Hitler may not have been a practicing Christian, but he was raised Catholic, and he definitely believed in a God. His speeches and records of his meetings are littered with references to "Providence" and the like.

Anything that makes somebody into a True Believer (in Jesus, Allah, Marxism-Lenism, etc) is dangerous. Nazism and Communism had that in common with religion... once you buy into it totally, you're capable of doing basically anything, fair or foul to achieve its ends. It shuts off the rational part of our minds, and THAT is why they're dangerous.

A clarification for those like fulhamish who claim that Nazism and Communism are atheist ideologies. First of all, Nazism is in no way an atheist ideology. Atheism doesn't enter into it. The same applies to communism, as it is applied under regimes like the former USSR or the People's Republic of China. However, under these totalitarian regimes masquerading as communism religion was in fact banned, but that had nothing to do with whether or not Stalin or Mao believed in God. The simple fact is, those forms of communism require total loyalty of the people to the state and the cult of personality surrounding it's leader. Religion provides an axis by which people can organize against the state and is a completely different focus for their loyalty. Atheism in these cases is simply to prevent Jesus replacing Stalin or Mao as the most important symbolic individual in people's lives. If for whatever reason Christianity were useful to Stalin or Mao, you can bet the official state religion would be Christianity.
The modern atheist movement, and individuals like Dawkins advocate a pure form of rational, scientific empiricism which would be just as corrosive to a communist state as any religion. So to link atheism to Stalinism is to completely misunderstand the tenets of both atheism and Stalinism. And yes, as to your concern about separation of church and state simply being "atheist government" I hear that argument a lot. It's stupid. Secularism and atheism are not the same thing. Separation of church and state still allows people to live their lives as religious people, or not, as they choose. All it is, is a refusal to impose your beliefs and traditions on someone who does not share them. Surely you wouldn't want to impose your beliefs on someone, would you?

"Also, I think it's a bit of a stretch to define Nazism as an 'atheist ideology' at its heart."

I fully agree with you and apologise for my lazy earlier post. What I would say, however, is that Nazism was at least as much inspired by Paganism as Christianity (Catholic or otherwise).

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/n-s/nazimyths.html

"Atheism gives no more moral prescription, no more compulsion to act or behave in a certain way, no more ritual than does a-Thor-ism, and as such, is no more a belief system either."

IMO this is actually the most interesting sentence of this largely very interesting and surprisingly polite discourse. I hope I haven't taken the writer out of context, but he seems to be saying that atheism provides no moral imperative. If he/she is then I must fully concur with this view.

To expand on my thoughts - if our morals are just the result of Natural Selection they must by definition be subjective and transitory rather than absolute and perminant. Yesterday's right may be tomorrow's wrong or vice versa. Rape may have been genetically advantageous (subjectively right) 10 000 years on the African Savannah, but wrong (subjectively) in modern society.

There is of course, for all of its inadequacies, an alternative absolute moral code.

Well, you're leading on to a separate discussion, my main point was that atheism is not a belief system on par with religion. Judaism is an alternative to Christianity, but atheism is not, in the same way that being a fan of the Patriots is an alternative to being a fan of the Steelers, but not giving a crap about American football does not make one just as much a fan. There's no real word for someone who doesn't give a crap about American football, but I suspect that has to do with the fact that people aren't elected to public office based on which football team they support, and that it would change if that were the case.

I don't see why morality needs to have some absolute source. Morality is a social consensus. Both religious and atheist people get their morals from the same place; other people and their own human nature. Morality and reproductive fitness aren't equivalent at all, you're looking at two different levels. People are moral, genes are amoral; neither moral or immoral. It's just a simple byproduct of economy of scale, that it is advantageous for humans to work together. It's easier for friends to help each other move apartments than it is for each one to move on their own, you're safer and less sleep deprived if you and some friends take turns standing on watch than if you tried to all be responsible for your own security, etc. etc. Yeah, there will be bad people who exploit these relationships for their own benefit, but that will often mean that they won't get these benefits in the future. Humans have long memories and extensive networks of gossip, such that a bad reputation can quickly ruin a life.

A person doesn't have to be selfish to benefit their selfish genes, in fact it definitely pays to be a well liked, reliable, and reputable person. Natural selection doesn't care how the job gets done, just that it gets done, so we have a slew of emotions tuned exactly to lubricate social co-operation such as trust in a person, guilt at betraying or exploiting someone, anger at being betrayed or exploited, a sense of fairness to facilitate reciprocal relationships, and an overwhelming empathic capacity.

