Atheists Want a World Without Christianity. Here's How It Would Look
Atheists and Islamic extremists have something in common – they want a world without Christianity. These strange bedfellows believe that the world would be a better place if it was devoid of this religion started by Jesus Christ two millennia ago and counts a third of the world's population as followers.
But they don't have to imagine what a 'grand' world it would be without Christianity, they just have to look at history during the Greco-Roman period and more recently during the 20th century.
"What was the world like before Jesus? Was that a great world?" asks Dr. Jeremiah J. Johnston, president of Christian Thinkers Society, in an interview with ChristianWeek. "There is nothing new about the 'New Atheism'. ... They are going to take us back to a pre-Christian, pagan, racist world of inequality because without God there is no humanity. Without God there are no morals."
Johnston is the author of the new book Unimaginable: What Our World Would Be Like Without Christianity (Bethany House, December 2017), which has an astounding 31 pages of citation notes for 200 pages of reading. The professional researcher, who also serves as professor of Early Christianity at Houston Baptist University, begins the book by looking at the world before Christianity. He cites ancient letters and historical records by non-Christian civilians and historians to paint a world where Greco-Roman gods often were seen as the source of harm and suffering, a fourth of the population was sick at any given time, a quarter of the population were slaves and sold naked like animals in markets, life expectancy was only 20 years of age, and infant girls and babies born with abnormalities were routinely "exposed" to the elements and wild animals to their deaths, as normal practice.
"By today's standards, it was hell on earth. Poverty, sickness, premature death, domestic violence, economic injustice, slavery, and political corruption were the given of life," Johnston writes.
The concise book, written with the busy mom in mind, is divided into three parts: The World Before Christianity, The World Without Christianity, and The World with Christianity.
Before Christianity, the idea of human dignity and value were arguably non-existent. One in four people in the Roman Empire was a slave, and the ancient Greek philosopher and scientist Aristotle writes in Ethica nicomachea 8.11: "The slave is a living tool and the tool a lifeless slave." Slaves were property and therefore owners could sexually exploit female, male and child slaves with impunity.
Aristotle also writes in Politica, "Slaves are subhuman or lesser men, while masters are superior."
Also the Roman Law of the Twelve Tables (Leges Duodecim Tabularum), dated as far back as fifth century BC, commanded fathers to put to death their child if he/she is deformed, with a law in Table IV.1 reading: "A notably deformed child shall be killed immediately."
For women, every point in her life during the Greco-Roman era was fraught with danger. A girl baby was more likely to be abandoned or killed, young girls or teenagers were likely to face sexual abuse or forced prostitution, adult women were under the control of their husbands who had the right to abuse or abandon them, and widows faced poverty.
"Some of it is simply terrifying. Today's atheists and nihilists do not know that they are playing with fire, a fire that could destroy our civilization. What ended racism? What ended slavery? What ended systemic abuse of children and women? What ended gross ignorance and superstition?" asks Dr. Craig A. Evans, the John Bisagno Distinguished Professor of Christian Origins at Houston Baptist University, in his review.
What ended the prevalent practice of slavery during the Greco-Roman era was the revolutionary Christian message about equality among humankind as declared by Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Gentle, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This radical Christian idea took hold of the Roman world and the West, and for the next millennium, no influential philosopher advocated slavery, infanticide or eugenics.
But during the 18th and 19th centuries there was the rise of anti-Christian philosophy among influential thinkers who again promoted racism, including the famous Scottish philosopher and atheist David Hume who asserted in "Essay XXI. Of National Characters": "Negroes, and in general all the other species of man (for there are four or five different kinds), [are] naturally inferior to the whites," and "You may obtain anything of the Negroes by offering them strong drink; and may easily prevail with them to sell, not only their children, but their wives and mistresses, for a cask of brandy."
The Big Five in the 19th century that moved the world away from a Judeo-Christian worldview are: Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872), Charles Darwin (1809-1882), Karl Marx (1818-1883), Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939).
Friedrich Nietzsche, who was a committed atheist and hated Christianity, came up with the dangerous idea of the Superman, who is a monster from our world that wishes to dominate humanity. Nietzsche devalued humanity and wrote: "You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, man is more ape than any ape." He also wrote, "The great majority of men have no right to existence, but are a misfortune to higher men."
It is Nietzsche's idea of the Superman that inspired Adolf Hitler, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini and Josef Stalin.
"The nineteenth century produced a particularly toxic brew of worldviews, and Adolf Hitler became its incarnation – Nietzsche's Superman – a madman determined to destroy most of humanity to benefit a 'superior' race," writes Johnston. "Hitler was the end-product of the West's determination to move away from its Christian heritage. In rejecting Christianity, the radical atheism of the twentieth century did not take humanity forward into some enlightened post-Christian utopia; it took humanity back into pre-Christian barbarism."
