For Chris Hedges and everyone else

[skepticscott]

who continues to expound on the " 'fundamentalist' atheists are as bad as fundamentalist Christians" meme, the following bears repeating and deserves response from you:

If Christian fundamentalists had their way in this country…I mean REALLY had their way, with no Constitution, no secular courts, no organizations championing freedom of religion and separation of church and state to get in their way, these are just a few examples of the way things would be:

-Daily religious instruction, prayer and Bible study would be required in all schools.

-Church attendance would be mandatory.

-Only Christians would be allowed to serve in elected office or as judges.

-All laws and all science education would have to conform with the Bible and meet the approval of religious leaders.
-Artificial contraception would be illegal.

-Divorce would be illegal.

-Blasphemy would be illegal.

-Working on the Sabbath would be illegal (except for football players and NASCAR drivers).

-Abortion would be illegal and punishable by death.

-Known homosexuals and atheists would be imprisoned or killed.
-Homosexual activity would be illegal and punishable by death.

-Extramarital sex would be illegal and punishable by death.

Now give us your worst-case scenario if “fundamentalist” atheists had their way about everything, and tell us which world you’d rather live in…

[Larkspur]

1. Stalin was a "fundamentalist" atheist

He persecuted religious people for their religion and replaced God with the State and then himself.

However, there are far more examples of religious fanatics murdering those who don't believe as they than there are atheists who did likewise. Karl Marx's communistic atheism is a fairly recent development designed to counter millions of years of religious belief.

[trotsky]

2. Could you please explain what "fundamental" tenets of atheism Stalin was following?

Or was he perhaps following fundamental tenets of COMMUNISM?

[JackRiddler]

17. Stalin was violating fundamental tenets of atheism and communism.

He was a one-man dictator by terror whose main concern was holding power. I guess I don't need to tell "trotsky" that he rejected Communist theory as it had been formulated until then, and began his time in power by killing all of the Communists who actually led the revolution.

He also wasn't an atheist in any missionary sense. He may not have believed in god, but he didn't advance atheism as a philosophy. Crushing religions and advancing atheism are not the same thing. Setting yourself up as god is not atheism. In an ancient setting like Rome, Stalin would have been literally declared a god!

The absolute best spin you could put on him was that he was a nationalist strongman determined to go to any lengths to have Russia industrialize and prevail in the imperialist competition to dominate or be dominated. That was his concern, beyond questions of power and paraonia.

[trotsky]

21. All true.

Except for the trotsky part. (My username has nothing to do with Leon Trotsky.) :)

[DeSwiss]

3. .....

"If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a form of sex." ~ Karl Johanson

[Larkspur]

24. I'm a proud virgin, so I guess abstinence is my form of sex

[DeSwiss]

42. .....

"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle." ~ Sam Harris

[darkstar3]

44. Smart man...n/t

[BurtWorm]

66. How is it 'fundamental' atheism to worship anything?

That sounds like very unorthodox atheism to me.

;-)

[Deep13]

78. No he wasn't.

Whatever he personally believed, he effected a belief in Leninist Marxism. The people who are being called "fundamentalist atheists" like Dawkins and Hitchens are not Leninists. They would not do the things Stalin did. This is a straw man argument designed to change the subject and nothing more.

[kstewart33]

4. I'm sorry but I think he has a point.

Fundamentalism when it comes to religion (or the absence of it as in atheism) is an ideology. Absolute ideology causes problems. Fundamentalist Christianity would support most of what you've listed, but fundamentalist atheism in its most extreme form would forbid the worship of any god which is just as bad. Absolutism, whatever the position, is extremism, which is very problematic.

I wish this entire debate would go away and let people live and worship in peace (or not worship at all) as they choose.

[trotsky]

5. You do not understand the term "fundamentalism."

What fundamental tenet of atheism says that people should be forbidden from worshiping god(s)? Please point to the atheist "holy book" that decrees this. Thanks.

[Meshuga]

7. The term "Fundamentalist" is misused for both sides

Hedges even admits that in an interview I saw but he still uses these terms anyway. This way his arguments lose out to all the noise he himself is guilty of creating.

[trotsky]

8. That's because Hedges, like too many even here on DU,

use "fundamentalist" as an insult, as a way to dismiss a position or opinion without having to address it. If you (not you personally Meshuga, but hypothetical "you") put fundie Christians on one side of you, and create "fundie" atheists on the other side, you get to triangulate yourself right into the sensible middle and justify your own opinions without having to counter any others.

