Atheism: The religion of hatred and intolerance?

Posted by Adva

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90140 ›

Adva Hi Michael, I'm an atheist, and I agree wit hyour opinion of Dawkins and other atheists, who forget that "theists" are a very heterogenous group, and it makes no sense at all to even talk about all of them in general (hence the parenthesis). However, being an atheist I can quite understand where this militantism comes from, though I don't subscribe to it, and anyway, it surely doesn't justify hatred. Since the issue bothered me as well, I blogged about exactly this same question a while ago, and would love to read your opinion: http://ripplespark.blogspot.com/2009/03/what-drives-atheists-to-militantism.html Happy Easter, whichever way you choose to celebrate it, and whatever you choose to celebrate! :-) Adva

Posted by Fraidykatt

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90146 ›

Fraidykatt There is nothing unique about militant atheists. They are no less passionate about their beliefs then are Christians who attempt to shout back ignoring most of the tenets of the bible in order to prove their point with equal force. I have opined that I do not care if one is an atheist or a Christian. That is a choice that each man and woman makes in their lives and when they die we will all know whether we have made the correct choice or not. As what I believe is a rational human being who is always looking below the surface for motives I have come to understand that the movement in this nation and indeed around the world is to "Secularize" the world and more specifically the USA by using the courts and legislation. Why would anyone want to do that? Many reasons. I believe that religion is what stands in the way of the Gay rights activists from having their dreams fulfilled. It stands in the way of unfettered Abortion. It stands in the way of Stem cell research. It stands in the way of Legalizing drugs. Many years the aethists and the secularist tried to shout down their opponents before finally coming to understand the futility of their efforts. They then turned to legislation and regulations and the courts to do the same thing. It is too this end that the Religious right was born because that group of people who most threatened them and their existence in America had turned to a means that required equal expression. AKA...legal court systems using the protections of a Secularly written constitution. I believe this is exactly what has transpired in America. I believe going forward it is what is going to continue to happen and I also believe that a man who sits in a revolutionary church for 20 years with a preacher who preaches "God Damn America" does not hold the best interests of religion at heart but rather has the interests of his own agenda at heart. Barak Obama has proven to be a liar of extraordinary means. He promised us. His followers promised us. Those independents who campaigned for him promised us he would be a moderate, Bipartisan who was the president of all Americans. From my observations he has not....That is subjective I know.....but I think I speak for many who fully understood that when Michael Moore and Moveon.org said nary a peep during his campaign of moderation that there was more to meeting the eye then was being presented by the image police......better known as team Obama. Aethists have a champion now. Not that Obama is most likely an aethist but rather is a secularist who believes in putting religion in its place. That place as Ive been told repeatedly in at home, behind closed doors or in the sanctuary of my chosen church. I am not to speak of it, express it and certainly not demand that my government observe some of its tenets openly and honestly as a founding principal. Hence Aethism just won a major battle. The details are yet unravelling but I believe that the champion of their cause is yet to fully reveal himself. Abortion, Gay rights, Stem cell research, Legalized drugs. They are all on the table and they will all be addressed in the next 4 years. Without public debate because the debate never goes the way the proponents want. So radical ideals require radical means. They require a champion who has the last word. I present to you Barak Obama. Good or bad depends on which side of each issue you fall.

Posted by mathyoo

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90152 ›

mathyoo "Radical atheists are becoming increasingly more aggressive and passionate these days. They condemn all religions all religious people.” Yes, atheists are becoming more aggressive and passionate these days, but I haven't heard any atheists, including Dawkins and Hitchens, condemn religious people. They don't even really condemn religion, but rather the consequences of religion, such as putting dogma over the value of people. Take, for example, the recent case of the 9 year old girl in Brazil who became pregnant with twins by her step father who raped her repeatedly. Trying to carry twins would likely have killed the girl, so she had an abortion. The Catholic Church, in all it's wisdom, excommunicated the doctors who performed the abortion and the girls mother, who gave them permission (and I think may have suggested the abortion), yet they didn't even issue a condemnation of the stepfather, much less excommunicate him, for raping a child. Anyone who can hear that story and still think that religion isn't toxic to humanity is delusional. I'm also astounded by people who criticize the "new atheists" (whatever that means-atheists have been around longer than theists) for speaking out against religion, yet Pat Robertson, Reverend Sun Myung Moon, Rick Warren, the Pope and other religious leaders get a free pass to blame atheists and gays for hurricanes, earthquakes, 9/11 and every other atrocity. The truth is, dogmatic belief is dangerous and toxic to humanity. Belief leads to action, and irrational, dogmatic belief leads to things like the Spanish Inquisition, witch burning, the Holocaust, 9/11 and suicide bombing.

