The New Atheists; The Cult of Science?

[InfiniteNow]

This short video really struck a chord with me. I hope you enjoy it, like I did. ;)

 

 

 

YouTube - Militant Atheists http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H74ckoCYq3c

[Southtown]

I feel your pain, and I feel your hope.

[Boerseun]

Good vid, INow. Now if only more people would watch it, and listen...

 

Right - I'm off to mutilate my son's genitals. Catchya later.

[freeztar]

Good vid, INow. Now if only more people would watch it, and listen...

 

Right - I'm off to mutilate my son's genitals. Catchya later.

 

Well, I've certainly seen better vids. I know the title speaks of the irony, but its message is lost before the meaning is transferred (for me anyway). Don't get me wrong, I agree with the points made. Yet, I don't think militant atheism is ever good. I know it's a joke, but letting it (or making it) fit is not the brightest strategy imho. Wouldn't it be better to straight out reject the claims of being a militant atheist? Well, again, I guess this is what has been done, but I question the approach.

[modest]

I'm curious INow,

 

I don't think atheism can't be militant because it's not a belief system. But, there are atheistic belief systems such as Humanism. I wonder what you would say to someone who claimed that Hitchens (as an example) supported the war in Iraq in order to spread Humanism. In other words: the Iraqi leadership did not hold to the tenets of Humanism as it subjugated and oppressed its own people, so someone like Hitchens wants to force the tenets of Humanism on them militarily. And, that such a thing is militant Humanism.

 

I really am curious what you would make of this. I have a little conflict going in my own mind and I'm looking for perspective.

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

I wonder what you would say to someone who claimed that Hitchens (as an example) supported the war in Iraq in order to spread Humanism. In other words: the Iraqi leadership did not hold to the tenets of Humanism as it subjugated and oppressed its own people, so someone like Hitchens wants to force the tenets of Humanism on them militarily. And, that such a thing is militant Humanism.

 

Well, it's an interesting question, but I must acknowledge that when I read it the answer seems pretty obvious to me. Is not that brand of humanism "militant" because they are advocating war... the "forcing of the tenets of humanism on to others miltarily?"

 

I mean, if they were just using words... evidence... logic to change the mindsets of these other people, then it would not be militant. That's my perspective, anyway.

 

This, I think, is the point of the video I shared above. Most atheists simply do not offer unearned respect or deference to the religious-based beliefs of others, and most openly challenge those beliefs just as they would any other idea or assertion... and, for this, they are labeled as loud mouthed or militant. Yet, if someone told you they thought that the tooth fairy made gatorade have electrolytes, you'd probably challenge them and request evidence of a) the tooth fairy, and :eek2: the impact of that entity on the electrolytic quality of the sports drink. That's basically all atheists are doing... for the most part anyway... yet they are labeled as militant and loud mouthed and all manner of other derisive and derogatory names.

 

Now, if atheists were forcing their rejection of the god concept or dismissal of beliefs grounded in nothing other than religious fairy tales on to others... somehow using the power of the military to do so... or actively oppressing people with differing views (with religious views)... then I'd say the term "militant" would probably be warranted. But that's simply not the case with which we're dealing... far from it, actually (it's one of those "I respect your right to believe what you want, but not the belief itself" issues).

 

So, in your example above, if the humanist is simply consistent and biting with their critiques, using logic and evidence to show the flaws implicit in the views of those whom they oppose, then they are not being militant. They are, as a general rule, being nothing more than rational, reasonable, and logical... Basically, holding all beliefs and assertions to a consistent standard. However, if (as in your example above) they seek to support war or armed tactics with weapons and tanks and the like to convince others of their position (or, to simply oppress differing mindsets/positions)... then they would be, by definition, being militant.

 

Like I said above. To me, the answer to your question is pretty obvious. If they use force or military power to spread their views, then they are militaristic. If instead they use words and rhetoric and logic, I should like to think that they are not militaristic whatsoever. I suppose it's subjective, and folks may disagree on what is and what is not militaristic, but find that the weight of the debate is heavily skewed toward one side, and that the definition of "militaristic" doesn't really fit (is hardly appropriate) in the vast majority of circumstances where it's being used to describe atheists.

