New at Reason

|11.21.06 @ 11:22AM|#

A well written, incisive article. I'm an athiest, furthermore I believe that religion = superstition. But, whatever floats your boat is OK by me.

Ashish George|11.21.06 @ 11:24AM|#

Shorter Cathy Young*: Group A has its peculiar excesses, and Group B has plenty of its own. The happy middle is in Group C, where I and my bland a-pox-on-both-their-houses/can't-we-all-get-along compatriots stand tsk-tsking everyone else.

thoreau|11.21.06 @ 11:24AM|#

Prediction: 100+ posts.

Well, since my post helps us inch toward that goal, I should predict 101+ posts.

|11.21.06 @ 11:26AM|#

As an athiest, I ask only two things of believers:

1) Leave me alone &
2) Don't try to turn your beliefs into laws.

ed|11.21.06 @ 11:27AM|#

At lest 100. But how many will say anything meaningful? 0/4 so far...

ron|11.21.06 @ 11:33AM|#

i agree with ashish. i'm getting a little tired of cathy young and her fence-sitting non-articles.

|11.21.06 @ 11:34AM|#

By "survey," I presume you mean "didn't read" because her take is the same cliched "I vaguely heard about what I think they might have said" take on Harris and Dawkins that religious critics have tried to push, but which the books themselves explicitly don't fall into.

And anyone who thinks the Nazis were "non-religious" is, simply put, completely ignorant of Nazism. Ever read "on the Jews and their lies" by Martin Luther? Ever read anything Hitler has said about the Luther, or wondered what the significance of the date the night of glass happened on was? Ever listened to a Hitler speech, or read Nazi religious propaganda or wondered by Nazis were awarded iron crosses?

Give me a break.

|11.21.06 @ 11:37AM|#

I came to do the 'how many times can Cathy Young write the same formulaic article' post only to find that I am not the only one bored by her schtick...

|11.21.06 @ 11:39AM|#

Couple things

Cathy says in the 20th century nonreligious Commun/Nazisim accounted for the most death. Even if you grant the literal nonreligious interpretation of these isms, and it is often not granted in these pages, what about the other 19 centuries?

Furthermore, aetheists have zero, zippy, nil power in America. A socialist gets elected in this country quicker than an admitted aetheist. The religious are, shall we say, overrepresented, in the halls of power in America. This means the topic does not fall readily into Cathy's 'on the one hand, on the other, your both bad' topic template. Within America the balance of power is overwhelmingly in favor of the godly.

|11.21.06 @ 11:46AM|#

There is an article in the NY Times that, among other things, wonders what would happen if children were indoctrinated into science like they are with religion. Instead of fairy tales like the Garden of Eden, they would get the beauty of space and nature. Of course, I wonder where kids will get their first lesson in irrevocable consequences (that's one moral of the adam and eve, right?) and other lessons from the bible. Religion is helpful with questions of purpose in life, NOT how we got here. To suggest otherwise negates the concept of evidence and proof. While I'm OK with absence of evidence in the search for the meaning of life, I am not OK with absence of evidence in, say, biology.

It is true that religion has killed more people over history than atheist creeds, but it is also true that the 20th century saw the rise of atheist atrocities. Why don't we put that in the past, and look to today. All we have is terror in the name of God, the state of Israel, the holy sites. Atheism is dead, and religion is on a goddam rampage right now.

emme|11.21.06 @ 11:50AM|#

"i agree with ashish. i'm getting a little tired of cathy young and her fence-sitting non-articles."

I agree, but I think she's right on in this one. I was a big fan of Dawkins even after reading the God Delusion. But after reading some of the stuff he's spouting on his website he seems downright fascistic. There are much better ways to make atheism more popular.

thoreau|11.21.06 @ 11:52AM|#

There are indeed plenty of situations where you can find idiots on both sides. The problem is that it gets a little old if every column is just another reminder of that fact. Surely she must have some other things that she'd like to say besides a reminder that there are idiots on both sides of most or all contentious social issues.

|11.21.06 @ 11:53AM|#

I think theism/atheism has less to do with the tendency to slaughter "the other" than human nature. The common element in all these atrocities is that they are committed by humans, regardless of philosophy. We're a brutal species.

|11.21.06 @ 11:55AM|#

I am feeling being particularly blunt this morning.
Cathy read the fucking books you criticize. Harris and Dawkins both address your criticism of 20 century totalitarianism coming from ideology. They reject both religion and ideology that is not open to criticism. Rejecting thought that doesn't allow for criticism is the main argument of their books. I just wonder if you have read them. If you have then I can't see how you can make this argument. I had the same complaint about the review of Harris's previous book that was in Reason.

|11.21.06 @ 11:56AM|#

So far, the debates on this subject have generated more heat than light, as both sides preach to the converted and talk at, not to, those who disagree.

Actually, the string of works by atheists have created a lot of light; the mere fact that atheism is on the national stage to a degree is evidence enough of that. Right now, we are living a golden age for atheist thought. It is one of the few times in the history of the West when atheists can speak their minds without overwhelming fear of state or societal retribution. We can't be marginalized like Thomas Paine was. Indeed, perhaps this is the only time. It is a awesome development in the history of liberty. That's really what pisses a lot of theists off IMHO; the mere fact that we can openly speak our mind on the issue. Compare this to the 18th century when hundreds of acres of trees were chopped down in order to fulfill the paper needed for which claimed that "real atheists" didn't exist, etc.

...or non religious (Nazism).

The Nazis were quite religious actually. They had their own religious festivals, their own religious myths, etc. Nazi "occult" belief and practice were central to Nazi ideology. Its a myth to think that the Nazis were non-religious; they were quite religious, they weren't Christians. They wanted to establish a neo-Pagan order allied with a hodge-podge of religious beliefs derived from pre-Christian Europe, etc.

What's more, in the past and at present, religious fanaticism has often served as a vehicle and a cover for other tribal allegiances, such as nationalism.

I reject this sort of reasoning. Its simply not in the records. In other words, the wars of religion in Germany and France were about religion. Now there were other socio-economic issues involved, but religion was center-stage in those sort of conflicts, and the evidence for this is massive.

|11.21.06 @ 11:57AM|#

Cathy,

Could you - or anyone on this board - address the two fundamental issues in this religious debate: For religious people, the question to ask is who created god (or intelligent designer)? Or if there is such a thing, who is the "super" intelligent deesigner that created the intelligent designer? Where is your evidence of g-d? For atheists, the question to ask is, since you don't believe (or fear) god, what keeps you from cheating, lying, harming other people, and what would happen to our society if it were "ruled" by atheists?

These are the most relevants questions in this debate - on each side - that call out for answers.

|11.21.06 @ 12:13PM|#

"what keeps you from cheating, lying, harming other people, and what would happen to our society if it were 'ruled' by atheists."

Moral values. We grow up with them, they are ingrained. God does not have a monopoly on the golden rule.

|11.21.06 @ 12:13PM|#

That's more than two fundamental issues.

|11.21.06 @ 12:13PM|#

Cathy,

Interesting that at no point in the article do you mention the current push by some evangelicals to distance themselves from politics.

Also you don't mention the current splits within the evangelical communities on political issues like environmentalism and poverty.

I'm also don't agree that Islamofanaticism is just a cover for tribal grudges.

Cathy, you're a good writer in a technical sense. Your writing moves and keeps the reader reading. You pick interesting topics and sometimes your even-handedness is a fine thing.

I don't usually share the criticisms of my fellow posters. But a topic with this much relevance deserves far more than 800 words and much more depth. This article comes off as downright glib.

|11.21.06 @ 12:17PM|#

I agree with Aresen. I have no problem with religous people doing what they do as long as they don't try to force me to do it too. I will allow their freedom but I expect them to allow mine. I'm very pro-religion, and I firmly believe the purpose of seperation of church and state is for the benefit of religion not the suppression of. The nativity scene in my neighbor's yard don't bother me one bit. It's his or her yard, I won't tell them what they can and can not do, and I expect the same in return.

I love asking Christians why they fear Islam's attempt to propagate in this country. I like to offer that all Islam wants to do is to put the Koran in our schools, courts, and government institutions. They usually express hatred about that religion trying to do so. Then I point out, that's what the Christian want to do with the Ten Commandments.

Trying to force me to accept or live under any religion is wrong, it does not matter which religion it is.

Corbert had an interesting interview with the Congressman that introduced the bill to display the Ten Commandments. Cobert said he was for having them displayed everywhere and that people should be able to speak them any time they wanted. When the Congressman agreed, Corbert asked him to name some. The Congressman couldn't name four.

Of course few in the debate want to acknowledge the first Commandment. Thou shall have no other gods be fore me. The first Commandment rejects the arguement that it is not embedded in religion.

""""For atheists, the question to ask is, since you don't believe (or fear) god, what keeps you from cheating, lying, harming other people, and what would happen to our society if it were "ruled" by atheists?"""""

There is a fallacy that morals such as not cheating, not lying, or not harming others, was born from Christianity or from God in general. Being ruled by atheists would not change any of it. Humans should respect their fellow human by not harming them, stealing, or destroying their possessions. That is a good humanistic point of view and is absent of religion.

|11.21.06 @ 12:21PM|#

BTW, It is not out of fear of retribution that I refuse to steal, destroy, or kill. I refuse to do it out of respect for my fellow human. I do not need God for that.

|11.21.06 @ 12:23PM|#

Paul Davis,

I really don't see how anyone could claim that the Nazis were non-religious. The ceremonies over those who died in the Beer Hall Putsch are proof enough of the religious nature of the Nazi regime; why otherwise have sacred blood rituals, etc.?

|11.21.06 @ 12:24PM|#

I'll leave aside the issue of how non-religious Nazism was, since others have addressed it. Stalinism certainly was secular.

But all this means is that the set of religions and the set of beliefs that lead to atrocities aren't identical. The former may still be a proper subset of the latter. In that case, atheism would not be sufficient to avoid atrocities, although it would be necessary.