He continues, "Theistic-based ethics were swept aside and replaced by new 'scientific' ethics that had no problem with supposedly superior humans enslaving and murdering supposedly inferior humans. The main difference between pre-Christian antiquity and post-Christian totalitarian governments is that the latter possesses far greater zeal and far more dangerous tools."
Darwin's ideas were also used to justify slavery, with some suggesting that lesser-evolved human races were closer to apes than more evolved humans from Europe. "Not only did this understanding of humanity accommodate racist ideology, it provided a theoretical foundation and justification for slavery itself," the Unimaginable author comments.
It was William Wilberforce (1759-1833), a Christian English politician and leader of the movement to stop the slave trade, and John Wesley (1703-1791), English cleric and founder of Methodism, who both lived during the so-called Age of Enlightenment that pushed for the end of slavery.
"Were secular philosophers of the time 'enlightened' to the evils of slavery? The simple answer is no," Johnston writes. "A 'Who's Who' of major enlightenment figures supported slavery: Thomas Hobbs, John Locke, Voltaire, David Hume, and Edmund Burke, among others."
With an increasing number of people in the West wishing for a world without Christianity, the popular saying 'You might get what you want, but you might not want what you get," comes to mind. Johnston's book Unimaginable asks those who want Christianity to go away, in a sober tone, are you sure? https://www.christianpost.com/news/atheists-want-a-world-without-christianity-heres-how-it-would-look-213280/
Tags
Atheists and Islamic extremists have something in common – they want a world without Christianity
And from the first sentence the victim card is thrown out. Atheists and Islamic extremists have nothing in common. Now Islam and Christianity? They have A LOT in common. BOTH were spread by the tip of the sword. BOTH have killed in the name of their "holy one". In fact most of the worlds strife stems from these two religions. Either from bickering among each other or trying to force their "laws and rules" upon those who don't follow that particular sect of the religion.
Islam and Christianity have many things common. Although many will deny it to the end, they both dictate marriage, divorce, dietary requirements, social norms, sexuality, when and how to pray, etc. Want to see what a "Christian Country" would look like? Look at an Islamic Country like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran or any other Middle Eastern countries. Change "Mohammad" for "Jesus" and there you go.
Atheists on the other hand are noting like Islam or Christianity. They don't feel they need a (heavily) edited "holy text" to tell them how to dictate marriage, divorce, dietary requirements, social norms, sexuality, or even to pray to an imaginary deity. In fact their idea of how a country should run, I imagine, would be pretty close to how the US is supposed to be run. That is without Christians trying to bully everybody else into their cult by using terrorist threats of "eternal damnation".
And from the first sentence the victim card is thrown out.
Well, some repeatedly fall for it, hook, line, and sinker.
While I am not at Atheist, the ones I do know are very moral people. Religion has been the cause of MOST of the military conflicts over the last 2,500 years. My guess is a world without religion would be much less violent. At this point, religious folks can no longer claim the moral high ground when you have people like Roy Moore, Trump, Pence, Kim Davis, Larry Craig and the Duggars proving without a doubt that, "Christian" doesn't equal, "moral". I won't even get into the televangelists, that's a whole different school of depravity.
Yeah, but ... free will ... he works in mysterious ways ... god helps those who help themselves ... that murdered child is in a better place now ... He has a plan for all of us
/s
"What was the world like before Jesus? Was that a great world?" asks Dr. Jeremiah J. Johnston, president of Christian Thinkers Society, in an interview with ChristianWeek.
According to the Bible, God was around and was rather busily engaged with human beings. God, an omniscient and omnipotent entity, created all things and knew everything that would happen. If something happened it was, by biblical definition, the will of God. So if someone disapproves of the world prior to Jesus one is questioning the will of God (at least the God of the Old Testament).
"There is nothing new about the 'New Atheism'. ... They are going to take us back to a pre-Christian, pagan, racist world of inequality because without God there is no humanity. Without God there are no morals."
Oddly enough, we are again back to this notion that God did not simply enter the picture with Jesus. God, per the Bible, has been here all along. All this talk about morals and humanity that did not exist in a pre-Christian world then is the will of God. The "pagan, racist world of inequality" referenced by the author is the creation of God who actively managed it for at least several millennia (per the Bible).
The author seems to make an argument that relies upon pretending there was no God prior to Jesus. This is a very strange read.
The author seems to make an argument that relies upon pretending there was no God prior to Jesus.
Heresy!
Yet some will try to explain this profound logical faux pas. Not suggesting the explanations will be honest logic.