 

 

 

 

Now, for another on-point video. Enjoy. ;)

 

YouTube - ATHEIST!!!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0A4_bwCaX0

[enorbet2]

While the part of me that recoils in horror at statistics such as "in the USA 62% of people believe in The Devil, while only 42% of people in the USA believe the tenets of The Theory of Evolution" and possibly even abject fear after seeing the PBS documentary on the Dover, Pennsylvania fight over school textbooks and how much cynical wealth and power are out to win minds even with lies they know are lies, and what's more to change laws that affect all of us, applauds the "Militant Atheist" video, however I soon return to reason.

 

Ultimately I can see very little good that can come from arguing theology with theists in general. Why argue? What can be gained, especially by being "loudmouthed and aggressive" and "looking for a fight" in a fight one cannot win? Frankly if the goal one has in mind is to work for the day when there are no more religions, picking fights and adopting an aggressive stance generally at some point will lead to real militancy. There is no definition of "pogrom" or "cleansing" that rules out theism by atheists should the power table turn.

 

It is much smarter and more humane, IMHO, to win by example, both personally and through Science itself with the only action remotely related to militancy being actively seeking level application of Law so that takeovers and indoctrinations are halted when they cross the line of the Law. I see no good reason, no good result that can come from being confrontational with theists. That, IMHO, is fighting their battle, with their rules, and on their turf. Sun Tzu would not approve and neither do I.

[Michaelangelica]

While the part of me that recoils in horror at statistics such as "in the USA 62% of people believe in The Devil, while only 42% of people in the USA believe the tenets of The Theory of Evolution" . . .

 

Ultimately I can see very little good that can come from arguing theology with theists in general. Why argue? What can be gained, . . .

" in a fight one cannot win?

 

 

It is much smarter and more humane, IMHO, to win by example, both personally and through Science itself with the only action remotely related to militancy being actively seeking level application of Law so that takeovers and indoctrinations are halted when they cross the line of the Law. .

Yes well said

Belief is just that-"-belief". Apart from a few glitches, after making the assumption that there is a god, gods or God then everything becomes passably logical after that.

Although I am not sure why USA creationist believe that She could not have invented Natural Selection.

Some of my best friends are Christians. I respect their faith and try not to offend with my atheism. Some Christians do great Public Service others are evil (like the Pope).;)

It must give one a wonderful comfort being a Christian-- although I personally cannot think of anything worse than living forever. One of the reasons I have not embraced Buddhism which I find an attractive philosophy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

AND

AND

My add blocker is not working but this was the Hypo add at the top of the page

[modest]

I first apologize,

 

I don't think atheism can't be militant because it's not a belief system.

 

This double negative should have been a single negative, and I hope you got that, INow.

 

Well, it's an interesting question, but I must acknowledge that when I read it the answer seems pretty obvious to me. Is not that brand of humanism "militant" because they are advocating war... the "forcing of the tenets of humanism on to others miltarily?"...

 

Like I said above. To me, the answer to your question is pretty obvious. If they use force or military power to spread their views, then they are militaristic. If instead they use words and rhetoric and logic, I should like to think that they are not militaristic whatsoever.

 

I can't accept this. Actually, I don't see a distinction. To advocate an action is to participate in its execution. If you help someone kill then you're a killer—it's unambiguous to me. If the soldiers sent to war are militant then so much more are those who sent them. Otherwise, I believe, to borrow a phrase, you exculpate the murderer.

 

So why then is not Hitchens (I keep with this example) militant? He has literally advocated the killing of Iraqis and Afghans for the advancement of his belief system. A few years before he said regarding Afghanistan's invasion "a triumph of humanism has occurred", the Taliban basically said the same regarding their takeover—'a triumph of Islam has occurred'. If the second is "militant" then so is the first. Right?

 

And, I'm not saying Humanism is the moral equivalent of sharia Islam. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that either belief system can be approached militantly—by the point of a gun. This worries me because I supported the overthrow in Afghanistan (and Iraq, I embarrassingly admit) for the same exact reasons that Hitchens did, and I'm afraid that might technically make me a militant Humanist. Unless someone can show me the error in my thinking then I'm afraid I might be stuck with that.

 

An open question for the forum, I guess. Am I, is Hitchens, a militant Humanist?

