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.