Alan B wrote:amyonyango wrote: Any violent reigeme pushing ideologies with force is neither logical nor rational.
And, I might add, begin to take on all the appearances and attributes of a totalitarian religion.
If you examine the methods used to exert control and manipulation used by the communist and fascist regimes and the major theist religions, there is not much to choose between them. It's only a matter of degree.
There has never been a regime that has declared that it will control and manipulate its peoples according to the 'doctrine' and 'philosophy' of atheism. Totalitarian regimes may adopt any system of rule and may even outlaw religion and any associated belief in a god,
but that is only to consolidate their own power-base. Nothing to do with atheism
per se.
To argue that a totalitarian regime that rejects religion and god and is therefore 'atheist', and that this 'atheism' is the defining system of rule to apply subjugation to the peoples is specious and manipulative.
I don't think the theists' posts on this thread have indicated any understanding of non-belief and the associated complete absence of 'doctrine' and 'philosophy'. My non-belief in the existence of a god or gods knows no doctrine or dogma and does not require me to attend any 'quasi-religious' meetings.
The tweaks in understanding that you offer are irrelevant to the points I was making and the points made by the article that is the subject of this thread: the comparisons of an atheistic ideology that can be made to some collection of theistic religions do not somehow make that ideology less atheistic. The reasons behind said atheism do not make it less atheistic, and in a broader sense, the reasons behind
any atheist's disbelief are irrelevant to his status as an atheist, so long as he meets the minimum requirement of not believing in gods.
People can be atheists for dumb reasons. Shocking, I know. The particulars behind your own atheism are irrelevant. The fact that you and other atheists may "lack dogma" are irrelevant to those atheists who do not lack dogma. This is, again, in line with the second argument made in the article that is the subject of the thread:
This brings us to the second argument: atheists tend to view religion as either the problem, or the cause of the problem, even when other problems are apparent. But while theism is a
problem, it is not the
problem, and while atheism might be correct, atheism is not the
answer. As the philosopher Massimo Pigliucci has noted, the larger predicament we face is uncritical adherence to ideology -- a problem that spans more than just religion (5). From birthers to Tea Partiers, from climate change deniers to conspiracy theorists, there is a lot of unhinged thinking out there. The approach must be more comprehensive.Now, I know the whole "communism" thing is a dog whistle to you folks, but let's be clear: I never said that atheism makes people communist, or anything like that. I noted that atheists, in effect, can be bad and stupid people and do awful things to each other, by way of example (the Khmer Rouge). Like it or not, they were god-less. They did not believe in gods. They were atheists. This is in line with the first argument made in the article:
First: what is atheism? By definition, atheism means the absence of belief in theism or God. Atheism doesn’t imply whether a person believes “God definitely doesn’t exist” or whether he or she is a bit more lenient on the matter. Atheism does not tell us how much one cares about religion; it does not tell us if one is friendly to religion, or hates it. It does not tell us if one is absolutely unreasonable in his or her other beliefs generally. There are terrible atheists. Atheism is not encompassing in any other sense than, because it is so broad, many people might be atheists that do not realize it. As Robert Ingersoll once said, even if God does not exist, humans still have their work cut out for them. Atheism isn’t enough. This is the first argument against atheism. It is not a philosophy or a worldview, it is a lack of a specific religious belief, and that isn’t enough to carry us forward in any meaningful way. @ aspire1670: you're, what, sixty years old? Surely you've figured out a more constructive and relevant way of expressing yourself by now. I'm not going to waste any future posts on your attempts to troll me unless you can think of some way to work something really juicy and interesting in them. Note: attacks on my character and/or the quality of my posts are dry and uninteresting.
by 