Franklin Harris|11.21.06 @ 12:26PM|#

God does not have a monopoly on the golden rule.

He doesn't even follow it Himself.

And as Spinoza showed, God cannot be the source of morality. Either God (if he exists) has reasons for what he does or he doesn't. If he does, then he is appealing to some external standard when he tells us how to live. Then, of course, that standard is the source of morality, not God himself. If he doesn't, then God is acting capriciously, and morality has no basis other than "might makes right," which is nihilism because God could easily order us to do the opposite.

|11.21.06 @ 12:28PM|#

Can we stop throwing around the "Nazis and Communists were atheists so clearly religion isn't as bad as atheism" fallacy?

Even accepting the Nazis philosophy as a non-religious one and Communism as a non-regligious philosophy, this argument is fallacious unless you can show that the violence of these regimes followed from their atheism. There is no causality here; Stalin did not kill people because he was atheist. Hitler did not start a war because of his non-religiousity. And don't tell me that if they were Godly men that would have restrained their violence either. Godly men have a long and illustrious history of violent regimes and warmaking.

I hate this argument. I don't get how people can make it. Even if it made sense, for every Stalin and Hitler I can point to 10 Inquisitions, 10 ethnic cleansings done in the name of a God.

Atheism never hurt anyone. Atheists have hurt people, but you'd be hard pressed to show that atheism has driven them to do so. On the other hand, theisim hurts millions and millions and millions.

I'll go back and finish the article now.

|11.21.06 @ 12:32PM|#

Communism, where ever it existed, was born from violence and revolution. Power struggles were there from the first day. To suggest that a secular America would have any resemblence whatsoever to communist countries is pure silliness.

|11.21.06 @ 12:35PM|#

For atheists, the question to ask is, since you don't believe (or fear) god, what keeps you from cheating, lying, harming other people?

All societies, no matter what god(s) they believe in have come up with codes of acceptable conduct. Mostly, I think they just add God to give the rules force.

Try reading the Ten commandments while thinking of Moses trying to eliminate the behaviors in his group that were causing dissension and misery. Apart from the first two which deal directly with God, the rest of list addresses things that cause strife.

what would happen to our society if it were "ruled" by atheists?

The same sort of arbitrary rules we deal with now, only without "because God said so" as a justification.

|11.21.06 @ 12:38PM|#

"The same sort of arbitrary rules we deal with now"

Well, I mean, the arbitrary rules of religion are ancient. Secular folks are a bit more modern, no?

|11.21.06 @ 12:39PM|#

I'm an atheist, but I'd still take a bible-thumping moralist over a smug, self-righteous atheist any day.

|11.21.06 @ 12:41PM|#

"I'd still take a bible-thumping moralist over a smug, self-righteous atheist any day."
Take him where?

|11.21.06 @ 12:42PM|#

Not necessarily, Lamar. Anyway, I meant that the ruling class will still impose whatever it wants on everyone else. Secular or religious, that's a constant.

Garth|11.21.06 @ 12:47PM|#

Alvin's twin questions are tired, old hat. Asking for an answer to the first is of no meaning or consequence to people of faith. Anything taken on faith does not require the answering of the question of how or who. Who created god? "I am that I am" was the answer given and is enough for the faith crowd.

The second is simply condescending to atheists: right and wrong are clearly not based on faith since the old books support loads of things that do not pass the test of ethical behavior today (stoning adulterers, slavery, etc.) Atheists contend that it is easier to construct an ethical life without religion than it is with it.

No one ever went on a killing spree for his lack if faith but plenty have from having either too much of it, or even from hearing the voice of god telling them to.

|11.21.06 @ 12:48PM|#

My issue is that religion comes in many forms including modern environmentalism. Just because it doesn't say "God" on the label doesn't make it any less a nonrational belief system. I'm less offended by a creche in the town square than by someone forcing me to recycle.

The simple fact is that human beings are largely nonrational. The humans in charge of any given government will always impose the prevailing nonrational beliefs on the populace. Ergo, the best possible outcome is to limit government's authority as much as possible to preserve the freedom of the one true and perpetual minority... the rational.

|11.21.06 @ 12:50PM|#

alvin,

Please consult the hundreds of philosophers, etc. who have dealt with those issues.

|11.21.06 @ 12:53PM|#

the ruling class will still impose whatever it wants on everyone else

I guess in the U.S. the ruling class consists of the middle class and poor, because they keep imposing their Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare regimes on me. :-)

|11.21.06 @ 1:00PM|#

I do think atheists give religion short-shrift and I am an atheist.

Religion has been a prime motivator for action forever, which means it's going to be responsible for a great many of the bad things that have happened in the world. By the same token it's also responsible for a great many things good that have happened in the world.

Also, I think the belief that the fact that communists were also atheists is some sort of coincidence and that their atheism was irrelevant to their ideology and atrocities is some serious spin.

It's not religion per se, it's the process by trying to impose ones beliefs (religious or otherwise) on others, and often resorting to doing so at the point of a gun. To me people like the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh and Mohamed Atta are all coming from the same place in the human condition.

IIt is worth noting that at least, at the moment, we are probably far more at risk from the overly religious in the USA than most other belief systems, but that doesn't mean we should necessarily let our guard down with the rest either.

|11.21.06 @ 1:01PM|#

Zeno said

" I really don't see how anyone could claim that the Nazis were non-religious. The ceremonies over those who died in the Beer Hall Putsch are proof enough of the religious nature of the Nazi regime; why otherwise have sacred blood rituals, etc.?"

And Harris makes this claim often in his first book. That the whole of their ideology was packed with religious symbolisms. They basically made Hitler in to a god. Not standard mind you, but heavily influenced by religion none the less. And in fact, Harris has a whole chapter on how the holocaust was influenced by religious thought in Germany from the previous century. When your beliefs are not open to newly obtained FACTS then ideology is no different then dogmatic religion. Both Atheist authors maintain that thinking that is not open to criticism is the root of the problem. Basically if you hold verifiable false beliefs society should marginalize you. And NEITHER author wants to ban religion. They both openly state this. They want to open it to criticism and in doing so show that it is an emperor with no clothes. I will state this again. No way she read those books.

Lord Duppy|11.21.06 @ 1:02PM|#

Ms. Young: Sometimes, there are not two sides to an issue. Sometimes, one side is wrong.

Dan|11.21.06 @ 1:07PM|#

Great article! I do not buy into the notion that religion, per se, is the threat. If ever there was truth to the statement that a group of basically good people have a small group of extremists that hijacked and violently politicized their cause/message/intent, it applies to the Christian church in America ( as opposed to the truly naive and tiring refrain that Islam=peace. Not even the most doe-eyed, peace-loving libertarian can buy that). We must understand that this tiny but powerful group is more ideologically devout than religiously inclined. Power, power, power.

|11.21.06 @ 1:07PM|#

Personal favorite quote for theists:

"I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours as well." - Stephen F. Roberts

|11.21.06 @ 1:15PM|#

Paul Davis,

Well, that makes Nazis no more non-religious than Romans who worshipped the emporer.

|11.21.06 @ 1:16PM|#

Ms. Young: Sometimes, there are not two sides to an issue. Sometimes, one side is wrong.

My first reaction is to ask, "which, in this case, is the wrong side?"

But instead I'll point out that, "sometimes both sides are wrong. Smug, self-centered absolutism devoid of manners, morals and class is usually always wrong no matter what the topic.

That both sides of this issue frequently opt for that approach pretty well spellsout where I stand on the issue.

|11.21.06 @ 1:17PM|#

As an person of faith, I ask only two things of athiests:

1) Leave me alone &
2) Don't try to turn your beliefs into laws.

|11.21.06 @ 1:19PM|#

[W]hat keeps you from cheating, lying, harming other people?

I do not cheat, lie, and harm other people for the same reason that I do not eat black jelly beans: I do not derive any gratification from doing so. The fact that I evolved or have been socialized to that effect has nothing to do with God.

[W]hat would happen to our society if it were "ruled" by atheists?

Given the behavior of elected officials, almost all of whom profess to believe in the Christian version of a deity, I see no reason why a belief in God could be claimed as a leadership asset. Belief in or fear of God seems to provide little deterrence to the in crowd.

|11.21.06 @ 1:20PM|#

For some more thoughtful articles on this subject check out http://edge.org/

my favorite title: "My God Problem" by Natalie Angier

"Scientists have ample cause to feel they must avoid being viewed as irreligious, a prionic life-form bent on destroying the most sacred heifer in America. After all, academic researchers graze on taxpayer pastures. If they pay the slightest attention to the news, they've surely noticed the escalating readiness of conservative politicians and an array of highly motivated religious organizations to interfere with the nation's scientific enterprise-altering the consumer information Web site at the National Cancer Institute to make abortion look like a cause of breast cancer, which it is not, or stuffing scientific advisory panels with anti-abortion "faith healers."

My favorite quip (from Stuart Kaufman):
"In this scientific world view, we can ask: Is it more astonishing that a God created all that exists in six days, or that the natural processes of the creative universe have yielded galaxies, chemistry, life, agency, meaning, value, consciousness, culture without a Creator. In my mind and heart, the overwhelming answer is that the truth as best we know it, that all arose with no Creator agent, all on its wondrous own, is so awesome and stunning that it is God enough for me and I hope much of humankind."

|11.21.06 @ 1:20PM|#

The simple fact is that human beings are largely nonrational.

I think you put too much faith in reason. There's no reason someone couldnt arrive at absolutely horrifying and amoral conclusions via 'pure reason'. Reason untempered by irrational compassion isnt particularly useful.

JG

|11.21.06 @ 1:21PM|#

Zeno

I am agreeing with you. And so are the atheist authors.

|11.21.06 @ 1:23PM|#

There are much better ways to make atheism more popular.

har. Thats funny.

'Atheism would be far more popular...but for the athiests themselves'.

|11.21.06 @ 1:25PM|#

"irrational compassion"

Compassion is not irrational, it is a practical application of the golden rule.

|11.21.06 @ 1:26PM|#

Aresen & believer

As a moderate I ask you to

a) come out and join the rest of us
b) use your beliefs to help us construct laws that work for everyone.