Posted by Walker

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90160 ›

Walker Michael, You have made the common fallacy of mischaracterizing frustration and disappointment with intolerance and condemnation. Dr. Dawkins and others who take a "radical" approach to the religious issue have never "condemned" religious people, they have condemned the false premises and ignorance upon which religious ideas are based. Atheism is "normal" because it is a position where one refuses to believe a claim that lacks necessary and sufficient evidence to support it. Religion, in general, is the application of false hope to protect people from facing potentially frightening truths, like death being the end all be all for one's existence. Many religions, such as Christianity, promote selfish ideals such as salvation and punishment (sometimes eternal) for nonbelievers, and are used as fear tactics to influence the masses by passing divisive and bigoted legislation. However, the truth is that atheists and Christians (or any theists, for that matter) are not at all that different. We disagree of a single point, referring to the existence of a deity. Atheists see theists as misguided, while some theists may see atheists as sub-human beings who deserve eternal punishment. Atheists rightfully characterize religion as harmful because it is directly responsible for many of the problems in history: crusades, genocide, intolerance, slavery, murder, and the list goes on. You may think your religion is special and peaceful and good, but you have bought into the similar delusion that the vast majority of humanity has. Religion advocates belief without evidence, uncritical thinking and intolerance. You may think that atheism is a problem, but the true problem comes from those who believe without justification. -wb

Posted by Holly in Cincinnati

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90168 ›

Holly in Cincinnati We Jews are critical thinkers who have done a great deal of good in the world and I am proud of that.

Posted by Michael Merritt ›

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90169 ›

Michael Merritt

mathyoo :
Pat Robertson, Reverend Sun Myung Moon, Rick Warren, the Pope and other religious leaders get a free pass to blame atheists and gays for hurricanes, earthquakes, 9/11 and every other atrocity.

Not really. Whenever any of those people say something inappropriate, it tends to get blown up in the news media. You hear it everywhere. And while I don't believe that all dogma is dangerous (anti-abortionism is pretty dogmatic in the Catholic Church but not dangerous), people who become radicalized by elevating that dogma inappropriately are dangerous. The key is being able to separate the two. Some atheists can and some atheists cannot.

Walker :
Many religions, such as Christianity, promote selfish ideals such as salvation and punishment (sometimes eternal) for nonbelievers, and are used as fear tactics to influence the masses by passing divisive and bigoted legislation.

I do believe that religious beliefs can lead to discriminatory legislation, though it doesn't mean it always does. I'm thinking of things like the DOMA in the U.S., which tend to stem from religious belief, even if officially explained as a defense of "tradition" (which in most Western countries is based on religion). However, can you point to a piece of legislation that it based on fear promoted by Christianity? And as for salvation, I believe the Christian teaching of that was a very non-selfish act committed by one man for all. And while I don't agree with any teaching that non-believers are going to hell (or simply not going to heaven, depending on specific teachings), I can at least understand why some hold this belief. And you ignore the selfless things religion teaches, like charity, politeness, helping your neighbor, etc. Yes, I also would argue these things could be taught without religion, but to pretend religion only teaches bad things is just plain wrong.

Atheists rightfully characterize religion as harmful because it is directly responsible for many of the problems in history: crusades, genocide, intolerance, slavery, murder, and the list goes on.

The officially atheist Soviet Union killed millions and enslaved many.

Religion advocates belief without evidence, uncritical thinking and intolerance. You may think that atheism is a problem, but the true problem comes from those who believe without justification.

