Atheists Are Needed More Than Ever
Since the beginning of religion surely there must have been atheists. Since the beginning of recorded history those with skeptical thoughts have been making written challenges to religious myths. With religious people killing each other over which god is real, perhaps atheists were able to reach across cultural divides and save humans from annihilating themselves.
Survey statistics show that old people make up the lion's share of church attendees these days. But, old people are a steady force in non belief as well. While some senior folks find comfort in the final years in the myth of a life after the funeral, others have accumulated decades of failures by religion to correct the world's ills and of over-riding dishonesty.
It is often said that because old people are closer to the end of their lives they trend toward religion and belief in the afterlife. I've not seen polls that show this is true. Atheist publications and local atheists groups have lots of testimony from people who left religion late in life.
While Christianity states there is something wrong with people who are unable to believe in the tenets of the faith, I think some day science will discover some brain characteristic or a combination of brain characteristics and social environment that makes a segment of the population susceptible to the persuasive message of religion. If and when his happens, the shoe will be on the other foot, those with religion will be seen as having "hardened hearts."
As I write this we would all have to agree the world is in an uncertain state. The uncertainty of the disease, the economy and the upcoming election all make the future less clearly in view than it has been.
I am thankful there are millions of people who believe in no religion to add their perspective to what is happening and how we are all to navigate it.
The problem with atheism is atheists.
ReplyDeleteNo leader. No creed except a common unbelief in the Divine, usually born out of a desire to sleep in on Sunday mornings.
The only time they are truly dangerous is when they start to impose their atheism on others, e.g. China, North Korea. Then, they will kill without any moral hesitancy.
Matt "...are truly dangerous is when they start of impose their atheism..."
ReplyDeleteLet's see, how many Christian tyrants have there been. It too big a task to start listing them. Tonight we'll just start with one, Charles Taylor.
Matt Noah June 29, 2020 @ 6:13 PM “
ReplyDelete“The problem with atheism is atheists. No leader. No creed except unbelief in the Divine ...”
Did the leaders and creeds of Christianity play a role in: the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the Thirty Years War, the French wars of religion, witch hunts and Wiccan murders, the genocide of Native Americans, Ku Klux Klan murders, the slave trade, abortion clinic bombings, the People’s Temple suicides to name a few?
What role are the leaders and creeds of Christianity playing in the mistreatment of homosexuals, child abuse, child marriage, faith healing, conversation therapy, funeral protests, migrant family separations, to name a few?
“The problem with [Christianity] is [Christians].” Beware the swarms of these “moralistic hornets”. Historically under the influence of their creeds they can kill with moral conviction and a clear conscience. Some even condemn a much needed Sunday morning repose.
Jon, you can thank me later in this blog for giving it a shot of adrenalin.
DeleteLet's look at modern day atheists.
China - include all their leaders.
North Korea - include all their leaders.
Planned Parenthood.
BLM - include their leadership and many of their followers.
Antifa - include all of them.
Democrat Party - 95% of their elected representatives.
Extreme environmentalists.
It's too big a task to start listing all of them here.
Ardy B "Did the leaders and creeds of Christianity play a role....."
ReplyDeleteI don't see how anyone can look over history and conclude atheists have done more harm than Christians. Christians have done multiples more harm, killed more innocent people and are far more self righteous for having done so.
another off the wall assertion. let's see if Jon can beat Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Attila the Hun, Timerlane, wartime civilian casualties, Islam, etc. etc. BTW when it comes to smug self righteousness, it's hard to beat Jon.
ReplyDeleteUnknown "lets see if Jon can beat Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Attila the Hun, Timerlane, Islam..
ReplyDeleteI was not including Islam, just Christianity. Islam, Christianity and Hinduism should be lumped together as counterpoints to atheism. Just Christianity, however, seems to me to rank higher than atheism. to measure more accurately we should present evidence of whether a Christian or atheist leader is fighting for these respecitive beliefs or if they are a side issue and play little or no role the reason for the carnage. Certainly the crusades were about Christianity.
