Common Sense Atheism - Latest Comments in Common Atheist Mistakes

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

lukeprog — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:12:32 -0000

I decided I agree with you. I removed that section from my post above. Here it is, for archival purposes:

Excusing atheist murders

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins says that “atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism.” ((Page 278.)) Sam Harris does one better. He actually blames religion for atheist crimes: “Consider the millions of people who were killed by Stalin and Mao: although these tyrants paid lip service to rationality, communism was little more than a political religion.” ((The End of Faith, page 79.)) Philosopher Daniel Dennett even transforms super-atheist Joseph Stalin into a believer: “Was [Stalin] an atheist? ...in a certain sense he wasn’t an atheist at all... He believed in God... and the God’s name was Stalin.” ((This quote is from a debate between Dinesh D’Souza and Daniel Dennett. See video of it here.))

How’s that for special thinking? Those are some entertaining mental gymnastics, but let’s be fair. Some of the biggest killers of the 20th century were atheists: Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Zedong (Hitler’s religiosity is debatable ((In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote “I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work.” During a speech on April 26, 1939 he said, “Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.... We need believing people.” In private statements (see Hitler's Table Talk) he was critical of Christianity, though he still referred to Providence.)) ). More importantly, their genocides were motivated specifically by their opposition to religion. They didn’t want religiously neutral or pluralistic societies. They wanted to destroy religion, and specifically targeted religious people in their massacres. ((Any book on Stalin,Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, or Mao Zedong will show how they directly targeted religious people, institutions, and buildings. BTW, a short overview of atheist genocides that disagrees with my position is Lessons of Atheist Dictatorships by Christopher Orlet.))

True, they were also motivated by other things (Marxism, communism, agrarian utopianism), but religious killers aren’t motivated only by religion, either. ((Many things motivate believers and atheists who do evil things. Money, power, and political ideologies almost always play a role. Even the 9/11 terrorists weren’t motivated only by religion, as Robert Pape argues in Dying to Win.))

It’s sad to see so much time wasted debating this issue, because it is totally irrelevant to which worldview, if either, is correct. I would never argue that Christianity is false because Christians have done bad things. That would be like saying the earth can’t be round because Hitler believed so and he was evil.

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

lukeprog — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:20:35 -0000

Yes, I'll have to think more about this...

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

toweltowel — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:12:17 -0000

First, I draw a distinction between major atrocities and relatively minor atrocities. Yes, atheism may have contributed to terrible persecution of the religious. But why think it contributed to the major atrocities, like genocide and forced collectivization and artificial famines and political imprisonment and torture and murder? Weren't those atrocities pursued for completely unrelated reasons (with persecution of the religious only occasionally showing up as a blip on the periphery)?

Second, I wouldn't blame atheism for the sins of a corrupt political ideology with no natural connection to atheism. Consider Salafi jihadism. This is a movement whose doctrine and practice is framed exclusively in Islamic categories of thought. It is clearly a religious movement, a version of or interpretation of Islam, and thus it is reasonable to worry about whether natural tendencies of Islam are revealed in it. Indeed, we might start worrying about all exclusivist religions with a holy book and a holy land. But even though Salafi jihadism includes theism as a central element, we cannot call it a version of theism: your average nonreligious theist would find 99% of its crazed ideology unrecognizable, whereas your average Muslim would recognize every warped bit of it.

The same goes for 20th-century Communist totalitarianism. This is a political movement whose doctrine and practice is framed exclusively in Marxist catgeories of thought, a version of or interpretation of Marxism, which inspires worry about whether natural tendencies of Marxism are revealed in it. Indeed, we might start worrying about all revolutionary political utopianisms. But even though it includes atheism, we cannot call it a version of atheism: as before, all atheists but Marxists would find its crazed ideology unrecognizable.

In short, we cannot blame mere theism or mere atheism for the sins of these ideologies, we can only worry about Islam and other religious movements or Marxism and other political movements. The ideologies may include theism or atheism as a central element, and they may inspire atrocities in the name of theism or atheism, but they have added so very much unrelated ideological material that we cannot see theism or atheism as implicated in their crimes.

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

lukeprog — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:07:58 -0000

What I'd like to say is that atheism contributed to the motivation for genocide, in the same way that religious beliefs contributed to the Crusades or 9/11. Obviously, from bare Christian theism it does not follow that one should kill disbelievers, and it doesn't follow from bare Muslim theism that one should fly buildings in to planes. But just as religious belief was a big part of the motivation for the Crusades and 9/11 (such that these wouldn't have happened without religious belief), atheism was part of the motivation for Stalin and Pol Pot to target religious believers in their genocide.

Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that atheism did not contribute to motivation for Stalin's genocides, and religion did not contribute to motivation for the Crusades and 9/11? But that doesn't seem right...

