Sam Harris - Misconceptions About Atheism

[ZombieHorde]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLIKAyzeIw4&NR=1&feature=fvwp">Youtube 6:45

Sam Harris seems pretty articulate, I may have to check out one of his books.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Want to be able to find this later.

[trotsky]

2. Careful, he's one of those militant fundie "new" atheists.

You know the type. They voice their opinions instead of shutting up and deferring to religion on every issue.

[uberllama42]

3. His books are worth a glance or two, IMO

I recommend Dan Dennet over Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins (on the topic of religion, at least.)

[tama]

4. Sheldrake's review of Dennett's book

http://www.sheldrake.org/articlesnew/Dennett_bright.html

[darkstar3]

6. Rupert Sheldrake is an obviously biased moron.

Breaking the Spell is part of a wave of new books by militant atheists who feel threatened by the power of religion.
I stopped reading right there.

1. Vocal atheists are not the same as "militant atheists". When we start banging down the doors of your churches and throwing textbooks on evolution and physics at you, THEN maybe you can call us militant. This throwing around of the term "militant atheists" is merely an attempt at dismissing what these people have to say without having to actually answer the points.
2. This sentence betrays the obvious and profound sense of privilege that Sheldrake has..."threatened by the power of religion" indeed. :eyes: There's a shitload of assumption built into that phrase...

[trotsky]

7. Oh I totally disagree about being threatened.

When religious nuts are flying planes into buildings, bombing abortion clinics, assassinating doctors, and generally fostering violence and hatred, you bet your ass I feel threatened by the power of religion!

[darkstar3]

8. I agree with you trotsky, as usual,

but if you read what he's saying in context, the powers of psychosis, enslavement, or martyrdom are not what Sheldrake meant by "power of religion." That's why I said he's obviously biased.

[trotsky]

9. Yeah, I know.

Was just being cheeky. :)

[tama]

19. You know what?

I acrually agree that in that sentence Sheldrake could have chosen his word better. Obviously he like all humans has biases formed by experiences - frustrations of an innovative empirical scientist with pseudosceptics some of whom even publicly speak about burning Sheldrakes books because they are "heretical" - that these kinds of experiences explain to some degree: http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Dawkins.html

But Sheldrake's poor choise of words does not justify your even more poorly chosen words.

And I also agree that there are assumptions built into the phrase "threatened by the power of religion" however we choose to interprete it. That fact does not make the assumptions untrue.

Respect for scietfic ideals demands respect for empirical data even and especially when that data proves some commonly held beliefs wrong. Denial of empirical data is not scientific but as there is so strong denial of it among some groups of people the obvious guess is that they feel threatened by it, that they feel that they have too much to lose if they admit that their limiting belief systems are wrong and nature does not obey them.

[darkstar3]

20. Sheldrake's poor choice of words is not limited to that one sentence.

In fact, Sheldrake makes a point to almost gleefully throw around religious terminology while describing atheists or atheism. Skimming that link you provided shows repeated use of the word "dogmatic" as well as the word "crusading". Both words have no meaning whatsoever outside of a religious context. Sheldrake also shows that he suffers from a persecution complex and incredible confirmation bias with every labored paragraph where he describes his supposed abuse at Dawkins' hands. In short, Sheldrake's writing is rife with problems.

You must also understand that empirical data is thrown out in scientific circles EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. The reason for this is multi-fold, and has to do with biases, statistical outliers, improperly applied environmental controls during experiments, and tons of other reasons. In order for empirical data to be worth consideration, it must be obtained through proper methods in order to guarantee its integrity.

[tama]

22. "Supposed abuse"

"Supposed abuse" is stated clearly, Sheldrake was given by the company assurances that were not true, in other words lied to. I'm pretty sure also you wouldn't like being lied to and don't think its OK to lie to Sheldrake or lie about his work to others.


"company’s representative assured me that “this documentary, at Channel 4’s insistence, will be an entirely more balanced affair than The Root of All Evil was.” She added, “We are very keen for it to be a discussion between two scientists, about scientific modes of enquiry”"

(...)

"Richard seemed uneasy and said, “I’m don’t want to discuss evidence”. “Why not?” I asked. “There isn’t time. It’s too complicated. And that’s not what this programme is about.” The camera stopped.

The Director, Russell Barnes, confirmed that he too was not interested in evidence. The film he was making was another Dawkins polemic.