Lack of absolute morality doesn't mean that everyone will suddenly start assaulting, stealing, or killing other people... at least not unless they are willing to expect to receive the same treatment. You get as good as you give. I think it's very telling that contemporary Christians, for example, can look through the New and Old Testaments and pick out what parts are clearly immoral, in fact lots of them are repulsed by the Old Testament, as they should be. Where's the morality in having bears maul forty two children for making fun of a guy's baldness, stoning neighbours who work on the Sabbath, condoning slavery, or ruining a good person's life just to prove to the Devil that they're faithful. There are lots of good things in the Bible, and certainly many of Jesus' teachings would be well to be followed, but they are hardly novel concepts... the Golden rule has been formulated in every language, in every society, since before hominids were recognizable; even monkeys, dogs, and other social animals have some inkling of the Golden rule. You can always pick and choose Bible passages to fit the morality of the time, and I think that the fact that we can do this suggests highly that we do not obtain our morality from the Bible. I like to think that most Christians would refuse to commit murder even if it was revealed that their God wanted them to.

But there is a difference between "not giving a crap about football" and "not believing football exists". If you didn't give a crap about the existence or not of a god, that's fine. That's not a belief. But a staunch belief in his non-existence is a belief. And you can't say it isn't a blief but a "fact" because you *cannot* prove his lack of existance any more than I *can* prove it. That is to say, either of us could be right, but neither of us can prove we are.

"There is of course, for all of its inadequacies, an alternative absolute moral code."

There are hundreds of alternative "absolute" moral codes, with countless variations as well. One pastor will decry same sex marriage, while another will support it. One imam will say that the family of a rape victim must restore their honour through an honour killing, while another will be revolted by the very idea. Who's absolute morality is the absolute right one? It must be very convenient that God's will seems to coincide with one's personal moral beliefs.

But, the questions isn't God or no God, it's No God, or Yahweh, or Zeus, or Thor, or FSM, etc. Mathematically, the probability of being correct is 0. So, even if it was a toss up between God or no God, following any particular religion still seems suspect.

Draugnar, as has been said earlier, modern atheism is not a "staunch belief in his non-existence", but a practical view that there's no real evidence of God's existence. We all agree that God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved at this point in time, but the same could be said of countless beings and phenomena. We do not give even close to equal credence to the vast, vast, majority of these so I don't see why God warrants special treatment just because of the historical legacy. The burdens of proof lie squarely on the existence of God, not the nonexistence. There are far more things that do not exist, but could, than there are things that do.

Then there's that glorious step forward where a theist, even having admitted that the existence of God cannot be proven, will still act on the assumption that God exists, and not just any God, but their own God... You can't prove he exists, but you can say that you know what he wants; for you to go to Church every Sunday and worship his existence, for you to be a good person, and for you to work to prevent gay couples from adopting children. Atheism holds no such prescriptions or commandments; in what sense is atheism equally a belief system as religion...

To answer the OP's question: I still feel nervous admitting that I am atheist when I'm amongst religious company, though it really depends on the people I'm with. I live in a place where I wouldn't expect any real sort of backlash, but it still makes me uncomfortable because some of the more devoted people almost take it personally, as though just by telling them I was atheist I was attacking their beliefs, though if I told them I was Buddhist or something, I'm sure they'd have very little problem. I've had only earnest conversations with religious people on the topic of God's existence a few times, with mixed results. Haha, a Jewish girl once said to me, "Shut up! You're killing my God!" We're still really good friends.

I was never raised religious in any sense, so I was an atheist by default, not out of any intellectual rigor. It baffles me to hear people say that everyone naturally believes in God, when I had never done so, and not out of any active atheist conversion. A great deal of my childhood was spent in fairly religious places, and to be honest, the idea was seductive at points; I was actually quite partial to the idea of deism. It was only really after my parents started taking to Christianity that I started really thinking about it and I persuaded my parents that religion was folly.

@Chrisp - I hope the "you" referred to throughout that post is a generic "believer" and not me specifically, because none of that applies to me. My statements about the belief system refer to the staunch posters here who believe atheists should "stand up" and religion should be abolished... Read the whole thread and you'll see they exist. these folks have a belief system. They aren't just "there is no such thing as god so I'm not gonna worry about it" but are instead "god doesn't exist and you have no right to believe he does".