You say religion promotes intolerance, but I think you're showing intolerance here by your blanket statements. As for uncritical thinking, some of the most critical thinkers I know are also fairly strong in their religious belief.

Pingback | Link #90170 ›

Darwiniana » Atheism: The religion of hatred and intolerance? [...] Atheism: The religion of hatred and intolerance? [...]

Posted by Sasha

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90175 ›

Sasha The officially atheist Soviet Union killed millions and enslaved many. In the case of the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the witch burnings and 9/11, they killed for God. However, the Soviet Union did NOT kill for atheism. One can't kill for "no God," for a negative position. What would be the point? It's like accusing the Soviet Union for killing because they didn't believe in Santa or Zeus. However, can you point to a piece of legislation that it based on fear promoted by Christianity? LOL. Christianity teaches that if you did not believe in the right faith, you will be tortured and burned in a lake of hellfire for all eternity. It says in the bible that demons and witches exist, and that God once destroyed two cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, because the people somehow managed to pissed the Almighty off.

Posted by Chip Matthews

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90176 ›

Chip Matthews What praytell is a "radical atheist"? I don't recall hearing of any atheists flying planes into buildings, executing apostates, or attempting to eliminate anyone's civil rights. Given that, I can only surmise that a "radical atheist" is simply an atheist with the courage to speak his mind and offer his opinions sans candy coating, to which I can say "It's about bloody time." Atheists have been perseucted, shunned, and imprisoned for daring to express their unvarnished opinions in most places in the world throughout most of human history, yet it's the religious to constantly flail about with their imagineary persecution complexes. In the past couple of decades atheists have finally found our voice, but I guess the only good atheist is a silent one, is that it? When the religious stop trying to remake the world in their image through repressive laws, repression of science, and repression of opinions they don't happen to like, then rest assured that we'll have more important things to do. Right now that isn't the world we live in so don't expect atheists to crawl meekly back into their closets any time soon.

Posted by cls

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90183 ›

cls This ex-Christian, atheist has also become "more agressive" in recent years in promoting my belief that clinging to irrational beliefs is bad. Not all irrational beliefs are equally bad but none are good. Some forms of religion are worse than others. Some only cause problems for the person who believes, like the Christian Scientist refusing medical care for himself. Other beliefs hurt others, like when the same Christian Scientists allows a child to die from lack of medical care or when fanatics fly planes into buildings. Let us ask why there is more "aggressive" opposition to religion. One is that we had a destructive, incompetent president for eight years (and probably for the next four as well) who did a lot of harm in the name of religion. We had fundamentalists in America eager to strip away civil rights of others in the name of their religion. Since the Moral Majority/Anita Bryant days fundamentalism has been working to control the lives of non-fundamentalists. That has inspired a lot of the backlash. And finally, many of us, have dealt with born-again Christians who have been vicious, cruel and unrelenting in their desire to hurt people who disagree with them. I contend that the main reason for the rise of atheism in the last "civilized" bastion of religion is almost entirely due to a backlash against the intolerant, vicious type of Christianity that dominates the American religious scene.

Posted by rob chapman

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90187 ›

rob chapman Being religious is definitely unsexy, that is the whole point, surrendering one's life totally to a unitary, spiritual and immortal being- what does God know from sex anyway? But why would a Christian who has entrusted his life and soul to the Almighty be concerned whether agnostics or atheists approve? Worship and service are full-time all engrossing activities, it is hard to imagine how petty concern over whether Polly Toynbee or anyone else approves fits into the picture. If belief in Christianity becomes exotic in Britain, something essentially British will have passed from the world, but if religious belief is already so weak as to be rocked by the scorn of atheists, perhaps that has already happened. Hopefully, a more spiritually based and service oriented Christianity will arise in Britain. A Christianity that honors God with love and that obeys Christ's commandment to love our neighbor.

