The obsession of the evangelicals amounts to a Crusade. It’s all there - the unrelenting proselytizing, “proofs” of their position, demonizing opponents as evil (not wrong), calls for the extermination of religion and religious ideas to be replaced with a “superior” society. The idea that such a society will necessarily be better than our own (in which we may debate this question without fear) is not only silly but dangerous. Personally, I don’t want folks who preach disrespect for ideas as my new master. As an atheist I am fed up with the screaming “I hate religion” crowd who has made personal belief a matter of morality, i.e. if you don’t think as I do you are an evil person.

Dylan Evans, the noted English atheist, said it best, “Dawkins is virulently anti-religious, passionately pro-science and artistically illiterate…His attacks on religion are so vitriolic and bad-tempered that they alienate the sensitive reader and give atheism a bad name. As a friend of mine once commented, no other atheist has done more for the cause of religion than Richard Dawkins.”

Link (http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/27/are-evangelical-atheists-too-outspoken/)

Comments?

From the link:

"What is often overlooked by the critics of “evangelical atheism” is that skepticism about the existence of God does not by itself define who and what we are. For there is a commitment to the realization of human freedom and happiness in this life here and now and to a life of excellence, creativity, and fulfillment. Life is meaningful without the illusion of immortality. There is also the recognition that the cultivation of the common moral decencies—caring, empathy, and altruism—is an essential part of our relating to other human beings in our communities of interaction. Humanists have always been concerned with achieving justice in society. Many of the heroes and heroines in human history were freethinkers who contributed significantly to democratic progress and a defense of human rights. Indeed, the agenda of secular humanism is twofold: first is the quest for truth, a critical examination of the assumptions of supernatural religion in the light of science; second is the development of affirmative ethical alternatives for the individual, the society in which he or she lives, and also the planetary community at large. To label us “evangelical atheists” without recognizing our affirmative commitment to secular humanist morality is an egregious error."

Yeah yeah we get it:

It’s all there - the unrelenting proselytizing, “proofs” of their position, demonizing opponents as evil (not wrong), calls for the extermination of religion and religious ideas to be replaced with a “superior” society.

:zzz:

Out of curiosity, lets put your secular humanism to the test-

You bought some 20 teddy bears for that teacher in Sudan.

What did you do for the illegal detentions in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo?

Dylan Evans is talking BS. That's my comment.

When Atheists want tax breaks, and start telling you when you can and can't have sex, and what you can and can't do, and start burning effigees of people in the streets for transgressing scientific method, maybe his comments would have some merit.

But those actions are performed by the religious, not the atheists.

Oh, and religion is evil. It has proven itself to be so time and time again. I have no problem with personal belief, but organised religion should be stamped out.

:roflmao:

Yeah yeah we get it:



:zzz:

Out of curiosity, lets put your secular humanism to the test-

You bought some 20 teddy bears for that teacher in Sudan.

What did you do for the illegal detentions in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo?

So, you actually want to troll your own thread? :shrug:

No I want to see the evidence for your purported claim to secular humanism.

No I want to see the evidence for your purported claim to secular humanism.


What, Q has to be like the most charitable, right on person on the planet? Solve every problem, support every cause?

Or perhaps, just not participating in the evil that is religion, is enough?

Nope just show evidence that he is capable of being humanist without being anti-religion.

You have to admit that it would be hard to miss the Abu Ghraib/Gitmo detentions as compared to the teddy bear controversy.

I've seen plenty of evidence for the anti-religion stance, none at all for his claim of secular humanism.

The obsession of the evangelicals amounts to a Crusade. It’s all there - the unrelenting proselytizing, “proofs” of their position, demonizing opponents as evil (not wrong), calls for the extermination of religion and religious ideas to be replaced with a “superior” society. The idea that such a society will necessarily be better than our own (in which we may debate this question without fear) is not only silly but dangerous. Personally, I don’t want folks who preach disrespect for ideas as my new master. As an atheist I am fed up with the screaming “I hate religion” crowd who has made personal belief a matter of morality, i.e. if you don’t think as I do you are an evil person.

Dylan Evans, the noted English atheist, said it best, “Dawkins is virulently anti-religious, passionately pro-science and artistically illiterate…His attacks on religion are so vitriolic and bad-tempered that they alienate the sensitive reader and give atheism a bad name. As a friend of mine once commented, no other atheist has done more for the cause of religion than Richard Dawkins.”

Link (http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/27/are-evangelical-atheists-too-outspoken/)

Comments?

Well if Dawkins is the best you can do with showing how 'evangelical' atheism is a bad thing, then I am not persuaded.

Jesus Sam you really are full of BS. Your spat with Q leads you to be really quite unreasonable.

I'm asking him to support his claim. As someone against illegal detentions, what is his basis for defining support for the teacher vs the detainees of Abu Ghraib/Gitmo?

You could also provide evidence for your claim of a better society, considering that previous experiments with atheism have led to worse atrocities than any on earth.

Or else show what differentiates you from any other kind of evangelist

All this means is that people rebel and resent being hit over the head with someone else's theories. Personally i dont care weather a person is an Atheist or not. As for religion, terrorism has turned more against religion than Dawkins ever can hope to.

The obsession of the evangelicals amounts to a Crusade. It’s all there - the unrelenting proselytizing, “proofs” of their position, demonizing opponents as evil (not wrong), calls for the extermination of religion and religious ideas to be replaced with a “superior” society. The idea that such a society will necessarily be better than our own (in which we may debate this question without fear) is not only silly but dangerous. Personally, I don’t want folks who preach disrespect for ideas as my new master. As an atheist I am fed up with the screaming “I hate religion” crowd who has made personal belief a matter of morality, i.e. if you don’t think as I do you are an evil person.

Dylan Evans, the noted English atheist, said it best, “Dawkins is virulently anti-religious, passionately pro-science and artistically illiterate…His attacks on religion are so vitriolic and bad-tempered that they alienate the sensitive reader and give atheism a bad name. As a friend of mine once commented, no other atheist has done more for the cause of religion than Richard Dawkins.”

Link (http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/27/are-evangelical-atheists-too-outspoken/)

Comments?

the term evangelical cannot refer to athiests

Yeah yeah we get it:



:zzz:

Out of curiosity, lets put your secular humanism to the test-

You bought some 20 teddy bears for that teacher in Sudan.

What did you do for the illegal detentions in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo?

I guess SAM, while I have a great deal of distaste for Dawkins as a philosopher, this question towards Q can be turned around and asked of you. Are you critical of evangelical religious people, especially Muslims, and do you challenge their demonizing of people who are not religious or do not share the same religion?

As a kind of theist myself I am concerned about the behavior of both monotheists - with their histories of violence toward non-believers - and atheists because of their influence more on the educational end of things.

I have had quite a bit of contact with monotheists, including Muslims, and we got along just peachy. Every now and then some of them would 'understand' violence directed at people where I could not possibly understand that violence. It reminded me of the ways American Christian fundamentalists can understand violence against gays,while not condoning it.

Neither group seemed to make the connection between their understanding of that violence and that violence's existence.

I realize that atheists are not exempt from violence or 'understanding' violence. I am sure many supported the wars in Iraq and Vietnam, whatever the ironies of the latter being against a different kind of atheist. Economic beliefs are a kind of religion.

Most of the atheists I know find my beliefs odd. Since they know and respect me, sometimes they try to point out where I must be wrong, but some, could really care less. I never get the feeling, ever, that I might be physically attacked for my beliefs by an atheist. I have, sadly, had this experience with monotheists of several kinds.

All this means is that people rebel and resent being hit over the head with someone else's theories. Personally i dont care weather a person is an Atheist or not. As for religion, terrorism has turned more against religion than Dawkins ever can hope to.

Also the matter of it being blatantly false?

the term evangelical cannot refer to athiests

e·van·gel·i·cal
5. marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause.

It is the 5th meaning but it is not one that SAM made up. It can certainly stand as a provocative use of the term.

I think 'proselytizing' would be a better term. It is not a word with roots in one religion - as evangelical is with Christianty.

It is clear that some atheists proselytize. Some simply respond to attempts to proselytize. In a forum like this we could easily have a

He started it
No, she did.

moment

to make us all nostalgic for the playground.

But in any case there are some atheists who have taken on the task to spead atheism. Or to be as terminologically neutral as I can be

to un-spread religion.

Splitting hairs perhaps, but one must try to respect where there is flexibility.

I guess SAM, while I have a great deal of distaste for Dawkins as a philosopher, this question towards Q can be turned around and asked of you. Are you critical of evangelical religious people, especially Muslims, and do you challenge their demonizing of people who are not religious or do not share the same religion?

Ah but I'm a theist. It automatically makes me ineligible to be either secular or a humanist, don't you know?;)

I have had quite a bit of contact with monotheists, including Muslims, and we got along just peachy. Every now and then some of them would 'understand' violence directed at people where I could not possibly understand that violence. It reminded me of the ways American Christian fundamentalists can understand violence against gays,while not condoning it.


Is understanding the same as condoning?

For example, would you understand it if a man condemned to torture and solitary confinement for 5 years for no reason at all, decided, upon being let out, that he might as well do what he was incarcerated for? Do you condone it?

Neither group seemed to make the connection between their understanding of that violence and that violence's existence.


So in your opinion, understanding the basis of violence encourages that kind of violence. What is your personal approach to violence?

