholic perspective is perhaps not unlike your preference for the English language (if I am right) although you are well aware that the same clever or silly things can be said in many other languages. There are many reasons for this preference, my personal experience I wrote about above, my family education, the cultural environment I am most familiar with, my training in straightforward “mathematical thinking” in symbols, etc. Well, I think this is more than what you asked for.

Grim,
>>He who makes the rules shouldn't have to abide by them.<<
Could you spell out the rule Graham made but does not abide by?

George, I was commenting on a post of yours, not of Graham's.
Indeed, I fully approve of Graham's comment:

“Yep Severin, Bushbasher is on the verge of being suspended. You can get away with flaming me more than you can flame anyone else on the forum, but there comes a time when you've over-stepped the mark.”

I would agree that BB was being rude and personal (while agreeing with his argument, and understanding his frustration; atheism is -if anything- a DISbelief system, not a belief system).
I was referring to your remark:

“Graham facilitates the discussions/disputes on this OLO for which I think he deserves some appreciation, if not respect, also from those who do not share his world-view. I certainly learned here a lot about contemporary Atheism and Atheists, what makes them tick, and I am grateful for that.”

Should we accord his views more respect than anyone else's, because he's the boss?
Come to think of it, that sounds as much a Jewish attitude, as a Christian one.
I had a little trouble with another paragraph in the same post of Graham's (with all due respect, of course):

“However I would argue that it is of its nature more prone to oppressive behaviour than at least Christianity, if not some of the other religions, because it encourages an unrealistically high assessment of human infallibility. Lack of humility is a strong element in many of the oppressive behaviours in which mankind has indulged, certainly those behaviours driven by belief.”

I would suggest John Howard owed a large part of his political longevity to the moderating influence of the Democrats. His demise quickly followed theirs. In the same way, I think our modern compassionate church owes a great deal to secular Humanism. The church of past centuries was far less compassionate, more oppressive (of the working classes) and extremely arrogant.
Concerning “unreasonably high assessments”, how many Christians turn the other cheek, give up their coat as well, when sued for their shirt, forgive their enemies and treat everyone on Earth as their neighbours?

Graham
I understand the points you are making but for arguments sake what is the difference between a set of man-made laws via legislature or via religion?

Both are, if you like, egocentric. Most Chrisitans have re-evaluated much of traditional beliefs and much of it is metaphorical, many embracing the idea of evolution as part of God's plan. We make up the rules as we go along, even religion evolves and adapts to change.

The days are gone when most Christians believe in the bearded man in the sky looking down and influencing events throughout the world and where, with exception of the most fundamentlist, fear God's wrath and vengeance. Is this idea of fear of God still relevant to most modern Christians?

The difference is a different type of faith. Faith in a God type entity to control or faith man can live and function within those same values through a spirit of mutual cooperation, investment and inbuilt altruism. Atheists values and Christian values are the same - thou shalt not kill, steal, covet, thou shalt be good, kind etc. Atheists and Christians are human first and foremost.

Spirituality can be achieved through our connections to other people, the earth and the beauty and wonders of the cosmos.

However all that is fine, but it still needs to be acknowledged that religion is an important aspect of people's lives. This debate always seems to come down to Christians vs atheists, defending their viewpoints by discrediting the 'other side'.

It is easier just to explain why a person might believe life is better for them with religion than not, or why one does not seek that same fulfillment via religion.

George

Thank you for explaining your religious background, I was not aware - I thought you more broad in your Christian affiliation than confined to Catholicism. Therefore, I ask, do you place the Christian religion as the one truth faith above all others?

Now: << My preference for the Catholic perspective is perhaps not unlike your preference for the English language (if I am right). >>

This is a very poor analogy (unless you wish to divert the debate that learning a religion is as instinctual for babies as is learning a language). I don't have a 'preference' for English it is the language of my birth culture - I did not become suspicious of the veracity of my language at age ten as I did with religious dogma. This comment of yours is more a 'bait and switch' tactic than a legitimate argument.

