So short I'm not even aware of its existence. You have not listed (nor have I ever seen) atheism used as a state tool.

Let's try again - A1)
A2)
A3)

B1)
B2)
B3)

I don't know where your example was supposed to fit, but apparently nowhere. Iac, have a go at it. It's your quote.

Seriously though, are you trying to meet Hitchens' challenge or not because you just dodged it once again. I'm not distorting what you said, I'm pointing out that what you've said is beside the point. And then I AM disagreeing with your assertion about the ludicrous nature of the converse, and the mistake you are making is thinking that all suffering comes from genocides.

How do you quantify the suffering and guilt of millions of teenage boys re: masturbation? How do you quantify the suffering and guilt caused by married couples who want to have sex without fear of conception? [Insert thousands of other examples here]

I will try one more time. This is the point. I submit that atheists are over stating dramatically the driving force of religion in past events. It has been used as a tool, but the Soviet case illustrates that there are other tools. I am not asserting that atheism caused this problem. I am illustrating that a society constructed on atheistic grounds is not inherently superior.

Past "religious" conflicts had strong secular drivers that would have caused similar problems in the absence of religion. Iran was mentioned by Lucky. Do you really believe that our problems with Iran are due to religion? I know you don't often make definitive statements, but I would like to see an answer to that question from you. I believe that the answer is "No". The problems are political, involving Iran's power within the Middle East, the lack of a counter to US influence post Cold War, the effect of Israel as a staunch US ally/staging ground in the center of oil country. These problems would occur in a completely secular world.

So are the angry Muslim clerics just lying? Or are they mistaken about their own motives? And how is it you've come to know the truth?

And again, do you think this is a valid response to what Hitchens' is getting at, or is there some other reason you appeared to respond to that?

Also, you are stating that a society based on secular principles is not inherently superior, but as I've mentioned two or three times now, you are doing so based on entirely flawed metrics. You think wars and bombings are the only relevant measures, apparently.

Actually, I botched the quote all up and unfortunately, I can't find it now. But it's along the lines of...

Any good things that have come from religion could've came from secular thinking as well. In other words, it is not indigenous to religious thinking. But there are countless examples of bad things having been done in the name of religion where religion was the main line of thinking. In other words, it would never have been done by a non-religious thinking.

I'm sure most of you figured this out, but I noticed I botched the quote.

I support a secular state, I don't support religious persecution. There is no atheist book that says theists will suffer eternal damnation or should be punished, nor would I support such a book. Those would be personal beliefs.

Christianity says if you are not a christian then you are doing something wrong and will suffer eternal damnation. Christianity must be mentioned specifically because it is the religion with the most extreme view on this. Those are not personal beliefs, they are an organized belief system intended to be indoctrinated on all followers.

I don't care for the Soviet example, I am not a communist nor have I ever supported that state's view on beliefs, and much of its troubles and persecution stemmed from religious beliefs in the first place.

FWIW I dont really agree with Hitchens on that point, or the more general thrust that the world is going to be much better without religion. Certainly not without theism. As Sam Harris points out in his debate with Rabbi Wolpe, I could invent a religion right this instant that would dramatically improve the lives of everyone on the planet if they all listened to me and converted. Or at least you can conceptualize one. That most religions have caused a ton of suffering has very little to do with theism, and a whole lot to do with unquestionable belief systems.

Yeah, to chalk one up in the Religion but not Atheism category, I find it hard to imagine anyone could convincingly tell me I'd burn in Hell for eternity without religion. Hard to quantify exactly the amount of suffering thats caused me in my life, since in fact its probably on balance a pleasurable experience when someone says it to me (I roll around laughing a bit if I'm not in public) but presumably some people actually believe it and get quite worked up.

This is a good statement, and I will be the first to say I wouldn't have any problem with a large population of peaceful Hinduists or buddhists. It is the minute you get the whole 'Since you don't believe as I, then you are a heathen and must burn in hell' thing I have a problem with.

You are just so wrong I don't know where to begin. Stalin did not commit his atrocities because he was being too rational. He committed them because he believed in an irrational idealogy that is not unlike religious thinking. Ditto for Hitler, Pol Pot, and any other atheist you care to name.

But then I expect this kind of error from a theist, because you are pursuaded into thinking that atheism is some strong belief in something. You don't understand it is the exact opposite of that. It is a lack of belief. We could just as well say that bad things are done by people who don't believe in pink unicorns and draw the conclusion that it is must be the lack of belief in pink unicorns that is the source of their evil. You really don't get it RLK.