;~)

|11.21.06 @ 1:26PM|#

It really doesn't matter how polite, rude, etc. an atheist is; a large segment of the religious population of the U.S. is going to simply be bothered by the the simple fact that the atheist is verbalizing his or her position.

|11.21.06 @ 1:31PM|#

There's no reason someone couldnt arrive at absolutely horrifying and amoral conclusions via 'pure reason'.

Richard Posner wrote a very interesting book supporting this proposition: The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory. I highly recommend it.

|11.21.06 @ 1:31PM|#

It is true that religion has killed more people over history than atheist creeds, but it is also true that the 20th century saw the rise of atheist atrocities. Why don't we put that in the past, and look to today. All we have is terror in the name of God, the state of Israel, the holy sites. Atheism is dead, and religion is on a goddam rampage right now.

Would it be 'reasonable' to ask that people stop characterising 'religion' as one monolithic thing, especially if you're going to do these hypothetical 'body count' type scorecards?

You're telling yourself a story you want to hear. Most wars were/are about temporal human power and national self-interests before they put on the clothing of being for God, Manifest Destiny, spreading Democracy, etc.

As thoreau has put it eloquently, the dichotomy being 'athiests' and people of faith is a canard. There are extremists in both camps who characterize the other as being a threat. The vast majority of people on this earth are equally reasonable and faithful, and see no problem reconciling where the two guide thought and behavior.

|11.21.06 @ 1:32PM|#

Well, you could just read Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" instead.

|11.21.06 @ 1:32PM|#

Some of the upper echelons of the Nazi party indeed developed and started spreading all sorts of neo-pagan beliefs. By the time of his drug-hazed death, Hitler's beliefs were something akin to him being God's messianic figure. But he was never an atheist per se, and neither was Nazism. It started to purge the church as the church came to oppose its total domination of society, but that's simply not the same thing as being atheists.

But please don't try to claim that Christianity and Christian anti-semetism wasn't part of, and a big part of, Nazism among the rank and file. It simply was, and it was a huge part of the appeal that Hitler made to the people: again, read "On the Jews and their Lies" which Hitler cited constantly. It's like a near blueprint of the Holocaust, written by the founder of Protestantism. Read some of Hitler's famous speeches. References to faith and god are as common as a presidential prayer breakfast.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

|11.21.06 @ 1:33PM|#

Try it this way Zeno, as example of my point above

"It really doesn't matter how polite, rude, a 'believer' is; a large segment of the secularists in the U.S. is going to simply be bothered by the the simple fact that the believer is verbalizing his or her position."

|11.21.06 @ 1:35PM|#

Through the philosophy of ethics and the application of reason (and without religion), one can arrive at a working "morality" for a given civilization. It is possible to reach the conclusion that we ought not kill one another without reading it on a stone tablet. What I find ironic (though not terribly amusing) is the mirror images of theists and atheists. Members of both camps seem to find the beliefs of the other camp objectionable. It bothers them and they aren't shy in carping about even when the other's belief system is none of their damn business.

|11.21.06 @ 1:36PM|#

GILMORE,

"The vast majority of people on this earth are equally reasonable and faithful, and see no problem reconciling where the two guide thought and behavior."

How are they "reasonable?" To be honest, genocidal regimes do not depend on the "extreminists" to do their bidding; they depend on average, everyday folk. Which is why between one in three and one-half of Soviet citizens were involved in one way or another in the oppression of the other portion of the population.

|11.21.06 @ 1:37PM|#

Mainstream Man says =
As a moderate I ask you to
a) come out and join the rest of us
b) use your beliefs to help us construct laws that work for everyone.

Dude -

1) why would being a person of faith make me any less moderate than you
2) why would I not be doing precisely that

p.s. Im as godless as the rest, but goad the libertoids who have this religion achilles heel.

JG

|11.21.06 @ 1:39PM|#

How are they "reasonable?"

in the sense that they dont think it matters much whether you do or dont believe in a super-diety, and are happy with you as long as you dont let your dog shit on your yard.

i.e. secular humanists dont have any monopoly on being decent, rational, civic beings.

|11.21.06 @ 1:40PM|#

Amendment = "their yard"

|11.21.06 @ 1:40PM|#

GILMORE,

Indeed, I cannot think of a single genocidal regime which didn't depend on large swaths of the population to help in the genocidal undertaking in one fashion or another.

|11.21.06 @ 1:42PM|#

...in the sense that they dont think it matters much whether you do or dont believe in a super-diety...

Ha ha ha. The very reason that atheists have remained closeted for hundreds of years is because of public opinion against atheism. That's why what 50% of the American public wouldn't vote for an atheist. They do care, they care a lot.

|11.21.06 @ 1:44PM|#

"You're going to Hell!" is my second favorite comment from the religious about my atheism.

"I hope you go to Hell!" takes the cake, though. Such a repudiation of christian principles in the defense of christianity still boggles my mind years later.

OTOH, I'm sure I've offended religious people from time to time. Some probably didn't deserve it. To them, I apologize.

|11.21.06 @ 1:45PM|#

Zeno =

reductio ad boring

Are you saying "Genocidal Regimes" are the standard by which you judge the great masses of humanity

If I say, "most people are the same whether or not they nominally 'believe in god'", you strenuously object?

My point is that you are carrying on this debate like the world is choc-a-block full of 'either/or' people. It's largely a false distinction, and all you're talking about is extremist athiests (a la Dawkins) versus extremist fundamentalists (a la Osama)

which isnt exactly the big hullaballo you seem to suggest

|11.21.06 @ 1:46PM|#

What's funny is that secularists and atheists make up this very small portion of the U.S. population, yet we're treated in this conversation like we are some equal part of this nation's social fabric. Ask yourself a question: why are there no open atheists in the U.S. Congress?

How well would an atheist run for Congress in any part of the U.S.?

|11.21.06 @ 1:48PM|#

GILMORE,

The world is chock full of either/or people; which is why close to a majority of Americans wouldn't vote for an atheist. We aren't trusthworthy apparently. We lack moral values in their eyes I guess.

|11.21.06 @ 1:49PM|#

"I hope you go to Hell!" takes the cake, though. Such a repudiation of christian principles in the defense of christianity still boggles my mind years later

Oh, I say that all the time. And I'm a Buddhist. No one gets it when I say, "I sincerely wish you repay your karmic debt in Naraka where your skin is feasted upon by hungry ghosts"

|11.21.06 @ 1:51PM|#

GILMORE:

You have a point. Secularists will stress that the atheism of communism is not the atheism of the capitalist west, yet that same secularist will lump all religions in the same category with respect to violence. If it helps, it should be noted that Christianity and Islam, each of their own accord, have been agents of atrocity. And so what if nationalists have used religion to stir the people? Is a man killed in the name of God less dead because a commanding officer was only using religion to spur his men on? While I share your concern about treating religion too broadly (I say forget the past and focus on the now) you seem to want to break down religion too far. Let's not forget: the murderous past of religion serves only as a warning, not as an indictment. Modern day terrorism has taken care of reducing the monolith of "religion" into easily digestible parts, i.e., terrorists.

|11.21.06 @ 1:51PM|#

Are you saying "Genocidal Regimes" are the standard by which you judge the great masses of humanity...

I offer historical examples of just how unreasonable masses of people can be, what do you offer? Nothing.

|11.21.06 @ 1:52PM|#

Mainstream man:

The law that I can get along with is "leave me alone & I'll leave you alone."

Beyond that, I really don't care what you do. If you want to snort drain cleaner, it's your problem. If you want to make a pilgrimage on your knees, flagellating yourself with each step, it's none of my business.

|11.21.06 @ 1:54PM|#

...which is why close to a majority of Americans wouldn't vote for an atheist. We aren't trusthworthy apparently. We lack moral values in their eyes I guess

I think they dont vote for them because they're often ( -totally coincidentally mind you - ) jerks.

Anyone who campaigns on their athiesm in America is an idiot, and therefore an undesireable candidate for that reason, not their faith or lack therof. Public obiescience goes back to the beginning of civics dude... you dont really have a point here.

|11.21.06 @ 1:54PM|#

The problem of course is that the history of our species illustrates that the expectation that you will be left alone may be unwarranted. Heck, as an atheist I'd like to be left alone, but is that a reasonable expectation?

|11.21.06 @ 1:56PM|#

Zeno wrote: "Ask yourself a question: why are there no open atheists in the U.S. Congress?
How well would an atheist run for Congress in any part of the U.S.?"

Is this only because of social prejudice? I think atheists have less group identity then other groups. They are only united by something they don't believe in. Disbelief is not a real inspirational rallying cry (Well, except for posting on Hit & Run). Without group idenity, atheists are not a desirable constituency because they won't vote reliably.

|11.21.06 @ 1:56PM|#

Zeno =

I've read Hoffer's True Believer, etc. I dont think your examples of 'genocidal regimes' and mass movements says anything about either religious or secular failures to be reasonable and compassionate. as has been demonstrated, either can be the actors of atrocity. You arent really landing body blows here.

|11.21.06 @ 1:56PM|#

"I think they dont vote for them because they're often ( -totally coincidentally mind you- ) jerks."

Does anybody disagree with this? My question is why atheists are jerks? On a personal level, great people. On a soapbox, insufferable.

|11.21.06 @ 1:57PM|#

Cathy says in the 20th century nonreligious Commun/Nazisim accounted for the most death. Even if you grant the literal nonreligious interpretation of these isms, and it is often not granted in these pages, what about the other 19 centuries?

The most deaths occured against people resisting sieges, during those 19 other centuries (especially during the Mongol invasions of the 14th Century and Tamerlane's incursions), and not as part of a ideology-driven strategy, like, precisely, communism and nazism.

|11.21.06 @ 1:58PM|#

Anyone who campaigns on their athiesm in America is an idiot, and therefore an undesireable candidate for that reason, not their faith or lack therof.

