The Intellectual Crudity of Non-Theist Apologists

[_Ren]

Having said that, you [Beastie] are on an internet forum taking sides as an atheist, which seems to fly in the face of your implication that you have absolutely nothing to do with these organized atheistic efforts to cull religion from society.

Presumerably that means that every single person who takes the side of 'religious belief' on an internet forum is involved in 'culling non-belief from society' as well...?

[_beastie]

beastie

while we may be in the minority world-wide, we exist everywhere, in every culture, sometimes hidden due to the discrimination and hatred of theists towards us - and adding up all those small numbers results in one very big number.

dart

Sounds like a Mormon argument about LDS numbers. Not sure what your point is, though.

If you didn’t understand my point, how in the world did it sound “like a Mormon argument”? Aside from that bit of silliness, I will clarify.

Estimates are that one is six people are atheists.

Out of the world's 6.6 billion-odd people, about 1.1 billion are atheists, so one in every six people is an atheist. However, it is important to note that only 23% of the category defined as "atheists" fall into the category of "strong atheism". The remainder are "Weak atheists". Weak atheists simply state that they do not believe in a God, but they can not confirm in existence or lack thereof. Strong atheists say that God does not and can not exist and treat this as fact rather than belief. Agnostics, humanists, rationalists, and others would be classified as "weak atheists", so, depending on what you believe to be atheism, the number can vary. Hope this helped.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percenta ... e_atheists

I think it is not possible to accurately figure out the number of atheists worldwide due to the fact that atheists are often “in the closet”. (gee, I wonder why THAT is) But I’ll accept this as a guesstimate. Atheists are united only by one thing – lack of belief in a godbeing.

Now you have taken the statements of three atheists and are pretending that these statements represent enough atheists that you are justified making your generalizations. How do you justify this? Well, the books have sold lots of copies!! (how many are copies for theists?) Let’s take the most popular book, The God Delusion.

According to Dawkins himself, over 700,000 copies have been printed from US and UK publishers. (accurate as at Jan-07) Of-course that's not necessarily the amount sold though.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_copi ... _been_sold

We can safely assume that the number that have actually been sold is smaller. How many of that number were bought by atheists versus theists is completely unknown. I’ll be generous to your point and simply deduct 100,000 from the total number to represent unsold copies and copies sold to theists determined to debunk the “notorious Dawkins”. This doesn’t even account for the number of atheists who purchased the book, like my son and myself, but don’t necessarily agree with all his points, so I think I’m being very generous in that number.

This means that out of 1.1 billion atheists worldwide, 600,000 are supporters of Dawkin’s philosophy.

So my point is that you are completely unjustified in using the statements of three authors and pretending that these statements fairly represent the thoughts of most atheists.

Again, if you don't consider yourself among them, then that's fine. I think I have done what I can to clarify I'm not speaking of every atheist on the planet.

Having said that, you are on an internet forum taking sides as an atheist, which seems to fly in the face of your implication that you have absolutely nothing to do with these organized atheistic efforts to cull religion from society.

No, you just think you’re speaking for the majority.

I bolded the portion of your reply that is particularly ridiculous, and I think demonstrates your clouded thinking on this issue. The fact that I participate on an internet board as an atheist means I really DO have something to do with these ‘organized atheistic efforts to cull religion from society’? This is a pathetic argument.

Not sure why you expect me to know what someone else meant by something he said. I guess you could email the guy and request elaboration. But I think it has already been established that atheists would use force and even violence to stop religion. Why wouldn't they?

This was YOUR reference. I expect that you read it, understood it, and agreed with it. You’re being coy. It’s obvious what he means. Churches today should be stopping the “Darwin doubters” in the same way they ought to have stopped Hitler.

The point is clear – even while constructing your argument that atheists, in general, would use force and even violence to stop religion, you end up using sources that show that theists would do the same to stop atheism.
The fact is that theists and atheists are all from the same pool – human beings. So if a certain percentage of human beings tend to be willing to use force and violence to reach their goals, that percentage will exist in both theist and atheist communities. The reason why it is has been seen less in the atheist community is because atheism has always been a minority viewpoint, which simply means that they haven’t had the historical power that theists have had, and still have to this day. I’m certainly not arguing that atheists are ethically superior to theists, or vice versa. We’re all human beings and plagued by the same problems and tendencies.

But organized atheists are untied by much more than that. They are united in a common cause: get rid of religion from our society.