I said to Russell, “If you’re treating telepathy as an irrational belief, surely evidence about whether it exists or not is essential for the discussion. If telepathy occurs, it’s not irrational to believe in it. I thought that’s what we were going to talk about. I made it clear from the outset that I wasn’t interested in taking part in another low grade debunking exercise.”

Richard said, “It’s not a low grade debunking exercise; it’s a high grade debunking exercise.”

In that case, I replied, there had been a serious misunderstanding, because I had been led to believe that this was to be a balanced scientific discussion about evidence. Russell Barnes asked to see the emails I had received from his assistant. He read them with obvious dismay, and said the assurances she had given me were wrong. The team packed up and left."

***

You must understand that the evidence provided by Sheldrake and others is obtained through proper methods and refusal to consider it is based purely on non-scientific criteria, namely defending the rigid belief systems of the pseudosceptic groups.

"Dogma" is just fancy Greek word for a rigid belief system and as such not defined by religious context. "Crusading" refers to certain historical events and the metaphorical meaning is clear enough. Diverting attention to petty word games is just what it is, diverting attention from the real issues.

[darkstar3]

23. Words are important, especially in science, because we must find a way to communicate our findings.

So, speaking of the usage of words...

1. I highly doubt Dr. Dawkins said the word "I'm" as part of that pulled quote. If it's a typo, then Sheldrake should be ashamed of himself because no scientist worth his salt would publish something on his own webpage without proofreading it.
2. Dogma is not "just a fancy Greek word for a rigid belief system." The primary definition from WordNet specifically refers to religious doctrine, while the secondary definition deals with a "code of beliefs." Atheists, since they lack both religion and a "code of beliefs", cannot be referred to as dogmatic.
3. Crusade has an obvious religious connotation, and you even admit that this is how Sheldrake meant to use it in "metaphor." Ergo, Sheldrake's usage was religious in nature, which not only supports my point but also shows that Sheldrake is determined to paint atheists, as well as anyone who disagrees with him, as believers of a different stripe.

Now, having read a significant portion of Sheldrake's writing on his own site, I have to say that I frankly doubt his credibility. He has every right to advocate his own views, but when he does so by consistently employing ad hom avoidance techniques, I have no reason to believe that what he says about Dawkins or the BBC4 staff is true.

I have further cause to doubt Sheldrake's credibility because on every page of his site where I might attempt to take a closer look at his research and determine for myself whether it followed a proper and methodical approach, I am directed instead to buy one of his books. This, to me, screams "huckster," as well it should. Consider the following conditions:

IF
1. Sheldrake's methodology was sound
2. Sheldrake was a scientist interested in progress, or "chang{ing} the world" as he has claimed
3. Sheldrake's findings actually show what he claims

THEN
Sheldrake wouldn't be trying to hawk his books by whining about how persecuted he is. He would be shouting his findings from the rooftops, distributing information distilled for the laymen in pamphlets and PDFs. Some people might call him a lunatic, but no more than those who do now, and in the meantime he might actually make inroads at academic institutions where, as you may know, most research actually takes place.

[tama]

24. OK, atheism is a fancy word game ;)

Fancy word game projected over reality. Same goes for Christianity etc., of course.

There's a lot of that "ad hom avoidance technique" going on to divert attention from the real issue, science and reality. But that's how it goes, in reality. :)

As for me, I've long time ago stopped accepting theory over experience and especially theories that are in conflict with this experience. It's liberating, experience happens as happens even when there is no well formed theory to explain it. And this experience does not exclude scientific approaches from experience as part of reality, they are most wellcome to dialogue with this experience and to affect it as experience, but not to dictate it, not to limit what is and can be experienced e.g. just inside brain. This experience just isn't limited that way, which does not mean that some other individual experience couldn't be limited that way or limiting itself that way. No should from is.

But in this experience I do constantly bump into people who have experiences that they feel science cannot explain and they often feel scared and alone because of such experiences, so it's nice to be able to tell such people that there are also some scientific approaches that respect also their experiences and take them seriously as something normal and natural, instead of just telling them they have a mental disorder. This experience is about respecting what what and how people experience, and not just people but other animals, plants etc. This is a learning experience. :)

[darkstar3]

25. There were a whole lot of words in that post,

to simply end by saying that personal experience is all that matters to you. What I find interesting, however, is that in another thread you claimed that you do not reject the Scientific Method, and yet here you state that no method or theory will ever outweigh your own personal experience, which is just another way of saying "I'll ignore science when I want to."

