Very true statement and one that you ignore in the same comment!
Atheism is the opposite of theism…not religion. Marxism, as you correctly say, is not another religion…but religion and marxism are both belief systems.
It is irrational and ridiculous belief systems that atrocities can be blamed on…not the roots of them.
Being a theist or an atheist is a single belief/non belief. Any system that sprouts from these roots can be good or bad but the original root cannot inform actions.
If there was such a thing as elfism there would probably be aelfists. An aelfist could decide that all elfists must die. The problem belief here is the belief that elfists must die, not the disbelief in elfs! And the former is not a necessity of the latter.

This is a problem that the writer of this blog and many others simply do not understand either.

You’re conflating the issue of atheists caring about deities with that of atheists caring about those who believe in deities. As a Christian, you may not believe in Islam, but you can still lose sleep or get worked up about Islamic terrorism. Similarly, as an atheist, I don’t believe in Islam or Christianity, but I can get worked up about abortion clinic bombings or attempts to use the power of the government to indoctrinate my kids in school (school prayer, intelligent design creationism classes, etc.)

The only reason I even think about atheism is because I live in a society where the political and cultural power of Christianity is enormous and nearly omnipresent. As a Christian, you don’t notice living in a sea of Christianity any more than a fish notices living in a sea of water and you can live in ignorance of atheism without consequence. As an atheist, I can’t help but notice the sea of Christianity around me, any more than a sea mammal can fail to notice the water through it still breathes air.

This is an important insight into the nature of atheism, not a reason to reject the definition of atheism.

Atheism is as much a belief as off is a TV station. While each religion is equivalent to a single TV channel, atheism isn’t another TV channel. It’s the equivalent of not watching TV. Remember that atheism isn’t an alternative to Islam or Christianity, it’s an alternative to the broader concept of theism: in this analogy, the question of whether you watch TV or not. You’re claiming the equivalent of the statement that everyone watches TV, which isn’t true.

However, you’re right that knowing that someone doesn’t watch TV doesn’t tell you much about that person. There are plenty of non-TV activities that a person might engage in while not watching TV, from reading to hiking to cooking to listening to music. Similarly, knowing that someone isn’t an atheist doesn’t tell you anything about their beliefs.

An atheist may be a humanist, skeptic, stoic, or a believer in any of a million other philosphies or even a member of an atheistic religion like the more austere forms of Theravada Buddhism. Knowing that someone is an atheist tells you even less about their beliefs than knowing that someone is a theist, and despite a shared belief in deities, the differences between Lutheranism, Sufism, Mahayana Buddhism, and the old Aztec religion are enormous.

Thanks for the comment. I’m not into “arguing” either, I mean in the technical sense, yes, but not in the emotional “I’m out to prove you wrong” style. As I tried to say in the post this is an educational experience for me, and one that I am enjoying.

You sound like someone I’d like to have a few more conversations with but I respect your position.

Apparently this is the time to be honest. The above statement is wrong. Greed is always the motivating factor to kill or cause damage. Greed for more power, greed for more money, whatever. Greed is always the problem.

Now, I will admit that on both sides, athiest and religious, there have been horrible atrocities done to them and both sides have committed horrible atrocities, but I will tell you this, if a person said I am entirely selfish and greedy, and I will kill all of these people in the hopes of becoming more rich and powerful, no one would believe in the truth of his cause, nor would anyone follow it. No one would allow it to happen at all. The common people, the middle class people, the neighboring nations, all of them would rise up and take him out. Now, change the motive of the greedy and selfish man to a religious agenda, or a scientific agenda or even a womens lib agenda and now you have an “issue.” Which simply means that people will fall on one side or another and if they feel strong enough about the cause, the people behind it will do anything they can, not short of killing, in the name of it. Even athiests as a combined unit would do the same. The point being that people can say they are christians, or athiest, or muslim, or evolutionist, but just because they say they are doesn’t mean they are.

Maybe wars were declared in this world based on religion, or not having religion at all, but those men that kill and claim to be christian are just flat liars. I don’t care who I offend but God says to make yourself a liar, and if you commit atrocities to yourself, your spouse, or anyone else, you are not, and never have been a christian.

If that is offensive, I don’t care. The reason Athiests have this response, and rightly so, is that Christians don’t stand up and say, Ted Haggerty was a fraud. They don’t stand up and say, that the Catholic Church and all their atrocities were based on greed for power and domination and not for Jesus Christ. They don’t say that the witch hunts were more than a mistake, but an absolute sign that Jesus Christ was not with those people. Get real. We preach a Jesus Christ who would never do those things, who speaks out against such disgusting behavior but then we don’t renounce the very people that do it? I don’t think so. The reason that people are turning from Jesus Christ are the poor examples of those that claim to follow Him.

Churches try and lord the 10 commandments over us and then when someone does something awful they excuse it and claim the person “backslid.” Its abominable, the name that the churches and people have given to Jesus Christ.

