Right, but as I said in my post DWill, the comparison is lopsided. I do not condemn all theists for the actions of Muslims. A premise to Squelch's claim is that all atheists have the same beliefs. This isn't true. There are subcategories to atheism as there are subcategories to theism. To label me an 'atheist' isn't to describe what I believe. Do you know what my beliefs are? I don't think you do. With the same reasoning, a Muslim has more to answer for than a Buddhist monk.

Quote: Squelch

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

DWill:

I don't think Squelch is saying that anyone, believer or non, is responsible for the crimes of those who think like them.

This conversation started earlier in this thread and it was in reference to doing things in the name of a belief system. Which I contend was what happened with the 911 bombings.

The question of others of the same religious persuading (or atheistic) sharing in that responsibility is Squelch's position. She is saying it, not I.

Interbane
There are subcategories to atheism as there are subcategories to theism. To label me an 'atheist' isn't to describe what I believe.

Interbane I don't get this. I label myself an "atheist", it is my disbelief in a supernatural or religious belief system. I would expect everyone to understand that. Does it explain the whole of me? Of course not. I understand the differing theistic belief systems but what do you consider sub categories to atheism? There is no organization of atheists so how could there be a "platform" so to speak? If you are an atheist and also a writer, like Hitchens or Harris, those are two separate things you are. Atheists far as I know have no credo or rules or structure to atheism

lady of shallot wrote:

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?"

My point was that the quote you provided about the relation between Stalin and atheism was in my view an example of a dishonest attempt by an atheist to deal with the negative past, not by you but by its author, as it is reasonable for you to take it on face value. The assertion that atheism was somehow not central to communist ideology ignores all the history which is helpfully summarised in the link I provided on persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union. I have not seen any detailed treatment by atheist scholars of where they stand on the economics of communism and capitalism. You may say this is irrelevant, but I suggest there is still in the popular mind an association between atheism and communism. After all, the USA fought the Cold War to save the world from the tyranny of a godless dictatorship by the USSR. The point of this thread is why people find it hard to talk publicly about atheism. A perceived association with treason is one starting point. You may say McCarthy was a thickhead, but he dogwhistled middle America in a way that has influence well beyond HUAC.

I think Harris points in the right direction with his observation that scientific atheism has to engage on debate about values, and that the refusal to do so, with the claim that science is just facts and not values, leaves the field to the irrational. This political stance against values by science, seen especially in Popper, is partly in reaction against the abuse of reason by communist ideology. Popper, who really is a main atheist source, attacked Plato and 'historicism' for being totalitarian. The reasonable reaction against totalitarian led Popper to an extreme liberalism in the name of science.

All this talk about atheism as a non-belief with no stable positive content except science has given rise to the inference, quite unfair, that atheists don't know what they think, they have no clear values and they are therefore untrustworthy. The attitude seems to be that advocacy of atheism is shocking and disreputable, if not treacherous.

So, when you or I or anyone drop the comment in social chit chat that we are atheist, that is likely to dredge up all sorts of cultural associations, consciously and subconsciously. For example, there are fringe leftist sects who still claim the abolition of religion is a key goal for atheism. As this was tried out on epic scale by Stalin and Mao within living memory, atheists who don't share that line are likely to get tarred with the same brush. As far as I am aware Hitchens comes closest of the prominent atheists to engaging with this problem, but laughing it off as ridiculous leads, in my view, to acceptance that it is reasonable for mainstream society to ignore and deride atheism as a marginal non-belief.

robert Tulip

but I suggest there is still in the popular mind an association between atheism and communism. After all, the USA fought the Cold War to save the world from the tyranny of a godless dictatorship by the USSR. The point of this thread is why people find it hard to talk publicly about atheism. A perceived association with treason is one starting point. You may say McCarthy was a thickhead, but he dogwhistled middle America in a way that has influence well beyond HUAC.

Honestly, robert I do not see that here. If anything McCarthy is much more derided than any link between atheists and Stalin/Russia in the cold war years, or atheists of today. I would say socialism is very much of interest to many people. I do like the term "dogwhistled" as I have never heard that.

My experience is that people are responding to the non-belief part of declaration of atheism much more than they are making a connection to the person and the possibility that they may be communist.

By the way I have always understood it to be our own state of Maine's Margaret Smith, who said "Have you no shame, Mr. Mc Carthy" but I now see it attributed to someone else.

robert Tulip

but I suggest there is still in the popular mind an association between atheism and communism. After all, the USA fought the Cold War to save the world from the tyranny of a godless dictatorship by the USSR. The point of this thread is why people find it hard to talk publicly about atheism. A perceived association with treason is one starting point. You may say McCarthy was a thickhead, but he dogwhistled middle America in a way that has influence well beyond HUAC.

Honestly, robert I do not see that here. If anything McCarthy is much more derided than any link between atheists and Stalin/Russia in the cold war years, or atheists of today. I would say socialism is very much of interest to many people. I do like the term "dogwhistled" as I have never heard that.

My experience is that people are responding to the non-belief part of declaration of atheism much more than they are making a connection to the person and the possibility that they may be communist.

By the way I have always understood it to be our own state of Maine's Margaret Smith, who said "Have you no shame, Mr. Mc Carthy" but I now see it attributed to someone else.

Interbane wrote:I do not condemn all theists for the actions of Muslims.

Delighted to hear it!

Yet many do exactly that. After all isn't there a user here in this enlightened company whose signature reads, "science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings"?.

Interbane is right here, and he spoke elequently.

Atheists cannot be held responsible for evil acts of past atheists, nor should current christians be held responsible for the crusades.