I think most people who studied Hitler and Stalin would not conclude they were interested in advancing the "cause of atheism," (whatever that is I have no idea). Hitler, as I have pointed out here countless time, was a Catholic and spoke of his religious sincerity. He was embraced by Germany's Catholic leaders. Maybe they had doubts about him but surely they would not have endorsed an atheist.
wrong again. Hitler was Catholic in name only. he later "converted" to Protestantism, mostly for political reasons. in reality, he was,if anything, some sort of a German pagan. again. more sophistry. I did not claim that the folks listed were fighting for atheism qua atheism. I claimed, rather, that atheistic, non-Christian regimes/leaders have chalked up a lot more deaths of innocent people than Christian regimes have ever done. of course, you could argue that bad Christian regimes are worse than the others who were fighting for ideologies (often atheistic ideologies), for territory, whatever. perhaps even for the joy of conquest. Christians should have known better and are, on balance, more culpable. and, I think that it is an egregious historical error to say that Hitler was "embraced" by Catholic leaders. the reality is much more complex than that.
DeleteUnknown--Just to reiterate the point of my blog, over the course of human history one part of humans has jumped from one god to the next. Atheists have been a steading force, holding the same position there is not evidence of any god or gods. There is a lot of jumping about these days in Christianity, new divisions every year. I'm hoping the coming election or another one soon will put political Christianity on a lower bleacher level and non belief a little higher.
ReplyDeleteCalling atheists and atheism a "steading force" is like claiming Nancy Pelosi to be a steading voice of reason in politics.
DeleteThe only thing atheists seem to have in common is their unbelief in God. Aside from that and their propensity towards a lack of a central moral code, they are a known danger to mankind. Nothing really keeps them in order, not a religious code, not an atheist central code, etc. Hence, one arrives at communism, socialism and dictatorship.
Notwithstanding the obligatory lapsed Christian, and there are many, there is ample proof of the refreshing, uplifting social consequences of brotherly love, following of Jesus Christ and a central moral code based on love of God and love of neighbor.
As for politics, the election of Biden would be a big step for the electability of people with mental illness and cognitive disorders.
Matt -- "The only thing atheists have in common it their unbelief in God."
DeleteI think that is mostly true. Atheists have no afterlife or imaginary friend to offer. That does not make them completely ineffective. Being united against something is a big factor in politics and in the culture.
Right now, liberals are not split by the third party candidate as they often are. Why? Because they are united against Trump and the Republicans in DC. If Democrats and successful in the Presidency, Senate and House they will soon after split into factors about this and that.
"Atheists have no afterlife..." - That's what some atheists believe. Others believe otherwise. Regardless, atheists do have an afterlife. Speculation?
Delete"Atheists have no ... imaginary friend to offer." - There is a difference between imaginary and spiritual. The spiritual mostly defies physical proof. Imaginary implies a psychosis or neurosis. Your use of the word "imaginary" implies a mental illness associated with religion and religious beliefs. Christianity offers a real person, a real friend, i.e. Jesus Christ. He was Man and God. He was corporal and spiritual.
To state that liberals are not split is peculiar, to say the least. The BET founder and chairman is calling for a BLM party now, before the election. AOC and others have stated they will not support 'moderate' Democrats. Thank Joe Biden for telling 'Charlamagne tha ' that one can't be Black and vote for anyone other than Joe.
we know the point of your blog: no need to remind us. the issue here is whether or not you have answered opposing points head on or whether you have tried to slip out by way of irrelevancies. BTW,I think that we can honestly characterize the Bolshevik attack on religion as an atheistic crusade.