[Meshuga]

12. And so sensible that they feel the need to insult.

However they are only creating another piece in the simplistic "us vs. them" scenario which, in fact, is the focus of Hedges' criticism. The utopia for these guys is to have R/T or even DU free from what they label "fundamentalist atheists" expressing opinions.

[Deep13]

83. +1

Comparing us to Stalin is just a way to change the subject.

[kstewart33]

10. What holy book requires that people go to church every Sunday?

Which is listed as one of the poster's outcomes of fundamental Christianity.

The term is like Hitchcock's McGuffin.

The battle between Christian purists, shall we say, and atheistic purists is old news and is frankly tiring. Why can't everyone simply worship or not worship as they personally choose and let it be?
I know, it's because the fundy Christians are out to convert us all.

But they won't succeed. Look at the latest polling done in this country about religion. The trend is substantially toward secularism.

The anger that all of this discussion (god vs no god) gins up is a waste of time.

Just IMHO, my 2 cents worth.

[trotsky]

13. Well, at least you've backed away from the term.

Now it's "purists." Still not too accurate, since "pure" atheism is just not believing in gods. Still doesn't say ANYTHING about forcing others to not believe or not worship.

[kstewart33]

15. There is a deep history of nonbeliever repression of believers or worse.

Nonbelievers essentially torturing and killing those who practice any religion at all. It's in the history books.

You're making my point. Forget the meaningless fencing over semantics.

I assume that you are an atheist. You appear to believe that you and others who share your beliefs about god would never, ever do those bad things that those believers in god would do.
No of course not.

What makes you so sure? Your position - you're good and those other guys are all bad - perfectly demonstrates what's so bad about the eternal conflicts between believers and non believers.

Each stereotypes the other in terms of good and bad. And reduces the argument to simplistic assumptions about the other.

[trotsky]

20. And you are confusing "nonbelievers" with some kind of monolithic group.

Or at least a group that has some kind of holy doctrine they follow.

They don't. They never have. The fencing about semantics is needed because that's exactly what your argument is based upon.

[darkstar3]

22. Substantiation?

I gave everyone in R/T the chance to substantiate such claims in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x220464

I notice that you are remarkably absent there, though you post here the exact same canard we talk about in that thread.

As I said there, please cite examples to substantiate your claim.

[kstewart33]

28. I don't want to continue the conversation because it is a complete waste of time.

I've made my points in the previous posts. I don't feel a need to proceed with this because those of you who disagree will always disagree, which is my entire point.

This conversation - believers vs. nonbelievers - always ends in a stalemate, although I can't say that I'm a believer. I'm still studying the different religious perspectives - for years - and am still wrestling with the question about the existence of a god.

But I do know one thing - that conversations like these are ultimately fruitless because the parties are entrenched in their thinking. So defending what I think is pointless.

Your interest is in refuting every point that I make, and I just don't have the time. It's a worthless exercise.

So call it and me what you will, and let's end it at that.

[darkstar3]

38. So, to sum up

You have no proof, but to cover that fact you're going to try and 'bow out gracefully' as the saying goes.

I guess we'll have to continue this conversation in the very near future when these claims resurface in another thread, huh? :eyes:

[skepticscott]

33. Deep History?

Oh, please...not another argument for Christian victimology. Cite for us your examples, please...and then, if you're honest, cite all the examples of religious believers killing and torturing other religious believers or non-believers in the name of faith and God. Guess which list will be longer?

[kstewart33]

35. Oh, please. What a fruitless exercise.

Why would I do that? I'm not even a Christian. And I have no idea what you mean by 'Christian victimology.'

You are proving the main point of my other posts on this thread. You are demonstrating that what I've said is true.

[skepticscott]

36. Well, yes...I guess for you

producing actual evidence to support your claim that "There is a deep history of nonbeliever repression of believers or worse. Nonbelievers essentially torturing and killing those who practice any religion at all. It's in the history books" would be a fruitless exercise. Why bother with facts when you can just sling nonsense?

And "Christian victimology" (since you apparently need it explained) is the persistent and idiotic claim that Christians are persecuted, underprivileged and discriminated against in this country (or at any time in modern Western History).

[kstewart33]

39. Now, let's not get personally nasty. nt

[darkstar3]

41. Don't throw the ad hom if you can't take the flamewar. n/t

[skepticscott]

43. Personally nasty?

I attacked your argument..or lack thereof, to be more accurate. Please cite for me where I said anything about you personally in that post, and if you can't, retract yours.

[skepticscott]

32. what's your point?

No holy book requires daily religious instruction, prayer and Bible study in schools, or that only Christians can serve in elected office, either, but the right wing fundamentalists have their own agenda, and if the Bible doesn't support them, they don't really care.