Oh really? Prove it. Yes, there are organizations for atheists, but you must now prove that their “common cause is to get rid of religion from our society.”

Good luck. I’m going to hold you to this.

Atheists have had it easy compared to hatred and discrimination handed out to theists. What's your point?

You can’t be serious. Theists have the majority in almost every culture on this planet. The exceptions are so rare as to be notable, like Stalin. Are you seriously going to argue that the minority have “had it easy”???? Besides, a large portion of the hatred and discrimination handed out to theists have been handed out by other theists.

I've been careful. The issue here is whether organized theism is any different from organized atheism, in their capacity to promote good or evil. From a sociological perspective, the answer is no. From a statistical perspective, the answer is no.

If this has been your issue all along, you have represented it poorly.

[_Ren]

This doesn’t even account for the number of atheists who purchased the book, like my son and myself, but don’t necessarily agree with all his points, so I think I’m being very generous in that number.

Count me in here too. I've bought the book.
The description I've used before is: "Equally brilliant and dismal".

[_dartagnan]

If you didn’t understand my point, how in the world did it sound “like a Mormon argument”?

Maybe because I didn't understand it? :)

Estimates are that one is six people are atheists.

That's an exagerrated figure.

But I think you're engaging in the very thing you criticized me for. Not everyone who is without religion is necessarily an atheist. For example, 16% of Canadians have no religious affiliation, but only half of those consider themselves atheists. So one cannot simply assume no religious affiliation is synonymous with atheism. Now I don't know how your article justifies its claim for a billion atheists, but a 2005 survey published by Encyclopaedia Brittanica determined the global population for atheists to represent roughly 2.3%. So suddenly your 1 in 6 assertion is really closer to 1 in 50, making the overall atheist population closer to a hundred million.

I think it is not possible to accurately figure out the number of atheists worldwide due to the fact that atheists are often “in the closet”. (gee, I wonder why THAT is)

I think you're leaping to conclusions here based on what you think might be happening, and then, according to a degree that you think might be realistic. None of this has been established. The fact is there are more people who are denied religious rights than there are those who are denied the right be be an atheist.

you just think you’re speaking for the majority.

No, you just think I think I am, but I have never generalized as you keep claiming. Where have I generalized? Do you have a citation or are you working off a gut feeling?

How do you justify this? Well, the books have sold lots of copies!!

Come on beastie, you are above this straw man nonsense. You know very well I never made this claim. You're the one who brought up the number of copies sold. I had no idea, nor was it pertinent to anything I said.

So my point is that you are completely unjustified in using the statements of three authors and pretending that these statements fairly represent the thoughts of most atheists

Please show me where I said that it did. I'm speaking of atheists who are organized and act religiously.

The fact that I participate on an internet board as an atheist means I really DO have something to do with these ‘organized atheistic efforts to cull religion from society’? This is a pathetic argument.

Well at the very least it shows that you're not at all interested in practicing what you preach. You're accusing me of generalizing, which I haven't done, yet you ignore it when your atheist cohorts generalize about religions. Why? Because many atheists have much more in common than simply non-belief. They tend to act as a support group for each other even when one makes arguments the other doesn't necessarily agree with. Is it an organized religion? I think not. But it is in the early stages of becoming one. All it takes is more organization and the rest will fall into place.

This was YOUR reference. I expect that you read it, understood it, and agreed with it. You’re being coy. It’s obvious what he means. Churches today should be stopping the “Darwin doubters” in the same way they ought to have stopped Hitler

Now who is being ridiculous. I provided that source because it mentioned several works that refuted the common myth among atheists that Hitler was a devout Christian. Nobody here has touched that refutation with a ten foot pole (though I suspect JAK will keep reiterating the falsehood as usual). You said you didn't understand what he meant in the above citation. Well, neither did I. I still don't. I don't see the value in it other than an easy way to score points as an atheist. Perhaps that's why you're dwelling on it. Who knows? But why would I even worry about defending something I don't know if I even agree with? And after saying you didn't know what it means, you now say its meaning is "obvious," all the while ironically accusing me of being coy!?!?

The point is clear

The only thing obvious is its ambiguity. That was the reason you asked for clarification. If you're really interested in knowing what he meant, why not email him?

even while constructing your argument that atheists, in general, would use force and even violence to stop religion

That isn't my argument. Beastie, you're better than this.

you end up using sources that show that theists would do the same to stop atheism.

