Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

Indeed she once made all sorts of conjectures and a big song and dance about me for using a quote from Douay–Rheims Bible.

Actually I'm pretty sure that was Patrica McKay. But we are off topic.

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

Actually I'm pretty sure that was Patrica McKay. But we are off topic.

I stand corrected and apologise to marian if that is true and if she found it in any way hurtful that one might believe something that turns out to be factually incorrect. I'd hope she would think the same of the Israelite soldiers should she be wrong about them raping women.

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

I stand corrected and apologise to marian if that is true and if she found it in any way hurtful that one might believe something that turns out to be factually incorrect. I'd hope she would think the same of the Israelite soldiers should she be wrong about them raping women.

Since they've been dead for over 3000 years, they're probably not that bothered.

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

No I was referencing Mariens reference to catholic use of bibles.
Remember when owning a bible was indicative of being protestant ?

From personal experience, I don't recall any such thing, there was always a Bible in my parents home - I didn't particularly pay it much heed though for a long time.

St. Jerome a Doctor of the Church once wrote that ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of Christ. I think he was bang on too! From a personal viewpoint, I do believe that it's important to read Scripture and to appeal to those who have studied it too and listen, people spend many many years, in particular Priests etc. studying historical context and debating, discussing consensus, they still do.

Catholics hear Scripture both old and new Testament, the Gospels etc. every day at mass, it runs in cycles. Perhaps with the onset of widespread literacy, it became more popular to own your own though Tommy. I think Irish Catholics may have been slightly behind our Protestants brothers and sisters in Christ in this regard. Where there's a will there is a way though..

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

Since they've been dead for over 3000 years, they're probably not that bothered

but the passage of time would not make two wrongs into a right except perhaps to a relativist.
Mind you there might well be some relativists like Zombrex about to tell you ( in spite of their lack of biblical knowledge ) that when people get richer and/or get more education they become more atheistic the quazi-facist "religion is for poor ignorant people " (which to me also seems unsupported by available evidence).

Fanny Cradock

ISAW wrote: »

but the passage of time would not make two wrongs into a right except perhaps to a relativist.
Mind you there might well be some relativists like Zombrex about to tell you ( in spite of their lack of biblical knowledge ) that when people get richer and/or get more education they become more atheistic the quazi-facist "religion is for poor ignorant people " (which to me also seems unsupported by available evidence).

I assume that Zombrex isn't a relativist - at least when it comes to certain things.

Ciaran0

When you assume you make an ass out of U and Me. :P

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

but the passage of time would not make two wrongs into a right except perhaps to a relativist.
Mind you there might well be some relativists like Zombrex about to tell you ( in spite of their lack of biblical knowledge ) that when people get richer and/or get more education they become more atheistic the quazi-facist "religion is for poor ignorant people " (which to me also seems unsupported by available evidence).

ISAW you seem to be having trouble keeping up with the conversation.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

ISAW you seem to be having trouble keeping up with the conversation.

Not really. The general point is, to a moralist, if something is morally wrong ( e.g. rape happened ) then it can still be considered wrong today. To a relativist like Zombrex something like rape or child abuse can be considered in a different light depending on the culture of the day. Butthen his raising of "the Bible condones rape" becomes a self defeating argument if one believes one can interpret morals depending on the times. Christians don't believe that however. A similar argument applies to nihilists like you.

The only think I was adding was to suggest that for example zombrex "pads out" the relativist/ atheist argument with attributing quazi-facist superiority to the atheist position in that atheists are sort of " a cut above the rest" and that whenever a society gets wealthy or more educated there is a tendency to atheism. Apart from being unsupported this is also self defeating because coming from a relativist perspective it is proposing some sort of absolute "natural law" in which education or wealth tend to produce a higher proportion of atheists. I assume the thesis is when everyone gets educated and poverty is eliminated then the atheists will take over the majority? Hasen't happened broadly speaking and whenever atheists ran society with atheism as a central plank they ran it back into the stone age. so much for wealth and education.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Not really. The general point is, to a moralist, if something is morally wrong ( e.g. rape happened ) then it can still be considered wrong today. To a relativist like Zombrex something like rape or child abuse can be considered in a different light depending on the culture of the day. Butthen his raising of "the Bible condones rape" becomes a self defeating argument if one believes one can interpret morals depending on the times. Christians don't believe that however. A similar argument applies to nihilists like you.

You are describing normative moral relativism: A position that neither myself nor Zombrex holds.

After doing some further reading, "rape" is too strong a word for what God condones. But the objectification of women (and on a broader level, the treatment of people in general) condoned by the Israelites in the Bible (and by Jewish extremists in modern Israel) is morally abhorrent if one assumes compassion as a core ingredient of their moral system. Nihilism (and descriptive relativism) don't stop me from saying this, even if such treatment is analysed in the context of history and social customs. Similarly, I think "arranged" marriages in India and Pakistan are morally repulsive, and enable the horrific treatment of women, even though I can understand how economic factors also must be understood in order to get a complete picture.

The only think I was adding was to suggest that for example zombrex "pads out" the relativist/ atheist argument with attributing quazi-facist superiority to the atheist position in that atheists are sort of " a cut above the rest" and that whenever a society gets wealthy or more educated there is a tendency to atheism. Apart from being unsupported this is also self defeating because coming from a relativist perspective it is proposing some sort of absolute "natural law" in which education or wealth tend to produce a higher proportion of atheists. I assume the thesis is when everyone gets educated and poverty is eliminated then the atheists will take over the majority? Hasen't happened broadly speaking and whenever atheists ran society with atheism as a central plank they ran it back into the stone age. so much for wealth and education.

It is not supposing a natural law. It is a speculation on socio-economic trends in western societies.

And as an aside, your assertion that atheism is responsible for atrocities still goes unsupported.

tommy2bad

And as an aside, your assertion that atheism is responsible for atrocities still goes unsupported.