[sinkingfeeling]

9. Why would atheists forbid the worship of some non-existent god? It would be silly.

[kstewart33]

11. Not really.

Absolutism in any form is dangerous. And if we're talking about absolutes in the sense that the original poster is talking about, it seems like a potential outcome to me.

When talking about god vs no god, people seem to lose their common sense, IMHO. We have a few thousand years of evidence of this, don't we?

[JackRiddler]

23. There is no equivalence.

Take up the challenge. Show us your absolutist atheists.

[rd_kent]

14. Your are completely wrong!

fundamentalist atheism in its most extreme form would forbid the worship of any god

No, it wouldnt. Atheists only want religion to stay in the churches, where it belongs, not in the government.

[kstewart33]

16. Have you checked the history books lately?

Seems like there were quite a few atheists in power who did some awful things to those who practiced religion, of any kind, in any form.

I'm not arguing against atheism. I am tired of this nonsensical tendency of each group - atheists and Christian fundies or whatever you want to call them - assuming the worst about each other and the best about themselves.

[rd_kent]

18. It was all done in the name of something else, like communism, or fascism....

never in the name of atheism. never.

[skepticscott]

31. There were also people on power who did some awful things

who had brown eyes, were homosexual or who hated dancing. So what? The important question is whether those traits motivated or were used to justify their actions to any significant degree. In the case of any who happened to be atheists, the answer is, in every case, no. On the other hand, if you look at the leaders of the fundamentalist Christian right in this country, the Bible and their religious beliefs are the motivators and justifiers for everything they do, and they think the same should be the case for everyone.

[JackRiddler]

19. What you describe as "fundamentalist atheism" is your own phantom.

I can point to real-world examples of fundamentalist Christians who support the program described in the OP, who have organized politically to force it on the rest of us, and who have been very successful in electing candidates although not as successful in enacting the relevant legislation.

Can you point to organized (or even individual) fundamental atheists who would "forbid the worship of any god"?

They exist only in the imagination of scaremongers. Since real-world atheism has developed out of skeptical philosophy, which in its very thought processes is inimical to set doctrine, it's hard to imagine an "atheism" movement that would seek to force a unitary program for society, and at any rate empirically it does not exist.

Perhaps what you are illustrating is the tendency among religionists to imagine the thought-freedom of others as a deadly threat.

[Deep13]

79. Fundamentalist atheism is a contradiction in terms.

Atheism is a lack of belief. The people being slandered with that label are not trying to oppress anyone.

As long as good people do evil with the best of intentions because of their irrational beliefs, this topic will never go away. How can it?

[Meshuga]

6. First we would have to see a real "Fundamentalist Atheist" movement in order to fear it

Besides a couple of guys who write books, there is nothing around that we can compare to the dominionists who are actively trying to influence politics.

I have not read much of Hedges material (I ordered one of his books to see what he is talking about besides the stuff that people have been carefully selecting to post on the internet in order to support generalized arguments) but some of his points that would perhaps be valid get lost in the sea of general terms that make people think he is attacking all atheists when he seems to be going after Hitchens and Harris for some of their ideas of a utopian society. A utopia where things are going to improve with rational thought alone which is naive in my point of view. The point that Hedges seems to be making is that these guys who write books (that some people seem to love without questioning) would be okay with violence, like justifying a wars. Again, I have not read hedges books but on the surface, some of the points may be valid while some seem to be obviously exaggerated.

Otherwise, I think from what I have seen about him, Hedges agrees with Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, et al. about the the dangers of the religious right and the delusion that is also espoused by liberal religion (also with delusions of a utopian society).

Hedges point is that the issue becomes so black and white that these choices of "what is better? Fundamentalist religious vs. a pure rational society" are the only ones offered. But this issue is more complex than it is usually presented.

On edit: Changed the last paragraph because I meant to write about Hedges and not Hitchens.

[Sal316]

25. Since we're talking in over-the-top extremist terms....

....let's look at this through the "eliminate religion" eyes of some DU'ers who, through their stated opinions, would only be happy if believers were pushed to the sidelines of society.

- No more "under God" in the pledge (which is fine by me, I think it's crap to begin with)
- No more "In God we trust" on currency (again, fine.)
- No more Christmas, Easter, St. Patty's Day, St. Valentine's day, or any other holiday that is religious in origin.
- All religious iconography and architecture destroyed (goodbye Sistine Chapel, Notre Dame, National Cathedral, etc.)
- Elimination of religious schools and colleges.
- Persecution of religious followers.
- Crackdown on house churches and any religious gatherings.
- All religious literature would be outlawed, including all Holy texts and writings by Church fathers.
- Historical revision of the lives of MLK, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Theresa, and the like.