That isn't what he said and you didn't understand what he meant anyway, remember?

The fact is that theists and atheists are all from the same pool – human beings. So if a certain percentage of human beings tend to be willing to use force and violence to reach their goals, that percentage will exist in both theist and atheist communities.The reason why it is has been seen less in the atheist community is because atheism has always been a minority viewpoint

Your math is all wrong again. Considering the tiny percentage of dictators over the past century who were atheist, it seems clear that the math doesn't add up in your favor. How many religious kings, presidents, ministers and dictators were there in history? Literally thousands. And how many atheist dictators can you name? A half-dozen maybe?

Now take the number of religious dictators who instituted laws against atheism and made it a crime punishable by death. A safe guess is that this percentage is below 1%.

And now do the same with atheist dictators who sought to destroy organized religion. Lenin, Stalin, Milosevic, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Mussolini...The % contrast is staggering. An atheistic dictator must be a hundred times more likely to slaughter his own population, than one who is religious.

Oh really? Prove it.

I already did. Atheists organize for the same reason theists organize. They want to spread their message. They believe they have the truth and the "other" group is deluded. So they feel obligated to preach their dogma and gain converts the same as religious missionaries.

Yes, there are organizations for atheists, but you must now prove that their “common cause is to get rid of religion from our society.”

No I don't, any more than I need to prove religion seeks to make the world religious - effectively getting rid of atheism. The country of Albania is a case in point. Almost immediately after it arrived to an atheist majority, it created the first atheist nation. And guess what happened to the theists?

"From 1967 until the end of the totalitarian regime, religious practices were banned and the country was proclaimed officially Atheist, marking an event that happened for the first time in world history. Albanians born during the regime were never taught religion, so they grew up to become either Atheists or Agnostics." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ ... te_Atheism

Gee, sounds a lot like organized religion in the "indoctrination" dept. History shows how atheists are draw together with the purpose of destroying religion. Why do you think the Soviet Union was so anti-religion? Because of an atheist dictator? No, it was due to teh social activity of atheists, particularly the formation of the "Society of the Godless," which boatsed membership from every walks of life, and it grew in popularity until it became the state religion (figuratively speaking).

which simply means that they haven’t had the historical power that theists have had, and still have to this day

But when atheists are in a situation of power, history shows that they are more likely to throw their power around in such a manner. After all, how many secular governments exist in predominantly religious countries, and how many of those have tried to enforce law to ban organized atheism? The only worst case scenarios are in Islamic countries, where, as I understand it, a professed atheist is first given the opportunity to leave the Islamic society. Those who are killed are generally those who insist on staying and preaching their cause. The atheist dictator Joseph Stalin killed more than a hundred thousand religious figures within a two year period. He didn't give them the option of leaving the society on their own.Their crime of theism was sufficient to warrant death in the eyes of the Russian government.

Denmark has a State religion and it allows its country to become highly atheistic. How can this be? Where's the persecution there? Why isn't it throwing its weight around to get rid of atheists by force? Because that is antithetical to Christianity, and has always been (and no, the inquisition was not about forced conversions).

You can’t be serious. Theists have the majority in almost every culture on this planet.

That's because religion is a natural human phenomenon. You're right, it is common in every culture. But that in and of itself doesn't mean atheists are a minority because they have been persecuted. You make it sound like humans are just as likely to naturally become atheistic as they are theistic, but its just that religion has a majority that doesn't make atheism come easy. If that is the case, then why are cultures dotting the globe overwhelmingly theistic? The ancient history of humanity tells us that humans are naturally religious in nature. People don't need to be "indoctrinated" by their parents to become religious.

Religion comes naturally. Humans naturally want to connect with the creator, and for most, religion is their only venue. Atheism today is something epopel become converted to, like a Catholic converts to Mormonism. It is disbelief in God, sure. But it is also an entirely new paradigm and outlook on life that can easily take the place of religious devotion. It can do this by giving a person another sense of purpose by keep trying to convert people, except this time convert them to atheism, not your former brand of theism. People who were connected to the social structure of religion can easily form their own atheistic social structure. In that structure they exercise the same needs as before when they were religious. They maintain a sense of identity, purpose, dogma, authority, etc.

The exceptions are so rare as to be notable, like Stalin. Are you seriously going to argue that the minority have “had it easy”????