GrahamY

You have requested that atheists further research atheism? Or did I get your comment:

<< I checked out Wikipedia earlier today. For those really interested in what Atheism is it is a good starting point. >>

Wrong? And you thought religious people would better understand atheism with your link.



Again:

Atheism is nowhere near as complex as religion; no god, no life-after-death, no dogma and no belief. Another bait and switch tactic to Keep-the-Argument-Going.

I stopped believing in religious dogma and a supreme deity at age ten, therefore I no longer believed that Jesus was anything more than a man, the only changes to that epiphany at the end of childhood was that later I discounted Jesus as being a single person and more likely a composite of Jewish preachers. The study I undertook was of the bible itself, its contradictions, its paternalism, its patriarchal god and its confines to freedom of thought.

There is no required reading other than a reasoned and sceptical study of religion itself. Such as is applied to any claim made by humans.

Graham,

<<On the basis of the discussion here thus far I'd suggest that most Atheists think that Atheism is whatever they believe.>>

No, I believe I’ve defined it as a lack of belief, absence of belief and/or the disbelief in any religions or Gods.

I read the Wikipedia article you linked to and it very much supports exactly what I’ve been saying. From Agnosticism, to the implicit Atheism of a baby, to the explicit Atheism of someone who actively rejects the notion of a God. For further confirmation of my definitions , I recommend the Wikipedia article on Agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism).

Either way though, it's important to remember that the definitions still don’t make Atheism a faith or a belief system, as it is Theists who are the ones making a claim, not Atheists. Even the “Explicit Atheists” are still only responding to those claims.

George,

One tactic that I’ve noticed some here on OLO employ when their arguments are weakening is to take the moral high-ground as a way of censoring others, or diverting attention from the good points that their opponents are making...

<<I personally did not live under Nazism, but I would never belittle the stories of its victims (well, those who survived), calling these experiences “means to obfuscate”, “cheap shots”...>>

Continued...

...Continued

May I remind you of a little conversation we had a while back...

Me:
“But I’d prefer not to go down this road any further as I respect that you grew-up in a Stalinist country and don’t wish demean the unpleasantness you experienced.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3091#73309)

Your response:
“Thanks for the concern but - as hinted at in my post to Grim - it was not that bad: as a young person I actually enjoyed the living in “intellectual catacombs” of that officially pagan world. Whatever the “dangers”, in distinction to the first Christians, I did not have to fear being thrown to the lions.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3091#73329)

But now suddenly things are different, and in an attempt to divert attention from my arguments or bring the rationality of the thought processes behind them into question, I’m being painted as someone who is inconsiderate of the experiences of others.

<<...or by insisting that I knew better than they what drove their prosecutors or what was the source of their ordeal.>>

I didn’t say I knew better. In fact, I implied that you were the one who knew better and that’s why you were trying to obfuscate something quite simple.

I will call it as I see it and would never make such a remark unless I sincerely felt that it was relevant and necessary. But if there are certain things that we must ignore or can’t point out no matter how relevant (and despite previously being given the impression that the said topic was not a no-go-zone), then I may as well pack up and leave this thread now. And I would do just that if it weren’t for the fact that doing so would be giving into tactics that I believe are used by some to censor others.

GrahamY...

"The research you cite might just show TBC that if you believe you are following a religious path, then you will believe that your beliefs equate with God's commandments."

Graham, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make there.

Have you read the document? Or just not understood it?

Those who believe they are 'in contact' with their gods, do indeed believe that their own views are entirely consistent with their gods views.

They kid themselves because they need to.

This becomes a real problem when, say, within Christianity, there is conflict between denominations, and those who are so muddled headed they think they are 'just Christians', the sort that flock to invade our schools and pretend to be a 'chaplain'.
We see all sorts of damage done by these, frankly, foolish people.

It also causes trouble when Christians and Muslims, say, each follow their particular god, and end up blowing us all up, secure that they have each heard their god and been instructed to engage in terrorism, or a 'just war'.

We have also seen hundreds of years of Christians burning, killing, torturing, expelling Jews from England and all over Europe, as they followed the deepest thoughts of their gods, secure in their god-given knowledge that they are doing the exact will of their god.