Yeah but it really needs to stop hanging around with oppressive dictatorships to break the association. Come to think of it, so dose Islam and so did Christianity at one time.
ISAW;

(snip) if one believes one can interpret morals depending on the times. Christians don't believe that however. A similar argument applies to nihilists like you.

But then you spend pages trying to re parse the bible to claim it doesn't contain stuff that isn't morally acceptable now

whenever atheists ran society with state-ism as a central plank they ran it back into the stone age.

Fixed that for you!

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

You are describing normative moral relativism: A position that neither myself nor Zombrex holds.

So you speak for him do you?
If Zombrex is not a moral relativist then let him say so himslef.

After doing some further reading, "rape" is too strong a word for what God condones.

So you are speaking for Zombrex on that then are you and saying both ouif you were wrong? Seeing as a relativist or nihilist can never be morally"wrong" by their own definition I use the "logically wrong" = false claim definition of "wrong " here.

But the objectification of women (and on a broader level, the treatment of people in general) condoned by the Israelites in the Bible (and by Jewish extremists in modern Israel) is morally abhorrent if one assumes compassion as a core ingredient of their moral system.

Nove try to move from the particular to some vague general claim. Butthe issue hwere is "God ordered rape" Now above you admit you were wrong about that. Butdoes Zombrex? Or do you speak for him?

And as an aside, your assertion that atheism is responsible for atrocities still goes unsupported.

Oh I think I have posted plenty of support that regimes with atheism as a central pillar of their philosophy did untold damage to societies. Put it this way. You tell me any criterion for Christianity doing harm and we can apply the same to regimes that insisted "there is no god". Can you do that?

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

So you speak for him do you?
If Zombrex is not a moral relativist then let him say so himslef.

You are moving from a particular claim to some vague general claim. The specific form of relativism you described in your last post is normative moral relativism. I do not know if Zombrex describes himself as a relativist, but he certainly does not subscribe to normative moral relativism.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75055873&postcount=151

So you are speaking for Zombrex on that then are you and saying both ouif you were wrong? Seeing as a relativist or nihilist can never be morally"wrong" by their own definition I use the "logically wrong" = false claim definition of "wrong " here.

Nove try to move from the particular to some vague general claim. Butthe issue hwere is "God ordered rape" Now above you admit you were wrong about that. Butdoes Zombrex? Or do you speak for him?

I am not speaking for Zombrex. Yes, I now believe the claim is, at the very least, misleading. Instead, they are exploited under a system of "compelled consent" for captives. Similarly, the women of Jabesh Gilead were "compelled" to consent to marriage.

Oh I think I have posted plenty of support that regimes with atheism as a central pillar of their philosophy did untold damage to societies. Put it this way. You tell me any criterion for Christianity doing harm and we can apply the same to regimes that insisted "there is no god". Can you do that?

You have not shown any support. Atheistic regimes can be the masks worn by totalitarians and fascists, just as theistic regimes can be. I do not disagree with this. I.e. I agree that harm has been done by regimes that insisted "there is no god", just as harm has been done by regimes that insisted "there is a god" (Incidentally, while such regimes might have been atheistic, they certainly weren't morally relativist).

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

You are moving from a particular claim to some vague general claim. The specific form of relativism you described in your last post is normative moral relativism.

Dpo you speak for Zombrex when you say he is not a normative moral relativist or anything else?

I am not speaking for Zombrex.

Good that is thatoine put to bed for you! Butfor Zombrex we will have to wait and see. It might be a long wait

Yes, I now believe the claim is, at the very least, misleading.

I admire your honesty and congratulate you for it. Not that you need any "moral support" from the likes of me Happy New Year in any case.

Instead, they are exploited under a system of "compelled consent" for captives. Similarly, the women of Jabesh Gilead were "compelled" to consent to marriage.

Different argument which I also challenge ( and IU have given my reasons) but the field has been ceded on " God ordered rape" and I thank you for your honesty on that.

You have not shown any support. Atheistic regimes can be the masks worn by totalitarians and fascists, just as theistic regimes can be.

Ah so when regimes said "God does not exiost" is central to their regime and killed all religious leadrs and then started rounding up the believers to kill them, atheism had nothing to do with it?
Funny how the same criterion isnt applied to "religious" leaders isn't it? I mean they weren't doing it for totalism or fascism on no - religion is to blame!

I do not disagree with this. I.e. I agree that harm has been done by regimes that insisted "there is no god", just as harm has been done by regimes that insisted "there is a god" (Incidentally, while such regimes might have been atheistic, they certainly weren't morally relativist).

Much much much more done by the atheistic regimes. Huindreds of millions of dead compared to maybe millions of dead.

In addition what great civilization was built by atheism? What structures management or bui8ldings did they leave us?

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Do you speak for Zombrex when you say he is not a normative moral relativist or anything else?

Good that is thatoine put to bed for you! Butfor Zombrex we will have to wait and see. It might be a long wait

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...&postcount=151

Ah so when regimes said "God does not exiost" is central to their regime and killed all religious leadrs and then started rounding up the believers to kill them, atheism had nothing to do with it?
Funny how the same criterion isnt applied to "religious" leaders isn't it? I mean they weren't doing it for totalism or fascism on no - religion is to blame!

I never said religion is to blame. Religion (distinct from theism) can be an enabler.

Much much much more done by the atheistic regimes. Huindreds of millions of dead compared to maybe millions of dead.

In addition what great civilization was built by atheism? What structures management or bui8ldings did they leave us?

And why are such things due to atheism instead of, say, the economic environment, population densities, advanced weaponries, and global contingencies? Many great civilizations were polytheistic, for example. Would you say their polytheism is responsible for their greatness? And the small handful of atheistic regimes were all adopted by totalitarians and fascists with great capability for destruction.

tommy2bad

What structures management or bui8ldings did they leave us?

Interesting point from the ziggurats to the cathedrals some kind of belief in God or gods seems to exist.
Non belief just gives utilitarian shopping centers and Brutalist architecture.