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

Modest - Unless I'm terribly mistaken, we both pretty much seem to agree on these points. I think where I failed in my previous response was when I omitted discussing people who actively advocate military action with their rhetoric/words.

 

When I answered, I presented my points as a basic dichotomy between "using logic, reason, and evidence" versus "using military force." I argued that words alone cannot really be militaristic. This oversimplifies, but it's a rough approximation of my points.

 

However, I missed an important caveat, and thank you for pointing that out. I agree with you that words which advocate military action are themselves militaristic. I did not intend my distinction to suggest that those who speak out in favor of war are not themselves being militaristic. Making such an argument/distinction would be... in my estimation... rather silly and inaccurate.

 

My stance is that if someone speaks out in favor of... if they advocate or encourage militaristic actions, then they are being militaristic. In the case of Hitchens per your example, he was being militant in this instance.

 

However, I want to emphasize that word... "instance." I don't find Hitchens (as a general rule) to be a militant individual. I find his debates very intelligent and reasonable, and his points grounded in sound logic and consistency. I would not call him militant in these instances where he uses his rhetoric and logic to defeat the ideologies of others, only in those instances where he actively argues in favor of military action. I would not classify him as a militant individual, nor would I suggest his debating tactics are militant, but I would openly concede that his views on Iraq were militant, and deserve such a classification. I do not, however, extend that classification on to his other arguments and the method he uses to make them.

 

So, my point in the previous post was focused almost solely on regular debates... such as those we have here at Hypography. We use words and logic and reason to cut off the arguments of our opponents at their ankles. I don't think this is militaristic... I don't find this militant in the least. It's basic academic exchange and peer review, AFAIC. However, if those words were being used to argue in favor of oppression, or in favor of military action, then I would classify those words and motivations as militant.

 

Most atheists are just using words though, and those words are about seeking consistent and empirically validated models of our universe, hence my claim that words and rhetoric are not (as a general rule) militant, nor do they deserve to be labeled as such. It's obvious to me that this all changes if those words are being used to advocate military engagement and violence, and I think you would agree.

 

 

Now, if you feel we still have not successfully connected our points on this, and you sense there still exists disagreement in our views, I'd be enormously curious to find out where and why. Cheers. :cup:

 

 

 

[EDIT]'ed to add:

You expressed concern that you supported the war in Iraq for similar humanistic reasons as Hitchens. Perhaps part of the problem here is your implicit idea that militancy is somehow bad. I should think that in some cases militancy is a good thing... Like taking out an oppressive regime and freeing their people, or militarily removing from power a leader who prevents food and medicine from his people. In those instances, militancy is good, so perhaps instead of focusing solely on the word as an objective negative, you should realize that it is often positive depending on circumstance.

[/EDIT]

[modest]

Now, if you feel we still have not successfully connected our points on this, and you sense there still exists disagreement in our views, I'd be enormously curious to find out where and why. Cheers.

 

No, I think you’re spot on with your response. I recognize my own genius and good judgment for knowing who to take this quandary to :confused:

 

You expressed concern that you supported the war in Iraq for similar humanistic reasons as Hitchens. Perhaps part of the problem here is your implicit idea that militancy is somehow bad.

 

I won’t deny that, but I will word it very differently. I’ve avoided saying militant Humanism is bad or wrong and I’ve avoided faulting Hitchens for his position which I really couldn’t do without faulting myself for my own position anyway. I’m only saying that it worries me and it *is* something to consider. I’ll say that it bothers me because I can occasionally sound like a blithering idiot trying to support my own position on the topic. Following my own logic to its conclusion I’m essentially left saying “I sometimes support killing in the name of my belief system (atheistic Humanism), and I’ve decided that other people’s belief systems don’t merit the same right”. Maybe that’s good and moral (I won’t argue that one way or the other), but it’s nevertheless absurd. It would almost be funny if it weren’t so serious. Consider,

 

There is a group of people acting violently, fighting each other over some stupid medieval ideas. Enter the enlightened army of rationalism pointing their collective guns at the group and shooting them up a bit, saying “could you please cut out all this needless violence and learn to solve your problems with rational discourse... or we’ll kill some more of you.” It may sometimes be the right thing to do as you point out, but one sounds like a lunatic saying it out loud. And, I agree with you, Hitchens is a great debater, but even he sounds absurd trying to support this position.

