Letter in the Sunday Times

bluebird

This letter was printed in the last Sunday Times:

---

It's good that Professor Flew has "seen the light" (News Review, December 19), arriving at a conclusion that most of us, with open minds, reached by our late teens/early twenties. Thomas Aquinas (and his old protagonist, CS Lewis) was right after all. The broader queestion though, to paraphrase Anne Robinson, is what exactly are atheists for? What do they do? The 20th century provides a very good answer. Atheism's contribution to humanity can be summarised as gulags, death camps and killing fields. Pretty impressive. - Eric Conway, Navan, Co Meath

---

Would anyone like to suggest an appropriate reply to such a display of ignorance?

BB

landser

the inquisition
the French pogroms against protestants
Iranian revolution
afghanistan
salem trials
indian partition (10million dead)

all done because of religion ( i would mention the North, but that imho is more political than sectarian). let him deal with these points

ecksor

What do the atrocities committed in the name of religions have to do with atrocities committed by atheists? Is there some context to suggest that the poster isn't agnostic for example? At any rate, a pissing match doesn't seem like an intelligent response.

I agree with the letter to a certain extent. Atheism seems as barmy to me as theism and both groups have nutters amongst their ranks.

Myksyk

Explicit in the letter is the contention that people who don't believe in God have contributed nothing to humanity but mayhem and death. This is a bigoted and ignorant remark (as ignorant and bigoted for example as saying that Christians or Muslims have contributed nothing but mayhem and death).

I also infer, rightly or wrongly from the letter, that theism must offer more to humanity - this is where pointing out the atrocities perpetrated by organised religions is relevant, if indeed the writer was implying the moral superiority of theism.

ferdi

obviously Eric Conway, Navan, Co Meath hasnt a leg to stand on and he knows it

ecksor

By context I mean something explicit in the article being commented upon that makes such an inferral reasonable rather than what you're reading between the lines. Sometimes there isn't anything between the lines.

Myksyk wrote:

Explicit in the letter is the contention that people who don't believe in God have contributed nothing to humanity but mayhem and death

One way of reading it, but not the correct interpretation I would say. More like people acting in the name of atheism have contributed nothing but mayhem and death in the same way that acts committed in the name of theism were offered by the original poster (otherwise we'd get the tired old examples of paedophile priests etc being trundled out). It would make more sense to counter that by offering examples of what good people have done in the name of atheism. I can't think of any myself, but surely someone can.

Myksyk

ecksor wrote:

It would make more sense to counter that by offering examples of what good people have done in the name of atheism. I can't think of any myself, but surely someone can.

Good point. However, I'm not sure that individual atheists act 'in the name of atheism' and presumably it is valid to assume that atheists on the whole live moral and constructive lives. At least the ones I know do!!

sliabh

I think the big difference between atheist and theists is that atheists are generally willing to live and let live. They don't feel the need to try and convert the rest of the world to their views.

Has any of you ever opened the door to two well dressed athiests offering to tell you about not believing in God, or the local chief athiest asked for donations for the missions to spread the word of atheism in africa :-)

As an atheist I will of course discuss and defend my views with all comers. But I won't take the attitude (as many "believers" do) that there must be something wrong with a theist because they don't share my beliefs.

simu

It's an obvious troll and should have been sent to the Sunday Times' recycle bin!

Newspapers are so behind the times.

But, if I were to answer the question, I'd say that believing in god(s) or not little effect on how people treat others. Traits such as greed, lust for power etc can over-ride any ethical concerns.

Has any of you ever opened the door to two well dressed athiests offering to tell you about not believing in God, or the local chief athiest asked for donations for the missions to spread the word of atheism in africa :-)

That sort of preaching is a feature of Christianity rather than all theistic religions - Muslims and Jews don't try to get people to convert.

sliabh

simu wrote:

It's an obvious troll and should have been sent to the Sunday Times' recycle bin!

I wish it were a troll. But the views there are actualy pretty mainstream. You can see some of the weirder things believers are willing to say at:
Fundies say the darndest things

Linking atheism to genocide is mild compared to some religous fundamentalist views

simu wrote:

That sort of preaching is a feature of Christianity rather than all theistic religions - Muslims and Jews don't try to get people to convert.

While that the door stopping evangelical method is probably peculiar to Christians (and Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormons in particular) the Muslim faith does actively seek converts.

landser

sliabh wrote:

I think the big difference between atheist and theists is that atheists are generally willing to live and let live. They don't feel the need to try and convert the rest of the world to their views.

.

not quite true. one of the main beliefs of communism, is atheism. trotskyite communism believes in the "conversion" of the masses to, inter alia, atheism

simu, muslims actually do have a conversion ethos. while they do not follow the mission type converter as in christianity, they actively promote conversion.

as far as i know, jews do not encourage conversion to their faith, due to each supposed to being a descendant of someone or other.

sliabh

landser wrote:

not quite true. one of the main beliefs of communism, is atheism. trotskyite communism believes in the "conversion" of the masses to, inter alia, atheism

Communism is an economic and political philosophy. Atheism is not a pre-requisite or even a major part of it. And while Marx said religion was the opium of the masses he didn't specify atheism as a requirement for communism.

And even if you are supressing religion as part of communism (which is not the same as "converting" people to atheism), you are doing so because you are spreading communism. The atheist tail is not wagging to communist dog

landser wrote:

sliabh, muslims actually do have a conversion ethos. while they do not follow the mission type converter as in christianity, they actively promote conversion.