I realize that atheists are not exempt from violence or 'understanding' violence. I am sure many supported the wars in Iraq and Vietnam, whatever the ironies of the latter being against a different kind of atheist. Economic beliefs are a kind of religion.

Yes and this is where I question the secular humanist. Is secular humanism beyond gas prices? beyond share market investments? Beyond trade practices that lead to third world farmers killing themselves in the tens of thousands?


Most of the atheists I know find my beliefs odd. Since they know and respect me, sometimes they try to point out where I must be wrong, but some, could really care less. I never get the feeling, ever, that I might be physically attacked for my beliefs by an atheist. I have, sadly, had this experience with monotheists of several kinds.

Have you ever lived under a communist regime?

I would estimate that with terrorism and the present climate one can predict that the future will either be in chains or no religion at all. I am gonna say chains.

the term evangelical cannot refer to athiests

I disagree

Some excerpts from an evangelical atheist:

Freethought is worth sharing with the world. If the conditions are right, it is possible for a freethinker to successfully evangelize a believer.

"Evangelism" is a perfectly good word. The Greek word "angel" means "messenger." Evangelism is simply "good news."

"Atheism" is positive. Although it is constructed with the privative prefix (negative in the sense of "without," not "against"), it should be viewed as a double negative. By comparison, "non-violence" is considered to be a positive word. Since "theism" is unreasonable and even dangerous, the message that we can be free of it is good news. Atheism is like having a large debt cancelled.

I am not suggesting that every atheist should be an evangelist. Some are better off temporarily keeping their views to themselves for job security or family harmony. Some freethinkers wisely wait until they retire, when they have little to lose, before they become vocal. In certain communities, open unbelief can be costly.

Nor am I suggesting that every evangelistic atheist will always be successful. I learned in the ministry that evangelism is like sales. You can't sell everyone. But you can't sell anyone if you don't first convince them that they have a need or desire for what you are selling.

In one sense, the believers have already been "led astray." They have been led astray from reason, where religion is concerned. Many fundamentalists have also gone astray from compassion, peace, or tolerance.

But since they view themselves as sheep in a flock of followers, they do need to be led astray from the mentality of submission to the shepherd, slaves to a dictator. It would be better for them, and for the world, if there were more independent thinkers.

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/evangel.html

Ah but I'm a theist. It automatically makes me ineligible to be either secular or a humanist, don't you know?;)
To be honest SAM, you strike me as being both a Muslim and a secular humanist. I do not say this to offend. It might even be a compliment.


Is understanding the same as condoning?

I think often it is a partial act of condoning. If a man rapes a woman who had a short skirt, I will not say to other women shocked at the violent act. I understand his rage, but I do not condone his act. When and in what contexts this 'understanding' is uttered affects its meaning. Or that it is said at all. I also think it is a slippery distinction that is compulsively used - perhaps by all of us in different contexts - to put on the table our sentiments without actually taking responsibility for them.

For example, would you understand it if a man condemned to torture and solitary confinement for 5 years for no reason at all, decided, upon being let out, that he might as well do what he was incarcerated for? Do you condone it?

If a man was put in solitary confinement, falsely accused of raping a child, I would not say to the family of a child that was raped when he got out that I understood the man, but I do not condone his act. I might, in a college setting, where we are discussing the psychology of violence go into my understanding of the roots of violence. Nor would it be the first thing that would occur to me to say in most contexts. In a clearly intellectual setting, sure I might go into the psychology of his violence and assign blame in parcels.

To me this 'understanding' is code speak. Not always. But often.

When you shift the wording just so slightly to 'understanding the basis of violence' you are using language in a way that I associate with other contexts.

So in your opinion, understanding the basis of violence encourages that kind of violence. What is your personal approach to violence?

As I have said above. I am referring to contexts where the speech act is not part of an analysis of causes.

Yes and this is where I question the secular humanist. Is secular humanism beyond gas prices? beyond share market investments? Beyond trade practices that lead to third world farmers killing themselves in the tens of thousands?

1) I am also critical of many of the same practices and philosophies.
2) In my country the religious people are, for the most part, right behind these policies and tend to pick presidents who are more extreme proponents of those practices. If I look around the world I do not religious people as the only ones or even the primary ones fighting those practices. In my country most of the people fighting those practices are lefties, often atheists. I am sure in countries where the vast majority of the people are religious then those resisting are also religious. I am not sure if we can assign the resistence to their being religious. In fact, for example, the US policy makers tended to support conservative, authoritarian regimes in South America that were religious because it suited them economically. Those practices you hate fit better with the religious portion of the population. Exceptions existed - the Liberation Theology movement - but these priests and nuns were swimming upstream against church policies (god bless them) and were seen as rebels.

Have you ever lived under a communist regime?

That's a good point. I have actually, not long term. And I currently live in a country which is considered communist by a large % of my birth country. In the latter I am safe in the ways I mentioned. In the former I would not have been. Good point. In the context of this discussion, however, I think you are primarily dealing with atheists who dislike communism and would fit my description.

I happen to see religion everywhere. Some of it has a God or gods, some do not.

Oh, and _____ is evil. It has proven itself to be so time and time again. I have no problem with personal belief, but ________ should be stamped out.[/

Sounds like you, G.Bush and O.Bin Ladin have the same editor. Just insert words as needed.

My philosophy is 'if it aint broke dont fix it'. In U.S we are free to choose, that seems best to me. I dont know what i would do if i was forced to believe something OR ELSE.:bawl:

The obsession of the evangelicals amounts to a Crusade.Atheists are a tiny fraction of the population, at least here in America we're about one percent. That may be three million people but we don't congregate so we're not organized and hardly constitute a "community" except perhaps with the new dynamics of cyberspace. Naturally "evangelical" atheists get disproportionate attention just the way evangelists of any community do. But I'm not sure how important it is to analyze them since there are so few of them. They don't speak for the rest of us, they haven't converted any theists, and their impact on society is trivial. If their obsession can be called a crusade, it's the impotent crusade of Don Quixote rather than the military attack of the Christian armies.It’s all there - the unrelenting proselytizing, “proofs” of their position. . . . I certainly part company with these people on this matter. As a scientist I know that no generalized hypothesis about the natural universe can be proven true.. . . . demonizing opponents as evil (not wrong). . . . I call monotheism evil for a variety of well-articulated reasons but I stop short of calling the people who have been duped by it evil. Often several generations of them live decent lives and die without lapsing into evil. It's just that the next generation's orgy of violence is so evil that it makes their net contribution to civilization, as a demographic group, overwhelmingly negative.. . . . calls for the extermination of religion and religious ideas. . . . I just want a better educational system, a more responsive government, and less selfish business leaders to help create a society in which there is freer discourse and more enlightenment. I trust the truth to win out in a fair contest, without resorting to tactics of "extermination." This was happening in the 1960s and early 1970s, when the American educational system was working.. . . . to be replaced with a “superior” society. The idea that such a society will necessarily be better than our own (in which we may debate this question without fear) is not only silly but dangerous.As I have argued many times, there is abundant evidence that the Abrahamic religions reinforce our atavistic tribal instinct, and that civilization by definition requires the overcoming of that instinct. My ideas may be controversial but it's disingenuous, insulting, and most importantly not proper science, to call them "silly,"Personally, I don’t want folks who preach disrespect for ideas as my new master.That makes them no worse than the old master.As an atheist. . . . This can't be you speaking. Did you miss some quote marks or an attribution??? You've always represented yourself as a Muslim, not fundamentalist, but nonetheless embracing the unscientific supernatural side of religion, e.g. the theism.I am fed up with the screaming “I hate religion” crowd who has made personal belief a matter of morality, i.e. if you don’t think as I do you are an evil person.I can't argue with that. Even if one believes that it is seldom a successful tactic to go around screaming it.Dylan Evans, the noted English atheist, said it best, “Dawkins is virulently anti-religious, passionately pro-science and artistically illiterate…His attacks on religion are so vitriolic and bad-tempered that they alienate the sensitive reader and give atheism a bad name.Indeed. I have written many letters to many editors pointing out Dawkins's errors of both fact and reasoning. He's an opinionated loudmouth, a crackpot philosopher, a fraudulent scholar, and absolutely no scientist.As a friend of mine once commented, no other atheist has done more for the cause of religion than Richard Dawkins.”I don't know about that but he has emerged as a straw man for religionists to hold up as the "typical" atheist so he has done harm to our cause.the term evangelical cannot refer to athiestsNo, the word has spread out into common parlance. As a management consultant I talk about evangelizing things like process improvement, quality assurance and requirements inspection. I even have the word on my resume. One can evangelize atheism or anything else simply by trying to convince people to adopt it with great sincerity, articulateness and persuasion.Also the matter of it being blatantly false?We never claim to have proven religion false. In fact the reason we dismiss religion from scientific discourse is precisely because it cannot be proven false under any circumstances. It is an unscientific hypothesis. The foundation of science is the constantly tested and peer-reviewed premise that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior. Religion by definition postulates a supernatural universe which cannot be empirically observed and which is not necessarily bound by logic.

Religion is not "blatantly false." It is blatantly irrational. That's bad enough to qualify it for contemptuous and eternal dismissal. We don't have to go any further.

We needed to fight the hordes. Its that simple.

Dawkins does nothing of the kind, this is a total hysterical strawman argument, with a good degree of projection.