 

Put it this way (as I dig my hole a little deeper :surprise:): when I sit down and try to figure out the differences between Stalinism and militant Humanism I get a little worried. Who said “I hate my enemies and I think the enemies of civilization should be killed.” That’s more or less what Stalin said while taking over half of Europe with the gulags and the doctor’s plot and all that, but the quote isn’t his. It’s Hitchens.

 

Yeah, it worries me and I don’t think this idea of militant atheism (notwithstanding the misnomer that it is) should be shrugged off so easily. Any group of people (including us enlightened Humanists) claiming moral superiority and asserting the right to kill others should probably bother themselves to consider what it is exactly they are saying and doing, and perhaps be a little worried in their conduct.

 

The video you posted touches none of that. Its content is all true, but it appears to me as slight of hand or misdirection. I'm extremely tempted to say that *all* militant belief systems are "bad" and atheistic belief systems are not exempt from that rule. But, I'll just go as far as saying that they all worry me, and it is probably very dangerous to shrug off the possibility or the risk of militant atheism (not that you have done that, INow, I'm just thinking out loud at this point)... and probably making very little sense. I'll get off my soapbox now.

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

I’ll say that it bothers me because I can occasionally sound like a blithering idiot trying to support my own position on the topic. Following my own logic to its conclusion I’m essentially left saying “I sometimes support killing in the name of my belief system (atheistic Humanism), and I’ve decided that other people’s belief systems don’t merit the same right”.

A very authentic, sincere, and thought-provoking post, my friend, and I appreciate your openness tremendously.

 

It's a tough line to find... this cognitive space of whether or not killing is okay or if military action is justifiable, and whether one ideology can be the basis of those actions. I, too, find a terrible and distasteful overlap in the actions of Stalin and those advocating war in Iraq (even if for Humanistic reasons). You raise a very fair concern, and the issue (to me at least) is really more about outcome... more about the results of implementing that ideology... and how those results are judged beyond the ideology itself.

 

I may be parsing this too much and showing my own biases here, but my thoughts keep returning to the idea of outcome, and how we measure the "goodness" of that outcome. The individual who holds/accepts the ideology will tend to see the outcome resulting from the implementation of their ideology as a good thing. The Stalinist will tend to judge the results to be good if they are consistent with their stalinistic ideology. The Humanist will tend to judge the results to be good if they are consistent with their humanistic ideology. However, the question for me becomes... How then do third parties judge those same results... third parties who do not share those specific ideologies/worldviews? Will they see the outcome of those militant actions as a net positive or a net negative?

 

My general point (for which I'm admittedly struggling to find voice) is that it's justified if the militancy is judged to be for a net good across ideologies... If it can be judged as a good thing to do and is not dependent on localized ideology, then it is, in fact, a good thing to do. My example about using the military to remove a dictator who is killing his people and preventing them from receiving food and medicine seems to meet this "across ideologies it's regarded as objectively good" criteria. However, if the action can only be judged as good by those who cling to the ideology, and other third party observers find that action inherently wrong, then it's much less likely to be a "good" thing. For example, killing of all Jews is good to the ideology of the Nazi or the fundamentalist Muslim, but not to others who do not accept/live by those worldviews.

 

This is why I personally tend to (readily) dismiss the idea of militant atheism. I'm just not familiar with large groups atheists out there declaring that we should kill folks with a high degree of religiosity or belief in deity based on nothing more than faith. Admittedly, maybe once or twice in a moment of weakness and exasperation I may have made such a declaration myself about our need to just "shoot all religious people in the face," but that comment from me was not demonstrative of my true feelings on the matter, nor was it informed by any "ideology," just a temporary moment of frustration on which I would never act nor advocate action. Adding to that, since atheism itself is neither an ideology nor a worldview, it's rather difficult and specious to suggest that this "label" of atheism (which people use to describe those who lack belief in god) could even possibly inform a decision to advocate or engage in militancy. I think this is partially why you keep switching to the topic of Humanism... which actually IS an ideology.

