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?