[tama]

32. "Personal"

is just another way to limit experience by a linguistic category. Personal experience is part of more general experience but it would be foolish to assume that all experience is personal experience, that certain linguistic category is all that is. Skeptic thinking all the way is a good exercise, is there something that cannot be logically doubted? The first person in "Cogito ergo sum" can be doubted, no problem and that's where Latin language did a trick to Descartes' logical skepticism. But when doubting at least the experience of doubting cannot be denied. Experiencing, phenomenal reality happening as is, is beyond skeptical thinking, this is true as this happens.

This is very simple really, experiencing does not reject scientific methods which self-evidently cannot exist without phenomenal reality of experiencing and are part of experiencing and a creative ways to experience. Only litterally insane pseudoscience that tries to deny experience (such as eliminative materialism) is rejected by experience and most basic scientific criteria.

[darkstar3]

34. OK,

something is wrong here. I recognize the letters, and I even recognize most of the words, but when I attempt to put it together into sentences I get nonsense.

PS: I don't think you should be accusing others of pseudoscience while participating in it, and I think you just made up the phrase "eliminative materialism".

[Mojambo]

5. I'd highly recommend watching the entire lecture

Harris is brilliant.

[Jim__]

10. They didn't commit the crimes because they were atheists.

Harris talks about the greatest crimes of the 20th century. Let's limit the discussion to Mao and Stalin. He claims their philosophy is "like religion." However, both men were dogmatic atheists. He is right in claiming that atheism is not responsible for their crimes; but neither did it prevent these outrageous crimes. In my mind, the greatest threats to the human race are nuclear weapons and our warlike nature. If all atheism buys us in this area is that we can claim that any atrocities (including the ultimate atrocity) committed under atheist regimes were not due to their atheism, then I don't see atheism offering us much in the way of a solution to our problems.

[darkstar3]

11. Atheism isn't supposed to offer a solution.

What you're looking for is morality. Morality can prevent things like atrocities from happening, as well as help mitigate the warlike nature of humanity. But morality is a social construct, and is not tied directly to any religion or the lack thereof.

[Jim__]

12. No, I'm not looking for morality.

I'm talking about the claims of Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins that eliminating religion will bring about some general improvement in the human condition. If it won't do anything to prevent us wiping ourselves off the face of the earth; then it (the elimination of religion), a major undertaking, needs to take a backseat to much more critical needs - like addressing the possibility that we will kill ourselves off.

[darkstar3]

17. Their claims are true.

Religion, especially "organized religion", is one of the most divisive forces ever experienced by our society.

A general improvement in the human condition would most certainly be realized if we were to do away with the religions that create and perpetuate inequality among the sexes, among various sects, and against various "infidels".

There are religions in this world that require women to be treated like property, and also require anyone who attempts to oppose that viewpoint to be punished. There are religions in this world that reward the killing of infidels. I could go on for quite some time about the current state of religion in general on this planet and how the removal of these backward views would benefit humanity.

If we could simply do away with the in-group/out-group mentality of religion alone, we would be able to eliminate an enormous amount of conflict and division on the planet. To be clear, I'm not saying that purely secular thought will bring people together, but it doesn't give them a reason to divide themselves up into groups and start fighting like many religious ideas do now and have done.

Now that we've gotten Harris', Hitchens', and Dawkins' claims out of the way, we come to your supposition that "it {atheism} won't do anything to prevent us wiping ourselves off the face of the earth". I disagree: At least in part, one of the more pressing conflicts between nuclear powers in this world is based on religion. India vs. Pakistan goes back many years, but while cultural and economic factors are part of the bile flowing freely between both states, the fact that Pakistan is mostly Muslim and India is predominately Hindu is a big part of the conflict. (Ask a Hindu sometime if he has any Muslim friends.)

Of course, there's also the fact that Muslim states continue to look for nuclear arms to balance the scales against Israel and even the US. If there were no "holy land", would this still be a problem?

The elimination of religion should not take precedence over working toward peace or the elimination of nuclear arms, but no one has suggested that it should. In fact, the goals go hand in hand.

[Jim__]

29. Point by point.

Religion, especially "organized religion", is one of the most divisive forces ever experienced by our society.

One of the most divisive - easy to say, hard to prove. You've offered nothing in the way of proof.