Yes. It's much better when people campaign with a lie, isn't it?

|11.21.06 @ 1:58PM|#

GILMORE,

I think they dont vote for them because they're often ( -totally coincidentally mind you - ) jerks.

No, its clealy because atheists are viewed as immoral; the opinion surverys demonstrate this. Its a well known fact.

Anyone who campaigns on their athiesm in America is an idiot...

Ahh, who said that they would campaign on their atheism? No one. The mere fact that they are an atheist would disqualify them for office.

|11.21.06 @ 1:58PM|#

"The most deaths occured against people resisting sieges"

...and those sieges were a result of......?

|11.21.06 @ 1:59PM|#

My question is why atheists are jerks?

because they've convinced themselves they've slain the subconscious dragons of irrationality that they think everyone else lives under the sway of, and consider themselves fundementally superior for it, and look upon people who voluntarily choose to practice a faith (of whatever kind) as sad, deluded children.

Thats just one reason. Also, because they often listen to shitty experimental electonica.

|11.21.06 @ 2:02PM|#

GILMORE,

I dont think your examples of 'genocidal regimes' and mass movements...

Where's the counter-evidence?

|11.21.06 @ 2:02PM|#

because they've convinced themselves they've slain the subconscious dragons of irrationality that they think everyone else lives under the sway of, and consider themselves fundementally superior for it, and look upon people who voluntarily choose to practice a faith (of whatever kind) as sad, deluded children.

As opposed to all the smug, arrogant followers of "The One True Faith" of whatever flavor.

|11.21.06 @ 2:03PM|#

Zeno =

Your shock that Demonstrated Faith is a pre-requisite for holding public office is in ignorance of 1000s of years of civic affairs being loosely affiliated with devotion to the Divine. From divine rulers, to earthly 'caretakers', to church-sanctioned magistrates, to our secularish systems, they all play pantomime to ritual and to things 'bigger than themselves'...

And why, exactly, would we want athiests running our affairs? Is there some 'athiest' policy you think we need imposed?

|11.21.06 @ 2:04PM|#

"There is an article in the NY Times that, among other things, wonders what would happen if children were indoctrinated into science like they are with religion"

south park did an episode on this topic.

i haven't read the NYT article but based on n= (way too many lame NYT articles) the south park version was probably better

the episode showed a futures society where three different clans were warring over different interpretation of science, drawing an exact analogy to religious based conflicts, and as usual - south park nailed it

sure, throughout history, lots of atrocities committed in the name of, and inspired by people's religious interpretation.

considering that, throughout history, the VAST majoirty of people have BEEN religious, why is this surprising?

in the 20th century, we saw the advent of utopian godless atheistic communism (tm).

and they proved equally, if not more adept, at wiping out 10s of millions of their own people, not to mention others.

i've said it before, i'll say it again.

murder is a people thang, not a religious or atheist thing.

i see no evidence to believe an atheist society(s) would be any more or less rapacious, murderous, etc. than a theist one.

and considering the 20th century, the first century where atheist regimes HAD any power, being particularly full of their atrocities, welll... the argument that religion is the cause of all this mayhem is absurd imo

|11.21.06 @ 2:05PM|#

Oh c'mon. South Park's view is that science and religion are no different and an emphasis on science would lead to the same violence in the name of science as religion. BS.

|11.21.06 @ 2:06PM|#

Zeno =

you're asking for 'evidence' that the majority of mankind is actually reasonable and tolerant?

uh, the pervasive growth of democratic government?

|11.21.06 @ 2:09PM|#

I think they dont vote for them because they're often ( -totally coincidentally mind you - ) jerks.

Anyone who campaigns on their athiesm in America is an idiot, and therefore an undesireable candidate for that reason, not their faith or lack therof. Public obiescience goes back to the beginning of civics dude... you dont really have a point here.

Uhh, Gilmore, you mind telling me the last time you heard any, and I mean any candidate campaign, announce, or even allude to their atheism while running for office? Doesnt happen. As I said at 11.39, you can be an elected socialist in this country before you can be an elected Atheist. Now, do you think all these politicians are earnest in their beliefs? Me neither, so who are these fake-pious pols trying not to offend? Where the power lays in this argument, on the side of the godly.

|11.21.06 @ 2:10PM|#

Let's see now. People in general are reasonable in their beliefs, except when history somehow excuses their prejudice. Such excuse being made because the data illustrates that people really aren't all that reasonable. Say goodnight Gracie.

|11.21.06 @ 2:13PM|#

uh, the pervasive growth of democratic government?

Democracy is not per se reasonable. In fact, it can be the vehicle for all sorts of monstrosities.

|11.21.06 @ 2:14PM|#

Another formulaic article from Ms Young.Does Ms Young even read this blog? It seems to me there has been plenty of feedback about the nature of her commentary.

|11.21.06 @ 2:14PM|#

Matt,

The willingness of some to deny the ugly prejudice against atheists in the U.S. just astounds me.

|11.21.06 @ 2:17PM|#

Gimore:

Good point, although I've always thought respect for human rights grew more out of a realization that if I hit you and yours to enforce my will, you might do the same to me and mine, so it's better to talk than fight.

grylliade|11.21.06 @ 2:17PM|#

Where do you atheists stand on the Great Question?

|11.21.06 @ 2:17PM|#

"Oh c'mon. South Park's view is that science and religion are no different and an emphasis on science would lead to the same violence in the name of science as religion. BS."

lol. u compltely missed the point that south park was making. must be atheistic fundamentalism at work :l

the POINT was that it's a PEOPLE thang, not a religion or science thang, and that this is why people fight. i think south park's point was spot on.

many like to believe that if we rid the world of religion (just imagine!) there wouldn't be all these reasons for war, etc.

rubbish

war happens quite often when people think their way is better than your way, etc. and this is surely seen in scientific squabbles

also, if u have spent ANY time around scientists, you would realize they can frequently be just as dogmatic, anti-evidence, prejudiced, and illogical as a religious person can be.

south park's point was spot on, and i was assured that many atheists would be at least as offended by it, as the scientologists were when they took them on.

again, people are people. science is no cure for warlike behavior, or "my beliefs are better than yours" justifications for murder

|11.21.06 @ 2:19PM|#

south park's point was spot on, and i was assured that many atheists would be at least as offended by it, as the scientologists were when they took them on.

I wasn't offended by it. On the atheist blogs that I visit it was as a rule praised.

|11.21.06 @ 2:21PM|#

Aresen,

The world today remains basically a human rights disaster. Furthermore, even in the West there are all manner of human rights violations by governments. Then again, may I am jaded by all the notices I get as a member of A.I.

|11.21.06 @ 2:22PM|#

Yes. It's much better when people campaign with a lie, isn't it?

You dont understand. Politics has never been about 'truth'. Never will be. They dont play around in a domed temple with little page boys for no reason.

Here's a good summary from Spartacus =

Julius Caesar: Rome is the mob.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: No! Rome is an eternal thought in the mind of God.
Julius Caesar: I'd no idea you'd grown religious.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: [laughs] It doesn't matter. If there were no gods at all I'd still revere them.

|11.21.06 @ 2:23PM|#

"the POINT was that it's a PEOPLE thang, not a religion or science thang, and that this is why people fight. i think south park's point was spot on."

Yeah, people will always fight, but the humor was to see them fighting over science just as we do with religion today. The problem is that once you divorce questions of where the origin of our species lies from statecraft, you wouldn't get the "science on science" wars depicted in the episode. The criticism of Dawkins was dead on. It was funny because it was so ludicrous, not because it was so true.

|11.21.06 @ 2:29PM|#

GILMORE,

You dont understand. Politics has never been about 'truth'. Never will be. They dont play around in a domed temple with little page boys for no reason.

I think this illustrates why most people aren't "reasonable."

Anyway, you'd do better to quote from Seneca; you know, from an actual work of someone who was living in the age of Rome. Seneca basically argued that the wise do not believe in religion, the masses do and that the rulers find the latter useful.

|11.21.06 @ 2:30PM|#

who are these fake-pious pols trying not to offend?

Let me put it this way =

People - secular or faithful - are generally predisposed to vote for people of faith.

not because of anything specific to the faith that they see as necessary to govern

But because the assumption is that someone who abides by some creed (any creed) is more trustworthy than those who spurn creeds

Because those who at least profess a faith are admitting submission to something higher than themselves

while the assumption is that an athiest believes themselves to be the beginning and end of their being, subsurvient only to their own will

and therefore, not the kind of dude you want to be making decisions on your behalf necessarily.

Just my speculation there.

Other reason is that they're jerks.

|11.21.06 @ 2:31PM|#

Zeno =

Seneca and the movie make the same point.

And you're just being a jerk now because your generalizations are paper thin, and its no fun being told that.

|11.21.06 @ 2:35PM|#

"The problem is that once you divorce questions of where the origin of our species lies from statecraft, you wouldn't get the "science on science" wars depicted in the episode. "

i think you are probably wrong. and that was south park's point

science doesn't magically make us less murderous, venal, or rapacious.

just as religion didn';t make us that way, or cause wars. nor did atheism (see USSR and ChiComs)

that's the point.

it's a people thang

|11.21.06 @ 2:35PM|#

GILMORE,

And that point merely illustrates how unreasonable the mass of men are.

You know, I engage in conversation without calling people names.

|11.21.06 @ 2:41PM|#

Science does not make us less murderous, agreed. But we would not fight over science because of the objective nature of the scientific method. We may find other things to fight about, and probably would. Heck, didn't the science people stop fighting at the end of the episode?

|11.21.06 @ 2:42PM|#

Zeno

"The world today remains basically a human rights disaster. Furthermore, even in the West there are all manner of human rights violations by governments."

Call me starry-eyed if you like, but I think things have generally improved even during my lifetime. [In the US and Canada there were still blasphemy laws on the books until the 1960s.]