What do you think?

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

toweltowel — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:15:54 -0000

"More importantly, their genocides were motivated specifically by their opposition to religion. They didn’t want religiously neutral or pluralistic societies. They wanted to destroy religion, and specifically targeted religious people in their massacres."

I worry about the honesty of this statement.

The major atrocities of 20th century Communism weren't motivated by opposition to religion, as far as I know. The Ukraine famine or the Great Leap Forward, for example, weren't motivated by opposition to religion. It's the destruction of churches and temples and persecution of clerics that was motivated by opposition to religion. Atheism could only be blamed for (relatively!) minor atrocities, given that it is irrelevant to the major ones.

And even if we confine ourselves to the anti-religion campaigns of 20th century Communism, it's unclear that atheism can be blamed. Why? Because there is an enormous difference between unadorned atheism (a philosophical position on the existence of God) and official state atheism (a totalitarian political agenda). Not only does the first provide no support for the second, but most atheists are strongly opposed to official state atheism, as they support the Enlightenment values of religious toleration and freedom of worship (look at nations like Sweden, the Czech Republic, and Japan). Moreover, when we look at the motives of those who supported official state atheism, it's unclear how much is opposition to religion as such and how much is opposition to religion as a social institution that might stand in the way of totalitarian reform. If official state atheism is motivated merely by lust for power, then it has no strong connection with any typical atheist mindset.

By way of comparison, note that theism and atheism are on equal footing here. It's hard to blame unadorned theism for atrocities, because theism by itself has no moral or political implications whatsoever. It is only when theism becomes tied to a big crazy ideology that it becomes dangerous. Likewise for atheism: by itself it's a harmless philosophical position, and the danger only comes when it is embedded in something like totalitarian Marxist-Leninism.

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

marcion — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:58:02 -0000

How dare you show that there are stupid people in every philosophical system and that not everyone who is in your own philosophical system is so for enlightened reasons (if any are). Grr!!!! :)

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

lukeprog — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:50:22 -0000

Do you not like it when I criticize atheists for making bad arguments?

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

torcant — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:09:54 -0000

I think your ideas about Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens are your "comforting convictions"

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

marcion — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:03:59 -0000

"My common sense atheism comes down to this: Is there any evidence of the existance of god? The answer is a resounding no."

That's just idiotic, frankly. It is obvious that there is a God from the mere existence of everything. What there is no evidence for is the claim that this God has ever spoken to anyone or provided a revelation. Atheists truly are fools. Theists who don't believe in claims of revelation are wise. Theists who believe in revelation are dreamers.

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

marcion — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:00:50 -0000

"To show that atheists are morally better than Christians, some atheists claim that less than one percent of imprisoned Americans are atheist,..."

Because once they get in there they pretend to be "born again" so they can get parol!!!!

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

marcion — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:59:14 -0000

And the whole thing about "For example, Hitler would praise Jesus, but make bizarre claims that Jesus was actually fathered by a man from europe." The deal was that Hitler claimed the whole thing was an allegory about the Good German and that Jesus was not really a Jew but the Uber German and that's why the Jews killed him because they hate Germans. All these claims were ANTICHRISTIAN. Whereas he attacked the Jews by killing them, he attacked Christians by radically reinterpreting their religion into a POLITICAL tool, making Germany into God and Jesus into the Incarnation of GERMANY. So, in the end, Germany died on a cross for you, and now its your turn to die for Germany, and also we're going to pay those Jews back for crucifying US (because Jesus was all of Germany). Do you see how this is not really religion, but just political mind games?

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

marcion — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:55:02 -0000

"Also, Hitler was definitely religious."

One of Hitler's slogans was "No God but Germany and no gospel but the will of the people." Does that sound religious? Its actually marxists--the state becomes God and the will of the people (actually, the state) becomes the word of God. How anyone with half a brain could still be saying that Hitler was religious in 2009 I do not know. Unless you are moronic enough to consider worshiping GERMANY as a real religion.

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

lukeprog — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:24:10 -0000

exrelayman,

Jump in wherever you like! The only time I will moderate comments is if they are quite vicious towards a person.

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

lukeprog — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:22:21 -0000

No, the footnote number actually changed, because one of my earlier footnotes didn't turn into a footnote like it was supposed to, so I fixed it, which bumped #10 to #11.

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

anselm — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:32:16 -0000

I seem to recall from their debate that they weren't really arguing from moral behavior to truth, but were disputing the separate issue of whether "religion poisons everything," with Dinesh arguing that Christianity has done more good than harm in the world and Hitchens arguing the opposite. In my opinion Dinesh gets the better of that argument, but it has nothing to do with which view is true (since Christianity in theory could be false but produce good effects).

