Pharyngula

Posted by: Norman Doering | December 16, 2007 4:05 PM

H.L. Mencken wrote:

That conflict was not begun by science. It did not start with an invasion of the proper field of theological speculation by scientific raiders.

Ummm, but science did step on religion's toes. It always is. Gallileo, etc.. Didn't doctors once need degrees in theology?

But I agree with this: "A defensive war is not enough; there must be a forthright onslaught upon the theological citadel, and every effort must be made to knock it down."

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 16, 2007 4:18 PM

Ummm, but science did step on religion's toes.

Only because religion claimed to rule in every sector of life.

Yes, if it claims jurisdiction over science, science will step on religion's toes, as it continues to do with religions that wish to control everything in society. But not if religion were to leave science alone in the first place.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Noni Mausa | December 16, 2007 4:21 PM

have you ever noticed that the fields of science being invaded by the theologians appear to be the most rarefied fields?

I never see Intelligent Design being applied to, for instance, the construction of large bridges, the mixing of industrial chemicals, or the (spiritual) control and monitoring of nuclear power plants.

It's an indication of the quality of the argument -- at least so far as I can see -- that it's never applied to an area where cars can be dropped in a river like dumplings into a soup, or chemical factories can suddenly spew out a fog of 40 tonnes of methyl isocyanate, for instance.

Furthermore, I would guess that only a tiny percentage of creationists or other religionists would consider using religious engineering strategies for everyday construction. The others, along with the rest of us, would be out there buttonholing their state highway department or whoever, demanding that they get back to the techniques of "cold iron".

I wonder if there's any way to bring evolution as far forward in most people's minds as the structural members of a bridge, or the LD50 of a chemical factory?

Posted by: andyo | December 16, 2007 5:21 PM

I was gonna say something similar to Norman Doering (#2). The religious were all deluded into their fantasies about the world until more critical and generally smarter people hit them with something called "reality" and made their delusions (at least for reasonable religious people) ever so smaller. The unreasonable ones are reasonably pissed off, and I wouldn't care if they are ('cause reality doesn't care), unless they were planning on bombing me or burning me or something else.

Ummm, but science did step on religion's toes.

Only because religion claimed to rule in every sector of life.

Yes, if it claims jurisdiction over science, science will step on religion's toes, as it continues to do with religions that wish to control everything in society. But not if religion were to leave science alone in the first place.

Glen D

But the thing is that religion, as long as it claims anything about the universe, be it the earth is The Center, witches exist, evolution doesn't, or some more trivial things like prayer works, it's a moral code, etc., is always and by definition stepping on reality, and thus, science.

As an aside, the general public needs to realize that "science" is not just some guys in lab coats handling test tubes, nor wacky-hairstyled nerds doing equations on a blackboard. Instead, if the public just understood science as the only reliable to find what's real, they would realize that there's no other choice. Whatever method or theory that comes up that's reliable, will be integrated by science, it's not gonna become an "alternative".

Posted by: Kseniya | December 16, 2007 5:41 PM

It did not start with an invasion of the proper field of theological speculation by scientific raiders.

Emphasis mine.

Posted by: noodlesoup | December 16, 2007 5:45 PM

The religious have a trump card. They are free to espouse that God/Allah/Hindu-deities created the world, exclaim "I didn't come from no monkey," or demand that a book which asserts the Grand Canyon is 6000 years old be sold at a National Park (because that's what their holy book says). However, you are restricted to pointing out that their specific claims relative to the natural world are inconsistent with reality and scientific knowledge. What you are not permitted to do is attack the underlying supposition; that their supernatural sky-spirit is a superstitious fantasy and a childish delusion. Doing so is tantamount to telling little Sally that Santa is make-believe. Even though we are discussing adults the reaction is the same. That it, you are a bully for telling anyone that their religion, faith, or belief is make-believe. You have hurt their feelings, made them upset, and caused bystanders to get angry at your insensitivity. This includes all supernaturalism including the established religions, belief in ghosts, souls and reincarnation, voodoo, etc.

Posted by: coathangrrr | December 16, 2007 6:17 PM

I never see Intelligent Design being applied to, for instance, the construction of large bridges, the mixing of industrial chemicals, or the (spiritual) control and monitoring of nuclear power plants.

Well, to be fair, that's all engineering not science.

Posted by: Neil | December 16, 2007 6:23 PM

My current favorite Mencken:

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

I still don't believe in psychics, but damn.

Posted by: anon1234 | December 16, 2007 6:40 PM

Speaking of HLM, everyone here would probably enjoy his "Christmas Story," a tale of Baltimore free-thinker philanthropy gone horribly wrong. It's in his "The American Scene" collection, edited by Huntingdon Cairns.

Posted by: Samnell | December 16, 2007 7:45 PM

"It's interesting to compare the writings of the contemporaries, HL Mencken and GK Chesterton. Mencken's writings resonate with the future, Chesterton's with the past."

I am quite fond of one thing Chesterton wrote. In answering a reader about what was wrong with the world today, he said it was him. He meant something along the lines that he failed to live up to his own standards, and so did millions just like him. I instead take it to refer to the times he did live up to his own backward-looking, irrational standards.

Posted by: Interrobang | December 16, 2007 8:10 PM

Another thing you need to do, at least for the sake of the bystanders, is to keep the devious cdesign proponentsists from moving the goalposts when discussing this stuff. Almost inevitably, they say they want to talk "evolution" and they start talking about abiogenesis. My proposed rhetorical strategy for doing this is to, as much as possible, nail them down on the definitions of words right at the outset. When they move to Conservative Non-Argumentation Tactic #2, which is "Dodge, Obfuscate, and Change the Subject," then you can point at all your invisible readers and say, "See? Look! S/he can't even define the thing s/he claims to be talking about."

I've seen way too many blog comments threads get hopelessly off-track because the busy creationist is pulling up the rails ahead of itself and laying them down at warp speed, heading in a direction completely antithetical to the original thrust of the conversation.

The kicker is, as a student of rhetoric, pretty much all right-wingers do this. If they can't nail you on the facts (and they usually can't), they move the goalposts. If you don't let them do that, and try to get them to define something, they obfuscate, bluster, and change the subject. If that doesn't work, next comes projection and the Tu Quoque accusations. After that, name-calling and "I'm leaving" followed by nearly endless posts to the same effect, generally followed by the site mods shitcanning the creep(s). They generally have all the imagination of a dead gym sock, so the pattern is pretty predictable.

Posted by: Spaulding | December 16, 2007 8:21 PM

H.L. Mencken said:

It did not start with an invasion of the proper field of theological speculation by scientific raiders. It started with an invasion of the field of science by theological raiders. Now that it is on, it must be pressed vigorously from the scientific side...

Summary: Creationists tried to serve us, then they got served: now it's ON!

DAAAAAMN!!! Oh, Mencken did not just go there!

Posted by: Kseniya | December 16, 2007 8:52 PM

So, Mark. Creationism is therefore true, and evolution is false?

Posted by: spurge | December 16, 2007 9:16 PM

"What I said is this: modern science arose from Christian civilization, and Christianity was and is indispensible to the scientific revolution. "

Got anything to back up this assertion?

In what way is Christianity indispensable?

From where I sit science is being attacked by the religious.

Posted by: uknesvuinng | December 16, 2007 9:36 PM

Holy non sequitir, Batman. Whether early science was supported by Christianity (it's hardly the creation of Christianity by any stretch of the imagination) has nothing to do with the fact that creationists actively campaign against science now. Science doesn't even seek to step on the toes of any religion, it just happens that religions were silly enough to make claims about reality that are false. Now we have a bunch of people throwing hissy fits because scientists have too much integrity to lie about reality to prop up ancient beliefs that were pretty ridiculous even before bringing the evidence into it.

Atheism (possessing no belief in gods) makes no contribution nor does any harm to science because it posits nothing to be considered by science. Simple theism (merely believing at least one god exists) at best makes no contribution to science (the non-empirical belief in gods being compartmentalized away from affecting scientific work) and at worst causes some harm by presupposing the existence of something without any evidence (much less sufficient evidence). Quite simply, you can't have atheistic science or theistic science. You have good science and bad science. Both kinds of science can be practiced by atheists and theists alike.

Also, fuck you for insinuating that atheism leads to mass murder. It seems you've got your own bigotry. Perhaps you should remove that plank from your eye before worrying about others.

Posted by: spurge | December 16, 2007 9:48 PM

"As for your view that science is being attacked by the religious, that's not true."

Liar

Posted by: Mark | December 16, 2007 10:01 PM

uknesvuinng,

Re: "fuck you for insinuating that atheism leads to mass murder."

There have been only a small number of explicitly atheist governments in human history. The first was the Reign of Terror in France ('The Cult of Reason'). A bloody affair. Next was the Bolsheviks (Lenin, Stalin, the Ukranian Famine, the Gulag, etc), followed by Mao's China (probably more than 50 million people starved and murdered), Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge (a third of the population exterminated), North Korea... the list goes on. 'The Black Book of Communism' counts 100 million people dead from Communism in the 20th century.

I'm sure that you have plenty of excuses (they were different atheists...). Of course all of those excuses can be applied to religous violence as well. Yet the fact remains that every explicitly atheist government in human history has been homicidal, and homicidal on a scale never before seen in human history. Stalin killed more people each day (about 3000) than the Spanish Inquisition killed in 300 years.

List for me the explicitly atheist governments in history. Tell me which ones haven't been murderous.

Open your eyes.

Posted by: allen | December 16, 2007 10:06 PM

While I don't agree with your thesis (or Starks'), Mark, I do find it interesting that you failed to give the full title of Stark's work: "For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery". It seems Dr. Stark has a much less narrow (or more honest) view of history than you exhibit. Why, I'd imagine he gives a little credit to Muslims for preserving the early scientific thought of the Greeks.

Yes, I know, you're arguing that "modern" science sprang full-grown from the head of Christianity, but I suspect you're not that simple, simply blinkered.

Posted by: Ken Cope | December 16, 2007 10:12 PM

"As for your view that science is being attacked by the religious, that's not true."

Liar

Now, now, let's be charitable.

How about,ignorant and misled, with little or no regard for the facts.

Posted by: Mark | December 16, 2007 10:24 PM

spurge,

Re: "None of your examples did what they did because of atheism.

They did it for power."

Of course they did it for power, just like religious thugs did it for power. Do you really think that the European Wars of Religion in the 16th Century were mainly about 'works vrs faith', or that the car bombs in Baghdad are about disagreements over 7th century succession to the Prophet? All violence on a large scale- theist and atheist- is about power. The fights are over family ties, sectarian loyalties, booty, revenge for personal issues, etc. Do you really think that the terrorism in Northern Ireland was because of disagreements over the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

The real question is this: in what cultural environment- say, Christian vrs. atheist- is the violence worse?

The answer is obvious. For all of the violence that has taken place in theist cultures, is has never been even remotely as horrendous as violence which has taken place in atheist cultures.

Again: which explictly atheist civilizations have not been murderous? I can name scores of theist civilizations that have been relatively humane.

Posted by: darwinfinch | December 16, 2007 10:28 PM

Dear Mark,

Wipe that "scowling clown" face, please! You are not frightening anyone, anywhere, anytime with these attempts at polishing the cow pie that is Xianity. You sound like a lonely little whimperer calling up from the the bottom of the miles-deep well of lies you were stupid enough to dig yourself down into.

I'd offer, as many here would, a candle to light your darkness, but it's clear you are afraid to see yourself even in the weakest light, much less to allow youself to be hoisted into the light of the sun beneath which ordinary human beings walk.

(Hopefully we can enrage your shrunken "soul" enough to not notice you have learned something about yourself, maybe even about something new about the world you clearly cannot see in the thick, smelly burlap bag that is your "faith".)

Ta!

Posted by: Mark | December 16, 2007 10:46 PM

Rey,

Re: "Stem cell research only raises moral questions if you believe that some sort of magical ensoulment happens at conception. Science has shown no evidence for this, but religious people frame the argument as if it were true. Therefore, they are impeding the practice of science."

First, sicence doesn't address the issue of ensoulment. Furthermore, all sorts of things 'impede the practice of science'. Science- like every other human activity- is heavily regulated by law. We can't experiment on people in ways that are likely to harm them, we're not allowed to do painful experiments on animals, we can't spew nuclear waste all over the countryside.

Regulation of expermentation on human embryos is no different. People on both sides have moral viewpoints, and both sides have a right to be heard. Are you suggesting that the viewpoints of religious citizens should be excluded from influencing public policy?

Your argument is with democracy, not religion.

Posted by: Tulse | December 16, 2007 11:03 PM

modern science arose in Christian Europe over the past 5 centuries

Wow -- did you actually flunk history? Do you have any notion of the contribution of the medieval Muslim world to science (you do know that terms like "algebra" and "alcohol" derive from Arabic, right?). Are you completely ignorant of the "Islamic Golden Age", when thinkers in the Muslim world laid the groundwork for science while most of Europe was wallowing in the Dark Ages? Did you not know that a great many historians of science think that the beginnings of modern science can be attributed to the Muslim world?

