10 Things that Christians and Atheists Can (and Must) Agree on

[roderic]

Like many others, you confuse secularism with atheism. It's really not possible to teach atheism in schools, atheism has no tenets, no rules and no philosophy. There's nothing to teach, other than that some people do not believe in god(s). ...

Sure one can teach that a belief in god is superstitious and silly, this falls within the area covered by the term. Atheism takes different forms as it is incorporated into different belief systems.

The fallacy usually lies in mistaking an ideology which incorporates atheism for atheism itself.

 

[Cephus]

Sure one can teach that a belief in god is superstitious and silly, this falls within the area covered by the term. Atheism takes different forms as it is incorporated into different belief systems.

The fallacy usually lies in mistaking an ideology which incorporates atheism for atheism itself.

While I certainly didn't live in Stalin's Soviet Union so I have no direct experience to pass along, does anyone know if they actively taught people that religion was factually wrong, or did they just declare religious practice and churches to be illegal and leave it at that? I strongly suspect the second option.

 

[roderic]

^ both, in between the 2 wars.

Soviet Atheism: the Militant League
An antireligious organization established in the Soviet Union in 1923.The Soviet government was determined to combat religion in Russia from the time that it first assumed power in 1917. Initial efforts to develop antireligious machinery and propaganda were hampered by the preoccupation of the new government with the Civil War and by opposing theorists who can best be described as "leftist" and "rightist" in their orientations. The "leftist" group favored a massive and violent attack upon religion, whereas the "rightist" faction wished to permit religion to die a natural death.
...

League of the Militant Godless:
...The League's mandate was to disseminate atheism, and, to achieve this goal, it orchestrated public campaigns for the closure of churches and the prohibition of church bell pealing. It staged demonstrations against the observance of religious holidays and the multitude of daily Orthodox practices. The League also arranged lectures on themes such as the existence of God, Biblical miracles, astronomy, and so forth. The League's Central Council published a raft of antireligious publications in Russian and in the languages of national minorities. Larger provincial councils issued their own antireligious periodicals.
...

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

We could all be super anal about whether these people represented "true Atheism" or "true Christianity" or not, but that doesn't matter. All that was in the article was that both Theists and Atheists can both be giant a*sholes that kill, torture, repress, and otherwise hurt their fellow man. It doesn't matter if all Atheists or Theists "saw the light" tomarrow. People would still find excuses to kill each other. That's because we're people. When we get put together in large groups we can act pretty bad, and no matter how much we like to reform and "civilize" ourselves, we can still devolve into an orgy of violence and repression. That's all Cracked, myself, and others had to say about this

 

[AlbqOwl]

Sure one can teach that a belief in god is superstitious and silly, this falls within the area covered by the term. Atheism takes different forms as it is incorporated into different belief systems.

The fallacy usually lies in mistaking an ideology which incorporates atheism for atheism itself.

Quite right, at least in part.

A science teacher can quite legitimately tell a student who asks that Intelligent Design is a concept believed by many millions or billions of people on Earth, but it is outside the realm of science to prove it or disprove it; therefore it will not be included in science class. That would be a 100% neutral stance on the subject.

If the same teacher tells the same student, however, that there is no basis for Intelligent Design, he is teaching Atheism.

Whenever the school imposes 'no religious expression of any kind' rules on school children and communicates to them that their faith, their God, their beliefs, their religious teachings are improper, unwelcome, and/or illegal in the school, the school is inadvertently teaching Atheism.

I am having a difficult time, however, coming up with an example of an ideology that incorporates Atheism that is not Atheistic though. Can you think of an example?

 

[Cephus]

If the same teacher tells the same student, however, that there is no basis for Intelligent Design, he is teaching Atheism.

No, he's teaching science. There is no basis for Intelligent Design that doesn't fall into the realm of wishful thinking, sorry.

 

[AlbqOwl]

No, he's teaching science. There is no basis for Intelligent Design that doesn't fall into the realm of wishful thinking, sorry.

No he is teaching Atheism as you just did in this statement. Anybody who says disbelief in Intelligent Design is based on science is a liar whether he intends to be or not just as are those who try to claim that I.D. is based on science.

 

[roderic]

Quite right, at least in part.

A science teacher can quite legitimately tell a student who asks that Intelligent Design is a concept believed by many millions or billions of people on Earth, but it is outside the realm of science to prove it or disprove it; therefore it will not be included in science class. That would be a 100% neutral stance on the subject.