The difference being, the crusades were in fact persecuted by a denomination of christianity, and directed into action by the leadership of that religion.

Stalin and others of his ilk destroyed the lives of the religious, but they could not have done so in the name of atheism, or at the behest of any leadership in atheism. Atheism is not a club. Nobody is in charge of atheists, and there are no precepts, rules or regulations to follow. It is simply not believing in gods.

So even if Stalin had proclaimed himself the grand pubah of atheism he still had no authority to dictate the terms of what it was to be an atheist, nor to inspire any persecution of any group on behalf of atheism.

Atheism also makes no positive claim about morality. It is simply one property of a person.

Atheist
Belief in god/ gods? (Yes ) (No X )

Theist
Belief in god / gods? (Yes X) (No )


This says nothing about positive claims of behavior.

Christianity is a whole suite of beliefs and claims to positive behavior that are supposedly immutable and ancient claims discarded by modern practitioners may still be defended by others. Biblical literalists must be held accountable for the things they defend in the bible... because they volunteered to defend them! And they continue to defend them even on these forums, and even when they are demonstrably false and obviously immoral.

Everyone should recognize the faults of the past and work to ensure they do not return in the future. But no atheist is responsible, or called to defend the behavior of past atheists, except to say that if such and such believed in a god, then they were not actually atheist.

Christians are not responsible for the crimes of past christians either, but if the claim is made that christianity makes you a more moral person, then that claim must be defended in light of those who espoused devoute christian belief and yet perpetrated horrific crimes. And often in the name of christianity, from places of power and influence from withing christian organization, and with the support of fellow christians who followed them on the basis of their christianity.

There is no argument to be made that Stalin behaved the way he did because of too much reliance on critical thinking, or comparing his belief against the evidence.

Atheists tend to embrace critical thinking and comparing their beliefs against the evidence, but those cheracteristics are not intrinsic to the definition of atheism either.

Because atheists by and large reject religion does not make atheism itself an ALTERNATIVE religion. It is not a filp-side to a coin, nor must it share the pit-falls inherrant to the ideology that atheists tend to reject.

We all have different opinions about how to behave in life which can vary wildly and are not dependant on any authority to dictate those behaviors, or world views.

And so, unless some atheist says "Man, i think Stalin was right!" then they are in no way responsible for defending Stalin, or for going out of their way to distance themselves from him. They do not inherantly share his ideologies, and they never inferred that they did. When you join the "Stalin Club" or claim biblical literalism, or a reliance on the bible for moral guidance, then you must justify those claims when confronted with the evidence within those ideologies.

There is no other qualifier of Atheism BUT a lack of belief in gods.

Christianity or Hinduism or Stalin-ism are all suites of positive claims which one can adopt, and to embrace the ideologies brings with it the baggage of hitching your wagon to that horse.

A popular belief that atheism is equivalent to communism does not make that connection true, even if widely held, any more than an almost universal acceptance of the existence of santa clause by children make that mythical being manifest.

Equating atheism with positive claims of moral behavior, or economic doctrine are fallacious attempts to foist negative stereotypes onto people who will not share those behaviors.

Interbane wrote:
I do not condemn all theists for the actions of Muslims.

Delighted to hear it!

Yet many do exactly that. After all isn't there a user here in this enlightened company whose signature reads, "science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings"?.

And is that not the case?

As i have pointed out before, i do not really blame religion for the problems associated with them. I blame magical thinking and assertions of faith.

Would any person who was "too into critical thinking" or "too ready to compare their beliefs against the evidence" fly an airplane full of innocent people into a giant building full of other innocent people, subsequently murdering themselves and all else involved because of a promise of eternal life and glory in heaven?

It is magical thinking which is the root cause of erratic, dangerous, and oppressive behavior. It is assertions of belief NOT based on fact, or substantiated by evidence and ONLY such beliefs which could positively motivate a person to believe that killing themselves and thousands of other people in the name of some god was justified, or even a thing to be glorified.

Such baseless beliefs are the root of racism, justification for slavery, motive for the murder of whole peoples, and for justifying all these negative behaviors as just and wise. ONLY a belief not based on fact or substantiated by evidence would suffice to carry a person to such extremes, because an evaluation of the facts and an un-biased observation of the evidence inherently deflates the extreme ideals which lead to such crazy behavior.

Religion is just the manifest scars of our un-substantiated magical thinking. It is the underlying magical thought process which has to go. If all religion were to disappear today, there would be new ones within the month. All based on irrational supposition and assertions of authority where there is none to be had.

If we got rid of our unsubstantiated magical thought processes, religions would crumble under their own amassed weight of lies and baseless assertion.

And is that not the case?

As you say yourself, no it's not. In a very small minority of cases, a certain brand of religious thinking has led to terrible things. But the same is true of atheism, politics and philosophy. The claim that "religion flies you into buildings" seems to me to be a rather dishonest attempt to incriminate all believers for the horribloe crimes of a very few.

If we got rid of our unsubstantiated magical thought processes, religions would crumble under their own amassed weight of lies and baseless assertion.

I'm not convinced that that's true. If religions were only about supernatural processes and theology, you might have a point. But in reality, most of religion is about how believers conduct themselves and live their lives here and now. In terms of delivering what it claims to, for most people much of religion is really very successful: it provides community, support, help for those in need, companionship, friendship, intellectual and spiritual exercise and a deep sense of comfort and peace.

Those things are certainly available elsewhere, but there's no question that organised religion provides them very effectively for large numbers of people. That's the reason a great many keep at it, not because of the intangible stuff.