Secular Humanism is especially important if you live in a multi-religious society, since it would not be fair to use one religion over another as a policy guide. It has almost nothing to do with atheism. To answer your Abu Grabe and Guantanimo question, the atrocities performed in these places were promoted by the Neo-Cons, a group well-known to consist of fundamentalist religious types.

Atheists are a tiny fraction of the We never claim to have proven religion false. In fact the reason we dismiss religion from scientific discourse is precisely because it cannot be proven false under any circumstances. It is an unscientific hypothesis. The foundation of science is the constantly tested and peer-reviewed premise that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior. Religion by definition postulates a supernatural universe which cannot be empirically observed and which is not necessarily bound by logic.

Religion is not "blatantly false." It is blatantly irrational. That's bad enough to qualify it for contemptuous and eternal dismissal. We don't have to go any further.

Well I just go one step further and say it is false. As I will observe this Easter as the pilgrims mindlessly celebrate the day a man came back to life and flew off into the sky. I say false as well as irrational.

Dawkins does nothing of the kind, this is a total hysterical strawman argument, with a good degree of projection.

Secular Humanism is especially important if you live in a multi-religious society, since it would not be fair to use one religion over another as a policy guide. It has almost nothing to do with atheism. .

I have met many educated and secular humanists who would not give Dawkins the time of day, are in fact embarassed by him.

To answer your Abu Grabe and Guantanimo question, the atrocities performed in these places were promoted by the Neo-Cons, a group well-known to consist of fundamentalist religious types

Thats not an answer to my question. Read my question again.:p


Fraggle:

The OP is a quote from the link. I'll edit it so that it is clearer.

To be honest SAM, you strike me as being both a Muslim and a secular humanist. I do not say this to offend. It might even be a compliment.


Shhh... better not say secular and Muslim in the same sentence.:D


I think often it is a partial act of condoning. If a man rapes a woman who had a short skirt, I will not say to other women shocked at the violent act. I understand his rage, but I do not condone his act.

This is what I mean by understanding. If we do not address the rage, we cannot tackle the violence.

When you shift the wording just so slightly to 'understanding the basis of violence' you are using language in a way that I associate with other contexts.

How do you know the context that other people are using? e.g. when I say I understand the feeling that drives some (not all) Muslims to protest against cartoons, it means I am familiar with the context of their acts. Does this translate to condoning it? After all if we were discussing riots due to unemployment or due to the beating of a black man, would anyone even need to question that context is important?



As I have said above. I am referring to contexts where the speech act is not part of an analysis of causes.

How do you differentiate between the two? For example, if a leftist in the US says he understands why there was a 9/11 or if a Muslim from Saudi Arabia says it, what do you infer between the two?



1) I am also critical of many of the same practices and philosophies.
2) In my country the religious people are, for the most part, right behind these policies and tend to pick presidents who are more extreme proponents of those practices. If I look around the world I do not religious people as the only ones or even the primary ones fighting those practices. In my country most of the people fighting those practices are lefties, often atheists. I am sure in countries where the vast majority of the people are religious then those resisting are also religious. I am not sure if we can assign the resistence to their being religious. In fact, for example, the US policy makers tended to support conservative, authoritarian regimes in South America that were religious because it suited them economically. Those practices you hate fit better with the religious portion of the population. Exceptions existed - the Liberation Theology movement - but these priests and nuns were swimming upstream against church policies (god bless them) and were seen as rebels.


Just one question: would atheists in these groups stand up to be counted?

Good point. In the context of this discussion, however, I think you are primarily dealing with atheists who dislike communism and would fit my description.



You mean communists were not evangelical about their "faith" in a "better society"?:)

Dawkins has a right to his opinions and beliefs, so did Darwin. Censorship is NOT the answer.

Who is censoring Dawkins?

Well, I'm not embarrassed by Dawkins, but this sentiment if mostly expressed by those who have never read him.

This is what I mean by understanding. If we do not address the rage, we cannot tackle the violence.

I agree. But I think this is a slightly different issue. I am not suggesting in any way shap or form that we should not try to understand why people are angry - or in many cases afraid - and then act on this feeling (and the thoughts that often are causal here. In fact I think it is a big step if people would at least say "I understand the anger and do not condone the act." But often they simple understand the person and are vague about in what way.



How do you know the context that other people are using? e.g. when I say I understand the feeling that drives some (not all) Muslims to protest against cartoons, it means I am familiar with the context of their acts.
I was speaking about contexts where I was there. I was a part of the context, in person with the one's saying they understood.


Does this translate to condoning it? After all if we were discussing riots due to unemployment or due to the beating of a black man, would anyone even need to question that context is important?

I was referring to the context of the communicative act, not the context for the violence.




How do you differentiate between the two? For example, if a leftist in the US says he understands why there was a 9/11 or if a Muslim from Saudi Arabia says it, what do you infer between the two?
That depends on, yes, the context. How it is said. Perhaps what it is said in response to. Etc.



Just one question: would atheists in these groups stand up to be counted? Sure. Often.


You mean communists were not evangelical about their "faith" in a "better society"?:)

No, I did not mean that.

How long would these people last in a Muslim country? I dont agree with everything Darwin wrote but there is something to learn from it. You may get angry with these people but that is not sufficient reason to stifle them.

How long would these people last in a Muslim country? I dont agree with everything Darwin wrote but there is something to learn from it. You may get angry with these people but that is not sufficient reason to stifle them.
Who is stifling whom?

I am not sure what you mean.

It's not necessarily immoral to imprison percieved enemies. The problem I have with our places of detention center around following American law. In fact, religious countries imprison many percieved enemies for so-called immoral behavior that in a secular country would be considered a matter of personal freedom.

Religion's morals are arbitrary. People are supposed to follow them out of faith and devotion to tradition, not because the rules are derived from reason.

Ah but I'm a theist. It automatically makes me ineligible to be either secular or a humanist, don't you know? According to your fellow evangelical theists, anyway.

That's not what Dawkins says, to mention the current representative
"evangelical atheist".

Dawkins, btw, seems neither vitriolic nor bad-tempered. I don't think that's really a judgment call - it's just the case. He may of course be concealing his true personality in his writings and films - presenting himself as more reasonable and eventempered than he really is - but it's that image that we are talking about anyway, true ?

The ascription of "vitriolic", in particular, seems to be projection by its usual ascribers (the OP is fine example) - a remarkably common feature of criticism of Dawkins, for some reason.

But meanwhile, those who are feeling surrounded and beleaguered by "evangelical atheists" can take comfort, at least in the US, from the obvious trends and circumstances of life. In a world in which criminals get special considerations and more lenient treatment if they have found God, and the daily newspaper refers to toddlers as "Muslim" or "Christian" or "Jewish" children, and the observation that "Communism" appears to be a religion in some places is treated as outlandish, your worldview is quite safe.

Secular morals are as arbitrary. I doubt any secular country would hand over a political refugee for purported crimes without evidence of the crime, and yet we have NATO bombing Afghanistan for seven years for the Talibans refusal to do so.

According to your fellow evangelical theists, anyway.

That's not what Dawkins says, to mention the current representative
"evangelical atheist".

Dawkins, btw, seems neither vitriolic nor bad-tempered. I don't think that's really a judgment call - it's just the case. He may of course be concealing his true personality in his writings and films - presenting himself as more reasonable and eventempered than he really is - but it's that image that we are talking about anyway, true ?

The ascription of "vitriolic", in particular, seems to be projection by its usual ascribers (the OP is fine example) - a remarkably common feature of criticism of Dawkins, for some reason.

But meanwhile, those who are feeling surrounded and beleaguered by "evangelical atheists" can take comfort, at least in the US, from the obvious trends and circumstances of life. In a world in which criminals get special considerations and more lenient treatment if they have found God, and the daily newspaper refers to toddlers as "Muslim" or "Christian" or "Jewish" children, and the observation that "Communism" appears to be a religion in some places is treated as outlandish, your worldview is quite safe.

I bet the communists did pretty well in communist countries too. I recall a joke from an Indian newspaper, when Nehru goes to visit Russia. He sees a row of people standing in line for rations and asks the Russian Premier who they are. The answer" These are the people of Russia" He sees a row of limousines with body guards, filled with well dressed opulent people. Who are these? He asks. "The servants of the people" is the response.

I think that analogy probably applies as well to secular philosophy today.

Talibans refusal to do so.

Refusal to do what SAM?

What is it about the Taliban that you defend? The Taliban would take your computer away.

Refusal to do what SAM?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/21/ret.afghan.taliban/

What is it about the Taliban that you defend? The Taliban would take your computer away.

Do the people in Gitmo have internet access?

I think that analogy probably applies as well to secular philosophy today. Or religious politics. Which are more visible there than any philosophy at all, no?

Secular morals are as arbitrary. And you recognise them as "secular morals" how, SAM ? The US share of the bombing, at least, is overwhelmingly directed and accomplished by theistic religionists.

Or religious politics. Which are more visible there than any philosophy at all, no?

Only because atheists have yet to have reached unrestrained power in those places. On wonders what such men of "reason" as Dawkins would be capable of if given the reins of society. After all even Bernard Shaw thought Stalin was doing the world a favor before he went on to liberate 20 million from the shackles of fantasies.

And you recognise them as "secular morals" how, SAM ? The US share of the bombing, at least, is overwhelmingly directed and accomplished by theistic religionists.

The silence from the rest of the world is deafening, their participation even more perplexing.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/21/ret.afghan.taliban/

Do the people in Gitmo have internet access?