You are missing the fact that language is complex and messy, and that words often have more than one usage. “Atheism” has two distinct usages: “lack of a belief in a god” and “belief that no god exists.” These are distinct philosophical stances, and it is helpful to distinguish them. The terms I have seen used to distinguish them, “weak atheist” and “strong atheist” respectively, are useful. Myself, I am a “weak atheist” with respect to some peoples’ way of thinking about God, and a “strong atheist” with respect to others, and I see neither contradiction nor obscurantism in this stance. And while I shy away from tagging children as “atheists” just as I would shy away from tagging them as “illiterate”, both of those adjectives are technically correct for some of their common usages. The people who wish to call children “atheists” are usually just trying to make the point that children are, in fact, not born with particular god-beliefs, but rather those beliefs are taught to them as fact by whoever raises them. In such discussions, I think it would be better if you focus on the actual point being made rather than the rhetorical tactics used to make it.

He intones the familiar party line of this new “weak atheism”:

“Atheism is not a strong belief that your God does not exist, but a lack of belief that he does.”

Quite frankly, one’s personal “lack of belief” in something is neither here nor there, and is certainly not a basis for any worldview, philosophy, moral code, or system of meaning – theistic or non-theistic! Nor is it a basis for discussing the validity of existing beliefs. No sane person loses sleep or gets worked up over things in which he supposedly “lacks belief”…Except “weak atheists”, of course!

Mr X, as a self-proclaimed weak atheist (though looking suspiciously like an orthodox agnostic), is sufficiently worked up enough to seek out this little blog in the vast universe of cyberspace; yet he really needs to offer an alternative and superior basis for making sense of the world and deriving meaning from his existence, instead of jousting at religious windmills liked some atheist Don Quixote.

The question that needs to be asked here is whether in fact “weak atheism”as a philosophical or intellectual position actually exists as anything other than a debating ploy?

X is very likely someone who has strong beliefs about God and if pressed will probably admit that he has a profound animus towards God and religion. He is thus a strong atheist hiding behind the rhetorical flourish of weak atheism in order to hobble his debating opponents.

For let it be said that “lack of belief” cannot be the basis of his own worldview. Only the dead completely “lack beliefs”; I assume Mr X is very much alive and thus is as much prone to believing in things which he cannot “scientifically prove” as every other human being who has ever lived.

Here is just one unprovable and illogical belief he operates with:

“Atheism is the state that existed before they [children] were taught to believe in something without evidence.”

Notice that this achieved by an etymological sleight of hand, reducing the classic definition of atheism into a vague “state of lacking” and upon this premise building a self-serving set of conclusions designed to shutdown debate. Thus what usually follows on from this is a series of endless exchanges about the “true meaning of atheism” something along the lines of that wonderful incident in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland:

Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.
Alice: The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
Humpty Dumpty: The question is: which is to be master – that’s all.

And of course it also depends on what you mean by “evidence”, doesn’t it!?

Michael – in reference to your original post, Dawkins has an interesting theory about religion being a ‘virus of the mind’, which goes back to his earlier theories of memetics. The point is that children’s mind’s are more impressionable – they have to be, since the human lifespan doesn’t allow for too much trial-by-error, and so for the early years of our life we are programmed to accept everything our parents tell us. The power that adults then have over children has to be respected, and we have to acknowledge that a child’s brain cannot handle complex theological reasoning and so a certain amount of indoctrination must have taken place and after that, it’s harder to abandon religion because it’s been programmed into, essentially – a version of Stockholm Syndrom, I suppose.

And I’m impressed that you’re actually taking the time to explore atheism rather than condemn it outright. There are no hard and fast rules about atheism, it’s just a case of not believing in any gods.

you disown the men I listed as Atheists – it’s not a case of ‘disowning’ them as it is that, certainly in Hitler’s case, there is documented evidence to prove that he did believe in God.

Atheism is not a strong belief that your God does not exist, but a lack of belief that he does. Kids aren’t born believing in God, they need to have it taught to them. Atheism is the state that existed before they were taught to believe in something without evidence.

Try this word substitution and you might see why your statement misses the mark:

I should start by saying that I’m not that familiar with Atheism. Of course I’ve met many people who have no specific belief in Vishnu, but not many who believed specifically that there is no Vishnu.

Now I’m going to bet that you don’t espouse a specific belief in Vishnu, but that you don’t hold a specific belief that there is no Vishnu. Guess what? You’re an atheist with regard to Vishnu, not a “Vishnu agnostic.” And I’d be willing to further bet that you don’t have “proof that Vishnu doesn’t exist,” to use another common argument against atheism.

We now live in a world and “culture” created entirely in the image of the world dominant ideology/religion of scientific materialism.

What is usually promoted as “religion” is more often than not, little more than the half-baked, dim-witted remnants/relics of ancient nationalistic, tribal and ethnic cultism, created in the childhood of man.

And if you read the subtext of the “news” you will find that the two entirely worldly and would be world conquering POLITICAL religions of Christianity and Islam, each with their obnoxious claims on the totality of humankind, via their only one “truth/way/revelation” heresies are both gearing up for the final “showdown”. Which when/if it occurs will be so unspeakably dreadful that Humankind will most lilkely be destroyed.