TiG, obviously, we disagree on this point. The acts of man are not, by extension of free will, the will of God. Even going back to the old testament, when Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Clearly, God's will was for them not to eat from the tree, as he commanded them not to. The free will of man moved Adam and Eve to eat from it, in stark contradiction to God's will. Thus, from the first book of the Bible, we have an example of the free will of man running counter to the will of God.
If a person truly believes in free will, then it is not an impossible logical leap to believe that man operates autonomously. To me, it is more of a leap to both recognize the free will of man while labeling everything that happens as the will of God. It's not. "No temptation has seized you, except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out, so that you can stand up under it. " 1 Corinthians 10:13. Temptation comes from man. God does not send it, nor prevent it. It's not his will that man gives in to it. Rather, God provides a way to avoid it. It is man's choice to give in to or escape the temptation.
Bottom line, by definition, everything is not the will of God. The "will of God" argument is one crafted by non-Christians attempting to show fault in God. The fault is in man. And, as you say, that fault was here long before the days Jesus walked the earth, and continued thereafter. Christians are faulty beings. If you find one that denies the fact, then that person doesn't understand the faith he claims to abide by.
The acts of man are not, by extension of free will, the will of God.
It is a logical consequence of God being defined as omnipotent and omniscient. Anything man does God knew was going to happen and God (by being the omnipotent creator) chose to create a human being who would indeed engage in the act.
Even going back to the old testament, when Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Clearly, God's will was for them not to eat from the tree, as he commanded them not to. The free will of man moved Adam and Eve to eat from it, in stark contradiction to God's will. Thus, from the first book of the Bible, we have an example of the free will of man running counter to the will of God.
The Bible is replete with logical problems. Adam & Eve is a prime example. God knew Adam & Eve would disobey. Think about that.
If a person truly believes in free will, then it is not an impossible logical leap to believe that man operates autonomously.
Explain to me how it is even possible to have free will if God knows what you will do before you do it. The fact that God knows means that your future act is predetermined. Free will, with an omniscient God, is logically impossible. To have free will, God cannot be omniscient. This is not a theistic argument, it is logic.
If a person truly believes in free will, then it is not an impossible logical leap to believe that man operates autonomously.
Is there any living creature that doesn't? Why does "free will" get thrown around in religious discussions anyways? Even amoebas have free will. There is no such example of a living organism that doesn't exhibit free will, so why on earth would anyone think that human free will is some special gift from god?
Explain to me how it is even possible to have free will if God knows what you will do before you do it.
By example, I have two sons, of similar age. Each is extremely competitive, and both happen to wrestle. I offer that only to show that neither is afraid of mutual combat. I can tell you that whatever friendly game they are engaged in at the house will result in a fight. It is inevitable. This I know will happen. My knowledge that I will be breaking up a fight does not negate the fact that either has a choice to avoid a fight. Nor, because of my knowledge of the inevitable, is it my will that a fight break out. I could tell them to not engage in a friendly game of basketball, but I do not. I let them play, get mad at each other, then fight. My knowledge that it will happen is not the driving force behind the happening, nor is it my will. My will is that they live peacefully with respect for each other. Maybe when they are older?
The same logic follows with our free will, and God's knowledge. Its as simple as that. From your prospective, it cannot be true free will because of God's infinite wisdom and knowledge. Then, by your understanding, the passage from 1st Corinthians is bogus, right? Because if God knows what a person will do, why bother with offering a choice in the face of temptation? But, we are told that God does offer a choice, which, carried out to a logical conclusion, means that we do have free will and are not predestined to take specific actions.
Lastly, if you say that it is a logical consequence that, because God created a being that he also planned or contemplated for all of the specific acts of that being, then you ignore the fact that he intentionally created a being with free will in the first place. Ultimately, it boils down to control. Some wrestle with the notion that an all powerful God would create something that has the potential to blow him off, because they can't understand why anyone would do that. Why would anyone create a being, and relinquish control of said being? That's a question I don't purport to have an answer to. I do know that I am not God, nor is God a man. So humanizing God doesn't necessarily result in answers to all questions related to qualities of man.
This I know will happen.
You actually do not KNOW it will happen. You just know it is extremely likely. You have likelihood, not knowledge.
So let's put you in God's position per my prior comment. If you were omniscient you would know that today, @6:13 pm your youngest boy is going to sneak up and put your eldest in a full nelson. Sure enough, @6:13 pm the full nelson attack takes place.
Would you say that your youngest had free will or that his full nelson attack was predetermined (since you knew exactly what was going to happen - no probability - actual knowledge)?
You didn't specifically create both children with a competitive nature, and an interest in the same sport. Assuming you did things the old-fashioned way, you had sex, and you got the children you got. You didn't know, at their conception, that both children would be unable to avoid turning a friendly competition into a fight. You didn't even know for sure that you and your wife, if you're the male partner here, would conceive.