This fed into the Holocaust, as we all know, but many Christians prefer to pretend their institutional fear and loathing of Jews was not drawn on by Hitler and others, and have instead constructed a 'devil' who led a nation of innocents astray in order to absolve their 'faith' from any crimes-against-humanity.

yet more later...

George,

The post WWII communism in eastern europe was an occupation, and the same treatment was dealt out to students, artists, authors, etc and anyone that did not tow the party line.

This is a red herring. I was commenting on GY's assertion that Marxism was founded on athiesm, and considering the main implementation of the communist state was prior to WWII, this would be most relevant. The last couple of decades in occupied eastern europe is far less relevant.

My point is simply that if marxism was founded on athiesm, Lenin and Stalin would have been merciless in rooting out religion, where as they mostly just clipped its wings.

Being born in the 60s I have not lived in occupied eastern europe, but am old enough to have read reasonably extensively of different aspects. However, this is a side issue on a side issue.

More to GrahamY from above....

"But you're completely off-topic. What about finding some research about what Atheists believe? On the basis of the discussion here thus far I'd suggest that most Atheists think that Atheism is whatever they believe" (GY post above).

Well, here I have already stated where I sit on atheism, but others can sit where ever they like.

It is only people like you that panic about 'the meaning of atheism', not me.

I am only an 'atheist' because of people like you, and many others here, demanding that everyone must have a 'belief'.

I am an atheist, courtesy of the need theists have for neat boxes to place the 'unchurched' into.

I did not go to that atheist convention, and had no desire to go there, finding it quite odd that people needed to self-identify in that manner.

That said, given the opportunity go to listen to Dawkins, Grayling, Wallace and many of the others on the list, I would go because I have read and listened to many of them, but only in a venue that did not require me to be identified as a 'particular' person.

Let's face it, theists of all shades feel they own the world already, and just the act of saying one does not believe is regarded as an evil heresy punishable with public scorn, bile and anonymous cards announcing some geek is praying for you poked into the family letterbox.

This fascination with what atheists believe is your illness, not mine.

I do not 'believe' in atheism at all, and I do not regard myself as an 'atheist'.

But I do see the 'evil', to borrow a theist concept, that many believers engage in, and the lies they tell, and the damage they do, and I find it utterly repulsive, and very anti-social, and very human-life and world threatening.

I know 'unbelievers' also behave poorly, and I frown equally on them.

But at least, as I regard these people as fairly worthless, I know they make no excuses for their inspiration, and in that sense, they are better people.

Laughing my head off! Classic Christian article. Funny how you never read articles by atheists that use that line of reasoning. I imagine it would sound something like this:

Matthew Smith is by far the nicest guy I know. Every week he gives to charity. He smiles at everyone he passes in the street. And guess what? He's an atheist.

This other guy I know, Jack Brown, is also a really top bloke. He is the CEO of a company that donates 5% of their profit to starving children in Africa. Every second Friday he makes cupcakes and brings them to work to share with his colleagues. And guess what? He too is an atheist.

Hmm. Both really nice people and both atheists... Coincidence? I doubt it.

But guess what? This other guy I know, Chris Davis, is a really horrible man. He swears and gambles and sleeps with prostitutes every weekend. And, unsurprisingly, what do you know - he's a Christian.

So that proves it. Atheists are good people and Christians are evil

@rpg: i am also constantly amazed by this current generation ... find them the least disciplined of any generation so far

That is a bit rich. Last I checked, the current generation were the major supporters of that big fat tax, the CPRS. They are seemingly prepared to take a financial hit now so things will be better in the future. Yet you, you want it all now, the future be dammed. And here you are calling them ill disciplined.

Grim,
>>I would agree that BB was being rude and personal<<
Well, this kind of thing was also on my mind when I wrote that Graham “deserves some appreciation” for being our “host” (not "boss"). Of course, “having a little trouble” with others' views, including Graham’s, is normal in these debates, and certainly not disrespectful.

