"Great post Sancho. You obviously rate an atheist source much higher than a Christian source. Good to see your true colors."

I don't care if the source is atheist, theist or agnostic, just as long as it doesn't cherry-pick information in pursuit of an explicit ideological agenda.

And please, what are the "true colours" I'm displaying?

Ah David, thanks for pointing out the typo in the website setup against the account. my real website is http://alangrey.blogspot.com

The dodgey person who set up blogpot.com has a wildcard in the domain sending any prefix to the website, It's a lame traffic generating technique. Check http://davidnicholls.blogpot.com or any other prefix.

I find it interesting David that you claim Democracy came from the atheistic enlightenment (another dubious claim), yet use a study deriding America, a democracy, as being bad for your health. trying to have it both ways I guess David. I suspect you also discount all the 'enlightenment' thinkers who were Christian as well (and those Christian thinkers who suggested the introduction of democracy)

Your history is once again in error, as the UK had moves towards democracy as early as the 13th century.

And whilst you strive to give atheism credit for democracy, you try and avoid giving atheism credit for communism and the associated 200 million in one century death toll. (heck, you even seem to try and link atheism with the reformation....)

Is there anything Atheism can't do? It's like the miracle cure! Why...if there was only Atheism, the streets would be paved with gold, Global warming wouldn't be a problem and puppies would shower everyone with love every moment of every day.

Pericles-Not at all, just little time for your useless red herrings. You continue to miss the point.

That you can equate bald assertions with links leading to academic research truly shows how strongly you seek truth and balance. Perhaps you should reread my post. Nowhere do I claim the academics where not theists. I do credit them with more academic authority than the authors of magic statistics. Dismissing their work as biased without investigation is simply hubris.

The point still remains though, that rather than deal with evidence, yourself and others seem content to irrationally dismiss anything that disagrees with their comfortable preconceptions. You would rather accuse of bias than deal with inconvenient facts, and trying to make your case appear stronger than it by failing to fully disclose qualifications is just lame.

Grey,

My pleasure entirely. Such a web site helps the rational cause. I would very much appreciate if you did not place words in my mouth. “…you claim Democracy came from the atheistic enlightenment.” I did not state that, although many of the thinkers were deists and liberal Christians. As you would know, to proclaim an atheist stance in those days was not a beneficial action, as it is still not in the USA today. Deist then, the rational ones, that is, would be atheist today.

Why do you continually use obfuscation? Is your case that weak? The Magna Carta is presumably that to which you refer. This was a royal charter in 1215 where King John gave political rights to rebellious English barons. The move towards democracy did not happen in England and it was some hundreds of years later in the USA on. 4th July 1776, to be precise, that a fledgling democracy took hold.

The communism etc argument is nonsense. Most of the bad things of the 20th Century resulted from harsh rule of despots oppressing the masses and other despots took advantage. These fascist ideologies have nothing in common with freely chosen atheism in democracy, at least to those who can think.

The rosy picture you paint of atheism is not of my doing. I just say it is better than the rest as I have conclusively demonstrated. Not just with Singer – Houser and Paul, but by using the understandable logic preceding their input, with both supporting each other. Anthropological studies are hardly ever precise. They can also be manipulated to suit desperate ideologies. However, when observable facts also support them, these criticisms must be seen for what they are – rubbish.

I hope your reply contains the proof of your particular god’s existence, as that is the premise of your arguments. Without it, you have nothing. It is not good enough to push a point of view because the Bible says a god exists and you know it is true because they are a god’s words. This is an irrational circular argument.

David

David, great article and spot on.

The implication by some that atheism is in itself some sort of 'religion' beggars belief.

If someone tells me there are fairies living in my garden am I required to devise and construct a belief system and set of values just to be able to refute the claim? In the absence of empirical evidence, does a simple and valid "no there are not" suffice?

Grey,

I just love it when Theists reveal how dishonest and/or simple-minded they can be...

<<And whilst you strive to give atheism credit for democracy, you try and avoid giving atheism credit for communism and the associated 200 million in one century death toll.>>

The Communist dictators of the 20th century did not do what they did in the name of Atheism. Their evil deeds were done in a psychopathic attempt to create their perceived ideal society - they were done in the name of their twisted world-view.

Banning religion was a simply one of the many measures used by Communists to suppress the freedoms of the people, and rid their societies of the elitism attached to the church in order to achieve a supposed “equality”.

Many wars throughout recorded history have been launched in the name of religion, but I challenge you to find one that has been launched in the name of Atheism. Even if you could find one, it would paled in the face of the blood spilled in the name of religion.

For someone who prides themselves on their knowledge of history, this is a pretty big mistake to make.

<<Is there anything Atheism can't do? It's like the miracle cure!>>

Now you're just being ridiculous.

Although, as a former devout Christian, one thing I can say that Atheism is a “miracle cure” for, is the immunity to rational thought one suffers when clinging to a belief in an evidently non-existent magical being - an immunity we all witness everyday here on OLO.

<<The point still remains though, that rather than deal with evidence, yourself and others seem content to irrationally dismiss anything that disagrees with their comfortable preconceptions.>>

Wow! This is rich coming from someone whose blog makes frivolous attempts at denying science with irrefutable evidence... http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aalangrey.blogspot.com+evolution&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Tell me Grey... If you're knowledge of history is so good, then how to you explain your unshakable belief in Biblical events that evidently never happened, such as The Flood; The Exodus; The entire book of Genesis..? Or Biblical characters the evidently never existed, such as Moses, Jesus..?

David
Apologies. Apparently you didn't want to put forth the idea that atheistic thinkers lead to democracy. I withdraw my charge, and happily accept that atheistic thinkers had little to do with the creation of democracy, which, as you previously said, is less likely to kill it's and others citizens.

As you agree, the thinkers of the time were Christians and deists. Although I hardly think you can use wishful thinking to claim that they would have been atheists if they lived today. We can never know. What we do know is that they did admit that God existed and that they used the Christian worldview as a basis for many parts of the government system. As John Adams (who essentially wrote large chunks of the American constitution said
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." This hardly seems like the statement of a nominal atheist.

Regarding democracy. The idea of democracy was kept alive by Christian scholars from the fall of Rome to the first nation founded on democratic principles (strongly supported by the Christian ideals of fallen man, and equality). It also occurred sporadically throughout the time in places like Scandinavia and Switzerland, and advanced slowly in England as well.

The Judeo-Christian culture was where democracy fermented and eventually bloomed.

Finally, I don't seem to see where I used God's existence as the premise of any of my arguments. Perhaps you merely wish to sidetrack the discussion with a rhetorical trick?

I would be interested to know what sort of proof you would accept? That is...what do you think warrants belief in something?