There was a lot left up to chance.
Not so, if God is omniscient. He knew there was a 100% chance that Adam and Eve would obey him, and yet he created them, anyway. They didn't have the chance not to disobey, because he made them in the certain knowledge that they would disobey, and even when and in what manner.
Sandy, look, I'm not saying I know for a doubt why, where, when, how, etc. But, again, someone os grappling with the idea that God would create a being he knows will not step as expressly commanded. That's the real issue people have with free will. Why would that happen? Could it happen? As I see it, yes.
Hal. I didn't bring free will up. So, I really can't answer that beyond what I have already assumed. It's an attempt to limit the scope of the power of God. He can't do X because his power is Y type of stuff. I agree with you, free will exists. Why is it an argument?
I never said God, if such a being existed, would never create a being that did not follow commands.
But if God knew when he created us exactly what we would do, whether our actions are good or bad, they are not the result of free will. If we are the creations of an omniscient god, then we have no free will, as our actions are predetermined.
If you knew with absolute certainty when you conceived your children that they would fight with each other, would you have changed it, given the ability? If you hadn't changed that, and you conceived, and they fought, would their actions be the result of their free will, or of yours? After all, you hypothetically knew exactly what they'd do before sperm met egg, and still chose to conceive children whom you knew for sure would fight.
I didn't bring free will up.
Yes, you did, in your first reply on this thread.
TiG, to the extent that it is expressed that God has knowledge over certain things, no, you are correct, I do not know the hour and moment that it will happen. Shoot me your phone number, and I'll text you tonight when those idiots start fighting over a foul ball though. It's going to happen.
Regardless, its an example. I can't offer an example on par with God though, try as I might. Again, it ignores the issue in 1st Corinthians, and the numerous other instances when the Bible clearly expresses the notion that man has a choice. I abide by the belief that I have a choice to take the path less traveled, the path provided away from temptation, etc. You, apparently, believe that, according to what you think I should believe, I have no choice. I can live with that.
I agree that other parts of the Bible claim man has free will. My point has been that the Bible contradicts itself. The notion of free will vs. omnipotence is but one example.
This is a good example because it is pure logic. No aspects of belief are involved, no facts to be disputed, just claims that cannot both be logically true.
According to the Bible, God was around and was rather busily engaged with human beings. God, an omniscient and omnipotent entity, created all things and knew everything that would happen. If something happened it was, by biblical definition, the will of God. So if someone disapproves of the world prior to Jesus one is questioning the will of God (at least the God of the Old Testament).
I'm open to discuss differences in opinion, such as you insistence on looking to sperm meets egg. Clearly not the intent of my comment. Rather, the comment revolves around knowledge of future actions. My knowledge doesn't impact your actions, nor my sons'.
As to the quoted material. TiGs words from comment 19. Surely someone with you understanding can see that this line of thought goes to the question of whether or not, from a Biblical prospective, it is possible for man to have free will, or whether man's acts are the will of God through predestination. So no, I did not bring up free will. TiGs comment prompted me to engage in a little philosophical debate on the issue, which I have quite enjoyed.
I agree with you, free will exists. Why is it an argument?
It's not that it's an argument, it's that free will is so frequently used to try and explain the unexplainable. Those who rely on it as a reasoning tool want you to believe that god is omnipotent and omniscient enough to have created us without free will, if that were what it wanted. How would such a useless concept be of any value in a debate with someone over the existence of god? That's really just circular reasoning, similar to using scripture quotes as evidence of god's existence.
Yeah, I don't think this is as pure logic as the old "can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift" question. But, I agree, largely logical.
As an aside, my oldest got the better of his younger brother Friday. Ping Pong was the catalyst. My advice? Enjoy it while you can, and take a good beating the day he is as strong, or stronger, than you. Or, start treating him better, and avoid the beating.
Incidentally, it speaks volumes that the seeder of this garbage article is afraid to confront anyone on it, yet he endlessly complains about not being allowed to seed more of this crap.
In a world without religion, this guy would still exist, but there wouldn't be crowds of people convinced that his occupation makes him more trustworthy that the average Joe.
Illinois priest charged with possession of child pornography, meth
An associate pastor at Roman Catholic churches in Illinois faces 16 felony child porn charges as well as a methamphetamine possession charge, authorities said.
The Rev. Gerald Hechenberger, 54, who serves at three parishes in St. Clair County, Ill., east of St. Louis, was arrested Monday after a search warrant was executed at a church rectory in Mascoutah, Ill, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.
