A World without Religion?

[BrassAnkles]

Well, to be fair, I don’t think that’s what Bradski said. He does have a point though, belief in God does not equal morality. That’s a fact, however we may feel uncomfortable with it.

I would like to see those facts honestly.

As far as I can tell atheists promote bloodshed much more than Christians. For example the wars and political purges in the last century account for more deaths than all other wars combined, around 100,000 million.

Taking into account abortion which was promoted by atheist socialist racist Margaret Sanger and has been embraced by godless and socialist political systems and the number climbs to almost 1 billion in the last century only.

There is no other ideological system that has directly caused the destruction of more human lives than Atheism and as such there is no point in comparing it to any other ideological system because they would be statistical insignificant in terms of human lives affected.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I would like to see those facts honestly.

It is a fact. I didn’t say that atheists are any better.

As far as I can tell atheists promote bloodshed much more than Christians. For example the wars and political purges in the last century account for more deaths than all other wars combined, around 100,000 million.

Agreed, that is also true (you got the number wrong by a few zeros though). Except that it would be a stretch to call Hitler an atheist. On the other hand, to say that the Sovjet regime and others were just a sort of ‘religion’, and that their atrocities had nothing to do with their particular implemention of atheism is silly as well – it is more than silly, it is idiotic. That was one of the (many) fundamental mistakes in Richard Dawkins’s book The God Delusion: he compared atheism in theory with Christianity and other religions in practice. Fortunately, some fellow atheists called him out on that and other mistakes in that risibly amateurish book, and one of them, philosopher Michael Ruse, even said “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist”. Good for him.

Having said all that, of course there are atheists who are quite moral and decent persons.

Taking into account abortion which was promoted by atheist socialist racist Margaret Sanger and has been embraced by godless and socialist political systems and the number climbs to almost 1 billion in the last century only.

Now you are exaggerating. You think we would not have abortion were it not for some atheists? You cannot be serious.

There is no other ideological system that has directly caused the destruction of more human lives than Atheism and as such there is no point in comparing it to any other ideological system because they would be statistical insignificant in terms of human lives affected.

Only problem with that statement: atheism as such is not an ideological system.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Having said all that, of course there are atheists who are quite moral and decent persons.

I take it then you disagree with Psalms 14:1

The fool says in his heart,“There is no God.” Their deeds are loathsome and corrupt; not one does what is good.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I take it then you disagree with Psalms 14:1

The fool says in his heart,“There is no God.” Their deeds are loathsome and corrupt; not one does what is good.

I said “quite moral and decent” – it doesn’t apply to all of the moral code that we accept (and honestly, we aren’t that good at implementing it either, sinners that we all are). Also, I believe that the moral code of atheists borrows quite a bit from their surroundings. For example, a friend of mine who is an atheist and a decent person says that he is glad to live in a Christian society.

 

[Al_Moritz]

And by the way, also so-called ‘secular’ or ‘secularized’ societies in the Western world still hold on to vestiges of Christian moral code from their past, even though practical belief in God may be scarce by now in these societies. In other words, these civilized but secular societies are probably unthinkable without their Christian past.

 

[BrassAnkles]

Only problem with that statement: atheism as such is not an ideological system.

Atheism is an ideological/belief system according many if not most philosophers (excluding most atheist ones obviously given the conflict of interest)

Dr. Julian Baggini :

“Atheism had its origins in Ancient Greece but did not emerge as an overt and avowed belief system until late in the Enlightenment.”

books.google.com.do/books?id=N2LkoqtWx_EC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=%22Atheism+had+its+origins+in+Ancient+Greece+but+did+not+emerge+as+an+overt+and+avowed+belief+system+until+late+in+the+Enlightenment.%22&source=bl&ots=ATRL6nhQkY&sig=sVSsHNPeFlkXQYX6gnX4hJ7Eqtc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EAufVLqqENHpgwTRyIPYCw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Atheism%20had%20its%20origins%20in%20Ancient%20Greece%20but%20did%20not%20emerge%20as%20an%20overt%20and%20avowed%20belief%20system%20until%20late%20in%20the%20Enlightenment.%22&f=false

“Atheism” from Merriam Webster:

“Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems.”