SAM, if you like your freedom, you like to wear what you want, you like to express yourself on your .mac then why wouldnt you want the same for everyone?

I dont know. People are actually treated very well in American prisons. The real danger comes from the inmates.

An interesting fact is that there are actually people who commit crime just so they can go to prison. Three hots and a cot and get to see their friends.

Secular morals are as arbitrary. I doubt any secular country would hand over a political refugee for purported crimes without evidence of the crime, and yet we have NATO bombing Afghanistan for seven years for the Talibans refusal to do so.

No, they are based on reason. Bombing certain areas of Afghanistan was deemed necessary as part of our war on terrorists living in the region. It's not like non-secular countries never bombed anyone. In any case, our secular nation is ostensibly informed by religious values. Secularism has little to do with atheism. An atheist or a religious person could have arrived at the same decision here.

SAM, if you like your freedom, you like to wear what you want, you like to express yourself on your .mac then why wouldnt you want the same for everyone?

I dont know. People are actually treated very well in American prisons. The real danger comes from the inmates.

Clearly these people are being provided the full range of freedom of expression.

How inconsiderate of them to disturb the people liberating them.

Twenty-three terror suspects tried to hang or strangle themselves at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay (search) during a mass protest in 2003, the military confirmed Monday.

The incidents came during the same year the camp suffered a rash of suicide attempts after Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller (search) took command of the prison with a mandate to get more information from prisoners accused of links to Al Qaeda or the ousted Afghan Taliban regime that sheltered it.

Between Aug. 18 and Aug. 26, the 23 detainees tried to hang or strangle themselves with pieces of clothing and other items in their cells, demonstrating "self-injurious behavior," the U.S. Southern Command (search) in Miami said in a statement. Ten detainees made a mass attempt on Aug. 22 alone.

U.S. Southern Command described it as "a coordinated effort to disrupt camp operations and challenge a new group of security guards from the just-completed unit rotation."

No, they are based on reason. Bombing certain areas of Afghanistan was deemed necessary as part of our war on terrorists living in the region. It's not like non-secular countries never bombed anyone.

Those terrorists were also created due to interference in the region. Or do you believe only Americans/Europeans have a right to protest against collateral damages? Who is accountable for the deaths of possibly millions in the last 7 years?

Will the real "terrorist" please stand up?

Clearly "secularists" have killed more people in Afghanistan than any Afghanis have anywhere in the world. Who would want these people to govern their society?

Those terrorists were also created due to interference in the region.
They were religiously inspired. They have a vision of "corrupt" western ways like dancing with girls, and they want a pan-Arabic empire based on Islamic values.

Please don't make this about your pet issues. Secularist countries can make good or bad decisions.

SAM, if someone blows themselves up near your house and kills 100s of people do you say:

Those terrorists were also created due to interference in the region

Only because atheists have yet to have reached unrestrained power in those places. ?
On wonders what such men of "reason" as Dawkins would be capable of if given the reins of society. We have few comparisons to guide us in our wondering, there. Presumably he would grade out as inferior to, say, Thomas Jefferson.

The silence from the rest of the world is deafening, their participation even more perplexing. So many religious theists with consciences and morals, and not a peep out of them - unless they are political enemies of the evildoers. Is that what is surprising you ?
Clearly "secularists" have killed more people in Afghanistan than any Afghanis have anywhere in the world. Who would want these people to govern their society? The people in charge of the Afghan War, and the people who set up and are now running Gitmo (as well as the people who captured its inmates, and sold them into Gitmo for money) are religious theists.

Link (http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/02/27/are-evangelical-atheists-too-outspoken/)

Comments?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i74ZnwEuEMg

?
We have few comparisons to guide us in our wondering, there. Presumably he would grade out as inferior to, say, Thomas Jefferson.

So many religious theists with consciences and morals, and not a peep out of them - unless they are political enemies of the evildoers. Is that what is surprising you ?

I recall the Pope opposing the war.


The people in charge of the Afghan War, and the people who set up and are now running Gitmo (as well as the people who captured its inmates, and sold them into Gitmo for money) are religious theists.

How do you know? Oh wait, because they say so?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i74ZnwEuEMg

Thanks for making my point. ;)

Thanks for making my point. ;)

I didn't see any point of yours listed in the op so feel free to state what it is. I showed that video in particular because that is by far the most extreme behavior to anything resembling 'vitrol' and 'bad-temperedness' that Dawkins has ever displayed. The contrast between his behavior and the theist he's talking to is quite stark.

I didn't see any point of yours listed in the op so feel free to state what it is. I showed that video in particular because that is by far the most extreme behavior to anything resembling 'vitrol' and 'bad-temperedness' that Dawkins has ever displayed. The contrast between his behavior and the theist he's talking to is quite stark.

Especially since the guy was brought up secular lol:D

Thanks for making my point. ;)

Dawkins is such a mild-mannered and reasonable man, to equate him with some kind of fanatic is beyond ridiculous. Obviously, if so much strife is the result of religion, no one would want more strife as a result of pushing some dogmatic kind of atheism too.

Dawkins is such a mild-mannered and reasonable man, to equate him with some kind of fanatic is beyond ridiculous. Obviously, if so much strife is the result of religion, no one would want more strife as a result of pushing some dogmatic kind of atheism too.

What does mild mannered have to do with it? Some of the most famous serial killers were mild mannered boys next door. He's insane.

Dawkins is a far from insane as it is possible to be. Care to back up your fanatical rant?

Dawkins is a far from insane as it is possible to be. Care to back up your fanatical rant?

Any scientist who thinks the outliers are the mean is clearly insane.

If he wanted to show the effect of theism, why not go to Al-Azhar and speak to one of the Islamic scholars? Surely, by his own thesis, they should be the worst offenders.

Well I just go one step further and say it is false. As I will observe this Easter as the pilgrims mindlessly celebrate the day a man came back to life and flew off into the sky. I say false as well as irrational.Sure, we can say that some of the specific motifs of the various religions are "false beyond a reasonable doubt." But we cannot falsify their basic premise that our lives and all of the natural universe are controlled by unobservable supernatural beings in ways that are not logical. A theory like that cannot be falsified because it cannot be tested. Theists are always ragging on us because we have such weak and puny evidence for abiogenesis. Yet they have no evidence at all for their theory of a supernatural universe.

It's important to make this distinction. We don't dismiss religion because we have proven it false. We dismiss religion because it is an extraordinary claim unsupported by extraordinary evidence. By the rules of science--which have been continuously tested and peer-reviewed for 500 years--we are under no obligation to treat such claims with respect.Shhh... better not say secular and Muslim in the same sentence.Before America became a theocracy and the Muslim Middle Eastern nations became a threat to anybody except the Israelis, I knew lots of people in America who were "secular Muslims." Primarily Iranians, Lebanese, Palestinians and Egyptians. They ran the whole gamut of "secular Christians." Some of them believed in the general thesis of Islam, the part it shares with the other Abrahamic faiths plus the overall wisdom of Mohammed, but they thought the rest of it had to be regarded as medieval and needed to be outgrown. Others were almost apostate, about all you could say about them was that they weren't atheists. No matter where these people fell on that spectrum of secularism, most of them drank beer, kept dogs, engaged in premarital sex and treated women about as well as any of us did back in those unenlightened days.How do you know the context that other people are using? e.g. when I say I understand the feeling that drives some (not all) Muslims to protest against cartoons, it means I am familiar with the context of their acts. Does this translate to condoning it? After all if we were discussing riots due to unemployment or due to the beating of a black man, would anyone even need to question that context is important?This is empathy. I think there's already a thread on that somewhere. It's not the same as sympathy. You can understand someone without being sympathetic to him, and definitely also vice versa. Even with your sworn enemies, it is very valuable to be able to empathize with them, because then you have some hope of knowing what motivates them.You mean communists were not evangelical about their "faith" in a "better society"?Communism was one of the most evangelical philosophies ever created. It was just as aggressive toward external competitors as the worst religions, and harder on its internal dissidents than most religions have been since the Dark Ages.Secular morals are as arbitrary.You continue to ignore my oft-repeated assertion that morality can be derived rationally from the appreciation of civilization. I think it's time you addressed that before skipping past it like you never heard it. My parents taught me that all of this wonderful stuff I was taking advantage could only be there if everybody including me was reasonably kind to everybody else and if everybody at least tried diligently to do their part in keep it running. I really love all that wonderful stuff and I have always wanted to be kind and do my part. Nobody had to make me believe in supernatural critters to motivate me to try to be a good human being. So why should anybody else need that kind of fraudulent motivation? I doubt any secular country would hand over a political refugee for purported crimes without evidence of the crime, and yet we have NATO bombing Afghanistan for seven years for the Talibans refusal to do so.Are you talking about Osama? Don't his videos count as evidence of his complicity in 9/11 and the entire campaign of anti-Western terrorism? Nonetheless my quibbling with you over that fine point should not be construed as support for punishing the people of Afghanistan. As I have often said, if we really wanted Osama's head all we have to do is threaten to start bombing Saudi Arabia, which provides most of the financial support for anti-American terrorism worldwide--or as we say in my country, "Follow the money." King Abdullah would deliver Osama's gift-wrapped head via FedEx overnight service.After all even Bernard Shaw thought Stalin was doing the world a favor before he went on to liberate 20 million from the shackles of fantasies.Hey, you're not old enough to have met people who remembered the Tsar's regime. It was really horrible. It wasn't too hard to believe that communism was at least better than that. My aunt and her husband emigrated to the USSR in the 1920s. She was Czech and he was Croatian and they thought the Russians were finally going to show the world that the Slavic people could accomplish something important and noble. He shot his mouth off and died in a gulag. She came back enlightened.