So... China, essentially.

Before the inevitable whining comes "Oh, not all atheists are like that" or whatever rationalization is offered...remember... not all believers are like those in the OP. In fact, the OP's examples are taking from the most extreme, almost totalitarian, theocrats.

Like another poster said, absolutism, no matter the ideology, is dangerous and fanatical.

[darkstar3]

26. This sounds like rectal extraction

- No more Christmas, Easter, St. Patty's Day, St. Valentine's day, or any other holiday that is religious in origin.
- All religious iconography and architecture destroyed (goodbye Sistine Chapel, Notre Dame, National Cathedral, etc.)
- Elimination of religious schools and colleges.
- Persecution of religious followers.
- Crackdown on house churches and any religious gatherings.
- All religious literature would be outlawed, including all Holy texts and writings by Church fathers.
- Historical revision of the lives of MLK, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Theresa, and the like.

Please cite examples where ANYONE, even on this board, has advocated any of these things.

[Sal316]

27. Considering the OP is talking in extremist ideology...

.... this is just it's mirror image.


Please, tell me where anyone on this board advocated anything the OP said.

Oh... and if you don't like the broad brush, then perhaps some people here should put theirs down.

[darkstar3]

40. Please point to where

the broad brush was applied to any DU'er or DU group.

The OP is making a very simple statement that 'fundamentalist atheist' is a bullshit phrase that attempts to equivocate outspoken atheists with right-wing whackjobs that would enforce all of the laws specified in the OP in a heartbeat if it were possible.

Right-wing whackjobs, not DU'ers. Unless you're saying some DU'ers are right-wing whackjobs as well?

[skepticscott]

34. The most extreme?

You're talking about people like James Dobson, Pat Robertson and a whole slew of others who have a powerful influence on elected officials and national policy. A lot of conservative members of Congress go to meetings of fundamentalist organizations to suck up and offer support, so these are NOT people on the fringe. How many politicians go to meetings of atheist organizations to do the same?

And no, not ALL fundamentalists advocate the things I list (stupid red herring), but many, many of the individuals and groups that matter in this country do. Not necessarily when the mikes are on and the media are writing things down, but if you pay any attention at all, you can find every single one of the things I mention

And can you cite ANY atheist organization that has advocated for any of the baloney that you list? Have any atheists or atheist organizations tried to pass laws for any of your examples (other than the motto, which is unconstitutional anyway)?

Even more dangerous than absolutism is the kind of ignorance you peddle...

[EvolveOrConvolve]

45. I want you to put up or shut up

Give us real, concrete examples of atheists groups that have advocated any of that (outside of the pledge and currency items). Quick jumping around the fucking issue and give us your evidence. If not, quit lying about atheists.

[Deep13]

80. No one is suggesting that.

I am not aware of ANY outspoken atheist who would do the things you suggest. Sure, we would do away with unconstitutional religious expression in governmental policy such as the money, pledge and official holidays.

No one is advocating the kind of iconoclastic actions you irrationally fear. Just because Christians and Muslims have always been quick to descrate the temples and writings of unbelievers does not mean we are guilty of that. No one is suggesting anything that would undermine the Constitution.

BTW, I wish you would stop lumping a great man like MLK in with a charlatan like the so-called "Mother Theresa."

[HamdenRice]

29. Bad but preferable to if fundie athiests like Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot took over

-Religious people executed in the streets
-Priceless artifacts smashed and destroyed

You get the idea.

[darkstar3]

30. You were given the opportunity

to substantiate this claim in another thread. You didn't do it there, and you didn't do it here, and yet you continue to spout this baseless slur against atheism. :eyes:

[trotsky]

37. Because that's all he does.

He's infatuated with the "fundie atheist" slur and uses it all the time because he can't actually formulate a coherent argument of any kind.

[HamdenRice]

47. Coming from you, all I can say is

:rofl:

Some people have no sense of irony or self-reflection.

[trotsky]

48. I remind you of how you lack that, huh?

Good.

[HamdenRice]

46. That's like asking for substantiation that Bill Clinton was president in the 90s

What part of this common fact do you need substantiated? That Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot killed people? That they were the leaders of the country? That the states they led were officially atheist? That they suppressed religion?

Dag, just go to Wiki if you're that uninformed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

The Soviet Union was an atheist state from 1928-1939, in which religion was largely discouraged and heavily persecuted,...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x174720

The program of our Party says:

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is guided by the conviction that only the conscious and deliberate planning of all the social and economic activities of the masses will cause religious prejudices to die out completely. The Party stands for the complete dissolution of the ties between the exploiting classes and organized religious propaganda, and facilitates the real emancipation of the working masses from religious prejudices by organizing the widest possible scientific, educational, and antireligious propaganda.

