The following is from the Turkish Daily News. The author, an Islamic believer, maintains that a person needs a lot of faith to believe in the non-existence of Allah. He calls atheism a religion. And interestingly, he parrots many fallacious Christian arguments, even quoting Christian apologists to make his point. He suggests that atheistic regimes of the last century far exceeded the purported cruelty of the entire Middle Ages, and... Well, read for yourself. And feel free to comment. -- WM By Mustafa AKYOLKrynica-ZdrOj – this little Polish town not only has a name hard to pronounce, but it is also quite difficult to reach. In order to arrive at this nice spa resort, you need to first fly to Warsaw, then take another plane to Krakow, and then drive for more than 200 kilometers. Yet this long and winding – and nowadays heavily raining – road apparently does not prevent thousands of people to meet here every September for what they call “the Davos of Central-Eastern Europe:” The Krynica Economic Forum, which brings together top-level politicians including heads of state, and businessmen from Central Europe, the former Soviet Union and many other places.
This year I was in the “Turkish team,” assembled by TESEV, Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation, and my job, to be frank, was to convince the Europeans that Turkey's accession to the EU would be beneficial, not harmful, to the already packed union. Thanks to the presentations of other Turkish speakers, and to the careful and receptive listeners, I guess the message reached its audience.
Yet the most interesting exchange of views I have had in this ex-communist (but seemingly not-yet-capitalist) land was the chat I had with two lawyers – one from Poland, the other from Britain – in a cozy bar. Besides their success in their profession, and their obvious smartness, they shared a philosophical bent: Both of them were atheists, and they believed that religion has been an evil force throughout history. “People have killed each other in the name of God for centuries,” one of them passionately argued, “religion only brought us carnage.”
Killing for God: I hear that argument quite often from radical secularists. It bears, to be sure, some truth. Yes, we humans have killed each other throughout history during holy wars of all sorts. But, alas, in modern times, as we stopped confronting each other for God, we quickly found other reasons to battle for. Irreligious ideologies such as nationalism, fascism and communism have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of innocents throughout the past two centuries. Actually the modern secular cruelty has reached such incredible heights that no major religion ever imagined. Hitler's gas chambers and Pol Pot's killing fields were unprecedented evils in human history.
Therefore it is obvious that men can kill each without appealing to God. Perhaps there is something in human nature to fight and, if necessary, to kill for whatever it deems valuable. That might be religion, but also ideology, tribe, nation, and, of course, simply wealth and power.
The other point that anti-religious evangelists fail to see is the contribution of the great faiths to humanity. The official rhetoric of radical Enlightenment tells about nothing but the “darkness” of the faith-driven middle ages – as its Turkish version keeps on bashing the Ottoman times – but the truth is much more complex. As historian Rodney Stark unveils in his tell-tale-titled book, “For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,” the Judeo-Christian heritage has contributed to not just some nasty episodes but also many significant advances in the history of Western civilization.
The same is true for Islamdom, too: It was thanks to the message of Prophet Mohammed that tribal Arabs created a world empire under which arts and sciences flourished. Under Islam's golden age, between the seventh and 12th centuries, the Middle East became the world's center of sophistication, and created or preserved much of the classical knowledge that the West would later embrace. Islam also enlightened nomadic nations such as the Turks, who had little, if any, trace of science, philosophy, literature or architecture in their pre-Islamic times. The majesty of the Ottoman Empire would definitely not come into being had the Turks remained as pagan hordes.
One does not need to be a believer to see these great contributions of religions to mankind, or to appreciate the relief given by religious charities to millions of poor and needy people around the world. One just needs to objective. Yet that is just what the radical atheists lack. Take Richard Dawkins for example, the world's most famous atheist evangelist who notoriously calls religion a "virus" and faith-based education "child abuse." The title of his documentary aired on the UK's Channel 4 summarizes how he sees religion: "Root of All Evil?" The question mark is apparently an editorial touch, and the content only reflects Dawkins's zealotry.