I am not saying things are idyllic and that human rights are secure, but do you really think things are as bad now as in 1906, let alone all the centuries before that?

|11.21.06 @ 2:43PM|#

"A religion, like any other set of beliefs, can be used for good or bad."

Yeah, just like a nuclear warhead can be used A) to kill lots of people, and B) as a coffee table. Just because religion "can be used for good" does not in any way justify all the bad, nor does it mean that, in the absence of religion, those good things would not be happening anyway.

No, salvationist religion is particularly dangerous not because of the individual bad deeds that it breeds, but because of the dangerous ideas that it preaches/encourages. It is not "the same as any other set of beliefs", it is unique in its assertion that waving a bunch of allegorical magic wands and following a set of arbitrary (yet sometimes dangerous) motions is the way to be 'saved'. It promotes using faith to explain reality rather than scientific fact.

It is exactly this type of relativism---the idea that religious fundamentalism and atheistic/nonthiestic/scientific passion are somehow on equal grounds, just on opposite sides of some ideological fence...when indeed, religion is unique.

|11.21.06 @ 2:46PM|#

Aresen,

Sure, the vast majority of the human population. My experiences are obviously anecdotal, but I see notices all the time of terrible things being done to people. I've been a member of AI off and on since the late 1980s, and I haven't seen much of an improvement. AI helps to free people obviously, but you know one regime or nation that improves seems to be replaced by a tyranny somewhere else. It just sort of ebbs and flows I guess.

|11.21.06 @ 2:47PM|#

Aresen,

Sure, for the vast majority of the world population.

ed|11.21.06 @ 2:47PM|#

The very best theists are deserving of my sincerest sympathies, in much the same way I feel sorry for a mildly retarded person who means well but keeps bagging my groceries incorrectly.

|11.21.06 @ 2:48PM|#

Oh, I can be a jerk if I want to. I can call the faithful, illogical, afraid to examine the evidence or lack thereof, possesing childlike simplicity, superstitious, intolerant (sometimes), hypocritical, pathologically afraid of death etc.

What does that get you?

It doesn't matter if your right, it matters if you can convince people you're right.

Critical thinking and self examination are, and have always been, beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of people. I can let my hair down in this forum, but with most people I just say "I'm not much of a churchgoer". This avoids having true believer spittle sprayed on my face while someone expresses their outrage.

|11.21.06 @ 2:52PM|#

The willingness of some to deny the ugly prejudice against atheists in the U.S. just astounds me.

You're kidding, right?

|11.21.06 @ 2:53PM|#

jp,

I guess you are right.

|11.21.06 @ 2:53PM|#

And that point merely illustrates how unreasonable the mass of men are.

Or how bored they get with polemicists.

You're determined that you're 'reasonable', but have a one-dimensional view and demand proof that most people arent sheep because they're not clever athiests like you.

You know, I engage in conversation without calling people names.

You dont need to; you can just repeat yourself ad nauseum until they go away.

Reasonable and rational arent always 1:1. The reasonable thing to do in this case is stop trying to be reasonable with you and just declare you a self important fuckwit

|11.21.06 @ 2:54PM|#

Cathy said: "It doesn't help that religion has become intertwined with politics."

Religion has always been intertwined with politics. Always will be.
Religion is like a major defense contractor of politics.

|11.21.06 @ 2:55PM|#

". But we would not fight over science because of the objective nature of the scientific method"

lol. like i said. you need to spend some time with academics and scientists.

i disagree, and i agree with the basic premise of the SP episode.

regardless of whether the METHOD is objective, scientists are not. and the conclusions, etc. drawn from science are also not.

i stand by SP on this. it is simply silly to blame religion for murderousness or to think that atheism and/or "worship of science" would fix it.

cause we are still people

|11.21.06 @ 3:00PM|#

GILMORE,

You are now engaging in logomachy. I'm out.

|11.21.06 @ 3:04PM|#

"Religion has always been intertwined with politics"

and so of course is science.

all the more so, considering how much of science is govt. funded.

not to mention such (shill) groups as CISPES (science in the PUBLIC interest. yea, right), that promote extremely biased, selective studies to promote their politics, through pseudo-science.

PCRM is another group that does the same

|11.21.06 @ 3:06PM|#

... it is simply silly to blame religion for murderousness or to think that atheism and/or "worship of science" would fix it.

Concur. but it would be one less reason for crimes against the rest of the human race. That would arguably be a positive developement.

|11.21.06 @ 3:07PM|#

Ruthless,

I believe we realize the presence of religion in politics more in part because America is becoming far more secularized (due to education and other factors). Our population is also more mobile.

Then again, I suppose that earlier generations realized these things in different ways; that is in conflicts between Catholics and Protestants and the like. And of course in many areas of the country irreligion may ahve been dominant (in areas of the American West for example). Still, many communities in the U.S. were homogenous on the issue of religion in a way that doesn't seem to be reflected in a number of areas of our society.

|11.21.06 @ 3:08PM|#

thoreau

Well past 100 in under 4 hours.

Is it a record?

|11.21.06 @ 3:12PM|#

Aresen,

Not even close.

|11.21.06 @ 3:14PM|#

Worship of science? WTF? Is that like lab testing religion? More importantly, you say it is "silly" to blame religion for murderousness and you stand by the SP episode when the SP episode blames religion for violence!! In case you didn't figure it out, SP was saying that both sides are to blame, not that both sides are blameless.

|11.21.06 @ 3:27PM|#

The idea that humans are going to fight like maniacs no matter what, and that science/religion are just vehicles for said violence, and that both are on equal footing, is a ridiculously simplistic viewpoint. It's fine for a 20-minute cartoon episode, because, well, you can't really expect a 20-minute cartoon to get too in-depth WRT the meme of civilization and the part that salvationist religions play in that meme.

I like southpark, I think they're smart guys and very evenhanded, but let's face it: there's a whole hell of alot more to this issue than "both sides are to blame, and humans would be fighting just the same if religion wasn't around". As I noted above, it ignores the rather basic fact that one is based on faith in unproven fairy tales, while the other is based on knowable, observable evidence. Yes, without religion, humans would still fight...but that doesn't mean that the idea of religion is simply an innocent meme that has been hijacked by ever-violent humans. The ideas inherent in salvationism are to blame as well.

|11.21.06 @ 3:45PM|#

|11.21.06 @ 3:50PM|#

Religion causes violence in the sense that the stakes become much higher when what is at root an economic, political or cultural disagreement becomes infused with religion. There's no fervor like religious fervor!

|11.21.06 @ 3:50PM|#

Here is a perfect retort to Cathy's relativism.

|11.21.06 @ 3:52PM|#

in part because America is becoming far more secularized (due to education and other factors).

Zeno =

Prevalence of religion in America is extremely high.

So is it we aint ben yet eddicated enuf to get rid o dis ole time religion?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/hpu70456l7120686/

http://www.staff.hum.ku.dk/pluchau/inors/Religion_in_Europe_and%20US.pdf

In addition, if you compare per capita income, levels of education, and DEGREE of religiosity (not simply prevalence), there is little to correlation in the US. You are just as possibly a devout member of a faith in the US if you are well off and college educated. Your point can hold if you look narrowly, at, say, assholes who preen themseves on their classics training and rub it in peoples faces on bulletin boards. They are surprisingly, most often athiests. There is no explanation why.

Also, overall prevalence of religion has been in decline worldwide since 1900 - not so much due to education, but reduced need for communal ties for survival. but in the US since the 80s, there's actually been an uptick.

We must be getting dumb or something, huh?

(actually, it's the immigrants...)

|11.21.06 @ 3:58PM|#

I can't wait until tonight when I have time to read this thread in its entirety, but for now I'm afraid I only have time to interject. Sorry if this duplicates anything already said.

Cathy:

Your article on "Faith vs. Reason" has some good points, but it has at least one bad one as well.

Your insinuation that Sam Harris is "misguided" because his book doesn't take into account the harm done by atheistic regimes makes no sense--although in fairness to you it is a nauseatingly common point made by people who have not thought the matter through properly.

Any effort to contrast communism and Nazism with religion, as if they were somehow at opposite ends of the spectrum, is to view the situation at its most superficial level. The real problem is not "atheism vs. religion" but, as your headline proclaims, "faith vs. reason".

Communism and Nazism both require absolute faith in a "higher power" (in this case the state or the "beloved" leader). This fact makes them much more similar to religion than they are to a lack of religion (atheism, in fact, disavows unreasoned acceptance of any sort). It is this willingness to abrogate the responsibility of rational cognition that has caused so much death and destruction throughout the centuries, whether we're talking about the Crusades or the Holocaust.

When people allow others to think for them (or more precisely to define their morality for them), we always, always end up with absolutist ideologies. When you say "any passionately held belief, whether or not it includes God, can make some people intolerant, closed-minded, unwilling to look at facts that contradict their dogma, and hateful toward those who disagree" you right on the money. But you are also contradicting your point that Harris (and by osmosis Dawkins) are misguided--because they are saying the same exact thing in their books. Harris is a bit more strident than Dawkins (who supports his points meticulously), but both of them are essentially making this point.

"Religion" (whatever that is) isn't the problem: faith is the problem. Anything that requires unblinking belief without evidence (and often in spite of reason) gives birth to absolutism and promotes the mindset everyone who disagrees must be wrong. Reason mitigates this tendency by requiring us to ask the question "why" and by requiring that we show evidence for our beliefs.

Contrasting Nazism with religion is like comparing apples and apples.

|11.21.06 @ 3:59PM|#

I would love to see Reason take as firm a stance against religious thought as it is willing to take against, e.g., deceased Communist regimes, the Patriot Act, the questionable science behind the party line on global warming. Why does Reason refuse to treat religion for what it is? That is, hand-me-down superstition, tribalism, bloodied cudgels used to guarantee the imposition of others' will. Like them or not, Dawkins, Harris, et al. are doing the world a GREAT service by refusing any longer to give religion a pass. I am sick of this shit. To quote a bumpersticker: Why be born again when you can just grow up?

|11.21.06 @ 3:59PM|#

"We must be getting dumb or something, huh?"