I object to the average interpretations of theism as much as the fanatics. It makes no difference, one is the prerequisite for the other, they are both just as irrational. Islamic "scholors" are just apologists for their faith, skilled in memorizing arguments that make sense only to other faithful.

You continue to ignore my oft-repeated assertion that morality can be derived rationally from the appreciation of civilization.

I'm not ignoring it. I just don't see any evidence of it. Who is more moral? The capitalist from the urban secular society or the Bushman from Africa?

I object to the average interpretations of theism as much as the fanatics. It makes no difference, one is the prerequisite for the other, they are both just as irrational. Islamic "scholors" are just apologists for their faith, skilled in memorizing arguments that make sense only to other faithful.

Since Dawkins does not constitute among the faithful, that should not be a problem.

“ You continue to ignore my oft-repeated assertion that morality can be derived rationally from the appreciation of civilization. ”

I'm not ignoring it. I just don't see any evidence of it.

I find both these positions odd. I am not I came up with my ethics rationally. I would say feelings of empathy and sympathy played a strong role in their formation. Rationality comes in with the detail work.

And then SAM, you see no evidence that atheists can be ethical by your standards?

You don't think that you and atheists, in many cases, can come to agreement about a wide variety of ethical principles. I find that odd.

If you see no evidence, it seems to me that means you have never experienced an atheist being ethical.

Since Dawkins does not constitute among the faithful, that should not be a problem.

It's only a problem so far as theists impose their irrationality on the rest of us, how they try to subvert science education, women's rights, peace on Earth...

It's only a problem so far as theists impose their irrationality on the rest of us, how they try to subvert science education, women's rights, peace on Earth...

You have got to be kidding me. Science is the most male-dominated and conservative field there is. And in many secular societies, the glass ceiling may as well be made of iron.

The reasons for this are complex, but they certainly aren't the result of a set of beliefs outlined in a holy book.

Especially since the guy was brought up secular lol:D

ok then... *slowly backs away as Sam has completely lost it*

ok then... *slowly backs away as Sam has completely lost it*

He was already damaged from birth.:bawl: Just like Dawkins. :( What happens to these atheist types in middle age?:confused:

I'm not ignoring it. I just don't see any evidence of it.How much evidence do you need besides a first-hand account? There aren't a lot of third-generation atheists to interview so I'm an acceptably large sample. I was raised that way. Throughout our entire life my wife and I have been told by Christians that we're more "Christian" than most of their fellow churchmen.Who is more moral? The capitalist from the urban secular society or the Bushman from Africa?You're quietly equating "secular" with "atheist." All atheists are secular but it's hardly true that all secular people are atheists. Something like sixteen percent of Americans identify themselves as unaffiliated with any religion, yet only one percent of us state that we don't believe in gods.

People who believe in the supernatural structure of the universe as defined by religions, even if they don't follow the specific practices of any of those religions regarding kindness and responsibility, nonetheless almost invariably believe in an afterlife and in the possibility of atoning for their sins and being forgiven. Without consciously planning their lives out, this faith allows them to coast along, racking up sins, and then later in life when they're sitting around enjoying their pensions and waiting to die at a time when life isn't very challenging, they figure they'll repent, do a bunch of really good deeds like decorating the nursing home for Christmas, and they'll go to heaven alongside you who (regardless of my philosophical criticism of your faith) I'm sure live a life of enviable charity and selflessness.

This is the fallacy of a religion that preaches divine forgiveness without restitution. I'm on shaky ground with my knowledge of Islam and I suspect Muslims can't get into Paradise quite as easily after a life of evil, but we're talking about my country and those wicked capitalists you're talking about are almost all Christians and Jews. Atheists don't get off so easy. If we screw up the world, even if the humans we've wronged forgive us, we must still die with the knowledge and guilt that we've made life harder for the people who have to fix it. If we're raised properly and taught to care about our fellow man, that is Hell.

I'm not implying that atheist morality has the potential of creating nobler citizens than theist morality. The up-side of atheism may have no advantage over the up-side of Abrahamism and during its good periods an atheist society may accomplish no more than a religious society. My gripe with Abrahamism is over its down-side. During their bad periods Abrahamist societies have achieved uniquely abysmal levels of evil because their belief in a supernatural universe convinces them that their god will make everything all right in the end no matter how much death and destruction they wreak.

I dispute your prediction of the morality of an atheist society not because I predict it will be notably better than a religious society at its best, but because it will be just as good at its best, and notably better at its worst.

How much evidence do you need besides a first-hand account?

I dispute your prediction of the morality of an atheist society not because I predict it will be notably better than a religious society at its best, but because it will be just as good at its best, and notably better at its worst.

And I dispute your claim on the basis that atheists have done nothing to make the world safer or better for others.

And at their worst (one Stalin = 20 million dead) have been far far worse.

The primary influences that led to his atrocities were not atheism per se but his dogmatic Marxism and communist ideas.

Yeah, atheists can get very creative with their beliefs. Stalin wanted to be God.

Eugenics was another dogma that still has many proponents. There was forced sterilisation of many inferior gene products.

Atheism in this case was merely incidental.

...communists are prone to oversimplification. Complex problems of the real world are explained in simplistic terms. Thus the communist eschatology of a classless society leads them to believe that collectivization is the main source of human happiness. Never mind the fact that each human beings have different - and opposing - dreams, goals and desires. They also believe that all problems of labor can be resolved by nationalization of all industries and the banning of private ownership. This saps the human spirit of the will to excel. This simplistic outlook spills into their belief about moral issues. Since communism is the ultimate good, anyone who is opposed to it must necessarily be evil. Like religious fundamentalists, to the communists everything is in black and white. "You are either with us or against us."

Secondly, as can be seen above, communism resembles very closely the dogmatic faith of religious fundamentalist. It has, like other fundamentalist religions, a list of sacred writings known as the "communist classics". Infallible authority is ascribed to these writings. It pretends to represent the absolute truth by calling itself a "science". Yet it proceeds, as Bochenski wrote, "in the manner of a faith." [8]

Note that in no case is atheism central to the building of these dogmatic positions.
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/hitlerstalin.html

As incidental as Islam in suicide bombers.

As incidental as it was in Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jong

As incidental as Islam in suicide bombers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ADjSCJBluQ

secular humanism.Is this secular humanism. I volunteered to tutor the only aboriginal student in the medical program. I donated 1/2 a work day a week preparing and teaching basic physiology. I have decided to start by going from apple to metabolic water and CO2 via aerobic glycolysis. This means talking about the gall bladder, the pancreas, enterocyte, Glut2 receptors, portal vein, liver, hepatocytes and their function, circulation, Glut4 and skeletal muscle, Glut3 brain, Glut 1 tissue, Glut2 beta cells, insulin production, glycolysis, pyruvate, AcetyleCoA, Krebs, CO2, NAD ->NADH, electron transport, O2, H2O, blood cells, hemoglobin, respiration, etc... then on to the hypothalamus, pit and endocrine function ....

What do I get out of it? The satisfaction that the aboriginal community will have a doctor.

As incidental as Islam in suicide bombers.

As incidental as it was in Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jong

No, in that case, the suicide bombing is a direct result of religious ideology that promises them heaven in return for death.

as being both a Muslim and a secular humanist. There once was an atheist Muslim on these boards a LONG time ago. A mathematician if I remember correctly>?

Only because atheists have yet to have reached unrestrained power in those places. OThis doesn't explain Japan. Most Japanese are at best non-religious. Including the people in power. Yet, they have a strong sense of civic duty, a strong sense that its important to help one another in Japanese society, social bonds are quite strong and generally most Japanese I know take a humanistic world view that we should never use war to settle differences and move together peacefully into the future.

If I remember correctly you once condoned the war fought against the polytheistic Arabs - because they were ... polytheists? The war against the Persians because they were a threat?
Well it really doesn't matter, there's always an excuse.

The point is non-religious people can hold power and still be humanists something were have yet seen in a religious society. The theist always makes himself king and then sets about claiming divinity for his family succession. Big surprise there. Excuse those of us who want to move into the future via progression.

Michael

SAM:

Out of curiosity, lets put your secular humanism to the test-

You bought some 20 teddy bears for that teacher in Sudan.

What did you do for the illegal detentions in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo?

Oh, come now. This is silly.

What happened in Abu Ghraib and what is happening at Gitmo has nothing to do with religion or humanism, and you know it.

And if you polled the Americans who work at both of those places, you will find that, like other Americans, 96% claim to be religious.

You could also provide evidence for your claim of a better society, considering that previous experiments with atheism have led to worse atrocities than any on earth.

You seem unable to distinguish between politics and religion. Maybe it is a Muslim thing...

---

Also, I note that you have not replied to the other thread recent on atheism, following several people showing up the ridiculousness of your arguments. I sense some intellectual dishonesty in that instead of facing inconvenient facts you prefer to just ignore them and start a new thread on the same topic.

And I dispute your claim on the basis that atheists have done nothing to make the world safer or better for others.

And at their worst (one Stalin = 20 million dead) have been far far worse.
I take it you are completely ignoring the atheists and atheistic organisations who are fighting for human rights and demanding an end to the conflict around the world? But I guess they just don't count, do they?