If we're talking about raw numbers, then yes. How many atheists have been persecuted by religious dictators? How many theists have been persecuted by atheistic dictators or atheistic governments? Some of the worst cases against religions are going on in China as we speak, in far larger numbers than anything in the Islamic world where atheism is sometimes illegal.

If this has been your issue all along, you have represented it poorly.

You haven't cited anything I said, you just keep claiming I am generalizing without providing any specific examples. I think I've been careful to qualify my statements ("many atheists" or "some atheists" or "organized atheists"). I don't think I have represented my position poorly. I think you were just itching for a spat and had a particular straw man you wanted to trounce. Well, have at it. Just don't expect me to defend something I never argued.

[Tator]

Dart,

I do apologize if I have misunderstood your primary argument, but let me explain my impression.

It is true that, in some of your posts, you do qualify your statements so as not to generalize. But the impact of your qualifications quickly fade when placed alongside of your comments that make no such distinction.

Qualification - “some” is actually accurate

What I have argued is that some atheists have actually created a religion of their own.

But now “some” becomes “many”

So you see, the religion practiced by many atheists contains some of the same elements that are integral to theistic religions. It is just a paradigm shift and in some cases it is more social than intellectual.

Now there is no qualification at all. It’s just “today’s atheists”. By the way, if you need evidence of how some of “today’s theists” would gladly and enthusiastically use force to stop atheism, you can see some on the Stop Darwin Doubters thread.

I don't recall any theist trying to take steps to enforce religion on atheists in America. Atheists are viewed by American theists as those who have yet to discover God. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but it is antithetical to most religious beliefs (Islam being the exception) to think one could force a faith on someone else. Some theists want to preach to atheists, but none wish to enforce belief on them or deny them their right to disbelieve. Yet, the rhetoric coming from today's atheists is downright scary. They would enforce disbelief if they had the power, whether it be a "magic wand" or the fist of a tyrant. They seem to be perfectly fine with that outcome; end justifying the means, and all that jazz. Would they really strip us of our right to practice a religion or even believe in one?

I think they would.

That's the irony I think, because they want to proclaim that theists are the "danger" to society.

They have already begun laying the groundwork for such an endeavor, and they're justifying it with ignorant propaganda sent out under the banner of science.

Now there’s no qualification, and simply an “atheist agenda”.

The fact is there is a real atheistic agenda going on here. Recently, I have been told that religion is the cause of misery in the world today. All religions pose a "danger" to society, yet the only time my life was threatened online was by the atheist mercury. I've been told that Evangelicals want to form a theocracy, yet the only evidence I see is an attempt to make a secular government in the spirit of Lenin and Stalin. The popular atheists aren't shy about praising these tyrants for their intolerance of religion. So what's wrong with pointing it out?

And now atheists have a “leading anti-religion antagonist”.

I'm not a Christian apologist, but I think it is more likely that if those problems were as serious as atheists like to assume, then their leading ant-religion antagonist wouldn't have had to come up with this meme nonsense to begin with.

On to your other points -

That's an exagerrated figure.

But I think you're engaging in the very thing you criticized me for. Not everyone who is without religion is necessarily an atheist. For example, 16% of Canadians have no religious affiliation, but only half of those consider themselves atheists. So one cannot simply assume no religious affiliation is synonymous with atheism. Now I don't know how your article justifies its claim for a billion atheists, but a 2005 survey published by Encyclopaedia Brittanica determined the global population for atheists to represent roughly 2.3%. So suddenly your 1 in 6 assertion is really closer to 1 in 50, making the overall atheist population closer to a hundred million.

The source I cited did not simply refer to “no religious affiliation.” The description was:
Agnostics, humanists, rationalists, and others would be classified as "weak atheists", so, depending on what you believe to be atheism, the number can vary. But if you want to cut the number in half, fine.

This source actually relies on the information obtained by the Encyclopedia Brittanica:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

The adherent counts presented in the list above are current estimates of the number of people who have at least a minimal level of self-identification as adherents of the religion. Levels of participation vary within all groups. These numbers tend toward the high end of reasonable worldwide estimates. Valid arguments can be made for different figures, but if the same criteria are used for all groups, the relative order should be the same. Further details and sources are available below and in the Adherents.com main database.
A major source for these estimates is the detailed country-by-country analysis done by David B. Barrett's religious statistics organization, whose data are published in the Encyclopedia Britannica (including annual updates and yearbooks) and also in the World Christian Encyclopedia (the latest edition of which - published in 2001 - has been consulted). Hundreds of additional sources providing more thorough and detailed research about individual religious groups have also been consulted.