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

And why are such things due to atheism instead of, say, the economic environment, population densities, advanced weaponries, and global contingencies? Many great civilizations were polytheistic, for example. Would you say their polytheism is responsible for their greatness? And the small handful of atheistic regimes were all adopted by totalitarians and fascists with great capability for destruction.

I think there are humans who are bad examples of humanity, and give in far too much to their own idealism and worldview at the expense of being living examples of the 'community' of humans living on the planet, despite their Christianity, Atheism, Judaism, etc. etc. etc.

There are certainly many examples of bad Christians - I would set this aside to the message of Christianity, which I think (obviously) is a force for goodness, humility and care for fellow man in the world. Most Western nations were built on Christian foundations. Do I think atheists are bad people, certainly not! However, I think it depends on what kind of spin off worldviews get attached as a side dish to any kind of belief. Imo, fundamentalism (even Atheist fundamentalists- which DO exist) at the expense of others is bad for humanity.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...&postcount=151

The page you requested does not exist on the server.

And why are such things due to atheism instead of, say, the economic environment, population densities, advanced weaponries, and global contingencies?

That cop out would not apply to any christian regimes would it?

Many great civilizations were polytheistic, for example.

I note the "theistic" there without "a" before it? i.e. they believed in something.

Would you say their polytheism is responsible for their greatness?

I would say it is only more evidence for theism as opposed to atheism.
Would you say it isn't?

And the small handful of atheistic regimes were all adopted by totalitarians and fascists with great capability for destruction.

Nice try at the cop out. so the small not even a handful of christian regimes who led to the death of people are regarded as tarring Christianity with the "evil regime" brush but the ENTIRE ( it isnt a "small handful" or sample it is every single atheistic regime) atheistic lot are to be excused for hundreds of millions of deaths?

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

The page you requested does not exist on the server.

Fixed

Neither myself nor Zombrex adopt normative moral relativism, yet you keep on insisting we do.

That cop out would not apply to any christian regimes would it?

I note the "theistic" there without "a" before it? i.e. they believed in something.

I would say it is only more evidence for theism as opposed to atheism.
Would you say it isn't?

Nice try at the cop out. so the small not even a handful of christian regimes who led to the death of people are regarded as tarring Christianity with the "evil regime" brush but the ENTIRE ( it isnt a "small handful" or sample it is every single atheistic regime) atheistic lot are to be excused for hundreds of millions of deaths?

So are you admitting that, when you say "Atheism causes atrocities", you are simply making an absurd statement and using it as a rhetorical device to highlight the absurdity of the claim "Christianity causes atrocities". Or do you actually believe atheism was responsible for atrocities?

If it is the latter, then that is a cop out.

Ciaran0

tommy2bad wrote: »

Interesting point from the ziggurats to the cathedrals some kind of belief in God or gods seems to exist.
Non belief just gives utilitarian shopping centers and Brutalist architecture.

How can one claim that utilitarian shopping centers and Brutalist architecture came about as a result of non belief? Is there some record of which architects built which shopping centres and what their personal beliefs were?

Yes many of the greatest feats of architecture and most beautiful designs, as well as many of the greatest works of art and music have been created in honour of God. But they were made by humans. It's terrible to think that we're not capable of amazing art by ourselves. We are.

tommy2bad

Ciaran0 wrote: »

How can one claim that utilitarian shopping centers and Brutalist architecture came about as a result of non belief? Is there some record of which architects built which shopping centres and what their personal beliefs were?

Yes many of the greatest feats of architecture and most beautiful designs, as well as many of the greatest works of art and music have been created in honour of God. But they were made by humans. It's terrible to think that we're not capable of amazing art by ourselves. We are.

I didn't claim that they came out of non belief, I remarked that without the greater ideal of something other than utility things don't amount to much more than what they aim for. I would never claim that God had a hand in work. That would be a little too interventionist for my liking.
You are right tho I should have said that.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Neither myself nor Zombrex adopt normative moral relativism, yet you keep on insisting we do.

You believe you can make up your own conscience for yourselves and no authority outside of yourself informs your conscience. Or that the whole idea of "good" and "evil" is meaningless.

So are you admitting that, when you say "Atheism causes atrocities", you are simply making an absurd statement and using it as a rhetorical device to highlight the absurdity of the claim "Christianity causes atrocities". Or do you actually believe atheism was responsible for atrocities?

Yes to the last question. Regimes with "there is no God" = atheism as a central tenet.

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#Wolak2004
#
# "State atheism is the official promotion of atheism
# by a government, typically by active suppression of
# religious freedom and practice."
...
"An atheist, Pol Pot suppressed Cambodia�s Buddhist religion:
# monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of
# Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing
# other religious sentiments were often killed.
...
# About 1.7 million Cambodians, or about 20 percent of the population,
# were worked, starved, or beaten to death under Pol Pot�s regime."
# - http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579038/pol_pot.html
...
# "Forty-eight percent of Cambodia's Christians were killed
# because of their religion."
...
# "the state established atheism as the only scientific truth."
# - Daniel Peris,
# "Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless"
# Cornell University Press 1998 ISBN 9780801434853
...

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/58c9df7a83bdd7e3/075891ef8abd879d#075891ef8abd879d

I arrived in alt.atheism, observed
that all the arrogant undergrads who thought they had invented
freethinking were violently abusive towards ANY religious poster,
holding them ALL collectively responsible for any act by any one,
or group, no matter how small and unrepresentative..
i.e. not just ALL 1.6 Billion Muslims slagged because of 16
Saudi Al Qaida, but ALL religions.
...
I decided that if they were going to corrupt young minds with this
vile injustice, I would give them the Bloody History of Atheist
Tyrannies, and when they accused me of 'attacking atheists'
because of the actions of a few, explaining, NO, that is what
YOU do, declaring Christians evil fools because of the Crusades,
or the Inquisition, or the Borgia Popes, I hold only those
who COMMITTED those acts responsible, AND (because they always
avoided the truth and attacked the messenger) THOSE COMPLICIT,
(like Neo-Nazi apologists for the holocaust), in being apologists
or deniers of the 60,000,000 killed in atheist regimes.

