Positive Atheism?

[Mirdath]

I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Catholic say “The Devil made me do it.” So I’d say in practice Catholics don’t shift the blame, and that’s why they go to confession … to confess *their *sins, not the devil’s or someone else’s.

At any rate, that’s one of the positive things about Catholicism … we own up to our faults.

I have heard Catholics use that rationalization for lust I gave as an example. Not exactly ‘devil made me do it’, but it’s bad enough.

If that is so, what are you doing here at Catholic Answers?

I was brought up to be extremely strictly Catholic; I’m not one now, but I don’t understand the mindset – and what I don’t understand, I’m usually curious about. Also the internet is open ground, and debate is fun

You see, I think that when an atheist shows up here, he is looking for something. Maybe he doesn’t know it’s God he’s looking for. But just the effort he makes here signals some lack in his life that can only be fulfilled by searching at Catholic Answers. If he was content without faith, why would he waste his time at Catholic Answers?

To provide a foil for you guys so you don’t break your arms patting each other on the back, of course

Seriously, I’m here to learn (and hopefully do some good for other people as well by talking about my viewpoint, dispelling myths about non-Catholics, etc.) but not to convert.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

Seriously, I’m here to learn (and hopefully do some good for other people as well by talking about my viewpoint, dispelling myths about non-Catholics…

Such as?

 

[Valke2]

Valke2

You could argue that atheism allows for one choosing to make this world a better place without the threat of condeming anyone to eternal hell, and out of motives that arise from something other than the false promise of a better life in the next world.

Or you could argue that atheism condemns us to eternal nothingness, with no assurance that our lives have any meaning beyond the creature comforts we share with other animals. Is that positive?

*Or that an atheist is not shackled with unsupportable dogma that allow one to believe that they are doing God’s work and that other’s are acting against God. *

Or that an atheist is shackled with the unsupportable dogma that he is somehow morally and intellectually superior to those who do God’s work (a view routinely expressed in the writings of virtually all of the worlds most famous atheists) including Richard Dawkins.

That an athiest is not given a set of irrational (in that they cannot be support by logic) beliefs which permit or require one to kill those that do not share his or her beliefs.

Or that an atheist views that right and wrong are whatever he says they are, which means he can define good as evil and evil as good and not be accountable to any higher law than his own indomitable ego … for examples … Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc.

These so-called “positives” are offset by numerous negatives.
For example, the view that one can be truly kindly as an atheist but brutal as a theist is contradicted by the fact that theists give generously of their time and labor to help others. What evidence is there that atheism produces the same kind of dedication to helping the poor, tending to the sick, visiting the imprisoned, etc. Indeed, where is it found in atheism as such that these things are at the “positive” heart of atheism?

An atheist, like a religious person, can choose to commit evil acts. We don’t need to rehash the history to agree on that. But there was no overriding religious dogma which compelled Hitler or Stalin to do what they did. The same can not be said for those who walk into cafes loaded with explosives or fly planes into buildings.

 

[Mirdath]

Such as?

Why are you questioning my motives anyway?

In answer to your question, here’s a few I’ve run into recently on these boards (and trust me, there’re many, many more):

• non-theists must be moral relativists
• everyone, deep down, has faith in some kind of deity
• an atheist is always a moral arbiter unto himself
• life without faith is meaningless and depressing
• non-theism is only embraced by people who want license for immoral acts

None of the above are remotely true.

 

[Suat]

If I focus soley on the negatives it’s because I’m having trouble finding the positives. That’s what this thread is about … finding the positives.

Yet you were presented with positives and chose to disregard them.

Yes, there are negatives in atheism, just like there are negatives in theism. If you presented a list of positives that you have for theism, I could probably find a negative for each point. It it all about what you chose to focus on.

Atheism simply says “No god.” It doesn’t say anything else because it doesn’t have to. After saying “No god” each atheist is allowed to make up his own positives and negatives according to his own whims, with no ultimate authority to which he is accountable but his own indomitable ego.

I love my indomitable ego . <---- Positive?