Yup, I meant "you" in the generic 2nd person, because I get tired of using "one". And even the "stand up" atheists would never say they could prove that God does not exist. It is simply that they are about as sure that he does not as they are sure that horoscopes aren't worth the ink they're printed with and that aliens didn't build the pyramids. There are indeed those who believe that religion is a universally negative thing, such as Christopher Hitchens, who might be more accurately described as antitheists, and yes, I would say that it is a belief system, but it is not a belief system because of their atheism, but in response to theism... there's a subtle difference.

I think the great majority of "stand up" atheists would be quite satisfied to coexist with religion if there was complete separation between church and state, they were not a marginalized group because of their lack of belief, and religious people would leave them alone. When you hear that polls show that atheists are considered the least trustworthy by Americans, that they are the last demographic that would be elected for President, there is a disturbingly successful movement to inject Creationism into school curriculum, mandatory prayer in school and in the armed forces, stem cell research is halted due to the religious beliefs of the President, maybe you can understand why atheists have begun to band together in an attempt to change this.

I can understand, however the media blows a lot of things out of proportion. Creationism in schools nationwide as a science will never happen. It doesn't have the backing the media portrays. It migth make it into small school systems from backwater moral "majority" (e.g. minority fundamentalist) states, but not nationwide. I can see it legitimately being taught in a comparative philosophy class, but that is where it belongs, compared against other origin philosphies.

Mandatory prayer will also never happen and isn't what is being called for by the majority of Christians. What is asked and called for is that prayer of the individual not be forbidden. For years, a child saying grace over his lunch or a group of teens getting together for a Bible study on their lunch has been forbidden. This is as wrong as making a child say a prayer or forcing them to stand by silently while a teacher says one. both extremes are wrong. Individual freedom of religion should be respected and not forced upon by either side.

On the polls. This are easily manipulated by surveying based on region. sure, you go to the Bible belt and they are going to slam gays and atheists. But you do the ame poll in San Fran or LA and you'll get a very different result.

I do agree, however, that the stem cell crap has to stop. Inhibiting the possible improvement of life for others over cells from already dead fetuses is bull. So long as abortion is legal and the women aren't being paid to abort just so their fetus' stem cells can be used, there is no conflict in my eyes. Of course, I am pro-life and wish abortions were limited to the period before the fetus can feel pain (current viability standards are crap and just lead down the same road to euthenasia and pulling the plug on someone without their or their loved ones consent). But stem cells develop early enough on they could be harvested under those conditions and the research should go on.

Oh and I must point out that we have no law saying there is a separation of church and state. Only one that says Congress shall make no law *establishing* a religion or *prohibiting* the free exercise thereof. In other words, Congress can't make a certain religion the state religion (or say something religios must be done at certain times/places) nor can they prohibit a group of individuals from choosing their own belief system (or say where and when they can practice it). But despite a variety of letters from several founding fathers, it simply isn't true that the Constitution says there should be a separation. The essence of the 1st amendment is that Congress shouldn't get involved by passing laws either way. So, banning private prayer or study groups in school or on a military base is just as much a 1st Amendment violation as mandated prayer in either of those would be. Unlike Europe, we *cannot* ban burkas and such for religious reasons. For security, we can ban loose covering/flowing clothing in certain government buildings where a weapon could be smuggled in, but not for religious reasons or in the public in general as that would be a 1st Amendment violation as well.

So, now you know where I come from.

Individual prayer in school has never been forbidden... I remember in my high school, I had to slip through a prayer circle in the hallways... they were Pentecostals, so they were even making a bit of ruckus.

Individual prayer is fine. Making it a school sponsored activity, or a teacher-lead activity is NOT fine, however.

I think you have a right to your beliefs. My sole issue with Christians in particular (and merely because I have more experience with them... I'm certain many Muslims would irritate me in the same way) is that they're not content to just believe in their own beliefs.... the fact that I do not share them makes them want to convert me, or harass me, or any number of things. Or at the very least, they want to impose upon me, the non-believer, their own particular moral sensibilities on what sex acts are ok, if homosexuals should be able to get married, or which particular genital mutilations are cool, and which ones aren't.