I agree so far.

If the same teacher tells the same student, however, that there is no basis for Intelligent Design, he is teaching Atheism.

First: it would be legitimate for the teacher to say that there is no scientific basis for ID and that ID is not a scientific theory.
Secondly: No, this is not something atheism asserts, but the teacher is most likely an atheist, though the rejection of ID is not enough info to conclude this.
Atheism is the absence of belief in gods.

Whenever the school imposes 'no religious expression of any kind' rules on school children and communicates to them that their faith, their God, their beliefs, their religious teachings are improper, unwelcome, and/or illegal in the school, the school is inadvertently teaching Atheism.

Are you referring to the former Soviet Block and China, or do you have something else in mind? I cannot think of another example of this.

I am having a difficult time, however, coming up with an example of an ideology that incorporates Atheism that is not Atheistic though. Can you think of an example?

A misunderstanding.
Soviet communism is, of course, an atheistic ideology, any belief or ideology which does not incorporate a belief in god is atheistic. But not any single one of these represents what atheism is.

For example, I cannot cite atheist humanism and conclude that atheists subscribe to Human Rights. It is what humanism promotes, atheism contains no stance on human rights.
Both a pacifist and a mass-murderer can be atheists, but atheism neither promotes pacifism nor any kind of murder.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I agree so far.
First: it would be legitimate for the teacher to say that there is no scientific basis for ID and that ID is not a scientific theory.
Secondly: No, this is not something atheism asserts, but the teacher is most likely an atheist, though the rejection of ID is not enough info to conclude this.
Atheism is the absence of belief in gods.

The practice of Atheism, however, for many, seems to focus quite deliberately on discrediting any who believe in a god or gods. I agreed in my previous post that there is nothing wrong with a teacher telling students that Intelligent Design cannot be proved or disproved with science and therefore will not be part of the science curriculum. But again, if he goes further to say that there is no basis for a belief in Intelligent Design, creationism, or a god or gods, he is teaching Atheism and this is every bit as inappropriate as teaching I.D. as science.

Are you referring to the former Soviet Block and China, or do you have something else in mind? I cannot think of another example of this.

A misunderstanding.
Soviet communism is, of course, an atheistic ideology, any belief or ideology which does not incorporate a belief in god is atheistic. But not any single one of these represents what atheism is.

For example, I cannot cite atheist humanism and conclude that atheists subscribe to Human Rights. It is what humanism promotes, atheism contains no stance on human rights.
Both a pacifist and a mass-murderer can be atheists, but atheism neither promotes pacifism nor any kind of murder.

I was not thinking of the Soviet block or anything outside of science class. I am referring to what is and is not appropriate to teach kids in school. And many of your Atheist brethren here do develop their own doctrine and religion based on Atheism--example: belief in God is a silly superstition--and their children should not be exposed to any religion of any kind other than Atheism which is the only rational religious philosophy. They can become quite agitated and mean spirited on the subject.

I could as easily say that belief in God is a separate thing from religion. And it is. It requires as much faith to not believe in God as it requires to believe in God, and those who passionately argue for why there is no God and why those who believe in God are ignorant or stupid or deluded are practicing religion as much as any Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or whatever.

True atheists (little 'a') I see as totally ambivalent and/or indifferent to religion or whether or not there is a god or gods. They are not in the least bothered by it, have nothing to prove or disprove re their beliefs about it, don't care whether kids sing Christmas carols in school or not, could care less whether there is a prayer at a sporting event or not, see no reason to be concerned about religious words or symbols or artwork on seals, coinage, buildings, etc. They might find certain apologetics interesting, enjoy religious history, art, music, artifacts or whatever, and are no more frustrated by those who believe in God than they are frustrated by people who prefer a different kind of music or literature. Such people are generally quite pleasant to be around.

Most people who make a big deal out of being Atheist are often not pleasant to be around.

You might be the exception.

 

[roderic]

The practice of Atheism, however, for many, seems to focus quite deliberately on discrediting any who believe in a god or gods. I agreed in my previous post that there is nothing wrong with a teacher telling students that Intelligent Design cannot be proved or disproved with science and therefore will not be part of the science curriculum. But again, if he goes further to say that there is no basis for a belief in Intelligent Design, creationism, or a god or gods, he is teaching Atheism and this is every bit as inappropriate as teaching I.D. as science.

Ok, I understand. You have a point there.