Severin,
>>I ask, do you place the Christian religion as the one truth faith above all others?<<
I do not know what you mean by “one truth faith”, but yes, I place world-views compatible with what is known as Christian tenets and ethics above those which are incompatible with them. Please remember you asked for my PERSONAL opinion. It is supported by “evidence”, that is convincing to me - and much of it to many other educated Christians - but certainly not universally convincing. (Few opinions pertaining to world-views and/or personal experience are.)

I was not offering a “legitimate argument” nor “wishing to divert the debate”. I just wanted to explain my answer to the question you asked, and I obviously failed.

Shadow Minister,
>>the same treatment was dealt out to students … and anyone that did not tow the party line<<
I never claimed that the only people, discriminated, prosecuted or jailed by the Communists were those with religious convictions/affiliations.

However, the great number of people that were discriminated - for instance sacked and transferred to menial jobs - solely because of their faith were not asked to "tow the party line", whatever that means, but were punished just because they were seen attending church, baptise their child, etc, or because they refused to publicly "renounce their faith". For instance, for a student it meant to proclaim in front of a committe (that decided about his/her admission to further studies), that he/she "has settled the question of his/her religion" (my verbatim traslation). Of course, this was not a problem for an atheist student, whatever his/her political convictions, and, of course, he/she could have had othern problems.

>>Lenin and Stalin would have been merciless in rooting out religion<<
It does not follow that since they were not successful, they did not have the intention (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church#The_Stalin_era). Anyhow, I do not understand what you would consider a successful “rooting out of religion”, what historical precedent you had in mind.

>>(I) am old enough to have read reasonably extensively<<
And I would add “and lucky enough not to have had to live there”. I also read “reasonably extensively” about the Nazi era, but I know that whatever insight I gained about its cruelty, it is inferior to that gained by those who lived or even suffered through it.

However, I agree that my defense of the memory of the victims - who cannot speak for themselves any more, if they ever could - was just a reaction, indeed a side issue as you say. You will remember, I entered this thread only to point out to Graham the difference between the THEORY of Marxism, subscribed to also by many decent people, atheist or not, and the PRACTICE of Marx-Leninism, where I could offer personal insights.

AJ Philips,
ditto

Graham,
The only way to emphasize a word on this OLO is to capitalise it, which is often interpreted as shouting. I do not understand much of programming, but could it be too difficult to enable the use of italics or bold-face?

GrahamY proposed what I thought was an interesting and legitimate study:

"...It would also be interesting to do a study to see whether atheists were any less represented in charitable work than Christians,Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus."

I think in our own small way, the posters on this thread could contribute to a very similar experiment by going to this thread:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10213&page=4

offering their opinion and proclaiming their belief -or non-belief.
So far, I'm sure of at least 3 posters being atheists (including moi) arguing for compassion, and 2 Christians arguing against.
Register your vote now!

George,

Thanks for sharing your experiences. None of it comes as much of a surprise though, and I still think that my point about the Communist regimes of the 20th century doing what they did in the name of a political ideology, not Atheism, still stands.

But even if it were all done in the name of Atheism, Atheists still wouldn’t have to take “ownership” over it (going back to what Graham and I were talking about earlier) for a couple of reasons:

Firstly, Atheists don’t share a holy book or creed of any sort with Communists.

Secondly, and more fundamental to my point here, is the fact that Atheists are not the ones making a claim, Theists are.

Even if Communists were doing what they did in the name of Atheism, they still wouldn’t have been doing what they did based on a claim, but as a response to a claim, and to imply that those who take a legitimate, rational and sceptical approach to a particular claim (as Atheists in general do) must then take “ownership” of the atrocities of Communists (who happened to reject the same claim), or that the said atrocities where committed “in their name”, is absurd to the highest degree.

If I wanted to be really unfair, I could claim that if it weren’t for religion, then we wouldn’t have people dangerously responding to it with ideologies like Marxism. Of course, I wouldn’t say that because Marxism/Communism, being more political/social/economic ideologies, could have just as easily arrived on the scene without religion (or the response to religion: Atheism).

I realise you did say: ”not to admit guilt but to learn”, but given what I’ve said above, the learning can be done by all of us equally, not just anti-religious Atheists as you implied.