Posted by natheist

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90190 ›

natheist We're respectful of the American People's individual rights to practice as they see fit (equal to our rights to do the same), but this does not mean we have to respect the decision. If you choose to ignore logic and knowledge in order to believe in an invisible magic man in the sky, or Santa Claus for that matter, you've made a ridiculous decision and we're not going to pretend it's "just another way of looking at things". We challenge the ethics of the professional liars who claim to speak for gods to bilk parishioners into giving away their money in exchange for an immortality that will never be granted. We also challenge the ethics of the politicians who use government to further their religious agenda, and vice versa. We will not let anyone's religion infiltrate our schools, our government, or our pockets, at least not without a good fight. Atheism, the absence of religion, is the only "ism" that obeys the laws of physics. There is never a "well you have to have faith about that part" in atheism. Nowhere in atheism is there a text that must be obeyed, or a preacher that knows the "one true way". In atheism, "god did it" is not acceptable, but "I don't know" is just fine -- because it's the truth.

Posted by Michael Merritt ›

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90201 ›

Michael Merritt

Sasha :
However, the Soviet Union did NOT kill for atheism. One can’t kill for “no God,” for a negative position. What would be the point? It’s like accusing the Soviet Union for killing because they didn’t believe in Santa or Zeus.

I was making the point that fundamentalist religion is not the only cause of the evils of the world.

Christianity teaches that if you did not believe in the right faith, you will be tortured and burned in a lake of hellfire for all eternity.
It says in the bible that demons and witches exist, and that God once destroyed two cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, because the people somehow managed to pissed the Almighty off.

Which is scripture and church teachings, not legislation...

Posted by Jesus H. Christ

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90212 ›

Jesus H. Christ "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color." -Anonymous

Posted by Samuel Skinner

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90217 ›

Samuel Skinner "Being religious is definitely unsexy, that is the whole point, surrendering one’s life totally to a unitary, spiritual and immortal being- what does God know from sex anyway?" Believe it or not, there are religions that aren't Christian and have different attitudes on sex. "What praytell is a “radical atheist”?" This guy? Only example I can think off and it more "hates Mormons". http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=129029 Of course, most atheists are more like this: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=133267 "anti-abortionism is pretty dogmatic in the Catholic Church but not dangerous" Yes, because people NEVER die during illegal abortions... "However, can you point to a piece of legislation that it based on fear promoted by Christianity?" Anti-vaccine campaign in the 1800s. Use of ether for childbirth. "And you ignore the selfless things religion teaches, like charity, politeness, helping your neighbor, etc. Yes, I also would argue these things could be taught without religion, but to pretend religion only teaches bad things is just plain wrong." Don't make me quote Felipe Perez Roque. "The officially atheist Soviet Union killed millions and enslaved many." The USSR has never practiced slavery.

Posted by John Smith

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90250 ›

John Smith "I was making the point that fundamentalist religion is not the only cause of the evils of the world." Since no one said or implied that religion is the only cause of evils in the world, that "point" was irrelevant. Moreover, if your point really wasn't to falsely imply an equivalence between atheism and religion, then why single out the Soviet Union - why not point to mundane sources of evil? So your "explanation" for what you intended rings quite hollow. Add this to the fact that you're complaining about atheists being "radical" and "aggressive" when they are far less aggressive than what is normally seen by adherents of traditional religion, and it's hard to escape the conclusion that your only point has always been a hit piece against atheists. Or do you have another "explanation" for complaining about atheists doing things far more mild than things you never bring up when done by religious theists? Maybe the problem here is that you have trouble handling the challenge to traditional religious privileges presented by secular atheists.

Posted by offended atheist

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90280 ›

offended atheist I think the better question is, "Christianity: The religion of hatred and intolerance?" After all, according to Christian doctrine, tolerance of other beliefs leads to the so-called evils of polytheism and secularism! P.S. (These comments have been deleted here twice. Now who's being intolerant??)

Posted by Drew Lomax

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90296 ›

Drew Lomax Every system that involves human beings is capable of hideous evil; it's an irrefutable fact. Believe it or not, accepting this fact will make your life much happier. Christians have bad things on their side, as do Atheist on theirs. So, the bickering of apologists on either side are equally ridiculous. Instead of both sides talking past each other, majoring in minors, straining gnats to swallow camels, etc., why don't both sides address the common denominator, which is human evil, and which side addresses it squarely and with all fairness both in application to itself and to all other sides as well? Which system(s) of thought, belief, etc. affirms human evil, and is stubborn to trust in systems brought about by the hands of humankind? Which system believes that mankind is basically good, and capable of progression? Who has a greater vested interested in their own side, because of desperation brought about by thoughts of complete annihilation? Be careful how you answer this last one, I'll warn you it's a trick!