I was not thinking of the Soviet block or anything outside of science class. I am referring to what is and is not appropriate to teach kids in school. And many of your Atheist brethren here do develop their own doctrine and religion based on Atheism--example: belief in God is a silly superstition--and their children should not be exposed to any religion of any kind other than Atheism which is the only rational religious philosophy. They can become quite agitated and mean spirited on the subject.

Sorry, I don't think this is true.
They do not want their kids to be made to pray and be taught religion in school, from how I understand it.

I could as easily say that belief in God is a separate thing from religion. And it is. It requires as much faith to not believe in God as it requires to believe in God, and those who passionately argue for why there is no God and why those who believe in God are ignorant or stupid or deluded are practicing religion as much as any Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or whatever.

It does not require "faith" to not believe in the existence of gods. It is quite rare that an atheist is 100% certain that no god exists, even Dawkins does not go this far, but they typically reject religious doctrines and some are very vocal about this.

True atheists (little 'a') I see as totally ambivalent and/or indifferent to religion or whether or not there is a god or gods. They are not in the least bothered by it, have nothing to prove or disprove re their beliefs about it, don't care whether kids sing Christmas carols in school or not, could care less whether there is a prayer at a sporting event or not, see no reason to be concerned about religious words or symbols or artwork on seals, coinage, buildings, etc. They might find certain apologetics interesting, enjoy religious history, art, music, artifacts or whatever, and are no more frustrated by those who believe in God than they are frustrated by people who prefer a different kind of music or literature. Such people are generally quite pleasant to be around.

This is what's known as "weak atheism", in contrast to "strong atheism" which is a positive disbelief which can take the form of anti-religious activism.

Most people who make a big deal out of being Atheist are often not pleasant to be around.

You might be the exception.

I like to think I am a pleasant enough person to be around.
My atheism is not of a materialist nature, I respect some spiritual beliefs more than others.
As a Buddhist, I reject the idea of a creator-god and revealed scriptural truth.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Ok, I understand. You have a point there.

Sorry, I don't think this is true.
They do not want their kids to be made to pray and be taught religion in school, from how I understand it.

But you see, that's no different than Christians not wanting their kids' faith and religious beliefs discredited, ridiculed, or dismissed as 'silly superstitions without any foundation in fact' etc. etc. etc. I agree nobody, religious or not, should be required to pray in a public school and any teaching of religion should be in a designated course and be of the comparative religion variety of which the philosophy of Atheism could be a part.

It is wrong to tell an Atheist child that he is wrong to disbelieve. It is just as wrong to tell a Christian or Jewish child that he is wrong to believe and that his God is not welcome in his school.

It does not require "faith" to not believe in the existence of gods. It is quite rare that an atheist is 100% certain that no god exists, even Dawkins does not go this far, but they typically reject religious doctrines and some are very vocal about this.

Sure it does. In the face of hundreds of millions, even billions, of witnesses who do believe in some form of diety, one must have some rationale for why he or she does not believe. And, since the existence or nonexistance of a God or gods cannot be proved nor disproved by one human to another any more than our feelings or emotions or thoughts or absence thereof can be proved to another, to disbelieve in God requires a measure of faith just as believing in God requires a measure of faith.

This is what's known as "weak atheism", in contrast to "strong atheism" which is a positive disbelief which can take the form of anti-religious activism.

I like to think I am a pleasant enough person to be around.
My atheism is not of a materialist nature, I respect some spiritual beliefs more than others.
As a Buddhist, I reject the idea of a creator-god and revealed scriptural truth.

But he who promotes his disbelief (Atheism) as a doctrine or principle is just as religious as the Christian who wants you to meet Jesus Christ and be 'saved'.

I respect your rejection of a creator-god, but I don't believe that it doesn't require that measure of faith to reject that concept.

And I like you. I think we could be friends. Actually I have several Buddhist friends and I can't recall if I ever met a Buddhist that I didn't like.

And now, friend, I will bid you good night as I turned into a pumpkin here some time ago. Until tomorrow. . . .

 

[roderic]

Sure it does. In the face of hundreds of millions, even billions, of witnesses who do believe in some form of diety, one must have some rationale for why he or she does not believe.

"Witnesses"? Somebody who believes in a god is not a witness that such god, or another one, exist.
The rationale is that there is no, or no compelling evidence for the existence of gods. Sorry, I cannot see how faith is involved.
While I have an interest in comparative religion and find it fascinating, nothing has compelled me to believe any of the gods mentioned exist as an eternal reality independent of human imagination.