Hechenberger was charged with “eight counts of dissemination of child pornography, seven counts of possession of child pornography (photos), one count of possession of child pornography (video) and possession of methamphetamine,” the Belleville News-Democrat reported.
Bond for Hechenberger has been set at $2 million, FOX2 Now in St. Louis reported.
The Belleville Police Department said they received a tip from Internet Crimes Against Children that said a person in the area was “distributing child pornography.” The department said they received search warrants in relation to the tip. On Monday, detectives executed the search warrant at the church and said they discovered drug paraphernalia, images of child pornography and meth. They also took a few electronic devices. The department said the victims in the images were under the age of 13.
Why is it always a catholic. I kid.
I don't know that I am convinced the occupation makes a person more trustworthy. I would agree that I'd hope the person, because of the position, would be more trustworthy. I tend to be more cynical than others though.
A rather general comment indeed. Speaking only for myself, I wish no religion gone, my only desire is to be left alone by it.
As there are no absolutes in life (death being the exception), I am always bemused by those that feel theirs is the only path to salvation. I give all the road as to their beliefs or lack there of them, my only request is that you do not share them with me as I share mine with no others unless requested.
As an aside, based on the behavior of many self proclaimed people of religion of late, I would only say that if your god or gods exist as you proclaim, he must be most pissed off.
my only desire is to be left alone by it.
Unfortunately, religion has a habit and history of not doing that.
As there are no absolutes in life (death being the exception),
And taxes. 
I am always bemused by those that feel theirs is the only path to salvation.
Many religions or denominations say their way is the only way. It is quite arrogant and egocentric.
Why do teavangelical scum insist on being recognized as part of Christianity?
Why do liberal scum insist on being recognized as a part of humanity??
A clear example of Nazi-esque rhetoric. Good job demonstrating another fine example of what conservatism is.
I'm not the least bit conservative, but an independent that leans a tad to the right. Appears you recognized yourself and were triggered by reality.
Ignoring and Pardoning your fellow democrats insults and offending comments while chastising all others for doing the same....Good job on demonstrating a fine example of what liberalism is.
The reality of you placing a group of people in a sub-human category?
I'd rather "ignore" or "pardon" insults than write or support Nazi-like statements. Wouldn't you?
Is that like their hobby of non-collecting stamps?
Just a tad bit to the right? Please give 6 examples of your center-right views.
Yet another article about religion?? Why don't the fundies and born-agains start their own forum??
Joseph Campbell explained what is really going on a few decades ago
"because without God there is no humanity. Without God there are no morals"
Pretty much a waste of an article using a fallacy to start a premise.
""The slave is a living tool and the tool a lifeless slave." Slaves were property and therefore owners could sexually exploit female, male and child slaves with impunity."
Hmmm, sounds like America before the 13th Amendment....I think Christianity was a thing then.
And the fact is that for every Christian preacher who was preaching against slavery there were ten preaching for it using the bible to claim it was justified.
"44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another." Leviticus 25:44-46
Because in those countries I wouldn't enjoy the protections afforded me by the US constitution. My life could even be at risk considering many of the blasphemy laws that apply in those countries and I will freely admit, I blaspheme against every religion and imaginary deity on a regular basis, from Allah to Zeus. My point was referencing the article which claims that there were many clerics and pastors who were against slavery while attributing non-believers as the proponents of it which is total nonsense. Jeremiah Johnson has a doctorate in bull shit as he's obviously full of it based on this article.
"Roman Law of the Twelve Tables (Leges Duodecim Tabularum), dated as far back as fifth century BC, commanded fathers to put to death their child if he/she is deformed, with a law in Table IV.1 reading: "A notably deformed child shall be killed immediately.""
Should we talk about the OT at this point?
A world without religion would be overpopulated. Religion serves to keep the population down by murdering so many people.
Without a go forth and multiply mandate it would probably run at a consistent equilibrium and the intellectual capacity improve as superstition was a footnote of history.
Is there a special place where you find this idiocy?
It couldn't possibly be a reaction to the bigotry some Christians display toward LGBT people, could it?
Nah, historically speaking, non Christians tend to be the best mass murders.
Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Pol Pot ....... yep some fine, fine Atheists in there eh?
Interesting. I didn't know that those guys murdered people for atheistic reasons.
Oh yeah, here comes that tired old justification i've heard time and time again from Atheists. It wasn't atheism, it was fanaticism that killed all those people. BS!
The same could be said about most large organized religions and fanaticism. It's not the religion but the fanaticism of the man that kills.
Sorry but you can't have it both ways. It's one way or the other for both. Either way, it defeats your argument.
Lol, so they killed the citizens because there is no god. Makes total sense.
was it the fanaticism of the religion ? was it the fanaticism of Atheism ?
was anyone killed in the name of a specific religion ? was anyone killed in the name of Atheism ?
