As Tom Storm pointed out, that'll be because of conservative christian attacks that prevent policy improvement.

I suppose fundamentalist christians have the advantage of not even pretending to rationality. — Banno

So... It seems you are acknowledging that it's primarily a political conflict rather than an intellectual one (?). — T Clark

It is a political political conflict, no doubts. The Church has always been another part of the status quo filled with a lot of power (more than I ever can imagined...) and tend to persuade people with their dogmas or religious doctrines. There are even some states that the rule of law is based on sacred texts such as Saudi Arabia or Iran.
So yes, one of the main causes of atheism is fighting against a super-political machine. Don't forget about Vatican City and how the popes can take part in diplomatic issues between countries (for example: Chile and Bolivia conflict on the access to the sea of the latter)

It is a political debate since all religious authorities act as political actors in the arena and instead of convincing with "intellectual" dogmas they do it with persuasion (as a good politician would always does...)

You've done this philosophy thing longer than me but isn't that just an equivocation fallacy right there? It does nothing to address the point about the horrendous continued human rights abuses, bigotries and other crimes all around the world brought to us by specific religious responses. — Tom Storm

Well, I was talking about religious wars, but we can talk about this broader subject. What are the worst human rights violations in the 20th and 21st centuries? How about the holocaust, the Cultural Revolution, the genocides in Ukraine in the 1930s and 40s, the genocide in Cambodia, the Rwandan genocide. That doesn't even count World Wars 1 and 2, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Iraq War. Religion did not play a significant role in any of these. Of course there are some that had specific religious roots - the Iran/Iraq War, the Balkan wars of the 1990s, ISIS. If you go back further you find things that are similar - there are some wars and genocides that were religiously motivated, but most had to do with power, land, and money.

And if you're saying religion and atheism are equally dreadful then you still seem to be saying religion has nothing better to offer than no religion. — Tom Storm

I didn't say that. What I said is that people gonna war. Religion doesn't seem to make it any better, but it doesn't make it any worse. If you want to interpret that to mean religion doesn't have any value, that's your conclusion, not mine.

And besides, I am yet to hear of a single case of an atheist war, one where everyone killed, blew up buildings and subjugated their enemies in the name of 'no god'. Political wars certainly. Even several that had atheism in the mix. — Tom Storm

I don't think atheism is a force for evil, but I don't think religion is either.

But come at me again with a witty and scathing riposte — Tom Storm

You're ugly and you smell bad.

The Church has always been another part of the status quo filled with a lot of power (more than I ever can imagined...) and tend to persuade people with their dogmas or religious doctrines. — javi2541997

I think up until the 19th century at least, you couldn't really separate the the state from the church. I'm not claiming that religious institutions were a force for peace, only that religion generally is not what causes wars.

You're ugly and you smell bad. — T Clark

:up:

[R]eligion generally is not what causes wars. — T Clark

True. And yet "Gott mit uns".

I think up until the 19th century at least, you couldn't really separate the the state from the church. I'm not claiming that religious institutions were a force for peace — T Clark

:up:

only that religion generally is not what causes wars. — T Clark

Yet, Palestine and Israel war (or conflict context) have as a principle cause religious disparities.

In a historical perspective: the persecution of Jews and Muslims after the "reconquista" in Spain had religious causes.

Probably, religion is not the main cause of each war. Nonetheless, I see that is a motive of conflict between people.

In a historical perspective: the persecution of Jews and Muslims after the "reconquista" in Spain had religious causes. — javi2541997

One war I'm not sure about is the conquest of southern Europe by the Ottoman Empire. The Empire was certainly strongly religious, but I'm not sure if that was a major driver for the wars.

One war I'm not sure about is the conquest of southern Europe by the Ottoman Empire. The Empire was certainly strongly religious, but I'm not sure if that was a major driver for the wars. — T Clark

I am agree with the fact that religion was not the principle cause of wars and conquests in Europe. Yet, at least, it seemed to be a motivation for each emperor, sultan, Kingdom, etc... I can't remember a commander or general who spread atheism in the conquered territories.

atheistic worldview
— T Clark
There's no such squared circle — 180 Proof

A theist view at the minimal end is that God is a sensible proposition, and at the maximum end that God is the necessary foundation of all things.

An atheist view is at the minimum end predicated on a view of things where God doesn't appear to be necessary to explain anything, and at the maximum end that God is an absurd impossibility.

At the very least
God is not necessary to explain anything
And
God is the foundation of all things

Are different (world?) views.
I don't know what a worldview is apart from a view.
Aren't all views views of the world?

In my opinion, the very meaning of a religion refers to it's psychological, economic and political causes and it's intended psychological, economic and political effects. This includes both theism and atheism.