Beyond reason: Here is the third crucial point that most atheists fail to see: Although they claim to follow nothing but “science and reason,” theirs is also a belief that one needs to take a leap of faith to accept. Agnosticism can well be a position based on pure reason, but when one becomes an atheist, he asserts that there is no God without any empirical evidence that he can refer to. As philosophers Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek explain in their book, “I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist,” one needs a lot of faith to “believe” in the non-existence of the divine. And it is the atheist's opium, to borrow a term from Marx, to regard this unsubstantiated faith as an established fact.
This should help us realize that atheism and secular philosophies based on it need be considered as faith systems, too. Moreover, like traditional religions, they can have their moderate and radical versions, and can be interpreted in peaceful and violent ways. Like religious fundamentalisms, there can well be secular ones.
This philosophical conclusion has an important political outcome. It shows that secular democracies should be neutral not only between traditional religions, but also between modern ones with atheistic foundations. Their secularity should not imply taking sides with anti-theistic philosophies.
In other words, they should be secular but not secularist regimes – a distinction that we desperately need to make in many countries, and, especially, in Turkey.
I know that xians and muslims and jews all have done great things. I found just recently that hindus operate soup kitchens in India. But I would not be a xian, a muslim, a jew or a hindu.
About the violence attributed to atheists; that atheists are more evil than any xian, muslim, jew or hindu could ever be. I do not care if atheists got together and killed everyone else on earth, I would still be an atheist.
And atheism is a religion? That is a cheap tu quoque. I used to do the same thing; I used to say "everybody has a god". It just means "I'm not crazy, I'm just doing what you're doing".
The fallacy being indulged is called Appeal to the Consequences of Belief. In other words, we should believe in god because it makes the world better. We must not disbelieve because we will all become nazis. I have made an intelligent choice, and goddamn the consequences.
There is just too much in this post to respond to, so I'm only going to address the same topic as ryan did. First, fascism is not athistic. Hitler and Franco were both religious Catholics, although I don't know about Mussolini. Second, communism is as close to a millennial religion as possible. third, atheism is a consequence of philosophy, not a cause. People do not become communists, or even evil evolutionists, because of their atheism. Rather, atheism follows as a consequence of their world view. Usually, it is not the most important part of their worldview. People who believe that their religion is the most important part of their lives, automatically assume that our lack of religion must be the most important part of ours.
About my atheism: to me,it is just another philosophical term. If you wanted to pin me down, I would say that I do not give a goddamn if there is a god or not. If there is a creator, fine. Let him go and create something and leave me the fuck alone.
Anyway, it is one thing to argue for the existence of a deity, and quite another to argue that your particular religion is the correct religion. xians sound so much like scientists when they argue for ID or for the flood, at the same time they make an impossible leap to the absurdities of the mosaic law and the atrocities of their deity's chosen people; original sin; the atonement; eternal damnation, and for every imaginable superstition. The best a creationist can hope for is some kind of deism.
Thanx again brock.
My favorite line: "One just needs to objective."
Is this why the Christian majority in the US hasn't converted to Islam yet? Because they are not being 'objective'? I mean, it certainly can't have anything to do with the religious culture in which one was raised!!
-Andy
I have to disagree. As an art student who has taken no less than 5 art history courses in my academic career, I know very well the contributions that religions have made in the visual arts. As an ex-member of a church choir, I know a fair amount about the contributions that religions (at least Christianity in the western world) have made to music. I took history in school and found the contributions of religion in other areas of civilization to be less than convincingly or universally good. I know I can’t be the only one who feels this way.
I don’t think that “anti-religious evangelists” fail to see the contributions as much as they fail to acknowledge them. Perhaps this is a problem, perhaps not.
I simply feel that the ‘great faiths’ contributions to humanity have, by and large, been exhausted. Humanity has outlived the usefulness of religion.
And Ryan said: “And atheism is a religion? That is a cheap tu quoque. I used to do the same thing; I used to say ‘everybody has a god’. It just means ‘I'm not crazy, I'm just doing what you're doing’.”
I have never heard that put any better! I hope you don’t mind if I use it.