As for the first. I am just pointing out if you claim it is absurd how come the same can't be applied to Christianity?

Nice try at the reverse!:) But you have it backwards. You are the one on the side claiming religion and Christianity is a negative thing and that atheism is a superiour belief system. I am the one who pointed out that you or your side can't claim some thing about atheism is absurd and then not apply the same reasoning to Christianity!


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/58c9df7a83bdd7e3/075891ef8abd879d#075891ef8abd879d

When a simpleton abused him, Buddha listened to him in silence,
but when the man had finished asked him,
"Son, if a man declined to accept a present offered to him,
to whom would it belong?"
The man answered "To him who offered it."
"My son," Buddha said, "I decline to accept your abuse. Keep it for
yourself.

"Among all my patients in the second half of life, that is, over
thirty-five, there has not been one whose problem in the last
resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life.
It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because
he had lost that which the living religions of every age
have given their followers, and none of them has really
been healed who did not regain his religious outlook."

-Carl G. Jung Modern Man in Search of a Soul

If it is the latter, then that is a cop out.

I'm quite happy to apply the same criteria to Christianity as to atheism. Show me all these Christian "slaughter regimes" and we can compare them to the ones that had "ther is no god" as a principle. Furthermore show me all the atheist regimes who did anything usefull for society at all. Or even the non regimes! Even single small groups of atheists who organised and came together as atheists and did something for society based on their atheism! What Vincent De Paul like organisation did they form? what work did they do for the homeless or poor? What artworks did they make? All I see is groups of militant atheists hell bent on having a go at believers and putting them down!

I have friends who are atheists and who I go out of my way to help. But they don't promote atheism are have it as anything people should subscribe to or society should be run by and they respect and admire priests or believers and don't try to ridicule them. if you are that type of atheist I don't really have a big problem with your philosophy.

Ciaran0

tommy2bad wrote: »

I didn't claim that they came out of non belief, I remarked that without the greater ideal of something other than utility things don't amount to much more than what they aim for.

I know what you mean I suppose but certainly not always true. Look at cars for instance. More and more thought is being put into the look and design of cars these days, simply so that they'll look(and maybe sell) better. I have seen some beautiful looking cars, which certainly didn't have a greater ideal or higher purpose to their design. They're beautiful simply for the sake of being beautiful.

Also I've been in some rather lovely shopping centres too. :P

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

You believe you can make up your own conscience for yourselves and no authority outside of yourself informs your conscience. Or that the whole idea of "good" and "evil" is meaningless.

We don't believe we can make up our own conscience. But regardless, the above is completely different to what you were accusing us of.

Yes to the last question. Regimes with "there is no God" = atheism as a central tenet.

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/58c9df7a83bdd7e3/075891ef8abd879d#075891ef8abd879d

And it is a cop out to suggest that, since atheism was a core tenet, atheism was responsible. Even the smallest investigation into such atrocities reveals that state-sponsored atheism is clearly a symptom (not a cause) of such regimes. Totalitarianism requires complete devotion to the state. Controlling religion, either through a small state church, or the absence of any church at all, keeps the masses subordinate. The state adopts the role of religion. It is this fanaticism, coupled with economic and reform pressures in areas of high-population density, that sparks such atrocities. Look at China today. Do you really believe their human rights abuses were caused by atheism as opposed to, say, a nervous Oligarch that emerged from a country disfigured by war crimes.

Nice try at the reverse!:) But you have it backwards. You are the one on the side claiming religion and Christianity is a negative thing and that atheism is a superiour belief system. I am the one who pointed out that you or your side can't claim some thing about atheism is absurd and then not apply the same reasoning to Christianity!

This is complete and utter nonsense, and has nothing to do with what I said. There are no "sides". I believe atheism is superior insofar as I believe atheism is true and theism is false. It goes without saying that, even if what you say about atheism and atrocities were true, that would simply mean societies need some "supernaturally approved" collective belief in the common good, and would not mean atheism is false.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/58c9df7a83bdd7e3/075891ef8abd879d#075891ef8abd879d

I'm quite happy to apply the same criteria to Christianity as to atheism. Show me all these Christian "slaughter regimes" and we can compare them to the ones that had "ther is no god" as a principle. Furthermore show me all the atheist regimes who did anything usefull for society at all. Or even the non regimes! Even single small groups of atheists who organised and came together as atheists and did something for society based on their atheism! What Vincent De Paul like organisation did they form? what work did they do for the homeless or poor? What artworks did they make? All I see is groups of militant atheists hell bent on having a go at believers and putting them down!

I have friends who are atheists and who I go out of my way to help. But they don't promote atheism are have it as anything people should subscribe to or society should be run by and they respect and admire priests or believers and don't try to ridicule them. if you are that type of atheist I don't really have a big problem with your philosophy.

Leopold II of Belgium slaughtered millions. European settlers slaughtered hundreds of millions of native Americans. The Lord's Army of Africa reguraly commits atrocities. Islam has a long history of atrocities. Japan, under state Shintoism, murdered millions and committed some of the most horrendous and Barbaric war crimes in the history of mankind.

As for atheism inspiring great works. Atheism is as inspiring as jam making. It does not birth civilizations. It is a statement about the existence of God. *shrug*

But even with that said, it certainly doesn't hinder our humanity. The majority of the scientific community are atheists, and it doesn't stop them from researching everything from cancer prevention to immunology, to climate preservation, to the fundamental behaviour and patterns of the universe. As for an example of atheists forming charities. Foundations beyond belief is an obvious example, along with collective efforts among the atheist community in donating money to organizations like Doctors without Borders, and the American Cancer Society.

