The slur du jour aimed at atheists appears to be that of “militant atheism.” While we in the atheist community know full well that there is no such thing as a militant atheist, the Christians who use this phrase remain willfully ignorant or are simpl…

I will first state that Stalin and Pol Pot never intended for the populations of their respective countries to convert to atheism. These two figures were, instead, interested in instituting a new religion in which they were conceived of as the ultimate deities in the new cosmos.

Why would Pol Pot move the inhabitants into the countryside and then announce that it was year 0. He was adopting a dual role. He was the bringer of Armageddon and, then, the messiah who came to rule following the cleansing and rebirth of the Cambodian people.

I cannot consider this to be atheism, because Pol Pot clearly had a complex causing him to interpret himself as divine.

When it comes to ’scientifically proving,’ that atheists are better behaved, I would cast skepticism as to whether this is a scientific question. ‘Better,’ is an evaluative judgment; not one that can be objectively established, because it is entirely normative. It depends upon one’s values, and values are not necessarily universally embraced by all moral agents.

I am simply pointing out that if you value people in society who look to reality and adopt a pragmatic approach to the remedy of problems - both environmental and social - then you would probably not be interested in populating your society with the religious. They look to invisible entities and they claim they are dependent upon fantastic uber-fathers and uber-mothers, who are supposedly omni-present; although, they are never directly observable; so they are everywhere and nowhere all of the time.

Not only are such beliefs interpretable as mental pathology, they tend to make these religious people dogmatic and authoritarian, as if their intellectual reliance upon things we cannot see directly - and things that lack any compelling indirect evidence pointing to their existence - should be respected by people who turn to reality rather than absorption in a childish game of make-believe.
R Cole

I would invite you to do the following for our enlightenment:

1. Please provide “scientific” evidence that atheists behave better than religious people. Please specify which religious people.

2. Were Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao trying to transform their people into atheists? Did they do so through peaceful, intelligent dialogue?

3. Your opinion: If Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris etc. had “absolute” power, would they still allow freedom of choice in terms of religion?

Mike

Atheism has no doctrine in anything

Communism does

Oh and many seem to forget the dictatorship of the very Christian Czar.

R Cole: In response, I am not saying that atheism is perfect. However, I am implying that those who hold humanity as the highest measure of all things will be more likely to esteem their fellow man in higher regard than under the definitions that pollute the various religious understandings of humanity with fictions, such as the mythological contrivance, ‘original sin.’

R Cole

“‘Atheists are, in fact, the living embodiments of the temperaments that the religious claim to possess but fail to embody.’
What about Stalin? I’m not arguing that his atheism was the cause of atrocities he was involved in. But, he was atheist and he did to these things.
Simply not believing in a God does not automatically equate to some perfected living embodiment. Atheists, as well as non-atheists, have beliefs which are not related to their belief or dis-belief in God and influence their actions.”

In response to this, let us remember that [I typically do not edit my own comments, but, here, I feel compelled to point out that I am referring to Lenin, and not Stalin, whom I mistakenly referenced when responding to the comment that attributed atheism as the motivating factor for Stalin’s atrocities] Stalin’s Red Terror, which was, mind you, completely overblown by Western historians, was not the motivating factor for the war he waged against the White Czarist forces. He might have been an atheist, but he was not acting as an atheist as he battled to subdue to the reactionary forces that wanted to reinstall the Czar and all the Czars oppressive scare tactics intended to pacify the starving population.
Russell Cole

I’m a pro-life Democrat. I am pro-life but also believe in a complete separation of church and state. I gave $1,008 to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, while asking Rev. Barry Lynn (Executive Director) to keep the organization neutral on this divisive issue, rather than take a pro-choice stance.

I have no problem with atheism. Thomas Jefferson, the architect of American democracy, said, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others, but it does no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pockets nor breaks my legs.”

Under Jeffersonian democracy, monotheism, polytheism, agnosticism, atheism and even victimless crimes are all tolerated. This conception of democracy appears to me to be closer to the Vedic conception of government, because under Vedic civilization there was tolerance of different philosophical schools of thought, different yoga systems, demigod worship, ancestor worship (”pitas” or forefathers, in Sanskrit), pantheism (advaita vedanta), and even atheists like Charvaka. The American Left is open to the idea of a tolerant multicultural, multireligious, multiracial and possibly even a multilingual society, whereas the right is not.

Jefferson stated that “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others.” Science fiction writer Robert Heinlein in “The Notebook of Lazarus Long”, also wrote that sin lies only in harming others–all other “sins” are concocted. In Vedic civilization, victimless crimes such as intoxication (rice wine was offered to goddess Kali) and even prostitution (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.11.17-19) were legal and regulated.