If also factors in your halving the number for those who simply do not affiliate with any religion. Their overall number is 1.1 billion, we can halve that at the low end and still end up with 500 million atheists.

But the point isn’t the exact number, which I already stated cannot really be known due to the fact that so many atheists feel socially pressured to hide their disbelief. The point is that – whatever figure you land on – the number of people who know and accept Dawkin’s premises is an incredibly small percentage of that group.

So I’m glad that, at times, you use qualifiers such as “some”, but your other posts do not give the impression that you are really talking about a minority of the overall atheist population.

The fact is there are more people who are denied religious rights than there are those who are denied the right be be an atheist.

If this is a fact, then you should be able to prove it, as well as proving that those who deny religious rights are atheists.

No, you just think I think I am, but I have never generalized as you keep claiming. Where have I generalized? Do you have a citation or are you working off a gut feeling?

See above. Dart, you may not intend to come off this way, but when you start talking about “atheist agendas” you are definitely not giving the impression that you are talking about anything other than a majority of atheists.

Beastie:

How do you justify this? Well, the books have sold lots of copies!!

Dart

Come on beastie, you are above this straw man nonsense. You know very well I never made this claim. You're the one who brought up the number of copies sold. I had no idea, nor was it pertinent to anything I said.

Then I really do not understand your argument. On what basis are you claiming, for example, that Dawkins is atheist’s “leading anti-religion protagonist”?

Please show me where I said that it did. I'm speaking of atheists who are organized and act religiously.

I’ll deal with this organization below.

Well at the very least it shows that you're not at all interested in practicing what you preach. You're accusing me of generalizing, which I haven't done, yet you ignore it when your atheist cohorts generalize about religions. Why? Because many atheists have much more in common than simply non-belief. They tend to act as a support group for each other even when one makes arguments the other doesn't necessarily agree with. Is it an organized religion? I think not. But it is in the early stages of becoming one. All it takes is more organization and the rest will fall into place.

What, exactly, am I preaching? And I certainly have not ignored it when my cohorts generalize about religion. I have specifically stated that I do not believe religions are inherently dangerous. I may not participate on each and every thread that this comes up, but I do not believe I have the obligation to do so.

Now who is being ridiculous. I provided that source because it mentioned several works that refuted the common myth among atheists that Hitler was a devout Christian. Nobody here has touched that refutation with a ten foot pole (though I suspect JAK will keep reiterating the falsehood as usual). You said you didn't understand what he meant in the above citation. Well, neither did I. I still don't. I don't see the value in it other than an easy way to score points as an atheist. Perhaps that's why you're dwelling on it. Who knows? But why would I even worry about defending something I don't know if I even agree with? And after saying you didn't know what it means, you now say its meaning is "obvious," all the while ironically accusing me of being coy!?!?

When I first quoted the citation, I recognized it was very poorly written and confusing. Hence, my request to know if I was misinterpreting it. However, I have read it several times since then, and there is only one possible meaning that makes one shred of sense in the larger context of the essay.

So why does my mentioning this have no value other than an “easy way to score points as an atheist”, and your comments have value other than an “easy way to score points as a theist”?

Which, by the way, was my entire point. It is very easy to find inflammatory comments on either side of this issue. I deliberately offered the theist comments with the qualifier that I’m not willing to consider these serious evidence of any theist agenda or determination to suppress the rights of atheists. You, on the other hand, are offering your atheist comments without any such qualifier. To you, apparently, they ARE evidence of an atheist agenda and determination of atheists to suppress the rights of theists.

Beastie:

The fact is that theists and atheists are all from the same pool – human beings. So if a certain percentage of human beings tend to be willing to use force and violence to reach their goals, that percentage will exist in both theist and atheist communities.The reason why it is has been seen less in the atheist community is because atheism has always been a minority viewpoint

Dart:

Your math is all wrong again. Considering the tiny percentage of dictators over the past century who were atheist, it seems clear that the math doesn't add up in your favor. How many religious kings, presidents, ministers and dictators were there in history? Literally thousands. And how many atheist dictators can you name? A half-dozen maybe?

Now take the number of religious dictators who instituted laws against atheism and made it a crime punishable by death. A safe guess is that this percentage is below 1%.