Thus religious beliefs will be destroyed not primarily by anti­religious propaganda, but by the conscious and deliberate planning of all the social and economic activities of the masses.

This does not imply that the Party should or does ignore the use of antireligious propaganda, which helps to form the new atheist conceptions of the broad toiling masses.

http://indonesia.faithfreedom.org/forum/kamboja-genosida-cham-muslim-oleh-khmer-merah-t31781/

The Bangkok Post
May 3, 2005

Scholars Michael Vickery, David Chandler and Serge Thion all claim the Khmer Rouge never intended the destruction of particular groups of people. Mr Chandler, for example, considered the high death toll under the Khmer Rouge as an unintended consequence of a utopian revolution and Serge Thion sees no evidence for claiming the persecution of the Cham Muslims was based on race or ethnicity. They were, he states, "victims of an attempt to eradicate religion, as a matter of general policy" that included the suppression of Christianity and Buddhism.
<HR: In other words the genocide of the Cham Muslims was not because of ethnicity but because of religion.>

<end quote>

I know, I know. Just because they claimed to be atheists, just because their official party line required the suppression of religion, and just because they killed millions of religious people in order to suppress religion, in the eyes of an atheist fundamentalist, that doesn't prove that their atheism caused them to suppress religion and kill religious people. They just had to have some other motive.

:sarcasm:

That's why I don't provide "substantiation" to people who make arguments like yours. You're too fixated in a kind of fundamentalist way, on the counter-factual idea that atheists who kill to suppress religion cannot be doing what they are doing for the reasons they say they are doing it.

On edit: To clarify this, all you are doing is engaging in a version of the logical fallacy called "No True Scotsman"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

"No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy where the meaning of a term is ad hoc redefined to make a desired assertion about it true. It is a type of self-sealing argument."

You define "atheist" as someone who would never kill to suppress religion, and therefore all the atheists who engaged in mass murder to suppress religion, weren't "real atheists", but were killing for some other reason.

Using that tactic (error of logic), I could "prove" that no Christian or Muslim regime has ever killed or persecuted any non-believers or believers of another faith, because if they did so, then they weren't being good Christians or good Muslims.

Because you relentlessly make that logical error it seems futile to discuss the evidence -- which is overwhelming -- with you.

[trotsky]

49. Yup, Ricey, you proved that Communists stamped out religion.

You didn't, however, prove that "fundie atheists" (your fictional creation) did, or are, or want to do the same.

You're a regular riot. I love the laughs you give me as you sputter about in your festering anger.

[HamdenRice]

50. Don't you ever address substance?

It's kind of remarkable how consistently non-substantive your responses are. Any thoughts on the One True Scotsman fallacy? Would you like to take issue in the debate about whether Pol Pot committed genocide or merely mass murder against Cambodian Muslims? Do you believe Wiki got their facts wrong?

Is there any substance that you'd like to contribute -- any at all?

[trotsky]

52. You're the one who should be answering that question.

Yes, the Soviet Communists and Pol Pot were atheists. I'm not disputing that. However, there is nothing in the definition of atheism, either in the dictionary or in practice, that requires or even suggests religion should be stamped out, or believers killed. There are absolutely no "tenets" of atheism to be "fundamental" about. That right there is the fly in your ointment, and you can't even see it.

There IS, however, part of Communist ideology that suggests this. So it was because of their Communist ideology, not their atheism, that believers (as well as other non-believers - why would atheists kill others for their atheism, hmmmm?) were persecuted.

But you keep on insisting that you're right. It's quite entertaining. Pretty soon your insults will grow in intensity, and you'll humiliate yourself again. I do love the game.

[HamdenRice]

53. One True Scotsman!

nt

[trotsky]

54. You are?

I did not know that. Do you put sugar on your porridge?

[Meshuga]

55. There is no way to apply one true scotsman to atheism

That's because there are no tenets to atheism for an atheist to follow to be considered a good or bad atheist. Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists who were bad human beings.

Regardless, what these regimes have to do with the so called "New Atheists" and how one argument follows the other? I don't think that Hedges is suggesting that Harris, Hitchens, etc. envision a world like the regimes you brought up. Hedges'argument is that the people he is criticizing are naive to think that the world would be a better place with the replacement of religious thought with rational thought. Which is an argument that is up for debate.

Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot are obviously evil figures who were revered in a way that one could classify as religion which goes against what Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al. write about.