For example, part of the meaning of modern atheism are the unsustainable life-styles we associate with consumer-capitalism, life-styles that Baby Boomers in particular often justify on the basis of their metaphysical belief that "you only live once" . Atheism both drives, and is driven by, consumer capitalism, e.g. retailers preaching to us that we must live this 'one' life to the fullest.

If my opinion is correct, then the rise of sustainable environmentalism throughout the world will be correlated with a rejection of today's widespread atheistic beliefs for metaphysical belief systems that give moral incentive for individuals to live sustainably.

One of the oversights of common-sense atheists is that they reject the existence of the transcendental on the basis of a lack of evidence, and yet they tend not to consider the semantic possibility that the very meaning of transcendental concepts refers to the world. For isn't the psychology and behaviour of a Christian preacher fully accounted for by the physical causes of his behaviour? In which case, what so-called 'claims' asserted by the preacher should the atheist be sceptical about?

This is absurd. — T Clark

It could be that. But this is what it is. I put to you that you never attended a meeting of atheists. They don't talk about what they believe is non-existent. They talk about how others talk about and what they say about what the atheists think is non-existent.

I really don't know why you said "This is absurd." It was not. It was a plain fact.

I appreciate your appreciating my straightforwardedness. That was very nice to hear.

Yes, it's a battle of hearts and minds out there. I have met a number of Christians who said they came to the religion via CS Lewis' famous book, Mere Christianity. But I also met former Baptists and Catholics who credit Russell's famous work as a key reason they turned. No doubt arguments play a role. — Tom Storm

I equate the divide, and the argumentation to defend and to proselytize ones' belief, including atheism, and types of religion, to a form of tribalism. Tribal societies forced annexed or adopted members to assume their faith. Until then the annexed / adopted don't have the right (in my opinion; not researched) to marry, and to take equal proportions of the available wealth, but only much less. They are not allowed to partake in waging wars. Once the incoming tribal member honestly accepts the faith, he is a fully fledged citizen.

Our arguments, between theists and atheists, are the manifestation of the outcome of genetically programmed values. The value is to beef up the number of people who share the same belief system.

If I believe in an ideology, I must grow the number of people to have the same ideology. This way we can be safe to not attack each other; to be powerful and unified against attacks from outside.

Ideology is a social cohesive force, which animals don't have, but all humans share.

For example, part of the meaning of modern atheism are the unsustainable life-styles we associate with consumer-capitalism, life-styles that Baby Boomers in particular often justify on the basis of their metaphysical belief that "you only live once" . Atheism both drives, and is driven by, consumer capitalism, e.g. retailers preaching to us that we must live this 'one' life to the fullest. — sime

If the above was true, then how come the greatest consumer society with the most staunch and with the strongest capitalistic tendencies exists in the USA, where 96 percent of the population is a devout Christian? The statistic may have changed, but it was certainly true in the nineteen-fifties. If the overwhelming majority of the population is Christian, and everyone supports Capitalism and everyone believes that economic growth is good, and is achieved via consumerism, then how can you POSSIBLY blame atheists for this?

Conversely, in communist countries of the old, people were almost totally exclusively atheists, as well as poor. They used much less of earth's renewable and non-renewable resources per capita than Americans and Western Europeans.

I think your opinion is right if you only consider speculative thoughts. But if you consider the facts, things as they were and are, then your opinion is biassed, wrong, and useless.

One of the oversights of common-sense atheists is that they reject the existence of the transcendental on the basis of a lack of evidence, and yet they tend not to consider the semantic possibility that the very meaning of transcendental concepts refers to the world. — sime

Many of the atheists I have met don't conform to this trope. Some believe in astrology, reincarnation, crystal healing, all manner of New Age stuff. It's just gods they don't believe in.

Atheism both drives, and is driven by, consumer capitalism, e.g. retailers preaching to us that we must live this 'one' life to the fullest. — sime

I think that's a clitche. I spent much of my younger life with Buddhists, theosophists, and assorted members of the New Age movement, many followers of various Hindu gurus and mystics. Hard to find a more materialistic group than these folk, who saw prosperity as a sign of karmic reward. Then there's all those Christians around the world who follow the 'prosperity gospel' which is also ferociously materialistic and a common manifestation of the faith these days.

It would be an error to mistake people's professed beliefs as a direct analogue for the way they actually live. I'd say a lot of atheists are into environmentalism and minimalism. They are often surprisingly spiritual.

An atheist simply lacks a theistic worldview. S/he might, however, have a 'Platonic worldview' or 'Buddhistic worldview' or 'animistic worldview' ... Just as bald is not a hair color, atheism is not a belief about g/G (color) but about theism (hair).