Posted by vfilipch

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90301 ›

vfilipch To those who claims that Soviet Unin was an "officially atheist" state. It is a lie. People, who claim that, are confusing ideology of the Communist Party and Soviet Union as a state. Here is what the Constitution of the USSR had on this subject: ------------- Article 52. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited. In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church. -------------

Posted by Bruce Gorton

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90357 ›

Bruce Gorton @Michael Merritt There was legislation banning witchcraft - leading to the Salem witch trials. Another example of Christian legislation: Prohibition. It was based upon a Christian women's movement trying to legislate their morality, and resulted in the rise of the mafia. And then there are all of those state constitutions where atheists aren't allowed to hold office.

Posted by Bruce Gorton

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90360 ›

Bruce Gorton @Drew Lomax Atheism isn't a system of thought, it is a statement of non-belief in god/s. It can apply to nihilists, secular humanists, budhists, skeptics etc... Your whole screed is thus bullshit from the outset. As to your questions: Which affirms human responsibility for evil (And I hope this is what you meant)? Atheism. Christianity holds that evil entered the world when God caste the snake out of heaven and into the garden of Eden. Further, God as an omniscient creator of all things cannot allow for free will, as he created you knowing precisely what you would do. Which holds to human developed morality? Both. Gods probably don't exist, so all morality would have to be human. Atheists just accept that our morality is human, and therefore not based upon a perfect source, and therefore its flaws can be corrected, while the religious, if they actually believed what they say they believe, hold that their morality is based upon a perfect source and thus cannot be "corrected." Which system believes that mankind is basically good, and capable of progression? Not the religious. Not all atheists, but certainly not the religious - note how atheist morality is changeable due to its human source, while religious morality claims a perfect source. Who has a greater vested interested in their own side, because of desperation brought about by thoughts of complete annihilation? The religious. Atheists tend to hold to there being no afterlife for anybody, no matter what you believe. The religious hold that your beliefs can gain you access to a better or worse afterlife. Atheism, ultimately does not require a bribe to sell itself, religion needs heaven, and hell, bribes which conveniently only get delivered after you are dead.

Posted by CStanley

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90362 ›

CStanley Atheism isn’t a system of thought, it is a statement of non-belief in god/s. It can apply to nihilists, secular humanists, budhists, skeptics etc… All of whom fit into a system of thought called positivism. And if it's not a movement, then perhaps prominent atheists should stop writing so many articles and books, and atheist groups should stop their ad campaign. Atheism certainly doesn't have to be a movement, and I presume you don't consider yourself part of one- but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist as such.

Posted by Dave

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90368 ›

Dave Atheism is a religion if "bald" is a hair color. Atheism is a religion if "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. It's sad that people misstate what "atheism" is. It's not a thing. Atheism is the *LACK* of belief or faith. It doesn't speak to what you *DO* believe, it speaks to what you *DO NOT* If you're going to criticize something, try to at least understand what you're talking about. D

Posted by Dave

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90369 ›

Dave Militant Christians shoot abortion doctors & start armed militias. Militant Muslims fly planes into buildings and blow up busses. Militant Atheists write books & engage in civil debate. What a double-standard

Posted by CStanley

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90371 ›

CStanley Militant Atheists write books & engage in civil debate. What a double-standard [Rolls eyes} Civil debate is fine, but when atheists engage in debate in order to convince people that they shouldn't believe in a Deity, they are no longer engaging in their own personal choice to reject belief, they're espousing (and attempting to persuade others toward) a positivist world view. You can't have it both ways is all I'm saying. Either choose to be an atheist who doesn't care what other people believes, but simply decides that you don't believe in something for which you can't observe evidence- or embrace the atheist movement which is based on positivism and which seeks to convince others of the rightness of those tenets. To use your analogy- atheists who 'write bookd and engage in civil debate' (which is not always civil, I'll add) are not bald, they've put on a wig.