About the crusades......I have read descriptions of what combat was like in the days of swords, axes and maces. Don't anyone tell me that Hitler and Stalin were somehow worse.And that brings me to the inquisition. Again, xians were not as bad as Hitler? My point, of course, is that if xians are capable of such cruelty, it is pointless to say that fascism is worse. If I kill ten people, and you kill twenty, are you "worse" than me? If my analogy is faulty, let me know, but it appears that, comparing you to me, "better" or "worse" ceases to mean anything.
And cats, I would be delighted if you would use my line. No, I would be flattered.
I am aware of what xian-inspired artists and authors have given us.I have just finished reading Marlowe's "Dr Faustus". But their art and literature does not compel me to worship their god. Maybe when the next fundie shows up, we should all thank him for his contributions to Western culture and let it go at that.
Hello to all here. Hope this thread gets lots of posters.
First, religion didn't bring about the prosperity; instead, it allowed it. In other words, had not been for religion, these cultures would have flourished long before.
Second, his definition of atheism is wrong, as everyone in this forum can tell.
Third, he makes the huge assumption that anyone who isn't religious is an atheist, attributing the evils of humanity to atheists. Wrong again. Many people don't appear religious but they aren't necessarily atheist. They have been culturally indoctrinated, and culture is, usually, heavily influenced by religion and myths.
Fourth, he speaks of the Middle East as if they were not religious before Islam came about. The people of the region have always worshiped gods, and mythology ruled back in the day when Mohamed came up with his visions.
"But, alas, in modern times, as we stopped confronting each other for God, we quickly found other reasons to battle for."
Stopped killing for god? Since when? Does Mustafa not ever turn on the news? Has he never listened to the islamic clerics who even as I write this, froth at the mouth for the death of infidels? He is trying to have his readers accept that murder in the name of one's god is a thing of the past. I guess the suicide bombers are indulging in an entirely secular activity.
“Irreligious ideologies such as nationalism, fascism and communism have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of innocents throughout the past two centuries.”
No it hasn’t. Not “hundreds” of millions as he claims. Tens of millions yes, but not hundreds. If you have to exaggerate or lie to prove your point, something is wrong with your point. And since Muslims have never stopped being at war with everybody they came into contact with over the last 1500 years, how many deaths of innocents are they responsible for? What about the estimated 60 million Indians in South America over the last 500 years at the hands of their greedy, church sanctified and supported, christian oppressors? What the pope recently and euphemistically called a “merging of cultures”? I guess he thought he was talking to the ignorantly uneducated. Oh, right. Sorry, I forgot.
“Hitler's gas chambers….”
Once again, the claim is made, however ambiguously, that Hitler was an atheist. Of course he had to have been, as no “true” Christian would believe as he did and behave as he did. Yea, right! That is nothing more than “mine is the true way” attitude. How many people have been imprisoned and tortured to death because of that? Torquemada, are you listening?! There are thousands of years of recorded history of atrocities committed by the pious in the name of their god. Yet religious people today commonly make three mistaken assumptions when referencing them:
1) That it was not their religion that committed the horribly barbarous acts therefore it was false and does not count against the currently reigning incarnation of their god.
2) That the people then did not understand the true way (here we go again!) and again, does not count against…..
3) That it cannot happen in this day and age.
Of the three, number 3 is probably the most dangerously ignorant viewpoint.
“Pol Pot's killing fields”
Pol Pot killed NO ONE in the name of or even for, atheism. Pol Pot was striving to control the one thing that most all of the politically savvy agree is the worst disaster to face a civilization: over population. Axiom: if you cannot slow down the birth rate, you must speed up the death rate. All wars are fought due to the pressures of population.
Yes there are atrocities committed by totalitarian regimes, whether secular or religious, but not because they are secular or religious. Murder committed by the state is to ensure control and to eliminate opposition. These reasons are never given, though they are truly the only reasons. In a secular dictatorship, the reason given is usually that the victims were traitors. In a religious dictatorship, the reason is an impropriety of some nature. Both types of ideology rely on those who truly “believe” as henchmen.
“Perhaps there is something in human nature to fight and, if necessary, to kill for whatever it deems valuable. That might be religion, but also ideology, tribe, nation, and, of course, simply wealth and power.”
I can’t really argue with that. As it stands, it’s true. However I would add that killing is also done out of anger.