I think you meant this comment for Simu?

landser wrote:

as far as i know, jews do not encourage conversion to their faith, due to each supposed to being a descendant of someone or other.

I belive that is the case too. Hinduism is similar in not encouraging proselytizing.

simu

sliabh wrote:

While that the door stopping evangelical method is probably peculiar to Christians (and Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormons in particular) the Muslim faith does actively seek converts.

I did not know that but my point still stands.

sliabh wrote:

I wish it were a troll. But the views there are actualy pretty mainstream.

Maybe, but a newspaper should aim for its readers to discuss the issue in a more peaceful, well thought-out way. The writer of that letter comes accross as being smug and more interested in getting into a shouting match than a real discussion. Then again, I suppose idiocy sells more newspapers.

ecksor

Myksyk wrote:

Good point. However, I'm not sure that individual atheists act 'in the name of atheism' and presumably it is valid to assume that atheists on the whole live moral and constructive lives. At least the ones I know do!!

Well, how exactly are you approaching the argument then? Are you saying that the atrocities weren't committed in the name of atheism as sliabh maintains or are you saying that nothing good or bad has ever been done which arose directly from atheism because atheists are individuals who lead their own lives (in which case, strictly speaking, the letter writer is right, even if you disagree with the examples given or find them tasteless or whatever.).

GuanYin

simu wrote:

Maybe, but a newspaper should aim for its readers to discuss the issue in a more peaceful, well thought-out way. The writer of that letter comes accross as being smug and more interested in getting into a shouting match than a real discussion. Then again, I suppose idiocy sells more newspapers.

You're joking right? Thats a joke or you're very very naive.

Just consider for a second the way news is put forward in the media, invasion of privacy, slander, deliberate mis-information and twisting facts to give a "juicier" slant.

And you think these people, even the respectable ones, want peaceful well thought critique? Nope, they want masses of letters from people who will follow the debate and buy more papers to read the further letters etc etc...

Back on topic, atheism and theism are just convenient clothing for people to act under. The nature of society is one which will always generate people capable of commiting atrocities. Under what umberella they land is simply a roll of the dice....

Myksyk

syke wrote:

The nature of society is one which will always generate people capable of commiting atrocities. Under what umberella they land is simply a roll of the dice....

I agree with this. The 'causes' of people committing atrocities is presumably extremely complex. However, I think that leaders who perpetrate atrocities through their followers are facilitated by a variety of factors which may be related to theism, or indeed atheism (e.g. fundamentalism or pseudoscientific ideas). Psychopathic, deluded personalities leading misinformed masses is a recipe for destruction and atrocity no matter what banner is being marched under. All history tells us is that theists and atheists are capable of committing atrocities when in power (there may be an argument to say that theists have committed far more but this may simply reflect the standing of religion in society over the ages ... i.e. they were more often in power and therefore had more opportunity to abuse their powers).

ecksor wrote:

...are you saying that nothing good or bad has ever been done which arose directly from atheism because atheists are individuals who lead their own lives (in which case, strictly speaking, the letter writer is right, even if you disagree with the examples given or find them tasteless or whatever.).

No I'm not. People's individual lives may well be informed by their beliefs about life and the universe (bear in mind that 'atheism' is a description of what people do NOT beieve in, not what they do believe in, which may differ from individual to individual). So informed, they behave gloriously or atrociously.

Mr Conway asks what do atheists do? what are they for? going on to inform us that atheism's contribution to humanity can be summed up as death camps, gulags, and killing fields.

How does tens of thousands of people (who happen not to believe in a supernatural creator of the universe) living their lives, building homes and loving their families, contributing to science, writing literature, running charity organisations, playing football, painting, etc etc etc convert into his description of atheism? Because some atheists committed atrocities? Because atheism in some contexts informed practices which led to atrocities? The feebleness of this argument hardly needs lengthy debate. If this is the basis for his argument then all ideologies, all peoples and all societies fit these criteria and should be considered vile and worthless. Clearly they are not.

landser

i don't think that Conway is saying that the acts he lists were done in the name of atheism. i belive that he feels that since atheists do not believe in a religion that they live in a sort of moral vaccum. this in turn allows them to carry out acts of great cruelty. further, the fact that they do not belive in a divine retribution for the acts committed in life would allow them to act on their free will without consequence.

this is obviously hogwash and a very simplistic, i would say, religiously inspired, view of atheism. for my own part, i was much happier when there was a cold war, than the present was on terror. the very fact that the soviet block was "godless" meant that it was a lot less likely that they would strap themselves with explosives and take out a bus. an atheist knows that this world is it, and if i die, i don';t get another run at it. a religious nut-bag however, be it christian, muslim or wahtever, has the glorious idea of martyrdom hanging over them, which makes them a very dangerous adversary.

simu

syke wrote:

You're joking right? Thats a joke or you're very very naive.

Just consider for a second the way news is put forward in the media, invasion of privacy, slander, deliberate mis-information and twisting facts to give a "juicier" slant.

And you think these people, even the respectable ones, want peaceful well thought critique? Nope, they want masses of letters from people who will follow the debate and buy more papers to read the further letters etc etc...

Naive for thinking idiocy sells newspapers?? My first comments were on how I think newspapers ought to be or what a newspaper I edited would be like (twould probably have low circulation alright though). I haven't read anything very stimulating in a newspaper since I was about 11 (and only then because newspapers were new to me) - it's the same old recycled arguments over and over again.

bluebird wrote:

Would anyone like to suggest an appropriate reply to such a display of ignorance?

Ignore it - why waste your time on such a poorly-constructed letter and fuel the "controversy" further?