“Atheism” from the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy:

“Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none.”

oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199541430.001.0001/acref-9780199541430-e-278?rskey=fRvLp6&result=279

Agreed, that is also true (you got the number wrong by a few zeros though). Except that it would be a stretch to call Hitler an atheist. On the other hand, to say that the Sovjet regime and others were just a sort of ‘religion’, and that their atrocities had nothing to do with their particular implemention of atheism is silly as well – it is more than silly, it is idiotic.

There are various scholarly sources out there. The deaths range from 60 million to 148 million due to Stalin and Mao.

wnd.com/2005/11/33619/

Whateer the real number is this does not undermine my statement that atheism as an ideological system is the most dangerous the world has known.

I agree many an atheist would not classify Hitler as an Atheist, after all he was raised somewhat Catholic and negotiated the Concordat. However, this was only a ruse to wean Germans from their closely held religious beliefs and this was apparent in Hitler’s private comments and his treatment of the Catholic Church. Also, the German economic and political model was decidedly socialist, which of course is opposed to a deity in principal as the state cannot play second fiddle to anyone. Atheists are the first to disagree of course with this assertion but a quick comparison to Nazi Germany and current day China clearly show very similar political and economic structures.

Now you are exaggerating. You think we would not have abortion were it not for some atheists? You cannot be serious.

It is a historical fact that atheists promoted abortion and still do worldwide via the UN. This was all started by Margaret Sanger, an avowed atheist. Currently the largest promoters of abortion are the Planned Parenthood, the International Planned Parenthood, the UN and the US. On the contrary the largest defenders of human life is the Catholic Church and this is where governments have formal agreements with the Church or have a majority Catholic population and as such abortions rates are the lowest in the world. Latin America where I live is the prime example. Nonetheless, the atheists promote abortion every chance they get here through the UN, US and the International Planned Parenthood.

BTW, any illegal abortion statistics outside of the US you might present from the Guttmacher Institute, the Planned Parenthoods sister organization, would be considered suspect and can be easily refuted based on their very poor scholarship, if one can even call it that.

 

[Birdpreacher]

I am looking forward to the abandonment of fairy tales and embracing of humanism that is underway.

 

[BrassAnkles]

I am looking forward to the abandonment of fairy tales and embracing of humanism that is underway.

Since when is humanism and homicide compatible?

 

[Birdpreacher]

Is there a particular homicide that has you upset that you blame humanism for?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Atheism is an ideological/belief system according many if not most philosophers (excluding most atheist ones obviously given the conflict of interest)

Dr. Julian Baggini :

“Atheism had its origins in Ancient Greece but did not emerge as an overt and avowed belief system until late in the Enlightenment.”

books.google.com.do/books?id=N2LkoqtWx_EC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=%22Atheism+had+its+origins+in+Ancient+Greece+but+did+not+emerge+as+an+overt+and+avowed+belief+system+until+late+in+the+Enlightenment.%22&source=bl&ots=ATRL6nhQkY&sig=sVSsHNPeFlkXQYX6gnX4hJ7Eqtc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EAufVLqqENHpgwTRyIPYCw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Atheism%20had%20its%20origins%20in%20Ancient%20Greece%20but%20did%20not%20emerge%20as%20an%20overt%20and%20avowed%20belief%20system%20until%20late%20in%20the%20Enlightenment.%22&f=false

“Atheism” from Merriam Webster:

“Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems.”

“Atheism” from the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy:

“Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none.”

oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199541430.001.0001/acref-9780199541430-e-278?rskey=fRvLp6&result=279

Yes, atheism is a belief, but it is not an ideological system.

By the way, many atheists say they have no belief, just a lack of belief. To which I say, bullsh*t. Practically all atheists that I have encountered are naturalists, and naturalism is a positive belief and claim, subject to the same burden of proof that many atheists want to evade with their “lack of belief” shtick.

 

[Al_Moritz]

There are various scholarly sources out there. The deaths range from 60 million to 148 million due to Stalin and Mao.

wnd.com/2005/11/33619/

Probably closer to the higher number, but not “100,000 million”. Anyway, while I think the number range you cite is in the ballpark, I don’t usually consider World Nut Daily a reliable source.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Only problem with that statement: atheism as such is not an ideological system.