A general improvement in the human condition would most certainly be realized if we were to do away with the religions that create and perpetuate inequality among the sexes, among various sects, and against various "infidels".

There are religions in this world that require women to be treated like property, and also require anyone who attempts to oppose that viewpoint to be punished. There are religions in this world that reward the killing of infidels. I could go on for quite some time about the current state of religion in general on this planet and how the removal of these backward views would benefit humanity.

Your claims about gender prejudice don't hold water. As a communist country, China was essentially an atheistic country. Yet China experienced, perhaps, the worst gender prejudice ever:

BEIJING - China is asking where all the girls have gone.

And the sobering answer is that this vast nation, now the world's fastest-growing economy, is confronting a self-perpetuated demographic disaster that some experts describe as "gendercide" -- the phenomenon caused by millions of families resorting to abortion and infanticide to make sure their one child was a boy.

more...

The mass killings of civilians under Mao, speak against your other claims.

Now ... we come to your supposition that "it {atheism} won't do anything to prevent us wiping ourselves off the face of the earth". I disagree: At least in part, one of the more pressing conflicts between nuclear powers in this world is based on religion. India vs. Pakistan goes back many years, but while cultural and economic factors are part of the bile flowing freely between both states, the fact that Pakistan is mostly Muslim and India is predominately Hindu is a big part of the conflict. (Ask a Hindu sometime if he has any Muslim friends.)

Of course, there's also the fact that Muslim states continue to look for nuclear arms to balance the scales against Israel and even the US. If there were no "holy land", would this still be a problem?

Any particular conflict is incidental to the fact that humanity is prone to war. Eliminating individual conditions, does not eliminate the tendency. Trying to eliminate the prospect of nuclear war in a piecewise, case by case, fashion is too dangerous an approach to risk. Of course, we must eliminate each threat as it arises, but we do this knowing the policy is ultimately doomed to fail. We need a better approach.

The elimination of religion should not take precedence over working toward peace or the elimination of nuclear arms, but no one has suggested that it should. In fact, the goals go hand in hand.

The elimination of religion should definitely take a back seat to the elimination of nuclear arms and all massively destructive weapons. We cannot afford a war in which these weapons are used. We may only have one chance to avid such a war. We have to make use of the opportunity.

Once we've eliminated massively destructive weapons, wars will probably continue to occur, at least for a while. But, these wars should not put the survival of humanity at risk.

[darkstar3]

31. None of your points hold water.

I don't have time right now to provide the detailed proof that you apparently require for the amount of divisiveness religion has been responsible for across history. However, any cursory study of recent history and current events will easily show religion as a tool of division, especially on the topics of homosexuality, sexuality in general, contraception and abortion, child rearing and control, and many others.

As for your red herring about China, it doesn't matter whether an "essentially atheistic country" has participated in gender discrimination or not, because that doesn't change the fact that many religions practice gender discrimination. Just because we can't eliminate ALL gender discrimination in one fell swoop doesn't mean we shouldn't try to eliminate one major cause of it.

That goes for your war canard as well. Just because we can't eliminate ALL causes of war in one fell swoop doesn't mean we shouldn't try to eliminate one MAJOR cause of it.

[laconicsax]

13. Umm...

You say that Mao and Stalin were "dogmatic atheists." What dogma does atheism have?

[Jim__]

14. They held to atheism as the established opinion of the state.

As per merriam-webster:

Main Entry: dog·ma
Pronunciation: \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta \-mə-tə\
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem — more at decent
Date: 1638
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

But, it's immaterial anyway. we can just say that both Stalin and Mao were atheists.

[laconicsax]

15. Yes, that is immaterial.

Plus, you're describing a dogmatic position of the state, not of atheism. As you said, it is immaterial.

[Jim__]

16. Yes, it was a dogmatic position of the state that there is no god.

And both Mao and Stalin were atheists. And, they still committed atrocities. So, atheism doesn't prevent that. So, the claims of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens that atheism will improve the state of humanity is unsupported; and prima facie, incorrect.

[darkstar3]

18. Atheism doesn't prevent murder,

so therefore atheism is good for nothing? That's a
















BIG JUMP.

[Jim__]

26. Yes, and the jump is yours.

First, I didn't say anything about murder. I said atrocities. Religious atrocities are what Hitchens and Harris cite as a big reason to eliminate religion. But, in states where religion has largely been gotten rid of, atrocities still occur. Unless their objection is to religious atrocities specifically and not atrocities in general, their argument is not only not supported, it is contra-indicated by the evidence that we have.

