Is atheism 'believing there is no God' or 'not believing there is a God'? I think there is a difference, and I fall into the latter category, of non-belief rather than belief, because despite a Christian upbringing and education with all the trimmings I just cannot believe in the existence of God/s. I think I am what the late Pamela Bone called a 'cultural Christian' - brought up in and appreciative of the traditions and ceremonies of the church but entirely without any belief in its supernatural underpinnings.

Bushbasher...appreciated your honest comment.

Great post Sancho. You obviously rate an atheist source much higher than a Christian source. Good to see your true colors. Forget that magic stats linked to other sources, obviously those lying Christians have tainted any true source by just commenting on the research.

Ah examinator, perhaps you should follow your own advice. The links I provided link to research and hence, back up my comments with evidence. Your comments however, stop at mere assertion (and false assertion at that). Good to see your consistent standards.

Here is a hint. Stop reading Sam Harris and Dawkins. Go read some history instead of their purile rants. If you want to start looking at the causes of killing, I recommend RJ Rummell, who has 20 years of research into the topic.

Of course, I doubt you will bother trying to find out truth for yourself. It is much more comfortable and easy reading 14th hand rants that agree with your own bias.

And finally, for those that have read a bit of Dawkins, in Chapter 6 of 'The God Delusion' he essentially agrees with Graham Preston.

Dear SWEJ

you said:

"I wonder what society would be like if we moved
away from superstitions altogether, and poured
more energy into reason, science, and discussions
of ethical decision-making."

I have 3 friends I'd like to introduce you to :)

JOHN LENNON

"Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE (I sense a well qualified mild disagreement with Lennon here)

For Nietzsche, there is no objective order or structure
in the world except what we give it. Penetrating the
façades buttressing convictions, the nihilist discovers
that all values are baseless and that reason is impotent.
"Every belief, every considering something-true,"
Nietzsche writes, "is necessarily false because
there is simply no true world" (Will to Power [notes from 1883-1888]). For him, nihilism requires a radical repudiation
of all imposed values and meaning: "Nihilism is . . . not
only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one
actually puts one's shoulder to the plough; one destroys" (Will to Power).

JESUS OF NAZARETH....THE CHRIST.

"I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly"
"You will know the the truth, and The truth will set you free"

David, nice article but I must agree with GP and bushbred.

I think there is a difference between being an atheist and having atheist values.

Being an atheist is not believing in God or having a religion.

"Atheist Values" are not so easily defined. Just like there as many definitions of Christian Values as there are Christians, I think there as many definitions of Atheist values as there are Atheists. Sure many of the values will overlap with what you have described, but there will be differences and you can't generalise for everyone.

gusi,

Values in society developed from common ideas held about cooperation. Religion(s) can and do interfere with these values to support their own ends. Examples are, promoting a lesser role for women, obstruction to lesbian and gay rights, objection to a legal system of voluntary euthanasia, interfering with children’s minds when they are most susceptible, forever attempting to prohibit abortion etc.

My entire article is stating that without religious interference a consensus arises that is based on rational conclusions and not faith ones. The higher the religious content of any given country, the more interference there is. You are correct in stating that atheists may not have the same opinion on all matters. However, it is this consensus, which is the safeguard. Would you rather be governed by a consensus of religious thought (Pick your own religion here) or a consensus of persons not under religious influence?

An interesting point by Grey was the mention of RJ Rummell: Even though there is considerable criticism surrounding his works, a point he made very clear is that democracy is the system, which is least likely to kill its citizens. One can extrapolate form that, but that is not the point here.

Religions are not democracies nor have they been at the forefront of promoting such a system of governance. For 1700 years, with quite some time of that in near complete power, they did not suggest its introduction. It was the enlightenment, which successfully introduced the ideal of democracy. This was the moment in history where the Church and its dogma came under intense investigation.

Atheism protects democracies by keeping or attempting to keep religion and state as separate identities. Religion and atheism benefits by this.

I did not intend to become a part of this thread but thought I had better clarify the before points.

David

There's more than a little wandering-off happening here.

>>David, nice article but I must agree with GP and bushbred... "Atheist Values" are not so easily defined.<<

gusi, nowhere in David's article will you see a statement on "atheist values".

GP tries to attribute some, but is unconvincing:

>>when you say things like, “atheism does not endorse acts of violence, encourage others to do so, or attempt to subvert those in disagreement, and, “atheism promotes all persons as being equal before the law”, you are making completely unwarranted and unsustainable assertions<<

The first is not an assertion, but totally consistent with the absence of all other forms of moral endorsement. It is used to contrast this absence, with the ever-present dictates, rules, proscriptions and ritual that characterise religion. You can as truthfully say that atheists are against drowning kittens, but you won't find any Atheist Commandment that says "Thou shalt not put thy pussycat in a sack".

In a similar vein, you take the assertion of equality out of its context, which is again to place it in contrast with the law's attitude towards religion.

These are not "tenets" or "beliefs, GP, but observations on the stark differences between the theist and atheist perspectives.

And Grey, your posts are as subtly deceitful as ever.

>>Forget that magic stats linked to other sources, obviously those lying Christians have tainted any true source by just commenting on the research<<

These "other sources" that magicstats relies upon for its balance?

The entire article on interpersonal virtue was written by a Bachelor of Divinity.

No possible bias there, then.

The piece on religious freedom? A professor from Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto.

Well, that's about as neutrally authoritative as you could wish for, eh?

You are still the past master of bluster, Grey. You stand as an example of Christian apologia at its devious best.