And now do the same with atheist dictators who sought to destroy organized religion. Lenin, Stalin, Milosevic, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Mussolini...The % contrast is staggering. An atheistic dictator must be a hundred times more likely to slaughter his own population, than one who is religious.

It is inaccurate to focus on religious dictators who institute laws against atheism and made it a crime punishable by death. What religious dictators do is to force everyone to follow THEIR OWN BELIEFS – hence the target will not be simply atheists, but theists who follow different religions.

I already did. Atheists organize for the same reason theists organize. They want to spread their message. They believe they have the truth and the "other" group is deluded. So they feel obligated to preach their dogma and gain converts the same as religious missionaries.

You absolutely have no proven any such thing. You simply asserting this is the case does not make it the case.

For example, at the website of American Atheists, it states their agenda as the following:

Now in its fourth decade, American Atheists is dedicated to working for the civil rights of Atheists, promoting separation of state and church, and providing information about Atheism. The organization was founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the noted Atheist activist, as the result of her successful battle against mandatory school prayer and Bible recitation. Over the last thirty years, American Atheists has: · Held Atheist conventions and gatherings throughout the United States, including "Atheist Pride" Marches in state capitals. · Demonstrated and picketed throughout the country on behalf of Atheist rights and state church separation. The organization has marched to defend the rights of intellectuals such as writer Salman Rushdie, protested the use of government funds to support public religious displays, and conducted the first picket of a Roman Catholic pope in history. · Published over 120 books about Atheism, criticism of religion, and state/church separation. Titles offered include "The Bible Handbook" and Madalyn O'Hair's "Why I am an Atheist." It also sells bumper stickers, flyers, posters and other products for non-believers. · Published newsletters, magazines and member-alerts. · Is building a broad outreach in cyberspace with mailing lists, an ftp and web site, FaxNet and other projects to keep members and the general public informed. · Has a growing network of Representatives throughout the nation who monitor important First Amendment issues, and work on behalf of the organization in their areas. · Has a network of volunteers who perform a variety of important tasks in their community, from placing American Atheist books in libraries to writing letters and publicizing the Atheist perspective. · Preserves Atheist literature and history in the nation's largest archive of its kind. The library's holdings span over three hundred years of Atheist thought. · Provides speakers for colleges, universities, clubs and the news media.

http://www.atheists.org/visitors.center/about.html

There is nothing about ‘culling out religious belief’ nor is there anything about spreading atheism. What atheist organizations normally attempt to do is to protect the separation of church and state, and to attempt to spread accurate INFORMATION about atheism.

I’ll come back later to your other points. One of the reasons I avoided getting involved in these threads is due to the lengthy back and forth that takes place, which is time consuming. Now that I have gone against my better judgment and gotten involved, I will have to pace my involvement.

[_beastie]

No I don't, any more than I need to prove religion seeks to make the world religious - effectively getting rid of atheism. The country of Albania is a case in point. Almost immediately after it arrived to an atheist majority, it created the first atheist nation. And guess what happened to the theists?

"From 1967 until the end of the totalitarian regime, religious practices were banned and the country was proclaimed officially Atheist, marking an event that happened for the first time in world history. Albanians born during the regime were never taught religion, so they grew up to become either Atheists or Agnostics." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ ... te_Atheism

Gee, sounds a lot like organized religion in the "indoctrination" dept. History shows how atheists are draw together with the purpose of destroying religion. Why do you think the Soviet Union was so anti-religion? Because of an atheist dictator? No, it was due to the social activity of atheists, particularly the formation of the "Society of the Godless," which boatsed membership from every walks of life, and it grew in popularity until it became the state religion (figuratively speaking).

Others have already adequately responded to this. The aggressive atheist regimes were aggressive due to their attachment to another dogma, like Marxism. They did not become aggressive due to the fact that they were led by people who did not believe in God – they became aggressive because they were led by people who believed in another dogma. Atheism became attached to some of that dogma, but atheism was not the cause of the dogma.

But I really don’t understand why you even bring this up. I’ve mentioned this before, it always bemuses me when religionists attack atheism by saying it’s like a religion. Does that really help your cause? You say it’s like a religion, and then enumerate the bad effects of that. Doesn’t that actually hurt your cause?