It's also accurate.
Religion just makes a nice focal point or excuse for fanaticism.
Mao: raised by devout Buddhists, founded a state which protects Buddhism
Hitler: lifelong Catholic
Stalin: Georgian Orthodox seminarian
Tojo: state Shintoism
Pol Pot: Theravada Buddhist who studied at a Catholic school
Poor thing, you're wrong once again ..... well, not wrong according to bat shit crazy sources like the daily kos but ..... there you go. One would expect nothing short of "bat-shit" crazy considering that source.
That's right up there at the top of the crazy rating. Well above horse-shit, bull-shit and holy-shit that's crazy, crazy.
" "There is nothing new about the 'New Atheism'. ... They are going to take us back to a pre-Christian, pagan, racist world of inequality because without God there is no humanity. Without God there are no morals."
That's one of the most ignorant statement's I've ever read. He claims to be a "Christian thinker" but isn't thinking at all as he contradicts himself in the very first statement.
Pagan: noun - a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions.
That world wasn't free of belief in God or Gods, it was chock full of them. Claiming to know what some invisible divine being wants for mankind was an excuse for being inhuman. Gods have been an excuse for all kinds of violence, from massive wars, burning people at the stake, flaying them alive until they "confessed" that your God was the best God and even sacrificing humans, even children, to vile "divine" concepts all intended to control and consolidate power in a few hands.
Even the ridiculous premise that atheists and extremist Muslims somehow have the same objective, it's a bold faced lie. Atheists want neither religion forced on the populace, but we also respect the right of others to believe what they wish as long as it isn't crossing the line into secular society. Christianity and Islam, however, both want to impose their religious doctrine on the majority. They want to inject their faith into their laws and create theocracies as both have throughout history. If you want to believe in Jesus, Allah or the FSM, that's your right, but as soon as they try and tell others that their Flying Spaghetti Monster deity requires you to slurp your noodles, not cut them up, and they propose laws to force others to comply, then they've crossed the line. If they claim you cannot be a good human without the FSM and propose moral codes based on what they believe their great invisible God wants, then they've crossed the line.
Here are the top six atheistic countries in the world and their crime statistics.
So with over 70% of the populace claiming to be Christian, the US has far more crime than any of the countries with large amounts of atheists. Regardless of how this wannabe thinker believes, the facts prove him wrong at every turn.
Athiests would also like a world without Islam, Judaism, and other religions.
What a ridiculous article.
I'm waiting to see that in a FULL report, FULL of atheists saying such in this country (but remember....Muslims ALWAYS KILL for blasphemy like that).
It's like waiting for ALL non-radical Muslims to disavow the radicals. You get a trickle now and again....but I just don't see any "Big Bang" on it yet.
When is the "Big Bang" going to happen ?
Just like mainstream Christian denouncing the evangelicals........crickets.
Start here.
But, But, But....according to Atheists....Christians are nothing but burdens and worthless.
Why are you looking to a Christian voice Now ?
I ALSO noticed you didn't bring up Muslim in your.....Comment !
Scared ?
The Trickle on a site that only atheists would go to.
Good job ?
Atheists and those who wish to read about the positions of American Atheists.
You know, people who ask for such sources.
Since you're being purposefully dense, I'll go ahead and provide a statement in their first paragraph from that link:
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah, Horus, Zeus, etc. fall under that definition.
Here's another part of what American Atheists wrote:
American Atheists envisions a world in which public policy is made using the best evidence we have rather than religious dogma and where religious beliefs are no longer seen as an excuse for bigotry or cause to receive special treatment from the government.
Asking for a statement from each and every person from a particular group that individually say the exact same thing is both impossible and a massive logical fallacy.
I didn't ask to see some single source as written by some atheists, that only atheist's would go to read, because they are atheists.
Show me the GRAND Old "Grandstanding Beef" !
I'm sure CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC....etc....would cover you on the NATIONAL Big Tube if you wanted to go against any other religion than Christianity PUBLICLY !
skirting the CoC [ph]
You asked for a source on Atheist views in regard to the United States. What better place to get a group's views than by going directly to their website? Primary vs. Secondary sources.
...what?
Your link showed nothing more than what Atheists believed, or didn't believe, in such a pretty way.
...what?
Read 12.1 AGAIN !