Posted by Slaven

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90462 ›

Slaven Atheism: The religion of hate and intolerance. First of all, Atheism isnt a religion, and Atheists dont care about religion, Atheists are more open minded than Christians, we dont tell everybody that they are going to hell because they beileve in fairy tales. Also, the Soviet Union didnt kill people because of Atheism, the Crusades was actually murder because people werent christian, Hitler also killed 6 million Jews and hated Atheists. So seriously, dont speak what you know nothing of.

Posted by SWEJ

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90463 ›

SWEJ CStanley - I think your wig analogy is completely and utterly wrong. I think you MEANT to say that atheists who "write books and engage in civil debate" are those that REFUSE to wear hats or hairpieces!! They are quite PROUD of their baldness - and NOT ASHAMED d to let it be known - since it is quite NATURAL after all! ...Why should anyone be forced to cover their heads?

Posted by Don

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90467 ›

Don Would these "radical atheists" be akin to evangelical christians - like say James Dobson? And if the christians get their radical crazies, why can't the atheists have theirs?

Posted by Michael Merritt ›

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90473 ›

Michael Merritt

Samuel Skinner :
“Being religious is definitely unsexy, that is the whole point, surrendering one’s life totally to a unitary, spiritual and immortal being- what does God know from sex anyway?”

Yes, because people NEVER die during illegal abortions…

I didn't say they did. I said it's not a position to take that inherently poses a danger to others. It's a theological viewpoint. The application of that viewpoint would be politics.

Anti-vaccine campaign in the 1800s.
Use of ether for childbirth.

Were these legislated? I'll have to look it up. And I was thinking more of the here and now, since the atheism we're discussing is also newer.

Don’t make me quote Felipe Perez Roque.

What quote? I'm not too familiar with him.

The USSR has never practiced slavery.

It may not have been called that in name, but Stalin didn't send people to Siberia for vacation.

John Smith :
Add this to the fact that you’re complaining about atheists being “radical” and “aggressive” when they are far less aggressive than what is normally seen by adherents of traditional religion, and it’s hard to escape the conclusion that your only point has always been a hit piece against atheists.

I don't think all atheists are this way. I've even nuanced this point to such fineness that I even think some atheist evangelicals can be okay, so long as their arguments are well thought out and not ridiculing or disrespecting the beliefs of others.

Maybe the problem here is that you have trouble handling the challenge to traditional religious privileges presented by secular atheists.

I live my life as an atheist and am philosophically agnostic. Nice try, though.

vfilipch :
To those who claims that Soviet Unin was an “officially atheist” state.

It is a lie. People, who claim that, are confusing ideology of the Communist Party and Soviet Union as a state.

It was also official state policy that people weren't locked up for speaking out against the government, just the goals of Communism. I seem to recall from my studies that people were locked up for both.

Bruce Gorton :
@Michael Merritt

There was legislation banning witchcraft - leading to the Salem witch trials.

Another example of Christian legislation: Prohibition. It was based upon a Christian women’s movement trying to legislate their morality, and resulted in the rise of the mafia.

And then there are all of those state constitutions where atheists aren’t allowed to hold office.

Finally! I agree with those, though I would argue that the first was more motivated by fear than the second. And I'd still like to see something more recent.

Don :
Would these “radical atheists” be akin to evangelical christians - like say James Dobson? And if the christians get their radical crazies, why can’t the atheists have theirs?

I don't think that all evangelical Christians are the same. Nor do I think this of evangelical atheists (for lack of a better term). But those who try to ridicule others for their belief, or try to force their beliefs down others throats, I would throw in the same column.

Posted by CStanley

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90481 ›

CStanley SWEJ, you apparently completely missed the reference I was making to some previous commenters' analogy. The idea was put forth that "if atheism is a religion, then baldness is a hairstyle." I don't really care if atheists seek to convince others that their position is right (if it's done through civil debate.) But you can't have it both ways- if you engage in that then you are in fact part of a movement (which is said by other atheists to be impossible, as they claim that atheism asserts nothing and atheists simply don't believe due to lack of evidence.)