Tell me Sam, what have theists done in recent times to "make the world safer and better for others"? At present the world has seen a theist attack another country and kill over 3 thousand innocent civilians going about their daily lives, and in retaliation, a theist in power has invaded two countries and killed thousands in the process, stating God told him it was the right thing to do. Hmmm, are they making the world safer?

For example, you protest against Israel's occupation of the Palestine, you do realise they are theists, don't you? Tell me, are they making the world a better place? After all, theists are meant to be moral and have a conscience, aren't they? If that were indeed the case, they would have refused accepting Israel as a nation, when it was offered to them by secular countries, because it is immoral to forcibly remove people from their homes and land for one's own benefit. But they did not. And they are theists...

He was already damaged from birth. Just like Dawkins. What happens to these atheist types in middle age?
You tell me? Am I suddenly supposed to start hating my children? Or am I meant to turn into a monster and eat them? You know, since "atheist types" like me are not meant to have any moral fibre or know the difference between right and wrong.:rolleyes:

As incidental as Islam in suicide bombers.

As incidental as it was in Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jong

You have evidence that atheists can do horrible things.
Do you still see no evidence that atheists can develop or have ethical principles that you would approve of?

You need to associate with more atheists in person. My father is one of the most ethical people I know and he is about as atheist as it goes. My circles overlap religious people and atheists and I cannot pick the group that is more ethical.

As incidental as it was in Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jong

You know, it's a good thing someone doesn't own the rights to using those names, you'd have spent a fortune in royalties by now.

:poke:

Sam has a hard-on for atheists with power in dictatorial fascist regimes. How about we simply observe the behavior of both theists and atheists in a free society. I see no atheists in free societies making the front pages of news papers... :shrug:

I recall the Pope opposing the war.



Well, the previous one he was involved in, as part of the Hitler Youth Movement, didn't go so well for his side. Maybe he's learned his lesson?

You could also provide evidence for your claim of a better society, considering that previous experiments with atheism have led to worse atrocities than any on earth.


I challenge you to provide historical evidence that there has ever been an atrocity committed in the name of atheism.

You need to separate polical movements, from religious ones, or you are being dishonest.

And I dispute your claim on the basis that atheists have done nothing to make the world safer or better for others.How would you know? There have never been enough of us to form a society. You can hardly call 150 million Russian Christians led by Stalin (an apostate Christian) an atheist society. Especially since communism is an offshoot of Christian philosophy: just add a new prophet. Christians follow prophets, that's what they do!

And Confucians follow their elders, if you're about to throw Mao at me. It's been pointed out that Kim enjoys such unquestioning loyalty in Korea, not because they support communism, but because they're good Confucians and he's their patriarch.

Atheists aren't so easy to keep in line. We have no prophets and no patriarchs.And at their worst (one Stalin = 20 million dead) have been far far worse.We've been here before and I keep having to correct you. One Caliph Omar plus one Pope Urban = THREE OBLITERATED CIVILIZATIONS. "Heathen" civilizations destroyed in the name of your own deity. Half of the six precious civilizations that human beings have ever created. Abrahamism can never be redeemed for those sins.

If the good Christians of Germany had had a little more time, they would have happily matched Stalin's stats.

How would you know? There have never been enough of us to form a society.

Sweden?

How do you know? Oh wait, because they say so? And they pray a lot, go to theistic religious worship houses, give money and respect to clerics, etc etc etc.
What does mild mannered have to do with it? Some of the most famous serial killers were mild mannered boys next door. He's insane. So you do agree that he is not vitriolic, badtemptered, etc, in his public image anyway - contrary to your posted OP ? We make a little progress - - - -
Any scientist who thinks the outliers are the mean is clearly insane. Dawkins does not make any such error - which would be an error of reason, correctable by reason, not an insanity.
If he wanted to show the effect of theism, why not go to Al-Azhar and speak to one of the Islamic scholars? Surely, by his own thesis, they should be the worst offenders. No, not by his thesis. You seem to have a very strange idea of what Dawkins's "thesis" is.

How do you identify theists ? Like this ? : Who is more moral? The capitalist from the urban secular society or the Bushman from Africa? I don't know who is more moral, but the capitalist is probably more theistic - definitely more likely to be monotheistic with a theologically derived set of moral rules etc.
You have got to be kidding me. Science is the most male-dominated and conservative field there is. Monotheistic religion beats it there by an order of magnitude. "Conservative" ?
Only because atheists have yet to have reached unrestrained power in those places. Since when does theism restrain power ?

And at their worst (one Stalin = 20 million dead) have been far far worse.

Stalin, so he was an atheist, but he did not commit atrocities in the name of atheism, but rather due to his political affiliations.

Karl Marx did not blame societies ills on religion, but saw religion as a symptom of a sick society, that it was a tool used to give the oppressed false hope, and so to maintain the status quo. He didn't seek to rid the world of religion, just to create an equal society, and then religion would be unnecessary. As the father of communism, you cannot therefore equate atheism to communism, and cite atheism as the root of some communists atrocities, you have to blame the political system for that.

So, I re-issue the challenge, show me historical proof of an atrocity committed in the name of atheism.

Here's the thing Sam, I don't count Hitler killing six million Jews as a Catholic atrocity, but as a political one. Let's be honest in our designations, shall we?

You should do a little more research. The first and most obvious fact is that Hitler went to war with Christianity, he certainly killed plenty of them. But really hitler went to war against organized religion and most likely he used it as a way to control the masses. I have not seen anything that points to Hitler being religious except in his own propaganda, as a matter of fact after childhood Hitler probably had no true Christian beliefs at all.

Consider this fact:

Hitler wanted to create a master race.

Hitler was responsible for what happened to the Jews but he sure as hell killed a lot of Christians too. Some would argue that Hitler became corrupt by what he read and had some seriously distorted views about biology, in some ways hitler really went to war against nature. Just look at the experiments on humans done by the Nazi's, and obviously they are the complete opposite of what is taught in Christianity. But many people consider him to be the anti Christ or possibly a version of one.

In 1942 Martin Bormann who was Hitlers closest collaborator and deputy wrote:

'The Christian Churches must absolutely and finally be broken.'

Not that it matters but the question is - was Hitler an Atheist? Honestly i am not sure and dont think it really matters in this case.

Edit: Like i said, i dont care one way or another what if any religious beliefs Hitler had. It is interesting to discuss but are you sure you really want to?

I have not seen anything that points to Hitler being religious except in his own propaganda, as a matter of fact after childhood Hitler probably had no true Christian beliefs at all. That wouldn't necessarily matter, in the argument - he used religion, was given power according to his manipulation of other people's faiths, took advantage of the groomed believers prepared for him.

The various evils of religion do not all depend on the sincerity of the evildoer's professions.

Hitler made many statements that seem to reflect at the least a sincere mysticism.

I challenge you to provide historical evidence that there has ever been an atrocity committed in the name of atheism.

You need to separate polical movements, from religious ones, or you are being dishonest.

Name one communist dictator who was a theist.

Name one communist dictator who was a theist. Hmmm. Saddam Hussein ? Gamel Nasser ? Qahdaffi ?

We know that Stalin trained for the Catholic priesthood. But he was power hungry among a revolt against the devoutly theistic Tsarist tradition of oppression, and needed territory. Hard to read minds, there.

How about a fascist dictator who was atheist ?

Name one communist dictator who was a theist.

See there Sam, I gave you the opportunity to be honest, explained the framework, and still you went for the low blow. That's rather disappointing.

The atrocities were not committed in the name of atheism; religion is the product of a sick society, not the cause of the sickness, and the need for religion would be removed, once society was perfected, that was the plan. Once society was perfect, atheism itself becomes unnecessary, because citizens believe in themselves, and never need to consider a higher power in God, because they collective efforts is more than themselves, and that is enough.

Now, if you keep banging on about the religious persuasions of those that do evil, I'll have to remind you that Stalin was trained in a Catholic seminary, and that Hitler too, was a Catholic. But, like I said, I'm not going to claim that Hitler was inspired to do what he did because of his religion, so please, you must stop banging on about Stalin, and his supposed atheism.

See there Sam, I gave you the opportunity to be honest, explained the framework, and still you went for the low blow. That's rather disappointing.

The atrocities were not committed in the name of atheism; religion is the product of a sick society, not the cause of the sickness, and the need for religion would be removed, once society was perfected, that was the plan. Once society was perfect, atheism itself becomes unnecessary, because citizens believe in themselves, and never need to consider a higher power in God, because they collective efforts is more than themselves, and that is enough.

Now, if you keep banging on about the religious persuasions of those that do evil, I'll have to remind you that Stalin was trained in a Catholic seminary, and that Hitler too, was a Catholic. But, like I said, I'm not going to claim that Hitler was inspired to do what he did because of his religion, so please, you must stop banging on about Stalin, and his supposed atheism.

Stalin was trained in a Catholic seminary, yes.

Does this sound like orthodox Christianity?

The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed. Some actions against Orthodox priests and believers along with execution included torture being sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals.[13][14] Many Orthodox (along with peoples of other faiths) were also subjected to psychological punishment or torture and mind control experimentation in order to force them give up their religious convictions.[15][16]

Thousands of churches and monasteries were taken over by the government and either destroyed or converted to secular use. It was impossible to build new churches. Practising Orthodox Christians were restricted from prominent careers and membership in communist organizations (the party, the Komsomol). Anti-religious propaganda was openly sponsored and encouraged by the government, which the Church was not given an opportunity to publicly respond to. The government youth organization, the Komsomol, encouraged its members to vandalize Orthodox Churches and harass worshippers. Seminaries were closed down, and the church was restricted from using the press.