Posted by: Mark | December 16, 2007 11:13 PM

Tulse,

Re: "Do you have any notion of the contribution of the medieval Muslim world to science"

I have great respect for the contributions of medieval Islamic civilization to science. Medieval Islam contributed more than modern atheist (Marxist) civilization has. Yet the fact remains: the scientific revolution is a product of Christian civilization.

Why are you evading the obvious?

Posted by: uknesvuinng | December 16, 2007 11:21 PM

Mark, you still don't understand what atheism is. It doesn't make any claims, period. It's merely not accepting other claims of a specific nature. We wouldn't even need a word for it if the assholes of religion didn't overstate the value of their particular religions. Atheism makes no claims for anyone to act on.

I don't deny the communist regimes were atheist, but your implied claim that their atheism was causal regarding their actions and policies is false. Your post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and your bigotry are duly noted.

Posted by: Mark | December 16, 2007 11:32 PM

coathangrrr,

The Spanish revolutionaries slaughtered priests wholesale. There were atrocities on both sides.

Hitler doesn't fit easily into either Christian or atheist philosophy. He was a baptized Catholic, but Nazism obviously wasn't Christian, and wasn't explictly atheist either. It was nearest to paganism, worshipping blood, race, and nationhood. Nazism owed much to Nietzsche, who hated Christianity, and historian Richard Weikart in "From Darwin to Hitler" traces much of Nazi eugenic policies to Darwinism and the eugenic movement in the late 19th century that it spawned.

To claim that Nazi atrocities are 'Christian' is to seriously misunderstand Nazism.

Communism, on the other hand, was explictly atheist.

Posted by: Numad | December 16, 2007 11:34 PM

"It was nearest to paganism, worshipping blood, race[...]"

Things which are totally alien to Abrahamic tradition. Riiight.

Posted by: coathangrrr | December 16, 2007 11:49 PM

Oh and countries that are atheist and peaceful. Try Estonia and Sweden, right now.

Posted by: John C. Randolph | December 16, 2007 11:52 PM

One of my favorites from the Sage of Baltimore, which I think I've posted here before:

"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous."

-jcr

Posted by: Jake Boyman | December 17, 2007 12:21 AM

Some religious people are attacking Darwin's theory because atheists have advanced their unscientific ideological viewpoints by hijacking genuine science.

I would ask Little Mark how he accounts for Christians who accept Darwin's theory, since Darwinism is just one big wicked atheist conspiracy, but he's not very bright and I have my doubts his explanation would make any sense.

I would also ask him that given that the great majority of scientists accept Darwin's theories, whether that means that most science is not 'genuine', but I don't want to confuse him more.

So, go ahead, Mark. Explain to us why Noah's ark and the resurrection and a 6,000-YO earth are 'scientific ideological viewpoints'. We can't wait.

Posted by: Mark | December 17, 2007 12:25 AM

coathangrrr,

What Nietzsche's sister added to his philosophy was virulent anti-Semitism. Nietzsche's hatred of Christianity was unambiguous.

Neither Hitler nor the Nazi leadership were practicing Christians in any meaningful sense. They had plans to kidnap the Pope, and they killed as many Christians as Jews in the concentration camps. The Vatican frequently condemned Nazism, and Pius XII harbored may Jews in the Vatican to protect them from the Fascists. The Chief Rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism after the war, and Pius XII was proclaimed a "Righteous Gentile" by the State of Israel. There were millions of Christian martyrs to the Nazis- among them Lutheran pastor and theologian Deitrich Bonhoeffer and Polish Franscican priest Maximilian Kolbe. By the way, who were the (non-Communist) atheist martyrs to Nazism?

The 20th century was characterized by the weakening of Christian culture in Europe, a decline that had been accelerating since the late 19th century. The Nazis (and the Communists) rose when the influence of Christianity was waning. Yet they arose from a Christian culture, of course, and therefore Christianity has some soul-searching to do (which it has done) about 20th century Europe.

I have seen no analogous soul searching by atheists about Communism, which was explicitly and proudly atheist. You behave as if your ideology sprung out of the ground a few years ago, newly formed, innocent of history.

You still haven't answered my earlier question: list the explicitly athiest civilizations (there have been many in the 20th century and there was one in the 18th century)that weren't murderous.

No one doubts that mankind is brutal. My argument is that atheist civilizations are objectively more brutal than theistic ones. By far.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 17, 2007 12:28 AM

"They were committed for a host of sectarian and ideological reasons. Every 'excuse' you can offer for atheist atrocities can be offered for theist atrocities."

Bingo. Neither theism nor atheism are enough to encompass an entire ideology. Stalin was not simply an "atheist", he was a Hagelian, a Marxist-Lenninist and a cultural heir to the monarchial tradition of Tsarism.

The latter, by the way, in explicitly tied to Orthidox Christianity and established many of the facets of the Soviet regime we consider the most grotesquely inhumane. For instance, Lenin and Trotsky didn't themselves commence the incarceration of political dissident in Siberia prison camps, their Tsarist predecessors had been doing this for centuries.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 17, 2007 12:34 AM

"Neither Hitler nor the Nazi leadership were practicing Christians in any meaningful sense."

How about the fact that they were expressed Christians? How about the fact that they denounced the Communists primarily because they were "godless"?

Or if you don't consider the Nazis "practicing Christians in any meaningful sense", how about Martin Luther?

"You behave as if your ideology sprung out of the ground a few years ago, newly formed, innocent of history."

Bzzzzt. Wrong, thanks for playing. Atheism is not an ideology, try again.

Posted by: Numad | December 17, 2007 12:41 AM

Mark,

Apologia isn't compatible with "soul searching."

Don't strain yourself.

Posted by: Mark | December 17, 2007 12:42 AM

Tyler,

Re: "Neither theism nor atheism are enough to encompass an entire ideology. Stalin was not simply an "atheist", he was a Hagelian, a Marxist-Lenninist and a cultural heir to the monarchial tradition of Tsarism."

I agree. As I wrote earlier, thugs (atheistic and theistic) act for a variety of reasons. Metaphysical reasons are usually not up front.

My point is this: given the complexity of motivation for human atrocities, which milieu (explicitly atheist or explicitly theist) yields the worst atrocities? The history of the 20th century is unambiguous: explictly atheist civilizations are astonishingly bloody. For goodness sake, the first atheist government in human history (Revolutionary France) quickly earned the name "Reign of Terror".

Atheists need to take the bloody history of their ideology seriously.

Posted by: Rick T. | December 17, 2007 12:54 AM

Mark,

It's obvious that religion was outlawed by Communism and other totalitarian regimes because of political reasons. When people can gather together they can, and will, devise plans of opposition.
You're forgetting a similar scenario when Constantine "invented" Christianity (aka the Roman Catholic Church) piecemeal out of various religions of the day as a ploy to rob the religious elite of power and yet not alienate the masses. Very similar although much smarter way of keeping power while de-legitimizing those who were formerly in power.

Posted by: raven | December 17, 2007 1:08 AM

Adolph Hitler: My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."[24]

Hitler invoked god and Jesus often. It is all through Mein Kampf. He also thought the neopagan stuff was dumb and said so as well.

Xians have been lying about this ever since. They do it every time Hitler and the Nazis come up. A lie repeated a million times is still a lie. FWIW, they also forged documents after the war to try to cover up Hitlers reliance on Xians and Xianity to massacre millions of people. That didn't work either.

Mark, we've heard your standard homeschool, brainwashed, moron, lies millions of times over the last 62 years. It was bullcrap in 1945 and it is bullcrap in 2007.

Try to do something honest for the first and last time in your life. Copy Martin Luther's plan to eliminate the Jews, 7 points and it is on Wikipedia. At Nurenberg, some of the Nazis said they were just carrying out Luther's plan. It was true but they hung them anyway.

Posted by: Kseniya | December 17, 2007 1:21 AM

Some religious people are attacking Darwin's theory because atheists have advanced their unscientific ideological viewpoints by hijacking genuine science.

This nugget came from the same mind that preaches about historical literacy.

No, Mark. "Some religious people" are attacking Darwin's theory because they're fools (ignorant or deluded, pick one) who put more faith in mythology than in fact and reason.

Posted by: Schooner | December 17, 2007 1:34 AM

"My point is this: given the complexity of motivation for human atrocities, which milieu (explicitly atheist or explicitly theist) yields the worst atrocities?"

How about neither? Your question presents a false dilemma. Atrocities are the result of the human condition and one of the few things that are not predicated on race, creed, gender, age, era, education, sexual orientation, or any other category I can think of.

The numbers quoted from the 20th century are a function of the amount of people inhabiting the earth at that point in history. I am confident the Assyrians, as representative of a theistic culture, would have been prepared to slaughter as many had they encountered the requisite number of victims. What I think Mencken would agree with is that unbridled power generally results in atrocity in direct proportion to the amount of unbridled power possessed, regardless of who wields it.

What is interesting about this question is Theism's and Naturalism's--I tend to agree with the assertion that atheism makes no positive claims--attempts to wrestle with the atrocities we all recognize under the broader heading of the problem of evil.

Posted by: Bobby | December 17, 2007 2:02 AM

The science questioned by religious people is either 'science' that makes atheistic assertions that aren't supported by the science at all (the atheistic aspects of Darwin's theory)

Posted by: Colugo | December 17, 2007 3:10 AM

"Rational religion"? "Enlightened theologians"? That's appeasement talk, Mencken.

That aside, neither theism nor atheism - in and of themselves - can be blamed for any atrocity litany since these are both simple propositions. As such, they are elementary components of larger mobilizing worldviews, that includes cosmology, theories of historical change, value systems, eternal enemies, imperatives, rationales. The historical record has demonstrated that terroristic, totalitarian, imperialist, oppressive mobilizing worldviews - or benevolent ones, for that matter - may be theistic or atheistic (or deistic).

The issue of God-belief and nonbelief may not even be an more important component of a particular worldview. Or it may be crucial.

uknesvuinng: "A difference in atheism and religions is religions have the ability to provide motivation for horrible acts of evil. "

Apples and oranges. The proper comparison with atheism is theism. A religion is a specific theistic belief system. (However, it is not a complete belief system; note the difference between Romney and Reid.) Therefore, the appropriate comparison for a religion, or a set of religions, is with a specific atheistic belief system or a set of these. These atheistic belief systems - mobilizing worldviews - encompass much more than mere atheism, just like theistic belief systems (religions) encompass much more than the simple premise that God (or gods) exists.

In that case, religions should not be compared with atheism itself - the mere nonbelief in God - but specific atheistic worldviews and their many variants: dialectical materialism, Objectivism, secular humanism, Darwinian conservatism, atheistic transhumanism, etc.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 17, 2007 3:48 AM

Colugo,

I concur with Numad. It was what I was trying to get across, but you did so in a much more elaborate and incisive way than I.

Posted by: Thinker | December 17, 2007 5:27 AM

Mark:

Modern science arose only in Judeo-Christian civilization.

...modern science arose from Christian civilization, and Christianity was and is indispensible to the scientific revolution.

Putting aside the major contributions by Greek, Chinese and Arabic civilizations already mentioned by others, isn't it obvious that science has succeeded precisely to the degree that it has managed to free itself from the "revealed knowledge" of religion or what is politically expedient?

Indeed, if you already know your conclusions, and if your aim is to please either those who believe centuries-old legends or a totalitarian dictator (think Lysenko), why bother doing science?

Posted by: ndt | December 17, 2007 6:49 AM

Anyone else notice Mark's goal-post shift? Menchen was advocating secularism and decrying fundamentalism. Mark has recast the discussion in terms of atheism against all religion.

And please make up your mind if you're criticizing the atheist regime of Stalin, one of the most murderous regimes in history, or the atheist regimes of Lenin or Kruschev, which were quite a bit less murderous than the god-fearing czars who came before them.

Reasonable people can disagree whether Hitler's regime was primarily Christian or primarily Nazi invented paganism, but it certainly wasn't atheist.

Posted by: raven | December 17, 2007 7:59 AM

Mark the creo troll:

What a feeble attempt to evade its bloody history ('Communism had nothing to do with atheism, because there is no such thing as atheism')

Mark, speaking of evading Xianity's bloody history, you keep changing the subject every time your lies and delusions are exposted. Most mainstream academic historians put a lot of the blame for Hitler on German Xianity long ago. From Martin Luther wannabe genocidal maniac on, they've been consistent.

This is typical Vox Day fundie honesty. They lie. When their lies are exposed, then they lie some more. Lying is all fundies can do (1) and it can go on for longer than anyone sane can stay interested. After all, it has been centuries already.