Again, how wrong can you get? Prosecuting witches was purely motivated by religion. As was the crusades. As was... There's no end to the examples. Is it political that religious people have a problem with homosexuals? Or that they would rather have people die of AIDS than use contraception?



The one thing you're right about. Political difference will no doubt continue with or without religion. But I hasten to say we wouldn't have people flying planes into buildings on the belief that there are 72 virgins awaiting them in heaven. We wouldn't have people wanting to stop Stem Cell research on the grounds that a soul exists in a petri dish containing a embryonic blastocyst of 150 cells. So you're right that the world won't be relieved of all its problems if religion went away tomorrow, but quite a few would be eliminated immediately. And they would be the most irrational needless problems our world currently faces.

The fact that gay kids quite often hate themselves, have higher incidence of suicide and are rejected by their family and large parts of society... that's not to say secular people can't hate, but so much organized systematic hatred and persecution can be attributed directly to religion. Religion says that your very 'being' is sinful and an abomination.

I hate to sound like a fanboy, but great post Lestat.

There is very little cheerleading in SMP. Its kind of refreshing.

I think we all would agree on that. We are necessarily talking about irrational beliefs which can prove harmful.

someone humor me and:

Now think of 3 bad things done in the name of religion that would never have been done by atheists.

thanks.

If you read some of the excellent analyses that have been written about Stalin post Cold War you will find that this statement is incorrect. I had a reference but I loaned the book to my son and I cannot remember the author's name. The people Stalin murdered were not a threat to Communism. Most were ardent Communists. They were killed as part of a systematic creation of terror which Stalin used as a tool to maintain his power. This is totally consistent with a belief in nothing.

I have no idea where you got this idea. Please pull out the quote from my posts that supports this and I will happily retract it. The only belief that I see voiced consistently by atheists is that atheism is somehow a superior ideology to theism. Maybe that is incorrect also, please correct me and I will be enlightened.

I will concede the point on witches. Barbaric, indefensible and as far as I can tell, religion drove it. Good example. The crusades were more complicated. Spreading political and military influence in the Mediterranean scared European governments. There was more behind that war than religion.

I am defending theism, not specific religions. I will acknowledge that there are specific religious beliefs or assertions that I find repulsive. I don't blame atheism for Stalin. You should not blame theism for the failings of specific religions.

Well, we agree on one thing. It could be worse.

This is a tough area for me. As a theist with a strong respect for life I am opposed to the taking of another life for any reason. I don't support capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion, or like actions. Sorry, I do believe in things, I do believe that life is precious, and I have a hard time drawing arbitrary dividing lines for convenience. It is the facility with which some atheists (I accuse no one on these forums) move to justification on some of these issues that makes me uncomfortable with the ideology.

If you wish to present a western country as a 'great atheist society' I'm not likely to accept it. There are almost no western societies that are not Christian based. Now it's true they are trending away from Christianity but atheism didn't do the spade work.

Look into history and find some sterling atheist examples with a track record of a few hundred years or at least a few generations.

Also, the correlation you point to may not be such a great basis for assuming causation. Much remains to be seen.

I had another thought on the good of religion. Its personal but I will put it in here. I give to charity, a percentage of my income. I do that as a result of theistic and religious reasons. If I were an atheist, I do not think I would. Why should I? That is a small example, but it has an affect on the world. Is that without meaning? I am not saying that an atheist couldn't do it. I am saying that religion motivates it in people who otherwise might not. Doesn't that count?

One last post for awhile.

I was looking over my posts and I would like to retract the "idiot" comment with an apology. It was not the way I want to communicate.

I'm forever curious why anyone thinks the case for atheism is stronger if they can minimize and obfuscate the state sponsered policy of atheism in the Soviet Union. It really is the only semi-western experiment in atheist statehood and it was a resounding affront to humanity. The trickle down failure is still evident. Building paradise on Earth is not so easy.

Speaking for the few CHristians I am close to, there is next to zero chance this bit of dogma will influence any facet of your relationship with them. You are, IMHO, overreacting.

this seems to be the only accurate statement in the hodge podge of ideas you through out. i certainly do enjoy ridiculing religion. ^_^

There is no atheist bible with specific atheist laws so atheist statehood is just your own arbitrary definition of a governing system that outlaws religion, and I don't think you will find any here that agree with it. Atheism is not dogmatic, as it is not a set belief.

The abrahamic faiths on the other hand, have specific archaic rulebooks to follow and a belief system that must be adhered to.

See the difference?

Semantic slight-of-hand.