The history of Orthodoxy (and other religions) under Communism was not limited to this story of repression and secularization. Bolshevik policies toward religious belief and practice tended to vacillate over time between, on the one hand, a utopian determination to substitute secular rationalism for what they considered to be an unmodern, "superstitious" worldview and, on the other, pragmatic acceptance of the tenaciousness of religious faith and institutions. In any case, religious beliefs and practices did persist, in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces allowed by a state that recognized its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.[17]

I read that Hitler was a PAGAN.

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains...," "The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death."

HITLER

Perhaps DEMONS entered them....

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

Would Christianity have stopped the Nazi plan? No. Many of Hitlers trusted aids, SS, and commanders were Christians. Almost all of his soldiers were. All German soldiers had "God is with us" on their belt buckles.

Does this sound like orthodox Christianity?

It sounds like the state nationalising assets. The same happened to farms, and factories Sam, and to infer something different is involved when church property got appropriated by the state is again, dishonest.

Anyway, the challenge to you was to name one historical atrocity that can be attributed to atheism. As you have stuffed straw men in the meantime I guess that means you admit defeat.

It sounds like the state nationalising assets. The same happened to farms, and factories Sam, and to infer something different is involved when church property got appropriated by the state is again, dishonest.

Anyway, the challenge to you was to name one historical atrocity that can be attributed to atheism. As you have stuffed straw men in the meantime I guess that means you admit defeat.

So can you prove why a theist would not be doing it for the same reasons?

Spidergoat, your wrong.

Phlogistician,

Stalin grew up in a religious family and joined a seminary as a teenager expecting to enter the priesthood. In his late teens, dropping out of religious studies, he became an atheist and joined the Communist party, as the ruler of which he would go on to slaughter millions.

:o....oh nooooo.

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

HITLER

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Also, Adolf Hitler. But anyway, the debate isn't whether Hitler was Christian, it's whether there has ever been an atrocity committed in the name of atheism, and so far, Sam has failed miserably to demonstrate there has been.

Phlogistician,



:o....oh nooooo.

He was educated by Catholics, and yes, later became an atheist, but you think his mindset changed completely at that point too? Or did he go on to emulate the actions of those that edcuated him?

Whether he was an atheist is immaterial, the point you fail to grasp is that the atrocities he committed were in the name of Communism, not atheism.

Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Augusto Pinochet all had moustaches for instance, but none committed their atrocities in the name of 'The Handlebar Club'!

Without a belief there is\was no limits to the cruelty and atrocities perpetrated by the examples given. I tend to agree with that but of course in no way am i saying that Atheism alone had anything to do with these historical events.

She is right about them being anti-religion, except Hitler dabbled in all sorts of odd beliefs. In all these vicious dictators their paranoia included a distrust for organized religion, to the point of it being an outright enemy of their goals and ambitions. But like i said, criminal insanity is not really dependent on religious beliefs.

So can you prove why a theist would not be doing it for the same reasons?

Again you are being dishonest Sam, that isn't the challenge. It's up to you to show that an atrocity has ever been committed in the name of atheism. The communist party appropriated assets, and the motivation was the same for all of the assets, there was no particular malice shown for the church.

But if you wanted an example of a theist performing similar actions, I need only point you at Henry VIII, who took church assets, and smashed monasteries. Again, the same motivations, the appropriation of assets and the dismantling of a competing power base.

So theist/atheist makes no difference, it's politics.

Please stop being dishonest and meet the challenge set before you.

Which came first, the desire to perform any acts deemed necessary to purify the nation, or abandonment of Christian values?

Considering that belief in Christianity is a matter of faith, not logic or reason, it's hardly an effective deterrent to immoral acts.

Stalin grew up in a religious family and joined a seminary as a teenager expecting to enter the priesthood. In his late teens, dropping out of religious studies, he became an atheist and joined the Communist party, as the ruler of which he would go on to slaughter millions.

Aside from the obvious guesswork in the "he became an atheist" assumption, we recall this: Give me the child for seven years, and I will give you the man usually attributed to Jesuit scholastic maxim.

In any case, the use of theism's grooming of a populace by tyrants and oppressors is well established - if it is one among various tools available to tyranny, still that is a valid criticism to be laid against it. And the evangelical atheist who does that is not wrong.

Tell me Sam, what have theists done in recent times to "make the world safer and better for others"? At present the world has seen a theist attack another country and kill over 3 thousand innocent civilians going about their daily lives, and in retaliation, a theist in power has invaded two countries and killed thousands in the process, stating God told him it was the right thing to do. Hmmm, are they making the world safer?


So let me get this straight, if a theist attacks another country, its all because hes a theist, but if an atheist kills 20 million people, his atheism is incidental?:confused:

Again you are being dishonest Sam, that isn't the challenge. It's up to you to show that an atrocity has ever been committed in the name of atheism. The communist party appropriated assets, and the motivation was the same for all of the assets, there was no particular malice shown for the church.

But if you wanted an example of a theist performing similar actions, I need only point you at Henry VIII, who took church assets, and smashed monasteries. Again, the same motivations, the appropriation of assets and the dismantling of a competing power base.

So theist/atheist makes no difference, it's politics.

Please stop being dishonest and meet the challenge set before you.

So why did they need to re-educate the people away from "superstitious notions" to appropriate assets?

SAM:

You seem unable to distinguish between politics and religion. Maybe it is a Muslim thing....

Is Dawkins a Muslim too?



Also, I note that you have not replied to the other thread recent on atheism, following several people showing up the ridiculousness of your arguments. I sense some intellectual dishonesty in that instead of facing inconvenient facts you prefer to just ignore them and start a new thread on the same topic

Aside from the obvious guesswork in the "he became an atheist" assumption, we recall this: usually attributed to Jesuit scholastic maxim.

In any case, the use of theism's grooming of a populace by tyrants and oppressors is well established - if it is one among various tools available to tyranny, still that is a valid criticism to be laid against it. And the evangelical atheist who does that is not wrong.

So is atheism's. To even more horrific levels. All in the quest for the good society of course.

Nah just lost track. Which posts do you want answered?:p

So let me get this straight, if a theist attacks another country, its all because hes a theist, but if an atheist kills 20 million people, his atheism is incidental?:confused:

So why did they need to re-educate the people away from "superstitious notions" to appropriate assets?

Is Dawkins a Muslim too?

So is atheism's. To even more horrific levels. All in the quest for the good society of course.

Nah just lost track. Which posts do you want answered?:p

These are supposed to be your responses? Pathetic, sam. :puke:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Also, Adolf Hitler. But anyway, the debate isn't whether Hitler was Christian, it's whether there has ever been an atrocity committed in the name of atheism, and so far, Sam has failed miserably to demonstrate there has been.

Who is more likely to lie about his beliefs in a majority Christian country? A theist or an atheist?

These are supposed to be your responses? Pathetic, sam. :puke:

Still waiting to hear your secular humanistic response to the unlawful detention of tens of thousands and deaths of some by torture. :)

Still waiting to hear your secular humanistic response to the unlawful detention of tens of thousands and deaths of some by torture. :)

So, as to take the heat off this pathetic thread?

Sorry sam, you buried yourself with this one. Sams credibility = 0.

So, as to take the heat off this pathetic thread?

Sorry sam, you buried yourself with this one. Sams credibility = 0.

So no answer huh? I guess Gitmo will not receive any Mo bears from anyone.

Hey sam, when are you actually going to get around to answering everyones posts here? You did create this silly thread, why can't you follow up? Of course, your pathetic OP was SO easily crushed by many here.

Can we assume this is your response? ---> :runaway:

Well its clear to me that "secular" atheism is not equal to secular humanism. And those who say it is are only fooling themselves. This was the answer to your claim that atheists are somehow secular humanists.

The massive deaths under communist regimes may have been politically motivated but the transgessors were atheists, so becoming an atheist does not translate to peace and love.

The fact that you were willing to send off 20? bears to support an anti-religion stance but have ignored the incarceration and torture of tens of thousands of possible theists shows your secular "humanism" for the shallow claim it is. You could not even bring yourself to express an opinion about it, for God's sake.

Clearly evangelism by atheists should not be mistaken for a path to the "Free World"

The massive deaths under communist regimes may have been politically motivated but the transgessors were atheists, so becoming an atheist does not translate to peace and love.

A patently fallacious argument. Nixed. Next.

The fact that you were willing to send off 20? bears to support an anti-religion stance but have ignored the incarceration and torture of tens of thousands of possible theists shows your secular "humanism" for the shallow claim it is. You could not even bring yourself to express an opinion about it, for God's sake.

An opinion to a patently fallacious argument? Ok. Here ya go ---> :wallbang:

Clearly evangelism by atheists should not be mistaken for a path to the "Free World"

Clearly. Let's instead follow the path of the faith based evangelist, to rewards in heaven after death.

And they pray a lot, go to theistic religious worship houses, give money and respect to clerics, etc etc etc.