For extra credit, look up the Taiping Rebellion on wikipedia. It was started by a Chinese Xian and was one of the bloodiest civil wars in history. It is estimated that 20 million people died.

1. Online. In the real world they also can and do kill and steal.

Posted by: Dangerous Dan | December 17, 2007 8:12 AM

Mark had a number of things to say:

Communism is atheism's gift to mankind.

To understand the contribution that atheism has made to scientific progress, consider the scientific output of explicitly atheist cultures- the Soviet Union, Cambodia under Pol Pot, North Korea...

'The Black Book of Communism' counts 100 million people dead from Communism in the 20th century.

Stalin killed more people each day (about 3000) than the Spanish Inquisition killed in 300 years.

Posted by: coathangrrr | December 17, 2007 8:29 AM

The assertion that atheism is not an ideology is nonsense. Of course it's an ideology. It's a metaphysical opinion, which is an idea, which, when systematically asserted using evidence and logic, is an ideology.

Just like not liking bacon is an ideology. Or not believing in unicorns is an ideology. Nonsense.

It might be one aspect of a specific ideology, say in the way that Christianity is an ideology that includes, but is not limited to, a belief in God.

Posted by: Dangerous Dan | December 17, 2007 8:45 AM

Mark also wrote:

I'm wide awake. The science questioned by religious people is either 'science' that makes atheistic assertions that aren't supported by the science at all (the atheistic aspects of Darwin's theory), or raise very real moral questions about which reasonable people can disagree (human embryonic stem cell research), or makes claims on limited evidence that would radically alter human society (Global Warming).

"Creation Scientists" or "cdesign proponentsists" have attempted to either replace or supplement these theories of evolution with "God did it." "God did it" is in no possible way, a scientific theory. There isn't any science in it, and it isn't even a theory. Flood Creationism, Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design, and all of the other creationisms require faith in things unseen and almost all of them require one to ignore or disbelieve facts and theories in other solid branches of science.

"Intelligent Design" religious fanatics have, in their effort to "Get God back into the school," sworn in court "so help me God," and then proceeded to tell bald-faced lies left and right, and their lies have been exposed with their own documents and statements. Not only are they attacking science, but some of them have broken one of their "Ten Commandments" to do so. If you want to bring up "claims on limited evidence," Creation Science or Intelligent Design is the real place to start, not Global Warming. Global Warming has atmospheric measurements, chemistry, retreating glaciers, mathematical models, and more behind it. "Creation science" has -- words.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 8:54 AM

You'd think Islamophobe wingnuts like Mark would appreciate a Communist tyrant like Enver Hoxha of Albania, who tried to exterminate Islam in his country. Ingrates!

Since the "atheist dictatorships" meme is so easily refuted (such regimes are the reverse of rational and secular, rather they exalt irrational ideologies which are highly isomorphic with "conventional" religions) and the refutation has been repeated so often, trolls who continue to repeat it in a pavlovian manner are merely displaying their brainlessness.

Posted by: coathangrrr | December 17, 2007 9:12 AM

If it had not been for the Christian willingness to take up arms and defend Christendom, we'd be having this conversation now in Arabic.

And the racism inherent in so many godbags' argument pokes its little head through. God forbid we would ever speak that horrible barbarian Arabic!

Posted by: Mark | December 17, 2007 9:17 AM

Steve LaBonne,

Why do you think that I'm an Islamophobe? I'm the guy defending theism. Do you believe that the rise of Islam in Europe is a good thing?

Re: "Since the "atheist dictatorships" meme is so easily refuted (such regimes are the reverse of rational and secular, rather they exalt irrational ideologies which are highly isomorphic with "conventional" religions)"

I love the canard :'atheist dictatorships are highly isomorphic with conventional religions'. Aside from your idiotic jargon ('highly isomorphic'), your evasion of responsibility for the consequences of your beliefs is deplorable. Atheists kill people wholesale, and...it's religion's fault!

In your view, has atheism played any negative role in human affairs? There are many Christian moral theologians who have written about evil that arises from Christendom (JP II formally apologized for anti-Semitism). Name the atheists who have written about the atrocities of atheism or who have expressed regret for what atheism brought to the 20th century.

You are moral cowards.

Posted by: coathangrrr | December 17, 2007 9:27 AM

Why do you think that I'm an Islamophobe?

I'd refer you back to the comment about us all speaking Arabic you made earlier. Clearly a reference to your fear that the Muslims, or should I call them the muhammodans, are on their way to get us.

Posted by: MAJeff | December 17, 2007 9:31 AM

JP II formally apologized for anti-Semitism

Which was a fucking joke..."Individuals may have been guilty but not the Church itself"

I'll condemn those murderous regimes, but to attribute atheism as a central cause--well you're making a causal relationship that just ain't there. But, knowing the kinds of nonsense you believe, that's not surprising.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 9:36 AM

There's no "debate" going on here, just chastisement of an ignorant, racist troll. You.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 9:44 AM

And what about those evil blood-circulationists? Surely we should hold Harvey responsible for the mass murders of the modern era.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 9:48 AM

You're a racist for being consternated by the thought that we might be communicating in Arabic (a beautiful language, by the way.)

Troll.

Posted by: thalarctos | December 17, 2007 9:52 AM

You're allowing your 60's leftism to sneak in. Your asserting that the atrocities of a fervent atheist like Pol Pot are not only theism's fault, they're America's fault too!

You're the one asserting the causal connection; I'm providing the evidence that your asserted cause is not sufficient to account for the outcome.

Until you deal with the demonstrated problem in your asserted causal connection, there's really nothing more to say on the issue. Get back to me when you have something more substantive than just cherry-picking, goalpost-moving, and ad hominem aspersions on my argument.

Posted by: Mark | December 17, 2007 10:03 AM

Steve,

Re: "You're a racist for being consternated by the thought that we might be communicating in Arabic (a beautiful language, by the way.)"

I don't speak Arabic, but I have no doubt that it's a fine language. You seemed to have missed my point, so I'll repeat it. If it were not for 'militant Christendom' over the past 1300 years, Islam would almost certainly be the religion of Europe, and of us.

I'm a Christian, so I'm partial to Christianity (that's part of the definition of 'Christian'). I think that we'd be worse off if Islam had won at Tours, Vienna, and Lepanto. Do you disagree?

It seems that you accept dhimmitude more readily than I would. Keep in mind that Islamic forbearance is only for 'people of the Book'. You're Bookless, and under a Caliphate, headless.

It seems that your cowardice extends beyond the moral.

Posted by: MAJeff | December 17, 2007 10:07 AM

well, maybe not a neo-con, but at least one of the bedwetters.

it's fun how they get all worked up about the beheadings of atheists (and queers and feminists....), and yet it seems to be more fantasy wish fulfillment than anything else.

Posted by: Thinker | December 17, 2007 10:15 AM

You can define countries/cultures and their system of governance in many ways. One is to score them on two separate dimensions or scales:

- Secular to Theocratic (influence of religion on policy)

- Pluralistic to Totalitarian (diversity of policies available for citizens to choose from)

One of the errors Mark committs is to conflate these, as if a society that is not using religion to set policy is necessarily a totalitarian state. While we all abhor the totalitarian dictatorships he has mentioned, keep in mind that their problem is in the lack of diversity, pluralism and respect for the rights of minorities, not in their lack of religion as a basis for policy. That is on a different, orthogonal scale.

It is easy to list totalitarian regimes of both a secular and theocratic nature, and there are several good examples of secular and pluralistic nations, but can you think of any pluralistic theocracy? An oxymoron, if I ever saw one...

Posted by: mark | December 17, 2007 10:19 AM

Steve,

Re: "Why should I care whether the religion plaguing the Western world was Christianity or Islam? I object to them equally. "

Actually, I have a lot of respect for Islam (a lot more than I do for atheism). I just don't want to live under Sharia law or Communism. I strongly support secularism in government, in the sense that there should be no established religion and that religious diversity should be welcomed. The whole concept of secularism is Christian at it's origins (Render unto Caesar...).

Go live in the Islamic world for a while. Then come back and tell us if you still "object to them equally".

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 10:24 AM

I just don't want to live under Sharia law or Communism.

Posted by: David Wilford | December 17, 2007 10:28 AM

FWIW, Christianity is an amalgam of Hellenistic philosophy and Hebraic monotheism. So what affinity Christianity has for science due to its Greek heritage has always been subject to the suspicions of the true believers in the Church. It wasn't due to some great revolution in Christianity itself that science blossomed in Europe after the fourteenth century, but instead due to the rediscovery of ancient Greek thought. Thanks to the development of the printing press, the ideas of the early modern age were able to be spread widely instead of being kept under an ecclesiastical thumb, and a great acceleration of scientific and technological progress followed.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 17, 2007 10:38 AM

If "Islam" had won at Tours, then a civilization known for religious tolerance, an intellectual tradition and comparatively sophisticated science might have conquered Europe two generations before Charlemagne. (I put "Islam" in quotes because we're not talking about the whole religion here, and trying to find "the true Islam" is a pointless exercise in essentialist thinking; the Muslims in question were the Umayyads of al-Andalus.) While historians have argued the significance of Tours back and forth — argument is, indeed, a big part of their job — there's still a great deal to be said for Edward Gibbon's classic position:

A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.

Charles Martel's victory at Tours deprived Europe of the civilization which produced men like Ibn Rushd, known as Averroes:

Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.

— Averroes, Doubts Concerning Ptolemy (1028)

Posted by: Darwin's Minion | December 17, 2007 10:50 AM

Regarding the death tolls: absolute numbers don't really cut it. If you really want to compare death tolls, the way to do it is via percentages of the population that were killed. So, Mark, you got any percentages? Else, I won't believe, or even argue, with you.

Posted by: Mat Wilder | December 17, 2007 11:06 AM

Un. Fucking. Believable.

I'm not going to repeat everything that has already been said, since it appears that for Mark all arguments, evidence, and truth fall only on deaf ears.

What do you about someone who literally will not listen to reason?

Posted by: David Wilford | December 17, 2007 11:22 AM

There's more light than heat being given off here thankfully, although this time of year the heat is also welcome.

Posted by: David Wilford | December 17, 2007 11:37 AM

Tulse, it's like the game rock, scissors, paper. Christianity beats Islam, Islam beats atheism, and atheism beats Christianity.

Posted by: markbt73 | December 17, 2007 12:10 PM

Aaauuugh! a Christroll with the same first name as me! What a horrible way to start a Monday morning!

Now I must post simply to clear ny name...

Posted by: RamblinDude | December 17, 2007 12:48 PM

Mark, technology is more than just better weapons; it is better communication and better transportation, and, subsequently, more effective control of larger numbers of people.

We'll have you scum to thank for it.

Your god isn't very powerful, is he? Are you sure you actually believe in him?

In your view, has atheism played any negative role in human affairs?

Has disbelief in unicorns played any negative role in human affairs?

Why not just take responsibility for your ideological bedmates, and try to understand why they killed so many?

We are trying to understand; Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein--all abused as children. And, as been pointed out, much violence has been done in the spirit of retaliation against religious oppression. There are many, many factors to consider, (surprise!) but in no case are we willing to live in a world of play pretend just to advance your absurd and easily disproved notion that the Christian religion is the source of morality. (And science, LOL!).

If it were not for 'militant Christendom' over the past 1300 years, Islam would almost certainly be the religion of Europe, and of us.

Having one superstition overpower another one is not progress. It is not to be equated with advancing rational thought.

I just don't want to live under Sharia law or Communism.

Neither do we. We want freedom from all oppression--including yours.

The world is full of people like you, people who want to believe things instead of getting to the facts and living in the real world. The 'Atheism" you describe is exactly the mindset that we abhor and must be on guard against. If 'disbelief' ever becomes just another belief system, with the requisite rules and regulations that impede critical thinking, then its followers will be people like you.

Posted by: Arden Chatfield | December 17, 2007 1:35 PM

The whole concept of secularism is Christian at it's origins (Render unto Caesar...).

Wow, so NOT being Christian is in fact Christian? Wow.

And yet you think science shouldn't be secular. Whoops.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 1:40 PM

Obviously the idiot knows nothing of the astounding religious diversity of the pagan Roman Empire (which of course was later brutally stamped out by Christianity), with only the most token observance of certain state-cult ceremonies required (and that only on rare occasions)and belief otherwise left to the individual's conscience.

The abysmal ignorance of the Christards- historical as well as scientific and philosophical- is depressing.

Posted by: JimC | December 17, 2007 2:04 PM

I'm a latecomer to all of this. But I have never understood the argument that not believing in an invisible being makes one murderous.

Given the nearly 1 billions atheists in the world the existence of Pol Pot would statistically be an aberation.

How can that possibly further the argument that atheism leads to anything?

Posted by: Colugo | December 17, 2007 2:53 PM

More on Nazism and Christianity:

Richard Steigman-Gall, author of The Holy Reich, interview with The Turning Magazine, Spring 2005:
http://www.theturning.org/folder/nazis.html

".. I don't consider Hitler a good Catholic - he never went to Mass, he never went to confession. But what he had to say about Christianity behind closed doors was that he too esteemed Protestantism as the 'natural' religion of the Germans. ...