And, since the existence or nonexistance of a God or gods cannot be proved nor disproved by one human to another any more than our feelings or emotions or thoughts or absence thereof can be proved to another, to disbelieve in God requires a measure of faith just as believing in God requires a measure of faith.

How does not believing something for which there is no evidence require faith?
Atheists may follow all sorts of ideologies and hold all sorts of beliefs, some of which may require faith, but not believing in gods is not a faith-based belief, it isn't even a belief, much less a doctrine.
I think you need to be more specific and incorporate positive beliefs such as materialism or secularism into your criticism.

And I like you. I think we could be friends. Actually I have several Buddhist friends and I can't recall if I ever met a Buddhist that I didn't like.

And now, friend, I will bid you good night as I turned into a pumpkin here some time ago. Until tomorrow. . . .

Thank you, I enjoy disagreeing in a friendly manner.

 

[Cephus]

No he is teaching Atheism as you just did in this statement. Anybody who says disbelief in Intelligent Design is based on science is a liar whether he intends to be or not just as are those who try to claim that I.D. is based on science.

Absolutely wrong. Intelligent Design teaches things that violate what we see in nature. Therefore, he's teaching science in saying that ID is not science.

Try again.

 

[John Doe]

Absolutely wrong. Intelligent Design teaches things that violate what we see in nature. Therefore, he's teaching science in saying that ID is not science.

Try again.

What does ID say that violates nature?

 

[Cephus]

What does ID say that violates nature?

Depending on which particular version of ID you subscribe to, as there are many different versions, some of them demand a worldwide flood to explain fossil placement (there isn't enough water, there isn't any evidence for the flood and it fails to explain the actual placement of fossils which would be much, much different under flood geology), some demand a very short existence to the universe (which violates radiometric dating and other observations), some cling to Michael Behe's ridiculous "irreducible complexity" argument which has been soundly disproven, Behe is a laughing stock, even his own university disavows itself from his ideas, etc. There isn't anything in the ID argument that actually holds water, most of their tactics are aimed at discrediting evolution, not actually finding supporting evidence for intelligent design.

 

[John Doe]

I see. I was only thinking of I.D. as "Some creator entity".

To be fair, irreducible complexity was a pretty brilliant idea; it just didn't hold true.

 

[roderic]

... There isn't anything in the ID argument that actually holds water, most of their tactics are aimed at discrediting evolution, not actually finding supporting evidence for intelligent design.

Yes, and the pseudo-scientific posturing fails miserably for anybody who has a basic understanding of what science is, from what I have read. I'd have more respect for the idea if it didn't try to compete with science.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Depending on which particular version of ID you subscribe to, as there are many different versions, some of them demand a worldwide flood to explain fossil placement (there isn't enough water, there isn't any evidence for the flood and it fails to explain the actual placement of fossils which would be much, much different under flood geology), some demand a very short existence to the universe (which violates radiometric dating and other observations), some cling to Michael Behe's ridiculous "irreducible complexity" argument which has been soundly disproven, Behe is a laughing stock, even his own university disavows itself from his ideas, etc. There isn't anything in the ID argument that actually holds water, most of their tactics are aimed at discrediting evolution, not actually finding supporting evidence for intelligent design.

Please do not confuse ID with Creationism or religion. While Creationism does offer one concept of ID, it is a religious doctrine. ID can easily exist apart from a religious doctrine as testified by Plato, Aristotle, Copernicus, Planck, Kepler, Sr Francis Bacon, Descartes, Newton and at least one branch of Buddhism. Even Einstein, though so far as we know never embraced a belief in a personal god, but who did write that he accepted "Spinoza's God' or otherwise that revealed in the harmony of what exists. In other words he did not dismiss the concept of some kind of intelligence that produced order out of what would otherwise have been chaos.

Much if not most of ID can coexist in perfect harmony with Darwin's evolution, and many people of faith are also PhD scientists who find no quarrel between pure science and their religious faith. After all, if Intelligent Design exists, then it is also the author of science.

 

[roderic]

That sounds interesting, but to be honest, I did not know ID is this wide a concept, I have regarded it as a 'new' version of creationism.
The notion of intelligence being pervasive in nature, or nature itself being "god", has indeed a long tradition in one form or other.

 

[Cephus]

I see. I was only thinking of I.D. as "Some creator entity".

But in practice, that's not what we see. ID is really just a re-labeled creationism, it's a dodge designed to get religion into the classroom by not talking about any religion specifically, although if you catch IDers talking privately, they've very specific about what religion they're talking about.