So I will promote atheism, and by that I mean I will continue to argue that it is true.

tommy2bad

Ciaran0 wrote: »

I know what you mean I suppose but certainly not always true. Look at cars for instance. More and more thought is being put into the look and design of cars these days, simply so that they'll look(and maybe sell) better. I have seen some beautiful looking cars, which certainly didn't have a greater ideal or higher purpose to their design. They're beautiful simply for the sake of being beautiful.

Also I've been in some rather lovely shopping centres too. :P

This is a complete tangent but a good one
I have never seen an inspiring shopping center but I suppose that isn't their purpose, nonetheless I aways feel most uncomfortable in ones designed to increase volume of sales. Might be my anti consumerist bias.
As to cars, well when some thing is designed to unite form and function you get Aga's, Zippos, Bugatti EB 16.4 Veyron, objects that are intrinsically attractive. It's called 'getting it right'
I think thats as interventionist a God as I'll accept

tommy2bad

.....and the American Cancer Society.

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

Says here that they turned down funding on the grounds of the donor being atheist;

Declines donations from atheist organization

The American Cancer Society turned down participation from the Foundation Beyond Belief in its Relay For Life "National Team" program,

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

We don't believe we can make up our own conscience. But regardless, the above is completely different to what you were accusing us of.

Not really. Relaitivists say it is all up to themselves. People who are not moral relativists acknowledge that there are absolute standards outside of themselves.

And it is a cop out to suggest that, since atheism was a core tenet, atheism was responsible. Even the smallest investigation into such atrocities reveals that state-sponsored atheism is clearly a symptom (not a cause) of such regimes. Totalitarianism requires complete devotion to the state. Controlling religion, either through a small state church, or the absence of any church at all, keeps the masses subordinate.

Nonsense! People believe or they don't! You can't claim the State is the deciding factor in whether people believe or not.

The state adopts the role of religion. It is this fanaticism, coupled with economic and reform pressures in areas of high-population density, that sparks such atrocities.

Yep! the old atheist cop out. "It isn't atheism it is belief and religion that causes this"
People with belief in Christianity professing their regime to be rules by Christianity . 2000 years maybe a million dead
People professing atheism as a core belief for society hundreds of millions of dead in a couple of centuries.

"it isn'tatheism it is just systems where people all profees to believe in atheism as a core belief "
Nonsense!

Look at China today. Do you really believe their human rights abuses were caused by atheism as opposed to, say, a nervous Oligarch that emerged from a country disfigured by war crimes.

Look at China when they had oppression of religion. Where were they then?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.agnosticism/msg/b855fbee4e6b18da

the current communist government in China has reformed it's
constitution to allow greater religious freedoms (it is a farce
in Tibet, there the Chinese want to retain political control,
exploit resources and maintain a buffer state, but that is
not primarily a religious persecution, they just want political
dominance and that means reducing the influence of the Dalia Llama.

(Frankly I think it is one area in which they are crazy, an
autonomous Tibet could be the Shangri La of spiritual tourist
destinations and a bustling centre of Buddhist thought
(after all it's a good fit.. no emphasis on God))

But the trend is clear, religion is here to stay, even
in 'Communist' but no longer atheist, China;

"With the gradual liberalisation that developed with
Deng Xiaoping's open door reforms, religion was no
longer proscribed. In 1982, the constitution was
amended to allow Chinese people considerable freedom
of religion."

http://cbbc.org/china_guide/religion.html

"At the first world Buddhism forum in East China's Zhejiang
Province last year, the Chinese government acknowledged
the active role religion plays in building a harmonious society."

"For example, religious beliefs have helped cut down crime
to a large extent,"

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-02/07/content_802994.htm

"religion has been enjoying a resurgence in China over the
past 20 years, as Communist Party disapproval has eased"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6337627.stm

"Religious believers thrice the estimate
By Wu Jiao (China Daily)

"A survey has found that the number of religious believers
is three times bigger than the official estimate.

The poll of about 4,500 people, conducted by professors Tong
Shijun and Liu Zhongyu of Shanghai-based East China Normal
University from 2005 till recently, found that 31.4 percent
of Chinese aged 16 and above or about 300 million are religious."

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-02/07/content_802994.htm

Incredible! in just a few short years the new converts from
atheism In JUST ONE COUNTRY, far outnumber the slow increase
in tiny atheist numbers in the rest of the WORLD! B^D

I believe atheism is superior insofar as I believe atheism is true and theism is false.

And if you ever get into power what will you do with that belief?
If nothing and you will just shut up about it if in power then why oppress others with it here?

It goes without saying that, even if what you say about atheism and atrocities were true, that would simply mean societies need some "supernaturally approved" collective belief in the common good, and would not mean atheism is false.

Fair enough. AS long as you can accept christian people making the decisions for society and can accept no atheistic principles shoulpd be allowed in running a country we can all get along fine and millions wont have to be slaughtered by your lot getting into power.

Leopold II of Belgium slaughtered millions. European settlers slaughtered hundreds of millions of native Americans. The Lord's Army of Africa reguraly commits atrocities. Islam has a long history of atrocities.

Islam isn't Christianity is it? As for the others, we have been over them before.

Japan, under state Shintoism, murdered millions and committed some of the most horrendous and Barbaric war crimes in the history of mankind.

Not christian1 And Japan is Shinto Buddhist. That would be atheistic. You can't compare shamanism, or emperor worship to Christianity and expect Christians to say they think they are the same!

As for atheism inspiring great works. Atheism is as inspiring as jam making. It does not birth civilizations. It is a statement about the existence of God. *shrug*

So thats nothing great from atheism then. Thanks for your hionest answer.

But even with that said, it certainly doesn't hinder our humanity. The majority of the scientific community are atheists, and it doesn't stop them from researching everything from cancer prevention to immunology, to climate preservation, to the fundamental behaviour and patterns of the universe.