Almost all of the Nazis I investigated esteemed Christ... Now how did they square the circle by esteeming the king of the Jews? By determining that, all along, Jesus had really been an 'Aryan.' ...

(T)here is a lineage behind the idea that Jesus had in fact been an Aryan. And one of the places that you see this is in 19th century German thought. Two men are most often seen as originating the idea of the Aryan Christ - one is an Englishman, Huston Stewart Chamberlain, famously the son-in-law of Richard Wagner, who lived long enough to see Hitler's rise and who sanctioned Hitler as God-given. And the other was a 19th century Frenchman, Ernest Renan, who came out with a theory that Jesus had not been a Jew at all. Antisemites in the 19th century looked at Jesus and said 'Well, he doesn't care about the law, he doesn't like the Old Testament, he throws the moneychangers and hagglers out of the temple.' In John 8:44 he says 'Jews, you are the children of the devil',' this kind of thing. ..."

What Nazis meant by opposition to "Jewish capitalism":

"[The Nazis] had this idea of a qualified anti-capitalism. The Nazis distinguished between an exploitative capitalism and a productive capitalism. What the Nazis hated in capitalism was high finance capitalism, which they associated with Jews. They hung onto the anti-Semitic canard that banks and other institutions of high finance were run by Jews. What they admired in capitalism was its productive capacity, so it's productive estates they value. ... (T)hey loved the captain of industry. So their very famous relationship with Henry Ford, an icon of American capitalism."

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 17, 2007 3:43 PM

Does it also lead to dancing?

oh we got trouble, right here in River City!

...

mark is just a deluded, ignorant, salesman.

the very kind of person that would accuse the educational system of "indocrination" without realizing what a projection from a church upbringing that is.

hopeless doesn't even cover it.

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 17, 2007 4:11 PM

it's the attitude and logic that are equivalent, not the specifics.

gorram literalist.

;)

besides, I simply couldn't resist tossing out a line from my favorite musical.

Posted by: noodlesoup | December 17, 2007 4:35 PM

Wow, this thread is all over the map. But it comes down to this: Supernaturalism is simply fantasy, imagination, and make-believe. The Hindu-deities are no less childish whimsies than Allah, or ghosts, or spirits, or angels, or a soul, or a mystical place called heaven, or Santa delivering gifts on a flying sled, or daddy deity, or the Xtian three-person sky god, or voodoo, or witches, or demons, or magic unicorns. It's all make-believe. Grow up.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | December 17, 2007 5:03 PM

He said everything I am thinking right now on this suject.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | December 17, 2007 6:07 PM

@ #159:

Mark isn't interested in reasonably assessing history and the details. It's just easier to blame communism on atheists and leave it at that. Of course, Mark is also wrong about North Korea, as Kim Jong Il occupies much the same place as Tojo did for Japan. That is, he is sold to his populace as a being above all others, whether or not it's literally true. He is held to standards no normal person is judged against in his country, and thus he is above the law. KJI very much occupies a place reserved for religious figures or symbols. He is the state religion.

Worshipping a man as a power above all others on earth is religion, whether the symbol is actually divine or not. North Korea, regardless of what anyone says, has religion.

Posted by: windy | December 17, 2007 7:15 PM

godwin that, baby.

since you asked...

"Atheists are a people of robbers. The atheist has never founded any civilization, though he has destroyed civilizations by the hundred. He possesses nothing of his own creation to which he can point. Everything that he has is stolen.... He has no art of his own: bit by bit he has stolen it all from the other peoples or has watched them at work and then made his copy. He does not even know how merely to preserve the precious things which others have created: as he turns the treasures over in his hand they are transformed into dirt and dung. He knows that he cannot maintain any State for long. That is one of the differences between him and the Christian. True, the Christian also has dominated other peoples. But how? He entered on the land, he cleared the forests; out of wildernesses he has created civilizations, and he has not used the others for his own interests, he has, so far as their capacities permitted, incorporated them into his State and through him art and science were brought to flower. In the last resort it was the Christian and the Christian alone who could form States and could set them on their path to future greatness."

isn't that about the gist of it, Mark?

Posted by: Colugo | December 17, 2007 7:34 PM

If Communism is a "political religion" (or secular religion, or crypto-religion), then religion is independent of theism.

That also problematizes the very definition of "religion." We all acknowledge that not all theistic religions are totalitarian. In fact, some lend themselves to rationales for secularism, democracy and pluralism. And if religion transcends theism/atheism, then it is not necessary - nor consistent - for non-theist religions to be totalitarian by definition. So non-theist political religions must encompass much more than Communism and other totalitarian ideologies.

In this definition of a religion - logically following the identification of Communism as a religion, any number of political, social, and mystical belief systems qualify as religions. "Religion," then, becomes a larger set of social "myths" in the generic Sorel-Gramsci sense. (For memeticists, "religion" is the memeplex of memes called "myths".)

Otherwise, it's just rhetorical gymnastics to have it both ways in which religion (obviously identified with theism in general - God-belief, but conveniently including noxious non-God-belief systems) is blamed for everything and atheism (redefined to not include atheist "religions") is blameless. As I already pointed out, it is hardly justifiable to blame or credit either theism or atheism for any sociopolitical deeds since these are merely simple propositions readily inserted into a wide array of mobilizing belief systems, but are not mobilizing belief systems themselves.

Here is the question for freethinkers: Is your primary quarrel with God-belief itself or is it with particular sociopolitical belief systems? If it's both, try not to confuse the two.

Posted by: coathangrrr | December 17, 2007 7:52 PM

I don't know about you, but my problem is with all dogmatic belief systems that try to immunize themselves from questioning.

I just see so many people say this and then go on to make claims that are totally dogmatic. Not you per se, but many people, even among the "New Atheists" who claim to be such great sceptics.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | December 17, 2007 8:03 PM

@ 164:

I see what you are saying, but the fact remains, blaming atheism for anything sociopolitical is attributing things to it that fall outside the realm of its focus. If atheists are attributing too much to atheism, theists attribute FAR too much to atheism, something that is much more (by way of its simplicity) defined than the definition religion itself.

Atheism says one thing. I won't get into that because it should be obvious at this point (to anyone that allows themselves to parse the definition of it). But from that people have attributed everything bad to it, from the invasion of nihilism in youth (and the supposed associated suicidal tendencies it instills), the rise of communism in Russia, Hitler and his regime, North Korea's current state, racism as it's ever been known, eugenics, decline in ethics and morality, Pol Pot, communism in general, mass killings in churches and malls, terrorist acts, transformation of other religions into subversive terrorist-supporting entities invading entire continents, most of the world's killings over the last 300 years, slavery, I should probably throw in fascism in Spain and Italy for good measure, taxes, toe jam...you name it, atheism caused it.

I think it's a heck of a lot easier to see how religion translates into other things than how atheism (which amounts to one simple statement) supposedly causes everything the trolls around here keep adding to its list of ills. Perhaps the next thing atheism will be guilty of is epidemics like malaria and AIDS...

Posted by: Ken Cope | December 17, 2007 8:14 PM

Colugo,

I don't have time to make more of a contribution (I'm juggling 3 essays due too soon, which leads me to procrastinate here), but it sounds like you're addressing points in a conversation Scott and I are having over the last dozen posts or so on the Slice it, Occam! thread. Got any light to shed over there? I don't have the time to repeat myself over on this thread. I'm interested in what you'd have to say.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 8:19 PM

Which of these classes of people actively reject and seek to suppress critical inquiry into their positions, and seek to punish apostasy, the way adherents of such systems as (many) religions and Communism have done? That is the feature that makes dogmatism dangerous rather than merely irritating.

Posted by: Arden Chatfield | December 17, 2007 8:23 PM

Sorry, that should have read 'Mark', not 'Martin'.

(Still a nicer name than he used on us.)

Posted by: coathangrrr | December 17, 2007 8:30 PM

Which of these classes of people actively reject and seek to suppress critical inquiry into their positions, and seek to punish apostasy, the way adherents of such systems as (many) religions and Communism have done? That is the feature that makes dogmatism dangerous rather than merely irritating.

Well given that none of them have political power, none of them do any of those things beyond simply sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling when someone disagrees with them. This is the internet, there isn't much they can do. But you're moving the goal posts now, before you were just against dogma.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 8:35 PM

I do not particularly care about the wacky beliefs of the many harmless theists and certainly do not directly blame them for the harm wrought by their dangerous cousins. But I do object, in Dawkins / Myers mode, when they provide aid / comfort / cover for the crazies instead of openly distancing themselves from them. (Some of the more liberal denominations, especially the UCC, DO have a praiseworthy track record of doing exactly the latter, and I doff my cap to them.) Also in Dawkins / Myers mode, I worry to some extent that the intellectual atmosphere is made more favorable for the dangerous ones when it is poisoned by a pervasive free ride given to irrational beliefs. I don't know how to make my position clearer than that.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 17, 2007 8:41 PM

Modern science arose only in Judeo-Christian civilization. It arose because Christians (i.e., virtually all scientists of the Enlightenment)believe that the world is rationally ordered by God, and that we can and should explore that order.

Let me propose the opposite: the Enlightenment was the result of the Church getting weaker and weaker; the state of science is inversely proportional to the power of religion.

Look at Islam. They were way ahead of Christian Europe in science -- till 1300 or so. Then the fundies took over, and science stagnated all the way to the age of colonialism.

Or look at China. Had they sailed in the right direction, they could have discovered America 100 years before Columbus; had they just kept sailing in the same direction, they could have done Vasco da Gama's voyage in reverse. But then the Confucian fundies took over, and China stagnated, till various European powers turned it from the world's richest into the world's poorest country within 100 years.

Or look at the Soviet Union. Scientific hypotheses are normally evaluated on how well they agree with reality. Not so under Stalin, when he gave power over the universities to Lysenko (biology) and Marr (linguistics), who instead evaluated hypotheses based on how well they agreed with "truth" -- with Stalinism.

The only difference I can see is that the Muslim, Confucian and Communist fundamentalists all came to power after science (or at least exploration) was already there, so they had something to destroy; the Christian fundamentalists came to power at the end of the Migration Age, so everything was already destroyed, and they could only delay its reemergence -- which they managed to do just fine for a thousand years.

Communism is atheism's gift to mankind.

Communism is much more Christian than you seem to believe. Everything a Western-style religion needs is there: a dogma that must be believed on faith, even though it is declared to follow logically from reason; an organization; unquestioned authority figures, some of whom are prophets and/or saviors; a promise of salvation, complete with heaven (on Earth, though -- it took decades till the term "Soviet Paradise" was dropped from official Soviet terminology), at an unspecified time but "soon"; salvation history (an inevitable progress of history towards salvation); God's ineffable wrath (Stalin's paranoia descending upon innocent people like in the Book of Hiob); everything. All that's missing is the afterlife; only Kim Jong-Il has so far got one (he's still the president of North Korea) -- wait, some Chinese have started worshipping Mao in temples and sacrificing oranges to him. Mao himself used to joke about it, calling dying "going to Marx".

There's a very impressive Soviet painting which is clearly modeled on Christian imagery: Lenin as the Father, Stalin as the Son, and the sunlight that falls on them from the window as the Holy Spirit.

Totalitarian regimes need an ideology. That can be communism; it can be fascism; or it can be a religion in a stricter sense (Calvin's Geneva; the Taliban's Afghanistan). Atheism alone does not suffice, just like how theism alone doesn't.

I'm wide awake.

Yes, your eyes are open, but you don't look -- because you believe you already know everything.

The science questioned by religious people is either 'science' that makes atheistic assertions that aren't supported by the science at all (the atheistic aspects of Darwin's theory), or raise very real moral questions about which reasonable people can disagree (human embryonic stem cell research), or makes claims on limited evidence that would radically alter human society (Global Warming).

Oh boy.

Atheistic aspects of Darwin's theory? What, pray tell, are those? I study paleobiology and molecular biology and haven't encountered any such "aspects" -- which is no surprise, because it's science and not philosophy.

And by saying there's "limited evidence" for global warming, and even by saying that doing something against it would necessarily "radically alter human society", you merely show us what is really limited: your knowledge. Go read.. You also show us what is not limited: your arrogance in believing that everyone is just as ignorant as you. It's really strange that acceptance of reality has become an issue of political (...or should I say ideological...) matter in the USA.

(Though maybe, as I parenthetically implied, I shouldn't be all that surprised.)

America is the most religious Western nation, and is also the world leader in science.

The latter part was more true under Clinton than under Bush Jr....

List for me the explicitly atheist governments in history.

Albania under Enver Hoxha.