So, what's the link? So far, the only link I see is that you call both groups "fundamentalist atheists".

[HamdenRice]

56. Here is the logical problem and I hope you'll address it seriously

According to your view of atheism, "there are no tenets to atheism for an atheist to follow to be considered a good or bad atheist."

So my question is, what would you call people who call themselves atheists, and who say that for them the logical extension of their non-belief has certain consequences? In other words, not everyone who calls himself or herself an atheist would agree that atheism is merely the non-belief in god with no consequences.

For example, some people who call themselves atheists go on to say (and some even in this forum have done so), a person who believes in god is believing in something false and is therefore delusional. Or a person who believes in god cannot also believe in science, and therefore hinders progress. Or the belief in god is actually a social bad because many religious people are intolerant of non-belief or other belief systems.

I'm not saying you believe this. I assume you believe there are no logical consequences to non-belief in god.

But do you agree that there are other people who call themselves atheists who say that non-belief has logical consequences?

If so, it seems to me that you are saying that their definition of atheism is faulty (or over expansive), and if you do, then you are saying that some atheists self definitions are right and some atheists self definition are wrong. That is either correct (those other atheists are wrong to describe themselves they way they do or their positions as a logical extension of atheism), or it's a "One True Scotsman" fallacy.

Which is it?

On edit: I intentionally did not address some of your questions, because it seems to me that these discussions invariably get caught up in disputes based on different premises. I want to establish a few premises before addressing the other issues.

[darkstar3]

58. It's 'NO True Scotsman'

If you're going to try and claim that a logical fallacy is being used, it would be nice if you referred to it correctly.

'So my question is, what would you call people who call themselves atheists, and who say that for them the logical extension of their non-belief has certain consequences?'
-Fictional.

Why?

Because you say this, and then your entire third paragraph is about the logical consequences of BELIEF, not NON-belief. What are ANY logical consequences of NON-belief put forward by atheists? Who has put them forward? Examples please.

Also, for the 'NO True Scotsman' fallacy to apply, a term must first be redefined at will be the arguer. Which term have we redefined?

[HamdenRice]

63. ...

"What are ANY logical consequences of NON-belief put forward by atheists? Who has put them forward? Examples please."

One consequence would be that people who believe in god believe in something that doesn't exist.

That is a logical consequence of the "strong" version of atheism -- the positive knowledge that god does not exist.

[darkstar3]

65. Examples please n/t

[Meshuga]

61. I believe there are no logical consequences to non-belief in god.

But you have to distinguish "atheism" (the lack of believe in god) with the opinion that there are consequences to non-belief in god. I think the atheists who hold this opinion can make this distinction and they do all the time when defending the fact that atheism is nothing but the lack of belief in god. However, I cannot speak for them. But I haven't seen any atheists saying that other atheists are no true atheists for not having the same opinion on whether there are logical consequences to non-belief.

What would I call atheists who say that there are logical consequences to non-belief? I would say they are atheists who believe that there are logical consequences to non-belief. And I don't see any atheist here or anywhere setting these standards to define true atheists.

In fact, the definition of atheism that I see atheists spreading here is that atheism is merely the lack of belief in god(s). I cannot think of any examples here of people saying that the position that there are logical consequences to non-belief is true atheism.

[HamdenRice]

62. We're not talking about only atheists here

Just to be clear: Are you saying there are no atheists who say that atheism has certain logical consequences that lead to a positive critique of religion?

I seem to be reading that no one on this forum believes that. (I'm not sure that's always true but let's put it aside for now.) Fine, no one here believes that.

But are you really going to maintain that there are no atheists outside of this forum who say that atheism carries with it certain logical consequences?

My understanding of Hitchens and the other new atheists are saying that atheism for them carries with it a critique of religion.

It seems to me that you are either saying they are wrong about atheism or they didn't say that.

And just to say where I'm headed: If you read the Soviet era literature, they make many claims about the benefits to atheism in trying to build a scientific industrial society -- some of them are actually quite compelling considering the backwardness of the peasantry and their reliance on the Orthodox Church. If they were saying basically we're atheists, and our atheism leads us to take these positions -- I don't see how you can unilaterally deny them their definition of atheism -- without saying basically, they're definition of themselves is wrong.

What would be the basis for someone like me accepting that you are right about how they describe their beliefs and they are wrong about how they describe their beliefs?

And how would that be different from someone religious saying, "Christians who persecute non-Christians aren't real Christians in my definition of Christianity" in order to "prove" that Christians never have persecuted non-Christians.

