There is a distinction here between atheism as a negative belief - not believing in God - and atheism as a positive belief - an ideological framework for action.

The unicorn example is just about atheism as a negative doctrine. However, when an atheist tells a believer they do not believe in God, the natural response is to ask what they do believe. Historically, the main association with atheism as a positive belief has been extreme leftist ideology of class struggle. Elimination of religion may be a subsidiary goal for communists, but the fact remains that historically it has been a big motivating practical element.

I don't see the association with communism as any sort of refutation of atheism, its just that it is a big part of the bad odor atheism attracts in the broader populace. The smell is not removed by claiming that atheism is a purely negative pursuit. Positive atheism was the ideological basis for Russia's revolution, war and cold war over the last century, and for that matter also for Mao's grand crimes against humanity in China.

Negativity never buttered any parsnips. You don't win friends and influence people by telling them you have no beliefs. And as Sam Harris ably argues, telling people that your beliefs are solely restricted to facts begs the question of what values you hold.

lady of shallot wrote:

DWill wrote: "insane and extreme" ideas of Richard Dawkins? Offhand, I can only think of one of his statements that does appear to me extreme, at least in its unqualified form, and that is that teaching children about religion amounts to child abuse.

Dwill, I did not know it was Dawkins who said this and while I would not call it child abuse, neither would I give a child any religious instruction.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118- ... hild-abuse

It interests me that Dawkins admits himself to being fondled by a pedophile while in parochial school (Anglican) but then proceeds to laugh it off as nothing serious. Was it or not? Could this in fact have planted seeds of hatred for all things religious? Just a thought.

As for teaching about Hell... nasty thing to do if it's all a farce. But if the stove is real and is hot I'd be a negligent parent not to warn my child and do all I can to prevent his having to experience it! It comes down to belief doesn't it? And we are given responsibility for our children to raise them as we think best. They will bear the marks of our training, for better or for worse. But that's what child rearing is about isn't it?

Anyone eager to consider Sam Harris' declarations from another angle would appreciate the work of apologist Ravi Zacharias: The End of Reason-- a respectful but strong response to the 'new atheists' and particularly to Sam's first two books. Zacharias packs a solid punch into a short 143pp, closing with a plea to society to allow for the diversity of religious beliefs to be heard in the marketplace of public dialogue, allowing the individual to weigh the merit of disparate views for him/herself. There's a lot to chew on here, a read that merits re-reading, esp. in light of this discussion. I commend it to you.

Dexter wrote:If people who didn't believe in unicorns went around killing people who did believe in unicorns, would a-unicornists have to deal with this to defend their position? I see no distinction between the two examples.

Prominent atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens, as well as less prominent but no less well liked ones like our friends here, frequently and loudly demand that the religious must account and atone for the various and dreadful wrongdoings in the past and present of some members of their group.

It's a level playing field: if believers must take responsibility for the crimes of their brethren, so must atheists.

geo has recently read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer and has applied it to topics like this several times. I read the book long ago but haven't made the time to reread it yet. But I think geo's on the right track, citing an analysis that avoids the pitfalls of emotional attachments by ferreting out what is common to mass movements, which would include totalitarian movements, whether these appear to be based in religion or irreligion.

A question that has been raised is whether atheism is anything that can be called a belief system. If it isn't, it would seem hard to pin on it particular crimes of state leaders who wanted no competition from any other source of authority. The political ideology run amok would be a better candidate, as a true system of belief, for the impulse to outlaw and persecute religion in the first place, as well as conduct mass killings.

It's doubtful we can speak of atheism as something with defined, consistent features and consequences, any more than we can do that with religion. We might believe that, no, atheism isn't an ideology in itself, just the lack of something, so it doesn't send anyone off in a definite direction. But that's only how we define the word from our own position in time. In particular cases, in other times, it's possible that the lack of belief could take on ideological significance and thus motivate people to do things "in its name." However, I suggest that in the case of the Soviet Union, no one has offered evidence that demonstrates atheism was in that sense primary to the deliberate killing of millions.

Has religion at times been primary to killing on such a scale? Probably not. Not until the 20th Century did the means exist for such killing, and by that time religion had faded in potency. But it does seem at least easier and more natural to state that multitudes of people have over the centuries been killed "in the name of" religion. There are precise doctrines that believers consider justification for them to eliminate nonbelievers. This wouldn't seem to be true for atheism, so again the positive (in the sense of active) ideology of the killing regimes is a better place to look.

Robert Tulip said: Communism is the ogre in the atheist cupboard, and atheism will not be taken seriously until a form of it emerges that deals honestly with its negative past.

I don't understand the part of your sentence "atheism will not be taken seriously until a form of it emerges that deals honestly with its negative past."

How can there be a "form" to atheism? How can atheism be a fluid, changing disbelief? You mean if all the individual beings who identify themselves as atheists (still waiting to see any organization of these people) were to say (or maybe accept responsibility for?) yes, Stalin was an atheist and in the Name of atheism he exterminated millions of people, that all Christians, Jews, Muslims (etc etc) would say "Yes, there is something to your atheistic view?"

It's a level playing field: if believers must take responsibility for the crimes of their brethren, so must atheists.

To call someone an atheist isn't to call out what they believe. Yes, atheists share some beliefs in common, as do anyone who believes in a god. But there are differences between atheists as vast as the difference between Buddhist monks and Islamic Extremists. You may call me an atheist, but you still have no clue what I believe. It is the ontologically positive belief which distinguishes us. I would not point to the crusades as a consequence of moral fragility for the beliefs of a Buddhist monk.

Another point, who said that believers must take responsibility for the crimes of their brethrens? This is like African Americans asking white people today to apologize for slavery. I don't think it's reasonable. In fact, it's laughable. What I would rather them do is realize their beliefs aren't the source of morality. Acknowledge that evil is capable of being committed by any person, and that religion does not keep people from committing it. In some cases, religion is used as the justification of evil acts. Stop claiming that we would be immoral without religion, because it's obvious our ancestors were immoral with it.

Squelch? said:

It's a level playing field: if believers must take responsibility for the crimes of their brethren, so must atheists.

Does this refer to the current bombings/planes into buildings, or are you referring to past actions, like Stalin and what happened in Russia?

Yes, if its current. If all the atheists in America got together and rounded up all the church members and then exterminated them, then yes a lone dissident atheist must share in that blame.

Otherwise pretty ridiculous. Should I blame by protestant acquaintances for Salem or my Catholic friends for the inquisition? I don't think so.

Dawn:

As for teaching about Hell... nasty thing to do if it's all a farce. But if the stove is real and is hot I'd be a negligent parent not to warn my child and do all I can to prevent his having to experience it! It comes down to belief doesn't it? And we are given responsibility for our children to raise them as we think best. They will bear the marks of our training, for better or for worse. But that's what child rearing is about isn't it?

I agree with you Dawn, if I believed as you do I would also instruct my child in this way. But I do not so of course would not so instruct a child.

Since I am privileged to see two full generations beneath me (after me, how best to say it?) I can attest that a lack of formal religious instruction does not equate to a lack of any positive personal characteristics of any kind. ALL of the qualities any parent would be proud of in a child. . . absent of course any religious belief, are present in these people.

I don't think Squelch is saying that anyone, believer or non, is responsible for the crimes of those who think like them. He's claiming that atheists take this approach with believers, saying that their beliefs tie them to people who did bad things in the name of those beliefs. To remain consistent, he's saying that as an atheist you'd have to accept the taint from atheists who did bad things.