[darkstar3]

28. See #17.

There is more to atheism, and more to Hitchens', Harris', and Dawkins' arguments than the simple prevention of ALL atrocities. You are creating a straw man.

[Jim__]

30. See my reply to post #17.

[skepticscott]

21. Were the atrocities of Mao and Stalin

committed because of their atheism, or in the name of it? Or were they simply atheists for the same reason that they committed atrocities (i.e. that they were both whacked-out sociopaths who would never have worshipped any god but themselves and knew that religious belief by the masses would detract from their own power, status and authority)?

And are you REALLY trying to argue a blanket principle that atheism can't ever, in any case prevent atrocities based on two examples? Please tell me you're not arguing that. I could cite you far, far more cases of religion not preventing atrocities. More importantly, I could cite you hundreds of cases of atrocities being committed expressly, deliberately and joyfully in the name of god and religion. How many such cases can you cite for atheism? How many cases can you point to of members of one atheist sect hacking the members of another atheist sect to bits, or roasting them over slow fires, because of trivial differences in the way they don't believe?

[Jim__]

27. See post #26.

[skepticscott]

33. As if that answered anything

If there were no religion, we'd be rid of atrocities caused by sectarian conflict and the general abuses of religious organizations. There will still be atrocities committed just because people are people, and those will never go away (religion presumes, dishonestly, that it can make them go away, if only everyone believed in the right god and in the right way; atheism makes no such claim for itself).

We're still waiting for your list of atrocities committed specifically because of, and in the name of, atheism.

[skepticscott]

37. Still waiting for that list of atrocities

Did your usual deep research method of Google and Wikipedia searches come up empty?

[Jim__]

40. Your sloppy thinking doesn't put any requirement on me to produce some list.

My statement in post #10: - Harris talks about the greatest crimes of the 20th century. Let's limit the discussion to Mao and Stalin. He claims their philosophy is "like religion." ... He is right in claiming that atheism is not responsible for their crimes; but neither did it prevent these outrageous crimes. - does not promise any list.

BTW: Any time I use information found through google or wikipedia, I mark it and provide the source. There is no need to provide any new information here, as your request has nothing to do with my statement.

[skepticscott]

44. Nice dodge

But what you're really saying is that you can't cite any atrocities produced because of and in the name of atheism, but you acknowledge that there have been many of them in the name of and because of religion. Imagine that...

And the sloppy thinking lies in your implication that not preventing something is the moral equivalent of causing it. Not to mention that you don't even begin to grasp the difference between atheism and anti-theism, or the difference between the overarching worldview that religion is, and the simple lack of belief in one thing that atheism is.

[Jim__]

47. Dodge? Point out the text where I claimed I would produce any such list. - n/t

[skepticscott]

52. The fact that you can't

directly undermines your entire argument, whether you grasp that simple fact or not. Whether you claimed to be able to do it or not is yet another irrelevant strawman.

Thanks for playing, though...

[Jim__]

53. Hardly.

My request as stated in post #10: Harris talks about the greatest crimes of the 20th century. Let's limit the discussion to Mao and Stalin. ... He is right in claiming that atheism is not responsible for their crimes; but neither did it prevent these outrageous crimes. ... If all atheism buys us in this area is that we can claim that any atrocities (including the ultimate atrocity) committed under atheist regimes were not due to their atheism, then I don't see atheism offering us much in the way of a solution to our problems.

My argument has nothing to do with "lists" of atrocities of one atheist "sect" (your word) hacking the members of another atheist "sect."

[skepticscott]

55. You really have no grasp of this issue at all, do you?

The argument that you've stated claims that a society without religion provides no benefit, as it did not prevent atrocities under Mao and Stalin. Again, leaving aside the point that atheism never claims to be able to do so, while religion does, let's look at that.

We have three classes of "atrocities":

A. Atrocities committed specifically because of, or in the name of, religion

B. Atrocities committed specifically because of, or in the name of, atheism

C. Atrocities which are neither A nor B, which are committed simply because of the way human beings are, and which are not prevented by the religious condition of a society.


In a religious society, you'll have A and C, and in a non-religious society, you'll have B and C. Unless you can show (as you have so far ducked doing) that B is not zero, then A+C will always be greater than B+C, i.e., there will always be fewer atrocities in a non-religious society. Which (if you missed the point again), pretty much blows the argument you stated out of the water. Wanna try for that B list again?