Unlike "real" atheists in majority theist communities. Right?:)




So you do agree that he is not vitriolic, badtemptered, etc, in his public image anyway - contrary to your posted OP ? We make a little progress - - - -

Thats not what Dylan Evans said:

Dawkins is virulently anti-religious, passionately pro-science and artistically illiterate

Is there a reason you want to misrepresent me?;)

Dawkins does not make any such error - which would be an error of reason, correctable by reason, not an insanity.
No, not by his thesis. You seem to have a very strange idea of what Dawkins's "thesis" is.

Not really, its splashed all over the www. (http://richarddawkins.net/)



How do you identify theists ? Like this ? : I don't know who is more moral, but the capitalist is probably more theistic - definitely more likely to be monotheistic with a theologically derived set of moral rules etc.


Ah and the communist is more likely to be athiestic. I agree.

Monotheistic religion beats it there by an order of magnitude. "Conservative" ?

Yeah, limited by tools it itself designs. Duh! Talk about a monopoly :D

Since when does theism restrain power ?

Just put a thiest in power and an atheist in power and watch the difference.

A patently fallacious argument. Nixed. Next.



An opinion to a patently fallacious argument? Ok. Here ya go ---> :wallbang:


I'm not responsible for your statement to an anti-religious stance or lack of it to an inhuman one.



Clearly. Let's instead follow the path of the faith based evangelist, to rewards in heaven after death.

Better still lets put the nutcases on either end of the standard distribution on an island.

Considering that belief in Christianity is a matter of faith, not logic or reason, it's hardly an effective deterrent to immoral acts.Wait a minute. It was I who said that morality can be achieved by reasoning and that in fact my family and I have done so. My statement does not imply that morality can't also be achieved through faith.

Both faith and reason have been used to justify immoral acts. My thesis was that faith is not necessary for morality and that morality can be achieved through reason, not that reason is the only path to morality and that faith is automatically a hindrance to it.

I put the Abrahamic religions in a separate category because of the empirical observation that in aggregate, over time, the net impact of their followers on civilization has been damage so egregious as to be eternally unforgivable (the obliteration of three of Earth's six precious civilizations). But I blame that on the strangulation of the rich and complex human spirit by monotheism's pathetic one-dimensional spiritual model, not on its emphasis on faith.

I don't casually toss all other religions in with Abrahamism. I don't have enough data about them, except the basic Jungian observation that the traditional polytheistic religions are at least more in harmony with the multifaceted human spirit.

SAM:

Still waiting to hear your secular humanistic response to the unlawful detention of tens of thousands and deaths of some by torture. :)

The secular humanist response is, of course, to deplore unlawful detention and unlawful killing. Which prominent atheists or, more specifically, secular humanists, if any, can you point to who have defended such things?

Well its clear to me that "secular" atheism is not equal to secular humanism.

Of course not.

You can be an atheist and be a selfish bastard with no morals. Nothing forces an atheist to be a secular humanist. Atheism only concerns disbelief in gods.

The massive deaths under communist regimes may have been politically motivated but the transgessors were atheists, so becoming an atheist does not translate to peace and love.

The vast majority of the "transgressors" were actually theists. Communism didn't kill religion in the Soviet Union, for example. It just drove it underground.

SAM:
The secular humanist response is, of course, to deplore unlawful detention and unlawful killing. Which prominent atheists or, more specifically, secular humanists, if any, can you point to who have defended such things?

Are there "prominent" atheists in politics?




The vast majority of the "transgressors" were actually theists....It just drove it underground.

Err, I see. :confused:

So basically the transgressing theists drove religion underground, because they wanted to drive out superstitious thoughts and replace it with reason.

Bolshevik policies toward religious belief and practice tended to vacillate over time between, on the one hand, a utopian determination to substitute secular rationalism for what they considered to be an unmodern, "superstitious" worldview and, on the other, pragmatic acceptance of the tenaciousness of religious faith and institutions. In any case, religious beliefs and practices did persist, in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces allowed by a state that recognized its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.[8] The result of this militant atheism was to transform the Church into a persecuted and martyred Church.

An intense ideological anti-Christian and anti-religious campaign was carried out throughout the history of the Soviet Union. An extensive education and propaganda campaign was undertaken to convince people, especially the children and youth, not to become believers. The role of the Christian religion and the Church was painted in black colors in school textbooks. For instance, much emphasis was placed on the role of the Church in such historical horror stories as the Inquisition, persecution of Galileo, Giordano Bruno, and other heretical scientists, and the Crusades. School students were encouraged to taunt and use peer pressure against classmates wearing crosses or otherwise professing their faith. In the 1920s there were many "anti-God" publications and social clubs sponsored by the government, most notably the scathingly satirical "Godless at the Workbench" ("Bezbozhnik u Stanka" in Russian). Later on, these disappeared because a new generation has grown up essentially atheist

Well, certainly explains (Q)'s brainwashed outlook. :D

Well, certainly explains (Q)'s brainwashed outlook.

Oh yes, I'm brainwashed because of a wiki article.

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

Oh look, here are more wiki articles:

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

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence Religious and Political Ideology

And the list goes on and on and on...

Brainwashed, indeed. :rolleyes:

Oh yes, I'm brainwashed because of a wiki article.

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

Oh look, here are more wiki articles:

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

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence Religious and Political Ideology

And the list goes on and on and on...

Brainwashed, indeed. :rolleyes:

Ah sorry did I miss those learning experiences?:p

. The role of the Christian religion and the Church and Muslims, etcwas painted in black colors in school textbooks. For instance, much emphasis was placed on the role of the Church and Muslims, etc in such historical horror stories as the Inquisition, persecution of Galileo, Giordano Bruno, and other heretical scientists, and the Crusades , etc. School students were encouraged to taunt and use peer pressure against classmates wearing crosses or otherwise professing their faith. In the 1920s there were many "anti-God" publications and social clubs sponsored by the government, most notably the scathingly satirical "Godless at the Workbench" ("Bezbozhnik u Stanka" in Russian). Later on, these disappeared because a new generation has grown up essentially atheist

Is that better?

The role of the Christian religion and the Church and Muslims, etc., was painted in black colors in school textbooks. For instance, much emphasis was placed on the role of the Church and Muslims, etc., in such historical horror stories as the Inquisition, persecution of Galileo, Giordano Bruno, and other heretical scientists, and the Crusades, etc. School students were encouraged to taunt and use peer pressure against classmates wearing crosses or otherwise professing their faith. In the 1920s there were many "anti-God" publications and social clubs sponsored by the government, most notably the scathingly satirical "Godless at the Workbench" ("Bezbozhnik u Stanka" in Russian). Later on, these disappeared because a new generation has grown up essentially atheist.I understand that the Bolsheviks hated the Russian Church for its role in supporting the Tsars and as I've said elsewhere I can't blame them. But to be fair this was an indictment of a church turned into a sycophantic bureaucracy, not a church on its mission to save souls. Institutionalized churches are as easily corrupted as any other comfortable, overgrown institution and it's not fair to blame the religion for that as the Communists did. Communism was not above using dishonesty as a shortcut to achieving its goals. Duh.

But I question the assertion that a generation of Russians grew up "essentially atheist." They grew up secular and unaffiliated with formal religion for the very reason that the visibly religious were persecuted. When the census takers knocked and asked them for their religion they certainly said, "Atheist" because they knew their way around the system, just as some Jewish families in Spain during the Inquisition, which coincided with the backlash against the Moorish occupation, successfully pretended to be Christians for quite a few generations.

I admit I've never been to Russia, much less the USSR. But in every one of the several satellite countries I visited, atheism was downright rare. When they asked me about my religion and I said "atheist," their jaws dropped in sincere astonishment. People--many of whom had never attended a church service--began giving me lectures about my immortal soul and my need for salvation. I was hounded more passionately by religionists in Prague and Sofia than in the conservative Spain of Franco.

The Russians demonstrated that you can't stamp out religion with propaganda and fascism. It's a lesson all modern atheists take to heart and the reason we passionately support the freedom of religion in our countries, no matter the cost. The cost of intolerance is always higher. We have to offer reasoned arguments and limit ourselves to preventing an unconstitutional establishment of religion and discriminatory religious practices by those in power, and simply wait for the worst of the modern religions to burn themselves out.

It's a lesson all modern atheists take to heart and the reason we passionately support the freedom of religion in our countries, no matter the cost. The cost of intolerance is always higher. We have to offer reasoned arguments and limit ourselves to preventing an unconstitutional establishment of religion and discriminatory religious practices by those in power, and simply wait for the worst of the modern religions to burn themselves out.

Before SAM jumps on this, I'd like to clarify that this is the ideal position an atheist should take. It certainly isn't the mindset of all modern day atheists.

I understand that the Bolsheviks hated the Russian Church for its role in supporting the Tsars and as I've said elsewhere I can't blame them.

Sure thats one explanation. But. The Khmer Rouge also did the same, ie they tortured and killed ethnic Vietnamese, ethnic Chinese, Cambodian Christians, Muslims and the Buddhist monks. Strangely enough, they also killed homosexuals and intellectuals including people who wore glasses.

Similarly, Chinese "secular" policies echoed those of the Bolsheviks
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/11/china10447.htm
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0208/0208chinarelig.htm

Cruelty and oppression followed. First, the leaders of the Republic of East Turkestan were killed in a mysterious plane crash on their way to a meeting with Chairman Mao. Later, the Red Chinese government, which regarded East Turkestan as part of its own territory (and was unwilling to let it go) set about a ruthless slaughter of the Muslim population. The first war was waged against the Muslims' b