The fact that it is not Atheists who are making the claim is also why any sort of Theist vs. Atheist debate can’t just be brought down to, or made out to sound like two equally opposing “world-views” (as you so often put it, and others so often imply).

Continued...

...Continued

As I’ve said before, religion is in a league of its own and therefore, it is misleading to compare it to Atheism, just as it is misleading to compare it to English or Mathematics in analogies.

Grim,

That’s always an interesting point and in fact, it’s the primary reason I stopped going to church. I simply couldn’t continue to surround myself with people that I considered to be hypocrites. Of course there are some liberal-minded and progressive Christians out there, but in my experience, they are a small minority.

My religious convictions still remained very strong for several years after leaving the church, but when one takes one’s self out of that scenario, it becomes much easier to view it objectively and realise that at the end of the day, it’s all a lot of unsubstantiated nonsense.

I don’t really align myself with the Left or Right very much (I have some Leftwing views and some Rightwing views, but If I had to choose, I would say I was ever-so-slightly left-of-center), but the fact that a majority of Christians lean so much to the Right is something that continues to bewilder and fascinate me to this very day.

AJP...."but the fact that a majority of Christians lean so much to the Right is something that continues to bewilder and fascinate me to this very day"... quite so, but that is what their 'faith' teaches them to do, is it not?

To support what is there, not question it...after all their god sits above our parliaments, and works through them to make all life here as he wants it to be...so it cannot be wrong, can it?

So they have no reason to question politicians, and they mostly do not.

They only whinge when the school fees go up, or a 'dole bludger' gets caught,or the private health scam looks like costing more.... it never occurs to them to question why we have 'private' schools paid for by the ATO, or why taxes should not be spent on these poorly run private health 'hotels', or why people on the dole are the 'undeserving poor', while car making execs get their wages paid by the ATO, even though they are totally incapable of building a decent car here... and so on.

They require obedience from their children, instead of enquiry, and know very well that if our schools are not filled with zealots preaching 'religion' at them, the children will, in the main, not bother too much with the family brand of religion.

So, it is as much a branding exercise as anything to do with really deeply held and understood 'beliefs'...a power survival trip.

Mind you, there are more than enough rightwing 'lefties' too, so it becomes a problem branding ideas as left-right, not that we have any leftwing ideas on public display in politics in Australia today anyway.

Even the Greens are a mix of New Age crystal nonsense, 'paganism' and old style Vaticanism, interspersed with the Liberalism (not liberalism) of the departed Democrats and some quite reasonable Bob-Brownism from the early days of his struggles to get it going.

AJ Philips,
>>the learning can be done by all of us equally, not just anti-religious Atheists as you implied<<
I do not think I implied this, since I agree that we all should learn: The Christians have learned (well, except for some) that it is counterproductive to try to exonerate Christianity from injustices and atrocities committed in their name (“it was human frailty not Christian faith”) and also atheists should learn that it does not serve their cause (criticism or rejection of religion, etc) to try to exonerate atheism (as it was THEN understood by everybody, including its adherents) from injustices and atrocities committed in its name (“it was Communist political ideology not atheism”).

You again start to repeat yourself, and I could answer probably also only by repeating myself. I respect the reasons and personal experiences that led you to “loose your faith”, and I had mine that made me keep it. Obviously my reasons are not convincing to you and my experiences are not transferable to you, so please accept that it holds also vice versa, and let us again leave it at that.

AJ, it appears we have very similar religious experience, and the same reactions.
On the question of hypocrisy and the literal interpretation of the putative words of Jesus, could any country really afford to have a genuine Christian leader?
Turning the other cheek, forgiving (even loving) the enemy, giving up also his coat, when sued for his tunic, selling off all his (our) possessions, to give to the poor...
OTOH, is it too much to ask that self avowed Christian leaders do not send our children off to kill and be killed in foreign wars?
To get more strictly back to the question posed at the top of this page, the short answer must be, secular ('welfare state') governments.
Successive Australian governments have done far more to alleviate the suffering of the poor, than churches ever have.