:fire:

One of the oversights of common-sense atheists is that they reject the existence of the transcendental on the basis of a lack of evidence, and yet they tend not to consider the semantic possibility that the very meaning of transcendental concepts refers to the world. For isn't the psychology and behaviour of a Christian preacher fully accounted for by the physical causes of his behaviour? In which case, what so-called 'claims' asserted by the preacher should the atheist be sceptical about? — sime

This line of interpretation is always super interesting to me. It reminds me of Hegel.

I think I'd say that the atheist is skeptical about all of the claims of the preacher, or at least the important ones. Atheism is a more universal doubt than a particular doubt -- not the single claim by the preacher, but everything the preacher preaches is false. That's because the doubt is with respect to the justification of the whole way of life -- even in material terms, if God is the community's way of making it all hang together, atheism is the expression that none of it hangs together. The community is wrong.

Which means that it's partially defined by the rejection -- atheism is the I-am-not-that. For some that's a very boring proposition, because they've never been that. Their parents were atheists, and they are atheists, and all these debates seem like an inconsequential circus of thought. It's not their own community which is wrong, it's the other people's community which is wrong and they are arguing over nothing at all, like astrologists arguing over what it truly means to be a Cancer.

But for others it's different.

unlike Ciceronianus's cutie pie faux surprise. — T Clark

Oh dear. I'm never cute. It's true, though, that I'm not surprised by much. Still, "cutie pie faux surprise" is interesting. In what sense did I express surprise? If I did, how was it faux? How was it "cutie pie" (unless that's intended to qualify "faux" and not "surprise", in which case how was the "faux" "cutie pie")?

Your OP is very coy. Oh...why would anyone object to the things that atheists say about religion. It ignores the fact that our culture, and this forum, are full of atheists who aggressively attack religious beliefs and show disrespect for religious institutions. They are not passive. They are self-righteous and bitter. Many clearly are reacting to bad experiences with religion in their youth.

Which is fine. Just don't act all surprised when religious people respond back. The atheist's attacks on religion are more than that. They are often also political attacks on traditional culture and spiritual values masquerading as rational argument. I am not a theist, but I am interested in atheism because I think it is generally a mean-spirited, irrational, and generally poorly argued sham. — T Clark

Oh here it is. Sorry.

quote="T Clark;777432"]Oh...why would anyone object to the things that atheists say about religion.[/quote]

I can think of some reasons. But what I'd like to address is the reasons for the intensity of what strikes me as a futile debate.

Just don't act all surprised when religious people respond back. — T Clark

I'm not surprised. I wonder why they bother to do so, however, when in doing so they defend their religious beliefs (belief in God, I mean) as established by proofs which they think rebut claims made that there is no proof. Why is rebuttal important to them? Why should there be proof of the existence of God?

One can also wonder why atheists find it necessary to establish there is no proof. The claims of the "new atheists" (I haven't read them) seem directed more to religious institutions than to proving there is no God, but I may be wrong. Those I think are fair game. But if one goes around proclaiming there is no God, proselytizing as it were, I wonder why they bother to do so.

The claims of the "new atheists" (I haven't read them) seem directed more to religious institutions than to proving there is no God, but I may be wrong. Those I think are fair game — Ciceronianus

:up:

The discussion is to a large extent a proxy for ethical issues - the ubiquitous presumption of theists that it is they alone who engage with morals. Hence the need felt by Lewis and Chesterton and Newman. — Banno

It may be more accurate to say they believed there could be no morals without theism, or rather their brand ot it. Lewis and Newman were odd ducks to begin with, I believe. Lewis seemed to believe that Christianity was "manly" is some sense. Newman thought the real world wasn't this one. Chesterton could be witty and I think would have been good company.

Theism is significant because too many damn theists proselytize and/or inject magical thinking – superstitions – into their explanations or arguments, even in nonreligious contexts (e.g. politics, commerce, science, ethics). Mostly, atheism is an intrinsic threat to theism because it is always a live option for (thinking) theists like potential defectors from a blinkered, totalitarian regime. — 180 Proof

Theism seems to tend towards exclusivity. I wonder if that may explain some of the intensity of the debate. Some of the ancient pagan philosophers thought traditional pagan religious beliefs, largely polytheistic and non-exclusive, to be unfounded and even silly, but as far as I know there was no debate or dispute between them, and pagan philosophers would participate in rituals or favor compliance with them or at least tolerate them.

By “thought system” do you by chance mean science? Science is probably better described as a method.
— praxis

I wasn't thinking about science in particular. Ciceronianus said this:

Theism breeds all sorts of convictions, demands, wishes, conclusions, dreams, hopes, institutions, strictures and emotions (not to mention wars and other forms of violence).
— Ciceronianus

I think it's reasonable to apply something similar to the atheistic worldview. — T Clark

Of course. I think that the most significant difference is that the ‘religious system’ relies on absolute authority. That’s a big difference because it allows leaders to lead without having to rationally justify anything. Indeed, to the delight of their leaders, many religious followers are decidedly anti-rational.