These references provide some insight into the origins & consequences of this state of affairs.

1. http://www.dabase.org/ilchurst.htm
2. http://www.dabase.org/coop+tol.htm
3. http://www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch2
4. http://www.dabase.org/christmc2.htm
5. http://www.aboutadidam.org/newsletters/toc-february2004.html

Although I’ve read through the entire comment thread, I’m only picking on your last comment.

Mark, do you have children? Do you propose to raise them in a vacuum? Your concept of ‘staying outside a child’s head’ is absolutely ludicrous. Even Chris Hitchens’ view of morality takes into account the necessity of absorbing morals from others, albeit society at large for him. From whom would I rather my son and daughter absorb morals? I trust you can see why I am leaving this question as a hypothetical.

One more comment from my vantage point as a high school English instructor. You are free to choose to call it ‘indoctrination’ or ‘teaching.’ Each word carries baggage; one is viewed more nobly than the other. And in the end, I will gladly be found guilty of teaching (or indoctrinating) them in *something* rather than nothing at all – “staying out.” You will one day find out, I hope, that children want to be taught.

I think he goes overboard in criticizing the religious tendency in humans – he seems a little despondent about the human tendency to follow without question. It has led to so much evil. I too want to disown this aspect of my fellow humans.

But religion is, as is acquisitiveness and fear and benevolence … all part of our complex character. On indoctrination he makes a point that sticks – if you truly believe in individual freedom, then you stay out of a child’s head. You don’t abuse the power you have over it.

“A movement afoot to promote Atheism”? Well, there actually is one right now, isn’t there? But that’s not what I was thinking of when I wrote that.

To me it is a disappointing development in the same way as it would be disappointing for you to see a sudden upsurge in people becoming Christians. Much of my disappointment is caused by the fact that so many people are giving up their faith because they have had bad experiences with Christians and religious institutions. I think this is a valid cause for giving up.

Again Mark: I’m not writing out of fear. I’m just a naturally intellectually curious person who enjoys learning and looking at social trends. I thought this was a good time to explore Atheism since I never had before.

A couple of years ago I read nothing but media theory books for a while, then I read nothing but Catholic theology and history books, before that I read about writing and songwriting.

Regarding childhood indoctrination… I think I will make a post out of it. I’m still rolling some ideas around.

I do all this between a full-time job, time with my wife and 3 kids, playing ball, etc so I don’t always get as much writing done as I’d like.

In my post I never disowned anyone, you missed the point completely. Once again, the issue is not what faith or belief system one has, it’s ‘what motivates those people to commit evil acts’. Hitler and Stalin did not commit evil acts because they were atheists.

Some of the people you mention clearly were atheists, so I find it hard to believe that anyone calling themselves an atheist here would “disown” them, i.e., say they are not “true atheists.” Hitler was in fact ambiguous, so I’m willing to go either way on that question given better evidence (unlikely to be forthcoming.) A “true atheist” is someone who does not believe in a deity, period. There are certainly closest atheists, out atheists, atheists who keep to themselves, and atheist activists— but they are all atheists. There is no “Church of Dawkins,” and there is no “Dawkins dogma.” There are no breakaway factions that believe that only they have the “one true atheism.”

What constitutes a “true Christian” is, I think much more ambiguous and therefore it makes it much easier for Christians to disown others who call themselves Christians. There are thousands of sects and splinter groups calling themselves “Christian,” and many of them go so far as to claim they are the only “true Christians—” essentially damning all the others in the process. This scenario applied to atheists is, frankly, laughable.

Now, that said, atheists hold many world views in addition to atheism. As I have written elsewhere on my own blog, atheism is not a moral framework: it is simply a response to the proposition: “a god (or gods) exists.” Where one goes after that is up to the individual. Perhaps the predominant “life stance” held by considered atheists is Humanism. It is also possible for a Christian to be a Humanist. The key element of Humanism is a respect for life as we find it, and ourselves in it, in the here-and-now. Since atheists generally think the probability of an afterlife is quite low, they naturally look to the here-and-now for whatever satisfaction may be found. On the other hand, several major religions including Christianity and Islam generally believe that sacrifice of the here-and-now (up to and including imposing that sacrifice on others) is in some sense essential to gaining a much greater reward in the afterlife— that this life is, in some sense, an audition for a life to come.

I believe this fundamental tension between a focus on creating a better life now vs. sacrificing one’s life for a Kingdom of Heaven is one of the roots of our “culture wars,” and while it manifests perhaps most dramatically in the willingness of some people to turn themselves into human bombs, it also manifests in many more subtle ways across the religious, cultural, and political landscape.

So to sum up: I would argue that whether a person is a Christian or an atheist has no bearing on whether or not they are a “good person.” It is, rather, how much they (implicitly or explicitly) adopt a humanistic stance that determines that.

I took that to mean that you thought there was some sort of movement afoot to promote atheism. Dare we speak out? WHy do you need to be ready? What do you fear?

And please address the subject of indoctrination of youth. You’ve avoided it thus far.