But when atheists are in a situation of power, history shows that they are more likely to throw their power around in such a manner. After all, how many secular governments exist in predominantly religious countries, and how many of those have tried to enforce law to ban organized atheism? The only worst case scenarios are in Islamic countries, where, as I understand it, a professed atheist is first given the opportunity to leave the Islamic society. Those who are killed are generally those who insist on staying and preaching their cause. The atheist dictator Joseph Stalin killed more than a hundred thousand religious figures within a two year period. He didn't give them the option of leaving the society on their own.Their crime of theism was sufficient to warrant death in the eyes of the Russian government.

Denmark has a State religion and it allows its country to become highly atheistic. How can this be? Where's the persecution there? Why isn't it throwing its weight around to get rid of atheists by force? Because that is antithetical to Christianity, and has always been (and no, the inquisition was not about forced conversions).

(my emphasis)

I repeat your assertion: "When atheists are in a situation of power, history shows that they are more likely to throw their power around in such a manner." Then you go on to cite your one major example – Stalin. Once again, the dogma that created this particular aggressive regime wasn’t atheism, it was Marxism.

Now, tell me how you have determined which leaders are atheists in secular Europe.

Dart previously said:

Atheists have had it easy compared to hatred and discrimination handed out to theists. What's your point?

Beastie

You can’t be serious. Theists have the majority in almost every culture on this planet.

dart

That's because religion is a natural human phenomenon. You're right, it is common in every culture. But that in and of itself doesn't mean atheists are a minority because they have been persecuted. You make it sound like humans are just as likely to naturally become atheistic as they are theistic, but its just that religion has a majority that doesn't make atheism come easy. If that is the case, then why are cultures dotting the globe overwhelmingly theistic? The ancient history of humanity tells us that humans are naturally religious in nature. People don't need to be "indoctrinated" by their parents to become religious.

I do not understand this as a response to my comment. I wasn’t saying anything about atheism being natural at all. You asserted that atheists have “had it easy” compared to hatred and discrimination handed out to theists. This defies reason and reality. You conceded that atheists are always in the minority, and the hard facts are that minorities in any population will always suffer more discrimination and hatred. For heaven’s sake, dart, an atheist is the least likely to be elected president, based on atheism alone, in the US. Atheism is often associated with amorality and hedonism. We see this over and over. I am honestly confused that you are asserting that atheists are less discriminated against and hated.

Besides, as I have pointed out before, a great deal of the hatred and discrimination that theists have suffered have been doled out by other theists – just of a different persuasion.

by the way, earlier you stated that your entire issue was this:

I've been careful. The issue here is whether organized theism is any different from organized atheism, in their capacity to promote good or evil. From a sociological perspective, the answer is no. From a statistical perspective, the answer is no.

This last post of yours completely contradicts this statement. You are now asserting that atheists are far more likely to oppress theists. You may not mean to, but you are sending mixed messages.

Dart – I will let you have the last word. I just can’t take these lengthy exchanges right now, and obviously you think I am misunderstanding you, so we’ll just let it at that. I will state one more time that I do not believe religion is the problem, but rather it is just one mechanism that demonstrates the problems inherent in being a human being. I believe that the religion is just one more form of tribe, and that tribalism, while it also has positive benefits, also is what leads us to dehumanize and attack others. I do not believe that either theists or atheists are morally superior to one another, and given the opportunity, each will act with a fairly equal amount of self-interest and damage to others. I totally agree with Tal that if all religion were eradicated today, by next week new religions would replace them. But I also object to terms such as “atheist agenda” and statements which sound as if the majority of atheists believe X, Y, or Z, or are bound together by anything other than lack of belief in god.

Yes, atheists get on internet boards or write books, and may vent about religion. Can you blame us? We live in societies saturated with religion, and we are viewed with suspicion, and even hatred and fear, simply due to the fact that we don’t believe in god. It does get frustrating, and it’s human to want to vent about it sometimes. We all vent at times, and people on both sides engage in polemic rhetoric.

[_Tal Bachman]

Beastie wrote:

The aggressive atheist regimes were aggressive due to their attachment to another dogma, like Marxism. They did not become aggressive due to the fact that they were led by people who did not believe in God – they became aggressive because they were led by people who believed in another dogma. Atheism became attached to some of that dogma, but atheism was not the cause of the dogma.

---Beastie

Let's leave aside the word dogma for a moment...

It is perfectly possible, keeping within the bounds of logic and given certain premises, to conclude that some heinous crime should be committed both in the name of the belief that there is a God, AND in the name of the belief that there is no God. That's an important point here, and I should think, an easy one to understand.