I was wondering when you might ressurect the "£scientists are atheists" gem. whr doi yo get that one from? By the way ever hears of "argument from authority" ? This "maJOIRITY"
( WHICH I DO NOT ACCEPT AS PROVEN AT ALL) some how means atheistic science si "better" or "superiour" does it? What absolute poppycock! "the majority of scientists are atheists " as if science is somehow better for that?

As for an example of atheists forming charities. Foundations beyond belief is an obvious example, along with collective efforts among the atheist community in donating money to organizations like Doctors without Borders, and the American Cancer Society.

MSF treat people regardless of race, religion , creed or political affiliation, and that the needs of these people outweigh respect for national borders. Christian groups do the same. 80% of MCF funding comes from Private donors who provide about 80% of the organization's funding, while governmental and corporate donations provide the rest, giving MSF an annual budget of approximately US$400 million. The priovater doners are not all or even 1% atheist. MSF has no atheist agenda.


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.agnosticism/msg/b855fbee4e6b18da

you have a real job explaining the free, open, tolerant,
progressive secular democratic societies have all been built
and sustained by MAJORITY RELIGIOUS populations.

Clearly you should reconsider your position as an atheist,
or stop being a hypocrite and migrate to some atheist utopia..
...

Maybe among atheists, you can't mention last centuries Atheist
regime Holocausts without them burrowing back in ancient history
to find a frequently chanted list of crimes by others..

It's like "Sure we atheists murdered 60,000,00 people but what
about the 20,000 witches burnt by religion.. don't ask us
to apologise for mass murder, they did bad stuff too!"
...
The difference is religious societies are NOT ALL dogmatic tyrannies,
whereas EVERY atheist state was!
The USA, Australia, European Nations, Canada, Japan, Indonesia et al are
all Majority Religious nations, but uphold the rule of law, human
rights, and freedom of thought and belief.. i guess that's why you
hypocrites choose to live there rather than in an atheist state, eh?
...

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/0b884ddde3b71b15?dmode=source

> Prof. R.J. Berry , FRS
> Prof. Sir Brian Heap FRS
> Professor Sir Martin Evans FRS
> Prof. Bob White, FRS, FGS
> Prof. Sir John Houghton FRS
> Prof. Colin Humphreys
> Revd Dr John Polkinghorne KBE FRS
> Prof. Eric Priest FRS

> to only name people active in the 21 century, and who take their
> belief serious enough to have published about it

"Then we shall be able to take part in the discussion
of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist.
If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph
of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."
- Stephen Hawking

"As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner
by which the All-Wise God perceives and understands all things."
- Sir Isaac Newton 1642-1727

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use
and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can obtain by
them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical
matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or
necessary demonstrations."

- Galileo Galilei 1615.

Each of these brilliant men has something profound to say
about God, something which clearly is of interest to the vast
bulk of modern mankind, who remain overwhelmingly open
to the concept of God, and spiritual evolution.. and which falls
on the DEAF ears and BLIND eyes of the ignorant and unreasoning
hate filled anti-theists, Virgil the post forging cyberstalker and Seon
the dimwitted windsock who plays monkey to Virgil's Organ-grinder!

The glory and greatness of the Almighty God are marvellously discerned
in all His works and divinely read in the open book of heaven

- Galileo Galilei 1564-1642

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Not really. Relaitivists say it is all up to themselves. People who are not moral relativists acknowledge that there are absolute standards outside of themselves.

Which is completely different to what you were accusing us of.

Nonsense! People believe or they don't! You can't claim the State is the deciding factor in whether people believe or not.

I can't believe you are even arguing against this. Do you seriously believe atheism was enforced for reasons other than state control? Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state.

Yep! the old atheist cop out. "It isn't atheism it is belief and religion that causes this"
People with belief in Christianity professing their regime to be rules by Christianity . 2000 years maybe a million dead
People professing atheism as a core belief for society hundreds of millions of dead in a couple of centuries.

"it isn'tatheism it is just systems where people all profees to believe in atheism as a core belief "
Nonsense!

I point out that atrocities can only be understood if we look at all factors and contingencies, and you call this a cop-out? That makes no sense, and will not stop me from responding to your naive interpretations of history.

Firstly, "atheist" regimes existed in areas of high population densities. Early Christianity could not have killed millions because millions did not exist, nor did the capacity to kill them.

Secondly, Christians have killed countless millions. The United States killed 200-300 million native Americans over the past 2 centuries. Leopold of Belgium killed over 20 million in the Congo. France and Germany committed atrocities in Africa.

Look at China when they had oppression of religion. Where were they then?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.agnosticism/msg/b855fbee4e6b18da

You are ignoring things that I say. Look at the Oligarch responsible for oppressing religion.

And if you ever get into power what will you do with that belief?
If nothing and you will just shut up about it if in power then why oppress others with it here?

Seriously? I'm "oppressing" others with it here?

Fair enough. AS long as you can accept christian people making the decisions for society and can accept no atheistic principles shoulpd be allowed in running a country we can all get along fine and millions wont have to be slaughtered by your lot getting into power.

Atheism has no principles.

I will promote humanist principles, and have no issue with Christian politicians unless they try and push exclusively Christian beliefs into law.

Islam isn't Christianity is it? As for the others, we have been over them before.

So now you are saying it's not atheism that causes atrocities, but instead "non-Christianity"?

Not christian1 And Japan is Shinto Buddhist. That would be atheistic. You can't compare shamanism, or emperor worship to Christianity and expect Christians to say they think they are the same!

Shintoism is not atheistic. And I can certainly compare it to theism. Unless now you have no interest in singling out atheism and want to claim that only "non-Christianity" causes atrocities.

So thats nothing great from atheism then. Thanks for your hionest answer.

Truth is a great thing. If atheism is true, then it is great by itself.