Posted by Alexander

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90494 ›

Alexander Atheism is not a religion. However, while religions are systems of beliefs (in existence of god/gods, in life after death, etc.),atheism is also a system of beliefs (in non-existence of god/gods, in non-existence of life after death, etc.) Religions have evolved in human societies during thosands of years of their existence as a result of lack of knowledge, lack of understanding of the nature of the world in which humans lived. With time passing, the religious beliefs of the societies led to establishment of organized religious institutions with powerful clergy on top. From that point on, maintaining religious beliefs in the societies was backed not only by traditions of the societies, but also by this self-interest group - clergy, whose wealth and power were directly dependent on preservation of those beliefs. Atheism has evolved as a reaction to religions. With advance of science, religious dogmas started to fall. Mankind learned that the Earth is not flat, that the world is not 5000 years old, that the humans evolved from other living creatures, etc. So, historically, atheism is a reaction to religions. If there have never been any religions, there wouldn't be atheism either.

Posted by xous

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90501 ›

xous I am what you would probably call an 'Atheist'. I want to make it clear that I hate idiots and that seems to have extended to most religious followers as well. I grew up in a typical Christian household in a small little village that was 99.9% Christian. There were two bloody churches for a population of 3000. Although being a public school we said the Lord's Pray every day and did devotions in first period. Needless to say I wasn't treated very well when someone asked me to go to "youth group" and I said I didn't believe in God and didn't really think I'd enjoy it. Seemed to me like a silly thing cooked up by desperate parents to get their kids to eat candy, play approved games, and learn about God instead of drinking, screwing, and drugs. From that point on people avoided me like I'd rip out their hart and eat if they weren't careful. A few of the brave students seemed to make it their mission to convert me by getting me to go to youth. Oppression works both ways. There will always been extremists on EVERY side of the fence. The problems I have with religion are: Followers rarely think for themselves. They tend to force their ideals on to others. (e.g. Abortion, Gay Marriage, God in schools) Intolerance. There is nothing more foolish killing other people because they don't have the same God. So can we please stop with the religious propaganda?

Posted by Alexander

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90586 ›

Alexander Saven said: "...Hitler also klled 6 million Jews and hated Atheists." Hitler hated Atheists?? I've never heard about that. Any reference on this? As for the Jews, the policy of extermination of the Jews was based on racial grounds, not on religion. Among those 6 million killed, there were many who had nothin to do with religion of Judaism. What made them victims of the Nazis was their Semitic Jewish race.

Posted by Drew Lomax

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90679 ›

Drew Lomax

Bruce Gorton : @Drew Lomax Atheism isn’t a system of thought, it is a statement of non-belief in god/s. It can apply to nihilists, secular humanists, budhists, skeptics etc…

I never said atheism is a system of thought in itself, however it is apart of a system of thought, a conclusion if you will. It is apart of a larger question about the existence of god(s), I get that. However, this larger question in itself does represent a system of thought.

Bruce Gorton : @Drew Lomax As to your questions: Which affirms human responsibility for evil (And I hope this is what you meant)? Atheism.

Go back and read carefully, that was not my question. My question is what system of thought actually affirms evils existence objectively at all times and in all places for all people, and subsequently evils affect upon every institution, system of thought, etc., in one form or another. The reason I bring this matter up in the first place is that when someone uses the "your side is evil because x,y, and z happened and only happened because of the beliefs of your side" is, in my opinion, a silly argument. Especially when one side refuses to even acknowledge their sides complicity in evil acts, or dismisses them because they weren't as evil as the other sides acts. It is a fact that human evil affects everything equally; all sides have an embarrassing and appalling history because of that fact. Sorry, I just think it's kind of a cheap argument, that's all.

Bruce Gorton : @Drew Lomax Which holds to human developed morality? Both.

This was not one of my questions, but, nevertheless, I agree with you.

Bruce Gorton : @Drew Lomax Which system believes that mankind is basically good, and capable of progression? Not the religious. Not all atheists, but certainly not the religious...