For the most part I agree with you. I would point out though that it is most definitely true that the media blows things out of proportion, and the same is true of the recent atheist movement. Wiki has this to say about the number of atheists in the United States:

"A 2004 BBC poll showed the number of people in the US who don't believe in a god to be about 9%.[6] A 2008 Gallup poll showed that a smaller 6% of the US population believed that no god or universal spirit exists.[24] The 2001 ARIS report found that while 29.5 million U.S. Americans (14.1%) describe themselves as "without religion", only 902,000 (0.4%) positively claim to be atheist, with another 991,000 (0.5%) professing agnosticism.[25]"

Now compare that to the poll numbers for Creationism, also from wiki:
"According to a 2001 Gallup poll,[121] about 45% of North Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Another 37% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process",[122] and 14% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process".[121]"

"According to a study published in Science, between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult North Americans who accept evolution declined from 45% to 40%, the number of adults who reject evolution declined from 48% to 39% and the number of people who were unsure increased from 7% to 21%. Besides the United States the study also compared data from 32 European countries, Turkey, and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%).[56]"

"On November 8, 2005 the Kansas Board of Education approved the following changes to its science standards:[13]

1. Add to the mission statement a goal that science education should seek to help students make "informed" decisions.
2. Provide a definition of science that is not strictly limited to natural explanations.[14][15]
3. Allow intelligent design to be presented as an alternative explanation to evolution as presented in mainstream biology textbooks, without endorsing it.
4. State that evolution is a theory and not a fact.
5. Require informing students of purported scientific controversies regarding evolution."

Thank God that Kansas repealed the move in 2007, but I think it shows that this is not just backwater small towns, unless you consider the entire state of Kansas to be backwater. =P

@texasdeluxe

"What I'm saying is that religion is, by its very nature, intolerant. How can you believe and have faith in your own religion as the one true faith and accept somebody else's?"

Easily, I don't accept it; I tolerate it. You do not accept my religion, so by that standard atheism is every bit as intolerant as religion (which is to say "not very intolerant" for most of us and "quite intolerant" for others). Tolerance is an individual trait not an institutional one for the most part.

@texasdeluxe

"I don't think I need to point out the many and varied cases of religious intolerance that do harm and have done harm in the world."

Only if we want to go into the many and varied cases of irreligious intolerance and the harm they have done. There have been many instances in which atheistic dogma has lead to terrible suffering and death. The problem with that type of mudslinging is that it only proves that both theists and atheists tend to kill people when they stop talking and start using force.

@ Draugnar: "Your belief is in no higher power, not a specific higher power like His Noodliness (rAmen). Which means your belief is in random chance and the laws of physics if you like."

I'm happy with that. I believe that things happen due to random chance all the time.

One of the most annoying things people can say, from my point of view is "Oh, this was meant to happen" or, "Oh, we were meant to be together" as if there is some benevolent deity planning every aspect of our lives. THERE ISN'T, AND HE ISN'T, OKAY?

The universe is random. Live with it.

@fulhamish: I notice you haven't responded to my criticism of your position, with regard to the stupid, STUPID "argument from first cause" that you offered earlier in the debate.

I'm going to repeat my point, because you haven't dealt with it:

- If you argue that there must be a god because everything needs to have been 'caused' by something else, then that's no argument at all, because god would ALSO need to have been 'caused', and whatever caused god would need to have been caused by something else, ad infinitum. The argument from first cause is internally flawed, because it does not justify the fact that, for it to work, god needs to be a special case.


@ Conservative Man:

"I would also like to point out a funny atheist contradiction:
Atheists say God could not have been created by nothing.
Atheists say the universe WAS created by nothing. "

Fail. I am an atheist. I do not say the above. Instead, I say the universe was not created at all. Suck on that.

@ Conservative Man:

"I don't think it was possible for the universe to form on it's own. That is why I believe in God."

You don't think it was possible for the universe to form on its own, but you do think it was possible for god to form on his own? (Otherwise, who created god?)

If you argue that the universe could not have formed on its own, but god could have, you're an idiot. The existence of god, were it a fact, would PROVE that things can spring into existence without being designed or created by some other force - unless you argue that god also had a creator.

@texasdeluxe

"Contrast that with atheist and agnostic tolerance. How many atheists and agnostics force their beliefs onto others? They tend to be an accepting bunch (maybe too accepting?) I don't get many people knocking on my door on Sunday asking be to give up my belief in god!"

Atheists have certainly been known to force and coerce people. In very recent times Christians have been immolated in iron in North Korea for their faith by followers of an atheistic dogma known as Ju-Che. The point is though that what you’ve mentioned isn’t religious intolerance any more than telemarketers are shock troops. Asking someone to do or accept something just isn’t an act oppression and intolerance.