[_Tarski]

Beastie wrote:

The aggressive atheist regimes were aggressive due to their attachment to another dogma, like Marxism. They did not become aggressive due to the fact that they were led by people who did not believe in God – they became aggressive because they were led by people who believed in another dogma. Atheism became attached to some of that dogma, but atheism was not the cause of the dogma.

---Beastie

Let's leave aside the word dogma for a moment...

It is perfectly possible, keeping within the bounds of logic and given certain premises, to conclude that some heinous crime should be committed both in the name of the belief that there is a God, AND in the name of the belief that there is no God. That's an important point here, and I should think, an easy one to understand.

I don't really see a perfect symmetry here.

Imagine the following analogue: Joe does evil precisely because he believes that an invisible dragon is commanding him to. But, symmetrically, it is just as likely that Bob will do evil precisely because he does not believe that an invisible dragon is commanding him.

"precisely because" in the second case? Huh? No! I don't think so.

"I believe entity X exists " is not necessarily symmetric with, or even likely to be symmetric with "I do not believe entity X exists".

In "set theoretic" terms one is tiny and specific and the other is large. One is positive while the other merely fails to posit (or asks for sufficient evidence).
Think of all the things I don't believe exist. (Marxist daffodills, Xenu,...)

How about another example. I might do harm if I am a doctor that acts based on unproven and untested medical notions learned in a dream. Is it a fair comeback to argue that I may do harm because I do not act based on unproven medical notions? Should the the first doctor argue that other doctors have not proven his ideas wrong? (analogy: You can't prove God doesn't exist!).

I break it down like this:

{human being with potential for good or evil} + {policy to be guided by good objective evidence}
or
{human being with potential for good or evil} + {policy to be guided by unwarranted beliefs based only on faith}.


There is more danger in the second case is there not? I don't think I am begging the question since religionists admittedly do not rely on evidence or the "learning of man". So the beliefs are indeed unwarrented.

[_beastie]

It is perfectly possible, keeping within the bounds of logic and given certain premises, to conclude that some heinous crime should be committed both in the name of the belief that there is a God, AND in the name of the belief that there is no God. That's an important point here, and I should think, an easy one to understand.

I don't think crimes are committed EITHER in the "name of the belief that there is a God" OR "in the name of the belief that there is no God".

You don't want dogma to be used, but dogma must be attached to both the belief that there is a God or the belief that there is no God in order to provide the motivation to commit crimes. (this goes back to the earlier attempted distinction between generic theisms and organized religion)

For example, the dogma attached to the theism would be "God has spoken to your leaders and told them to tell you to engage in this behavior". But whatever dogma becomes attached to atheism is not created by the atheism, but becomes an adjunct to it. That is an important distinction. Dogma cannot be created by a LACK of belief.

Another notable difference is that "God" can tell people to commit crimes without dogma or organized religion.

(putting "God" in scare quotes to indicate I don't believe in a God in the first place, much less one telling people to do things, but people throughout history have claimed AND strongly believed that God did tell them to do certain things)

But can a "no god" tell people to do anything? No.

I'm in a bit of a rush to get to work right now, so I may have to come back to clarify later.

Whoops, I said I was going to let dart have the last word. Oh well.

[_Tal Bachman]

Beastie says:

You don't want dogma to be used, but dogma must be attached to both the belief that there is a God or the belief that there is no God in order to provide the motivation to commit crimes.

---Crime requires no dogma for its commission.

For example, the dogma attached to the theism would be "God has spoken to your leaders and told them to tell you to engage in this behavior". But whatever dogma becomes attached to atheism is not created by the atheism, but becomes an adjunct to it. That is an important distinction. Dogma cannot be created by a LACK of belief.

---Did you read that chain of syllogisms I posted above? Did you see what I meant?

But can a "no god" tell people to do anything? No.

---You are right, Beastie, but I don't think things are that simple at all; and I don't see how that point in itself provides any support for attributing a superior morality, or more safety, to atheism per se. A belief or disbelief in God can occur at a variety of points in a "chain of reasoning"...and I don't see how it one way or the other, in itself, influences the conclusion. Like I said above, another way of putting this is that if we only knew that a particular action was motivated, at some point, by either theism or atheism, that knowledge alone wouldn't help us at all to predict whether the act committed was good or evil, would it? How would you respond to that point?