That in itself seems to me an insurmountable Negative. How does any society get along with any kind of a moral code honored by its members when, if every member of that society was an atheist, it would be impossible to agree upon any moral code?

Why this assumption that those without a belief in God must be immoral?

Or, more likely, the moral code that would be agreed upon would be the moral code that was rammed down their throats by the strongest and most dominating of them all.

Strange, I am an atheist and I disagree with doing this. More amusing, I find that the Christians are more than willing to ram their moral code down your throat. Is it alright in this case? People in general are power hungry. Very few groups will not take advantage of being in control to push their own view of the world. This holds for people of all religious or philosophical points of view.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Valke2

But there was no overriding religious dogma which compelled Hitler or Stalin to do what they did.

Exactly my point. They were both atheists (not to mention Mao) who committed far greater atrocities than flying airplanes into buildings.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

*In answer to your question, here’s a few I’ve run into recently on these boards (and trust me, there’re many, many more):

• non-theists must be moral relativists
• everyone, deep down, has faith in some kind of deity
• an atheist is always a moral arbiter unto himself
• life without faith is meaningless and depressing
• non-theism is only embraced by people who want license for immoral acts

None of the above are remotely true*.

All of them are true, but some of them are more true than others, depending on the atheist. And I trust you, there are other reason people are atheists. Those other reasons also are not myths.

The singular myth of atheism I am most acquainted with (usually argued by the atheists themselves) is that atheists are atheists because they see no evidence for the existence of God. Believe me, that is about the last and least important reason that atheists are atheists.

 

[Mirdath]

Exactly my point. They were both atheists (not to mention Mao) who committed far greater atrocities than flying airplanes into buildings.

Hitler professed to be religious, actually. He may not have meant it very much but he was in fact nominally Catholic. I realize you guys don’t want him but if you would rather not invoke Godwin’s Law it’s fine by me – just don’t try to pawn him off on the non-theists.

Speaking of, please let’s not let this get into a ‘your side’s done more damage than my side’ contest. I’ve been there before and all it does is raise tempers.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Suat

Why this assumption that those without a belief in God must be immoral?

No such assumption was stated or implied.

What was said is that you have no way of building a moral code that men can agree upon if you have no religious authority to endorse it. Obviously Hitler and Stalin did not believe in God. There was therefore no way to reach either of them with a moral code that has dominated western civilization for two thousand years. And it’s interesting, isn’t it, that the Judeo-Christian civilizations that produced that moral code were the first and paramount victims of atheism on the rampage in the 20th century?

Originally Posted by Gilbert Keith forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Or, more likely, the moral code that would be agreed upon would be the moral code that was rammed down their throats by the strongest and most dominating of them all.

You answered
Strange, I am an atheist and I disagree with doing this.

Why would you find it strange? Don’t you recognize Hitler and Stalin as two atheists who rammed their moral code (it’s o.k. to kill theists … Jews and Christians) down everybody’s throat?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

Well, I know it’s tough for you to hear it, but Hitler vowed to destroy Christianity and Judaism immediately after his ascension to power. This is pretty well documented by historians who are familiar with what he told his inner circle. Whatever he said before he became Dictator was only to ingratiate himself with the public and throw them off his scent.

There is a famous photo of Hitler admiring a bust of Nietzsche at the dedication of the Nietzsche Archives. What would a theist be doing honoring the memorial to an atheist?

The most insulting thing you can imply or say to any Catholic Christian is that Hitler was a follower of Christ.

So let’s do tone down the rhetoric … what say you?

 

[Suat]

What was said is that you have no way of building a moral code that men can agree upon if you have no religious authority to endorse it.

But people have agreed upon moral codes regardless of whether or not they believed in high beings.

Obviously Hitler and Stalin did not believe in God.

Never read Mein Kampf, have you? That is ok, I will let you borrow my copy . Hitler believed in God.

There was therefore no way to reach either of them with a moral code that has dominated western civilization for two thousand years.

Maybe because they were both insane extremists?