[Meshuga]

64. Whether Hitchens and the others are saying that atheism for them carries with it...

a critique of religion, I don't know. If they are saying that then I disagree with them. But for some reason I thought I've seen them saying that atheism is nothing but non-belief in god(s).

According to the definition of no true scotsman fallacy it is perfectly justified to say, "No true vegetarian eats meat, because not eating meat is the single thing that precisely defines a person as a vegetarian." I have met many who considers themselves vegetarians out there who eat fish. But the point is that "in situations where the subject's status is previously determined by specific behaviors, the fallacy does not apply" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman).

I do not eat pork or shellfish but I am not truly kosher. And the Orthodox Jew who informs me of that is not committing a fallacy. And there are those more strict who consider themselves kosher even when they aren't. But that's a different subject.

Please, also remember that the definition of a No true Scotsman says that it "is a logical fallacy where the meaning of a term is ad hoc redefined to make a desired assertion about it true." ;-)

But regardless, going back to my original reply, what do these regimes have to do with the so called "New Atheists" and how one argument follows the other? what's the link?

[HamdenRice]

71. First a joke and then a hypothetical

I had a non-observant Jewish friend named Myles many years ago and he told me this story. He had lunch with his orthodox uncle, and Myles ordered shell fish. (I think it was clam bellies because we were eating them as he told this story.) His uncle reached over and speared a clam belly and ate it. Myles said, but uncle I thought you can't eat shell fish. The uncle said, I can't eat shell fish, but who said anything about tasting?

Anyway, let's say you are an atheist, communist party member, and agricultural office in 1920s Russia. This actually is based on something I read in one of their documents. The official is sent to a village of peasants to urge them to join into an agricultural irrigation scheme. Watering crops the right amount at the right is one of the most productive changes you can make to traditional agriculture.

The peasants refuse. They say that the Russian Orthodox priest has always told them that if they pay their tithes and pay for some special services and prayers, the powerful church intercedes with God and ensures that the rains are plentiful and timely.

Now are there any logical conclusions the atheist official can draw based on his perspective that there is no god?

If there is no god, then the Church cannot deliver rain. It's the logical conclusion to draw that extends directly from non-belief in god. Depending on his mission and other commitments, he might also conclude that the tithes and other prayer fees are actually fraudulent, or that the church is oppressive and taking advantage of the peasants' ignorance and superstition.

I don't see how you can wall off non-belief in god from any other conclusions. I don't think anyone would say that about any other idea.

If you think that non-belief in god exists completely separate from all other ideas and has absolutely no logical implications for anything, than I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, and I doubt it would be productive to talk about Hitchens or atheist regimes, because our epistemological world views are entirely and fundamentally different.

[trotsky]

72. So therefore, logically, it is clear that the atheist bureaucrat...

must kill the peasants and/or ship them to the Gulag. Thanks, Hammy. You've made yourself oh so clear.

[HamdenRice]

73. Your response is up to your usual standards!

[trotsky]

74. Dude, what you keep claiming is that somehow this "fundie atheism"

requires atheists to stamp out religious belief and kill believers. When challenged to provide SOME kind of reasoning or evidence to support this ridiculous assertion, the best you can do is point to a document where a Soviet bureaucrat noted that some Orthodox believers were praying for rain, and as an atheist, he logically knew this would not work.

Seriously, dude, that is some weak-ass shit.

[HamdenRice]

75. Go back and read the subthread carefully

I am having a serious discussion with Meshuga about the logic of atheism to establish certain epistemological premises before getting to the bigger issues.

You're way out of your depth here.

[trotsky]

77. LOL

Keep telling yourself that. Your history is clear, you can only prop yourself up by trying to knock others down.

[Meshuga]

76. We can still talk about it

Of course there are conclusions that an atheist would reach based on that person's non-belief. Although, I don't think there are universal conclusions in every case. I mean, you say you are an atheist yourself so are you saying that you would come to the same logical conclusions based on your non-belief in every case?

Regardless, a distinction needs to be made here even when a supposed logical conclusion is reached. For example, one could create a totalitarian state where one of the components is vegetarianism. So vegetarianism is the rule and those who dare to question vegetarianism are killed. You can blame vegetarianism for it and even try to link PETA to the regime but the bottom line is that the attitude of such regime does not define vegetarianism, vegetarians, or PETA. It just provides us with examples of totalitarian assholes.

With this said, I think you could still tell me where you see the link between Soviet Russia and the "New Atheists."

[darkstar3]

82. Again, you are confusing

atheism with anti-theism.

It is the anti-theist who will base their entire argument on the idea that there is absolutely no god, as you have done in your hypothetical.