[Jim__]

56. People in glass houses ...

In a religious society, you'll have A and C, and in a non-religious society, you'll have B and C. Unless you can show (as you have so far ducked doing) that B is not zero, then A+C will always be greater than B+C, i.e., there will always be fewer atrocities in a non-religious society.

Even the claim is nonsense. You first have to assume that C remains constant across different regimes. Historically, that's a false assumption, as the 20th century clearly shows.

Second bad assumption, it's the number of different atrocities that is critical. Suppose we compare Stalin's Great Purge to the recent killings in Nigeria. Stalin's purge is 1 atrocity, the killings in Nigeria over the last 6 months or so are 2 different atrocities. By your "reasoning," the 2 atrocities in Nigeria are therefore worse than Stalin's Great Purge. Utter nonsense.

You need to seriously think the issue through.

[skepticscott]

38. Atheist organization boots kid with gay parents

http://www.salon.com/wires/us/2010/03/05/D9E8NOG80_us_catholics_gay_parents/index.html

oops...my mistake...imagine

[Deep13]

35. The flaw in any analysis using Stalin, Hitler or Mao as expamples...

...is overlooking the fact that they were just three men. Hitler, of course, was not an atheist, but is often cited as one. The real problem with these regimes is that their populations believed in them. There is nothing atheistic in forcing people to believe unquestioningly in their leaders. Had the populations of Russia or China been skeptical, it is unlikely that either of those men would ever have come to power. But, Stalin had a public that had been conditioned by their church and the despots it supported to obey. Likewise, Moa was seen as simply the next emperor who enjoyed the mandate of heaven. It should be noted, however, that pointing to Stalin does not create a picture of unequivocal evil given his most significant contribution to history. Stalin as leader of the USSR and of the Red Army was principally responsible for stopping Hitler and the Nazis.

I think there is no evil in inanimate objects. As you suggest in the phrase "warlike nature," it is what one does with those objects that really matters. And I should point out that neither China nor the USSR ever launched the kind of doomsday war of aggression that Hitler and Tojo started. There was localized aggression to be sure, but there was never a first strike or an invasion of western Europe on the one hand or an invasion of Japan or Tiawan or even India on the other. People are warlike when they have a perceived reason to be. Irrational beliefs of which religion is the largest example can create a perceived reason for fear and hatred. Irrational beliefs in others can also create justifiable reasons to be war-like in their neighbors.

[skepticscott]

39. Not only were they just three men

but they were all totally whacked-out sociopaths, and they were NOT (in the case of Stalin and Mao) that way because they didn't go to church on Sunday. Having to cherry-pick these guys out of all of history shows how weak and desperate this argument is.

[Jim__]

41. The flaw in your analysis is that you're advocating that we discard the historical examples that ...

... we have

The examples of atheistic regimes in history is pretty slim. The examples we do have, make the claims of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris laughable. We could argue the the US is an atheistic state (the Constitution does not advocate any god), and we could take that as a positive example. But, it has participated in war throughout its history and empire building over the last 100 years.


The real problem with these regimes is that their populations believed in them. There is nothing atheistic in forcing people to believe unquestioningly in their leaders. Had the populations of Russia or China been skeptical, it is unlikely that either of those men would ever have come to power.

You're kidding right? Especially about Stalin. The populace had very little to say about either his or Lenin's rise. Lenin seized power because he had spent years studying how to take advantage of a chaotic situation. Stalin's fight for power tool place in the Central Committee.

It should be noted, however, that pointing to Stalin does not create a picture of unequivocal evil given his most significant contribution to history. Stalin as leader of the USSR and of the Red Army was principally responsible for stopping Hitler and the Nazis.

Again, you're kidding, right? Up 'til WWII, Stalin waged a terror campaign against religion in the the Soviet Union. After Hitler attacked, Stalin re-opened numerous churches and allowed the people to return to religion. To save the country, he found patriotism and religion were necessary. So, the most significant part of Stalin's regime was given a boost by religion.

People are warlike when they have a perceived reason to be. Irrational beliefs of which religion is the largest example can create a perceived reason for fear and hatred. Irrational beliefs in others can also create justifiable reasons to be war-like in their neighbors.

The reason people are warlike is most likely the same reason chimps are "warlike" (different tactics and of course, chimps have no real strategies), a threat to resources.