And it’s interesting, isn’t it, that the Judeo-Christian civilizations that produced that moral code were the first and paramount victims of atheism on the rampage in the 20th century?

Judeo-Christians were not the first people to produce moral codes. Nor were the morals codes that they did come up with deviate in any significant manner from previous moral codes.

Why would you find it strange?

I do not believe that the majority is always correct on matters of morals. Therefore, I am again tyranny of the majority, especially if it involved exploitation of a minority.

Don’t you recognize Hitler and Stalin as two atheists who rammed their moral code (it’s o.k. to kill theists … Jews and Christians) down everybody’s throat?

Again, Hitler was not an atheist. Whether or not you want to accept him as a Christian, his actions were perpetrated in your God’s name. Stalin also perpetrated atrocities, happy? I do not think that religion or the lack thereof is sufficient basis to determine the moral code of that person.

 

[Mirdath]

All of them are true, but some of them are more true than others, depending on the atheist. And I trust you, there are other reason people are atheists. Those other reasons also are not myths.

The first one is provably false. I am a non-theist; I am also a moral absolutist. So much for that.

The second cannot be proven either way, but I hold that it is false – again, because of my own personal beliefs.

The third is false. Atheists do not always determine their own morality; they may choose to base it on the social contract, the Categorical Imperative, or something else entirely (those two are my personal favorites, along with Jesus’ second core teaching of ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’).

The fourth is false. My life has plenty of meaning and my outlook is (potentially ridiculously) optimistic, although I profess no faith in a deity. I am here to live well, to serve others, and generally try to make the world better for having contained me. I require no belief that I’m only here in passing on the way to eternal bliss or torment – in fact, that seems to me to be a far less meaningful life.

And the fifth is false. I embraced non-theism not out of distaste for the rules of morality set by religion or a desire to break them and ‘get away with it’, but because I realized I lacked the capacity for faith in divinity. Saying it’s otherwise is laughable if one looks even a little under the surface – one could disobey the rule and remain in the religion and be better off, morally speaking.

Let me see those other reasons and I’ll tell you how accurate and universal they are.

The singular myth of atheism I am most acquainted with (usually argued by the atheists themselves) is that atheists are atheists because they see no evidence for the existence of God. Believe me, that is about the last and least important reason that atheists are atheists.

You’re not speaking from experience. I am. The lack of evidence for the existence of a god or gods is the primary reason I am a strong agnostic.

Well, I know it’s tough for you to hear it, but Hitler vowed to destroy Christianity and Judaism immediately after his ascension to power. This is pretty well documented by historians who are familiar with what he told his inner circle. Whatever he said before he became Dictator was only to ingratiate himself with the public and throw them off his scent.

Actually, he told one of his generals, Gerhard Engel, that ‘I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so’ in 1941 – not to mention the quotes from Mein Kampf Suat brought up. Generals aren’t the public.

There is a famous photo of Hitler admiring a bust of Nietzsche at the dedication of the Nietzsche Archives. What would a theist be doing honoring the memorial to an atheist?

Because the theist’s regime had carefully chosen quotes of the atheist’s out of context to further their goals. Nietzsche was strongly pro-Semitic, but his sister, a Nazi, compiled selected bits of his writings against his wishes into Der Wille Zur Macht which was essentially Nazi propaganda.

The most insulting thing you can imply or say to any Catholic Christian is that Hitler was a follower of Christ.

I’m sorry if you feel insulted, but it is true. Insane theists do exist, as do insane atheists; madness does not discriminate. Want to just drop the subject of Hitler now? We don’t want him, you don’t want him, let’s let the lesson remain and forget the man.

So let’s do tone down the rhetoric … what say you?

You first, I’m willing

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath/Suat

I’m sorry if you feel insulted, but it is true. Insane theists do exist, as do insane atheists; madness does not discriminate. Want to just drop the subject of Hitler now? We don’t want him, you don’t want him, let’s let the lesson remain and forget the man.