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

exrelayman — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:56:38 -0000

Lukeprog,

Apologies if I am stepping in where not wanted. I assure you that I do not mean to get involved in an endless string of argumentative posts with Alden. I have seen such and detest them.

Alden,

My desire is to know the truth. If God be true, I want to know, and you have the chance to help me to know. There are different kinds and qualities of evidence, but no 100% positive knowledge to be had. Even logic itself must be assumed by all of us who use it. I am persuaded by what I consider a vast preponderance of evidence that the Christian God does not exist.

Now as you came to an atheist blog, admittedly under the apprehension that "I doubt you would accept that", why be here? Nonetheless as you have come here, perhaps you would venture to present some of the evidence which you assert exists. Let us evaluate your evidence. I will get beyond mere assertion also, so you can evaluate my evidence, but only if you lead off.

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

exrelayman — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:10:10 -0000

Well, I didn't help by citing footnote 10 when I meant footnote 11. Apologies, I think you figured your way through my goof. So, although Horus antedates Christ, the particular elements cited in Zeitgeist may be late accretions to the earlier story, deriving from the later story. Or not. Right now 'I don't know' is the best I can say about that, but for sure have no inclination to trust Zeitgeist about it. How entrenched it was in my head that the Horus story was first caused me to not get your point.

So to lay this to rest. I no longer have any questions about that footnote, and thanks for helping me get this straight.

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

evil_bender — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:53:12 -0000

They may be right. I do not expect to find evidence of the supernatural. But we must be open to discovery. The universe is a surprising place.

Theoretically, I agree with this, and the universe is certainly surprising! But we use reason, evidence and science to interrogate. It's hard for me to imagine what "supernatural" things we could find--since once we had solid evidence of the "supernatural" we could study it, and it would arguably not be supernatural at all.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to begin with the assumption that "supernatural" entities (that is, those immune to observation and not operating within natural laws) don't exist, since even if they do exist, by definition they can't be studied.

Of course, that comes down to the difference between methodological and philsophical naturalism.

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

Alden — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:05:36 -0000

But there is evidence of God, you just fail to recognize it. You apparently have pre-defined what evidence you would accept - "real tangible evidence" - but I doubt you would accept that. What justification do you have for your criteria? Can you logically support that?

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

lukeprog — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:32:30 -0000

Good. So many Christians and atheists argue from apparent morality to metaphysical truth, and it is a huge waste of time. Dinesh D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens come to mind.

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

lukeprog — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:31:37 -0000

I agree about debates. At least they are one step more useful than only reading one side. And I'm glad you care about truth, not just whatever "defeats" the other viewpoint.

Re: footnote 10. What I'm saying is that if we had sources from 300 BCE of a Horus who rose on the third day, had 12 disciples, etc. and we knew that these things were read by first century Jews, we might suspect that early Christians plagiarized part of the Horus story for their own myth. On the other hand, if the earliest sources claiming these things about Horus are from AFTER Jesus, and we know that the people who wrote the Horus stories knew about the Jesus stories, we might suspect that the writers of Horus' accounts plagiarized the Jesus story. Of course, it's always possible that people believed these things about Horus before Jesus came around and we just don't have the earliest sources; but we can't know that without the evidence.

Does that make sense?

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

anselm — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:23:05 -0000

Yes, we are in total agreement (Wow!) Mahatma Gandhi, for example, is one of my moral heroes, whose example puts most Christians to shame, yet I don't believe his metaphysics, etc., are true

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

lukeprog — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:20:15 -0000

Indeed.

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

lukeprog — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:19:27 -0000

Sure. And can we at least agree that from the moral goodness of adherents to various worldviews, nothing follows about the truth of the (non-moral) claims of those worldviews?

Re: Common Atheist Mistakes

exrelayman — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:37:46 -0000

Maybe we are both misunderstanding. I didn't get footnote 10. I thought it criticized comparisons of gospel stories to preceding myths because such comparisons came after the creation of the New Testament. So I am wondering, how could you expect a comparison of 2 stories before one of the 2 (the New Testament) even existed? It is quite possible that I am misunderstanding what you are saying. Perhaps you meant that those elements of the Osiris/Horus story (rather than comparisons of the 2 stories) are subsequent to the New Testament. Funny how language can trip us up.I do concur in deploring the lack of rigor in Zeitgeist.

BTW, I needed to see the link about the destruction of the library at Alexandria. It's destruction has been sloppily attributed to Cyril and Theophilus by much atheist literature. Things are seldom as simple as presented by those with an agenda. As with you (I think) my desire is to know what is true, rather than defeat anyone's argument for theism. If I am wrong, I want to be corrected. This is part of why debates have little value to me. Convincing and winning supersede truth as an objective. Rhetoric and debating skill count for more than truth.