Atheism certainly is an ideology, since the belief in atheism is fervently shared by many advocates, though the extent to which atheism is a system is very limited by its negative thrust rather than by any positive thrust. There are advocates of “positive atheism.” but that ideology is not very convincing and seems more like whistling in the dark. Atheism is defined more by what it does not believe in rather than by what it does believe in. It is religious only on the sense that it seeks to replace the Supreme Being with a Supreme Nothingness that all atheists seem to revere with a kind of fanatical commitment and no proof whatever that Nothingness is where we are all ultimately headed. The vigor of modern atheism, judging by the piety of its foremost advocates, easily rivals the religiosity of Catholicism in the Middle Ages.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Atheism certainly is an ideology, since the belief in atheism is fervently shared by many advocates, though the extent to which atheism is a system is very limited by its negative thrust rather than by any positive thrust. There are advocates of “positive atheism.” but that ideology is not very convincing and seems more like whistling in the dark. Atheism is defined more by what it does not believe in rather than by what it does believe in. It is religious only on the sense that it seeks to replace the Supreme Being with a Supreme Nothingness that all atheists seem to revere with a kind of fanatical commitment and no proof whatever that Nothingness is where we are all ultimately headed.

Not sure if I buy into that. On the other hand:

The vigor of modern atheism, judging by the piety of its foremost advocates, easily rivals the religiosity of Catholicism in the Middle Ages.

To put it mildly, yes.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Not sure if I buy into that.

To put it mildly, yes.

LOL when is the next atheist crusade? Atheist witch trials? Militant atheists are at coffee shops and arguing in chatrooms, not committing acts of violence, which is more than I can say for medieval christians in their time.

 

[John_of_Woking]

LOL when is the next atheist crusade? Atheist witch trials? Militant atheists are at coffee shops and arguing in chatrooms, not committing acts of violence, which is more than I can say for medieval christians in their time.

Right next time to you go to North Korea send me a postcard

 

[Birdpreacher]

Right next time to you go to North Korea send me a postcard

Yes because all athesists subscribe to each and every view of North Korea just like all Christians subscribe to the views of Westboro Baptist Church?

Atheists in a free society are not the ones to be worried about stockpiling guns in a compound, thats the guys getting life advice from a thousand year old book.

 

[DrTaffy]

Yes, atheism is a belief, but it is not an ideological system.

By the way, many atheists say they have no belief, just a lack of belief. To which I say, bullsh*t. Practically all atheists that I have encountered are naturalists, and naturalism is a positive belief and claim, subject to the same burden of proof that many atheists want to evade with their “lack of belief” shtick.

Atheism is a lack of a belief. That doesn’t mean that atheists have no beliefs - everyone believes something - but portraying lack of belief in a God as a belief is a fundamental error.

Naturalism is a belief, on the other hand. The fact that many atheists are also naturalists (debateable depending on how tightly you define ‘naturalist’) does not invalidate my first paragraph.

Atheism is a quality that a belief system may posses, but neither a belief nor an entire belief system per se. Theism is also not a belief system, but is both a belief and a quality that a belief system may posses.

Maoism may be a belief system that is atheist, but why should western liberal secular atheists accept any more guilt for atheist Mao’s crimes than Catholics accept for the crimes of theist ISIS?

Ask yourself this question. Are the evils committed because of Catholicism or in spite of it? If it is in spite of it why blame the Church for what it never taught? If it is because of it, can you tell which teaching of the Catholic church endorses it? Proof is on you.

Likewise, did Mao commit his evil because of his lack of belief in a God? If not, why blame atheism for it. If so, prove it.

After all, what do I have in common with Mao? Lack of one particular belief, sure, but also lack of a moustache. Should all non-moustached people feel guilty for his crimes? Should all moustached people feel guilty for Stalin and Hitler’s crimes? :ehh:

Do you feel guilty for the Jonestown massacre, or the Aztec human sacrifices, or the actions of the Taliban, the Westboro Baptists, ISIS or for that matter Satanists? At least you have an actual postive belief in common with them all, as opposed to the lack of something.

 

[John_of_Woking]

With respect I was pointing out your factually incorrect assertion that militant atheists are not committing acts of violence.

 

[Kaninchen]

It’s people who really, really do know what the answer to everything is that you have to worry about and they can be religious or atheist.

 

[Birdpreacher]

With respect I was pointing out your factually incorrect assertion that militant atheists are not committing acts of violence.

Name a militant atheist organization that is not a State, that advocates violence.

-Surely you agree that North Korea is not committing acts of violence for the sole reason of asserting that GOd does not exist. All of their violence is motivated by main desire to keep power within the territory claimed by the State of North Korea. THink the Papal States and all the Popes who killed people in the wars that ravaged Italy, they fought those wars for political reasons, not theological ones.