What statistics are you going to do with a sample of one? Especially when that one data point was communist... and, for a communist country, not terribly murderous, AFAIK, certainly less than your average crusade (hey, you started counting victims).

'The Black Book of Communism' counts 100 million people dead from Communism in the 20th century.

(Not that it matters, but I wonder if you've actually read it. It doesn't say "100 million". It says "between 80 and 120 million", and provides evidence that makes the higher end of that range look more plausible.)

Name the atheists at Tours, Vienna, and Lepanto.

<yawn>

And you really think atheists wouldn't have defended themselves against a military attack?

If it had not been for the Christian willingness to take up arms and defend Christendom, we'd be having this conversation now in Arabic.

And? Why should I, an Austrian living in Paris, be having this conversation in English? Why should I care? (Sure, English is easier than Klingon for a German speaker, but so is Arabic, most of the time.)

Anyway, Rey Fox (# 131) has said it best.

Atheists are parasitic on Christian culture. Europe is gradually losing its Christian foundations, and it's dying, demographically and culturally. Largely because of atheism, Europe will, in a century or so, be largely Muslim, with little pockets of Balkanized Christians still willing to fight for the faith. We'll have you scum to thank for it.

It's always the same thing: ignorance produces fear, and fear produces conservativism.

Dude, France has managed to increase its birth rate to 2.1 children per woman. How? By means of rampant socialism.

And whenever I see an ad in Turkish hanging around in Vienna, it depicts a scantily-clad girl and advertizes a party in a disco... man, are you misundreshtmatin the attraction of Western civilization. Here in Paris I've lately seen ads for a pop/rock/hiphop/whatever band called Beni Snassen...

Although the context is different, let me conclude withwhat could, and perhaps should, have become a Bible verse. (Please follow the link, together with the commentary it's too long to post here.)

Why do you think that I'm an Islamophobe?

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

Do you believe that the rise of Islam in Europe is a good thing?

Never been anywhere in Europe, eh?

FWIW, Christianity is an amalgam of Hellenistic philosophy and Hebraic monotheism.

Indeed, the Epistles of Paul can only be understood if one knows Epicureanism. Paul argues against Epicureanism throughout -- on Epicureanism's terms, accepting many of its doctrines. Of all ideologies of the time, only the Christians and the Epicureans were named for their founders... Never mind Thomas Aquinas, who had the unfortunate side effect that arguing against Aristotle became tantamount to arguing against the Church. Let me just repeat:

Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.

-- Averroes, Doubts Concerning Ptolemy (1028)

The man is describing science. In one thousand twenty-eight. Doesn't that make you weep?

Posted by: thalarctos | December 17, 2007 8:55 PM

and yet somehow, *we're* the scum, CV--go figure...

Posted by: Azkyroth | December 17, 2007 9:05 PM

There's the folks who swear up and down that we can have objective moral standards as atheists, something I have never seen even close to justified.

What definition of "objective" are you using that Universal Utilitarianism fails to satisfy?

Posted by: Colugo | December 17, 2007 9:34 PM

Azkyroth: "I would appreciate you engaging it, if you're going to reject my conclusion."

In fact, I do not reject your conclusion. I'm extending the logic. By a definition of religion based on its social and behavioral aspects rather than cosmology (including undetectable realms and beings), religion and theism are independent concepts - ones which only happen to intersect in particular cases, but need not.

The concept of an "archetypal religion" is interesting. Is it generic totalitarian? Does the idealized "pure type" (like Owen's vertebrate archetype) even include the issue of the existence (or nonexistence) of deity, the soul, other noncorporeal beings or afterlife? Clearly not. The same is true of the less extreme (less archetypal) cases, whether theistic, esoteric, or nontheist, from Methodism to secular humanism. All are "religions" by this definition.

(Even Buddhism can approach the archetype. Consider WWII-era Shinto or Sarin gas terrorists Aum Shinrikyo.)

The particular terms used matter less than the consistency and application of their application.

Communism is interesting as a "political religion" not only because it was atheistic but also because it repeatedly claimed over its history to be "scientific." It held great appeal for professional intellectuals, unlike, say evangelical Protestantism today. Of course, while there is no doubt that Communism was atheistic, its claim to be scientific was always contested. Which raises an intriguing possibility: is science itself - or at least belief systems claiming to not just be atheistic, but scientific as well - fertile ground for the generation of new religions, even totalizing and fanatical religions?

The answer to that can only be yes.

Posted by: Azkyroth | December 17, 2007 9:55 PM

Easy: if human life has inherent value

Suggested correction: "I recognize my life as inherently valuable in the same sense that I recognize the evidence of my senses as corresponding roughly to a real world. I recognize also that other humans are "like me" and therefore it follows that their lives are valuable as well." The objectivity denialists love splitting hairs on this sort of thing.

Posted by: keyote | December 17, 2007 11:31 PM

As a good place to start...

can we stop calling it "faith"

and start calling it "superstition?"

Posted by: windy | December 18, 2007 5:08 AM

If it had not been for the Christian willingness to take up arms and defend Christendom, we'd be having this conversation now in Arabic.

And? Why should I, an Austrian living in Paris, be having this conversation in English? Why should I care?

And what's so great about you Indo-European speakers lording it over everybody, anyway? Damn immigrants...

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 18, 2007 7:07 AM

Then there are the people who swear up and down that they can argue for a naturalized ethics and yet never do.

you must not pay much attention to things you don't agree with.

ever check out naturalism.org?

you're tremendously oversimplifying even the arguments that have been raised time and again here on THIS site, let alone the thousands of others where cogent arguments have been presented.

I gotta call BS on that.

it's like you simply decided no cogent arguments have ever been made, and that's simply a ridiculous position to take.

Posted by: Mark | December 18, 2007 11:01 AM

Seems like I stirred things up. Some commentators, like colugo, have made some excellent points. Particularly true is this: if atheism of the Communist variety is a 'religion', then religion (and its many sins) is unlinked to theism. For atheists, it's a self-defeating argument.

Obviously linkage between theistic and atheistic philosophies and the cultures in which they play roles is complex. Many factors are involved. People generally do not kill others either because of differences in opinion about theological issues (transsubstantiation) or metaphysical issues (Stalin didn't kill people because he differed with their views on metaphysical naturalism.)The proximate reasons for killing are generally more mundane.

Yet theism and atheism form an important part of how a civilization behaves. Organizing philosophies about fundamental metaphysical truths (the atheism inherent to Marxism or the Christianity inherent to the Holy Roman Empire) create a cultural milieu, and that has real consequences. We have many examples of civilizations which have been organized along the lines of ideologies that espoused either atheism or theism. If you make a list of various organizing metaphysical views:Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, atheist, a pattern emerges.

Civilizations that are Christian are (generally- not always) among the most humane, democratic, and successful in science. Civilizations that are atheist (Communist) are undeniably the most brutal.

The issues here are complex, but the pattern is clear. One reason that I have so little respect for atheists is that there is in atheism a pervasive unwillingness to look at the real consequences of atheism in power. Hitchens is a good example. He is a former Marxist, and I understand that he still is an admirer of Trotsky. Yet he has the audacity to criticize Christianity for atrocities.

Atheists have plenty of work to do understanding their own enormous contributions to the atrocities of the 20th century. When they do a credible job of introspection, we Christians will pay more attention to their critique of our culture.

Posted by: Stevie_C | December 18, 2007 11:12 AM

I don't have to do any work to understand the atrocities.

They have nothing to do with my belief that there is no gods.

Mark. You're an idiot.

Posted by: JimC | December 18, 2007 11:35 AM

Again just skimming these comments Mark seems to be going out of his way to pin anything on non-belief.

Then there are the people who swear up and down that they can argue for a naturalized ethics and yet never do.

My gosh man your like the ostrich in the sand here. This has been talked about, written about, and discussed ad nauseum. You need more education before you say such
things.

Civilizations that are Christian are (generally- not always) among the most humane, democratic, and successful in science. Civilizations that are atheist (Communist) are undeniably the most brutal.

I can't believe someone just typed that crap. Undeniably? China is more brutal than Iraqor Iran or Afganistan? Japan? Sweden? Puh-leez.

The USA has one of the highest crime rates in the world. The Christian USA purged the land of Indians and had a massive civil war prior to which they freaking enslaved other humans. You seem to think because you have a few dictators who did horrible things who happen to be atheists they are the norm. The simply fact is your wrong.

Not to mention the fact that virtually all Christian societies before being neutered by the enlightenment where extremely brutal and inhumane societies.

One reason that I have so little respect for atheists is that there is in atheism a pervasive unwillingness to look at the real consequences of atheism in power. Hitchens is a good example. He is a former Marxist, and I understand that he still is an admirer of Trotsky. Yet he has the audacity to criticize Christianity for atrocities.

Why shouldn't he? He says people have done things in the name of religion. They have. No one kills for atheism.

Atheists have plenty of work to do understanding their own enormous contributions to the atrocities of the 20th century. When they do a credible job of introspection, we Christians will pay more attention to their critique of our culture.

Speak for yourself fella. I am a Christian and I pay attention to them because more often than not I have found them honest and accurate. Which is more than I can say for my brethren in the churches. It's folks who make your own mundane arguments without really understanding what you are saying.

The simply truth is people do not kill for not believing something, they kill because they do. That includes authoritarian states of all kinds.

And to say they is no discussion of a natural ethics system is just uninformed.

Posted by: JimC | December 18, 2007 11:39 AM

The rise of atheism in Europe since the late 18th century has had a profound impact on European culture and politics. I think that that impact has, on the whole, been bad.

You think incorrectly. Standard of living up, crime down. General happiness up. In any event how would superstition help things if they did go bad?

If European civilization crumbles (and only a fool would look at it now and insist that it faces no challenges), atheism will bear a significant part of the responsiblity. Hence the appelation 'scum'.

Scum huh? You sir do not distinguish yourself here and frankly are embarrassing my religion.

Posted by: spurge | December 18, 2007 11:50 AM

I second Steve_C.

Posted by: Mark | December 18, 2007 12:04 PM

Ken Cope:

Re: I must side just a bit more with Ichthyic in objecting to the notion of atheism as a mobilizing worldview. I'd call it more of a result of a worldview than a principle in itself. As I wrote on that other thread, those of us who have learned to value the utility of science, skepticism, reason, honest self-examination and communication, have issues that find commonality even with those who retain their theism. Those values are clustered around the choices that often lead to atheism, and serve well the choice to live without theism--in that sense atheism is more of a symptom than a positive premise. "

In other words, atheism is immune from criticism, because it's just naturally accompanies science, reason, honesty... What nonsense. You're describing a dogmatic religion- atheism is just the natural soulmate of all that is good.

Atheism has had consequences. You're amusingly selective about them. Which is dishonest.

JimC: re: "Scum huh? You sir do not distinguish yourself here and frankly are embarrassing my religion."

'Your religion'?

Posted by: Stevie_C | December 18, 2007 12:07 PM

Atheists don't have to defend themselves against your bullshit because we're not all communists, dictators, socialists, revolutionaries, fascists or whatever social political movement you want to peg on us.

There has never been a massive politcal movement based on the belief that there is no gods.

Communism does not equal atheism.

That I even have to make the above statement is a sad point on just how big of a douche bag you truly are.

Mark=Douche Bag

Posted by: thalarctos | December 18, 2007 12:21 PM

Seems like I stirred things up.

Monkeys who fling shit usually do.

Posted by: JimC | December 18, 2007 12:30 PM

Human beings do terrible things. Christians included (perhaps it has something to do with Original Sin...)

Thats right use superstition rather than trying to find a real answer.

In power, atheism (as Communism) has been a meat-grinder virtually unprecedented in human history.

Why deny it?

Because atheism is not communism. And honestly through the ages religion is much more of a meat grinder than communism. Atheism is not communism so conflating the two is just absurd.

I'd deny it because it's not true.

atheism is immune from criticism, because it's just naturally accompanies science, reason, honesty... What nonsense. You're describing a dogmatic religion- atheism is just the natural soulmate of all that is good.

No because it is nothing. Atheism is simply not believing something. How hard is that for you to understand? It's not immune from critisism but what would you be critical of- nothing? There is no dogma no creed.

Atheism has had consequences. You're amusingly selective about them. Which is dishonest.

What are they? Seriously? If you don't believe in superstition your become a killer? The sheer numbers of atheists who don't do this refutes that idiotic point of view.

JimC: re: "Scum huh? You sir do not distinguish yourself here and frankly are embarrassing my religion."

'Your religion'?

Yes, mine and many others.

Posted by: Mark | December 18, 2007 12:50 PM

Some folks have taken exception to my use of the word "scum".

So I've reconsidered. From now on, I will refer to the atheists whose ideology, when in power in the past century, killed 100 million people and who have weakened European civilization to the point that it may collapse in a few generations by a new term, less likely to offend delicate atheist sensibilities.