It is insulting because you try to perpetuate the lie that Hitler was a Catholic. What he said in Mein Kampf was clearly to throw Germans off his scent as an atheist. His well-known later admiration for Nietzsche should have been proof enough for that … to you as well as anyone else. Yet you sidestep the point about Nietzsche … apparently you have no reasonable answer to give that Hitler could not be a Catholic and a devotee of Nietzsche (the “God is dead” philosopher) at the same time. Too bad you have to pick and choose the answers you give to make Hitler out to be a Catholic.

The following quote is from a conversation with Hitler recorded soon after his rise to power (1932).

“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.” Adolf Hitler

Yes, there are insane atheists too. Nietzsche was one. So was Hitler. So was Stalin. So was Mao. Sufficient proof that organized atheism has no cause to brag about its moral superiority to organized religion.

“If the world is so bad with religion, what would it be like without religion?” Benjamin Franklin

You both need to learn some more history and not just ditto false facts you get from atheist propaganda web sites.

What Martin Niemöller said, a Lutheran pastor in Germany who spent several years in one of Hitler’s concentration camps, appears in the Congressional Record, 14, October 1968, page 31636:

When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned.

If you want to continue this debate, fine. I’m willing to … but the thread is supposed to be about positive atheism. I’m still waiting to hear all the joyful good news atheism has to bring the world.

 

[Jake_Ellison]

Mirdath/Suat

I’m sorry if you feel insulted, but it is true. Insane theists do exist, as do insane atheists; madness does not discriminate. Want to just drop the subject of Hitler now? We don’t want him, you don’t want him, let’s let the lesson remain and forget the man.

It is insulting because you try to perpetuate the lie that Hitler was a Catholic. What he said in Mein Kampf was clearly to throw Germans off his scent as an atheist. His well-known later admiration for Nietzsche should have been proof enough for that … to you as well as anyone else. Yet you sidestep the point about Nietzsche … apparently you have no reasonable answer to give that Hitler could not be a Catholic and a devotee of Nietzsche (the “God is dead” philosopher) at the same time. Too bad you have to pick and choose the answers you give to make Hitler out to be a Catholic.

The following quote is from a conversation with Hitler recorded soon after his rise to power (1932).

“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.” Adolf Hitler

Yes, there are insane atheists too. Nietzsche was one. So was Hitler. So was Stalin. So was Mao. Sufficient proof that organized atheism has no cause to brag about its moral superiority to organized religion.

“If the world is so bad with religion, what would it be like without religion?” Benjamin Franklin

You both need to learn some more history and not just ditto false facts you get from atheist propaganda web sites.

What Martin Niemöller said, a Lutheran pastor in Germany who spent several years in one of Hitler’s concentration camps, appears in the Congressional Record, 14, October 1968, page 31636:

When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned.

If you want to continue this debate, fine. I’m willing to … but the thread is supposed to be about positive atheism. I’m still waiting to hear all the joyful good news atheism has to bring the world.

Hitler was not a Catholic nor were his crimes committed in the name of catholism. He was influenced by Catholisism as a child and many of his ralleys reflect this. Of course to blame the Catholic church for Hitler would be like blaming Darwin for eugenics, it doesn’t hold up.

That doesn’t mean that religon hasn’t done bad things. A lot of the popes have been pretty unreligious people and the crusades is another example. The conflict betwwen Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, Muslim extremeism, the list is long.

As Athism is not an organised religion you will not hear joyful good news from it. If you look at the actions of atheists who have made a positive impact on the world prehaps you can find it yourself. Just because we are less vocal doesn’t mean we don’t care.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Suat

But people have agreed upon moral codes regardless of whether or not they believed in high beings.

They have agreed only because they inherited a common Judeo-Christian moral code. As that code is challenged and knocked down by atheists, what code will replace it?

The code of men marrying men, of abortion and euthanasia being encouraged by law?

Hitler believed in God.

He lied.

Judeo-Christians were not the first people to produce moral codes. Nor were the morals codes that they did come up with deviate in any significant manner from previous moral codes.

Evidently you have never read the Gospels.