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
I know those are not your words Spartacus. Regardless, the phrase caught my eye for one reason. On its face, its seems circular. What is the importance of the distinction attempted here? After all, a belief is something accepted or considered to be true. Whereas, a disbelief is the rejection of something as true. Unless belief is being used here, in the second instance, to describe faith. If I told an atheist that God existed, would the atheist agree to the existence of God, but claim to have no faith in God? Or, would the atheist disagree to the existence of God? If he disagrees to the existence of God, then he is also expressing his disbelief in God, no? What's the point of arguing semantics here? If one doesn't believe God exists, clearly there would be no faith. If one has no faith in an existing God, the recognition of the existence is immaterial. Under either scenario, there would clearly, to me, be no religion associated with this. Which is apparently what the statement is attempting to show...no association with religious beliefs. Oddly, the article claims that atheism is about what you believe and don't believe.
In other words, you reject the assertion as true, and therefore have disbelief.
According to what you pretend to believe atheists say.
Atheists just don't believe in your god. That's it. That's why they're called atheists.
Not believing in your god does not equate to finding you to be a burden because you believe in your god. That's words It Is Me is putting into the mouths of atheists.
Putting words in other's mouths to vilify them is dishonest, and I doubt Jesus would be pleased.
Why in (bleeeeeeeep) would atheists rid the world of the christian religion and yet allow Islam, which can also be very violent, to exist? Ther pronlem is that the monotheistic relgions are all inherantly violent and oppressive.
Atheists can have "beliefs." Bu they don't believe in any god/s.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
The same can be said (far more so) of Christians, as they're the ones that proselytize, try to push their beliefs onto others or into the government/law, or otherwise raise a big stink when they feel like their religion is challenged.
You said
I provided a source directly from Atheists explaining their beliefs. I fulfilled your literal request and now you're dancing around.
It's the American Atheists' website that outlines their positions and beliefs. Do you not know the difference between primary and secondary sources? Since you claim to be educated, I do hope so.
Also, "godless" is a meaningless insult.
You gave me "sugar" (typical Liberalizing).
I was looking for "Vinegar" !
Ya got any "Vinegar" ?
Those would be good things to bring up to an Atheist. I'm Agnostic.
Well then explanations are in order.
This is in reference to: "Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."
First let's put in the intended usage of 'disbelief' in this context with clearer language:
Atheism is not
a disbelief[refusal to believe] in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.The sentence is saying that atheists do not purposely lack believe in a god, they simply are not convinced that a god exists. The distinction is that it is not a goal of atheists to not believe (atheists do not refuse to believe), it is simply a consequence of the available information. Atheists do not believe in a god simply because they are not convinced a god exists.
No, the atheist would ask you to offer the logic and evidence supporting your claim. If your argument is persuasive, the atheist would then ipso facto be a theist.
Depends on the argument you offer. The likelihood of someone providing a persuasive (evidence-based, logical) argument that God exists is small so chances are excellent that the atheist would challenge your logic.
Lack of belief, not refusal to believe. If a supreme entity were to show up proclaiming to be God and perform a feat such as create a second sun, eliminate all disease, reincarnate a loved one, etc. do not expect atheists to shake their heads and deny what they are witnessing. Most atheists would love for promises such as being able to see past loved ones again to actually be true. It is not refusal to believe, it is simply not being convinced by the evidence (the lack thereof).
Simple. If someone thinks an atheist is against the concept of a supreme entity then that person really has no clue what atheism is. They need an explanation. Atheists are simply not convinced. It is no more complicated than that. There are no secret agendas, no emotional problems, no vendettas, etc. Atheists simply are not persuaded that a god exists.
Agnostic theist or agnostic atheist?
The super majority of atheists are agnostic atheists.
I get what you are saying. And, after reading the link, it seemed clear that the author was trying to distance the definition from something. I'll say he did a poor job. I don't think the statement rejects the notion that atheists don't refuse good evidence. If an atheist does not want to be painted as a person who refuses to believe, then the statement should be modified to that effect. " Atheism is not a refusal to believe in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods or a disbelief in gods. That's the point, don't use the term "disbelief" in the place of "refusal to believe". If the intention of the statement is to convey the idea that atheists simply haven't been presented with sufficient evidence to warrant belief, then they are in fact in disbelief of, or lack belief in, the truth of the matter asserted. It is not incongruent to say that atheists are in disbelief that God exists, but do not refuse to believe in God's existence. It is incongruent to say that atheists lack belief, but do not disbelieve. Of course they disbelieve the evidence presented, that's why they are atheists. Isn't that what you are saying?
Of course, another way of saying the same thing would be to say that an atheist would; hold the argument not worthy of belief, not believe, lack belief, reject belief, hold in disbelief, or simply disbelieve. None of which conveys a meaning that an atheist is a stubborn mule and simply refuses to believe or admit the truth, even if he or she was presented with a logical, evidence based argument.