'Naughty'

Posted by: Arden Chatfield | December 18, 2007 12:59 PM

Awww, Mark, won't you tell us scum why evolution is an ''unscientific ideological viewpoint"? :-( Quit repeating yourself over and over and help us out!

I mean, we never knew that atheism led to Islam before you told us!

Posted by: Ken Cope | December 18, 2007 1:03 PM

Jim C: re: "No because it is nothing. Atheism is simply not believing something."

This is a good example of the moral cowardice of atheism.

How is that possible? JimC is not an atheist, thou fucktard! More evidence of Mark's inability to parse simple English.

I don't believe in metaphysical naturalism

That's a ludicrous strawman created by a Berkeley lawyer who wants to displace science education with meaningless and fatuous supernatural explanations. Science is about methodological naturalism. Stop cutting and pasting other people's insults unless you can show you understand what they mean.

I hope you realize that early Christians were thrown to the lions because they rejected the Roman pantheon. They were executed for their atheism.

Posted by: Mark | December 18, 2007 1:17 PM

Steve LaBonne: re: "Actually you do seem like the sort of person who would have been an enthusiastic Nazi."

JimC: "Atheism has killed no one, it is nothing, has no creed or dogma. Repeat till you get it."

Atheists, reverting to type. Shall I pack my clothes for the re-education camp?

Posted by: Steve_C | December 18, 2007 1:27 PM

Re-education?

Try education. You completely failed to learn logic in the first place.

He's probably a YEC too.

Posted by: JimC | December 18, 2007 1:33 PM

Atheists, reverting to type. Shall I pack my clothes for the re-education camp?

As mentioned I'm not an atheist there clueless.

Posted by: Mark | December 18, 2007 1:55 PM

Colugo:

Re: "There is a lack of a nuanced appreciation for sociological, anthropological, and historical processes in these reductive arguments, which come down to scoring points."

True, although strings on blogs don't do nuance well. One must also be careful that nuance isn't used to evade fairly obvious truths.

Re: "Rival atrocity litanies (AKA body count contests)..."

I've repeated the facts of Communism's bloodletting not to prove that 'you killed more than us', but to point out the yawning gulf between atheist history and rhetoric. A frank discussion that both theism and atheism have played major roles in cultures in which atrocities have been perpetrated would be a real victory for honesty.

Atheists seem to have no interest in owning up to their own quite real history. Christians haven't done enough of their own soul-searching, but there is a massive literature by Christians about Christian participation in evil. No analogous literature exists by atheists for atheism.

That's what I mean by moral cowardice.

Posted by: Arden Chatfield | December 18, 2007 2:15 PM

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Note how Mark's silently abandoned his three original arguments about how all atrocities are committed by atheists, evolution is pseudoscience, and atheists are to blame for letting the 'green peril' take over Europe next week.

Now all we're getting is "YOU ATHEIST SCUM AREN'T SORRY ENOUGH FOR KILLING EVERYONE! YOU ATHEIST SCUM AREN'T SORRY ENOUGH FOR KILLING EVERYONE! YOU ATHEIST SCUM AREN'T SORRY ENOUGH FOR KILLING EVERYONE! YOU ATHEIST SCUM AREN'T SORRY ENOUGH FOR KILLING EVERYONE!"

Mark's moral courage is dazzling.

Posted by: RamblinDude | December 18, 2007 2:23 PM

"No analogous literature exists by atheists for atheism."

I'm not an expert in whatever field that would fall under, but it sounds absurd to me. Are you suggesting that atheists refuse to consider the consequences of disbelief? Atheist scholars never study the psychology, the social implications, group dynamics, etc.?

In any case, should research be done into ALL the things that Stalin didn't believe, and the ramifications of his many disbeliefs?

Do disbelievers in astrology study patterns of violence done by their fellow disbelievers on the assumption that they are violent because of their disbelief?

You keep trying to turn atheism into a prescriptive dogma. It isn't.

Posted by: negentropyeater | December 18, 2007 2:39 PM

Since the dawn of times the rich and powerful have recognized how useful carefully crafted myths could be. For those myths to be efficient they had to be strongly believed and particularly sticky. The less educated the masses, the better. Then they could be used to mobilize the masses to wage wars, or exploit them for further enrichment of the elite.
Now, those myths may or may not have included God(s) or other mythological figures. For example, the most recent one, the so called "9/11 myth", cannot be categorized as an "atheist" or "Christian myth", but the last 7 years of history show how efficient and deadly those can be.

So, when one dicusses the root causes of atrocities of the past, it is quite obvious that accusing the myths is quite ludicrous.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 18, 2007 2:42 PM

The only worthwhile issue here is whether or not atheists are right. Even if Mark could, you know, think, make arguments, understand the differences between Nietzsche and Stalin, and convince anybody that atheists are murdering scum, atheists would (in most minds, at least) be sanctioned in that role simply by being honest about god while Mark is lying about god.

It's sort of like the noxious BS spewed by the DI about evolution and eugenics. Even if there were a solid link between the two (there are cultural and social links, but a science link will not congeal), that would only be an argument that eugenics is worth considering, since MET is science while ID is a sad little replay of pre-science mythologies (coupled with anti-science "philosophy"). Now it does matter that the IDiots are wrong about that as well, but they didn't in the slightest make even a false argument against evolution thereby, but merely claimed a consequent that doesn't in fact follow.

Atheism may not be the preferred outcome of honest searching, after all (it wasn't really my preference). Nietzsche certainly found it to pose rather large problems, if also a mind-blowing freedom. However, Mark cannot come up with any legitimate case for God, so he has to pull the usual immoral tactic of smearing the opposition. As such, he's already forfeited the high ground.

Wrestle the pig if you must. But he's never going to do anything other than to try to smear mud and his excrement onto you, for he is devoid of any argumentation that is worth anyone's while.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: JimC | December 18, 2007 2:49 PM

Man, this guy is rich!

How did life first arise on earth, Steve? How did the genetic code arise? What gave rise to the Big Bang? How do you explain the laws of nature- where did they come from? How is it that you have subjective experiences? What is it in matter (an objective phenomenon) that gives rise to subjectivity?

Why is there something, rather than nothing?

Well one could fairly say 'I don't know'about some of them but we have evidence that will one day lead to an answer and many scientists are working on this as we speak. Or we could be dishonest and pretend to know something and profess certainty about it.

Which do you choose?

Oh and by asking these questions you are I'm supposing setting up a false dicotomy as in 'You don't know what caused the big bang? Well then G-O-D.'

Which of course is infinite regress. What caused him/it? Yawn.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 18, 2007 2:52 PM

Oh and by asking these questions you are I'm supposing setting up a false dicotomy as in 'You don't know what caused the big bang? Well then G-O-D.'

No, not G-O-D, you silly man! The correct answer is I-S-I-S. Or is it C-O-Y-O-T-E?

Posted by: Steve_C | December 18, 2007 3:11 PM

I don't know. Neither do you. I support the Not-God Theory though.

Posted by: Colugo | December 18, 2007 3:12 PM

Mark - Once again, do you blame Christianity and/or theism in general for atrocities perpetrated by Christians?

negentropyeater: "the most recent one, the so called "9/11 myth", cannot be categorized as an "atheist" or "Christian myth""

Please explain.

Glen Davidson: "Even if there were a solid link between the two (there are cultural and social links, but a science link will not congeal)"

I disagree, since eugenic reasoning was developed, and eugenic policies promoted, by mainstream scientists. Charles Davenport was one of the founders of American genetics, while Pearson was one of the founders of biometrics. Eugenics was an ideologically informed applied pseudoscience that became an even more virulent social movement and associated governmental policies. See Jonathan Marks - a molecular anthropologist, not an IDist - on the history of the eugenics movement. West's narrative (namely, that eugenics are an inevitable implication of Darwinism) is wrong, but so is the historical narrative that seeks to exculpate the science - and more to the point, the scientists - of the late 19th C-early 20th C.

"that would only be an argument that eugenics is worth considering, since MET is science while ID is a sad little replay of pre-science mythologies"

No, the "scientific" nature of eugenics would not be an argument for eugenics being worth considering. Eugenics was not just a theory (actually the theory of the dysgenic effect of civilization), but a prescriptive program. In addition, scientists are often wrong. Consider phrenology, somatyping, organ slippage, hysteria, psychosomatic migraines, and innumerable other examples of "scientific" biomedical errors.

Azkyroth: "Communists ... who, aside from lacking belief in a "god", have much more in common than with us."

Yes, totalitarian theists have more in common with totalitarian atheists than either have in common with liberal democrats - theist or atheist. But that is not the same as the incorrect proposition that communists are more like theists in general than they are like liberal democratic atheists.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 18, 2007 3:29 PM

Glen Davidson: "Even if there were a solid link between the two (there are cultural and social links, but a science link will not congeal)"

I disagree, since eugenic reasoning was developed, and eugenic policies promoted, by mainstream scientists. Charles Davenport was one of the founders of American genetics, while Pearson was one of the founders of biometrics. Eugenics was an ideologically informed applied pseudoscience that became an even more virulent social movement and associated governmental policies. See Jonathan Marks - a molecular anthropologist, not an IDist - on the history of the eugenics movement. West's narrative (namely, that eugenics are an inevitable implication of Darwinism) is wrong, but so is the historical narrative that seeks to exculpate the science - and more to the point, the scientists - of the late 19th C-early 20th C.

In other words, you agree with what I wrote, that there are cultural and social links, but the "scientific link" (which, if you learn to read properly, refers to scientific evidence, not pseudoscientific claptrap) does not congeal.

Your equivocation over what I meant by "science" doesn't wash, either. Even you call it "pseudoscience", which is not what I meant when I wrote of "science." Is that really so hard for you to understand? See, if you had any sense you'd know that I was primarily writing about MET, which can hardly be linked to eugenics, for it didn't exist as such then. The DI is attacking MET, not "Darwinism," no matter how often you and they equivocate in your terms.

You just fault me for your own mindless strawman. Why the hell do we have so many trolls?

"that would only be an argument that eugenics is worth considering, since MET is science while ID is a sad little replay of pre-science mythologies"

No, the "scientific" nature of eugenics would not be an argument for eugenics being worth considering. Eugenics was not just a theory (actually the theory of the dysgenic effect of civilization), but a prescriptive program. In addition, scientists are often wrong. Consider phrenology, somatyping, organ slippage, hysteria, psychosomatic migraines, and innumerable other examples of "scientific" biomedical errors.

Blah blah blah, can you actually speak to anything I wrote, or is it always going to be your idiotic strawmen that you attack?

You didn't begin to answer a damn thing I wrote, you're just droning on about a bunch of stuff that I already factored in. My god, eugenics isn't a theory? Of course it isn't, dolt, that's what I said. I said that it was neither science, nor was the Di actually making a case that evolution as science led to eugenics. Plus, it's your fantasy that I ever suggested that mainstream scientists were not involved--I just don't credit pseudoscience as being science no matter the source.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: JimC | December 18, 2007 3:33 PM

Hong Xiuguan was a Christian heretic; his views were at odds in very important ways with genuine Christianity. As such, Christianity bears some responsibility for his actions, and he bears some responsibility for the deaths.

One true scotsman. A Christian 'heretic'? You mean someone who disagrees with the current leaders? Genuine Christianity? What exactly is that?

If your point is that atheism has killed people on a scale like that of lunatic Christian heretics, you'll get no argument from me.

In my view you have exposed yourself as dishonest with this comment and the coward you claim others are above.

1. Atheism is not responsibly for Pol Pot and others. It has no creed and no dogma to adhere to.

2. Lunatic Christian heretics? You mean Christians. They where no more heretical than Martin Luther or the Pope.

Posted by: Colugo | December 18, 2007 3:43 PM

Mark's category of "lunatic Christian heretics" is similar to arguments that Communists were not really ideologically informed by their concept of atheism, or that they were more like Christians than like atheists.

Is God-belief or its negation really the issue? I don't think so.

Posted by: Colugo | December 18, 2007 3:48 PM

Glen D, I think we're using two different concepts of science: 1) "science" as a pristine algorithm employing valid data and analytical techniques, 2) "science" as a specialized type of human social activity and its products.

Posted by: Rey Fox | December 18, 2007 4:03 PM

Don't bother getting upset over "moral cowardice". Moral bravery to Mark is tribal thinking and punishing yourself for the sins of the fathers (not that the people in question are our fathers by any stretch of the imagination, but just try telling Mark that). I got better things to do with my morals.

Posted by: JimC | December 18, 2007 4:14 PM

By Christianity I mean the human application of Christianity.

Is there any other kind?

As a Christian, of course, I believe that Divine inspiration is wholly good.

So do Muslims and others.

We Christians don't always understand inspiration correctly, and sometimes we do understand it and disobey it. We're a work in progress.

Or B. It varies from one person to the next because it was never meant to be a coherent whole. Your argument is essentially that your version of God is not a good communicator and hence his message is poorly received.