I do not believe that the majority is always correct on matters of morals. Therefore, I am again tyranny of the majority, especially if it involved exploitation of a minority.

Agreed. Jesus was a minority of one. He came to admonish the majority who had learned to mock God.

 

[Suat]

If you want to continue this debate, fine. I’m willing to … but the thread is supposed to be about positive atheism. I’m still waiting to hear all the joyful good news atheism has to bring the world.

But you do not care about positive atheism. Each and every time someone brings up a positive point about atheism, you resort to cheap attacks. You brough up Stalin, Hitler, Mao and tried to say that they were all acting as in the name of organized atheism. Not very honest on your part. Especially considering that the evidence shows that Hitler, regardless of whether we agree that he was an atheist or a theist, used religion as a justification for his evil.

How is it possible to have an honest discussion when one side just says “Evil Person was an atheist, therefore atheism is evil.” It is not. Many evil people have used religion to their own ends, does that mean that religion is evil? No. Nor does it mean that atheism is evil just because some atheists were evil.

 

[Mirdath]

Yet you sidestep the point about Nietzsche … apparently you have no reasonable answer to give that Hitler could not be a Catholic and a devotee of Nietzsche (the “God is dead” philosopher) at the same time.

I admired Nietzsche greatly when I was a Catholic. I didn’t buy into the ‘God is dead’ part, but that’s only one of many, many things he said even in Zarathustra alone. Another quote from there is after a tightrope walker falls: Zarathustra says to the man as he is dying, ‘Your enemy is my enemy. He is the spirit of gravity, because of him all things fall. Come, let us kill the spirit of gravity!’ Zarathustra’s foe, of course, is not Newtonian physics, but misplaced seriousness. And there are hundreds, if not thousands, of aphorisms in his other works that are well worth consideration.

Yes, there are insane atheists too. Nietzsche was one. So was Hitler. So was Stalin. So was Mao. Sufficient proof that organized atheism has no cause to brag about its moral superiority to organized religion.

I’d stop short of calling Nietzsche insane. But should a few lunatics so tarnish the standing of a school of thought? Pot, meet kettle.

You both need to learn some more history and not just ditto false facts you get from atheist propaganda web sites.

Actually I got that quote from about.com, which is annoyingly designed but hardly ‘atheist propaganda’. I’m quite well-educated with regard to history, thanks.

When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned.

Are not lunatics at least as much a danger to themselves and their own as much as to others?

If you want to continue this debate, fine. I’m willing to … but the thread is supposed to be about positive atheism. I’m still waiting to hear all the joyful good news atheism has to bring the world.

I’ve been telling you all along, but you haven’t listened. Here, the Gospel of Non-Theism:
me!:

The primary one, though, is accountability: there’s no God to credit for your good, no Devil to blame for your evil. You’re there, you’re wholly responsible for your actions, and you’re not going to be able to shrug off the consequences, both good and bad. Realizing that tends to make people a lot more aware of what they do, and more likely to think harder about the consequences before acting.

me!:

There’s the personal accountability I mentioned above. There’s realizing that if you do good, it’s not because you’re afraid of what will happen to you if you don’t do good but because you have that good within you. Instead of faith in God, there’s faith in people, the belief that as a society we try to generally improve ourselves. There’s no fear that demons are tearing at your heels constantly, trying to drag you down with them. And there’s the knowledge that this time on earth is all we have, so we might as well make the best of it in the face of a universe that could do as well without us as with us. We’re here, we’re pretty awesome, so let’s go!

me!:

The message is we can do better and become more perfect if only we try.

me!:

My life has plenty of meaning and my outlook is (potentially ridiculously) optimistic, although I profess no faith in a deity. I am here to live well, to serve others, and generally try to make the world better for having contained me. I require no belief that I’m only here in passing on the way to eternal bliss or torment – in fact, that seems to me to be a far less meaningful life.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Jake,

As Athism is not an organised religion you will not hear joyful good news from it. If you look at the actions of atheists who have made a positive impact on the world prehaps you can find it yourself. Just because we are less vocal doesn’t mean we don’t care.

