Reading all the various comments on this and other threads it seems apparent that there is a lot of ignorance about what it means to be an atheist. I wonder at times if the tendency to manufacture atheism into a homogenous movement is based on genuine belief or intentional distraction from other issues.

Either way, whether theist or non-theist, we should respect the other's rights to believe with interference only when harm is done or laws broken or when an individual is forced to submit against their will whether it be wearing a head-dress or submitting to beatings.

I like being an atheist and I am sure a Catholic or a Muslim likes being religious and having contentment in finding their God.

It is only when one group starts killing or persecuting another group for failure to conform that we have real evil and it has nothing to do with the teachings of any God but the failings of people.

@Pelican, @Pericles & @Poirot…well said, P-P-People. (How come there’s so many names starting with “P”?)

I would like to add, the view that there would be less wars is fallacious. Wars are about information and disinformation, and it requires no religion for this to occur. It’s just that our history has a litany of examples of religion being the tool of that disinformation. But it is only a tool, not actually a cause. It’s made out to be a cause by those that wish it, but the “cause” in any war is the acquisition of a resource of some sort. We just give the populace reasons to fight, and religion has been a common one. But religion or not, we will fight. The absence of religion may be one less tool, but not one less cause for war.

@grateful, the views you have espoused are not supported by the atheists here. Would you like to try another tack? We all know you have a message to deliver, so deliver it.

@grateful, sorry about my last comment, I hadn’t noticed there were more pages and that you had elaborated.

Read what you had to say, and this is simple…the authors presume that religiosity drives capitalism, whereas I would suggest that it is reflective of economic and political times. Fear is a well-known driver, and requires no belief in a heaven of hell to exist or be created. The Cold War is an excellent example of that, with everyone’s fear of nuclear destruction. Plus, the authors, from what you have described, seem to have ignored the existence of atheists within the economic environment. We’re in the economy too, ya know, and there are a lot of us. Not as many, granted, but a lot.

The reports I’ve seen, say that religion has been on the increase since the GFC, and that there were increases in attendance after 9/11…there is always increases in religious attendance during times of fear from economic or political turmoil.

Morality also requires no belief in the supernatural. It requires the belief in morality. Morality and religion are NOT synonymous, but they most commonly are equated together. Fallacy, for the two are completely different things.

Ergo, religion does not drive economic growth, but religious attendance is a reflection of economic and political activity. People seek solace in bad times…go figure!

Dear Philo,

Ah, I see what you are getting at - perhaps I should rephrase that..."It isn't what it isn't" (ie, a belief in God) - there we go.
Put it this way - choosing to reject a particular religious philosophy doesn't automatically furnish you with an alternative.

The fact that the youth in your street are acting in such a debauched fashion has more to do with the corruption accompanying our capitalist culture than it does their lack of religious instruction.

Dear Philo,

Referring back to an earlier post by you:

Both Yahweh and Mars were gods of war to their believers. One can compare especially the OT God to the Kohlberg scale of morality. The OT's reward & punishment and law & order profiles would not rate all that well for a divine entity. Compassion, forgiveness and empathy is above war and punishment: e.g., smiting townships or understanding human limitations.

Economic development has to do with knowing how to learn. This occurred largely in in the eighteenth century and has little to with religion. Rather, advances were achioeved by taking science away from religion. Moreover, the degree of the religionism; herein, the ex-colonies of Catholic European powers have progressed by slowly than the colonies of Protestant England.

Albeit, between the fifteen to mid-Eighteen centuries, one economic activity supported by the Bible and also some Islamic traders was very profitable - slavery. Yet, perhaps we should look more towards neutral Industrialisation rather religion or atheism, to find how that evilwas overcome.

Grateful is making assumptions.

Most Atheists don't hold the views he claims they do.

There will always be a place for religion and superstition, from Christianity, Islam, Astrology, to the ancient Roman and Greek gods, to the dream time, even to the pre occupation with vampires and other nonsense.

Most of it is harmless, only when it pretends to be the arbiter or morals, and tries to inflict its values on others is any harm done.

Co existence within the secular allows one to follow one's calling whether it is religion or knitting without any impact on the society or economy.