Cultures are influenced by many things, and the metaphysical views of people and leadership are obviously an important part of that influence. Civilizations exist in a milieu, and atheists are astonishingly reluctant to take responsiblity for their contribution to the milieu.

Reluctant? Heck they embrace their flaws. You just haven't justified your argument in any sense and as such are passing judgement where there is none to pass.

Except for the good stuff. That's what I mean by moral cowards. It's on exhibit here, in spades.

I am a Christian and I don't agree with your argument.

Posted by: Mark | December 18, 2007 4:24 PM

JimC:

Re:Atheists taking responsiblity for negative influences of atheism: "Reluctant? Heck they embrace their flaws."

Name the books or papers written by atheists that specifically examine the negative influences of atheism in history.

Posted by: JimC | December 18, 2007 4:28 PM

Mark-

You just don't get it. You can't write a book about how non- belief caused one to do something, it's like saying since I'm not an astologer I can't add.

Can you possibly fit your mind around the fact that no books have been written because it isn't a possible negative influence?

Atheists embrace their flaws on a personal level. They don't seek to find solace in the invisible. It actually is pretty honorable once you take the time to understand their point of view. Something you obviously have not done.

Like I said I find them very honest, educated, and straight shooters.

Posted by: Azkyroth | December 18, 2007 4:43 PM

Try making points that advance your cause.

What part of "the Communist regimes, aside from an incidental advocacy of a lack of belief in a god, have no other philosophical relationship to Secular Humanist Freethought" was unclear, you sniveling little weasel?

And I believe your original claim (the one I was engaging with the death toll examples, anyway) was that

every explicitly atheist government in human history has been homicidal, and homicidal on a scale never before seen in human history

which I have already disproven (only two have surpassed the worst of Christian atrocities, unless you count the dead in wars between Christian nations, which I'm fairly certain you would if they were wars between atheist nations - if WWI and WWII are counted then Christians still "win"). You also asserted incorrectly that the French Reign of Terror was inspired and carried out by adherents of atheism, which I also showed to be false. You additionally assert that the rejection of god-belief itself is somehow responsible for their atrocities, and yet you have not provided

One.

Single.

Shred.

of evidence to back up that assertion. You have not even provided a plausible explanation of why such might be the case. Who do you think you're fooling?

Posted by: Azkyroth | December 18, 2007 4:53 PM

Name the books or papers written by atheists that specifically examine the negative influences of atheism in history.

What evidence WOULD you accept as proof that the atrocities of Communist regimes were due to the totalitarian component of Communism as practiced rather than to the atheistic component of Communist theory?

As for papers, here is an essay explaining why "atheism" in general, and "atheists" as they exist here, have no "negative influence" of the sort you describe to answer for. I suggest, hopelessly I fear, that you read it before dismissing its arguments.

(Would any atheists here who do NOT condemn the atrocities committed by totalitarian governments, Communist and otherwise, please step forward?)

Posted by: Mark | December 18, 2007 5:47 PM

Azkyroth,

Thanks for the link. The essay isn't introspective, it's apolgetic. I don't agree with the author's conclusions that atheism as a worldview bears no responsibility for Communism. Of course it bears some responsibility. The only honest question is: how much.

There is a massive Christian literature on moral theology, much of it examining, in very painful detail, the moral failings of individual Christians and Christianity. No such introspection or literature exists within atheism.

In fact, the Reformation was largely the working out of a searching and relentless self-esamination within Christendom. Atheism admits no sins of atheism itself, and that precludes any sort of atonement for the astonishing atrocities committed by atheist individuals and atheist governments.

Posted by: Azkyroth | December 18, 2007 6:17 PM

I don't agree with the author's conclusions that atheism as a worldview bears no responsibility for Communism. Of course it bears some responsibility.

I am aware that you believe that. However, you have yet to cite a single piece of evidence in support of it. So far as I can tell, your position here is as insane as claiming that the United States of America bears responsibility for the atrocities of the French Revolution on the basis that both originated in defying a monarch. Feel free to convince me otherwise whenever you get around to it.

Posted by: Arden Chatfield | December 18, 2007 6:28 PM

This seems to be what Mark's argument has boiled down to, repeated as nauseum:

"YOU ATHEISTS DON'T APOLOGIZE ENOUGH TO MAKE ME HAPPY!"

In his moral courage, he's ignoring everything said to him.

BTW, is it just me, or does Mark sound a lot like the old troll Ghost of Paley?

Posted by: Mark | December 18, 2007 6:58 PM

Arden,

Re: "Well, if Mark is defending the Inquisition, that's a hint that he's Catholic. It's also a hint as to what kind of government he would consider ideal."

I am a Catholic. I'm not defending the Spanish Inquisition, in the sense that I advocate its policies today. Neither does the Church.

What I am saying is two things:

First, the Inquisition was a very complex matter, and many of the individuals investigated and punished by the Inquisition were not merely heretics, but 'secular' miscreants of various sorts, and many of the executions were of people who were considered enemies of the Spanish Throne. Politics throughout the world back then (and in many places now) was a play-for-keeps business, and the Spanish monarchy used the Inquisition to maintain political stability. I don't advocate this, but it had effects. One effect is that the civil disorder that tore Europe apart and killed millions oddly skipped Spain.

One wonders what would the 20th Century would have been like if Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, etc. had been dealt with more decisively early in their careers. Certainly no one thinks that permitting them to wreak societal chaos was beneficial to mankind. The Spanish civilization in which the Inquisition took place was one of the least bloody of its time. Perhaps there's a connection between the Inquisition and Spain's relative lack of wholesale slaughter.

Second, as a matter of scale, the Spanish Inquisition pales in comparison with the atrocities of Communism. A reasonable estimate of the number of people put to death by the Inquisition is 3000 people in 300 years. Stalin killed 3000 people each day.

Atheism wins again.

Posted by: Arden Chatfield | December 18, 2007 7:07 PM

True, by crushing their dissidents at home, Spain was better able to concentrate on killing Indians in the New World. That's much better than a messy religious religious war in those icky Protestant countries. So all in all, the Inquisition was a nice, healthy thing. In the long run, Spain benefited by it. Christianity wins again!

I won't bother with your infantile comments about atheism = Stalinism, since you've signalled your intent to ignore any rebuttal anyone says to that.

So, now able to defend your earlier asinine comments about evolution, tho? I think "atheists have advanced their unscientific ideological viewpoints by hijacking genuine science" was what you said. What exactly is 'unscientific'?

PS: Are you 'Ghost of Paley'? Just wondering.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 18, 2007 7:21 PM

Mark, was my long reply that is now comment 180 already up when you posted what is now comment 196?

(Apparently not, because you haven't replied to it.)

(the atheism inherent to Marxism or the Christianity inherent to the Holy Roman Empire)

Wrong comparison. The right comparison to the atheism inherent in Marxism would be the theism inherent to Christianity.

If you make a list of various organizing metaphysical views:Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, atheist, a pattern emerges.

That list has to be either "theism, atheism" or "Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, fascist, communist".

Civilizations that are Christian are (generally- not always) among the most humane, democratic, and successful in science.

Civilizations that are secular and lack a driving ideology are always the most humane, democratic, and successful in science.

Now, what do you mean by "civilizations that are Christian"? Do civilizations count where the majority of people are secular Christians and the country as a whole (constitution and so on) is secular? Do only theocracies count? Or what?

a pervasive unwillingness to look at the real consequences of atheism in power.

I'll repeat yet once again: you are looking at the consequences of ideology in power, not of atheism in power, nor (in the other cases) of theism in power. We are looking at what happens when people believe there's something that's worth killing for. Simple.

The rise of atheism in Europe since the late 18th century has had a profound impact on European culture and politics. I think that that impact has, on the whole, been bad.

What about the Enlightenment?

If European civilization crumbles (and only a fool would look at it now and insist that it faces no challenges)

Only an ignoramus would be afraid of any such thing having any chance to happen.

In power, ideologies that deny the existence of God are astonishingly brutal.

See? That's why I'm against ideologies.

I hope you realize that early Christians were thrown to the lions because they rejected the Roman pantheon. They were executed for their atheism.

Untrue. They were executed for refusing to worship one god -- the emperor.

I've repeated the facts of Communism's bloodletting not to prove that 'you killed more than us', but to point out the yawning gulf between atheist history and rhetoric.

You are accusing all atheists of being communists.

What next? Will you accuse all theists of being Taliban? That would be the logical equivalent.

My turn:

How did life first arise on earth, Steve?

Well, slowly. We haven't figured out terribly much yet, but, for example, chemically simpler nucleic acids than RNA are known. You might want to start here -- note that I said "start".

How did the genetic code arise?

What do you mean, the question of why the universal code is exactly what it is? A good case has been made that natural selection is to blame: the universal code is among those possible codes in which any nucleotide substitution has the least chance of leading to an amino acid substitution.

Massimo Di Giulio (2004): The coevolution theory of the origin of the genetic code, Physics of Life Reviews 1, 128 -- 137

Abstract:

"A review of the coevolution theory of the origin of the genetic code is presented. This theory maintains that the origin of the code should be sought in the biosynthetic relationships between amino acids. In particular, some amino acids, the precursors, occupied the structure of the genetic code early on. As the product amino acids developed from these precursors, part or all of the codon domain of the precursor amino acid was ceded to the product amino acids, which resulted in the structuring of the genetic code. This paper therefore reviews the evidence in favour of this theory. The existence of some molecular fossils representing the biosynthetic pathways on which the coevolution theory suggests biosynthetic transformations took place (precursor amino acid → product amino acid) seems to be a strong corroboration of this theory. A generalisation imposed by this theory on the ancestral metabolic state is then discussed and, finally, the main prospects that seem to stem from the coevolution theory are presented."

What gave rise to the Big Bang?

Probably a quantum fluctuation or a black hole.

How do you explain the laws of nature- where did they come from?

Why shouldn't there be any?

How is it that you have subjective experiences? What is it in matter (an objective phenomenon) that gives rise to subjectivity?

This is probably a wrong question (like "why did Napoleon cross the Mississippi"). If anyone else were wired into my nervous system, they'd probably have the exact same subjective experiences as I. But because this is not testable, science ignores it.

Why is there something, rather than nothing?

Why is there God rather than nothing...? Have you really never thought about that?

Hong Xiuguan was a Christian heretic; his views were at odds in very important ways with genuine Christianity.

Well, he certainly wasn't a genuine Scotsman.

Posted by: RamblinDude | December 18, 2007 7:33 PM

Stalin succeeded in wielding power because he was cleverer than his opponents. Smart people need to admit that being intelligent leads to atrocities, apologize for Stalin's behavior, and express remorse for his actions.

He also didn't believe in the tooth fairy. Atoothfairyists should admit that there is a problem with their belief system.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 18, 2007 7:38 PM

I wrote:

Well, he certainly wasn't a genuine Scotsman.

Congratulations, Mark! I fell into your trap! It doesn't matter if Hong was a genuine Christian or not. What matters, in your logic, is that he was a genuine theist.

Posted by: RamblinDude | December 18, 2007 7:52 PM

I'm still waiting on a reply.

Atoothfairyism leads to criminal behavior that is FAR in excess of those who believe in the Tooth Fairy. Prove me wrong!

You are moral cowards for not addressing this issue.

Posted by: negentropyeater | December 18, 2007 7:57 PM

I'll defend Mark a bit :
I disagree with many of his arguments, but there is an underlying theme , which I would say is the following :

-is there sufficient evidence to assert that a world rid of religion would be a better place ?

I think it is essential that Atheists be capable of answering this simple question.

My personal view is that an Aheist world can, one day become a better place, but only when the world is ready for it.
- Is the world ready for it ? I don't think so, and I think it is obvious to any person with a pragmatic view.
- How does it become a gradually more (and not less like in the last 10 years) Atheistic world and possibly a better place ?
- Well, for sure, not with a direct confrontation with religion.
- Why ? Because if it is, as I suspect, the truth of the way things really are, it's victory should come through a natural process : as generations become more and more educated and liberated from the old untenable dogmatic myths, they will naturally evolve to Atheism. On the contrary, some of the more fanatical religious folks could become more and more aggressive, first by remobilizing their troops, which they are already doing, but then get to further escalating steps, and the results could become ultimately, bloody.
The New Atheist movement has been very succesful at "rallying its troops" (for now in a metaphorical way), mainly in the USA. It is little known in Europe, where it was less necessary. But the question is, what needs to be done now ? Will this strategy bring its fruits peacefully, or, on the contrary lead to more and more tension and ultimately, violence.

The question is not only, about the truth, but about how we tell the truth.

Posted by: negentropyeater | December 18, 2007 8:18 PM

In other words, it is I think ,an illusion that uneducated people can move towards Aheism. And because the world still has, at least 80% of undecutated people (and at least 50% in the so called developped countries), how does one expect to really change things ? Education is the key, atheism will follow naturally.