 

Either way, if the outcome of the warring action can only be deemed a net "good" by those following/accepting that ideology informing it, then it probably is much more deserving of critique and possibly rejection by the global community. However, if the outcome of the warring action can be deemed a net "good" by the larger global community, and is not contingent on some localized worldview, then chances are much better it truly is a collective net good.

 

What I dislike about my argument above is how it seems to rely on "truth by popularity," but that's not an accurate description of what I'm suggesting. The issue is more this... If the goodness of the action is not contingent on some localized ideology, and is more objectively seen as a net positive across many ideologies, then chances are higher that it truly is a good action. I think that's about as close as I'm going to get with your question.

 

To close, though, atheism is not an ideology... it does not inform actions... and to call it militant seems ridiculous. The atheism being hit with that label is the atheism you see in online chats and forums such as this... in YouTube videos and news articles... in coffee shops and libraries. It's not given the label of "militant" because these people are advocating war or trying to kill people who are religious. That's simply not happening. Those who argue in favor of atheism are not attempting to cause a critical existence failure in others... They are just not showing the deference and respect of religion which it has enjoyed for so many years in the past... simply dismissing religious claims for lack of proof... encouraging others to do the same (just as they do with nearly all other aspects of their lives)... and, for this, they are called loud mouthed and militant, and it's an incorrect usage of the label "militant" in nearly all instances where it's being applied.

 

It's greatly similar to what we do in science and with scientific claims... we critique them... we challenge assertions... we demand empirical evidence which can be replicated by others... So, why aren't these same people calling scientific journals "militant" for holding their article submissions to a harsh peer review? I'll tell you why... because that would be stupid beyond all measure. The difference is not in the approach people are using, nor in what people are advocating. The difference resides entirely in the topic being criticized, and many of us are simply tired of the double standard. :hyper:

[HydrogenBond]

The empirical mentality often leads to stereo typing, which is why I don't particularly like this approach to reality. If you look at any social stereo type, these are based on some loose empirical evidence, without full control of reason. One can usually show a few data points or sometimes even a trend, in members of a group, and then try to lump everyone empirically. The age of reason tried to get rid of this, but it has made a comeback thanks to some areas of science.

 

Empirical is like margarine, which has to claim it tastes like rational butter to get people to buy it. Butter or reason never claims to taste like margarine, since butter is the standard for taste. But if we pitch butter is not good for you, margarine is better, people will put aside common sense, and buy into empirical stereo types because they think this reflects the new butter standard.

 

When I look at an atheist or a religious person, common sense says there is not a on-off switch, or all or not, at work. That is an empirical margarine stereo type. Most people exist somewhere in the middle, having both features to various degrees. One can go to church on Sunday, but live the rest of the week just like an atheist in terms of reality output. One should judges a tree by the fruit it bares, which is the butter standard, not by a margarine standard of an on-off stereo type.

 

The on-off stereo type is what make margarine appear to taste as good as butter, since reason has a probability of 1.0 and is a sure thing, which the margarine stereo type pretends to be. One has to go back to butter every now to help one see that empirical margarine is only a substitute spread.

[modest]

A very authentic, sincere, and thought-provoking post, my friend, and I appreciate your openness tremendously.

 

Thank you, and I also appreciate your thoughtfulness in response. I should probably add for the causal observer that we are surely far more likeminded here than it might superficially appear. I am arguing on the extreme boundaries of what it is I accept and believe. That’s just how I test my own beliefs, and I’m sure it can easily be misjudged for arguing the opposite of what I do in fact believe, but, oh well, I’m sure I’m about to do it again :hihi:

 

This is why I personally tend to (readily) dismiss the idea of militant atheism. I'm just not familiar with large groups atheists out there declaring that we should kill folks with a high degree of religiosity or belief in deity based on nothing more than faith. Admittedly, maybe once or twice in a moment of weakness and exasperation I may have made such a declaration myself about our need to just "shoot all religious people in the face," but that comment from me was not demonstrative of my true feelings on the matter, nor was it informed by any "ideology," just a temporary moment of frustration on which I would never act nor advocate action. Adding to that, since atheism itself is neither an ideology nor a worldview, it's rather difficult and specious to suggest that this "label" of atheism (which people use to describe those who lack belief in god) could even possibly inform a decision to advocate or engage in militancy. I think this is partially why you keep switching to the topic of Humanism... which actually IS an ideology.