The logical conclusions that the ATHEIST will draw, based on the fact that he is a Communist party member are as follows:
The Orthodox church has too much power in this country. They can tell the peasants what to do, and the peasants will do it even if it means contradicting the state and the party. I must tell my superiors of this, so that they can do something to stop the Orthodox church from controlling the people.

Again, it has nothing to do with the existence of non-existence of God, and everything to do with power. The atheist, not giving a damn about God either way, sees this. The anti-theist reacts in the way you describe in your hypothetical, blaming the peasants for their belief in a fictional being rather than seeing the power structure of the church as the problem.

Much as I said in post #67.

[darkstar3]

67. You've hit the nail on the head,

and I'll show you why in a second. First, I want to address this:
'My understanding of Hitchens and the other new atheists are saying that atheism for them carries with it a critique of religion.'

I disagree. Hitchens and the rest feel the need to criticize religion NOT simply because they are atheists, but because religion can so easily be used to manipulate people into doing horrible things, like flying planes into buildings. As an outsider looking at the faithful, religion certainly seems to be problematic.

But this is certainly not rooted in their atheism. After all, Christians criticize Muslims and vice versa, and that's just one of thousands of ways that people outside of a particular faith criticize said faith.

It has nothing to do with atheism, and everything to do with the actions of religious believers. Do you think that atheists like Hitchens would continue to publicly criticize religion if we lived in a world where religion was a truly PEACEFUL system? Nope.

But back to hitting the nail on the head, or I should say driving a nail in the coffin of your original argument.
'considering the backwardness of the peasantry and their reliance on the Orthodox Church.'
Reliance on the Orthodox Church. That's the whole problem the Soviets had in the first place; The fact that there was already a leadership structure in place that drew fealty away from the state. One of the central tenets of these Communist dictatorships was that every citizen must be loyal above all else to the state. When ANY belief system or organization gets in the way of that, it must be crushed.

And so we come back to the truth of the argument, which is that Stalin, Mao, and the rest killed to protect their Communist ideas, not to advance atheism.

[skepticscott]

69. You've hit the nail on the head also

and highlighted the fact that none of the critics of the so-called "new atheists" (who aren't new at all), seem to be able to make the elementary distinction between atheism and anti-theism.

[darkstar3]

70. Um, YEAH!

That would be the whole problem I have with a lot of these blamers. They somehow think that because we are atheists we automatically hate 'God' and want to see all religion crushed. Hell, a few years back I read the His Dark Materials trilogy, and when I told a family member what I was reading (by giving her the name and nothing else) she responded 'Oh, a book about killing God, that must be right up your alley.'

:mad:

[darkstar3]

59. Just like others

You are abusing the transitive property.

Atheism MAY lead to Communism, Communism MAY lead to the stamping out of opposition, the stamping out of opposition MAY lead to mass murder.

You're walking back up the chain and attempting to lay the blame for the mass murders committed by Communists at the feet of atheism. It doesn't work that way.

But you already know that. You just want to protect your pet phrase of 'fundamentalist atheist,' which in and of itself is an oxymoron.
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861613888/fundamentalism.html
I suggest you read that definition, and try again.

[trotsky]

60. Heck, I'd even question that first link.

Can atheism lead to communism? Atheism says absolutely nothing about political or economic systems. The statement "I don't believe in gods" doesn't imply anything about private vs. state ownership of the means of production, "from each.. to each.." etc.

[darkstar3]

68. I agree

But I'm trying to show that even if you give the blamers the benefit of the doubt, the logical progression they take still breaks down.

[HamdenRice]

51. Here's an interesting summary history on Google books

http://books.google.com/books?id=8jkFD4ZXjd8C&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=soviet+Union+of+Militant+Atheists&source=bl&ots=4ShvlPHFhV&sig=3OvxXNJAjGUGvW-amaVJAvZaVRM&hl=en&ei=j9PNSuuxC4-Y8Abo9O3-Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=soviet%20Union%20of%20Militant%20Atheists&f=false

[darkstar3]

57. Paul Froese?

Really? Yeah, I'm aware of his idiocy, thank you, and have no need to subject myself further to his arguments.

Next you'll be quoting Dinesh DeSouza...:eyes:

[Deep13]

81. You don't.

They were Leninist dictators, not atheists born from the tradition of skepticism. Atheism is a part of Leninism, not a conclusion resulting from critical examination of evidence. This is a straw man argument and you know it.

Find me one well-known atheist who supports either murder or iconoclastic destruction. What you describe are things religious authorities have done. Skeptics are free to disagree. We don't have a god directing us to kill his enemies. Our morality is not defined in divine terms. Consequently we can and do live with disagreement.