Posted by: negentropyeater | December 18, 2007 8:36 PM

If Atheism is about proving, to the rest of the world, what the truth is, I shall have nothing to do with it.
If Atheism is about explaining, to the rest of the world, that only human reason, through science and the humanities can ultimately lead to the truth, than I think it is a worhty cause.

Ibn Al Haytham said the right thing, about 1000 years ago :
"Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency."[

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 18, 2007 8:41 PM

If Atheism is about proving, to the rest of the world, what the truth is, I shall have nothing to do with it.
If Atheism is about explaining, to the rest of the world, that only human reason, through science and the humanities can ultimately lead to the truth, than I think it is a worhty cause.

what if also can be neither AND both of those.

atheism is just the lack of theism.

the rest is whatever direction one decides to take from there:

naturalism, rationalism, humanism, etc.

but then, we've certainly had this debate before. IIRC, the thread where PZ decided to ask for a slogan and artwork for "atheism" lead to a 2K plus post thread discussing the fact that atheism isn't really a dogma of any kind.

Posted by: Mark | December 18, 2007 10:28 PM

Colugo,

Re: "Full blown rationalizing of the Inquisition. This is where knee-jerk apologetics gets you. You were already insufferable in your broken-record bleating against atheism; now your rhetoric has become downright sinister. I hereby give up my attempt to have a dialog with you; you're not worth the effort."

I'm not rationalizing anything. I'm merely recounting facts and rather widely held historical inferences. Facts are stubborn. The Thirty Years' War reduced the population of Germany by 1/3- about 10 million people perished. They perished for a variety of reasons, political and religious-sectarian. There were parts of Europe in which the bloodshed didn't happen, such as Spain. Spain had an ongoing Inquistition, which killed a (comparitively) small number of people, many of whom threatened the Monarchy. The number of people killed in the entire three centuries of the Spanish Inquisition was about the same as the number that Stalin (and Mao and Pol Pot) killed each day. I'm not rationalizing the Inquisition, I'm pointing out that the scale of the Inquisition is orders of magnitude smaller than the scale of cold-blooded murder carried out by atheist butchers. I'm also pointing out that the Inquisition occurred in continent ripped to shreds by civil disorder. This is not rationalization. It's fact.

Your 'dialogue' depends on moral posturing. Denial of substantial atheist responsibility for atrocities that kill a hundred million people gets gentle treatment- you dice definitions and spin philosophical subtleties. My factual observation that Spain during the 16th century Inquisition was one of the safer places to be in Europe is treated as a thought-crime.

I'm not advocating any inquisitions today. I have great respect for our Constitution, and in my work I spend quite a bit of time defending people from a particular contemporary brand of inquisition. What I am arguing is that there is a double standard regarding the judgement of atrocities associated with metaphysical ideologies. The wholesale slaughter of a hundred million people by avowed militant atheists is explained away feverishly. A comparatively small theist atrocity that may have in fact averted bloodshed on a much wider scale cannot even be described factually in a way that mitigates it, without accusations of 'thought-crime'.

Posted by: Ken Cope | December 18, 2007 10:46 PM

I too, have had enough of this stupid, repetitive, boring, insipid troll.

Posted by: thalarctos | December 18, 2007 11:20 PM

Mark's tasteless whoring of the events of September 11 serves to undercut his whole point once again, as those fanatics he lists were religious, not atheists.

Much like the whole demonstrating his Christian love by calling others "scum", though, I doubt he's got the acuity to recognize this other particular little irony either.

Posted by: Steve_C | December 18, 2007 11:42 PM

Can we now ignore Mark the dipshit?

Posted by: thalarctos | December 18, 2007 11:48 PM

♪ And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love / Yes, they'll kno-oow we are Christians by our love ♫

Posted by: Mark | December 19, 2007 12:07 AM

Azkyroth,

Here's the link:

http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html

Atheism: The State Religion

"One can hardly exaggerate the moral disaster of [religion]. We have to thank the Soviet Union for the courage to stop it."
--W.E.B. Du Bois

"The more representatives from the reactionary clergy and the recalcitrant bourgeoisie we shoot," Lenin wrote in March of 1922, "the better it will be for us. We must teach these people a lesson as quickly as possible, so that the thought of protesting again doesn't occur to them for decades to come." When Lenin and his progeny were unable to teach the clergy a lesson, they simply murdered them. In 1922 alone, more than 8,000 priests, monks, and nuns were executed in the Soviet Union. Nearly a decade after the Revolution, however, 20,000 churches and mosques were still in operation. By 1941, that number shrank to less than 1,000. "In October of 1929 the seizure of all church bells was ordered because 'the sound of bells disturbs the right of peace of the vast majority of atheists in the towns and countryside,'"

Werth points out.

Elsewhere, Communist leaders followed the anti-religious blueprint of Marx and Lenin. In 1967, Albania declared itself the world's first officially atheist nation and reduced more than 2,000 churches and mosques to rubble or expropriated them for state use. Almost fifty percent of all Catholics were killed in Cambodia, the highest fatality percentage for any demographic group. Moslems saw more than 40% of their co-religionists killed. Mosques and The Koran were burned and Pol Pot's henchmen sadistically forced followers of Islam to eat pork. In Romania, Communist persecution of Christians took on a sinister nature that eclipsed the practices of the Romans. The Romanian Secret Police encouraged prisoners to devise "reeducation" programs. The leader of one such program named "Eugen Turcanu devised especially diabolical measures to force seminarians to renounce their faith," co-author Karel Bartosek reports. "Some had their heads repeatedly plunged into a bucket of urine and fecal matter while the guards intoned a parody of the baptismal rite." Bartosek continues:

Turcanu also forced the seminarians to take part in black masses that he orchestrated himself, particularly during holy week and on Good Friday. Some of the reeducators played the part of choirboys; others masqueraded as priests. Turcanu's liturgy was extremely pornographic, and he rephrased the original in a demonic fashion. The Virgin Mary was called "the Great Whore," and Jesus, "that cunt who died on the cross." One seminarian undergoing reeducation and playing the role of a priest had to undress completely and was then wrapped in a robe stained with excrement. Around his neck was hung a phallus made of bread and soap powdered with DDT. In 1950, on the Saturday before Easter, the students who were undergoing reeducation were forced to pass before the priest, kiss the phallus, and say, "He is risen."

Posted by: RamblinDude | December 19, 2007 12:23 AM

I can see that you are deeply brainwashed, and preoccupied with the things that a good Christian is supposed to be preoccupied with--sin, forgiveness, atonement, morality, divine grace, feeling guilty etc.--but try anyways to get this: We are not atheists because we get something out of the deal or because we've chosen it has a belief system for personal gain, spiritual or otherwise. It's not a system of rewards and punishments. We are not atheists because it's the practical thing to do, or because we are trying to please anyone or anything--invisible or not. We are not atheists because, well, you HAVE to believe SOMETHING! Most of us are atheists because (are you listening?) we simply don't believe in invisible beings. Because we see it as the truth, and the truth is more important to us than whether it is convenient or socially acceptable or practical. It has nothing to do with morality, virtue, rules for living, adherence to any dogma, personal hygiene, our favorite music, etc. etc. In fact, as atheists, we are all over the damn board. Stalin was an atheist supposedly, did ya know? Creepy, huh?

Atheism is not an ideology to aspire to and promote; it is a consequence, not a cause. Rational thought and critical thinking are things to aspire to and promote, and we do and will continue to do so. Even if murderers have been atheists, it doesn't change the fact that science has shown very clearly that we live in a world governed by natural laws--not capricious gods. Even if Stalin was an atheist, it doesn't change the fact that lightning bolts are not thrown by angry deities, sacrificing animals--or people-- has nothing to do with the weather and crops, and believing wholeheartedly in the superstitions of the ancient Hebrews is stupid.

Stalin was a murderous dictator, one of many throughout history who believed, and didn't believe, an endless number of things. He killed enormous numbers of people because he had enormous numbers of people to kill--due to modern technology enabling large populations to survive. He was not a rational, critical thinker, he was a paranoid murderer who was beaten as a child until he was broken. To blame his murderous ways on the lack of belief in your superstition is ludicrous.

Your obsession with atheism is typical of people who have been brainwashed by religion to the point that the very idea of not believing in your particular invisible being terrifies you into imagining that it is the cause of all manner of evils. You don't have insight into human nature; you have dogma, and it's not even your own.

Posted by: Ken Cope | December 19, 2007 1:03 AM

Unistrut,

At the risk of appearing to defend pig-wrestling, the real conversation, some of which appears to be addressed to the brain-dead troll, is actually primarily among the intelligent contributors to this thread. Trolls are part of the slight variation in the scenery we share as we find ourselves inspired by the dungeon-bound to discuss topics and tease out distinctions we might not have otherwise have had the pleasure of learning about from each other. That fatuous, time-wasting turd may think we're talking to him, but he is as mistaken about that as he is about all the rest of his unsupported assertions.

Posted by: RamblinDude | December 19, 2007 1:22 AM

It's not a complete waste of time. Wrangling with true believers is good exercise for us. And, like Ken says, I learn a lot reading the other comments.

And he may not be completely lost. Maybe something we say will sink in and eleven years from now he'll make a connection that he wouldn't have otherwise. Or maybe what we write will help keep other minds from closing off and dying. Or maybe I'm just an idealistic sucker.

In any case, I'm trying to learn how to write and this is good practice for me. : - )

Posted by: Azkyroth | December 19, 2007 1:33 AM

Unistrut:

Robert Ingersoll once observed that "to argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead." This is true. However, while giving medical treatment to a corpse will be of no benefit to the deceased, it does give one an opportunity to develop and maintain the skills and knowledge needed to practice medicine effectively on those who can benefit from it. Additionally, it leaves one in the position of being able to positively say that they did everything they plausibly could for the victim if it comes up, even attempting probably futile lifesaving efforts. The same applies here.

Posted by: Azkyroth | December 19, 2007 1:34 AM

This is irrelevant, and treats Mark's fallacy of affirmation of the consequent as if it were valid. Even if every single action by every single Marxist were motivated by the Marxist's view of atheism, that would tell us nothing of atheists who aren't Marxists, or atheism generally.

This is true, but if he could provide such evidence it would be a major effort towards dragging his argument, no doubt kicking and screaming, a little closer to internal coherence.

Posted by: truth machine | December 19, 2007 1:52 AM

This is true, but if he could provide such evidence it would be a major effort towards dragging his argument, no doubt kicking and screaming, a little closer to internal coherence.

I don't see how. He attempted to provide such evidence in #300 but, even if the evidence is valid, it does nothing for the "internal coherence" of his argument because, as I said, the argument is fallacious. Consider Ramblindude's "[Stalin] also didn't believe in the tooth fairy. Atoothfairyists should admit that there is a problem with their belief system." This argument wouldn't be improved any by providing evidence that Stalin felt that believing in the tooth fairy was so absurd that anyone who did so deserved to be snuffed out, and that this was a major motivation behind his policies. It would still only be a fact about Stalin, not about lacking a belief in tooth fairies, and those of us who don't believe in tooth fairies still would bear no responsibility for Stalin's actions. But asking for such evidence suggests that providing it furthers the argument somehow.

Posted by: truth machine | December 19, 2007 2:05 AM

your article does little to establish that the lack of god-belief was responsible for Soviet atrocities (contempt for and a desire to humiliate and oppress political opponents is not the same thing)

From http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/com/marca.html

The experiment resulted from an agreement between Alexandru Nikolsky, one of the chiefs of Securitate, and Eugen Turcanu, a prisoner who had been arrested because of its role in the fascist Iron Guard in 1940-41. After arriving in prison, Turcanu became the head of a movement called the Organization of Prisoners with Communist Beliefs, or OPCB.

It sounds like Turcanu was an opportunist thug who adopted "Communist Beliefs" to avoid punishment and gain power within the prison system. Odds are that he was a Xtian himself.

Posted by: truth machine | December 19, 2007 2:23 AM

I oddly can find no mention of Eugen Turcanu in any English-language website in Google

I'm not sure what you mean by "English-language website", as the right-wing site you linked to is English language, but Turcanu is mentioned in this Wikipedia article and this one.

Posted by: Azkyroth | December 19, 2007 2:28 AM

...then again I suppose my search for "Turcana" might have had something to do with it. Oops. x.x

Posted by: Mark | December 19, 2007 8:55 AM

RamblinDude:

Re: "Most of us are atheists because (are you listening?) we simply don't believe in invisible beings. Because we see it as the truth"

I used to be an atheist. Ayn Rand turned me from agnosticism to atheism in college, and I was passionate about the same things you are. One of my favorite Christmas gifts, years ago, was a beautiful edition of Origin of Species. I've made the same arguments you're making, and believed the same things that you believe.

I won't go into the details of my becoming a Christian- it's beyond the scope of this thread. The fact is that none of us knows how we got here, where the universe came from, why there is anything, rather than nothing. We don't even know f