 

Indeed. I essentially said the same along the lines of “atheism can't be militant because it's not a belief system”. People who think anyone openly saying that there is no god is militant... well, those people are ignorant and that’s not what I’m talking about. Also, you’re correct, that’s exactly why I’m talking about Humanism.

 

My general point (for which I'm admittedly struggling to find voice) is that it's justified if the militancy is judged to be for a net good across ideologies... If it can be judged as a good thing to do and is not dependent on localized ideology, then it is, in fact, a good thing to do. My example about using the military to remove a dictator who is killing his people and preventing them from receiving food and medicine seems to meet this "across ideologies it's regarded as objectively good" criteria. However, if the action can only be judged as good by those who cling to the ideology, and other third party observers find that action inherently wrong, then it's much less likely to be a "good" thing. For example, killing of all Jews is good to the ideology of the Nazi or the fundamentalist Muslim, but not to others who do not accept/live by those worldviews...

 

Either way, if the outcome of the warring action can only be deemed a net "good" by those following/accepting that ideology informing it, then it probably is much more deserving of critique and possibly rejection by the global community. However, if the outcome of the warring action can be deemed a net "good" by the larger global community, and is not contingent on some localized worldview, then chances are much better it truly is a collective net good.

 

Right. I agree with you to an extent. Before waging war on some far-off people we should see what the rest of the world thinks about the idea. Clearly. And, that is, itself, a very humanist idea. It is the essence of Humanism to think that the proper judged of what is good for mankind is man. So, who else to tell you something is good or bad, but the rest of humanity? There are no divine books, stone tablets, or fairy princesses in the sky to tell us, so we can only trust our own collective judgment. But this line of reasoning breaks down as soon as you realize that most of the world rejects that atheistic, humanistic reasoning. They are judging what is good or bad on an entirely different standard—one that I cannot personally accept and, in fact, reject very strongly.

 

Can you really, then, defer judgment about the morality of something like military action based on the opinion of belief systems you reject wholeheartedly? I don’t think I can and I don’t think you could either. Christians and Muslims (making up more than half the world’s population) are maybe both happily seeking armageddon and look at the war leading up to it with glee, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to judge my support of war on their judgment of the morality of that result. I just couldn’t do it.

 

So, we’re back where we started. Humanism is an atheistic belief system in which it sometimes seems good and logical to kill whole bunches of people. As a belief system, it can be very militant. I could give you a humanist argument right now that concludes nuking North Korea is a good idea. Killing up to a quarter of their population could be seen as a positive result on the whole of humanity averaged over the next century. I could make that argument logically and flawlessly. And, people have believed those arguments in the past. Stalin did indeed frame his arguments in atheistic, humanistic terms. His comrades saw the logic and bought into it. I know that’s not something atheists like hearing (let alone saying), but it’s true.

 

I’m just saying, there can be something very rotten in the state of Denmark. There can be militant, atheistic belief systems which seem very moral according to that belief system but are nonetheless absurd. It’s that very belief system which led me to support the war in Iraq, and has led others to do very awful things. I don’t have a solution. I do not have a better alternative, and I would strongly support Humanism if this were the occasion to do so—especially over religion! I’m just saying that it worries me. It’s not something that I shrug off lightly, and this whole idea of militant atheistic ideologies is actually something that troubles me somewhat.

 

~modest

[Michaelangelica]

My, acivilised discussion on the web. What will happen next-- Armageddon?

 

Surely the atheist Stalin and the Christian Hitler were just extreme aborations of both belief systems and shows how hard it is to use labels --as HB implies.

 

I wonder if Gandhi or Madella were atheists or Christians?

His religious observances included non-Hindu prayers and hymns. On the last day of a fast in 1933, for instance, he told his secretary, "Better fix up the plan for tomorrow. Dr. Ansari will read something from the Koran, we might have a Christian hymn and then our song of the true Vaishnava."*33 The tendency was particularly strong in regard to Islam. A visitor around 1920 recalled, years later: "Gandhiji's prayers included readings from the Gita and the Koran. To these were later added verses from the Bible and recitations from Parsi, Sikh, and Buddhist prayers, as well as the singing of hymns from various religions."*34

Gandhi's Last Words | bfg-München

Perhaps neither.