True, atheism is not an organized religion. Yet it is a philosophy which many hold to. When these same atheists brag that they are a force for good and optimism in the world, as most atheists claim (if you don’t believe it, check any atheist web site or read any atheist’s writings) they have an obligation to document their claim.

I’m waiting for the documentation. How does atheism bring joy and optimism to our lives? How does it affirm positive values? What values does it affirm that Christianity has not already affirmed and passed on to the atheists born into a Christian culture?

And by the way, atheism is most certainly organized. Look at the American Humanist Association. Look at the ACLU, which has been largely dominated by agnostics and atheists. There are many atheist web sites that are rallying places for atheists to hang out and develop a muscular sense of their growing power in America.

Atheism is certainly much more organized than it was a hundred years ago, much bolder and more outspoken, wouldn’t you say? Under Stalin it was extremely well organized, to the point of denying Communist Party membership to anyone but atheists.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Suat

You brough up Stalin, Hitler, Mao and tried to say that they were all acting as in the name of organized atheism.

I never said any such thing. I said they were atheists who organized the persecutions of religions. This is a fact. Why do you try to rewrite history?

How is it possible to have an honest discussion when one side just says “Evil Person was an atheist, therefore atheism is evil.”

I never said this. You are being dishonest by putting these words into my mouth.Calm down and behave yourself.

Nor does it mean that atheism is evil just because some atheists were evil.

Now that’s interesting, because most atheists say just the opposite about Christianity, that it is evil because so many Christians have been evil. Read Bertrand Russell, for example, “Why I Am Not a Christian,” or any of Mencken’s hateful essays against Christianity.

I never said that all atheists are evil. You must finally admit I never said that. Go back a few posts. What I said is that atheism provides for no moral framework in which an absolute authority can be invoked against human atrocities. Consequently, FRanklin’s question becomes all the more relevant.

“If the world is so bad with religion, what would it be like without religion?”

We found out in the 20th Century, didn’t we?

 

[Jake_Ellison]

Jake,

As Athism is not an organised religion you will not hear joyful good news from it. If you look at the actions of atheists who have made a positive impact on the world prehaps you can find it yourself. Just because we are less vocal doesn’t mean we don’t care.

True, atheism is not an organized religion. Yet it is a philosophy which many hold to. When these same atheists brag that they are a force for good and optimism in the world, as most atheists claim (if you don’t believe it, check any atheist web site or read any atheist’s writings) they have an obligation to document their claim.

I’m waiting for the documentation. How does atheism bring joy and optimism to our lives? How does it affirm positive values? What values does it affirm that Christianity has not already affirmed and passed on to the atheists born into a Christian culture?

And by the way, atheism is most certainly organized. Look at the American Humanist Association. Look at the ACLU, which has been largely dominated by agnostics and atheists. There are many atheist web sites that are rallying places for atheists to hang out and develop a muscular sense of their growing power in America.

Atheism is certainly much more organized than it was a hundred years ago, much bolder and more outspoken, wouldn’t you say? Under Stalin it was extremely well organized, to the point of denying Communist Party membership to anyone but atheists.

I’m not saying there arn’t atheists that havn’t organised themselves into spesific atheistic group, but religion is certainly more organised.

Anyway, just like religion is varied, atheism is even more varied because an atheist doesn’t follow a particular path, he chooses (with imput from others i.e. upbringing, culture) his own.

I am opposed to the abolision of religion. I don’t think it is a cause worth struggling for. It doens’t bother me that people are religious, it would only bother me if religion was imposed on me. I agree with a lot of the moral teachings of Christianity. However, my countries laws does not oblige me not to use contraception or not to eat meat on a friday, so the fact religion exists is not a problem because I don’t follow the religious laws I don’t agree with.

I do not agree that atheism is a force for good and optimism in the world. I don’t think religion is either. I think people can be. It’s people from both relgious and atheistic backgrounds doing good in the world that give us cause to be optimistic.