Atheists have no absolute authorities.

Theism is significant because too many damn theists proselytize and/or inject magical thinking – superstitions – into their explanations or arguments, even in nonreligious contexts (e.g. politics, commerce, science, ethics). Mostly, atheism is an intrinsic threat to theism because it is always a live option for (thinking) theists like potential defectors from a blinkered, totalitarian regime. — 180 Proof

My response to this is as it always is, and that is the Christian theology you reject isn't the only form of theism. That is, there are plenty of theists who don't proselytize, reject science, or care at all about atheism's potential threats.

If I told my rabbi I were an atheist, he truly would not care.

The idea that theists must convert others, save souls, trust blindly in certain items of literature, reject reason over doctrine, or hold firm to the faith to escape any sort of punishment is something held by a particular religion, but not theism per se.

Atheists don't form clubs because there is not much to discuss about atheism. "Are you an atheist, too?" "Yes, I am." "Me too." And that's where the conversation ends.
— god must be atheist

This is absurd. — T Clark

It could be that. But this is what it is. I put to you that you never attended a meeting of atheists. They don't talk about what they believe is non-existent. They talk about how others talk about and what they say about what the atheists think is non-existent.

I really don't know why you said "This is absurd." It was not. It was a plain fact. — god must be atheist

Atheist groups:

• American Atheists
• Freedom From Religion Foundation
• Atheists United
• Atheist Alliance International
• Wikipedia list - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_irreligious_organizations
• Reddit subreddits
• Brights.net

And there are dozens more. Hundreds.

More and more I'm more attracted to the label apatheist. Postmodern Beatnik introduced me to the term and it took a minute but now I like it — Moliere

Australia is largely secular and most atheists I meet here have no interest in the arguments about god in either direction and have no internet in atheism as a thought system. They just take it for granted that god ideas are irrelevant — Tom Storm

I gave up a long time ago trying to figure out what theists expected me to believe and what, therefore, I was supposed to not believe as an atheist. And it doesn’t seem to matter all that much. Not that there aren’t good political reasons to combat religious intrusion in state functions, but there are good personal reasons to not let this battle distract us from our immersion in the symbolic, as if having saved secularism, we are ideologically pure and free.

Seems to me the conflict functions largely to create pointless distinctions among those whose everyday lives are mutually defined and confined by a more powerful cultural conditioning. At least where I’m from, if you subtract the nod to ritual, you’d never be able to tell an atheist from a theist. It’s all about the “inner life”, apparently. But what potency therein? Seems like this inner life is mostly either folks congratulating themselves on their piety or on their lack thereof, and entrenching their effective uniformity.

Our cultural salesmen tell us theism is clearly intellectual bunk and atheism wins; and that atheism is clearly moral bunk and theism wins. This is the "intellectual" and “moral” ground on which we're supposed to line up and fight. But there's another level where the dichotomy itself is a symptom of a cultural disease where the sacred, as @Wayfarer calls it, is always lost or degraded. Because it’s supposed to be. We’re either supposed to blindly follow mommy and daddy’s stories or blindly reject them, and then go back to watching TV. Seems a better route might be to divorce ourselves from that whole deal and those peddling it.

...I'd like to address is the reasons for the intensity of what strikes me as a futile debate. — Ciceronianus

I agree. Although to be fair, many of the arguments we have on the forum are futile. I respond with intensity because of the self-righteous intellectual dishonesty of many anti-religious people. As I said, I am not a theist. I can understand skepticism. doubt, and even strong disbelief in the existence of God or gods. If I paint all atheists with two wide a brush when I get in these paint slinging fights, chalk it up to rhetorical overexcitement.

But if one goes around proclaiming there is no God, proselytizing as it were, I wonder why they bother to do so. — Ciceronianus

I agree. If they would shut up, so would I, at least about this. Seems like that should be sufficient incentive to get them to stop. Alas.

Of course. I think that the most significant difference is that the ‘religious system’ relies on absolute authority. — praxis

I don't find that a convincing argument. As I've said many times before, I think religious feeling ultimately comes from personal experience of God. As you note, it's true that many religious believers lean heavily on the Bible and similar religious documents.

At the most advanced levels, theists present a god so abstracted and atheists a physics so abstracted, there''s hardly more than terminology between them. But naturally we want to lump people into categories that allow for a good ol' scrap.

I've mentioned neither "all theists" nor "Christian theology", so I fail to see the relevance of your remarks with respect to mine.