I’m an atheist. I know others who are atheists. We never get together and talk about it. It does not come up in conversation. We do not have a collection of dogma that we consult for help in understanding the world, or any reason at all, for that matter. We do not go about our daily lives thinking to ourselves “Isn’t it wonderful to be alive in this atheist world?”
In short, the only times that I even think about being an atheist is when the subject of religion comes up. When some person, or group, or government tells me that things must be a certain way because “God says so.” Or “God is on our side.” Or asks God to “Bless us.”
Atheism is a response to a positive assertion about the world. There were no atheists before there were theists. It would be unnecessary and incoherent to state “There is no God” before someone has said “There is a God.”
All theists are atheists with repect to every god but their own.
**
Shodan**, do you believe in Zeus? If not, does your disbelief in Zeus constitute a religion? I am not asking whether your disbelief in Zeus is based on your particular religion, but whether your assertion of the non-existence of Zeus in and *of itself * satisfies your definition of being a religion.
This is where I always get confused. As I see it, the true empiricist, when considering the existence of something, always presumes that it does not exist until he sees empirical proof that it does. Otherwise he would have to hold the existence of every mythical being ever recorded (including leprechauns, pixies, and hobgoblins) as a valid possibility, which isn’t very empirical.
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the problem of evil as a disproof of God?
According to Christian theologians like St Anselm, God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. This conception of God is still upheld by every branch of Christianity, worldwide.
Since evil does exist, God must allow it (in which case he’s not omnibenevolent), is powerless to stop it (in which case he’s not omnipotent), or is unaware of it (in which case he’s not omniscient)
One can argue that free will accounts for much of the evil in the world but what about natural disasters such as the recent earthquake in Pakistan or the Boxing day Tsunami? God is still not off the hook because free will doesn’t address the inherent evil in natural disasters.
The only way out of this dilemma is to argue that such acts as colossal earthquakes and Tsunami’s, which arbitrarily snuff out the lives of countless, men, women, children, and babies in the blink of an eye isn’t actually evil, it just appears that way. In which case it is the theists who are now trying to exclude problems by definition in much the same way as atheists gloss over the atrocities of Stalin and Pol Pot by claiming they weren’t committed in the name of atheism.
I would hesitate to claim that just because things are secular that they are part of an atheist movement. Unless you are claiming only atheists watch Sex and the City and television programming is centered around atheist philosophy and is not intended for entertainment of the general population? And pro-gay marriage is hardly an atheist movement.
I think the OPs point is valid. From a practical point of view, it is hard to equate a lack of religion with merely being another religion in itself.
The whole Stalin thing seems silly to me as well. It’s ridiculous in exactly the same way the “religion has killed more people than anything else” idea is ridiculous. Power struggles have killed more people than anything else. This is largely independant of religion, although I’m sure different philosophies have been used as propoganda tools along the way.
Yes I am. But it is not my definition. Christian have a common belief. Atheist do not. Lack of a common belief does not make Atheists a movement or a religion. Or a group that should be included in this context.
I think it is you who are trying to include by definition. A definition that is being used in reverse.
As explained above, the the second class is not a group in this sense. They are specically not a group.
Finding a common trait to unify a group you don’t agree with and shoehorning them into a cause just to balance out equation is specious at best, IMO.
It is a fervour, certainly, but I can’t construe it as religious. Although your example may not be a good one of an atheist dictator anyway - there was definitely a supernatural element (in terms of belief). “God is with us” on buckles and a belief that they were fulfilling some kind of destiny. That sounds religious to me, and certainly not something an atheist would believe
Even so, it wasn’t atheism that drove Nazism and the holocaust. It was nationalism and racism. It was a belief in Hitler as demigod. In Russia it was a belief in economic idealism and hatred of the noblesse. In none of the dictatorships mentioned above was the advancement of atheism the primary goal.
And despite Shodan’s assertion, I have never once heard an atheist say that the gassing of six million Jews “didn’t count.”
Well, I’d call it a cynical misuse of the ability to sway credulous people for the gain and maintenance of personal power. Would that be a fair definition?
OK, if the atheists are correct and God doesn’t actually exist, then allow me to flip your question around.
How does religion differ from what Hitler did above?
As you point out, there are many similarities; the frenzy and adoration of the audience, the chanting and performing an “in-group” ritual like the NAZI salute, and worst of all, the willingness to do anything to please the leader.
Take a look at the crowds surrounding the late Pope at one of his addresses from his palace. That is eerily like some dictators.
This trend of defining religion so widely as to be useless is annoying. I have heard politics referred to a s religion; NASCAR, college basketball. It’s silly. An atheist would not claim that Hitler did not exist.
True religion has an element of the supernatural, and an explanation of the existence of the universe, and usually, if not always, a supreme entity that fills the role of creator. To take some elements of religion (fervor, blind allegiance, etc.) and claim that every movement that manifests these elements is a religious one is equivocation, pure and simple.
And even if someone thinks it’s a religion to vigorously deny Zeus, what if you also vigorously deny Marduk? Does that mean you have TWO religions?
What if you incessantly declare that Marduk, Zeus,Yahveh, and Shiva don’t exist, but aren’t sure about certain Shinto deities? Do you have 4 religions?
I would guess that that phrase would describe the posts of Scott Plaid and Der Trihs and a few others. I think that several religious posters overstate the prevalence of such posters on the board, but the phrase has a valid meaning in terms of some posters.
The movement to get God off the money and to retire that superfluous motto (since we already had the better E Pluribus Unum) is embraced by many religious persons as inappropriate mixing of religious belief and governent. Teddy Roosevelt wrote a pretty good condemnation of “In God We Trust” on the money because of his religious beliefs. So that is not an “atheist” position.
I defy you to name one TV show that is atheistic or opposed to god(s). There are many shows that are secular (and quite a few that trivialize religious belief–often while promoting “Christian” values), but nothing that qualifies as “atheist.”
There is no “recruitment” of atheists in the public schools except in the febrile imagination of James Dobson and a few other religious zealots.
Same sex marriage is a religious issue only because a certain number of religions have chosen to make it so.
I agree that Hitler probably wasn’t too torn-up about the creation of the universe and I don’t think he claimed to have done it himself.
I think you’re missing my point though. I am certainly NOT claiming that Hitler amounted to a religion.
What I am bringing up for consideration are two things:
A) As you and TDN have pointed out, the effects on the believers is very similar. Sometimes the source is a charismatic religious leader and other times it’s a monster.
B) My other point is that those who deeply believe in their religion (or possibly a political leader) can be and are, cynically manipulated by those who seek power.
And essentially all governments until modern times officially approved a religion. If you attribute mass murders commited by Stalin to atheism, then I can attribute any crime commited by any country who had an official religion to religion, whether or not the crime/mass-murder/war was religiously motivated.
For instance, France was a christian nation until the revolution, and again during the 19th century. So, if you allege that Staline’s crimes are to be attributed to atheism, then i’m going to allege that not only the crusades and religion wars, but any despicable action committed by France is to be attributed to christianism.
Arguing that crimes commited in the name of communism were motivated by atheism always seemed to me to be a completely disingeneous…no…scrape that…a completely ludicrous argument.
This is precisely the stupid, moronic, nonsensical assertion that is at the heart of the OP. Atheists do not make a positive assertion that god exists. They deny the positive assertion that god does exist. It is completely different on a logical level.
I only say this for the record, knowing full well that this is a completely hopeless discussion. Every time the issue of atheism comes up in this board, it always goes exactly like this one is, as described in the OP. Thank you anyway, Max, for an excellent set of points, it has to be said, if only for the record.