[Deep13]

45. That's not accurate and relies in part on the fallacy of equivocation.

Whatever the conclusion, changes urged by present day writers have nothing to do with 20th century communism. These were/are totalitarian states that sought to supplant the role of religion and everything else in society. They were atheistic in their requirement of belief in the absence of a god. The reason was that religion had supported the Tsar and the Chinese Emperor. They insisted on being a godless state for that reason. It was a precondition, not a conclusion based on the evidence. None of the folks writing today are advocating an authoritarian state where people are required to believe in nonbelief. The people writing today are using the skeptical definition of the term. Either the evidence does not support the idea of a god or else it disproves the possibility. It is a conclusion, not a precondition. Ordering people to believe in ideological tenants based on insufficient evidence including godlessness is not atheism in the skeptical sense of the word.

Second, whatever else Stalin did, he and the USSR did stop and repel the Nazis in the East. The abuses he committed, while horrible were no worse than those committed by the Tudor monarchs or other authoritarian rules through history.

The fact that Stalin became tolerant of religion again undermines your argument that the USSR was an atheists state. I really don't care what the official line was. What matters is what the people thought and did. Stalin recognized the power of religion and used it the same way that that the Tsars did, though not to the same extent.

And your argument that the people had no choice overlooks the fact that the communist revolutions happened and overthrew two absolute monarchies. If there was not such anticlerical reactions against Christianity and the emperor cult, the revolutions would not have happened as they did. If the emperors did not rely on divine authority, they would not have been as powerful as they were and the eventual revolution would not have been as radical.

Saying "you're kidding" is ad hominem because it shifts focus away from the discussion and toward the messenger. The issue is not whether or not I'm worthy of ridicule, but whether skeptical atheism has anything to do with Stalin or Moa.

[Jim__]

48. The claim of the current writers is that the problem is religion.

The record of the atheistic states of the 20th century put the lie to that.

Chinese Emperor? Mao overthrew Chiang Kai Shek - who was not an emperor. The atheism of communism came from the reasoning of Marx and Engles.

Stalin didn't overthrow the czar. He took control after Lenin's death.

As to claiming that religion has to do with Stalin's purges, it contradicts history. Stalin's purges took place in the 30s when religion was condemned in the Soviet Union. He accepted religion back after the Soviet Union was invaded by Germany - 1941.

[whosinpower]

36. Athiesm removes the facade

The purported reason that various groups use to justify their anti social actions.
However, anti social actions will still occur - with, or without religion.

When a power evaporates, it leaves a vacuum that will be filled with something. And, it is, ultimately power that corrupts. Always.

Take away the reason - Because God is on my side, does not eliminate the action.

[Jim__]

42. I tend to agree that religion is incidental to war and atrocities.

They occur with or without religion. The problem seems to be human nature.

[Deep13]

46. People don't fight as hard when there is no divine command.

I mean in wars of aggression. Without divine injunction, the just cause of a war becomes a matter of opinion. When god orders it, that conclusion is a precondition for all ethical and moral considerations. Those who oppose god's will have no right to humane treatment or to be free from cruelty for cruelty's sake. Atrocities become mandatory because ones enemy is an enemy of god and there can be no punishment too severe.

The purpose of war may start from very worldly considerations, but without the religious justification there would be few people to fight it.

[onager]

43. Look! Another New Militant Atheist!

Shrines! Shrines! Surely you don’t believe in the gods. What’s your argument? Where’s your proof? — Aristophanes (ca. 448-380 BCE)

[Jim__]

49. You are aware that this is satire, right?

And, at the very least, the quote requires an ellipsis. And given that Demosthenes, more or less, retracts his statement, what are we to make of it all?

[onager]

50. You missed the point.

Which is - there is no such thing as this "New Atheism" that believers and faitheists are always whining about in R/T. The history of atheism is just as long as the history of belief.

Apparently we were even annoying the faithful during Gawd's golden age, since the Buy-bull takes note of atheists:

Psalm 10:4 - The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek Him. All his thoughts are, "There is no God." That's the New American Standard Bible translation, the verse is "softer" in other translations.

Psalm 53:1 - The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."

[Jim__]

54. What does that have to do with the misstated quote from Aristophanes? - n/t

[iris27]

51. This reminds me, I've got his "The End of Faith" half-finished

in the back of my bookshelf somewhere...