I agree that religion has no place in the secular arena and therefore oppose government instituted prayer in the public schools, but must simultaneously oppose the teaching of modern myths such as the theory of evolution in the public schools as well.

According to Vedic civilization, people fall into four different classes: educators, military, mercantile, and laborers. Only a certain class of people will have military inclinations, and a military draft forces people from the working classes to take up arms against their will. The American Left generally recognizes the immorality of a military draft.

Writer and activist Jean Blackwood, in the July 1993 issue of “Harmony: Voices for a Just Future”, a “consistent-ethic” publication on the religious Left, notes:

“Many of the young people who make up the animal rights and environmental movement grew up with pro-abortion rhetoric in their ears. They can make the mental shift from banning CFCs, outlawing whaling, and abolishing clearcuts to ‘a woman’s right to choose’ with such alacrity that one might suspect no self-contradiction was involved.”

For many young people today, abortion is just another choice; just another form of birth control. Will they be more inclined to listen to a secular moral philosophy that doesn’t dictate their sexual behavior or intrude upon their private life, or a set of unprovable religious beliefs that does?

There are non-traditional pro-life groups that make up “The Left Side of the March” on the March on Washington, every January 22nd, in D.C.: Vegans for Life, Democrats for Life, Feminists for Life, the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL), etc. I’m not sure if Atheists for Life is included, but Rachel MacNair, a Quaker pacifist, vegan, and past president of Feminists For Life, once pointed out that there are pro-life atheists who argue that since there is no afterlife, life is especially precious.

(This argument is also used by Reverend Andrew Linzey in his 1987 book, “Christianity and the Rights of Animals” against Christians who claim animals don’t have souls: if there is no afterlife for animals, and animals will not be recompensated for their sufferings in an afterlife, then there is no justification for the sufferings we inflict upon them now.)

Had Dennis Kucinich remained pro-life, I would have voted for him. Atheists and agnostics have nothing to fear: we really live in a secular society; one in which people merely pay lip service to religious ideals.

“Does anybody seriously believe that everyone will hold hands and sing happy songs …”

If that floats your boat, go to it.
Don’t be surprised then if I may on occasion consider you to be an ugly bag of mostly water that is if no matter in the grand scheme of things if I puncture, step on etc…

The point is atheism isn’t a religion, it isn’t a dogma, it isn’t an ideology and it isn’t a book of rules by which you should behave.
How should you behave then ?
It’s up to you.

But a lot of reasonable people who happen to be atheists turn out to be nicer to each other than believers, dogmatic adherents, ideological parrots and followers of fashion because maybe just maybe they think that we’re in this together, that competition and coopearation exist at the same time, that life is a balance, that one sinlge tenet of “do unto others how you’d have them do unto you” is basically all that is required to enjoy your life living with others, sharing joy and pain, helping your brothers and sisters, defending the weak, defeating the bullies and all the other aspects that make life worth living.

Other than that, you can take my “ultimate decider” challenge :

This statement is true because I define idiot and arsehole to be mutually exclusive.
“The world is divided into idiots and arseholes.”

Which category do you place yourself in ?

I will not provide definitions as that defeats the purpose.
But if you don’t “get it”, then that’s not my problem and if you do, then hopefully you’ll have a wry smile on your face.

Me? I count myself as a idiot. Always have been and always will be.

If you want some guidance then I suggest this:
- find out what Buddhism and Taosism is all about.
- find out what people were writing 3000-6000 years ago …
- smoke a bong full of grade ‘A’ goats breath lying in the ruins of a culture that passed on over 6000 years ago
- read Von Daniken, listen to and study the Sons of Arqua
- stop hanging with people who need you to tell them what to do, hang with people who can tell you something you don’t know
- stop being a sheep, start thinking critically
- enjoy every lay you ever get
- play nice

faith –noun
2. belief that is not based on proof
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

rea·son –noun
2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.

–verb (used without object)
8. to think or argue in a logical manner.
9. to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason

My apologies for the degree of vagueness - the definitions of logic and reason are somewhat circular.

The point still stands however.

Why is there an argument to to be made that faith and reason/logic are mutually exclusive?

By DEFINITION faith is believing something with no supporting evidence. To put it emotively, creating new knowledge out of thin air.

By DEFINITION logic/reason is a process for creating new knowledge out of demonstrable facts.

This isn’t to say that a single person can’t be both rational and possess faith. It does however say that a process of gaining an individual piece of knowledge can’t both be based on faith AND reason. This isn’t a particularly subjective claim - it simply follows from the largely self evident truth that either knowledge has some evidence backing it or it doesn’t.