ReplyDeleteUnknown "BTW, I think we can honestly characterize the Bolshevik attack on religion as an atheistic crusade"
ReplyDeleteI just looked up "Bolshevik Revolution" in Wikipedia. It is a quite long enter but is still only a brief summary of what took place. The revolution was covered in an economic history class I took in grad school. Years ago, I knew a professor who walked across some of Russia when the Bolsheviks were still in power. Look up Wikipedia yourself. There is one sentence about religion, churches were confiscated. So was all private property. "I think we can honestly characterize the Bolshevik..." Revolution has having almost nothing to do with religion. In fact, to characterize it as "an atheistic crusade" is bull $hit.
you have a smidgen of information from a fallible source. I have read books about the Russian Revolution (and the French as well).
ReplyDeleteUnknown "you have a smidgen of information from a fallible source. I have read books about the Russian Revolution.."
ReplyDeleteI agree Wikipedia is not a good source for something as large as the Bolsheviks. What books have you read, authors and publishers? That is important because the Christian narrative is that that revolution was, as you claimed, all about stamping out Christianity. Outside of Christianity that narrative is not as popular--at least that is what I have seen.
for openers try Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime by Pipes: Red Victory by Lincoln: The Great Terror by Conquest:
Deletethe Russian Revolution by Moorehead. and several others that I no longer have in my library. I also have books re the Ukrainian famine. you might want to read up on Marxist philosophy as well (something that we still have stirring around, thanks to the Frankfurt School, it now sails under the title of cultural Marxism). finally there is a lot of good material re Soviet espionage during the period, c1930 to c1965. enjoy
Unknown--Thanks for those references. I only know about the first, "Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime" by Pipes. He was a prominent historian from Harvard. His views were steeped in the old Cold War ideology. He served a couple of Republican Party Presidents who were making the case against Russia. This Cold War view is super charged with the theory the revolution was started by a small group of intellectuals who lusted for power. All that took place came from this simple premise.
ReplyDeleteIn the decades since, another group of historians have concluded the Revolution came from complex sources in the society at the time --was more grass roots than top down.
To me, if the goal was atheism, why not just eliminate all churches and leave everything else as it was. Instead, they uprooted the society top to bottom, especially the economic system. I don't get what uprooting the economic system had to do with atheism. But, if you chose to believe the Christian narrative that is was all about atheism you are welcome to do so.
Unknown--Adding to the Christian narrative you hold that the Revolution and Communism that followed was all about atheism we must keep in mind U.S. politics during the Cold War. The "In God We Trust" was added to our currency during the cold war. It was added because of the popularity of the notion of "Godless Communism." Godless Communism helped keep the defense departments and contractors thriving. I recall in more recent years, but before the breakup of the Soviet Union, Sen Kent Conrad saying, "If our defense budget was twice as big as the Soviets we would be pretty safe. If it was five times as big, even safer. Now it is ten times as big and I don't think it needs to be bigger (like most Republicans wanted at the time).
DeleteI knew that you would try to weasel your way out. nobody, myself included, would deny that there were many reasons why the Revolution "took" in Russia. nor did I claim that atheism was the ONLY factor of importance/significance in the whole affair. but it certainly was a prominent one: many churches were destroyed or closed, clergy were killed, etc. that aspect of the Revolution is, in fact, undeniable. one could argue of course, that the worst of the atheistic crackdown didn't come until 1929-30 when Stalin finally consolidated his power. and, obviously , Russia was ripe for revolution, following on 1905 and all. that said, I don't think that the bottom up view negates the top down few. seems to me that the Bolsheviks brutally crushed the attempt to establish a truly popular regime. as to Pipes, I don't think that you can dismiss him because he wrote during the Cold War and/or because he had "conservative" inclinations.
DeleteUnknown -- Here is what you wrote a few posts ago, "BTW, I think we can honestly characterize the Bolshevik attack on religion as an atheist crusade."
ReplyDeleteNow you position seems to have changed. That's why after while in our exchanges I stop putting your posts up here. You put up some simple declaration and they say, "Well that isn't quite what I meant."