Agreed, which should enlighten all people to a few things about us Christian folk and why we do not trust every idea that comes from mankind.

Bruce Gorton : @Drew Lomax Who has a greater vested interested in their own side, because of desperation brought about by thoughts of complete annihilation? The religious. Atheists tend to hold to there being no afterlife for anybody, no matter what you believe.

Wrong! Both sides do. However, I'm not saying that everyone on either side of things is motivated by this, I know I'm not, nor are most people of moderate temperaments I know, but at the extreme ends of any ideology are people motivated by fear of death so as to bring about what they believe to be some sort of progression towards an idealistic utopia founded on whatever idealism they cleave to.

Bruce Gorton : @Drew Lomax The religious hold that your beliefs can gain you access to a better or worse afterlife.

The term you use, "the religious", you use here in a universal sense as applying to, and indicative of all religions. Quite frankly, you're painting with a rather broad brush, for all religions are not evenly equatable. Just like some atheists dislike being called agnostics and vice-versa, so it is with us Christians when what we believe is understood as no different than what a Bhuddist, Muslim, Jew, etc., believes.

Posted by Jay

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90689 ›

Jay not sure if I will end up with a duplicate comment, sorry if i do. But, in response to a previous comment that inferred that atheism is a choice I would like you to understand that it is not. We cannot make ourselves believe in hercules or zeus any more than we can make ourselves believe that Jesus was the offspring of Mary and Yhweh. There is no chosing involved, we have heard the stories, read the bible, etc. It just doesnt make sense to us. Would you not be vocal if people were constantly thrusting their belief in witchcraft in your face? To us, Religion is illogical, that's all it is.

Posted by Jason Arvak ›

| Quote | Trackback | Link #90690 ›

Jason Arvak See, jay, I can respect that way of saying it. It is when some atheists -- including several examples above -- go way overboard in expanding their expression of non-belief to include sweeping condemnations of and indictments against religious believers that I think the pejorative "militant" properly applies. Personally, I think atheists can be logical, rational, ethical people. I think their biggest problem comes from the fact that, like fundamentalist Christians on the other side, they too often allow their most militant and abusive elements to control the conversation.

Posted by Tularosa

| Quote | Trackback | Link #92254 ›

Tularosa @Fraidykatt You make excellent points. While I am not religious nether I am anti-religious. But the push to remove the open and free expression of Christianity here bothers me. Its not like it suffers equally with other religions either; Islam, Judaism, Hindu, New Age Spiritalisms, and the ever increasing religion of anti-religion are all given a pass. We are a nation of ratings and poll watchers. What the media tells us is cool becomes cool. Obama is the ultimate expression of cool. People may joke about his status compared to a deity but thats not far from the mark. He is regarded simultaneously as the ultimate intelligence and a guy faced with an impossible (inhertied) problem. So they give him a advanced out! He is like a god but facing a problem so enormous that even a god cannot fix it. What a job! And he even gets to play golf now. He had to hide his clubs back when he needed the class war to get elected.

Posted by Mick

| Quote | Trackback | Link #111875 ›

Mick I find it interesting (and sad) that every atheist I have ever met (and I have met quite a few) seems to be angry, bitter, overflowing with venom and spite toward his fellow man, and incredibly self-pitying, with a large persecution/martyr complex. Why is this so? Perhaps it's the realization that deep down, they know that they are wrong, but their pride won't allow them to admit it? Any thoughts on this?

Posted by Mick

| Quote | Trackback | Link #111876 ›

Mick I also find it interesting that modern atheism - the kind the has become so popular in the last few years -- has all the hallmarks of an organized religion: holy scripture that is considered to be infallible (i.e. any Harris or Dawkins book); its own prophets and saints (see modern atheism's "adoption" of Charles Darwin as one of its own); regular meetings where homilies are delivered; and a push for evangelization (have you ever met an atheist who didn't want to "convert" you from belief to disbelief)? So I disagree when atheists claim that they are not practicing a religion, per se. By all appearances, modern atheism IS a religious movement!

Atheism: The religion of hatred and intolerance?‹ Article Page

Atheism: The religion of hatred and intolerance?
‹ Article Page