“The other point that anti-religious evangelists fail to see is the contribution of the great faiths to humanity.”
He goes on to mention art and science and, having read the well-considered posts by my colleagues I would like to add that art and science comes from PEOPLE, not religious institutions. He is correct in stating that islam created an environment whereby such things could flourish. Western world christianity certainly did nothing to encourage the thought processes required for such accomplishments, at least not the scientific ones. But again, the fruits of such endeavors were due to the people, not the institutions that demanded adherence to their various dogmas or suffer pain of death. Yes both islam and christianity were guilty of this and islam still is. It can also been shown that there are christians today who would like to see the heretical jailed and/or put to death. But what does living in such environments have to do with creativity? Nothing. In point of fact, creativity tends to be stifled in dictatorial regimes and governments controlled by religious institutes are certainly that!
“Although they claim to follow nothing but “science and reason,” theirs is also a belief that one needs to take a leap of faith to accept.”
We’ve flogged this one enough in the past.
“This should help us realize that atheism and secular philosophies based on it need be considered as faith systems, too.”
He is trying to say that we are no different than the pious. Living life using informed reason is the same as living life using unthinking religious dogma? Hardly! Like the rest of you, I don’t spend my day thinking “what would Darwin do?” or “Dawkins is my co-pilot”. Still, they would make great bumper stickers. :)
Every advance that the human race has enjoyed has been accomplished for the most part, in spite of, not because of, the great faiths. I wonder how scientific achievements of the so called golden age of islam were quashed because they were thought to be heretical. In order to have truly great achievements in art and science, you must first have freedom of thought and that is the one thing that the great faiths have little or no tolerance for.
When these belief systems are brought down, we simply can't commit genocide any longer. How can mass atrocities be justified anymore, if we strike down cultural moralities?
Atheists sometimes do fight against religion, and that's great. But what if we're just part of another belief system? Don't dismiss it, because it's valid.
The difference between Hitler and Moses was technology
Both were great altruists that sacrificed greatly for their people. God was with them. They even said so. Moses’ ways of inflicting brutal death on his neighbors was as gory as Hitler’s, just older technology.
My detox from the bible was profoundly hastened recently by simply reading the story of Moses. Not the sanitized bible class version but the one in the Bible itself. This one expose is what unraveled the whole Bible for me. Thanks to godisimaginary.com for spelling it out so calmly and sanely in it’s video “Proving the Bible is Repulsive”. It was after viewing that series of videos that I started to look for Christian brothers and sisters on the internet that concluded as I did and ultimately that led me to find exchristian.net.
When I actually read that horrific tale of Moses’ brutal thuggery, it was like kicking out a major structural support of the Bible , like kicking out one leg of a 3 legged stool. I actually had leave the excellent internet Bible translation site, biblegateway.com, and grab a hardcopy Bible because I couldn’t believe that I had missed this after decades of being a sincere Christian. Yes this will show up in your hard copy Bible too.
Read the rest of the Moses story and you’ll see that with the right technology at his finger tips Moses he would be as benevolent and altruistic as Hitler. Forgive what may seem to be sarcasm but Adolph and Moses both had a solid propaganda machine in place marketing them as as benevolent and altruistic.
Firstly, it's said that atheists can do bad things, too. You know, you're right. Atheists can and have done bad things. It's a good thing that that has nothing to do with any evidence for or against religion. If you just wanted to join the religion that was the most gentle, you could be a Jain. How about that, Mr. Muslim. Do a comparison. Islam and Jainism. Which has done more killing over the ages. If you think that you should join the religion that kills the least, I gotta be honest with you and tell you that Islam is not the best choice.
You also say that there was an Islamic "Golden Age". And that it was between the 7th and 12th centuries. May I submit that the reason for Islam's golden age was because the Christians of the time were even more radical killing-machines than the Muslims were back then. As soon as the renaissance happened (and science got some footing), Islam's civilizational lead crumbled. Thus, it's probably because Christians in general got LESS RELIGIOUS over time that they became the dominant civilization.