Look at it like this. Ninety percent of the world (give or take) are theists. That means that for every atheist arguing against religion on this site there should be nine theists arguing for their particular beliefs. That's if atheists and theists are equally intolerant. Take a look around, there are just as many atheists taking part in the arguments as there are theists. That means atheists are at least nine times more intolerant than theists, if you consider it intolerant to argue and ask people to change their minds.

@ Draugnar

Europe is not a country. You cannot make the assumption that all european countries and all people in europe support the ban on burkas, just because they are trying/were trying to ban it in Netherlands, France and England. You have to understand that all countries have their own constitution, with different sets of different rights.

But i guess it's all the same right? Sweden and Italy, what's the difference?

However, Europe ever more resembles a country.

Not to start a totally different, like, thread.

Lol.

Anyway.

Also: Crazy Anglican:

What it means, actually, is that this site's demographic makeup consists of a lot more atheists and agnostics than the general population.

Not a surprise. We mostly hail from developed countries and mostly have some kind of education.

Both of which predispose you to not believing in God, coincidentally.

Why do you think that is, btw?

@Jamiet99uk

You're not comparing apples to apples with your first cause argument. If God created the universe then by definition he can act upon it but not be part of it. Time is a function of the universe, therefore God is not within time as he's not within the universe. If someone were to say "I wrote a book" you wouldn't retort "Well, who wrote you?"; because the author is by definition outside of but able to act upon the story.

@ thucy

So you're making the staement that there are more atheists than theists on this website? I disagree with you, but it would take an actual survey to find out. I have been a member of another website in which athiests and theists constantly debated. It was a source of amusement among the theists and consternation among the atheists that they could only gather 30 people for their "clan" while the Christians had more than 300 and rarely advertised in the forums.


As to demographics of religion based upon socio-economic status, I couldn't begin to go into all the dynamics, but I'll give two possible factors.

1) Outspoken Christianity can cost your job at many universities, outspoken atheism not so much. So in the universities atheism becomes a stronger voice than in the rest of the socitey (for the USA anyway).

2) When people are comfortable they are more likely to believe that their good fortune is something that they brought about themselves.

@Jamiet:"You don't think it was possible for the universe to form on its own, but you do think it was possible for god to form on his own"
I don't believe anything created God. I believe He was just, THERE, for lack of a better word. He was there before time, and then created time and the universe.

@Chrisp: "If he is completely outside of our reality, then his existence or nonexistence is utterly meaningless as he plays no part in it. On the other hand, if he actively interferes with our reality to say, answer prayers, then science should be perfectly capable of detecting his influence." How? Could you explain how science could detect his influence?

"How? Could you explain how science could detect his influence?"

Well, I mean theoretically, science holds its domain in the phenomenal reality that we can detect. The argument I was refuting was saying that science could never detect God because God exists outside of this reality. There are certainly religious claims that can be tested, and if found to be true would lend considerable support to that religion. For example, you could try to see if prayer has any influence over the success of a common surgical procedure and the frequency of post operation complications using a double blind test where one group of patients is being prayed for, and another is simply told they are being prayed for. If the patients that are really prayed for are significantly more likely to come out of surgery well and avoid post operation complications then we have considerable evidence that prayer has a real effect. There are many other experiments that could be designed to test any religious claim, and the one I mentioned was actually conducted, and found no significant differences. Of course, science can still never "disprove" God's existence, but if God does exist and does exert a measurable effect on our world, science should be able to detect it.

If the one you refer to is the one I'm thinking of there were some serious concerns about the methodology. Some seriously ill heart patients were told "we've got people praying for you" by their doctors. That was detrimental to their health, as scaring heart patients tends to be.

On the other hand, actively belonging to a religious organization has been shown many times to have health benefits.

If what Chrisp is saying is accurate, BOTH sets of patients were told they were being prayed for, it's just that they were lying to one group.

@Jamiet: The first cause argument from St. Thomas Aquinas doesn't argue that God is a special case. Rather it argues that their has to be an initial uncaused cause of existence, otherwise you would be in a never ending causal chain to determine creation of the universe. St. Thomas Aquinas then goes on to define that uncaused cause as God. This doesn't assert that God is a special case or make any real assertion about God, it simply points out their has to be an uncaused cause for existence to be logically consistent, otherwise you would be in a causal chain.