7 comments

1. 

   Comment by Steve Bragg on July 12, 2005 at 6:40 am

   >The number of people who have died in the name of a deity is unimaginable.

   Wrong. It is imaginable, because that number is orders of magnitude lower than the number of people of have dies in the name of godless, materialist ideologies like communism. Together, Mao, Lenin, Stalin and Pol Pot killed about 100 million people last century. I’d say that’s a fair sight bigger than all Islamic Jihad, Crusade, and Inquisition deaths taken together.

   As J. Budziszewski said, I’ll see your hundred Hyugenot heritics and raise you 50 million Chinese…

   Steve
   DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS

2. 

   Comment by Steve Bragg on July 12, 2005 at 6:41 am

   Sorry, ‘dies’ should have been ‘died’, and ‘heritics’, ‘heretics’…

3. 

   Comment by Kris on July 14, 2005 at 10:08 am

   I think atheism in itself is a religion. It takes just as much faith, if not more, to believe that God doesn’t exist than to believe He does.

4. 

   Comment by Hookflash on July 14, 2005 at 8:01 pm

   “Wrong. It is imaginable, because that number is orders of magnitude lower than the number of people of have died in the name of godless, materialist ideologies like communism.”

   What is this, a contest to see who’s worldview results in the greatest number of casualties? And, since you used “ideologies” (plural), could you list the other materialistic, godless ideologies (besides Stalinism) which have resulted in mass suffering?

   “I think atheism in itself is a religion. It takes just as much faith, if not more, to believe that God doesn’t exist than to believe He does.”

   I think a-unicornism itself is a religion. It takes just as much faith, if not more, to believe that unicorns don’t exist as to believe they do. These are the sorts of silly conclusions you’ll arrive at when you adopt an unreasonable standard of disbelief.

5. 

   Comment by RazorsKiss on July 14, 2005 at 10:55 pm

   What is this, a contest to see who’s worldview results in the greatest number of casualties? And, since you used “ideologies” (plural), could you list the other materialistic, godless ideologies (besides Stalinism) which have resulted in mass suffering?

   Ask your buddy Dave. He’s the one bringing it up to score points for atheism. If he wants to keep score for atheism, he really should mention Communist Russia and Communist China.

   That brings his side way, way up – like… to “the most deaths caused by an ideology in the history mankind”. Hey, Dave started counting. Dave is also a moron for trying to score points off the London bombing by equating suicidal fanatics with all religion. So, I hope you’ll excuse me for being less than impressed with your argument.

   I think a-unicornism itself is a religion. It takes just as much faith, if not more, to believe that unicorns don’t exist as to believe they do. These are the sorts of silly conclusions you’ll arrive at when you adopt an unreasonable standard of disbelief.

   I believe a-atheism itself is a religion. it takes just as much faith, if not more, to believe that atheists don’t exist as to believe they do.

   I believe atheism is like unicorns. I believe it is myriad disparate belief systems, having nothing in common but the staunch belief that there is no such thing as a deity. The individual atheists have no common creed save that. It is more closely aligned to pantheism, where the only common belief is that there is more than one god. From there, there are tons more belief systems included within the set. Does that mean it is not a religion, because it has no specific delineated belief system past that?

   Atheism has one belief in common, and no more than one. God does not exist. That is as clear a religious statement as could be possible. It is the statement that man is the highest form of life in the universe, and thus is the determiner of his own destiny. It is, in some ways, another form of pantheism – except that we skip the “many gods” and go straight to “many self-determinate beings with ultimate authority over their own direction”.

   If you dilute the definition of God, by denying it, religion defaults to a belief in self, or the collective whole, as the authority. Religion is simply the sum total of beliefs which delineate the penultimate authority responsible for, or to, self. In this case, it is man. Or, in harsher variants – nothing whatsoever. Nihilism.

   If man’s greatest responsibility is to himself, and fellow man, that is simply humanism. It is humanism which denies anything above man himself – which is, of course, atheism. Only without God can man be supreme.

   I don’t understand the squirming away from definition so many agnostics, and atheists strive for. If there is no God, man is thus supreme. Is this not humanism? You worship whatever is supremely important to you. Your God is what you hold dearest.

   If it is not god, it IS something. That something is your religion. I don’t care if you call it atheism, agnosticim, or whatever else – that is what you worship.

6. 

   Comment by Hookflash on July 15, 2005 at 5:04 pm

   “If he wants to keep score for atheism, he really should mention Communist Russia and Communist China.”

   But not all atheists are communists. That’s why I was asking for another example of a “godless, materialist” ideology that lead to mass suffering. I’m not trying to be abrasive; as far as I know, communism (specifically in its Stalinist forms) is the only such ideology. Other atheistic worldviews, such as Secular Humanism or Buddhism, have a pretty clean track record.

   Let’s just agree that intransigent ideologues are dangerous, whether they’re theists or atheists.

   “I believe it is myriad disparate belief systems, having nothing in common but the staunch belief that there is no such thing as a deity. The individual atheists have no common creed save that.”

   I agree! This is why atheism, per se, can’t be blamed for the atrocities of communism, imo. All communists may be atheists, but not all atheists are communists. It is the dogmatic ideologies (e.g., Stalinism) we have to watch out for.

   “Does that mean it is not a religion, because it has no specific delineated belief system past that?”

   The commonly accepted definition of religion seems to include positive belief in some sort of deity. When you make that blind affirmation, subsequent affirmations are liable to be equally blind — i.e., it’s a short leap from “God exists” to “God wants me to kill you.” I think this is what Dave was getting at, although I disagree with his tone.

   “I don’t understand the squirming away from definition so many agnostics, and atheists strive for. If there is no God, man is thus supreme. Is this not humanism? You worship whatever is supremely important to you. Your God is what you hold dearest.”

   The commonly accepted definition of God includes various inhuman attributes, such as transcendence and superhuman strength, intelligence, etc. If Humanists worship humans (this is debatable), then this is a necessary but not sufficient condition of humans being “God.”

   Here’s one thing I don’t understand: Theists often try to redefine terms like “religion” and “God” in such a way that they can be applied to their atheistic opponents. But what are they saying? If atheism is a religion, does this mean it’s wrong? If Humanists worship humans as God, does this mean they’re wrong? It seems a tad bit self-refuting to me.

   “I don’t care if you call it atheism, agnosticim, or whatever else – that is what you worship.”

   I disagree. One can believe in God without worshipping him. Similarly, one can believe in humanity as the highest form of life without worshipping it.

7. 

   Comment by RazorsKiss on July 16, 2005 at 3:06 am

   I lost a sizable comment in reply to this.

   This annoys me.

   WP-Hashcash… I love you – but you annoy me, when I forget to refresh occasionally. And forget to save before I click “post”.

The comments are closed.