For those who lament the loss of the good old days, this is a true statement.

|11.21.06 @ 4:03PM|#

No real dog in this fight. I agree with various above commentators that people will act basically the same whether from a scientific perspective or a religious one. The South Park episode was pretty much spot on.

Let's postulate some purely "reasonable" tacks a scientific society might take:

Why not kill old people? (ala solient green) Aren't they pretty much non-productive members of society? Or at least not as efficient - use more healthcare/resources/etc.

Why so many males? One male of the species can impregnate numerous females. Males are bigger, less efficient, and full of aggression.

Why keep people with genetic defects around? (see old people rant)

All of the above could arguably make for a more efficient society. Would'nt a purely rational mind, devoid from any subjective morality, demand these changes be adopted.

Please note, I don't mean to imply that atheists are immoral, just that the "worship of science" can also justify acts that one could find abhorent. People are people. Period.

|11.21.06 @ 4:12PM|#

bendover,

Science does not speak to the subject of morality, and nobody ever claimed that it would. Your points are absurd...in essence, what you are saying is that, without religion, we would have no morality, so we would somehow be "forced" into relying on the cold mechanics of nature for our moral structures.

What a load. I am anything but religious, yet I have morals that preclude every single one of your inane little "just kill all the old people" arguments.

Read the link that I posted above, please. One last time: nobody is proposing a "worship of science". Why can there just be a complete lack of 'worship'? Why, if we get rid of religion, would be suddenly start to "worship" science?

Your argument is ridiculous. You're tossing out this strawman argument...namely, that "science" is as much a belief system as religion is. One last time: science is nothing more than using observable facts to come to conclusions about how the universe works. It's not a religion. What you're attempting to do is paint "science" as just another type of religion, which it is not. Surely, there might be people who use it for those purposes, but unlike religion, it is not inherent to it.

|11.21.06 @ 4:13PM|#

My question is why atheists are jerks?

because they've convinced themselves they've slain the subconscious dragons of irrationality that they think everyone else lives under the sway of, and consider themselves fundementally superior for it . . . .

Another possibility is that people don't like to be contradicted, especially when the belief at stake is part of the identity they've constructed for themselves. Atheists may be no less polite than anyone else, but be more likely to be dismissed as jerks because they challenge fundamental beliefs that most people share.

Libertarians ought to find that easy to believe, given how often they've been accused of being callously selfish for opposing Social Security, or of being pro-ignorance for opposing public education.

|11.21.06 @ 4:24PM|#

I would love to see Reason take as firm a stance against religious thought as it is willing to take against, e.g., deceased Communist regimes, the Patriot Act, the questionable science behind the party line on global warming.

I for one, would not. And i think there are a lot of good reasons to not do so.

One, is that religion is largely a matter of personal choice = not coerced.

If "free minds and free markets" are basic tenets of this paper, then it would be violating at least one of them in following your recommended proscription.

Why does Reason refuse to treat religion for what it is? That is, hand-me-down superstition, tribalism, bloodied cudgels used to guarantee the imposition of others' will.

One possible reason is that "religion" (see comment way way above) is NOT one simple monolitic thing that you can easily gloss over with cartoon characterizations.

Of many things religion encompasses... yes some of what you describe are actual ways religion has been used throughout history.

unfortunately (for mankind in general), as many have pointed out, there is hardly any single area of human life at all that hasnt at one point involved "superstition, tribalism, imposition of others' will"

This is because human beings are sometimes weak, cruel, untrusting, viscious, fearful beings. It's not because of the robes or uniforms they've worn.

You make the mistake of seeing religious behavior as the "source" of what is fundamental human behavior.

If anything, religion has been a (clumsy) effort to curb the worst aspects of human predation. Yes, it has also been a collaborator. But not in any way unique in this regard.

I just dont think that Libertarian 'tolerance' is well-served by this kind of attitude you've expressed, and I certainly hope that Reason tries to include MORE open minded discussions about religion in America, and how libertarians can better discuss our principles with broader sets of Americans.

|11.21.06 @ 4:24PM|#

bendover, alot of your proposals have already been tried, in the form of the religious nazis. Their 'morals' informed them about hyper rational (to them) ideas like the final solution.

Religion doesnt prevent any of these things you suggest from happening, good sense does. It is entirely possible to acquire decent common sense without religion.

|11.21.06 @ 4:28PM|#

Eric,

That's basically the heart of it.

|11.21.06 @ 4:36PM|#

"We must be getting dumb or something, huh?"

For those who lament the loss of the good old days, this is a true statement.

For the record: the point was that we're smarter, richer, have more choices about how to spend our lives these days that ever before in human history... and still, a shocking number of people choose to practice a faith.

The idea in the 60s that religion would inevitably be made obsolete by increased education has been proven totally false: while prevalence has moved slightly down, the diversity of practice and degree of religiosity among many highly educated people reveals the issue to be far more complex. The article comparing EU to US religiosity is interesting to check out.

A perhaps ironic reason why American religion has not declined the way things have in Europe =

in the US we have far more diversity of religion (more CHOICE) and less historical connection to civic insitutions, so there is less stigma for switching denominations.

In other words, in the US, there is a free- market for religions. Which is also what has attracted so many people here in the first place...

And we all love free markets, right? :)

|11.21.06 @ 4:38PM|#

I wonder if we should ever see articles in this publication which are critical of claims that Publias Cornelius Scipio is still alive and walking the Earth these two thousand plus years after his supposed death.

|11.21.06 @ 4:44PM|#

Zeno,

please take that giant "look = I studied classics!" strap-on out of your mouth, PLEASE.

It doesnt make you look any more clever, seriously. There's a law of diminishing returns in name-dropping. After a while it looks like severe personality disorder, or serious intellectual insecurity. It would be nice if you actually brought something relevant to bear in any case... I love classics (where's Gaius Marius! please Save US!)...but people like you make me want to deny I ever took latin.

|11.21.06 @ 5:02PM|#

Gilmore, you mind telling me the last time you heard any, and I mean any candidate campaign, announce, or even allude to their atheism while running for office? Doesnt happen.

If i didnt reply to this already =
Athiest candidates will claim to be faithful so they can garner more votes. Because I assume they want to win. An athiest will not announce their athiesm because they will lose.

They also claim to love children, grandma, apple pie, and not be into S/M.

Athiests are a minority, not so much due to bigotry and oppression, but just because the majority of americans adhere to at least some form of faith.

Why do faithful people distrust athiests? See comment above (2:30PM)

Your qualms about candidates not being able to "tell the truth" is indeed unfortunate.

I dont reall what age I was when I used to think candidates were telling the truth. They do what they do to get elected.

What confuses me about your question = what is it you'd want a athiest legislator to do, exactly? Whats the Athiest agenda that needs representing?

|11.21.06 @ 5:07PM|#

Evan the "worship of science" is not my construct, it was South Parks.

"What you're attempting to do is paint "science" as just another type of religion, which it is not. Surely, there might be people who use it for those purposes, but unlike religion, it is not inherent to it."
posted by Evan at 4:21PM

But Evan what if those people "who use it for those purposes" are the ones in power.

"science doesn't magically make us less murderous, venal, or rapacious" I agree with poster that made this statement.

never said science was a belief system or that it is a religion - you're arguing with the bendover in your head :~)

I propose that we properly conduct a scientific experiment. Please construct several societies that are based on the scientific method. Let them compete for several thousand years for food, resources, power, status, etc. Then let compare the results.

|11.21.06 @ 5:21PM|#

If anything, religion has been a (clumsy) effort to curb the worst aspects of human predation. Yes, it has also been a collaborator. But not in any way unique in this regard.

If religion disappeared, would the effect on human strife be neutral? I can think of a couple of reasons why it might be beneficial:

1. Religions create group divisions where none would exist otherwise. An example that Dawkins gives is Catholics and Protestants in Ireland.

2. A belief in god can provide the means to override one's own conscience. I'm sure some people would still be willing to blow up schoolchildren in Iraq even if they didn't believe in Allah, but the number would probably be fewer.

Note that I am not saying religion is the source of human malevolence. Nor am I saying it is the only sort of belief we might be better off without.

|11.21.06 @ 5:26PM|#

please take that giant "look = I studied classics!" strap-on out of your mouth, PLEASE. It doesnt make you look any more clever, seriously. There's a law of diminishing returns in name-dropping. After a while it looks like severe personality disorder, or serious intellectual insecurity.

Probably a little of both.

thoreau|11.21.06 @ 5:32PM|#

Gilmore, you are awesome!

After a while, the "Look at me! Look at what I've read!" game gets old.

Hey, I've studied quantum physics, statistical mechanics, classical thermodynamics, electromagnetism, wave optics, and biophysics! Look at me! I'm a genius! I can solve reaction-diffusion equations! I'm so great! I can drop the names of leading researchers, including a few that I've met! My thesis advisor is a bigwig in a professional society! OMG! Aren't you guys so impressed.

That was pretty obnoxious, wasn't it?

|11.21.06 @ 5:33PM|#

"Science as religion."

Hmmm....

1)Thou shalt have no other universes before me.
2)Thou shalt not take the name of Einstein or Darwin in vain.
3)Thou salt remember the equinox, and keep it precessing.
4)Thou shalt conserve energy and momentum.
5)Thou shalt conserve parity.
6)Thou shalt not exceed the speed of light, lest thee kill thy grandfather.
7)Thou shalt honor thy phylum and genus.
8)Thou shalt not change thy constants: gravitational, fine, pi or omega.
9)Thou shalt keep thy photons both discrete and wavelike.
10)Thou shalt keep thy quanta indeterminate.

|11.21.06 @ 5:39PM|#

I wonder if we should ever see articles in this publication which are critical of claims that Publias Cornelius Scipio is still alive and walking the Earth these two thousand plus years after his supposed death.

That's Publius, bub.