I was wondering when you might ressurect the "£scientists are atheists" gem. whr doi yo get that one from? By the way ever hears of "argument from authority" ? This "maJOIRITY"
( WHICH I DO NOT ACCEPT AS PROVEN AT ALL) some how means atheistic science si "better" or "superiour" does it? What absolute poppycock! "the majority of scientists are atheists " as if science is somehow better for that?

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. So it will be dismissed out of hand. I will instead reiterate the fact that the work of scientists refutes your claim that atheists cannot contribute great things to society.

MSF treat people regardless of race, religion , creed or political affiliation, and that the needs of these people outweigh respect for national borders. Christian groups do the same. 80% of MCF funding comes from Private donors who provide about 80% of the organization's funding, while governmental and corporate donations provide the rest, giving MSF an annual budget of approximately US$400 million. The priovater doners are not all or even 1% atheist. MSF has no atheist agenda.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. So it will be dismissed out of hand. I will instead reiterate the fact that the work of charity groups like Foundations Beyond Belief refutes your claim that atheists cannot contribute great things to society.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.agnosticism/msg/b855fbee4e6b18da


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/0b884ddde3b71b15?dmode=source


"Then we shall be able to take part in the discussion
of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist.
If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph
of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."
- Stephen Hawking

"As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner
by which the All-Wise God perceives and understands all things."
- Sir Isaac Newton 1642-1727

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use
and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can obtain by
them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical
matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or
necessary demonstrations."

- Galileo Galilei 1615.

Each of these brilliant men has something profound to say
about God, something which clearly is of interest to the vast
bulk of modern mankind, who remain overwhelmingly open
to the concept of God, and spiritual evolution.. and which falls
on the DEAF ears and BLIND eyes of the ignorant and unreasoning
hate filled anti-theists, Virgil the post forging cyberstalker and Seon
the dimwitted windsock who plays monkey to Virgil's Organ-grinder!

The glory and greatness of the Almighty God are marvellously discerned
in all His works and divinely read in the open book of heaven

- Galileo Galilei 1564-1642

Do you even check what you are quoting? Stephen Hawking a theist? Even without pointing out the problems with the above, what does it have to do with atheism?

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state.

I assume you will admit God if God exists or if people believe God exists is a higher authority than the State?
The belief God doesn't exist is called atheism. You agree to that?
Given what you just stated
Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no higher authority than the state.
then
Totalitarianism only works if people believe there is no God.
then
Totalitarianism only works if people in charge are atheists.

Firstly, "atheist" regimes existed in areas of high population densities. Early Christianity could not have killed millions because millions did not exist, nor did the capacity to kill them.

Already dealt with . the "technology argument" and the "population density " argument
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.agnosticism/browse_thread/thread/48afe334c786a01f

now you want to
claim 70,000,000 victims of crimes against humanity by atheist regimes
is to be ignored because there was so many people for them to kill it's
somehow acceptable in PERCENTAGE terms... 8^o 8^o
.. a vile, heartless, inhuman and FALSE claim as it is MASSIVE, even
in PERCENTAGE terms per capita, per year of atheist rule..
...what kind on moral maggot tries to excuse SEVENTY MILLION DEAD like
this.. pure, pointless, FABRICATION.. not a single jot of evidenc
...
no theocracies DID achieve 1.6 billion
deaths, even though theists VASTLY outnumber athiests, (i.e. they
are more numerous, and always have been OVER MILLENNIA.. though I
am happy to agree with you that the atheist regimes, like you,
are MORE DENSE!
...
He now accepts the horrific death toll of the atheist regimes, but now
he wants to pretend that the MASSIVE SLAUGHTER in the USSR, Mao's
Great Leap Backward and Cultural Devolution, Pol Pot's genocide and
other atheist tyrannies..is all because of "population density" and
"the power of technology".
...
Sheer BALDERDASH. THE USA HAS THE MOST POWERFUL MILITARY TECHNOLOGY
ON EARTH, and it is a majority religious society, but it has never,
in absolute numbers or in percentage of population, killed the
equivalent of 40,000,000 people as the atheist regimes, USSR and
Maoist China, each did!

Q.E.D.

China has always had massive population, but only under atheist tyranny
did it's death toll achieve such record proportions.

China, the USSR and Cambodia had ALMOST IDENTICAL POPULATION DENSITY and
TECHNOLOGICAL LEVELS, IMMEDIATELY PRIOR to the atheist regimes being
imposed on them.. but not the massive death toll.. that only occurred
ONCE THE ATHEIST TYRANNY WAS IN PLACE!

And it occurred when free, open, tolerant, and progressive MAJORITY
RELIGIOUS societies were evolving secular democratic government,
expanding human rights and civil society, firmly establishing the
freedom to THINK, BELIEVE and SPEAK as you will, and ..FEEDING THEIR
PEOPLE... none of which the CATASTROPHICALLY FAILED ATHEIST REGIMES
COULD MANAGE!

Your 'population density' and 'technology' arguments are easily
demolished by observing that BOTH were DIMINISHED under the atheist
regimes from what they were under previous, better, times!!!

Secondly, Christians have killed countless millions. The United States killed 200-300 million native Americans over the past 2 centuries. Leopold of Belgium killed over 20 million in the Congo. France and Germany committed atrocities in Africa.

Countless? then you try to count them?

Where is you evidence the United States killed 200-300 million native americans?

200-300 million? LOL.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Native_Americans_were_killed_by_the_US_government
Native Americans killed in service for the United States and killed defending their Indian country is listed below in rough estimated numbers. A likely total of 100,000-500,000 Native Americans in the U.S. have died since 1776. The high end would be around a million. Native Americans are the have the highest mortality rate of any U.S. minority because of U.S. action and policy.
Indians Conflicts & Removals 1776-1973
(1973) Wounded Knee II - 2
(1890) Wounded Knee - 178
(1864) Sand Creek Massacre - 200
(1862) Dakota War of 1862 - 38 prisoners executed
(1876) Battle of Little Big Horn - 136 (high estimate)
(1838) Cherokee Removal - 4,000
(1817-58) Seminole Wars I,II, & III - 1475 (likely high as 10,000)
(1831) Choctaw Removal - 2,500
(1812) Red Stick War of the Muscogee or Creek- 3,000
(1791) Battle of the Wabash - 21
(1830) Indian Removal Act

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Native_Americans_were_killed_by_the_US_government#ixzz1iQiv5Bb2

[/quote]

While the US kiling of native americans is woefull ther is no way by any stretch 200-300 million native americans were killed on the orders of the Us givernment that organised such a Holocaust!