I don't need to take any leap of faith to be an atheist more than I have to take a leap of faith to believe that there are no unicorns or dragons in my apartment building. Sure, I don't see, hear, feel, or otherwise sense a unicorn in my apartment, but I'm somehow taking a leap of faith to think that it doesn't exist.
At the end, you're railing about secularist societies. We do horrible things like teaching evolution. How horrible it must be for a Muslim to live in our midst. By the way, what happens if an atheist lives in a Shariah-governed society. Oh, you kill us. Hmmm...teaching evolution in class or stoning people to death. You decide which government is worse.
I also like the part that says that "the Ottoman Empire would definitely not come into being had the Turks remained as pagan hordes". Well, I don't know about "hordes" as this implies a nomadic culture, but as for pagan, it's interesting to note that the main force behind the "Islamic Golden Age" was the learning gotten from Greek and Roman "pagans".
And by the way, I'm replying to the person who wrote the article (who will never read this, sadly), not the person who posted it.
1: There were more people living in the 20th century than the 13th, and 2: There were much more powerful weapons in th 20th century.
How bloody would the crusades been if it was fought with battle ships and Bombers? How bloody if they had possessed nuclear weapons? I doubt we would be here now if they did, they would have blown us all to hell. (figuratively speaking)
They're creating a straw-man with this "atheism means you claim there is no god." There's really no difference between "atheism" and "agnosticism." Atheists don't make a negative claim; we use the null hypothesis, however.
The word "atheist" is one that religionists seem physically unable to read and understand. There is no idea so complicated that a person, no matter how unevolved, couldn't learn if his lottery prize depended on his learning it. Those aren't the hard ones to put across; it's the simple ideas that are hard to convey, because, although you can build _up_ to the complex ones, usually by several different paths or combination of paths, there's no way to build _down_ to the simple ones. You either get them, or you do not.
Maybe the mistake in trying to teach a religionist the simple definition of atheism, which does not require any faith as has been repeatedly observed (in vain), is in trusting them to take in the whole word at one go. Maybe it would be better to see if they can take in the definition of the prefix "a-", which doesn't mean "anti-", or "mis-", or "dis-" or "dys-". The prefix "a-" means "without regard to" or "without reference to".
The a-moral person doesn't think he's pulling a fast one, or think that he's getting away with something uncool. He's simple 100% concerned with ways and means, sort of a moral autism if he hasn't thought it through or can't think it through; or is simply unconvinced of the validity of morality if he has given it some thought.
As far as Stalin-the-atheist goes, has it never occurred to theists that Stalin's great goal was to get ahead in the Soviet bureaucracy, and this was simply not possible UNLESS you adhered to the party line which was that religion was anathema to the party's manifesto? For all we know, Stalin could have had a shrine to half a dozen gods set up in his house or in his head and just had the sense to keep his mouth shut about them while he was climbing the party ranks.
Also, someone should add the chasing out of the Zoroastrians from Iran (Persia) to the list of Muslim religious crimes. That one seems to go largely forgotten. Not that I hold any brief for Zoroastrianism any more than for any other religion. It's all bullshit.
I share your frustration in trying to explain the simple word "atheist" to a believer. They somehow cannot grasp its simplicity; possibly because that gives away the game. They would be forced to confront the fact that some people simply do not believe what they believe. It takes the drama out of their position. It makes it mundane.
With respect to the "a-" prefix, I like to point out words like asymmetric, atypical, asymptomatic, and apolitical. Asymmetric, for example, does not imply a dogmatic belief in that which is not symmetric. It is not an insistence on avoiding symmetry. It is not a rabid position of attacking all that is symmetric. No. It means WITHOUT SYMMETRY, or LACKING SYMMETRY. Similarly, atypical simply means NOT TYPICAL. It does not connote and irrational desire to avoid that which is typical, or a hatred of that which is typical.
It's obvious to everyone that those "a-" words do not connote anything sinister, irrational, or dogmatic. But somehow, when that "a" appears before the word "theist", it conjures everything wicked. I suppose that's the nature of the beast (the "beast" here being theology). When one builds castles in the air, one cannot allow even a hint of dissension lest it come crashing down. All doubt must be subjugated, and one effective way to do that is to vilify those who choose not to drink the same Kool-Aid.