 

 

For me my atheism is "I don't care, religion is just a silly primitive superstition." I rarely spend any time talking about it. I cannot understand how any same person can believe half the propositions of the world's faiths. (The three main ones seem incredibly intolerant). Perhaps I have not eaten enough mushrooms --which I intend to do when I get old, just in case I have missed something. :hihi:

 

As for atheism not having a belief system I am not so sure when I see sites like this

Positive Atheism (since 1995) Join the Struggle Against Anti-Atheist Bigotry!

[InfiniteNow]

So, who else to tell you something is good or bad, but the rest of humanity? There are no divine books, stone tablets, or fairy princesses in the sky to tell us, so we can only trust our own collective judgment. But this line of reasoning breaks down as soon as you realize that most of the world rejects that atheistic, humanistic reasoning. They are judging what is good or bad on an entirely different standard—one that I cannot personally accept and, in fact, reject very strongly.

 

Can you really, then, defer judgment about the morality of something like military action based on the opinion of belief systems you reject wholeheartedly? I don’t think I can and I don’t think you could either. Christians and Muslims (making up more than half the world’s population) are maybe both happily seeking armageddon and look at the war leading up to it with glee, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to judge my support of war on their judgment of the morality of that result. I just couldn’t do it.

Nor could I, but I think that much of this was covered with my response above. Those parts of these religions which overlap are going to meet my criteria of crossing ideologies... being non-dependent on one worldview, and instead finding consensus across worldviews.

 

While there will be exceptions, those actions which would be advocated by Christians, by Muslims, and by Jews would very likely also be advocated by non-theists.

 

Along similar lines, the Muslims do NOT believe in the second coming of Christ (the armageddon mention), so arguments in favor of that would be localized and dependent upon the single ideology/worldview. It would not extend beyond it. Further, I'd speculate that even those who hold these ideologies would not actively advocate the end of the world. That approach tends to be heavily restricted to the fundamentalists, and hence is even more consistent with the approach you and I agree upon... That the actions must be deemed as "good" across humans.

 

I appreciate the concern you've raised, but I don't find it very likely, as even those who are religious will often concede that killing, raping, harming others is bad (despite their teachings to the contrary in the book of fairy tales). In sum, their "belief" in the coming armageddon isn't likely to be argued or advocated by non-fundies. I could be wrong, though.

 

 

I could give you a humanist argument right now that concludes nuking North Korea is a good idea. Killing up to a quarter of their population could be seen as a positive result on the whole of humanity averaged over the next century. I could make that argument logically and flawlessly. And, people have believed those arguments in the past. Stalin did indeed frame his arguments in atheistic, humanistic terms. His comrades saw the logic and bought into it. I know that’s not something atheists like hearing (let alone saying), but it’s true.

I don't think your comparison is valid. Stalin did not engage in those actions as a result of his atheism. His atheism did not inform his decision to kill all of those people. He used logic with which people agreed, but those militant activities of his were not informed by atheism. That would be like saying that my lack of belief in the tooth fairy caused me to rape a child. It's completely unrelated and nonsequitur.

 

Stalins actions were better described as nationalistic and imperial... dictatorial. This is why people challenge it when the red herring is put forth that he did what he did because he was an atheist. It's a total unfounded lie with no basis in reality and is wrought with logical fallacies... and THAT's why people refute the claim. It's like saying that Lincoln helped free the slaves because he didn't believe in the easter bunny.

[InfiniteNow]

Surely the atheist Stalin and the Christian Hitler were just extreme aborations of both belief systems and shows how hard it is to use labels --as HB implies.

Again, atheism is not a belief system. HBs post shows only his own bias and over reliance on analogy. I was just waiting to see where olive oil and ghee came into it all, and would have appreciated mention of how we've evolved tastes for lots of things which are seriously detrimental to our health. :hihi:

 

 

As for atheism not having a belief system I am not so sure when I see sites like this:

Positive Atheism (since 1995) Join the Struggle Against Anti-Atheist Bigotry!

This doesn't cause me concern or doubt in the least. The simple fact is that this is a group of people coming together and defining themselves with certain perspectives. It very much is an ideology, but it's not one which is global. It's a local description to which only a subpopulation of people subscribe.