Rhywun|11.21.06 @ 5:42PM|#

Why, if we get rid of religion, would be suddenly start to "worship" science?

Well, there's the theory that religious faith is somehow "hard-wired". Since much of science contradicts much of what religions have historically taught, I suppose that's how science gets to be the opposite of religion.

Oh, and people who lack this hard-wiring (atheists) are annoying because they've spent their entire lives shouting from the hilltops and being ignored and/or misunderstood. Those of us who like to function as normal members of society learn to completely avoid the topic of religion in polite conversation.

|11.21.06 @ 5:47PM|#

Those of us who like to function as normal members of society learn to completely avoid the topic of religion in polite conversation.

That goes for the faithful and atheists alike.

|11.21.06 @ 5:54PM|#

J sub D: That goes for the faithful and atheists alike.

Somebody forgot to tell the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Rhywun: Since much of science contradicts much of what religions have historically taught, I suppose that's how science gets to be the opposite of religion.

See my post above re: faith vs. reason. Science (reason) is the exact opposite of religion (faith...i.e. belief without evidence). It's not as if they've diverged somehow...they are and always have been intrinsically opposite.

They are mutually exclusive, in spite of the hilarious attempts of some to meld the two.

|11.21.06 @ 5:58PM|#

After a while, the "Look at me! Look at what I've read!" game gets old.

Hey, I've studied quantum physics, statistical mechanics . . . .

That was pretty obnoxious, wasn't it?

How long have you been waiting for an excuse to post that? ;-)

|11.21.06 @ 6:18PM|#

Religions create group divisions where none would exist otherwise. An example that Dawkins gives is Catholics and Protestants in Ireland.

LOL

...being 2nd generation irish, i suspect that if there were no God, the Irish would probably fight to the death about the color of shit.

(that is a quote borrowed from my 1st gen Irish, marine corps DI pop)

A belief in god can provide the means to override one's own conscience.

And 'Reason' doesnt?

Eric Hoffers 'True Believer' is one of the best books that provides real meaty comment on this topic. He basically boils it down to "frustrated people find a cause" one way or the other.

great book, really
JG

|11.21.06 @ 6:27PM|#

Those of us who like to function as normal members of society learn to completely avoid the topic of religion in polite conversation.

That goes for the faithful and atheists alike.

Somebody forgot to tell the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Godfrey, the operative term here is "normal members of society", yet you bring up Jehovah's Winesses. Total non sequitur.

|11.21.06 @ 6:46PM|#

There's a third party also!

Agnostics: spineless fence-sitters or enlightened non-committers?

|11.21.06 @ 6:54PM|#

Evangelical atheism does seem to be taking on a new confidence. I once heard Ayaan Hirsi Ali say that when she was growing up in Somalia there were missionaries representing the Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, etc. all over the place. She wondered why she never came across any missionaries for enlightenment values.

Although I have my own points of contention in the recent polemics of Harris and Dawkins, I also think Ms. Young has mischaracterized and glossed over them fairly severely.

|11.21.06 @ 7:12PM|#

Gilmore,

I'd like to defer to your expertise on the Irish people, but don't you think religious divisions have some effect on the total amount of conflict in the world? Suppose the Shi'a/Sunni separation didn't exist. No difference?

A belief in god can provide the means to override one's own conscience.

And 'Reason' doesnt?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Reason,' capitalized and in quotes. If you mean simply the willingness to test ideas against evidence and logic, then no, I don't think that attitude would enable someone to kill schoolchildren. As Hume (and others here) noted, there is an is-ought gap; you can't reason your way to a proof that it really is okay to murder little girls after all.

If by 'Reason,' you mean some specific set of beliefs, then I refer you to what I said in my previous post:

Nor am I saying [religion] is the only sort of belief we might be better off without.

And if you meant Reason the magazine, well, I admit it can be persuasive . . . .

grylliade|11.22.06 @ 12:01AM|#

1. Religions create group divisions where none would exist otherwise. An example that Dawkins gives is Catholics and Protestants in Ireland.

WRT the Catholic/Protestant split in Ireland: it's not religious, or not entirely. The Protestants in the north are Protestant because they're the descendants of settlers from England and Scotland; the Catholics are Catholic because they're the native Irish, who were never Protestant. In other words, it's ignorant to characterize the divide between Protestant and Catholic in Northern Ireland as a predominantly religious issue. It's a cover for a whole host of other cultural issues. I must assume that Dawkins doesn't know this and is making his argument based on ignorance, because it's dishonest to say or imply that the only or even primary split between Unionists and Nationalists is religion.

Suppose the Shi'a/Sunni separation didn't exist. No difference?

This is a little more out there, because I don't know of any specific studies showing this, as there are with Northern Ireland. I think, though, that this is again more a cultural and ethnic issue, rather than solely or mainly a religious one. Look at where the Shi'a live: Iran and the surrounding areas. I'd be willing to bet money that the vast majority of Shi'a Muslims are of Persian descent. When Islam exploded out of the Arab peninsula in the seventh century, it conquered one of the most ancient and honorable cultures the world has ever seen: Persia. It was under Persian influence that Islam moderated its fundamentalism in the first centuries of the Muslim era. I think that the Shi'a identify as Shi'a because of their resentment of an imposed Arab ethic and religion, and Shi'a Islam is Persia's attempt to make a Persian Islam. But since Islam is so rigid, it isn't as different as Orthodox Christianity is from Catholic Christianity.

Underneath it all, though, the basic conflict is between the Persian tribe and the Arab tribe. We, as humans, have a strong need to identify with a group, and often do so blindly and without reason. Witness sports teams; the whole thing is an irrational bonding to a team, often just because it's near where you grew up. Why should an entire region celebrate just because fifty young men won a game? Because it's their "tribe." How much stronger will the tribal ties be if they're actually based on tribal ties? Now look at the Middle East in the lens of the last four thousand years, and tell me that the Shi'a-Sunni rivalry is about religion.

|11.22.06 @ 2:20AM|#

GILMORE,

please take that giant "look = I studied classics!" strap-on out of your mouth, PLEASE.

This little tirade avoids the substance of my statement of course. *shrug*

Anyway, as they say, one person's wit is another person's tit. If you don't think my points are substantive there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

thoreau,

After a while, the "Look at me! Look at what I've read!" game gets old.

My suggestion is this: in a conversation which doesn't concern a matter directly related to your course of study, etc., never mention again that you have a PhD.

|11.22.06 @ 2:26AM|#

Anyway, the idea that Reason should avoid the publication of articles which are critical of religion because the publication honors "free minds" is just very odd. Indeed, it sounds like an effort to carve out a sort of criticism-free space for religion that religion doesn't merit.

|11.22.06 @ 2:33AM|#

GILMORE,

BTW, if you actually understood my statement you will note that there is a point to it; if I had used a more recent living but now dead figure (say Lenin or Mozart) the point would remain the same. It doesn't matter what dead historical figure I used in other words.

In other words, oddball claims about people rising from the dead, etc. should merit criticism, whether they are part of a religious doctrine or not.

|11.22.06 @ 2:44AM|#

grylliade,

WRT the Catholic/Protestant split in Ireland: it's not religious, or not entirely. The Protestants in the north are Protestant because they're the descendants of settlers from England and Scotland; the Catholics are Catholic because they're the native Irish, who were never Protestant. In other words, it's ignorant to characterize the divide between Protestant and Catholic in Northern Ireland as a predominantly religious issue. It's a cover for a whole host of other cultural issues. I must assume that Dawkins doesn't know this and is making his argument based on ignorance, because it's dishonest to say or imply that the only or even primary split between Unionists and Nationalists is religion.

Most people are the descedants of other religious people. So what?

Like a lot of people you seem to assume that religious belief entails some sort of conscious choice, etc. about the doctrines, etc. of a religious body. But that simply isn't the case. Religion is a for most people (currently and historically) a shared identity that has really very little to do with dotrine, rational analysis, etc. So yes, the conflict in Northern Ireland is all about religion; religion in the sociological, shared community, etc. sense that is.

|11.22.06 @ 2:46AM|#

Underneath it all, though, the basic conflict is between the Persian tribe and the Arab tribe.

Lots of Sunnis aren't Arabs though.

|11.22.06 @ 2:51AM|#

Eric Hanneken,

If you are posting on a blog you are telling people to "look at me."

|11.22.06 @ 3:53AM|#

I haven't read all the posts, but I skimmed them and I think I get the general idea. Let me try to summarize:

"Religion! I . . . aaargh! Crusades, Inquisition, religion right, fundamentalists, fascists, Nazis . . . shit, my blood pressure . . . [explodes]"

|11.22.06 @ 4:07AM|#

thoreau,

Here's a question for you; do you actually agree with the following statement of GILMORE's? You might want to look at the teeth of the horse that you are backing.

I for one, would not. And i think there are a lot of good reasons to not do so.

One, is that religion is largely a matter of personal choice = not coerced.

If "free minds and free markets" are basic tenets of this paper, then it would be violating at least one of them in following your recommended proscription.

|11.22.06 @ 8:39AM|#

Anyway, the idea that Reason should avoid the publication of articles which are critical of religion because the publication honors "free minds" is just very odd.

Not the point that was made. Dude was asking that Religion be dismissed wholesale as a given.

You can go back to claiming i've generally misread you now.

|11.22.06 @ 8:40AM|#

twat

|11.22.06 @ 8:51AM|#

GILMORE,

That was exactly the point that was made. It is quite clear from the language that is exactly what I meant.

twat

Do grow up.

|11.22.06 @ 8:55AM|#

GILMORE,

Again, ask yourself the following question: if I had used George Washington or Genghis Khan as examples would it have changed the meaning of the statement? No it wouldn't have.

|11.22.06 @ 9:05AM|#

Dude was asking that Religion be dismissed wholesale as a given.

Yes, the "dude" was apparently asking that Reason criticize all "religious thought."

You in turn argued that this would be some sort of "coercion," which also doesn't make much sense on its face.