It seems clear the origin of the Revolution was class, i.e. money. Who had it and who did not. Later it morphed into other things. So, was religion seen as upper class or a political tool of the upper class and that is why churches were destroyed? If that was the case it was not really about atheism, it was about politics or gaining power.
While we are agreeing now it was about many things, I'll just stick with my original conclusion about the sentence you wrote above. It's bull $hit.
that's what one gets for trying to clarify a position. more of Jon's Bullshit Special. quite a concoction, that. anyway, I stick by my original assertion: the Bolshevik attack on religion was motivated by atheism as such. only an idiot could deny that. that, of course, doesn't rule out other factors. history is seldom one dimensional. as to the class warfare business, I know that you would bring that up, cultural Marxist that , in so many respects, you are. BTW if you are trying to alibi the Soviet Union, lot's of luck, the Terror, the Gulags, the starvation of millions of Ukrainian peasants, the rape of Eastern Europe, etc. it was truly a evil empire and by it's official declaration and atheistic empire.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUnknown--"it was truly an evil empire.."
ReplyDeleteI agree with that. But the part about is being driven by atheism just doesn't add up.
Suppose atheists at that time had been organized into a big and effective political organization which had the goal or protecting the status quo. And further, suppose atheists then were identified with the wealthy upper class. I don't think for a moment the Bolsheviks would have tolerated atheists. Their buildings would have been destroyed and organizations dumped on. It seems obvious Bolsheviks had economic and class goals in mind, not religious ones.
Suppose further that Christians at that time were among the poor working classes and endorsed completely the class warfare the Bolsheviks were about. Christians would have been their friends. The Bolsheviks may not have cared what Christians worshipped--just whether their hatred of the upper class was shared.
This is the message I get from modern historians. Later, of course, communism didn't work very well, a new set of classes and unequal income came along.
The old montra that Bolsheviks were passionate atheists is repeated because it helps market Christianity. Marketing Christianity is what is important, accurate history is not.
you are really good at twisting the pretzel in ways that get atheists off the hook. too bad the twisting is not really convincing. we know beyond a doubt that many specific anti-religion acts in Soviet Russia were motivated by atheism as such. but let's go to the macro level and see what we find there. We find that Marxists in general , the Bolsheviks in particular and socialists generally embrace an intrinsically atheistic ideology that sees religion as an enemy to be destroyed (or at least marginalized). or, in other words, it is an ideology that holds inter alia that humans are good but have been corrupted by society (Rosseau). from which it follows that we must, so to speak, clean out all the underbrush (religion especially) making way for a Utopia where all men are good, equal, just and all that. so good, in fact, that the state can "wither away". of course the masses must, along the way, be re-educated/reformed. this, then, is the core of the atheistic credo (at least as I understand it): man has been alienated by religion, turned to another world when, the real job is find his true "humanistic" self here and now. thus the emphasis on the new humanism that communists prated about. Ironically one can see in this, Christianity stood on its head. could we say then that Marxism is a kind of atheistic crusade?
ReplyDeleteUnknown "we know beyond a doubt..."
DeleteThere is much truth in what you write. Still, even as you explain it religion is not central when your write Bolsheviks "embrace an intrinsically atheist ideology" with religion as the enemy. I still don't see that you are making a case the central theme of the Bolsheviks was to stamp out Christians. The central theme was the class struggle. A tool to winning the class struggle was stamping out all opposition. Christians were just another of several groups in the enemy class.
Your view is one that was popular some decades ago. Not so popular today. It remains popular among Christian propagandists.
what specific view is "not so popular today". what I wrote is historically, philosophically accurate, not a matter to be put up to a vote by historians or politicians. or whomever.
ReplyDeletewiping out religion was an intrinsic part of the ideological "package". so was theft of private property, class warfare, Utopian delusions. quite a package, one that, regrettably, is still with us. anyway, have good holiday weekend.
ReplyDelete