To be fair, irreducible complexity was a pretty brilliant idea; it just didn't hold true.[/QUOTE]

It's one of those things that IDers like to claim, but have never bothered to examine because it falls apart under even the most cursory evaluation. The ID upper echelon is counting on their followers (and the people they talk to) being ignorant of basic science, that's the only way it sounds at all reasonable.

 

[John Doe]

I'm not sure I understand. I.C. doesn't support I.D. at all, yes, but it *was* a pretty new and clever approach at debunking evolution. I certainly wouldn't have thought of it. Maybe I'm just dumb.

 

[AlbqOwl]

That sounds interesting, but to be honest, I did not know ID is this wide a concept, I have regarded it as a 'new' version of creationism.
The notion of intelligence being pervasive in nature, or nature itself being "god", has indeed a long tradition in one form or other.

From the ancient Jew who believed that nothing that exists did not come other than via a direct order from God to the Christian who accepts some form of Creationism to Islam in which the Qu'ran states that Allah created the sun and moon and earth to those, like Einstein, who accepted some sort of great cosmic intelligence or force while rejecting the concept of a personal God, to even my Buddhist friends who love to debate this stuff and directed me to this passage:

Lama Shenpen Hookham of Buddhism Connect writes: "The Buddhist view is that everything emanates from the Primordial expanse of Openness Clarity Sensitivity and is illusionlike- never really coming into existence, but the illusion is created by infinite intricate connections that are not anywhere and not in time. Time and space are part of the illusion that is emanating from that Primordial expanse - so it is all very mysterious. From the Buddhist perspective there is no problem with life on earth having evolved somehow - but evolution is not in itself a full story or full account of life on earth. It leaves quite basic questions left unanswered. In a way one might want to argue that Buddhism is closer to creationism because our world is created by awareness - the awareness of the beings that inhabit it. Evolution only gives a kind of history of how that illusion unfolds.

(This is from "Religious Tolerance" but I failed to include a link to their website when I put this in my notes ages ago. Very Platonian in concept though) . . .a thread of ID runs through it all.

Anyhow, concepts of Intelligent Design far precede the Christian era but are far more prevalent and have always been more prevalent in the world than are those who dismiss any concept of I.D. Probably most I.D. is framed within some sort of religious beliefs, but, as previously stated, not all is.

Even among Christians, and I suspect most Jews, the Genesis accounts of Creation in the Bible are mostly seen as metaphorical parables/symbols or theological statements explaining that God is the intelligent designer. For every Christian who believes those verses literally as written, there are probably hundreds of Christians who do not. My Christian faith does not require me to dismiss Darwin or any other scientific theories as I easily accept all as most probably part of the overall intelligent design.

 

[Cephus]

I'm not sure I understand. I.C. doesn't support I.D. at all, yes, but it *was* a pretty new and clever approach at debunking evolution. I certainly wouldn't have thought of it. Maybe I'm just dumb.

The IC advocates claim that some things are irreducibly complex and therefore they would require a creator who could make them fully formed instead of natural selection which would make them by degrees. That ignores the fact that a) they are not useless in the various stages and b) the fossil record clearly shows the stages of development proving conclusively that they were not created fully formed.

You have to remember that ID has absolutely zero credible support, they survive solely by attacking perceived weaknesses in evolution, weaknesses that aren't really there but they can fast-talk their flock and make them believe, in their ignorance, that they really exist.

 

[John Doe]

The IC advocates claim that some things are irreducibly complex and therefore they would require a creator who could make them fully formed instead of natural selection which would make them by degrees. That ignores the fact that a) they are not useless in the various stages and b) the fossil record clearly shows the stages of development proving conclusively that they were not created fully formed.

You have to remember that ID has absolutely zero credible support, they survive solely by attacking perceived weaknesses in evolution, weaknesses that aren't really there but they can fast-talk their flock and make them believe, in their ignorance, that they really exist.

Yes, most of the I.D. proponents argue I.C that way. I'm merely stating I think I.C. on its own is a great idea; the ability to test evolution by searching for a condition that couldn't have come about by evolution.

 

[Cephus]

Yes, most of the I.D. proponents argue I.C that way. I'm merely stating I think I.C. on its own is a great idea; the ability to test evolution by searching for a condition that couldn't have come about by evolution.

And yet, no one has come up with one yet. Imagine that.