I don't have to agree with the first statement to criticize the second.

|11.22.06 @ 9:11AM|#

I wonder if we should ever see articles in this publication which are critical of claims that George Washington is still alive and walking the Earth these two hundred plus years after his supposed death.

I wonder if we should ever see articles in this publication which are critical of claims that Atilla the Hun is still alive and walking the Earth these ~1,600 years after his supposed death.

I wonder if we should ever see articles in this publication which are critical of claims that Abraham Lincoln is still alive and walking the Earth these ~140 years after his supposed death.

Of course it is appropriate to see articles in this publication which are critical of religion, and it is not an example of "coercion."

|11.22.06 @ 9:14AM|#

Are "Penn & Teller" are "coercing" people when they advocate against ouiji boards? ;)

Am I being "coerced" when people call atheists "jerks?" ;)

|11.22.06 @ 9:45AM|#

You in turn argued that this would be some sort of "coercion," which also doesn't make much sense on its face.

No, clever lad, I said that unlike all the other things that Reason puts in the class of "things libertarians oppose", religion is a voluntary choice, not coerced, and as such should be treated seriously and not treated as a prejudged topic. Go back and read my comment rather than mischaracterize it, and argue against your mischaracterization. My original comment is entirely clear. There should be no presumptive bias. Criticism is wonderful. One sided dogma is not.

Not to mention the

Many of your recnt above comments as equally as juvenile as me calling you a twat; however at least i'm direct and sincere about my point = you are just a twat who is trying to revive some weak points. You are going back and trying to make inane comments you've made seem 'insightful' post-hoc (comparing Scipio to Christ?), when they're just as dumb as when you first made them, and no one has really commented on the insight of the point other than to yawn.

The majority of your comments on the topic have been generally trying to make a 'rule' from exceptions. Its boring and pretentious, and not in line with someone who seems to pretend to some razor sharp classical application of logic & rhetoric. Its clearly mostly a pose.

In fact, I read most of your comments in a faux english accent.

thoreau|11.22.06 @ 10:09AM|#

Gilmore, you are awesome!

|11.22.06 @ 10:20AM|#

GILMORE,

No, clever lad, I said that unlike all the other things that Reason puts in the class of "things libertarians oppose", religion is a voluntary choice, not coerced, and as such should be treated seriously and not treated as a prejudged topic. Go back and read my comment rather than mischaracterize it, and argue against your mischaracterization.

You wrote nothing like that.

This again is what you wrote:

One, is that religion is largely a matter of personal choice = not coerced.

If "free minds and free markets" are basic tenets of this paper, then it would be violating at least one of them in following your recommended proscription.

This tells me that you are arguing for a criticism free zone for religion, since it is "not coerced" (which may be debateable).

Then again, only you know what was exactly going on in your head; I can only look at the language you put down here and make reasonable judgments about its content.

...however at least i'm direct and sincere about my point = you are just a twat who is trying to revive some weak points.

Yes, I am sure that you are a paragon of virtue.

You are going back and trying to make inane comments you've made seem 'insightful' post-hoc (comparing Scipio to Christ?), when they're just as dumb as when you first made them, and no one has really commented on the insight of the point other than to yawn.

Claiming that George Washington rose from the grave is about as believeable as claiming that Christ rose from the grave. Its not that this is "insightful" - its not even original - it is just that it tears down the notion that religion is above criticism.

The majority of your comments on the topic have been generally trying to make a 'rule' from exceptions.

This is such a subjective claim, I don't even know what I am supposed to do with it. I guess I just ignore it.

Its boring and pretentious, and not in line with someone who seems to pretend to some razor sharp classical application of logic & rhetoric. Its clearly mostly a pose.

Again, an entirely subjective claim. I am damned if I argue against it and I am damned if I ignore it. Since there is less effort to be put into the latter, I'll that option.

Anyway, I am of the opinion that those who pyschologize debates - as you have here - simply obscure the conversation. Honestly, you could make any psychological claim about me that you want to; that adds nothing to the conversation except personal animus. And its based on nothing besides armchair psychobabble.

|11.22.06 @ 10:22AM|#

thoreau,

Your knee-jerk dislike of me is very amusing.

|11.22.06 @ 10:27AM|#

thoreau,Your knee-jerk dislike of me is very amusing.

Since it's Thanksgiving weekend, it would be even more amusing is Thoreau posted "Zeno is an idiot" over and over and over again when Zeno's not even talking to him.

|11.22.06 @ 10:35AM|#

Thanksgiving Thread,

You know, I could bring up some really nasty things about you (if I am guessing correctly as to your person). Really, really embarressing shit. But I'm not. Its not good for me and it is not good for you.

And people wonder why we have driven linguist, StevenCrane, VM, etc. from grylliade.

|11.22.06 @ 11:39AM|#

This tells me that you are arguing for a criticism free zone for religion

No, my douche drinking nemesis, that is not what I am advocating, or said.

Let's do it again for posterity

Guy A says this =

I would love to see Reason take as firm a stance against religious thought as it is willing to take against, e.g., deceased Communist regimes (etc)

I say (in above quote) I do NOT think Reason magazine should adopt a single overriding point of view on a vast, fundemental element of human life, something as varied and complex as 'reason' itself.

In my view, any 'single' position on religion is reductive. Dude's recommendation runs counter to the basic tenets of this paper; i think something embedded in the first amendment would be something to consider more 'reasonably' than to cast aside as historical 'flaw' of society a la Communist regimes and other odious examples of human folly.

And to be clear, anyone's personal dislike for you was probably developed progressively over this thread.

But that's just a subjective claim, right?

Tool

|11.22.06 @ 11:45AM|#

GILMORE,

Troll all you want. I'm no longer in the water.

Anyway, you keep on taking a flamethrower to the room. It will get you lots of attention I am sure.

|11.22.06 @ 3:38PM|#

Hmmmm...

You can't force atheism on anyone. Even big old powerful communist regiems like the Soviet Union were incapable of FORCing atheism.
What was the case in the USSR was that religion was outlawed, it was not a nation of atheists.

The people who make the USSR was an atheist state argument are wrong and in my opinion they also SUCK.

You are going to tell me that everyone in those days did not believe in gods????

|11.22.06 @ 3:45PM|#

Gilmore,

You have fallen into a fallacy. It is a big lie from believers that atheists don't think of anything larger than themselves.
However, I do have "hope" not "faith" in something larger than myself, and it is called having hope in MY SPECIES.
I have hope that my species will overcome the narsicism of religion and god belief. I hope my species will overcome its own tendency to want to destroy itself.
However, comments made by you and people like yourself make my "hope" dwindle bradah....

|11.22.06 @ 3:59PM|#

"You can't force atheism on anyone. Even big old powerful communist regiems like the Soviet Union were incapable of FORCing atheism.
What was the case in the USSR was that religion was outlawed, it was not a nation of atheists."

no duh. and this is relevant how? the point is that the USSR was an Officially Atheist regime, in the same way that the Vatican is an officially Catholic Regime. and that SovComs, in the name of their ideology, part of which is atheism, murdered millions upon millions, as did Mao.

The point is that the 20th century is pretty conclusive evidence that it was not/is not religion that makes us murderous rapacious thugs. We *are* murderous rapacious thugs. Religion doesn't cause it, it just offers some an excuse for violence, one that atheist murderous thugs don't use.

In atheist regimes defense, religions (most of them) had their reformation and are not (with the exception of radical islam) promoting or an excuse for most of the murderous stuff that goes on in the 21st century. Atheist regimes were a new item inthe 20th century, and they tried pretty hard to play catchup in the pogrom, forced starvation, murdering in the name of ideology game.

|11.22.06 @ 4:07PM|#

I claim that I am OFFICIALLY an athiest. So Whit who can I contact, like the old USSR apparently did (OFFICIALLY ATHEIST REGIME), to become an offical athiest.

Because, as you write, all one needs is that "official" title be completley ligitimately athiest...

|11.22.06 @ 4:33PM|#

Talking about any regime being "atheist" makes about as much sense as calling it an "non-gerbil eating regime." Atheism isn't an ideology: it's the lack of a PARTICULAR ideology. Stalinist Russia happened to be atheist, but that's irrelevant to what it did or it's ideology. What you were thinking of was that it was anti-religious. That's not a necessary or definitive part of "atheism."

|11.22.06 @ 7:51PM|#

Religion is bullshit.

|11.22.06 @ 8:58PM|#

"the USSR was an Officially Atheist regime"

Hmmm...

I wonder what other country is an Officially Atheist regime...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

|11.23.06 @ 2:17PM|#

May I also become an Official Atheist? Somebody email Nick G. and have some shirts printed up!! And I need to clarify. The USSR and Mao killed people for their ideology, part of which was atheism? Does that mean that we Official Atheists are second chair to the Catholic Church who did ALL of their killing in the name of religion? I can't stand being second to a bunch of ___________.

|11.24.06 @ 11:36AM|#

You have fallen into a fallacy. It is a big lie from believers that atheists don't think of anything larger than themselves

i never made claims about athiests; just helped clarify what 1 assumption was that prevent them from being viable candidates.

if there was some other 'fallacy' you had in mind, let me know.

just out of curiosity... what exactly *is* the shared areligious 'god' of the athiest?

IAYG

Reason.com

New at Reason

Ashish George|11.21.06 @ 11:24AM|#

thoreau|11.21.06 @ 11:24AM|#

ed|11.21.06 @ 11:27AM|#

ron|11.21.06 @ 11:33AM|#

emme|11.21.06 @ 11:50AM|#

thoreau|11.21.06 @ 11:52AM|#

Franklin Harris|11.21.06 @ 12:26PM|#

Garth|11.21.06 @ 12:47PM|#

Lord Duppy|11.21.06 @ 1:02PM|#

Dan|11.21.06 @ 1:07PM|#

grylliade|11.21.06 @ 2:17PM|#

ed|11.21.06 @ 2:47PM|#

thoreau|11.21.06 @ 5:32PM|#

Rhywun|11.21.06 @ 5:42PM|#