The statement, as I read it, may as well say:
And, apparently, many atheists don't understand it either. I actually found a forum where this was debated, (along with some other question I saw posed here at NT) and even the purported atheists there couldn't agree to the meaning...which is the point. If the intent is to show a non-refusal, then use "not a refusal." Then, it would be clear. Until then, even some atheists will apparently debate what it means.
It seems safe to say that you understand the intent behind the statement. To me, the message isn't exactly conveyed clearly.
As an aside, I've had many conversations with my atheist friends. All of them were reluctant to engage in conversation at first. I assume, in their past experiences, the other side got too emotional, and they'd rather avoid such things. Not the case with me. I've had some good exchanges with all of them, and we continue to be friends. So, that last sentence of the above quote made me laugh. Yes indeed, the chances are excellent.
Why are Christians so terrified of non-believers? Such snowflakes.
Why are non-believers so afraid of Christians?
Oh, I see - we confront them at every opportunity where they are asserting themselves into the public square, but somehow we're afraid of them. Hmmm.
i don't know if that's an accurate statement. i think a lot of non-believers may be tired of religions interjecting into politics and government etc, but i don't know if they are "afraid" of the religions. they may fear what may happen to the country if the religious take control of our secular laws - i think that could be an accurate statement.
it does seem that the religious are afraid of non-believers - but i think its fear that the non-believers will try to eradicate religion altogether.
Yes. You confront them because you are afraid of their message. You are afraid that they are right and you are wring. If you were not afraid of the they would not constitute a threat to you and you would not find the need to confront them.
Ummm ... wouldn't it be smarter to just start believing in god? This may be the dumbest discussion I've ever taken part in.
Considering Christianity's history, it is somewhat justified. But who says non-believers are afraid of Christians?
Wow, what a statement of BS!
We aren't. If non-believers were "afraid" of Christians they wouldn't be standing up to Christians attempts to inject themselves in the government, our justice system, tax funded public spaces or public schools. If you want to see fear just ask any conservative Christian how they feel about Muslims.
We're not the ones who think we're worthy of eternal damnation if we don't worship a god who supposedly killed off most of his creations once already.
Most of us think we're pretty good people, and manage to be pretty good people without fear of eternal punishment.
It's called freedom of speech, you're free to not listen.
I oppose the church state cooperation because power in the hands of people who reject intelligence and logic in favor of bronze age mythology is inherently dangerous.
Religious myth hasn't been correct in over 3500 years. Why is it that your god talked to people contionusualy until about 1800 years ago but hasnt been heard from since? Did that species of talking-burning bush become extinct? Or did we progress to the p[oint where we understand that what used to god talking to people was actually a treatable mental illness?
Christian notions are already deeply injected into our government and as long as politicians believe in god those religious notions will guide their votes in govt.
unless you can ban religious people from public service? good luck with that
They don't believe in Yahweh, they believe in the Christian constituents that vote for them and, as long as they can get those voters to vote for THEM and, not their opponent by saying they have Christian values then they will continue to lie about it.
They represent values that are contrary to your life styles
I have ten times the virtue of you. This is evident with every bit of verbal diarrhea than spews from your fingers.
Is that what Kim Davis was trying to do? Exercise her free speech?
Christian notions are already deeply injected into our government and as long as politicians believe in god those religious notions will guide their votes in govt.
Really? Are we a theocracy, or are you just hijacking all the established moral guidelines of our secular society and claiming them as the fruit of religion? That is pure bullshit and you know it.
You quoted 2 playwrights, a businessman and a Christian apologist as proof that atheism is wrong. All you have are the opinions of people with no supporting logical proof.
Do you know what an appeal to authority is?
And just who decides what is intellegent and logical? You? Those like you? Gees oardin tge rest of the world fir thinking and doing for themselves. Didn't realaize you knew everything and were infallible. You want us to kiss your ring too?
The fact that you decided to reply to a personal attack is noted.
Do you speak Welsh or Gaelic?
That wont be necessary because I do not wear a ring.
And there's written proof of that premise from the historic blasphemy laws in the US and the historic state bans on atheists holding public office, to Egypt's proposed criminalization of atheism.
We also see that self-admitted atheists in the US are very rarely elected regardless of their party or ideology.
Ummm.....like what "Christian notions" exactly? The notions of equal rights under the law for all persons isn't Christian, nor is equal rights for men and women, gays and straights, or whites and non-whites. Moreover our 1st Amendment trumps and contradicts the 1st sharia law of Christians. Things like blasphemy laws, sodomy laws, blue laws, patriarchy and coverture laws are Christian but they're all profoundly un-American. In fact John Locke's notions of civil rights and religious tolerance isn't Christian.....they come from medieval Islamic scholars.
Wonderfully self serving though you must admit!
Indeed.
It might look something