Various statistics have been developed concerning the devastation of the American Indian Wars on the peoples involved. One notable study by Gregory Michno used records dealing with figures "as a direct result of" engagements and concluded that "of the 21,586 total casualties tabulated in this survey, military personnel and civilians accounted for 6,596 (31%), while Indian casualties totaled about 14,990 (69%)." for the period of 1850–90.

n God, Greed, and Genocide: The Holocaust Through the Centuries, Grenke quotes Chalk and Jonassohn with regards to the Cherokee Trail of Tears that "an act like the Cherokee deportation would almost certainly be considered an act of genocide today".[49] The Indian Removal Act of 1830 led to the Trail of Tears. About 17,000 Cherokees — along with approximately 2,000 black slaves owned by Cherokees — were removed from their homes.[50] The number of people who died as a result of the Trail of Tears has been variously estimated. American doctor and missionary Elizur Butler, who made the journey with one party, estimated 4,000 deaths.[51]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#United_States_of_America

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65963003&postcount=490

I went through Rummel's entire list! I did it some time ago on usenet! I can go through it again here. IT is about a thousand lines long. I picked out those democides particularly associated with Christianity.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP2.HTM
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB2.1A.GIF
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB2.1B.GIF
750 lines
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIF
220 lines more.

I didn't hide the sources! Feel free to quote for any line

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM

You will have some problems terming any BC dated regimes as "Christian"
I have already dealt with the roman empire and rummel gives figures in Chapter 2

"the state established atheism as the only scientific truth."
- Daniel Peris,
"Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless"
Cornell University Press 1998 ISBN 9780801434853

The facts of State atheism are well documented, all committed by
Atheist leaders of a totalitarian tyranny in which PARTY MEMBERS were
all ATHEISTS.

If Christianity as a policy led directly to deaths as atheists persecuting believers did!

Pol Pot and Stalin and Mao surpressed religion = killed adherents to spread a policy of the state being atheistic and to spread atheism. It was NOT A CASE OF cHINA TAKING OVER TIBET AND just happening to bring disease. China specifically set out to destroy religion there! Christians did NOT set out to bring disease to America as part of a plan to introduce religion!

i dint bother showing links to christians being crucified. I posted links to the policy doccuments and letters from Lenin Stalin etc. Pogronms of Jews etc. I posted references to Pol Pot forcing Muslims to eat pork and slaughtering monks! and you want people to believe he slaughterhd priests and monks because of an "economic plan" or something ? It was done BECAUSE they were Jews or Priests!

He opposed religion and promoted atheism! that is what we are looking at! The stats show surpression of religion. Look Im not claiming that religious regimes who killed people were doing it for political reasons. clearly I can claim they were ouot for themselves and not supporting christianity. The point is that the held positions of seniority on the church and over saw or ordered the death of people - just as stalin did! Whether they personally did this because they were atheist or not is aside from the policy of state religion or state atheism. Maybe some evil Popes were atheist? the point is that the Church they were over perpetrated terrible things.


By erols I mean Matthew White
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1900.htm

While they "trust in God" the US government are not led by a religion. The constitution separates religion and government. It is a secular state. The famines were not caused to spread Christianity!

Secular oir Christian countries don't as a rule persecute non Christians . They have done it in history but the occurrences are minor in comparison to atheistic states. And the ones that did do it contributed in other ways. What did Stalin and Mao give us? State atheism The great leap backward cultural devolution and death.

Atheism has no principles.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

I will promote humanist principles, and have no issue with Christian politicians unless they try and push exclusively Christian beliefs into law.

Humanist being = atheist principles? Which above apparently don't exist?
When Christians were in control some people from time to time did suffer yes. Nothing in comparison to when atheists were in control with their "humanist" principles of "there is no God"

So now you are saying it's not atheism that causes atrocities, but instead "non-Christianity"?

Clearly some christian regimes caused death. But atheistic ones make them look vanishingly small in comparison!

Shintoism is not atheistic. And I can certainly compare it to theism. Unless now you have no interest in singling out atheism and want to claim that only "non-Christianity" causes atrocities.

There are only 3 million Shinto adherents in the world.Assuming that all of them are Japanese living in Japan, that only comprises 2% of the population. So no, Shinto is not the predominant religion in Japan. A large percentage of Japanese are both Buddhist and atheist. Atheist/agnostic/no-religion comprises 64-65% of the population in Japan.
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

Total country
population (2004) 127,333,000
Number of Atheists/
Agnostics
Nonbelievers in God
(minimum - maximum) 81,493,120 - 82,766,450
Source:
Zuckerman, Phil. "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns", chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (2005).

Of course I add in agnostic to atheist here. Suffice it to say they are not "believers".

Truth is a great thing. If atheism is true, then it is great by itself.

The Holocaust and atheistic Stalinist and Maoist genocides were true. do you also think that they were great things?

I will instead reiterate the fact that the work of scientists refutes your claim that atheists cannot contribute great things to society.

I never claimed every atheist is useless. all i pointed out is whenever atheists come together to proclaim atheism like religious people do top proclaim belief then nothing usefull ever came of it and usually only death resulted in them trying to spread their atheism.

the work of charity groups like Foundations Beyond Belief refutes your claim that atheists cannot contribute great things to society.

It isn't an atheist group promoting atheism!

marienbad

ISAW Are you opposed to a secular constitution then ?